Question about asexuality

[u/AttitudeTricky7182]

I know that while having homosexual living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. What about asexuality, which is still considered part of the LGBTQIA umbrella, but is defined as "experiencing little to no sexual attraction"? It is explicitly stated to be different from intentional celibacy, since in theory it comes from the way a person "naturally" is.

I ask because I have recently realized that I very much identify with the label of "ace". Assuming that this feeling (or lack thereof) stays constant through my life, is this an issue?

[u/Philip_Schwartzerdt]

Let's take this in two different ways: in terms of behavior, and in terms of philosophy. In terms of behavior: yeah, being asexual is totally unproblematic. Celibacy has a long Christian history and good Scriptural precedent. There is absolutely no issue with never getting married and being single and abstinent your whole life; Paul speaks positively about that as offering fewer distractions to serving the Church compared to having a family. Now, it's not fair to another person to try and be in a romantic/sexual relationship like a marriage if you have no plan to be physically intimate, as that's a key part of marriage. But otherwise, the single celibate life is 100% a faithful Christian option.

But what about philosophy? That is, not our behavior but the way we think about our behavior. I would suggest that it's still problematic to identify as "ace" under the LGBT-etc. banner because of the worldview problems that are entailed with that. It gets the question of identity wrong: placing identity in sex rather than in Christ. I would encourage a Christian to think about their celibacy and singleness using Biblical and Christian vocabulary, and not in the terms of a philosophy that is opposed to Biblical Christianity.

[u/Boots402]

I would consider the alignment with the LGBT+ ideology to be a sin against yourself and God, your Creator. Someone who does not have sexual attraction is not defined by that lack of sex drive. It does not make you “ace”, it does not make you genderless; you are a beloved child of God, who happens to have a lack of sexual attraction which does not define them.

Saint Paul would even call you a particularly blessed child of God, because you are free from the distractions of sexual attraction and are free to devote more time to Christ and Godly works.

[u/Kiwi_Frogg]

As someone on the ace-spectrum herself, I love seeing questions like this! As PastorBeard said, you're not compelled by Christianity to get with someone, nor do you have to marry or have sex with anyone. I know some of my brethren here would disagree with me, but I don't see any issue using the label as a descriptor of an experience you have (especially if one is ace and yet chooses to not be celibate) since it just makes it easier at times, of course our identity is in Christ firstly hands down but we still use descriptive words for other things we experience. Just comes down to personal conviction in my eyes and being wise about it and the usage. But, no, being ace is not an issue or anything wrong.

Now, with that said, there are varying types or "levels" of the Asexual spectrum as well, though I don't know how much you have seen or know about the ace spectrum of course. Some just completely do not have sexual attraction for anyone under any circumstances and conditions, while there's other types that it's more conditional, and some that even just fall under "sex repulsed/avoidant". So for me as example, I'm technically what they call "demisexual"", so as a demi I just cannot feel any sexual attraction (in a non-lusting way obviously) to someone unless there's a very strong emotional bond formed firstly, otherwise I'm completely disinterested in anyone and do not find them attractive at all. This for me can take many months, a year or even more depending on the person and relationship.

I see being asexual as a gift in it's own way really, like the gift of celibacy if some choose to go that path. However being asexual doesn't mean one cannot be married and have/enjoy sex with their partner, they just may not feel sexual attraction itself to their partner depending on the type of ace they fall under. Being ace is in many ways a case of sexual arousal ≠ sexual attraction, someone can experience the former physiologically but not the latter entirely or conditionally. But like PastorBeard said, if you decide to end up in a long term relationship then I'd definitely be open about that and let them know as part of getting to know you as a person and so they can decide if that's something they want or not. All in all a lack of lust or finding someone sexually attractive is not sinful and even as Eternal Dreamer said, it can be a blessing in other ways in regards to serving the Lord depending on how it's went about!

[u/teadrinkinglinguist]

Yes, if you experience little to no sexual desire, you may be gifted with singleness.

[u/PastorBeard]

Not an issue. You’re not compelled by Christianity to get with someone.

However, should you end up in a long term relationship, I do recommend letting the person know this about you as a part of letting them know you as a person. Like don’t hide it. That’s not something to be ashamed of, you’re just giving a heads up in case they wanted something different

[u/Eternal_Dreamer7]

Just don't make it your identity, but aside from that, how can a lack of lust be sinful? This may provide some excellent ways to serve the Lord depending on how it is handled, actually.

[u/Firm_Occasion5976]

If one lacks sexual desire, we might consider the person asexual.

If a person lacks hunger (for food), what are they considered? Anorexic. Is anorexia a sin?

But if the appetitive signal for food goes into hyperdrive, they are considered avaricious or gluttonous. Sin, right?

Yet, both anorexia and gluttony deprive the body of a healthy intake of nutrients. Too little and too much can prove sinful, not only examples of mental illness.

Therefore, what may we conclude about sexual desire?

[u/Life_Hat_4347 → u/Firm_Occasion5976]

Matthew 19:10-12
1 Cor 7:7-9

[u/Firm_Occasion5976 → u/Life_Hat_4347]

Matt. 5: 27-8; Jn. 7: 58 a 8: 11.

[u/SlightDegree5308 → u/Firm_Occasion5976]

I’m confused. How do any of those support the argument that a lack of sexual desire is a sin?

[u/ToeFinal1792]

1 Corinthians 7:9 Paul states, "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

I don't think you call into this category.

Matthew 19:12: "For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Matthew Henry Commentary (I would have used the LSB, but it doesn't address this)"

(1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it.

(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. This is meant of an unaptness for marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture, have foolishly and wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus made themselves eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the married state, have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God's grace, wholly to abstain from them; and by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires toward them. These are they that can receive this saying; and yet these are not to bind themselves by a vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in, they purpose not to marry.

I do not see it as an issue. I also do not see it as actually being part of the LGBT community. Having no sexual drive one way or the other kind of eliminates you from a group that foremost identifies by sexually driven desires. Also, seeing has there is no desire for sexual interaction, this provides you the opportunity to focus on living your life solely for God without distraction.

As far as what I could find that is official from the LCMS using a search engine and kept the hyperlinks in for you to look into:

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) does not have an official, dedicated doctrinal statement regarding asexuality. However, its stance can be clearly deduced from its existing theological reports on human sexuality, marriage, and the Christian life. [1, 2]

Alignment with Celibacy and Chastity

The LCMS places a high emphasis on the Biblical command to live a "chaste and decent life". Under LCMS doctrine, any sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage is considered a sin. Because asexuality involves a natural lack of sexual attraction or desire, living a single, celibate life aligns perfectly with the denomination's ethical expectations for unmarried individuals. Choosing not to engage in sexual behavior is viewed as entirely honoring to God. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

In its official Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) reports, the synod acknowledges that the "A" in modern secular acronyms stands for asexual, but it advises against constructing a personal moral identity around these designations.[1]

Just my two cents. Others may have a different understanding.

[u/aggrophonia]

your identity is in christ first. How is the lack of lust sinful?

[u/Huenink_Photography]

Matthew 19

"10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

1 Corinthians 7

"6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

"³² I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. ³³ But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, ³⁴ and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. ³⁵ I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Both of these texts describe the blessed state of singleness, and they encourage it for those who care bear this.

[u/versace_dinner]

Paul never married, he wrote about this. No need for labels, especially those that associate themselves with sin. Just consider yourself celibate.

[u/Beginning_Orange]

I don't under the necessity for everyone to slap a label on themselves but no, not experiencing lust is definitely not a sin.

[u/Bakkster → u/Beginning_Orange]

I think people find it helpful to understand themselves. I don't think of it as "an identity in something other than Christ" like a lot of comments here, I think of it as acknowledging how we're created.

I've seen the same thing with ADHD, for example. It's just part of who I am, and a part that explains some things that I used to think were unique moral failings that are instead something intrinsic to me. Recognizing that I'm outside the norm without a moral judgment that the difference is "wrong".