LGBTQ+ Theology 101

Introduction

Q Christian is a diverse community with varied backgrounds, cultures, theologies and denominations, drawn together through our love of Christ and our belief that every person is a beloved child of God. Over a decade ago, members of this organization began a pivotal conversation centered on discussing Christian perspectives relating to same-sex relationships. Posited originally as Side A and Side B, these theologies and the theologies that subsequently emerged from them, have become more nuanced as the LGBTQ+ Christian community has grown over time. 

We are an LGBTQ+ affirming organization, but our staff and community members did not arrive at this conclusion casually. Many of us spent years in ex-gay or conversion therapy ministries, begged God for deliverance, or ruminated endlessly on the Bible verses we thought condemned LGBTQ+ people. For those new to conversations regarding LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation within Christianity, we welcome you to the table and invite you to learn and grow with us. No matter your questions, challenges or fears, we pray the resources and perspectives shared here will draw you closer to the unconditional love of God - including God’s unconditional love for LGBTQ+ people.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Are the Different LGBTQ+ Theologies?

LGBTQ+ theology is frequently split into two broad categories: Non-affirming Theology and Affirming Theology

Non-affirming theology commonly appears in two different ways:

1. The first  affirms the existence of LGBTQ+ identities, but adheres to a ‘traditional’ view of marriage and sex as designed for one man and one woman. This version requires that LGBTQ+ persons remain celibate and is a conviction imposed upon others by cisgender, heterosexual persons. 

   Example: Tiffany’s son Lionel just came out as gay. She tells him she accepts his identity, but urges celibacy as the only way to be acceptable to God as a gay Christian. More about Q Christian’s hope for parents and their LGBTQ+ children can be found on our FAQ page.

2. The second views LGBTQ+ identities themselves as aberrant, disordered, or in some other way illegitimate and therefore inherently outside God’s approval and blessing. This view implicitly or explicitly supports efforts to alter someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity through conversion therapy practices, and is sometimes referred to as Side X or Ex-gay ideology. Side X/Ex-gay ideology is both dangerous and medically discredited. Q Christian addresses the ramifications of this theology through the UNCHANGED Movement.

   Example: Jane schedules a meeting with her pastor, Robert, to discuss her anxiety over reconciling her faith with her bisexuality. Robert counsels Jane to start attending the church’s new support group for congregants desiring to change their orientations. He assures her she will be “free” from her wayward attractions.

Affirming theology maintains that the gender identities, sexual orientations, and sexual relationships of LGBTQ+ individuals are equally as good and holy in the sight of God as those of cisgender, heterosexual people.

Proponents of this view extend an unqualified invitation to our LGBTQ+ siblings to participate fully in the life of the church, including weddings, membership, and leadership positions. Members of the LGBTQ+ community may espouse different variations of affirming theology according to each individual’s personal convictions. These can be broadly grouped into two categories, although individuals may hold convictions somewhere between these definitions:

1. Side A Theology: Any theology which fully affirms both LGBTQ+ identity and same-gender sex. Side A theology fully affirms same-gender relationships, marriage and sex as good and acceptable to God. Side A theology also recognizes that celibacy may be freely chosen for many reasons, including by individuals who identify along the spectrum of asexuality. Individuals within this theological framework may hold a broad range of sexual ethics.

   Example: Antonio, an Anglican priest, just celebrated his sixth wedding anniversary with his husband Jeff.

2. Side B Theology: Any theology which affirm LGBTQ+ identities, yet maintains that Christians should refrain from same-gender sex for a variety of personal and/or theological reasons. This includes single, celibate LGBTQ+ Christians as well as those in celibate partnerships and mixed-orientation marriages. These are marriages wherein at least one person is married to a person of a differing sexual identity, such as a heterosexual man married to a gay woman. Within the Q Christian Fellowship community, Side B refers to a theological viewpoint reserved for LGBTQ+ persons only. When celibacy is imposed by cisgender, heterosexual people onto others, it is referred to as non-affirming.

   Example: After struggling with internalized shame about her sexual identity, Mia came out as a lesbian this year. In full acceptance of who God created her to be, Mia embraces celibacy as a faithful expression of her personal theological convictions.

More information about the theological perspectives of Q Christian Fellowship can be found on our FAQ Page.

How Should We Read the Bible?

Consider an anecdote:

A young man knocks on the door of a great Talmudic scholar. “Rabbi, I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?”

“No.”

“Hebrew?”

“No.”

“Have you ever studied Torah?”

“No, Rabbi, but I graduated from Harvard summa cum laude in philosophy, and received a Ph.D. from Yale. I’d like to round out my education with a bit of Talmud.”

“I doubt that you are ready for Talmud. It is the broadest and deepest of books. If you wish, however, I will examine you in logic, and if you pass the test I will teach you Talmud.”

“Good. I’m well versed in logic.”

“First question. Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“The burglar with the dirty face.”

“Wrong. The one with the clean face. Examine the logic. The burglar with a dirty face looks at the one with a clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face looks at the burglar with a dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes.”

“Very clever. Another question, please.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We established that. The burglar with the clean face washes.”

“Wrong. Both wash. Examine the logic. The one with a dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with a clean face thinks his face is dirty. So the burglar with a clean face washes. When the one with a dirty face sees him washing, however, he realizes his face must be dirty too. Thus both wash.”

“I didn’t think of that. Please ask me another.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Well, we know both wash.”

“Wrong. Neither washes. Examine the logic. The one with the dirty face thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face thinks his face is dirty. But when clean-face sees that dirty-face doesn’t bother to wash, he also doesn’t bother. So neither washes. As you can see, you are not ready for Talmud.”

“Rabbi, please, give me one more test.”

“Two burglars come down a chimney. One emerges with a clean face, the other with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither!”

“Wrong. And perhaps now you will see why Harvard and Yale cannot prepare you for Talmud. Tell me, how is it possible that two men come down the same chimney, and one emerges with a clean face, while the other has a dirty face?”

“But you’ve just given me four contradictory answers to the same question! That’s impossible!” “No, my son, that’s Talmud” (Eretz Israel*).

“For Jews, the Bible is a problem to be solved; for Christians it is a message to be proclaimed.” (Noted Jewish biblical scholar, Jon Levenson.)

What Can We Take From This About Reading the Bible?

Q Christian Fellowship Board Member Rev. Danny Cortez shares the following guidance:

There are many theologians who have opposing views to each other. And there are other theologians that make counterarguments from those opposing views. This back and forth could give anyone whiplash. Who do we choose to believe regarding the history and context of these passages? Is the understanding of the mind of God reserved for the educated? Or does God give ordinary people access to the Kingdom? Do we read Scripture like a legal document, or do we engage in it relationally?

Let me illustrate. Suppose you were a Jewish person living just before the time of Jesus’ public ministry. One day you heard that the synagogue leaders had discovered that there was an adulterer in the community. Everyone knew the Law which said, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife— with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV). So the leaders began to pass out rocks to stone the adulterer. Imagine then that the person who was caught in adultery was your own son or daughter. Would you cast a stone? Would you take part in putting to death the one caught in adultery? Would you, in essence, be faithful to upholding the commandments of Scripture, or choose to save the life of your child?

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus was faced with a similar situation. The religious leaders had brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus. John tells us that it was a trap, set to see if he would interpret the Law literally. But instead of taking part in the stoning, Jesus said, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7, NIV).

At this point, everyone left, and the woman was saved. However, according to Scripture, Jesus was without sin, and should have thrown the stone in accordance with the Law. But Jesus chose to not apply the Scriptures literally in order to save a life. There was nothing in the Law that said the adulterer could be released. This apparent disobedience by Jesus to the Law was what created animosity toward him among the religious leaders. It wasn’t scandalous that Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” But the scandal of the story, the main point, is that Jesus didn’t apply the literal and traditional reading of Scripture when the religious leaders believed he should have.

I’m often critiqued for not applying a literal reading of Scripture. I often respond by pointing to this story and other stories to show that Jesus didn’t read and apply Scripture literally. He chose to read Scripture through a hermeneutic of grace and compassion. The lens that seemed to pervade the application of Jesus was: Will this allow the person to thrive? Will this give life? Will this cause separation or bring people together through love? Simply put, at the core of Jesus’ hermeneutic was the question: Is what is being taught bearing good fruit or bad fruit?

As I have walked with people in the LGBTQ+ community, my pastoral discernment has led me to believe that the traditional teachings which have led to disowning LGBTQ+ people, forcing them to change their orientation or not to accept their stated gender identity, have caused great harm. Jesus isn’t asking us to parse Greek and Hebrew words in order to discern truth. He is asking us to examine the fruit. Jesus is asking us to pay attention to whether people are thriving or are being harmed. That is the basis of how we can tell truth from error because Scripture was meant to administer love and grace.

The Apostle’s Theological Test

There were at least two pillars of what it meant to identify as a faithful Jewish man. The first was to obedience to the Sabbath and the second was male circumcision. Jesus re-imagined an understanding of Sabbath obedience that allowed for non-traditional understanding of Sabbath keeping. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath. He even said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27, NASB). Jesus was stating that the Sabbath should never be made a burden for people. If people are being harmed by your understanding of the Sabbath, then give preference towards the people. Let them work or help their animal escape from a ditch, even though the fourth commandment states, “You shall not do any work” (Exodus 20:10, NIV). The disciples saw Jesus’ application of the Scriptures repeatedly. What they didn’t realize was that they would soon be put to the test.

I’ve often wondered why Jesus never addressed circumcision in the Gospels since I think he knew it would be the biggest theological hurdle the disciples would face. But now I see it was purposeful. The life and ministry of Jesus showed the disciples how to read Scripture and apply it in a way that doesn’t exclude, but instead offered life to as many people as possible. So even though the disciples knew what Genesis said about circumcision being an eternal sign of the covenant between God and the people of Israel, the disciples chose to remove the requirement of circumcision. They said that there shouldn’t be a stumbling block for those who choose faith in Christ.

The removal of physical circumcision was an unprecedented theological change that shook the Jewish- Christian community to its core. The disciples were accused of no longer upholding the authority of Scripture. But what the disciples did was merely an extension of the way Jesus taught them to uphold the spirit behind the Law. And in discovering the spirit of grace and love, the Law would be upheld along with faithfulness to God.

So here you have the two biggest things of what it meant to identify as the people of God—Sabbath keeping and physical circumcision. Both of these were re-imagined in order to save life and include those who were excluded. The shift from conservative understandings of Sabbath and circumcision were far greater issues at the time Scripture was being written than our modern questions regarding orientation and gender identity. But the principles we apply to these questions remain the same. How do we read and apply Scripture as Jesus did? Because it’s not so much about what Scripture says, as much as it is about how Jesus applied what Scripture said.

Churches have historically placed a stumbling block before the LGBTQ+ community by their interpretations of Scripture, which have led to exclusion and harm. The same kind of criticism that had been launched towards Peter by the traditionalists regarding the authority of Scripture in excluding the uncircumcised Gentiles living outside the Law is being launched against LGBTQ+ people and their allies who are seeking their inclusion in the church.

Jesus and the disciples set into motion what the church must continue to practice—a hermeneutic that practices compassion that moves toward inclusion. This is the radical nature of the Gospel—when it moves toward accepting people who were previously on the outside and told they were inherently disordered.

Throughout history the church didn’t wrestle with every major doctrine in the infancy of the church. The early church dealt with various heresies and were able to develop a more robust Christology. There was the issue of Modalism and the doctrine of the Trinity. There were also, though, questions about slavery and biracial marriages. These questions were a result of push-back from marginalized and enslaved people that caused theologians to talk through what Scripture might really be saying in regards to biracial marriages and slavery. These wrestlings were in response to people who before didn’t have a voice in the church but were now being given voice to speak. The church as a whole had never seriously questioned its longstanding beliefs around LGBTQ+ inclusion until recently, as more and more LGBTQ+ people are raising their voices.

One of the problems of every generation is the belief that they are the generation that has finally understood the full counsel of Scripture and that our beliefs no longer need to be challenged. But our theological history shows us that this is false. There must always be a posture of willingness to learn and be challenged in our assumptions. The church must always be willing to reform.

Helmut Thielicke said, “He who speaks to this hour’s need and translates the message will always be skirting the edge of heresy. He, however, is the man who is given this promise, [the promise that] Only he who risks heresies can gain the truth.” This is what many generations before us were willing to do— skirt the edge of heresy in order to gain the truth.

What Does the Bible Say About LGBTQ+ People?

Conversations around what the Bible says about LGBTQ+ people can be contentious. Due to the dense nature of this content, you may want to consider studying the additional resources listed under “How can I learn more about the “Clobber Verses” and LGBTQ+ theology?”. Consider this an introductory overview to these passages, as shared by QCF Board member, Rev. Danny Cortez:

Genesis 1

Genesis 1 (along with other passages that reference this chapter) is often used to argue against nonbinary and transgender identities. It’s often stated that since God created man and woman, there can be no other gender categories than male and female. However, as Kathy Baldock wisely stated, “God created man, woman and intersex.” We see through science and creation that there is biological gender variation in creation. People’s biology isn’t as binary as we are led to believe, and Scripture speaks of eunuchs, people who lived as neither male nor female.

What we can also see in the creation story is that, while God created day and night, that doesn’t mean there is nothing in between. Dawn and dusk are expressions of creation that don’t fall neatly into the categories of day and night. So when Genesis tells us that God created man and woman, it doesn’t mean that we are limited to the two. In this world, there are nonbinary, genderfluid, transgender, and other multi-faceted expressions of the non-gendered image of God within creation.

Genesis 2

Genesis 2 tells the marriage story of Adam and Eve. However, the word “marriage” isn’t used. Instead, “one flesh” is used to describe their covenant relationship. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The “one flesh” reference to marriage is repeated twice in the New Testament, first by Jesus when he condemned the practice of men divorcing their wives (Matthew 19:4-6), and also in Ephesians, when Paul talks about marriage: “For we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:30-31).

In Ephesians, Paul expands the definition of marriage. He uses the language of marriage, the coming together of “one flesh,” to describe Christ’s marriage to the church. Here, Paul no longer limits marriage as something that happens between one man and one woman, but between Christ and the church. We find that marriage is not based on gender, but rather on covenant. Gender difference is therefore not a requirement of marriage.

Genesis 19 (cf. 18:20)

Throughout Scripture there is a condemnation of sexual immorality, which is often specified to mean sexual abuse (1 Thessalonians 4:6). It is wrong to forcibly take advantage of someone sexually. The story of Genesis 19 is that the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot’s guests. This is the sin of Genesis 19—the attempted gang rape. Unfortunately, this story is often used as a proof text against same-sex relationships even though there is no condemnation of consensual sexuality in Genesis 19.

Also, Ezekiel tells us that the sin of Sodom was about inhospitality. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (Ezekiel 16:49-50, NIV). Jude 7 does say that there was sexual immorality and perversion in Sodom. But the immorality and perversion was about sexual abuse and not about same sex consensual relationships.

Leviticus 18:22 (20:13) & Deuteronomy 23:17-18

Leviticus is an interesting look at a legal system foreign to us. In Leviticus we are told that you can’t worship God if you’re physically imperfect. If you’re disabled, if you have eczema, if you have crushed testicles, you are forbidden to enter places of worship. There are many things labeled abominations: clothing made out of mixed cloth, eating pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. There were many things defined as unclean that we no longer consider forbidden.

As Mary Douglas (Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo) points out, when you see dirt in the garden, you don’t label it “dirty.” But if dirt is on your clothes, then you deem it dirty. She explains that the issue of purity in Leviticus has to do with maintaining distinctions. Blood in itself wasn’t a problem; it became problematic when skin broke because blood was supposed to be contained within the skin. The prohibition against shrimp and lobsters occurred because these sea creatures had legs, which blurred the understanding of what made land and sea animals distinct. Anything that broke away from the distinct categories that were spoken of in the creation account were problematic, which is the basis for the passage that says, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22, NIV). So even the idea of holiness was about making distinctions and separating one thing from another. The idea was that one thing was a contagion and the other was something that could be contaminated. Categories were established to maintain order, purity and holiness.

But Jesus brought in a re-creation ethic that disrupted the ideal of Levitical purity. Jesus touched people with skin diseases. Jesus wreaked havoc by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to work by picking grain. And if this wasn’t enough, God told Peter, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 11:9, NIV). The categories rooted in a binary understanding of creation were uprooted. Purity was no longer about reflecting the binaries of creation; it was about breaking down the walls of hostility. All days, not just Sabbath, are now holy. There is neither Jew nor Gentile; all people are chosen. The curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the less-holy is torn; all is sacred. And we are no longer bound by an ethic of separation; now the commandments are rooted in love. In Christ, there is a nonbinary multifaceted beautifying of every person that more closely reflects the image of God.

Romans 1

There are deeper cultural issues that we must be aware of before Romans 1 can be understood. Romans 1 requires a much lengthier discussion than we have space for. But to make things as simple as possible, Romans 1 is Paul’s attempt to speak to Gentile believers about the righteousness of God. And since Paul can’t use the Jewish Law in a way that would be meaningful to Gentiles, he instead references Greek thought.

The philosophy of Stoicism, especially the ideal of being in tune with nature and the ideal of self- control, is embedded throughout this chapter. Paul calls attention to the need for people to not go overboard, to maintain discipline, to avoid sexual excess. Paul uses Greek thought to address the type of excess called lust. The Gentile Christians would have understood Paul condemning overindulgence, which was contrary to their value of harmony. What we don’t see is Paul condemning disciplined, loving relationships between two people of the same gender.

Also, Paul’s use of the word “natural” in the context of sex was meant to indicate only sexual intimacy intended for procreation. Therefore, when the passage says, “Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26, NIV), the early church fathers saw this as referencing any sexual acts that didn’t lead to procreation, i.e. non-vaginal penetration. It wasn’t until the fourth century that church fathers began interpreting Romans 1 as a prohibition on specifically woman with woman sexual intimacy. So what we find described in Romans 1 is sexual behavior contrary to what was culturally viewed as natural: disciplined and procreative. The word “natural” in itself is specifically referencing cultural norms, not rooted in absolute principles, in the Epistles. A man with long hair was also noted as being against nature (1 Cor. 11:14).

If Romans 1 doesn’t address woman with woman relationships, then there are no passages in all of Scripture that condemn intimacy between women. This would make sense because much of the understanding behind what was “natural” is that sex ought to lead to procreation. Culturally, marriage between Roman citizens was valued primarily for cementing one’s status as the head of a household and contributing to society by opening the avenue for procreation. A marriage ensured offspring you could impart your inheritance to. So men pursued marriage and women accepted it not primarily because they fell in love, or because of attraction, but for social status and for procreation. Unlike today, Roman marriages were not based on romantic attraction. A marriage was the result of two families coming together to agree on an arrangement. People whose marriage was arranged for them didn’t have a valid objection if their sole reason for not wanting to marry was because they weren’t in love. Having children was considered a social responsibility to one’s family and to the Empire. So one significant reason why gay marriage wasn’t addressed in Scripture was because it wasn’t a cultural issue; marriage between two people of the same gender was out of the question, since romantic feelings was not the reason for marriage—procreation was.

The idea of a personal sexual orientation was foreign to them. There was a deep cultural understanding of the societal purpose of marriage that no longer exists in our Western context. Marrying or being in a relationship for reasons other than love is now looked down upon. People in Western societies value romantic attraction and compatibility as the basis of intimacy. Romans 1 addresses sexual excess and lust that went contrary to a cultural purpose for sex and marriage which is largely foreign to us. In other words, Romans 1 does not discuss same-sex love but rather same-sex excess and the violation of cultural familial norms.

I Corinthians 6:9 & I Timothy 1:10

Before 1946, there were no Bibles that contained the word “homosexual.” The Greek words mistranslated as “homosexual” have historically been translated as “sodomites,” “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “liers with mankind,” “perverts,” and “buggerers.” Prior to 1946, “malakoi” was translated as “soft” or “effeminate.” Theologians admit that arsenokoitai and malakoi are very difficult words to translate. Unfortunately, the 1946 Revised Standard Version introduced the word “homosexual” into our English Bibles, and many other English translations chose to follow their example. Simply put, the translations that chose to use the word “homosexual” are in error. The essence of the original Greek word “arsenokoitai” is exploitative in nature. It wasn’t simply an issue of homosexuality but the abuse and exploitation of another person as a demonstration of power. For further reading on the history of this mistranslation, see Kathy Baldock’s article1.

Beyond Understanding

Theologians have debated these passages for years. There are literally hundreds of debates you can find online in regards to these verses. You’ll find that there is a counter-argument to every point I have made. And if you keep looking, there is a counter-argument to that counter-argument and so on. Which theologian do we trust? How do we know who is right?

What’s been interesting to me is that Jesus prayed, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Matthew 11:25, NIV). Did you hear that? The things of the kingdom are often hidden from people who are wise and learned. And yet, our traditions place so much weight on those who can parse Greek words and explain systems of theology. Jesus knew that the truths of the Kingdom had to be accessible for anyone, especially the poor and uneducated. So Jesus gave us a simple tool that had nothing to do with theological ivory tower discussions. He simply said, Look at the fruit. Is it giving life? If it isn’t life- giving and being received as love by those affected most, then our exegesis is probably wrong.

How Can I Learn More About the “Clobber Verses” and LGBTQ+ Theology?

Those looking for a deeper understanding of LGBTQ+ theology and the passages traditionally considered anti-LGBTQ+, we recommend the following resources: 

How Can I Learn More About Being an LGBTQ+ Christian?

Q Christian Fellowship has a variety of resources for individuals hoping to reconcile their faith with their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. We recommend reading our Sexuality & Spirituality Guide and joining one of our many seasonal Q Community Groups, particularly the Coming Out Support Groups if you are unsure of next steps in your faith journey as an LGBTQ+ Christian.

If you are trans or gender non-confirming, we also recommend reading our Affirmation Guide for Trans/Gender Expansive Identities and joining our seasonal Trans/Gender Expansive Community Group.

Q Christian also has a large online network of LGBTQ+ Christians on our Online Forums and an annual Conference with extensive programming created for and by LGBTQ+ Christians.

As a Christian Parent, How Can I Learn More About My LGBTQ+ Child?

We encourage parents to read our Relational Guide for Parents of Newly Out LGBTQ+ People and consider joining the seasonal Parents Community Group. The Parents Community Group serves as a first step towards loving your LGBTQ+ child well by addressing terminology, theology and more with a group of parents on the same journey. This group is great for parents who are discerning their stance on LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation and/or new to conversations around LGBTQ+ identities and theology.

Q Christian also hosts an annual Parent Summit for Christian parents of LGBTQ+ kids. Virtual for 2020, this highly accessible space is designed for parents and family of LGBTQ+ children to be encouraged, equipped, and connected. The Parent Summit strives to support and unify families through unconditional love in a Christ-honoring way and is for any parent of an LGBTQ+ child, wherever you may be on this path.

As a Pastor, How Can I Learn More About My LGBTQ+ Congregants?

We encourage pastors and clergy to read our Relational Guide for Clergy and consider joining the seasonal Clergy Community Group to discuss the guide in a communal setting.

The Clergy Community Group is specifically designed to equip clergy members to create a safer, more equitable environment for LGBTQ+ congregants in their respective church context. The material covered acts as a starting point for clergy to dig deeper into the theology, ethics and practical elements of LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirmation in a congregational setting.