The Religious Challenge – resources to counter opposition to sexual an reproductive rights

Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives 27-33 Nicolae Balcescu Boulevard, UNIC, ap.90, 10405 Bucharest, Romania www.ecpi.ro Publication coordinator: Florin Buhuceanu Publication designer: Ovidiu Sand Published by: MAIKO Bucharest, May 2010 2

Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives (ECPI) was founded in 2008 in Bucharest, Romania, and represents a platform of support and expertise for public interest initiatives aiming to promote human rights and non-discrimination.

ECPI is operational in four main areas: enhancing capacity development for legal advocacy on human rights, creating a platform for legal advocacy on sexual and reproductive rights, raising the level of access to justice for women and other marginalized groups in the field of sexual and reproductive rights, and combating religious-based intolerance affecting human rights, including sexual and reproductive rights.

The particular feature of ECPI is that it combines strategic litigation, advocacy, and media work in an all-encompassing effort of legal advocacy.

3

4

Introduction Florin Buhuceanu, Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives

I must begin with a confession. I am a Christian. And the truth is that Christians will not always agree among themselves or with others, on various sensitive issues. Different interpretations of religion justify and mobilize subsequent civic strategies and political actions. As a direct result, what we are calling today sexual and reproductive rights became increasingly embattled and the focus of religious conservatives. This is the reality which is now a matter of serious concern for human rights activists.

This is the reality which requires a new kind of preparation that instructs human rights people how to navigate among the sharpest arguments of the religious rights.

This guide has two purposes. It provides an overview of several “insider’s” points of view which can be useful in encounters with religious and political opposition using Bible in their favor. They usually don’t expect you to be religiously literate. Additionally, this guide is trying to better understand various aspects of sexuality in the religious context, offering contemporary information needed to separate facts from abusive interpretation. We will use some biblical texts with a great impact upon sexual ethics for a new, fresh look about what it means for us today, as human rights people. We can’t allow religious conservative forces to use and manipulate the Bible and its authority telling us who we are and how to live.

In particular I would like to thank for their constant advice, tolerance and support my colleagues and friends from Metropolitan Community Churches.

Because of them I gradually realized that becoming knowledgeable of the religious rhetoric will better equip activists in defending and promoting sexual and reproductive rights in our countries and globally.

5

6

The Sins of Scripture: How some biblical teaching has had a negative impact on society Rev. Jim Mulcahy, Metropolitan Community Churches

This presentation was first crafted for a conference of activists from several countries. It seemed important to add a religious dimension to the discussion. Bishop John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, and a noted progressive theologian, wrote a book called The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. I drew heavily on this book.

Before we look at specific examples of how the bible has been used to justify terrible teachings about women, reproduction, homosexuals, and other marginalized people, we must first consider what the bible itself is.

How we view the bible will determine how we understand its power. There is no question that the bible is the source of great comfort and wisdom. It is also the source of some terrible texts that have become deeply ingrained in society. As I listened to the reports of the activists on the first morning of our workshop, I realized just how timely and relevant this examination of the biblical texts was.

The bible is a collection of many books, a human creation, written over a 1200 year period. It shows changes in cultural understanding, the formation of the Hebrew (and also Christian) people; it shows changes in people’s understanding of who/how/what God is; it embodies and enforces patriarchy; it reveals cultural bias toward outsiders and aliens. It is a record of how God and humans were understood. On the positive side, it contains many teachings and stories that are guides to a noble life. That’s what it is.

Although some see it as the WORD of God and treat it almost as the directly dictated message God wanted humankind to have, in fact it is the work of many humans over a very long period of time. A certain kind of very conservative Christianity declared it to be eternal and inerrant. Those who declare it to be such can be seen to be guilty of selective literalism. They pick and choose what to teach and what to ignore. This kind of use of the 7

Bible to continue oppression of women, homosexuals and aliens has been exported from churches in the US to continue a campaign of enshrining oppression and inequality into law in many countries. We see this in the areas of reproductive rights and homosexual rights and the continued oppression of women.

Please do not take this as a complete condemnation of the bible. The bible continues to be of great value to living a good life. It is, rather, recognition, that the bible also contains examples of the worst of humanity as well as the best.

Let us examine sexism in the bible. In the first book of the bible, Genesis, we have two accounts of creation. In the first chapter of Genesis, God created humans in God’s image. The text says male and female God created them. And, as in all phases of creation, God then saw that it was good. In chapter 2 of Genesis, there was a second story, a revision of the creation of humans. In this second story, woman was created from the rib of Adam and thus becomes a derivative of man and not an equal; a second class creation. From this second creation story arises sexism. We find teaching that entered the world through the actions of the woman; she is “punished” by the pain of childbirth; death enters the world; “by the sweat of your brow, you shall eat your bread.” Menstruation makes her “unclean” and to be shunned. In this second account of creation we find the rise of patriarchy, a culture in which man are always more important than women and have dominion over women. This sexism and the sin of patriarchy can be found especially in the church but is also found in cultures throughout the world. In the Christian scriptures we find teaching attributed to St. Paul that women cannot exercise authority over men and women cannot speak in church and must have her head covered. Bishop Spong asserts that sexism runs so deep in Christianity that a change in continuing this hurt that it has caused women in particular would constitute a radical redefinition of everything from God to priesthood. It is a fairly recent phenomenon to use gender neutral language for God instead of only masculine language. In fact, there are many instances in the bible, where feminine language is used for God. An example is “like a mother hen gathers her chicks, so God gathers God’s people.”

8

It appears to be in the nature of religion itself to be prejudiced against those who are different in looks, language, habit and religion. Violence is almost always the result of such prejudice.

Let’s look at some of the “terrible texts”: In the book of Genesis, we find go forth, be fruitful and multiply. From this text, we find: y In spite of disastrously growing populations, this text is used to forbid contraception, abortion and masturbation. y The Catholic Church forbids the use of condoms, even to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. y Abortion is equated with murder and the fetus is given a status as a fully –formed human being equal to or superseding the rights of the pregnant woman.

We also find you shall have dominion over all creation. By emphasizing dominion instead of stewardship, humankind became free to pollute and destroy habitat; to foul waters with pesticides; to heedlessly destroy species; to overfish and deplete fish populations we need to survive. It gave us the right to continue self-destructive behavior by destroying our own world.

Witness the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 which unleashed a radioactive dust cloud that traveled around the globe Rachel Carson in 1962 wrote The Silent Spring showing the destruction of pesticides; Three Mile Island and Chernobyl showed danger of nuclear power plants to surrounding life.

It is an interesting side note that the whole ecology movement began as a consciousness in secular society and not in the church.

Another terrible use of the bible are the approximately 7 texts used to condemn homosexuals. All of these texts are subject to more than one interpretation, no matter how conservative Christians choose to teach them.

To see a fuller exposition of these texts, you can use the brochure called What the Bible Says and Does Not Say About Homosexuality.

A very important understanding is that Christian ethic is ultimately a life ethic. Whenever behavior enhances life, expands love, and calls all parties involved into the experience of a new being then it must be called good. But 9

when behavior denigrates, uses, violates or diminishes one or more of the parties involved, it must be called evil.

Another terrible text is spare the rod and spoil the child. In biblical teaching, the child is the property of the parent and can be treated as the parent sees fit. Child abuse is a result of such teaching. This text can result in even severe physical punishment of children.

Four classes of people are singled out for violence: prisoners, slaves, women beaten by their husbands and, ironically, members of religious orders who humiliate their bodies to elevate their souls.

We also find the sin of anti-semitism. In Matthew 27:25, we read “His blood be upon us and upon our children” said by the Jewish leaders. There has been anti-Semitism through the Christian centuries, calling Jews “Christkillers.” This anti-Semitism, culminated in the Holocaust, which the Church often turned a blind eye to.

The Christian church has, throughout history, created classes of marginalized people: Jews, homosexuals, immigrants of other religions.

Having reviewed some of the most egregious teachings of the bible, the question remains about how we should read those texts in this present time.

Women have made great progress and we recognize that there is a great deal of progress still to be made. We must see any biblical texts that put women in a subordinate or inferior as results of the sin of patriarchy and outmoded cultural practices. Often biblical texts may have been relevant to their time but no longer are: such as dietary restrictions or ritual purity laws.

The biblical imperative to go forth and multiply came at a time in history when the Hebrew people were a small collection of tribes. It was important that all sexual activity be for the purpose of growing the tribe. In these days of economic hardship and overpopulation, we must recognize those biblical imperatives as no longer applicable or useful in the present day.

Texts that marginalize strangers, aliens, homosexuals because of the requirements of sameness are also not practicable in this time. The message that Jesus brought was that there are no outsiders, there are no modern lepers, all humans are beloved children of a loving God. Texts that condemn homosexuality (explained in detail in the Soulforce pamphlet referenced above) did not refer to loving relationships as we 10

understand them today. There was no word meaning homosexual because that was a word not used until the 19th century. Advances in scientific knowledge have found homosexuality in 450 species of animals. When the bible speaks of sexual practices it called against nature, it spoke from a heteronormative outlook.

In that sense a heterosexual practicing homosexual sex would be acting against his/her nature. Understanding homosexuality as one of many varieties of sexual expression and sexual orientation makes the practice of homosexual sex not at all against nature but in complete accord with homosexual nature.

It is not often useful to argue about scriptural meaning with rabid believers who use scripture as a weapon against anyone who does not agree with them. At the same time, it is useful for all to recognize the bible as what it is – a collection of writings about God which tried to explain the meaning of life, sometimes mistakenly, sometimes brilliantly. We do not have to be intimidated by such people’s judgement and condemnation. We do have to make sure that such prejudice and bigotry is not passed into legislation.

There are many ways to understand what the bible says – not just one way and some would have us believe.

11

12

Would Jesus Discriminate?

Rev. Dr. Cindi Love

Let’s do better Throughout history, the Bible’s words, and human interpretations thereof, have been used to support injurious institutions and validate blatant bigotry.

Within the past 200 years alone, passages from the Bible have been used to justify slavery, to oppress women and to exclude homosexuals from the sacraments (…)

Can we glean anything from these experiences or will we continue to downplay the significance of the Church having condoned, or even promoted, discriminatory practices? Will we ignore the agenda of the Christian Right in the United States? That agenda achieves its aims only as long as churches continue to promote the idea that it is an abominable sin to be non-heterosexual and furthermore that it is a choice to be so.

Many people are quick to argue that being black or female is quite different from “the willful sin of homosexuality”. Experiences of marginalization are so uniquely internalized and institutionalized that this point becomes an issue which separates people from one another and from the solidarity we can find in crossing the lines of our own oppression in order to build communities of faith. Jesus didn’t say anything at all about homosexuals, much less their “choices”. Yes, that’s right; Jesus, the central figure in the Christian Scripture, the one His followers seek to emulate, said nothing at all about homosexuality – perhaps He didn’t think it was all that important. Jesus chose to include ALL people. Jesus created common bonds and community regardless of gender, social status, ethnicity, cultural background, and religious tradition.

But conservatives who exclude homosexuals from full citizenship (…) have plenty of opinions. They say that the Bible records God’s judgment against the sin of homosexuality from its first mention in scripture; that homosexuals are somehow inferior in moral character; and that homosexuals are willfully sinful, sexually promiscuous and threatening and deserve punishment for 13

their own acts. Today the Church is repeating the mistakes of the past: once again claiming Divine Word to support their human dogma. We are thankful that the most Christians no longer believe in racial or gender hierarchy; and we firmly believe, as Jack Rogers says so gracefully and succinctly, that a Christological approach, which uses the whole Bible with Jesus as its central character, can enable the church to change its minds and hearts on issue of homosexuality. (1) Rodney Stark, a sociologist at Baylor University and one of my favorite resources, also takes a Christ-centered approach to the issue of human interaction. He says: Jesus asserted a revolutionary concept of moral equality, not only in words, but in deeds. Over and over again he ignored status boundaries and worked with stigmatized people, including Samaritans, publicans, immoral women and various other outcasts, giving divine sanction to an inclusive society. It was in precisely that spirit that Paul admonished: “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Regardless of worldly inequalities, the revolutionary new doctrine of Christianity asserted there is real social equality in the most important sense (…). The writers of the New Testament made it crystal clear that equality in the eyes of God has implications for how people ought to be treated in this world. (2) The (scriptural) debate about homosexuality focuses on, at most, eight texts: Genesis 19:1-29; Judges 19:1-30; Leviticus 18: 1-30, Leviticus 20:1-27; Romans 1:21-28, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-17; 1 Timothy 1:3-13; and Jude 7. Four of the passages date from pre-Christian times and a fifth text (Jude) refers to Old Testament events. None of the texts is about Jesus, and not a single one of them include any of His words.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage in Romans, (3) and there are a great numbers of wellresearched, scholarly works that examine and discuss the aforementioned passages. Rather than investing in more books, though, you may prefer to peruse online resources.

Both www.jesusmcc.org and www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com have information (and links to information) related to the interpretation and understanding of the few biblical passages that touch on same-sex relations.

14

(…)The debate about interpretation of scripture regarding homosexuality can continue for another 200 years if we are willing for it to be so. If we don’t want to repeat that sort of harm caused by discrimination against women and people of color, we can make a course correction now. Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, a Baptist minister, wrote an Op-Ed piece on the credibility of religion for USA Today in November of 2006, which addressed not only contextual understanding of scripture but also scientific understanding of homosexuality. Parts of that article are excerpted here: What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintain its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same.

Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God’s followers.

Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. (…)

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. (…) The point is this: without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

As a former “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles I” kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here’s the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago.

Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody’s standard of ethics. We lawyers call it “selective enforcement”, and in civil affairs it’s illegal.

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it.

“And, the Lord saw that it was good.” If God created us and if everything he 15

created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it’s between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and takes a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teaching of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking on how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. (“Judge not least you be judged.” Mathew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that couldn’t visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they look expectantly to the future for vindication.

Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized”. (4) 16

The Would Jesus Discriminate? Campaign insists that non-heterosexual people are no “afterthought” of God and confronts the insidious harms of prejudice and discrimination. It asserts that the message of the Gospel is the lens through which the whole of scripture is to be interpreted. Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus, and inclusion is a key component of the Christ’s essential message.

If we interpret the Bible literally, we must still support slavery, the subjugation of women and the belief that the world as we know it was created in seven 24-hours day. We will also have to condone polygamy but pushing man/man sex (and some assorted dietary transgressions) with death, while tolerating woman/woman sex. But those are patently absurd outcomes, and we don’t interpret the Bible in that way. Jesus said that all the law and the prophets – all the moral and ethical teaching of the Bible – can be summed up in loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. It is not an act of love toward our non-heterosexual neighbors to discriminate against them. (…)

Hitting the Reset Button How can we encourage the evolution of new views? I learned a great deal about this process during my time in corporate America and, in particular, during interviews for major television networks. I learned that any statement can be made to function as fact if one party strongly declares it to be so and the other party is not equally vigorous in presenting an alternative aspect. (…)

Over the last fifteen years, more than 90 percent of all radio outlets in the United States have come under the control of the conservative Right. More Americans get their news from FOX than any other outlet. (5) (…)

The Would Jesus Discriminate? Campaign is designed to produce a clear understanding of how individuals in varying constituencies and locations (…) respond to the issue of discrimination, inequality, exclusion, and the escalation of hate crimes against non-heterosexuals that mark us today. The Campaign entails exchanges between people representing all walks of life – from secular and faith-based organizations as well as from the many communities in America.

17

I believe that this interaction will make it possible for us to start a new dialogue in America. Out of that dialogue, I hope that we can develop a kind of fair-minded and constitutionally conforming framework and agenda that, in turn, will support effective social action by our citizens.

Although our collective foundation is solid, we need a face lift. We’ve allowed ideologues to distract us from the routine condition assessments and rigorous maintenance functions that our democratic system requires.

Because of that, our culture is awash with poisons – extremism and exclusion, hatred and intolerance, violence and fear. These toxins are tearing us apart (…)

Religions best serves our nation and each of us individually, not as an ideology but as a faith structure. It is rightly the source of compassion a comforting presence, a prophetic voice, a call to our best selves and an inspiration for helping the most vulnerable and marginalized among us. The values most significant to all of us living together in this country are those that promote both the common good and a healthy, peaceful future for the generations to come – not those that seek to establish the sectarian morality of one particular religious or political group.

As citizens, we should care deeply about strengthening our democratic principles for they have served us well even in our most imperfect moments.

We should care deeply about strengthening our national commitment to religious freedom rather than feeling threatened by a multiplicity of faiths. (…)

The common values of the American people are being replaced by standards that serve particular and specialized interests. Religion no longer elicits respect nor facilitates understanding among vastly diverse group – religion is being wielded as a political implement and its powerful unifying force is being severely compromised. (6) (…) We have really messed things up in the Christian church and in this socalled Christian nation. We need to ask ourselves, “Would Jesus discriminate?” (…) Jesus did not oppress women – neither should we. Jesus did not discriminate against people of different races or religions – neither should we. In fact, Jesus specifically included people who were not a part of His religious or ethnic communities. (…)

18

Let me repeat an absolute truth: Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

Furthermore, the six or seven Bible passages typically used to justify the exclusion of non-heterosexuals have been misinterpreted and misapplied just as surely as the verses used by the Church to defend slavery, segregation and the oppression of women wee misinterpreted and misapplied. We were smart enough to recognize our errors around the issues of (traditional) civil rights and women’s rights, and we are astute enough to stop discrimination against non-heterosexuals as well.

People who disagree with me say that I “pick and choose” scriptures to suit my own perspective. Clearly, we all do this or we would still be stoning women to death for adultery and no one would be divorced. The question is whether the Bible was intended to guide us into more loving relationships with God and one another or whether it was intended to leave us stranded and separated from God and one another. Fundamentalism deprives us of intelligent and compassionate relationship with one another, and I find no evidence in the life of Jesus Christ to support its practice. (…)

What makes it okay for any of us to reject members of our own families? Or for that matter, what about rejecting or neighbors or perfect strangers – is that right? Who said so? Why we do believe what we do? Do we believe what our parents told us? Can we be sure our parents were right? Do you believe because the Pastors say so? Are we sure that they’re right? Maybe you believe because the President says so. Are you certain he’s right? Dou you believe because the Bible says so? Do you know what it really says? (…) I use the question “Would Jesus discriminate?” as my filter. (…) By asking the question, you ca create an opportunity for dialogue. You can talk about the history of the Bible, how people of faith have used the Book to support segregation, and how those people really and truly thought they were right at the time. But then Martin Luther King, Jr. presented an alternative view, and strong people of faith led their congregations, their communities and their families to deeper study and understanding.

Today, segregation is not condoned by any mainstream religious denomination. Churches repented of the mean-spirited and harmful behaviors of segregation and we can repent again! In fact, I believe that we will repent again, and that the catalyst for change this time may well be the frequent repetition of the simple question, “Would Jesus discriminate?”

19

These two chapters are extracted from “Would Jesus Discriminate? The 21st Century Question” (Trafford Publishing, 2008), used by permission of the author.

Notes (1) Jack Rogers, Jesus, Bible and Homosexuality, p. 34 (2) Rodney Stark, “A civil religion: how Christianity created free and prosperous societies.” The American Enterprise, May 2006, p. 17 (3) Tom Heneghan, Religion editor, Reuters http://uk.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUKNOA83516120070418, 2007

UK, April

(4) Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, “When religion loses its credibility”, USA Today, Nov 20, 2006 (5) FOX’s website is http://www.fox.com (6) Information from the website http://www.interfaithalliance.org/elections

20

of

the

Interfaith

Alliance,

What the Bible Says – And Doesn’t Say – About Homosexuality Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce www.soulforce.org

Like you, I take the Bible Seriously Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn’t say about homosexuality.

We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I’ve spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to “rightly divide the word of truth”. I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own. (…)

My First Premise: Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.

As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic (…). The same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. (…)

For example, many Christians don’t know that: • •

Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.

The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.

21

• Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to samesex behavior in any way – and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it’s understood today.

Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don’t know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven’t read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don’t know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven’t tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequence of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God’s gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church. (…)

My Second Premise: Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.

Over the centuries people who misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible have done terrible things. The Bible has been misused to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-Christian people of faith; to support Hitler’s Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan. Shakespeare said it this way: “Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

We’d like to believe that no person of good will would misuse the Bible to support his or her prejudice. But time and time again it has happened with tragic results.

In the 16th century, John Selden pointed at two Latin words carved into a marble wall in an ancient church in Rome: “Scrutamini Scripturas,” which means search the Scriptures. “These two words”, Seldon said, “have undone the world”.

In one way, John Selden was right. Misusing the Bible has drenched the planet in blood and tears.

22

But in another way, he was wrong. Most people who misuse the Bible DON’T search the Scriptures. They simply find a text that seems to support their prejudice and then spend the rest of their lives quoting (or misquoting) that text. (…) Most Christians have no idea that the people killing gay and lesbian persons go around quoting those few verses of Scripture as justification.

But it’s important to hear these stories, because I’m not writing the little pamphlet as a scholarly exercise. It’s a matter of life and death. I’m pleading for the lives of my lesbian sisters and gay brothers who are rejected by their friends and families, fired by their employers, denied their civil rights, refused full membership in their churches, and kill themselves or are killed by others – all of the basis of these six or seven verses.

My Third Premise: We must be opened to new truth from Scripture Even heroes of the Christian faith have changed their minds about the meaning of various biblical texts. (…) Even when we believe the Scriptures are “infallible” or “without error”, it’s terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words – with tragic results. (…)

My Fourth Premise: The Bible is a book about God – not a book about human sexuality.

The Bible is the story of God’s love for the world and the people of the world.

It tells the history of God’s love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering humankind. It was never intended to be as a book about human sexuality.

Certainly, you will agree.

In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! (…) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property 23

are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one’s parents nude.

Over the centuries we were taught that certain Bible verses should not be understood as God’s law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just. (…)

While there are some people now living in heterosexual marriages who once perceived themselves to be gay, there are millions of gay and lesbian persons who have accepted their sexual orientation as a gift from God and live productive and deeply spiritually lives. The evidence from science and from their personal experience of gay and lesbian Christians demands that we at least consider whether the passages cited to condemn homosexual behavior should be reconsider, just as other Bible verses that speak of certain sexual practices are no longer understood as God’s law for us in this day.

My Fifth Premise: We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex.

If the Bible is the story of God’s love for the world and not a handbook about sex, then that should shape how re read the Scriptures. So as we take a look at the six biblical texts that are used by some people to condemn homosexuality, let’s ask two questions about each of them: First, what does the text say about God that we need to hear but might be missing?

Second, what might the text be saying about homosexuality?

Passage 1 Genesis 2:21-25 The Creation Story Let’s start “In the Beginning…” What does the creation story in Genesis 1-2 say about God? 24

I’m so tired of reading signs carried by protesters that say: “It’s about Adam and Eve, not about Adam and Steve.” In fact, the creation story is as important to Adam and Eve as it is Adam and Eve. Gays and non-gays alike need to know and celebrate the truth at the center of this story.

This creation story is primarily about God, a story written to show the power of God who created the world and everything in it. It teaches us that ultimately God is our Creator, that God shaped us, and that God said, “It’s good.” Isn’t this the heart of the text?

Now what does the creation story say about homosexuality? Because the text says it is “natural” that a man and a woman come together to create a new life, some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are “unnatural.” They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don’t lead to having children: •

couples who are unable to have children

•

couples who are too old to have children

•

couples who choose not to have children

•

people who are single

Are these relationships (or lack of relationships) “unnatural”? There’s nothing said here that condemns or approves the love that people of the same sex have for each other, including the love I have for my partner, Gary.

So I believe the creation story says a lot about God’s power and presence in the universe – but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

Passage 2 Genesis 19:1-14 The Story of Sodom Now let’s consider the second biblical text used by some people to condemn God’s gay children. You remember the ancient story of Sodom. First, what does the story of Sodom in Genesis 19 say about God? When Gary and I arrive at a college or university to speak, there are often protesters carrying signs that read, “Mel White, Sodomite.” (Has a nice ring to it.) Actually, I’m not from Sodom. That city was buried beneath the Dead 25

Sea centuries ago. I’m from California – but perhaps that just confirms their suspicions!

Once again, this story is not primarily about sex. It is primarily about God. Some people say the city of Sodom was destroyed because it was overrun by sexually obsessed homosexuals. In fact, the city of Sodom had been doomed to destruction long before. So what is this passage really about?

Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom – and not one of them mentions homosexuality. (…)

Listen to what Ezekiel 16:48-49 tell us: “This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God’s eyes.”

Today, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike do well to remember that we break God’s heart when we spend all we earn on ourselves, when we forget the poor and hungry, when we refuse to do justice or show mercy, when we leave strangers at the gate. (…)

Whatever teaching about sexuality you might get out of this passage, be sure to hear this central, primary truth about God as well. God has called us do justice love mercy, and walk humbly with our Creator. Sodom was destroyed because its people didn’t take God seriously about caring the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.

Nut what does the story of Sodom say about homosexual orientation as we understand it today? Nothing.

It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished.

This act of raping on enemy is about power and revenge, not about homosexuality or homosexual orientation. And it is still happening. (…)

The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape – and homosexuals oppose rape as much as anyone. That’s why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God’s will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

26

Passage 3 Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 The Holiness Code Let’s move on. What do the two verses sometimes cited from Leviticus say about God? Leviticus 18:6 reads: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.” A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: “A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed.” On the surface, these words could leave you feeling rather uneasy, especially if you are gay. But just below the surface is the deeper truth about God – and it has nothing to do with sex.

Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many of the outdated sexual laws we mentioned earlier, and a lot more. It also includes prohibition against round haircuts, tattoos, working on Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)

So what’s a holiness code? It’s a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures. (…)

What about this word abomination that comes up in both passages? In Hebrew, “abominations” (TO’EBAH) are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. To the Jews an abomination was not a law, not something evil like rape or murder forbidden by the Ten Commandments. It was a common behavior by non-Jews that Jews though was displeasing to God. Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers. Nevertheless, there are still people who pull the two verses about men sleeping together from this ancient holiness code to say that the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality. (…)

Instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let’s talk together about setting sexual standards that please God – standards appropriate for 27

heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for the others.

Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality?

I’m convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here’s why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: “He spills his seed on the ground…And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also” (Genesis 38:9-10) For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man’s sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk “wasting” even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. (…)

Now lets’ look at three verses from the letters of the apostle Paul in the Christian Scriptures that are used the same way. (…)

Passage 4 Romans 1:26-27 Natural and Unnatural What does Romans 1:26-27 say about God? For our discussions, this is the most controversial biblical passage of them all. In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.”

28

This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why.

Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors – including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) – all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure. (…)

Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were lesbian or gay? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again. (…)

Getting to know a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person of faith will help you realize that it is unreasonable (and unjust) to compare our love for each other to the rituals of the priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana. Once again, I feel certain this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it. (…)

Passages 5 and 6 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 The Mystery of “ Malokois” and “Arsenokoitai” Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Paul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they’re even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, “You are breaking God’s heart by the way you are treating one another.”

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: “Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?” Paul answers, “You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone.”

29

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don’t kill one another. Don’t sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don’t lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whore mongering, perjury, frankness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes “malakois” and “arsenokoitai.” (…)

So what do these texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on the list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant “Effeminate call boys.” The New Revised Standard Version says “male prostitutes.”

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don’t know exactly what it means – and the fact that we don’t know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites”, but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals , even though there is in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the Englishlanguage Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul’s writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul’s writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, “It is happening again?” Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society’s prejudice and condemn God’s gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

30

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

My Sixth Premise: The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.

We’ve looked closely at the six biblical texts used by some people to condemn homosexuality. But we must also remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another.

The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasn’t even known until the 19th century.

The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years.

Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created homosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and hell below, and that the sun moved up in down.

In 1864, almost 3,000 years after Moses and at least 18 centuries after the apostle Paul, the German social scientist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was the first to declare that homosexuals were a distinct class of individuals. It was a big moment for all sexual minorities. (…)

Ulrichs assured the world of what we who are homosexual already known in our hearts. We aren’t just heterosexuals choosing to perform same-sex behaviors. We are a whole class of people whose drive to same-sex intimacy is at the very core of our being from the very beginning of our lives.

Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century, Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that we were “innately different from 31

heterosexuals,” and that our desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked “unnatural” to Moses and Paul was in fact “natural” to homosexuals.

So this is my sixth premise. The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.

The authors of the Bible are authorities in matters of faith. They can be trusted when they talk about God. But they should not be considered the final authorities on sexual orientation any more they are the final authorities on space travel, gravity, or the Internet.

Since the writers of Scripture are not the final authorities on human sexuality, since they didn’t even know about sexual orientation as we understand it today, since Jesus and the Jewish prophets were silent about any kind of same-sex behavior, I am persuaded that the Bible has nothing in it to approve or condemn homosexual orientation as we understand it.

My Seventh Premise: Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for truth, we are to “love one another.”

We may not be able to use the Bible as our final authority on sexual orientation. But as we search for the truth, we can and should use the Bible as our final authority on how we should treat one another along the way.

A young Jewish scholar asked Jesus, “What is the greatest commandment?”

Quoting the prophets, Jesus replied, “The great commandment is this…to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the second command is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

“This is my commandment,” Jesus said, “that you love one another, as I have loved you.” On this the Bible is explicitly clear. Even if we disagree about what the Bible seems to say about homosexuality, we can agree that above all else we are commanded by the Scriptures to love God and to love one another.

32

Since God is the God of truth, since Jesus himself told us that the truth would set us free, one way that we love God and love one another is by seeking the truth about sexual orientation wherever we can find it.

There is a growing body of evidence from science, psychology, history, psychiatry, medicine, and a personal experience that leads to a clear verdict: Homosexuality is neither a sickness nor a sin. Unfortunately, the church has always been slow, if not the last institution on earth, to accept new truth. (…)

Instead, well-intended Christians are driving their own children away from the church, using Scripture passages that may not even pertain to sexual orientation as we understand it.

My Eight Premise: Whatever some people believe the Bible says about homosexuality, they must not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. (…)

Please consider one last thing. I love the Bible. I read God’s Word in it and hear God’s Word through it. But the United States is not a nation governed by the Bible. Our nation is governed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our laws were created to protect an individual’s right to disagree. If the Bible (or someone’s view of the Bible) replaces the Constitution as the law of the land, we undermine the great foundation upon which this country was built. (…)

I hope we can agree that all of us must stand together against those who would replace the Constitution with biblical law. (…) Can we support full civil rights for all…even if we disagree?

In this last premise, I’m asking you who disagree with my stand on homosexuality to support my stand on full civil rights for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

I hope you’ll agree that we are family (…). We may be different, but we can still live together in peace.

33

34

Jimmy Carter: Speech to the Parliament of World’s Religions, Melbourne, Australia, December 3, 2009 www.cartercenter.org (…) I am pleased to address the Parliament of World Religions about the vital role of religions in providing a foundation for –or correcting- the global scourge of discrimination and violence against women. As will be seen, my remarks represent the personal view of a Christian layman and a former political leader.

There are international agreements as well as our own Holy Scriptures that guide us: Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religions, political or other opinion, origin…or other status….”

The Holy Bible tells us that “There is nether Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) Every generic religious text encourages believers to respect essential human dignity, yet some selected scriptures are interpreted to justify the derogation or inferiority of women and girls, our fellow human beings. (…)

It is ironic that women are now welcomed into all major professions and other positions of authority, but are branded as inferior and deprived of the equal rights to serve God in positions of religious leadership. The plight of abused women is made more acceptable by the mandated subservience of women by religious leaders.

Most Bible scholars acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures were written when male dominance prevailed in every aspect of life. Men could have multiple sex partners (King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines), but adulterous behavior by a woman could be punished by stoning to death – then, in the time of Christ and, in some societies, 2009 years later.

35

I realize that devout Christians can find adequate scripture to justify either side in this debate, but there is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he never condoned sexual discrimination on the implied subservience of women. The exaltation and later reverence for Mary, as Jesus’ mother, is an even more vivid indication of the special status of women in Christian theology.

I have taught Bible lessons for more than 65 years, and I know that Paul forbade women to worship with their heads covered, to braid their hair, or to wear rings, jewelry, or expensive clothes. It is obvious to most modern day Christians that Paul was not mandating permanent or generic theological policies.

In a letter to Timothy, Paul also expresses a prohibition against women’s teaching men, but we know – and he knew – that Timothy himself was instructed by his mother and grandmother.

At the same time, in Paul’s letter to the Romans, he listed and thanked twenty-eight outstanding leaders of the early churches, at least ten of whom were women. “ I commend to you and our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church….greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus …greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you…greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostle, and they were in Christ before I was…greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.”

It is clear that during the early Christians era women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers, and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scripture to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

My own Sothern Baptist Convention leaders ordained in recent years that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors, chaplains in the military service, or teachers of men.

They based this on a few carefully selected quotations from Saint Paul and also Genesis, claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin. This was in conflict with my belief that we are all equal in the eyes of God. The Roman Catholic Church and many others revere the Virgin Mary but consider women unqualified to serve as priests.

This view that the Almighty considers women to be inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or tradition. Its influence does not stop at the walls 36

of the church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelming chosen the latter.

Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views and set a new course that demands equal rights for women and men, girls and boys.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo. It also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair and equal access to education, health care, employment, and influence within their own communities.

Recently I presented my concerns to a group of fellow leaders knows as the Elders, who represent practicing Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus. We are not longer active in politics and are free to express our honest opinions. We decided to draw particular attention to the role of religious and traditional leaders in obstructing the campaign for equality and human rights, and promulgated a statement that declares: “the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”

Having served as local, state, national, and world leaders, we understand why many public officials can be reluctant to question ancient religious and traditional premises – an arena of great power and sensitivity. Despite this, we are calling on all those with influence to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices – in religious and secular life – that justify discrimination against women and to acknowledge and emphasize the positive messages of equality and human dignity.

37

38

Open Letters

39

40

Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing www.religiousinstitute.org

An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision As religious leaders, we are committed to supporting people’s efforts to achieve spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being, including their reproductive and sexual health. We assist women and families confronted with unintended pr pregnancies that can no longer be carried to term. We are committed to social justice, mindful of the 46 million of women worldwide who have an abortion each year, almost half in dangerous and illegal situations. We seek to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rare.

Millions of people ground their moral commitment to the right to choose in their religious beliefs. While there are strong public health and human rights arguments for supporting the right of women to safe and legal abortion, here we invite you to consider the religious foundations for affirming abortion as a morally justifiable decision.

Affirming Women’s Moral Agency Abortion is always a serious moral decision. It can uphold and protect life, health, and future of the woman, her partner, and the family.

We affirm women as moral agents who have the capacity, right and responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not abortion is justified in their specific circumstances. That decision is best made when it includes a well-informed conscience, serious reflection, insights from her faith and values, and consultation with a caring partner, family members, and spiritual 41

counselor. Men have a moral obligation to acknowledge and support women’s decision-making.

Respect For Life Our religious traditions affirm that life is sacred. Our faiths celebrate the divinely bestowed blessings of generation life and assuring that life can be sustained and nurtured.

Religious traditions gave different beliefs on the value of fetal life, often according greater values as fetal development progresses. Science, medicine, law, and philosophy contribute to this understanding. However, we uphold the teaching of many religious traditions: the health and life of the woman must take precedence over the life of the fetus.

The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly. It is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. We support responsible procreation, the widespread availability of contraception, prenatal care and intentional parenting.

Scripture Scripture neither condemns nor prohibiting abortion. It does, however, call us to act compassionately and justly when facing difficult moral decisions.

Scriptural commitment to the most marginalized means that pregnancy, childbearing, and abortion should be safe for all women. Scriptural commitment to truth-telling means women must have accurate information as they make their decision.

Moral Imperative for Access The ability to choose an abortion should not be compromised by economic, educational, class or marital status, age, race, geographic location or inadequate information. Current measures that limit women’s access to abortion services – by denying public funds for low-income women; coercing parental consent and notification as contrasted with providing resources for 42

parental and adolescent counseling; denying international family planning assistance to agencies in developing countries that offer women information about pregnancy options; and banning medical procedures – are punitive and do nothing to promote moral decision-making. When there is a conflict between the conscience of the provider and woman, the institution delivering the services has an obligation to assure that the woman’s conscience and decision will be respected and that she has access to reproductive helath care, either directly or through referral. We condemn physicals and verbal violence and harassment directed against abortion clinics, their staff, and their clients.

We must work together to reduce unintended and unwanted pregnancies and address the circumstances that result in the decision to have an abortion. (…) We call for a religious and moral commitment to reproductive health and rights; there must be access to comprehensive sexuality education and contraception, including emergency contraception.

Religious Pluralism No government committed to human rights and democracy can privilege the teachings of one religion over another. No single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion, nor should government take sides on religious differences. Women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith without legal restrictions. We oppose any attempt to make specific religious doctrine concerning abortion the law (…).

A Call to Religious Leaders Religious leaders have been in the forefront of the movement for abortion rights for more than fifty years. We call on leaders of all faiths to prepare themselves to offer counsel compassionately, competently, and justly to individuals and families faced with pregnancy decisions. We urge them to: • Advise and assist adolescent women in involving parents and family members in their decisions, while acknowledging that not every family can offer this support

43

• Provide age-appropriate faith-based sexuality education that underscores the importance of planned childbearing and responsible sexual decision-making, including abstinence • Encourage parents to talk openly and honestly about sexuality with their own children • Counsel women facing pregnancy decisions to reflect, pray, examine their own conscience and faith, and talk with partners and family members • Support with love to those who choose adoption or termination of their pregnancies, including providing worship opportunities for those who seek them to mourn losses from miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions

• Provide financial and emotional support for those women who carry their pregnancies to term and provide loving community for them after birth • Publicly advocate for reproductive rights – including sexuality education, contraception, prenatal care, adoption, and abortion – through sermons, public witness, and involvement in the political process.

In Closing More than thirty years ago, many religious denominations passed courageous resolutions in support of women’s moral agency and their right to a safe and legal abortion. Despite numerous legal challenges and social, scientific and medical advances, we reaffirm this theological commitment: women must be able to make their own moral decisions based on conscience and faith. We call for increased dialog and respectful listening wit those who disagree with us. With them, we share the vision of a world where all children are loved and wanted. We renew our own call for relational and reproductive justice for all.

44

Open Letter by Bishop Gene Robinson Advice from an Episcopal Bishop to Pope Benedict

May2, 2010 Your Holiness, Though our churches differ in many ways, we believe in the same God. As your brother in Christ, it pains me to see Catholics struggle with your response to recent allegations of sex abuse by priests. Since my denomination has also battled these demons, I want to share with you what I have learned as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.

About 20 years ago, our church became aware of sex abuse by our clergy here in the United States. To our shame, we learned of it in lawsuits filed by victims alleging that some of our bishops had minimized the seriousness of the abuse and/or swept their claims under the rug. Some cases were related to the abuse of children; others involved male clergy who took advantage of their pastoral relationship with vulnerable women to manipulate them into sexual relationships. These men violated the sacred trust placed in clergy to focus on parishioners' needs and to separate those needs from their own.

To prevent further such abuses of power, we moved quickly for the good of the victims and of our church.

Whether or not civil courts recognize a statute of limitations, the church must hold its clergy members accountable to their vows to be faithful shepherds of their people. In 1994, the Episcopal Church opened a two-year window of opportunity to hear complaints about priestly abuse of the pastoral relationship with adults. Just because an event occurred many years ago did not make it any less egregious, especially since perpetrators rarely have 45

only one victim. We addressed all complaints through our canonical disciplinary process.

As for instances involving children, we have no statute of limitations on reporting abuse. Those suspected of committing child abuse are immediately reported to the civil authorities for investigation.

Rather than refusing to acknowledge our transgressions, we sought to change our church's culture -- an effort that took no small amount of courage. In my diocese in New Hampshire, and across the Episcopal Church, we perform a thorough background check on every bishop, priest or deacon who serves under my authority. We correspond with every employer the clergyperson has ever had and every bishop under whom the clergyperson has ever served to determine whether there is a history of complaints.

While procedures vary from diocese to diocese, we here in New Hampshire require six hours of abuse-prevention training for clergy, all other employees of the church (organists, parish administrators, maintenance workers), youth workers and elected parish leaders. A refresher course is required every five years. Events with and for children may never be conducted without two adults present and always in view of each other. This protects children from abusive behavior and protects adults who might be falsely charged. Many of our parishes have installed windows in the clergy office doors, so that no activity -- even private counseling -- may go unobserved.

We want many pairs of eyes watching for signs of abuse. We want everyone to know how to report suspected abuse of children and abuse of the pastoral relationship between clergy members and parishioners. We want to keep the issue before our church -- clergy and laity alike -- and to keep the conversation going.

But the thing victims most want to hear from the church, especially its leadership, is: "I am so sorry. This should never have happened to you, especially here. We are going to do everything in our power to see that nothing like this happens again." Victims live with their horrific experiences and know that their abuse can never be undone. And so they seek assurance that the church will change the system that allows abuse to go undetected and take action to hold perpetrators accountable. Child abusers 46

do not deserve protection; they must be reported immediately to civil authorities and prosecuted.

The Christian church -- like any institution -- is as capable of sin as any individual. We have been wrong before, from the Inquisition and the Crusades down to our defense of slavery (using scripture) and our denigration of women. Over time, the church has repented for these sins and sought to change its ways. The discovery of sexual abuse by clergy is another situation that calls for the church's repentance and reform.

I would not presume to instruct you. That would be arrogant. Nor would I impose upon you advice you've not sought. But I do offer you the benefit of my experience as you seek to deal responsibly with these challenges to the integrity of your church. Your letter to the faithful in Ireland and your meeting in Malta with victims were a good start. I hope the future will bring more truth-telling, which will make your church a better, safer place.

However, I believe it is misguided and wrong for gay men to be scapegoated in this scandal. As a gay man, I know the pain and the verbal and physical violence that can come from the thoroughly debunked myth connecting homosexuality and the abuse of children. In the media, representatives of and advocates for the Roman Catholic Church have laid blame for sexual abuse at the feet of gay priests. These people know, or should know, that every reputable scientific study shows that homosexuals are no more or less likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. Psychologically healthy homosexual men are no more drawn to little boys than psychologically healthy heterosexual men are drawn to little girls.

Sexual activity with children or teenagers is child abuse, pure and simple.

Meaningful consent is impossible, by definition, for the underage. You will not rid your church of sexual abuse by throwing homosexuals out of your seminaries or out of the priesthood. Homosexual priests have faithfully and responsibly served God throughout Catholic history. To scapegoat them and deprive them of their pulpits is a tragedy for the people they serve and for the church. Yours is a problem of abuse, not sexual orientation.

I will pray for your church and for you, as I hope you will pray for my church and for me. In Luke 12:2-3, Jesus tells us: "Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore 47

whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the rooftops."

And may God have mercy on our souls.

Your brother in Christ, Gene Robinson V. Gene Robinson was elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He is also a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

48

www.MCCchurch.org February 2008

An Open Letter to Romanian Legislators: I am writing to encourage Romanian legislators to reject a change to the Family Code that would narrow the definition of marriage to one exclusively between a man and woman. The measure would deprive many of Romania’s families of basic civil rights and unnecessarily introduce inequality into law; its passage would legalize discrimination and deny equal marriage rights to all people.

I strongly urge members of Parliament to oppose this legislation as it would fail to achieve the promise of democracy: the guarantee of Human Rights protection for all citizens.

Romanian families come with many different realities; all are deserving of equal protection under the law. Children deserve the security that comes from knowing the families to which they belong are protected

by Romania’s laws. There is no room for discrimination based solely on one understanding of family structure.

The reality is this: The government’s recognition of different types of families does not undermine the fabric of society; failing to provide equal protection under the law always does.

Romania can take great pride in the many strides made toward the inclusion, support and protection of all its citizens. The proposed Family Code legislation stands in stark contrast with the nation’s many advances, however, by creating a two‐tiered system of privileges and rights. Metropolitan Community Churches strongly oppose changes to the Family Code that would result in a system of discrimination that elevates one group of citizens above all others.

49

A description of Metropolitan Community Church’s denominational policy on Marriage is as follows: MCC’s International Statement on Marriage Equality Metropolitan Community Churches, an international movement of Christian churches reaching in and beyond the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and heterosexual communities, has preached a three‐ pronged Gospel of salvation, community and social justice for 40 years.

Throughout these 40 years we have worked together to make real a world of justice and equality. Each year Metropolitan Community Churches around the globe perform more than 6000 same‐gender weddings, in addition to opposite‐sex weddings.

We celebrate with our gay sisters and brothers in Canada, South Africa, England, the Netherlands, Spain and other progressive communities who have already won the right to marry and/or civil partnerships. We pledge to continue to work for full equality under relational and marriage laws for all people in all countries.

Marriage equality is a civil rights and justice issue, and must not be confused with differing theological understandings of homosexuality and marriage.

Most religions have their own requirements for entering into a valid marriage. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, will not marry first cousins or divorced persons who have not received an annulment.

Some branches of Judaism will not marry a previously married woman unless she has undergone a religious divorce by receiving a “get.”

Some religious officials will not marry two individuals unless at least one is a member of their congregation. These will continue to be issues for religious communities but they should not constitute the parameters of civil marriage regulations.

Metropolitan Community Churches believes that any person who wishes to enter into a civil marriage should have the right to do so and that religious communities should have the right to decide whether or not they will provide religious services to sanctify that marriage.

We will use our religious voice and our churches to both promote and provide religious services and blessings for lesbian/gay couples who wish to sanctify their relationship before God, regardless of legal recognition, and will work with other communities of faith to come to a

50

deeper understanding of the value and worth of all of God’s creation, including those who are homosexual.

Finally, we will use our resources to work in partnership with other progressive communities, both secular and religious. We will continue to speak out against both secular and religious voices that seek to demonize homosexuality and which are opposed to equal rights for same�gender couples and full marriage equality.

The great test of legislation in a democracy is the expansion of equality, freedom and justice to the greatest number of people. The proposed legislation fails this test; by narrowing the definition of marriage, it restricts the recognition of marriage to a limited group of people and creates a two�tiered system of marriage rights that unnecessarily excludes many different types of loving, caring families.

Therefore, on behalf of Metropolitan Community Churches, I urge legislators to reject proposed changes to the Family Code that would result in narrowing the definition of marriage as solely as between a man and a woman. By opposing this legislation, you can take an enlightened stand for justice for all citizens of Romania.

In support of Justice,

Rev. Elder Diane Fisher Bishop for Metropolitan Community Churches in Eastern Europe

51

52

Reverend Elder Diane Fisher, Bishop for Eastern Europe Metropolitan Community Churches Website: www.MCCchurch.org

"Antidiscrimination legislation is essential for the democratic future of Serbia" 9 March 2009 Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) urges Serbian Government to adopt as rapid as possible the Antidiscrimination legislation, as a measure which represents a critical and significant step forward for the inclusion of this country into the European Union.

Preventing and sanctioning discrimination is an obligation of any democratic European state. It is the top priority of the Serbian Government to respect its international obligations, to show determination and a duty of loyalty to all its citizens, not only to some of them, and to resist the public pressure of the Serbian Orthodox Church which is not serving the national interest in this case. "By delaying the adoption of the antidiscrimination provisions, non-profit organizations dealing with minority rights, women's rights, HIV/AIDS and mental disability rights are basically dismissed in their courageous efforts to tackle

53

discrimination" considers the MCC Bishop for Eastern Europe, Reverend Elder Diane Fisher.

This legislation is not meant to limit freedom of religion. The Orthodox Church is exempt, however, from the provisions of the European Directives which forbid discrimination in employment based on religion. When public money is going to services delivered to the whole community, such a negative reaction of the Orthodox Church should have no legal standing.

Therefore we salute as realistic and necessary the public position expressed by Mr. Karadzic, Human and Minority Rights State Secretary, who recently underlined the principle of separation between state and church.

MCC is calling on the Serbian authorities to remain active in the creation and building up a human rights culture in which the anti discrimination provisions are an inseparable part. "Intensifying the contacts between the Serbian Government, the European Commission and the European Parliament's Intergroup on Gay and Lesbian Rights will create a new, collaborative strategy to fight discrimination. The voice of the Serbian civil society should be included and taken seriously in this dialogue, and not silenced" concluded Bishop Diane Fisher.

Metropolitan Community Churches urges the Serbian government to take action immediately to ensure the protection and Human Rights of its citizens.

Sincerely,

Rev. Elder Diane Fisher 54

Content

Introduction Florin Buhuceanu, Euroregional Center for Public Initiatives..................... 5 The Sins of Scripture: How some biblical teaching has had a negative impact on society Rev. Jim Mulcahy, Metropolitan Community Churches ............................. 7 Would Jesus Discriminate?

Rev. Dr. Cindi Love.................................................................................. 13 What the Bible Says – And Doesn’t Say – About Homosexuality Rev. Mel White, co-founder of Soulforce ................................................ 21 Jimmy Carter: Speech to the Parliament of World’s Religions, Melbourne, Australia, December 3, 2009 ................................................ 35 Open Letters Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing An Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision .. 41 Open Letter by Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson................................... 45 An Open Letter to Romanian Legislators, February 2008, by Rev. Elder Diane Fisher, Bishop for Metropolitan Community Churches in Eastern Europe .................................................................................................... 49 "Antidiscrimination legislation is essential for the democratic future of Serbia", 9 March 2009, by Reverend Elder Diane Fisher, Bishop for Eastern Europe Metropolitan Community Churches ………...53

55