The Death of Sexuality and Gender
How Celibacy Decentralizes Our Understanding
There is an endless conversation about what the proper relationship to sexuality and gender is in Christian circles. The underlying issue in all dialogues around these topics is the fundamental assumptions that sexuality and gender are primary to the definition of human beings and through sexed relationships human beings receive the highest form of communion with the other. Under these assumptions, the idealized embodied experience is one that shares itself through sexual union and participates through gendered modes of being. Theologically this has been approached through the narrative of Genesis 1–3 where both progressive and conservative voices find an approval of human sexuality, and the conservative finds a basis for absolutizing gender.
This framework is highly problematic as it cannot accept the celibate Jesus of Nazareth as the ideal model of Christian lifestyle, rejecting both His lived experience testified in the Christian Scriptures along with the radical rejection of the natural family in His proclamation of the kingdom of God and the eschatological rejection of sexuality and gender. Further, it rejects the continued theological development found in the apostle Paul who views the discussion by pulling out a tension between the eschatological expectation of new creation and current human fragility in the now and not yet, creating a tiered understanding of the good. These theological convictions were recognized most clearly in the writings of people like St. Jerome and the early monastic communities which embraced the radical rejection found in the message of the gospel.
Through the lens of a Christian that embraces celibacy either through asexuality or personal rejection, it will be shown that the Genesis 1–3 basis for sex, gender, and the natural family is unstable as a basis for Christian ethics and can only be accounted for in tension with the ideal model. The aim of this article is to reorient Christian ethics of sexuality and gender to a focus on union with Christ as central to the community, and hence finding the highest form of communion through union. As a further consequence of this line of thinking, there is an elimination of hierarchy in the Christian community, with a special eye towards gendered hierarchy, and to non-essentialize sexuality and gender as primary to the definition of a human being.
Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus as the Model Celibate
The strangeness of Jesus’ celibacy. In first-century Jewish communities, celibacy may have been a possible way to live, but it certainly was not idealized. Through reflecting on the early chapters of Genesis, it is clear that rabbinic Judaism believed in marriage and procreation as the ideal. The high priest, priests, Sadducees, and Pharisees almost certainly were married and were the religious leaders of the people. Hence, it becomes strange when Jesus is presented as a rabbi and one who teaches with authority without an appearance of a wife or children. Even Peter is said to have a mother-in-law (Luke 4.38), and so the celibacy of Jesus sticks out contextually. In fact, Jesus is not presented at any moment as portraying a sexuality — not even in the temptation narratives. (Personally I find myself unconvinced of the arguments for a relationship between Jesus and John). The celibacy and de-sexed nature becomes then a key feature of who Jesus is.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Philip. Although the four gospels present a celibate Jesus, not all non-orthodox Christian theologies did. The Gospel of Philip, written around the 200s and referred to as g-Philip subsequently, portrays a Jesus who shares a unique and intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene.
And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples […]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?”
Although the gospel begins as a gnostic text, there is a radical shift at this near midpoint. g-Philip’s Jesus defends himself by arguing about the necessity of marriage going as far to say “without it, the world would not exist” and that it provides protection against evil male and female spirits which would defile the individual through sex. All further theological reflections for the second half are understood through the bridal chamber and an undefiled sexual union of husband and wife.
When Eve was still with Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated from him, death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more… If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated.
The problem of death in the theology of g-Philip is overcome through the bridal chamber, and Christ has come to repair the separation between male and female to make this happen. Not only is the mission of Jesus oriented for g-Philip around the bridal chamber, it seems the person of Jesus’ lived experience is encapsulated in this too through his (seemingly) sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. In the rejection of Christ’s celibacy, we see g-Philip idealize and cement human marriage, and hence sexuality and gender, as the ideal mode for Christian life.
The lived experience of Jesus. The portrayal in the orthodox gospels of a Jesus who lived a celibate life directly challenges the necessity of marriage for the Christian lived experience. If the central figure of Christianity is portrayed as living in celibacy, then lived Christian experience must reflect this understanding. The starting point of Christian sexuality must be the rejection of sexuality itself on the basis that Jesus of Nazareth is portrayed as non-sexual and choosing to live in celibacy. If Jesus is held as the defining model for what it looks like to live as the new human, then we must acknowledge that this is an embodied experience which does not include sexuality.
Decentralizing of the Natural Family
Sexuality and the family. Certainly in the Jewish religious communities of the first century, sexuality was understood within the marriage of a man and woman with the expectation of procreation. This is also reflected in the broader social structure of the Rome empire which saw marriage primarily as a means of producing children. However, as argued above, Jesus is portrayed without a wife nor children which directly raises the question of the necessity of the Christian to participate in the social institution. Further, if sexuality remains sidelined (at least for the moment) and sex is not pursued, then children cannot be produced and the Jewish and Roman understanding of marriage loses meaning. The lived experience of Jesus as our model not only serves as a negation of sexuality, but also the natural family too.
What makes a family family? Jesus proclamation of the kingdom of God is a central theme in His theology. Fundamental to this proclamation is the transformation of the meaning of family throughout the synoptics.
Mark 3.31–35: Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you.” And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
Luke 11.27–28: While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”
Matthew 23.8–9: But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one in heaven.
Jesus is consistent throughout His ministry in His rejection of His own natural family as primary. Rather, His true family is defined as those who do the will of God. A relation through birth and blood no longer has any value in itself. Notice further in Matthew 6 there is the repeated labelling of God as “your Father” and “our Father”. In the community established by Jesus, there is the rejection of the natural family and it is replaced instead by the those who do the will of the God. There is a complete restructuring where a single Father God and all who do His will are Jesus’ mother, brother, and sister.
Luke 14.25–26: Now large crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and said to them, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Matthew 10.34–39: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
These verses sometimes get swept away quickly by saying “oh Jesus just meant that He’s more important”. But consider for one moment the gravity of what He is saying. This is a culture which upholds the family as centrally important to someone’s life. To reject one’s natural family was to reject one’s moral duties, to bring shame upon yourself and your loved ones. And yet Jesus calls the one who follows Him to do such a thing for His sake. The natural family dissolves completely, comprehensively from parents to spouse to children, and being apart of the spiritual family under God takes absolute primacy.
The eschatological removal of marriage. In a debate with the Sadducees, Jesus tells us that there is no place of marriage after the resurrection.
Mark 12.25: For when people rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.
Luke 20.34–35: Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
In the resurrection comes a full restoration of all things and creation is remade to perfection. And in this perfection there is no institution of marriage, and hence no procreation of children. This not only challenges the natural family but also negates the institution of Genesis as necessary. Marriage can only be viewed at best as a temporary measure until the dead are raised. This becomes even more interesting when we consider that the gospels report that Jesus has been raised from the dead and Paul teaches that in baptism we are raised to new life with Christ. The eschtalogical hope of new creation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ definitionally includes the dissolution of the natural family along with sexuality.
The theology of Jesus. Jesus not only rejected sexuality, but also the natural family by living celibate. This is confirmed by the proclamation of the kingdom of God which clearly transforms the definition of the family to be a rejection of the natural connection by birth and replaces it by a spiritual connection where God is Father and all who serve Him are siblings. Further, he ties the hope for a future resurrection to the abolition of marriage completely. It is clear that not only in His lived experience, but theologically as Christians there is a fundamental rejection of the natural family as a necessary social institution. Rather, true family is found among all those who follow God. With Jesus’ rejection of the natural family also comes the rejection of patriarchial and hierarchial structures of parents over children and husband over wife. If we are to call no one father except God, and we are all siblings then we have a non-hierarchical family united not by blood but obedience to God.
Rejection of Sexual and Gendered Norms
Gender and Jesus. When it comes to discussions around gendered roles in the household for women, Jesus is found decentring our expectations for what it is that a woman ought to do. Some may point to the account of Peter’s mother-in-law being healed and then immediately serving Christ and the apostles as a sign of gender roles being upheld, but the story of Mary and Martha shows us how the decentring works.
Luke 10.38–42: Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”
Martha complains to Jesus that Mary does not help with the household tasks that needed completion and requests that Mary helps. Jesus negates this request and tells Martha that Mary has chosen the better option, and in His response He subtly invites her to join Mary at His feet. That which is seen as absolutely primary for all people, regardless of gender identity is learning at the feet of Jesus rather than compliance with the social roles prescribed to them. This is in a radical disjunction with the social structure of the time of Jesus, and shows how the egalitarianism among humans that occurs when we see God as one Father over all leads to the priority of that spiritual family over the expectations of household structure.
Sexuality (and gender) and Jesus. Another disjunction that Jesus has with cultural expectations is not only in His rejection of marriage, but His teachings that others ought to follow Him in this. He does this by the acknowledgement of three categories of people who do not fall into a cisgendered heterosexual norm.
Matthew 19.10–12: The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Eunuchs were men who had been castrated to serve a special role in the courts of kings and the households of high ranking officials so that they would not pose a threat in polluting the lineage. Jesus uses the idea of a eunuch, a man who lacks the ability to contribute to the sexual and gender norms of the day as a head of a household and producer of children, to create an ideal category of those who enter the kingdom of heaven. He acknowledges at the outset the difficulty in accepting the teaching on sexuality and gender He gives here, but notice that He says that if you can accept the teaching to do so.
The three categories distinguished here are (1) those who are born as eunuchs (2) those who post-birth been made eunuchs by others (3) those who have made themselves a eunuch. As the eunuch stands for those with non-binaristic genitalia who cannot participate in the sexual and gender expectations set upon them, Christ has a twofold radical rejection of both gender and sexuality while affirming the lived experience of especially trans and asexual people. In the context of v. 10, Jesus is speaking of those who do not marry and likely has the expectation that such people would live celibate lives. In these lives of celibacy, Jesus carves out space for those who seek gender affirming care and shields asexual people from social pressures to conform. Additionally, He recommends that if you can accept such a teaching you should implying that the third category could extend to cisgender and hetero/homosexual people if they choose to pursue this path.
The sociology of Jesus. The relationship between gender and sexuality is complicated, not only theoretically but also in lived experience. However, it seems that in the centring of following Jesus and pursuing the kingdom of heaven through lives of celibacy, there exists a dissolution of a meaningful basis for understanding either position. If sexuality is primarily seen as a means of producing children and gender as primarily as an assignment of roles in the household (as I believe it was in Jesus’ context), we see that a life of intentional celibacy by its nature rejects both the social expectations around gender and sexuality, and instead give a model of humanity apart from either. However, the consequences of the death of sexuality and gender is not limited to only the celibate, but extends to the sphere of the natural family and the cisgender heterosexual experience. We seen in Mary’s case that there is no expectation that she ought to participate in the gender role assigned to her, but that she (and all women) ought to first seek the kingdom of God above all things. What matters first and foremost is the acknowledgement of God as Father and Jesus as our brother leading to an equality among all before we can consider any conversation about sexuality and gender. We can see that this decentring is not a full rejection of social conventions around these topics, but allows for the Christian position to adapt around whatever social context it finds itself in.
Paul
Paul’s Radical Theology
Union with Christ. In some ways Paul can be seen arguing for a more explicit and more expansive understanding of the death of gender and sexuality through his doctrine of union with Christ. In the letter to the Galatian believers, for example, he explores how baptism into Christ supercedes and dissolves any of precommitments we have to racial, social, or gender positions in society.
Galatians 3.25–29: But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
The primary conflict that Paul is acknowledging in the letter to the Galatians is the question of whether non-Jewish followers of Jesus have to adopt Torah observance in accordance with a group of Jesus followers who converted from the Pharisees. He rebukes the understanding that Torah observance is necessary to achieve salvation, and instead shows how Jesus’ faith is sufficient regardless. However, this baptism in Christ extends further beyond the discussion of Torah observance and brings an equality and dissolution of all categories of social distinction (and is reflected in the companion text of Colossians 3.1–11). Paul tells us that in our baptism into Christ we all become heirs to an equal promise, which has direct social implications when we go back to Galatians 2.12 and see that Paul rebuked Peter for falling to the discrimination against the uncircumcised believers. This then leads to a theology of standing against discriminatory actions (including gender and sexuality based ones) since through baptism in Christ we are all equal.
However, this movement against discriminatory action is not limited only to those baptized in Christ. In his later, more developed thought, Paul shows how we can extend this argumentation to all humanity.
2 Corinthians 5.14–19: For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for the one who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we no longer know him in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; look, new things have come into being! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.
We are no longer to see anyone according a human point of view, as in according to their social, biological, psychological, etc. position but rather see everyone as one who has died in Christ and are to be reconciled to God through Christ so that they might live for Him. In this broadening, we see the equality and dissolution argued for in Galatians is not only a way to view baptized Christians, but all human beings.
A universal call to celibacy. Reflecting the theology of Jesus, Paul more explicitly pulls out a theology of celibacy. He drops the language of eunuchs which limits how his message would apply to those who have a different bodily experience than the binary system, but this trade-off allows him to speak stronger to asexuality and calling all people to join it willingly. The text of 1 Corinthians 7 is long and worth reading in its entireity, but consider these excerpts.
vv. 7–9: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
vv. 25–27: Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
vv. 32–35: I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit, but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.
vv. 39–40: A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I, too, have the Spirit of God.
Paul presents a position that recommends celibacy and avoids the pitfalls of sex-negative language. He acknowledges the difficulty of his command, but also wishes that all people would pursue it. Both men and women are called to life-long celibacy if they are already single, and if they end up single to remain as such. This is not only a disruption to the expected social expectations placed on men to marry and produce children, but flies directly in the face of social taboos around unmarried women in his culture. In those times, the average unmarried woman was a prostitute as that was the only way they could provide for themselves. However, in a Christian context women would be cared for by the greater community and they would be free to serve the Lord. Note how service to God decentralizes again any social expectation of marriage and motherhood for women. The primary call for women and men is to serve God first and foremost above all things.
Some Church Testimony
The primacy of celibacy is well attested in the history of the church. In Against Jovianius, St. Jerome writes about how marriage exists only secondarily to the call to virginity.
We have read God’s first command, Genesis 1:28 Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth; but while we honour marriage we prefer virginity which is the offspring of marriage. Will silver cease to be silver, if gold is more precious than silver?
The lived experiences of the monastic communities also attest to this reality. Not only do we find the acceptance of life-long celibacy, we also find fascinating stories of people like St. Marina/os the Monk who is a venerated saint and spent their lives gender-swapped. This shows on a practical level how denying sexuality leads to the death of gender. It was genuinely irrelevant whether St. Marinia/os was male, and they even adopted the role of a father. Despite the rarity of such cases, the monastic communities show how functionally, the basis for male and female ontologies has little relevance.
Contemporary Reflections
Based on this brief survey, we can now draw some conclusions. First, by starting with the New Testament, we properly place the text of Genesis 1–3 as secondarily important for conversations around sexuality and gender. Jesus and Paul deny the fundamental importance of the natural family and marriage, which leads to an instability in the argument that the family, gender roles, and the cisgender heterosexual experience is a necessary function in society. Further, those who claim that marriage is the greatest human relationship fail to consider Jesus’ words of the family of God supplanting the natural family.
Natural theology around human sexuality and gender are destablized and rendered somewhat irrelevant in constructing Christian ethics, and reduces the relevancy of Genesis 1–3. As all people are called to follow the model of Jesus as the ideal human, there is little basis for an ontology of gender or marriage as necessary features of human life. Because the natural family is no longer central, a lot of weight is pulled out of arguments that support that.
Another consequence of celibacy as a universal call for the ideal Christian life, it shows how asexual individuals and those who experience low sex drives are the ideal model of Christ and should not be forced into marriage by social pressures. Rather we should reorient our systems of power to encourage such people into full visibility of our communities are centralize around them. This also opens a less controversial path for transgender and non-binary Christians who wish to seek gender affirming care. Through the pursuit of celibacy, there is no meaningful basis to understand gender and hence people are free to express their identity as they wish without complicating concerns.
Further, there is a general rejection of hierarchy and discrimination through the spiritual family of God and the ministry of reconciliation through the death and resurrection of Christ. The family is a large and communal group of people connected by shared faith rather than blood relations as modelled in the text of Acts 1–6. As Christians we are called to create a community of radical inclusion centred on union with Christ as the foundation and a non-hierarchial leaders who are the servants of everyone in the community. We are to stand against all forms of discrimination according external features, whether it is race, nationality, class, gender, sexuality, or any other arbitrary measure of humanity. The only thing that measure human worth is that Christ died for all.
Matthew 20.25–28: But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.”
For a similar proposal, check out this recent Christianity Today article on toxic masculinity.
