Christianity and Asexuality

 Content note: this post discusses homophobic and acephobic attitudes

Recently, I've been thinking about the intersection of asexuality and Christianity. I saw a comment on Rachel Held Evans' blog post “If My Son or Daughter Were Gay,” from a mother asking for advice because her daughter had just come out as asexual. She noted that while homosexuality was frequently discussed on the blog (Rachel is a strong proponent of what I might call a progressive Christian attitude towards the LGBT* community, and often hosts discussion), asexuality had never been discussed.

Asexuality is in an odd place, compared to the other minority sexual orientations, when it comes to Christianity. Some religiously conservative Christians tolerate or even applaud asexuality while condemning all other non-heterosexual orientations. In that way, asexuality escapes the vitriol to which the LGBT* community is subjected*. But this leniency is often based out of a misunderstanding of asexuality-- and it's by no means universal. I know of other aces who've been told by Christians (and others) that their asexuality is sinful, or even that they're going to hell for it.

The lack of problem with the childfree life

Maybe I shouldn't be taking the bait at all, but this post by Kathleen Nielsen at the Gospel Coalition is so bad that I'm doing it anyway.

Ms. Nielsen is deeply concerned that people are choosing not to have children, and she offers three reasons why this choice is very, very selfish:

• children are a gift from God, so everybody should have them
• we need the mercy of God, so we should have children so there can be more Christians
• there won't be any having-of-children in heaven, so we need to have children now so we can share the Gospel with them

It may strike you, as it struck me, that these arguments are not very sensible. I can give someone a bicycle as a gift, but that does not mean I should give someone ten bicycles, or that I should give a bicycle to someone who has expressed a disinterest in bicycling. That would just make me a jerk.

The second two points are not even coherent enough to address. The world is not running out of people. If we really want to give children "labor and care," as Ms. Nielsen suggests-- and as I agree-- then we should start with the ones who are already here, like the 29,000 children under five who die each day from mostly preventable causes, like a lack of clean water or a disease for which these is a vaccine. There are plenty of people in this world already who are in need of the selfless love to which Christians are called. We do not need to make new people in order to find someone in need of love and mercy.

On a more sinister note, Ms. Nielsen writes like she has been appointed to judge the inner thoughts of human beings and decide who is "God's people" and who is not. This is not a role that any human can fill. We're supposed to leave that to God. When she writes

 The most basic problem is that the childfree life does not take God into account—God the Creator and giver of all gifts, including the gift of life.

she is pretending to know the relationship between God and another human being based solely on that person's attitude towards having children. It doesn't work like that. Without being psychic, you cannot determine to what extent someone takes God into account in their lives. And again, when she writes

Children are God's merciful means of growing his redeemed people, generation after generation, in all the nations of the world. They are infinitely worthy of labor and care—not only of the women who bear them but of all God's people, not one of whom lives childfree.

she is either misunderstanding what it means to be childfree, or implying that anyone who, by choice, is not a parent, is not Christian. Of course childfree people still contribute to the lives of the children around them. Many people cite this as a reason for being childfree, that they believe they can make more of a positive impact on the world by devoting their energies to something besides child-rearing. I am not any less childfree if I tutor elementary school kids, volunteer to babysit for a single parent, or dote on my little cousins and shower them with love and affection.

The other possible interpretation, that someone who is childfree is therefore not a Christian, is worse. That determination is not up to her. You cannot say that someone isn't Christian because they've chosen not to become a parent. The Bible does not say, anywhere, "By your nuclear family you shall be saved." Really. I promise.

Wings, Legs, and Feet, Oh My!

I noticed something interesting in the book of Leviticus last night. Here is Leviticus 11:20-23
as it appears in the New Revised Standard Version:

²⁰All winged insects that walk upon all fours are detestable to you. ²¹But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground. ²²Of them you may eat: the locust according to its kind, the bald locust according to its kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. ²³But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.

There are no winged insects that "walk upon all fours." Insects, by definition, have six legs. The author may not have been using our modern scientific definition of "insects" (and probably wasn't), but there are no similar creepy-crawly things that have four legs either. Spiders and scorpions have eight. Centipedes, millipedes, and isopods have more.

Some people attempt to address this apparent contradiction between the Bible and nature by claiming that the back legs of the locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers don't count as legs, because they're used for leaping, not walking. But I think this misses the point. If these insects are exempt because they jump with their back legs and walk with their front two legs, what about all the insects that don't jump? What about cockroaches? (Yes, some cockroaches can fly. I'm sorry to break this to you if you didn't already know.)

If one defines "winged insects that walk upon all fours" as "winged insects that walk upon all fours in the sense that they use their back legs for jumping," then the "winged insects that walk upon all fours" are the same as "those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground." It's like defining fruit as apples, pears, and cherries, and then saying, "You can't eat any fruit, except apples, pears, and cherries."

Furthermore, and perhaps this is a translation issue, but note the bit about "those that have jointed legs above their feet." In this case, the back legs are being included in the feet tally. But verse 23 specifically says, "all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you" (emphasis mine). Even if one argues that the back legs of jumping insects shouldn't be counted as legs because they're used for jumping, their feet are still feet.