Sojourners, the bastion of evangelical progressivism, has found itself in a maelstrom of criticism.
Sojourners rejected an advertisement by Believe Out Loud, an interdenominational outfit dedicated to helping churches and clergy become GLBT affirming, and then set about defending his rationale. The decision and (allegedly) tepid justification have angered many in the religious left, some of whom have suggested that Wallis’ refusal to run the ad means that he can no longer be considered the leader of their movement.
At stake is whether Sojourners can claim the mantle of “progressive” if they remain on the sidelines on what has apparently become the cultural barometer for the progressive/conservative distinction. And it’s not just conservatives that are treating it that way: the reaction to Sojourners’ decision suggests progressives think it is as well. As Andrew Marin puts it:
Jim and Sojourners are currently getting thrown under the bus every-which-way by the LGBT community. Rightfully so, in my opinion. If a person or an organization is going to align themselves with a very specific social and theological ideology and take the donations of that very specific ideology’s people and organizations, how can they then pick and choose what constitutes as proper progressively? They can’t.
Of course, it’s not like Wallis has hidden his position on homosexuality. So it’s hard to see why he’s to blame for taking money that was given by people who apparently presumed more than they should have.
But there’s a dilemma here for the religiously progressive community: It’s not enough (anymore) to be liberal on economic or racial issues and conservative on the sexual ones, as sexual politics have taken precedence over any others in the religious left. Don’t think for a second it’s just conservatives who have made gay marriage an issue to draw lines over: the reaction to Wallis’ decision suggests that the time is coming when folks like him and Ron Sider, who want to stop their progressivism at the line of gay relations and marriage, will find themselves in just as odd a position as those who are conservative economically but liberal on sexual politics. And maybe an even worse one, as the number of folks in that camp seems to be growing rapidly.
There’s a deep question, of course, whether such a principled line around sexual politics can be drawn once the progressive stance is adopted on race and gender. Oddly, I find myself in agreement with emerging church advocate Tony Jones: count me among the wary. But this is something odd, for it implies that there is more at stake in these arrangements than what happens in the bedroom–it’s about the stitching in our social fabric, rather than the isolation and privacy of the bedroom.
But I do wish we could all agree on this much: Sojourner’s wariness of conducting this “dialogue” in and through the mode of advertising is right. It strikes me that the forum for a discussion like this is the written, reasoned word. Logos, not pathos. The reduction of this discussion to advertisements is one of its most unsavory aspects; the questions simply do not fit the medium, and the medium inevitably undermines arguments by distorting positions and engendering distrust. This decision may significantly hurt Sojourner’s credibility within the evangelical left, but it’s a decision which those who are committed to hashing these issues out civilly and responsibly in public should applaud, for it is a decision of which I suspect Socrates would be proud.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:45 am
Wow. So many sex posts on FT.
Jim Wallis is the victim of the same kind of mentality one sees on the Right when being conservative isn’t enough. You not only have to identify with the cause, but you have to identify it in exactly the same way as the chirpers.
Sojourners has the right to focus its beam on peace and the economy. They don’t have to take money from people who want to shift the editorial focus of the publication.
Maybe Believe Out Loud would get more traction from Joe Carter here.
May 11th, 2011 | 11:19 am
Wallis’ “problem,” from the perspective of his progressive followers, is that they are convinced that modern, progressive conclusions about the nature of human sexuality are more enlightened than traditional, biblical teachings. They have therefore jettisoned the authority of Scripture on this subject, or at least the authority of all pre-modern interpretations on marriage and sexuality.
The logical and wholly predictable path of pluralism is that every flavor of sexual desire between consenting adults must be equally esteemed beside every other. That leads necessarily to a demand for support for gay marriage, ordination of non-celibate gays, etc. Those progressive ideas simply can’t be supported with any fair reading of the Bible.
In short, Wallis’ progressive allies want to hear nothing out of his mouth but a resounding “Yes!” So long as he remains anchored to the authority of God in all things, the best he’ll be able to do is “Yes, but…”, and that simply won’t fly.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
This is a problem mostly because the “christians” opposing Jim are married to a secular progressivism.
There’s a strong case that we desperately need sojourners style christian progressivism, to counterbalance the trend towards dominance of contemporary christianity by secular conservative ideas. It would be based on scripture, though, reminding people of the man who pulled his barns down to make bigger ones for example.
The problem though is that in upholding SSM, you are throwing scripture out the window. There’s no apologetic for it that holds any water and can still affirm the authority of scripture.
I think Wallis at a gut level realizes this, and doesn’t want to take the last step. Once a progressive christian makes that break, and supports something that is umanbiguously prohibited, his faith is next to go.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
What the “progressive” Christians who have thrown Jim Wallis under the bus will discover in time is that they themselves will one day be thrown under the bus and for the same reason — being too Christian and not “progressive” enough for “progressive” tastes. It used to be that one could uphold Christian sexual morality and still be considered “progressive,” but not any more, as Wallis is now finding out. For the time being, one can still identify as Christian and still be considered “progressive,” so long as one rejects Christianity’s sexual morality. But before too long, one will have to reject Christianity tout court to be considered “progressive,” and all of those now tossing Jim Wallis under the bus will either be tossed there themselves or else be forced to renounce their Christianity. My guess is that most of them, when the time comes, will go under the bus for Christianity’s sake, but that their children and the next generation of potential “progressive” Christians will not do so. They will either renounce Christianity or else renounce “progressivism.” The middle position maintained by Wallis and his peers won’t be available to them anymore, which may be a good thing and may be a bad thing — I’m not quite sure.
May 11th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
I disagree with Wallis on many issues, but I applaud him for this.
May 11th, 2011 | 1:17 pm
I wonder what the exact content of the ad was. On the face of it, an ad encouraging churches to simply welcome gays and lesbians in the pews sounds like something a Christian publication should welcome, and one that as Wallis points out, reflects Sojourners philosophy. If Wallis feels it would be read as an endorsement of homosexuality, period, I understand his refusal. But it sounds like he just didn’t want to open a new can of worms, and that’s disappointing.
May 11th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
This is the kind of minefield that pastors have to dance through once they start making political activism a big part of their ministries. (Remember the minor furor a while back when Pat Robertson appeared “open” to decriminalizing marijuana?)
Maybe Wallis is taking some lessons from Sider. Good ol’ Ron has been ticking people off on the left for a long time (while still being decidedly of the left), and we on the right often forget that!
May 11th, 2011 | 6:13 pm
they themselves will one day be thrown under the bus and for the same reason — being too Christian and not “progressive” enough for “progressive” tastes.
Once you mate your faith with humanism, the humanism will demand more and more and more.
May 11th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
Once you mate your faith with humanism, the humanism will demand more and more and more.
Couched as a general principle that applies not just towards humanism, this means that no man can serve two masters, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.
May 11th, 2011 | 8:17 pm
There’s a difference between tolerance and celebration. There’s a difference between ads and essays. Too frequently advocates insist on celebration when tolerance is a reasonable step. Its possible that a focus on championing tolerance (instead of requiring celebration) could make powerful allies out of conservative Christians for the fight against violence against gays and lesbians. I sometimes think advocates (of all stripes) want resistance more than they want success.
May 11th, 2011 | 10:51 pm
Aaron, I hear you. But when people think they’re equal, it must be hard to settle for second class and tolerated.
May 12th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Aaron, I hear you. But when people think they’re equal, it must be hard to settle for second class and tolerated.
Especially the gay community, which insists on defining “equality” as being granted a blank check to define rights, institutions, laws, etc. – without debate and without question.
May 12th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
Especially the gay community, which insists on defining “equality” as being granted a blank check to define rights, institutions, laws, etc. – without debate and without question.
This is the sort of nonsense one tells oneself in lieu empathizing with people as fellow sinners.
May 12th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
As homosexual sex is a sin, their behavior is second class, when they indulge. A man or woman’s sexual impulses do not make them second class citizens, as we are all fellow sinners. If I am lucky enough not to be attracted to women, I am not so lucky that I am never attracted to a man that is not my husband. Homosexuals are the in same position. Just sinners that must do all in their power to avoid the sin, as I must do all in my power to avoid adultery.
I live in a place where 15 year old brazilian girls where tangas at the beach. Every good Christian man I know admits to a frisson of desire when they jiggle past. This does not make them pedophiles or second class citizens. Just fellow sinners.
And I agree that the gay community wants nothing less than a blank check.
May 12th, 2011 | 12:55 pm
As homosexual sex is a sin, their behavior is second class, when they indulge. A man or woman’s sexual impulses do not make them second class citizens, as we are all fellow sinners. If I am lucky enough not to be attracted to women, I am not so lucky that I am never attracted to a man that is not my husband. Homosexuals are the in same position. Just sinners that must do all in their power to avoid the sin, as I must do all in my power to avoid adultery.
I live in a place where 15 year old brazilian girls wear tangas at the beach. Every good Christian man I know admits to a frisson of desire when they jiggle past. This does not make them pedophiles or second class citizens. Just fellow sinners.
And I agree that the gay community wants nothing less than a blank check.
May 12th, 2011 | 1:27 pm
There are no second class citizens in God’s eyes, regardless of behavior. Jesus died for everyone’s sins. And of course the gay community wants complete equality. Believing that their sexuality is God-given as much as heterosexuality, why wouldn’t they? You can disagree with them without thinking that they’re trying to shove laws through without discussion and debate. Their tactics are nothing unusual.
Posts like Blake’s remind me of Alan Ginsberg’s mock paranoiac rant in “America.” To paraphrase,
America it’s them bad homosexuals.
Them homosexuals them homosexuals and them leftists. And them homosexuals.
The homosexuals want to eat us alive. The homosexuals are power mad. Etc.
May 12th, 2011 | 2:04 pm
Posts like Ken’s — and poems like Alan Ginsberg’s — inspire the following response, paraphrasing them:
“America it’s them bad fundamentalists.
Them fundamentalists them fundamentalists and them fascists. And them fundamentalists.
The fundamentalists want to eat us alive. The fundamentalists are power mad.”
Etc.
May 12th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
Some of the above is the sort of thing often said by Jim Wallis, in fact — Jim Wallis, who is now being hoisted by his own petard.
May 12th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
On the contrary, Blake. I share some of your goals and I respect others. It’s your lack of love for your enemies that makes me shake my head and wonder if you’ve ever read the New Testament.
May 12th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
I caution skepticism when one person suggests she or he can speak for someone else. This is especially true for people in conflict.
To pay much attention to what Blake, Joe, and some others think about gays is like asking radical Muslims to discourse on Christianity, or the KKK to talk about Catholics, or the Red Sox Nation to discuss the Yankees.
Sure, you have heartfelt opinions grounded in experience and culture. But do you get the truth?
So when I see comments like this, “… the gay community, which insists on … a blank check …,” it strikes me as being more about Blake’s opposition than what anyone in the gay community really wants.
With the sexual obsession at FT, it’s not really likely you’re going to get gay people coming here regularly to comment. Let alone write a piece staking out what they really do want. And lacking either option, I conclude that FT is probably blowing it out some part of their bodily anatomy when they write about same-sex issues.
FT has some thoughtful, provocative commentary on some issues. On gays, it’s more a cartoon. And not a very good cartoon at that.
May 12th, 2011 | 8:05 pm
“With the sexual obsession at FT…it’s more a cartoon.”
Interesting, since all of my gay-former Evangelical friends have a very cartoon version of their disenchantment with the church. And an obsession with sex. I try to avoid discussing it with them, but the can’t help but make derisive comments about their former soul mates.
May 13th, 2011 | 1:39 am
The chickens have done come home to roost.
Wallis has painted himself into a corner by playing fast and loose on this issue (and the abortion issue) for the past two decades. In fact this is deja vu all over again.
Somebody ought to go back and do some research around the reaction to a Sojourners article on homosexuality written in the 80s by the evangelical Quaker Richard Foster. Wallis was blasted at the time for publishing the article (read the subsequent letters to the editor to get an idea of hostility from “progressive evangelicals” and the “progressive Catholics”). They all felt “betrayed” by Wallis and sojourners. Ron Sider, to his great credit, was just about the only voice of sanity on the Evangelical left, and he wrote a letter (I’m told at Wallis’ request) in support of Foster’s defense of traditional sexual morality. But Wallis never had the courage of Ron Sider’s convictions on the issue and has been trying to split the split the difference between the pro-gay left and traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality ever since.
The explains, BTW, why Wallis and Sojourners, and not Ron Sider’s ESA became the standard bearer for “progressive Evangelicalism.” Put simply, in the eyes of the progressive left, Wallis seemed to be pro-gay, and Sider was, well, just too orthodox and hence too “homophobic,” despite his progressive views on the economy and his principled pacifism. So, guess who is more likely to get funding from the likes of George Soros. (Hint: not ESA.)
In any case, the following is a typical example of the current reaction to Wallis:
==============================
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4592/progressive_christian%3A_wallis_#comments
UPDATE #4 (5/10/11): In an open letter to Sojourners posted on her blog, Julie Kennedy, a pk (preacher’s kid, for the uninitiated) and queer, writes, in reaction to the editor’s note on King’s blog post that she is “truly confused by this. If not shocked and utterly frustrated.” She continues:
‘With your [Wallis'] dismissal of this ad I felt you dismissed the foundation of what I have believed SoJo to be. I’m trying to understand how an ad that says “welcome all” is bringing up “hot topic” issues. I have to wonder if the ad showed a homeless family coming into a church would you have published it? My gut feeling is that you would, but since it was a lesbian couple you backed a way.
I admit your decision made me feel as a queer woman let down by you. I have the expectation from you as a social justice magazine to defend the “under dog.” I admit I will always defend the under dog, but to be honest, this time I am (and other LGBTQ) are that. A simple ad that just challenged churches to be open, whether agree or not, to just be open and you shut it down. To be frank, I felt shut down. My struggle as a queer woman that wants to be a part of a gathering and what I work so hard for felt shut down from you. It broke my heart and it ticked me off.”‘
=============================
Can anyone really blame this self-described “queer” woman for feeling betrayed, given the stuff put out by Sojourners over the past two decades–that is “by the foundation by what I thought SoJo to be?”
May 13th, 2011 | 9:02 am
Wallis never had the courage of Ron Sider’s convictions on the issue and has been trying to split the split the difference between the pro-gay left and traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality ever since.
Why not just take him at his word that his heart is with the poor, and poverty is his issue, not abortion and homosexuality? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
May 13th, 2011 | 10:54 pm
FT has some thoughtful, provocative commentary on some issues. On gays, it’s more a cartoon. And not a very good cartoon at that.
I don’t see anyone blasting gays.
Only discussing (debating, critiquing, call it whatever you like) their demands.
If you take any issue, and assume that anyone who doesn’t see things your way is motivated by spite and hate, then sure, you’re going to see a world full of spite and hate. But that doesn’t mean the world you’re seeing is in any way related to what’s really out there.
May 24th, 2011 | 3:50 pm
[...] but it didn’t ease the tension for everyone. When I saw Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, First Things, Christianity Today, Peter, David Henson, Chad Holtz, & (my favorite post) Nadia Bolz-Weber [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact