We believe – a Christian LGBT creed

Things are changing so fast – it became socially unacceptable some time ago in many circles to give voice to prejudice against LGBT people. It is becoming unacceptable to reject marriage for same-sex couples. And now it is becoming a religious act to oppose the criminalization of gay folk.

Perhaps we need a short summary of what we believe. Do we need an LGBT Creed?

We believe
that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God

and that nothing can take that likeness away.
We believe that Jesus Christ
brought a message of freedom, integrity and salvation for all.
We believe in the Holy Spirit
who brings delight, joy, liberation
and holy common sense to the people of God.

We believe in the church
and are committed to remaining a part of it.
We believe discrimination, prejudice and the criminalization
of LGBT people to be sinful.

We believe that God’s abundant grace is leading the church towards
the full acceptance of God’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
We know the grace of God in the sacraments
and believe that all the sacraments are given for all of the people of God.
We believe that where God calls people into marriage
they are called to a way of life based on
love, joy, tenderness, faithfulness, permanence and stability.

We believe that human rights are part of a divine mandate for justice
that  is the birthright of all people.

What do you think?

[By the way, don’t forget that there’s a retreat for gay and bi men in March that I’m co-leading – bookings can be made online here: www.retreat.maniple.co.uk]


  1. Yes, I can subscribe to that.

  2. Serena Culfeather says

    I think this is long overdue and most definitely needed. I’m itching to change a few words but that’s me being me – I sort of want it to scan poem-like. Love it.

  3. Feel free to join in and suggest amendments.

  4. Rosemary Hannah says

    It is good I think – but I have no idea, really no idea, why the church has been so so slow. Yes, I know the bishops are all ancient (like me) and men (not like me) but really? Time is, time was, time’s past.

  5. David says

    I feel it would be nice to be fully inclusive without spelling out specific groups of people; a creed that everyone inside and outside the LGBT community can share;

    “We believe discrimination, prejudice and the criminalization
    of *ALL GOD’S* people to be sinful.”

    “We believe that God’s abundant grace is leading the church towards
    the full acceptance of *DIVERSITY IN ALL GOD’S* people.”

  6. Well, no, David. I think some things should be criminalized and the things that some people do should result in them being locked up.

    I don’t think that gay people should be. That’s kind of the point.

    I’ve lots of prejudices against harmful behaviour which I think are healthy.

    I don’t believe in proclaiming the full acceptance of diversity in all God’s people because I don’t really believe it. Some things shouldn’t be accepted.

    I know what you mean and have some sympathy with what you are trying to say but I don’t really agree with you. I’m also interested that as soon as someone suggests actually writing LGBT people into an expression of faith, however informal a blog post might be, someone immediately suggests writing us out of it.

  7. Elizabeth Anderson says

    Good stuff. From my perspective (as a straight white woman who tries to be an ally) I think it’s important to write in LGBT people (as Kelvin helpfully describes the action) because historically and in far too many instances currently they have been written out and excluded.

  8. I’ve always been taught that it should be ‘transgender people’ and not ‘transgendered people’.

    I think it might also be nice to add intersex people.

  9. Thanks Rhea.

  10. David says


    I understand exactly what you mean and I was struggling to find better alternative words as I was equally conscious of the risk of including undesirable diversity. My concern is, as you highlighted, the inclusion of “LGBT”.

    I find the term “LGBT” to be uncomfortably exclusive. I remember, not so long ago, it was just LGB, this was found to be non-inclusive and it became LGBT. Now LGBT includes transgender but not trans-sexual. As Rhea mentions it would also be nice to include intersex. I’m sure other terms will come to light. The exclusivity I fear now is actually for heterosexuals! I’m concerned that in a drive towards inclusivity for ourselves we reinforce an us:them culture. In the same way that I wouldn’t want a white peoples’ creed and a black peoples’ creed I don’t want a Straight Creed and an LGBTTI* creed. That’s what I was trying to alter.

    Why? Well ironically a friend of mine at work remarked that we had an LGBT group but not a straight one. He’s well aware of the historical reasons for this, but all the same didn’t feel he would be welcome to come to our annual drinks party as “S” isn’t part of “LGBT”. He’s got a point. It’s an LGBT group not a S/LGBT alliance.

    Apparently there’s a new term “Gender and Sexual Diversity” or GSD which is being proposed to be fully inclusive.

    In a way, I don’t want a creed to specify people of all skin colours and ethnicity, nor do I want to spell out all manner of gender and sexual diversities.

    I’ve been to a “Gay” church (MCC) but found I much prefer a fully inclusive setting. Is it too soon to hope that people will embrace diversity without it being spelled out?

  11. Yes – I understand all of that. I’m uncomfortable with GSD because it sounds like a clinic and very few people know what it means. Rather than saying “gay people are welcome” it says something only to people who know an even more obtuse code than LGBT.

    I think that individual churches do still need to spell out a welcome to people who tend to have experienced churches being very explicit about a message that indicates that gay folk are not welcome.

    It also remains the case that I don’t think that all sexual diversity is good or to be affirmed.

Speak Your Mind