When I shared one of my articles titled We Failed Her—1based on a letter that Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Young India in support of women’s right to lead, especially in the context of Smt. Sarojini Naidu being elected as Congress President to lead the Kanpur Conference in 1925—a comment came from a ‘Hindu convert’ saying, “You are unbiblical.”
While I was not surprised to receive such a response, I was a bit shocked by the lens through which he read it—interpreting everything solely from the narrow confines of his theological framework. In response, I wrote to him that, frankly, there is nothing “biblical” in the Bible—everything is an interpretation. Even the word “biblical” is itself unbiblical. It has become a mere evangelical slogan, like others—“The Bible is the only Word of God,” “There is no salvation outside the Church,” etc.
I went on to clarify that my article was based on a public letter written by Mahatma Gandhi—not addressed to Christians, and neither was my article. If Christians wish to treat their women as second-class citizens at home or in the church—arguing that women should remain subordinate to men because men are the “head,” because Adam was created first, or because Eve came from his rib—that is their choice. I have nothing to say on how they interpret their own texts. But if that is the case, even this kind of critical comment is, ironically, unbiblical.
The truth is that many followers of the Abrahamic faiths tend to wear their religion on their sleeve, constantly filtering life through theological lenses. In doing so, they often overlook the fact that even their own scriptures resist simplistic or dogmatic interpretations. One striking example is the use of exclusionary terms—such as kafir in Islam or unbelievers in Christianity—to refer to those outside the fold. These labels are problematic from the start, as they define others merely by what they are not: a Hindu, for instance, is not seen as a Hindu in his own right, but simply as a non-Christian. In contrast, Hindus typically do not refer to others as non-Hindus—though this term may occasionally appear in writings today, usually for practical reasons or to reflect back what others are doing.
Moreover, if they insist on using their concept of “biblical” as a yardstick to judge everyone, then most Christians themselves would fall short. If endorsing Gandhi’s view on women’s rights is unbiblical, then what would they say about the many Anglican and other churches that already ordain women not only as priests but even as bishops? They often dismiss one another as unbiblical or heretical based on doctrinal disagreements. If the role of women as outlined in the Bible were to be implemented strictly, then almost all Christian homes would be found unbiblical—except perhaps monasteries, where men and women live in segregation. Whatever may be preached inside the church, at home the reality is often different: while the husband may be considered the head, the wife—as the neck—not only turns the head as she wishes but also gives it a constant pain in the process! Though I say this as a joke, it reflects the norm in most households.
Even the Catholic Church, which has never ordained women as priests (let alone as bishops, cardinals, or popes), has seen the late Pope Francis publicly express support for gay rights—and, if I recall correctly, even for solemnizing same-sex marriages in church. [See Appendix] Several Protestant denominations already have openly gay bishops. In one American church, a gay bishop was consecrated in the presence of both his proud daughter and his male partner.[See Appendix] I could multiply examples of such “biblically unbiblical” phenomena within Christianity—but that is not my intent.
The point is this: fortunately, Hindus, in general, do not wear their religion on their sleeves. They rarely judge others based on their own scriptures, barring a few historical sectarian conflicts and some recent politicized agendas.
I share this not to condemn anyone, but to show how naïve it is to try and understand the complex realities of life through a singular, exclusive lens. Unless such people embrace Indian pluralism as a lived value, this kind of theological exclusivism will continue to dominate their approach to life—especially in their interactions with others.
Ashram June 26, 2025
1https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CHu9w29rS/?mibextid=oFDknk
Appendix: Pope Francis and Same-Sex Unions – A Brief Summary. This information was accessed by ChatGPT on June 26, 2025.
While responding to criticism of my views on gender equality and leadership—especially from those invoking “biblical” norms—I referenced the evolving position within some Christian traditions on matters like women’s roles and LGBTQ+ rights. It is worth noting what even the Pope has said on these issues.
Pope Francis, though maintaining the Church’s traditional definition of sacramental marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has made historic moves toward greater inclusivity:
- Support for Civil Unions
In the 2020 documentary Francesco, Pope Francis said:
“What we have to create is a civil union law … that way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”
— Francesco (2020), as reported by Time Magazine
- Permission to Bless Same-Sex Couples
In December 2023, the Vatican released a document titled Fiducia Supplicans, approved by Pope Francis, allowing priests to give non-liturgical blessings to same-sex couples, provided these blessings do not resemble a marriage rite.
— Associated Press, “Pope Francis sought to make LGBTQ+ people more welcome…” - Limits Maintained
Pope Francis did not permit same-sex couples to receive the sacrament of marriage within the Church. The doctrinal position defining marriage as heterosexual remains unchanged.
In sum, while affirming the dignity and legal rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, Pope Francis has cautiously expanded pastoral inclusion—without altering core dogma on marriage. This nuanced position reflects a broader trend within some branches of Christianity, moving toward compassion and legal recognition, even while theological debates continue.
Appendix Gay Bishops
The following information was accessed by ChatGPT on June 27, 2025. Although it could not trace the news about the presence of a bishop’s male partner on that occasion, I still distinctly remember seeing a picture related to it in a news report long ago. However, I am now unable to clearly trace that source.
I couldn’t find any credible reports or photos showing an openly gay bishop in the U.S. being ordained on the same stage as both his daughter and his partner. However, here are three well-documented, notable cases that may be related:
- Bishop Gene Robinson – In 2003 he became the first openly gay Episcopal bishop (New Hampshire). His daughters did participate in the event behind-the-scenes—for example, doing PR work—but there’s no reliable evidence showing his partner and daughter also standing next to him during the actual consecration ceremony (latimes.com).
- Priest Philip Lance – Ordained in 1988 by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, Lance was openly gay. During his ordination ceremony, his life partner Joel Ginsberg Harrison (who had since passed away) served as one of the formal presenters. This included the act of laying hands on him during the rite. This aligns with your description except that there’s no mention of a daughter being present on stage (en.wikipedia.org).
- Openly lesbian and gay ordinations – In 1977, Ellen Barrett became one of the first openly lesbian priests ordained (NYC), and in 1991, the Rev. Elizabeth L. Carl was ordained as an openly lesbian priest by Bishop Ronald Haines in Washington, D.C. Again, no documentation shows family members on stage (en.wikipedia.org).
Leave a Reply