An incomplete series from my personal theology. My theology is changing, so please influence this dialogue via interaction with the post!! ~~
…[T]he dialogue that I’ve seen revolving around sexuality has been driving me crazy. I can’t really place why, it just is. Maybe it’s some combination of being beaten over the head by the church, or maybe it’s simply distance from God’s word brought about by that spiritual abuse that has been prominent in the LGBT corner of faith. In either event, I find myself vexed and questioning what sexuality is, for me – a question of significance theologically…
Sexuality, in my theology, can’t be simply based on sex. I know it is, and I know that sexuality is of sex, but I feel that the church doesn’t. When I define sexuality for the church, I must reign the beast that is romanticism, tying sexuality to her; allowing sexuality to follow romanticism. I mean, it is my opinion that she’s stronger because she lasts so much longer. Romanticism is beautiful in that regard.
However, that brings another question into my mind: can you be in the LGBT part of the community and not crave sexual intimacy with a person outside of the heteronorm? I mean, the simpler answer would seemingly be “No, sexuality would state otherwise.” But I don’t and can’t let it be that simple.
Because, it is my personal opinion that anyone can have sex with anything at any time. The relationship of a person having sex with someone they love deeply isn’t quite the same as someone having sex with some thing that they met in a bar and whose name rhymes with candy. It has come to my attention, in this regard, that a guy can have sex with a girl, and not be attracted to her in any way. Likewise, gay men in the Christian community enter into heteronormative relationships and have children for any number of reasons. Nonetheless, sex remains sex. Intercourse, in my opinion, doesn’t seem to be the focus of sexuality, but it is for the average Christian. Because when I say I’m a gay, cis, black man; the implication is that my romanticism matches my sexuality (to desire sexual intimacy as well as romantic intimacy). However, there are persons who desire something different.
Romanticism, in this respect, is somewhat of a missed mark in the Christian Community. Because, for us, being romantically interested in another person isn’t enough. Sexual interest is our front, and we move only to the beat that our genital-mixed-mentality sends us. But we are more complex than that. I believe that I am lucky, that my homosexuality lines up with my romanticism, and that I remain consistent throughout in a way that some people aren’t. However, there will be a straight man who fights the fact that they are romantically interested in men for their entire life. They will fight the deep love that exists in a holistic view of sexuality and romanticism. They will skip romanticism to save sexuality; to limit God’s creative intent to just the basics of sexual intercourse with no look into the heart, God’s greatest creation.
See, my theology says that a man and a woman must do more than be man and woman in order to be in a cis-het relationship. They must have a romantic interest in one another. Because Sex. Will. Die. Eventually those organs will decay, and what will matter is relationships built over time. My theology can handle that truth- that my sexuality is necessary but will never beat out my romanticism. My theology loves this idea. “How exciting,” my theology screams, “you get to love and be in love!” Because romanticism is what you are acting on when you’re dating and is an encourager for sexual intimacy… sex is sex and there needs to be something deeper in order to really make [authentic relationships] work.
I am concerned for the “straight” Christian now. My spirit has been shaken recently because I have, as a young Christian, grown up in a tradition that has set me up for failure. My tradition looks at sexuality as sexual desires, but my biblical education never gets to the heart of romanticism, an item that God hasn’t explicitly condemned. The way the bible has been taught, I fear for the straight Christian man who can’t understand why they have such a deep attraction to girls, but seldom strong relational desires. I fear for the straight Christian woman who sees a man and thinks, “wow, he’s hot,” and looks at a female for hours thinking, “we could live a life together”. Because Sex. Dies.
I fear for people because sex centric societies have been built, and they have yet to fall. The LGBT community is out ahead of this, further defining themselves with label’s like “asexual biromantic”. Because, at the end of the day, sexuality cannot be limited to just “who do you want to have sex with” if romanticism is outside of frame. In that situation, “who” becomes “what”, people become less than human, and we all begin to descend from God. Romanticism, with regards to this, should be the definer, and sexuality should be like sex for all Christians: additive to authentic relationships. This is the question that my theology and my God answer. Here, we see the true question of a Christian faith. Does God bless a sexless love filled marriage more often than a sex-filled loveless marriage?
Does sexuality really even matter? Do we have better things that we could be doing as a church.
My theology screams, “It does matter, but we have more to work on.” It shouts, “hope from the King of Kings.” My theology, in this regard, says with glee:
“God cares about how you love who you love, the sex of the person you love is adjacent.”