Spong’s Manifesto…and Ours
by: Amanda Udis-Kessler on October 29th, 2010 | 18 Comments »
Last October, retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote a manifesto declaring his unwillingness to keep publicly debating the issue of LGBT inclusion with conservatives who oppose inclusion on religious grounds. The manifesto is strong, clear, and bold. LGBT people of faith should be grateful to have (to have had?) such a powerful ally on our side.
But I’m not writing to Bishop Spong. I am writing to the rest of us, for whom there is no rest. We who continue to labor in the field for a harvest of LGBT religious inclusion need our own manifesto, especially those of us who are ourselves LGBT. We need some stirring words as we confront opportunities to clarify our position, to witness to our basic humanity, and to demonstrate empirically that faith informs our life as strongly as it informs the lives of those who witness against us. Here are a few words – perhaps not stirring, but intended as a small start, one that can be built upon by many others:
“We LGBT religious inclusionists pursue inclusion because we have gifts to offer and to receive, a world to heal and to celebrate, a hope that has neither been dashed nor yet entirely fulfilled. We pursue inclusion because, like Jeremiah (20:9), we have “something like a burning fire shut up in [our] bones; [we] are weary with holding it in, and [we] cannot.” We are neither distracted nor dissuaded by the challenges we face. We are in this for the long haul. We are committed to talking peacefully to those with whom we disagree, to bearing the weight of their fear and anger where these are present, to never treating them with any less respect than they treat us. We are committed to bringing our best selves to this work, which we understand to be a holy work of accountability. We are committed to taking good care of ourselves, each other, and our allies, knowing that we, and all people, are worthy of lives lived well and joyously.
When we are weary of talking with one more religious exclusionist, we find strength in our sense of purpose and our trust in the sacred nature of that purpose. When people lie about us and misrepresent us, we do all that we can to set the record straight but do not malign them in turn. When walking away is the sanest option, we do so without a sense that our integrity has been breached. We cultivate our spiritual lives knowing that inclusion work demands patience, trust, humility, and love.
Above all, we believe that while inclusion is a matter of social justice, it is no less a matter of abundance, of trusting that the Holy has made room for all of us in the houses to which we feel called. We reject strategies of fear and small-mindedness. We reject “either/or” solutions in favor of the possibility of “both/and.” We have no desire to cause pain. We wish to be instruments of grace however we understand that idea in the specifics of our individual situations. We believe that the spirit within and beyond us is greater than any of us can grasp, and that we do the spirit honor by modeling in our lives and work the abundance we have experienced.
If you are hard at work on inclusion, we thank you. If you are inspired to enter the fray, we welcome you. If you understand these matters differently, we respectfully invite you into conversation. If you are alone and in pain, know that it is your broken heart that inspires us to keep up the struggle. We continue to work for a world of full inclusion that we may never fully see but that we know can be brought closer, day by day, year by year, with our efforts and our faith.”
That’s my small piece. What are your words of hope? What is your manifesto?




Beautiful, truly inspiring and enriching.
Thank you – I’m humbled.
YES, absolutely beautiful. May it find echo in many hearts and minds, and may its tone be the invitation for healing that is required of these times.
Again, thanks for the kind words. Peace, Amanda
It breaks my heart that people are forced to talk about the most precious gift of all: the way they embody and express their sexual identity. That it is not obvious how enriched we are by the multiplicity of expressions there are is a terrible evil eating at the soul of humanity. I am reminded of the fear Ocfavia Butler, a science fiction writer of LGBTQ themes, had to deal with so many years ago. So many people are deeply afraid of sexual energy. It is divine, miraculous, and very holy. Creation is an infinitely sexual process unfolding itself. We are right now in the time when imagination is expressing itself in human bodies. Let’s sing to one another when we make love happen.
That’s beautiful, Jim – thanks very much. Peace, Amanda
Octavia Butler is one of my all time favorite writers. I grieved when she died and re-read every Butler novel and short I could find, including some I hadn’t read before. I heard an interview with her a week or so before she died. Talk about courage and what an artist can do with a challenge.
My daughter was recently told she cannot read Parable of the Sower for her English reading requirement. When we asked why, we were told it was “pornographic and illicitly sexual.” My daughter was already half way through the book looked the principal in the eye, held her dog-earred paperback aloft and asked him, “Really? Are you sure you read the same book?”
Lovely story, Just Jack. Thanks for sharing it. Peace, Amanda
Thankyou for a well written manifesto from our community. I am forwarding your piece to my ninety year old mother who wants the anglican church to accept her daughter, and her granddaughter before she dies. Her church has agreed to be an inclusive church but they now need to confront the reality of welcoming all of us. Thanks again, and it is so sad that this is still going on. marcia
Thanks for the very kind words, Marcia. I am touched that you would forward this piece to your family. I wish your mother’s congregation strength and grace in their inclusion work, as I wish it to the Anglican Communion more generally as they struggle on with this issue. Peace, Amanda
YES!!!!!
How do we include those sexual inverts who choose, on grounds of morality, not to engage in the activities characteristic of gays? They are spiritual people who honestly think gayness is sinful. I am thinking of the members of such organizations as Courage (www.couragerc.net).
John, your choice of the terms “sexual inverts” and “activities” marks you as someone with different values and perspectives than I hold, and values almost surely antithetical to those of us who do inclusion work. There is nothing inverted or immoral about our sexuality or our sexual practices; these are as open to holy use and abusive misuse as the sexuality and sexual practices of heterosexuals. I’m not denying that all sorts of people think gayness is sinful, members of Courage among them, but this manifesto is aimed at those of us who do not accept this claim.
If you are entering this conversation with good intention and goodwill, by all means let’s talk. I will start by pointing out that the term “sexual invert” is as offensive to me as the term “homophobic bigot” might be to someone who honestly thinks gayness is sinful. Can we find common terms that do not insult anyone? And the term “activities” disconnects lesbian/gay/bisexual sex from lesbian/gay/bisexual humanity. I’m not just non-heterosexual in bed, though my sexuality is only one part of the complexity that makes me up.
As for your overall question, how to include that particular group of people in inclusion work, I imagine the first conversation is about whether our goals are similar enough. For the inclusionists that I am speaking to and with, the moral goodness of our sexuality is not negotiable. Do the folks in Courage really want to work with us? Are our goals that similar? I’m not sure. I welcome the conversation, but think it would probably need to start at a fairly preliminary point. I hope that makes sense. Peace, Amanda
Beautiful Amanda! Here is my contribution, a letter to the Oakland Tribune:
Dear Editor:
Your poll showing 67% of your readers support abolishing the DADT policy for the military prompts me to write about Roman Catholics and same gender oriented people. I believe that more Roman Catholics support same gender oriented people in their quest for equality. I want to challenge Roman Catholics to deal with this belief.
It’s the recent spate of horror stories of gay suicides and the torture of gays that has catapulted me into this public plea to Roman Catholics of Oakland. I’m calling this plea, “The Least Harm”. Those who hold that homosexuality is a disorder and those like me who don’t have to do something drastic to prevent gay suicides.
I have been same-gender oriented all of my life and I believe that LGBT people can follow their God-given nature and be moral. They have the right to abide by the rules governing sexual morality, mutual respect and deeply committed love in a context of spiritual values including nurturing the lives of children.
Let me pull out the “elder” card here. I happen to be 72, married for 40 years with 3 children/3 grand children. I also was ordained in Rome (’63) with a theology post-grad degree, practiced celibacy faithfully for 14 years and then married–not because celibacy was too hard, but because the church needs priests schooled in real time sexuality.
The Oakland diocese has recently instituted a service, “Courage”, that offers help to LGBT people who want to resist their homosexual “attractions”. The previous 20+ year ministry to LGBT people and families has been removed presumably because it wasn’t clear enough on the RC teaching on homosexuality.
My plea is for us to work out a “Least Harm” agreement, one that respects each other’s integrity and convinces gay youth that suicide is simply not what the church intends. Unfortuately current church governance forbids discussion of dissent on beliefs. I think this is the same mentality that led to doing violence to dissenters in history and is a factor in innocent young people committing suicide.
Please join my Yahoo group, and help do something to protect innocent lives. It is not a talk-only site, or a place to debate the right or wrong of teachings, but a place to design actions to prevent the violence connected to the RC teaching. I’ve tried to do this on the “q.t.” working within church protocol but that has gone nowhere because people have been unwilling to cause trouble. To me one suicide is too many to overlook in our lives if we are committed to justice and love.
Marvelous, Tom! Thanks so very much! Peace and grace to you, Amanda
Sorry folks: my name is Tom Luce, Berkeley Ca. Thanks!
Without comment on anything that anyone else has said, Bishop John Shelby Spong would consider himself not in the line of traditional Christian orthodoxy which should cause some to pause for thought. I know that LGBTer’s could reply, “I don’t care. Look where traditional Christian orthodoxy has done for us!” and I have sympathy for this argument. But Bishop JSS gives no credence to the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the death and resurrection of Jesus is understood to be needed to usher in the age of the Holy Spirit . . . without whose power no one is going to ultimately change as LGBTer’s would like them to.
Having an ally like Bishop Spong costs credibility to the LGBT cause from the very people whose minds you might wish to change.
Larry, I appreciate your comment. I think it points to the complexity of this entire topic. My dissertation research (on the sexuality struggle in the United Methodist Church) suggests that you may be right in terms of how to engage the potentially engagable moderates. I wasn’t really thinking about this aspect of things when I wrote my post, but another thing I learned from my research was that in many cases inclusionist LGBT folks (at least within the United Methodist Church) were more traditionally religious than their heterosexual allies, and were much more like the moderates than the allies were (indeed, many of the LGBT Methodists I met were basically moderates in theology, piety and temperament). If anyone else writes in on this, we could have an interesting conversation, albeit one quite at a tangent from the point of the original post. Thanks and peace, Amanda