Killing the Buddha

I’ve seen several critiques that raise this issue of “fundraising.”
I however, am willing to believe this is a matter of principle for Wallis, and others in Sojourners leadership. I do not agree with them, but they have been consistant in their views on this matter for decades.

Wallis and others seem to be located, culturally, in that spot many evangelicals find themselves in. They do not approve of homosexuality — but they do not want to curtail civil rights, nor are they interested in letting it become a central issue for them as it is for the religious right. Will there be gay weddings in their churches? No. Do they care if they take place elsewhere? No.

So sure, let’s disagree, maybe even part ways. But I do not see a reason to malign their motives — to see this as simply a pose they’ve adopted to keep the money pouring in.

I am a gay man.
I sometimes wonder why LGBT people want to be involved in organizations that don’t want to treat us equally. If Jim Wallis doesn’t want me, I don’t need him.

Actually Terry, if you read Wallis’ response, he cites their LGBT advocacy efforts. Hence, one has to wonder why they wouldn’t run this ad.

The “money” angle seems highly unlikely to me. Odds are Sojo gets WAY more funding from liberal mainliners than they ever have from conservative evangelicals. In that regard, this decision has probably hurt their bottom line overall.

Mike – Actually, some of the folks Sojourners hang with comes from the Family friendly National Prayer Breakfast a group that is incredibly conservative. Their current board strongly skews progressive evangelicals – most mainline folks have left the building.

1.) What is Mclaren talking about?
No one (…that I know of) is asking Sojourners to “lead on lbgtq issues”. Aren’t they only asking that Sojourners allow a paid ad to be placed on their website?

2.) And I would disagree that the video “advocated full equality of LGBTQ people in the church.”
I think it simply advocates that ‘everyone is welcome’. And this is so controversial.

Wake up people! Sojourners does not believe that ‘everyone is welcome’.

David – thanks for the correction – you’re right. I was getting a bit ahead of myself. The first step for equality is to welcome people in just as they are.

I was reminded that the UCC church has been ordaining gays and lesbians since the 1970s. Thanks for the ongoing dialogue here. BTW-in my comments on Andrew and John’s blog, I have noted that the progressive evangelical community tends to be skittish on this issue — even in instances where the leader says he’s pro LGBT rights, look at his church, organization, etc. and you’ll see that the leadership and funding streams are dominated by white men that self-identify as straight. Hence, I am saying that the only way to change this dynamic is to refuse to play in circles that are not radically welcoming. Can we really have a new kind of Christianity where Love Wins (Rob Bell’s radio silence here is very telling) without including LGBT people? Some denominations – UCC, Episcopal and now PCUSA say yes.

It’s worth noting that they included the ad on the same day in a blog post by Tim King with some context and explanation:
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/05/09/love-comes-first

From their website:

“We can make sure that long-term gay and lesbian partnerships are afforded legitimate legal protections in a pluralistic society without changing our long-standing and deeply rooted concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That should continue to be the theology of the church and the way our society best orders itself.”

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.issues_faq#gays_lesbians

This sounds pretty clear to me — they’ve never fully comfortable with LGBT persons.

Good article Becky. One thing: In your comment you said, “even in instances where the leader says he’s pro LGBT rights…you’ll see that the leadership and funding streams are dominated by white men that self-identify as straight.”

I really don’t see a problem with that. If funding comes from rich white straight dudes and that funding is supporting a church that welcomes everyone, LGBTQ included, what’s the problem? As long as their influence doesn’t rob people of inclusion, I don’t care where the money come from. However, as you imply with SoJo, IF that influence does support EXclusion, that’s a problem. Just wanted to clarify that influence by The Man is not, in and of itself, bad. It’s where that influence leads and the priority it’s given that could corrupt. (Just like money itself is not a root of all evil…bu the love of it is.)

This cartoon sums up my point brilliantly – http://www.nakedpastor.com/2011/05/09/belief-or-deed/

Also, read “The Family” and “C Street” for a brilliant breakdown of how the evangelical funding streams favor dudes – much of this is on the religious right side but you have Beltway progressives that are Family friendly esp. via their participation in the National Prayer Breakfast.

REAL inclusion happens when those you are trying to reach are included in the leadership of the institution. I would argue that the tea party is more gender inclusive than religious progressives in terms of their national representatives. Yes, a few women are permitted to give an illusion of inclusivity but the men still control the chess board. Case in point – Jay Bakker preaches about LGBT rights but yet almost everyone he invites to speak is a white dude who self-identifies as straight. Also, Rob Bell may say Love Wins but his inner circle remains all straight white men and a few chicks (e.g., Cathleen Falsani) who serve as his cheerleaders. He has yet to come out if he is for full inclusion of LGBT people.

“[A]n ad from Believe Out Loud that advocated full equality of LGBTQ people in the church” — actually, the ad stopped far short of that, it simply suggested not chasing gay families with torches and pitchforks. The ad really *isn’t* that progressive, which makes Sojourners’ refusal all the more baffling and disappointing.

Thanks so much, Becky. I appreciate your work in this regard.

I agree, Andy. I didn’t really think much of the video myself. It seemed too unreal, from my experiences. I appreciate the message, though, that all are welcome.

Thank you, Becky, and well said.

Seems to me that a lot of the world’s poverty is rooted in the very same prejudice that seeks to prevent our LGBT brothers and sisters from taking a full role in the church … this whole deal looks like a classic case of someone — in this case, Sojo — being right in what they affirm but wrong in what they deny. It’s not a case of either/or – it’s both/and. You can’t truly support justice in one area if you turn your back on it in another; and Sojo is a big enough organisation to be able to take this on board.

What was that conversation between the outcast and Jesus? “If you are willing…” — and now it’s the LGBT community turning to Sojo with the same affirmation: “If you are willing…”

So, Sojo: are you willing? Because we know that if you will, you can…

Let’s be real about who Sojourners really is. Their theological paradigm does not include gay sisters and brothers. This is not new, nor is it surprising they would take this stand. They haven’t worn this on their sleeve in order not to alienate the progressive community. When Jim and his wife appeared in Portland, Oregon a few years back, his wife used the expression “homosexual agenda” in a critical way towards gays referencing the Eugene Robinson consecration as bishop. “Homosexual agenda”??? That speaks volumes.

Thanks for standing up on this issue. I have a feeling that, besides the coalition-building, Wallis is a Christian whose reading of Romans won’t allow him to affirm gay Christians. Tony Campolo and Donald Miller are the same way. I don’t know what Rob Bell’s view is. They have a right to their interpretations. But they should also remember that Paul says “slaves obey your masters.” I’m pretty sure none of them would defend slavery.

Let’s let gay people know there are Christians who accept them for who they are no strings attached.

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he remarked to an aid “I’ve given the South to the Republicans for a generation.” For 100 years the South had been the reliable base of Democratic support. This was the rare case of a politician doing the morally right thing rather than the electorally advantageous one. Speaking up for marginalized people is always costly.

Bert-No one knows what Rob Bell’s view is on anything – he reminds me of a hipster version of Joel Osteen speaking in platitudes and paradoxes.

Two things have come crystal clear as a result of this debate.

1) When push comes to shove Sojourners (and those who side with their position as well as all progressive leaders who stay silent here) are going to side with more conservative Xn factions instead of liberal mainliners. They aren’t going to do what I call the Women at the Well work (John 4:13-30). Those who think they can enact change from within are also those whose author/speaker platforms are contingent on identification with the Sojo brand. This article BTW is an excellent reminder for me of the dangers of getting too close to power …
http://www.thenation.com/blog/36660/david-brooks-king-kvetching

2) The media needs to turn to other voices when looking for a progressive religious soundbite. Hopefully this snafu will open up their eyes a bit to the rainbow of religious progressives who are qualified to offer their insights here.

Becky –

It is not what Sojo and Jim have done in the past – or even what they will do in the future – because we live in the now.

It seems disingenuous to claim “we support gay rights in the past” and at the same time refuse to stand for gay rights in the now – when I read Jim’s response, my heart sank because i felt there was a perfect opportunity for Sojo to take a stance. In my blog I listed my response to how it made me feel.

I have come to the conclusion, as I process all the information, that Sojo and Jim do not speak for a large portion of the Progressive Christian conversation – and, while you may not agree, it seems as though they are simply Evangelical Christians who want to help with some social issues, but they are unwilling to swim in the deep end of the pool.

John – we’re in agreement here. As I noted additional voices need to be presented to the media to offer a fuller view of religious progressivism. After all, no one thinks Ann Coulter speaks for all conservative Christians.

@ Becky “As I noted additional voices need to be presented to the media to offer a fuller view of religious progressivism.”
*******************************

Why shouldn’t a woman be a voice of religious progressivism? And why not a woman who is also a mystic and prolific writer on matters of the spirit? Someone like Rev. Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest, who is equally conversant with matters of contemplative spiritual practice and social justice, author of many books, including “The Wisdom Jesus” and her most recent, “The Meaning of Mary Magdalene,” someone who is also a primary participant in the interfaith dialogue. Evangelical Christians do not represent progressive Christianity in my view. Progressive Christianity has deep roots in the mystic tradition, and increasingly in the rise of the feminine.

Bill R.-I agree completely. One can find plenty people of color, women and those in the LGBT community who possess the necessary credentials to serve as spokesmen on a national level. The challenge is convincing the media to expand their list of sources.

“chicks”? really, becky?
one step forward, two steps back.
you lost me.

Cathleen Falsani – I am using the term “chick” sarcastically because we all know how evangelical men view women as evidenced by the dominance of straight white men in this game. Any women who tries to pretend they have a real voice in even the most progressive evangelical circles is deluding themselves.

Even though I endorsed “Sin Boldly” and recommended you to the God’s Politics blog, you later lost me when you tried to “save” Eddie Izzard (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathleen-falsani/eddie-izzard-and-the-natu_b_530194.html) and then glowed over Bell’s book (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathleen-falsani/rob-bell-heretic-schmeret_b_835606.html).

A round up of LGBT news http://uscmediareligion.org/theScoop/409/LGBT-Rights-Round-up
and another insightful critique of the Sojo snafu in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/20/lgbt-rights-row-editor-jim-wallis

I am not a supporter of Wallis or his group, but I find it telling that many of the voices in this discussion attack him and his motives for not following in 100% lock-step with the politically-correct agenda. At least Wallis seems to adhere to a modicum of Biblical morality on sexual issues.

Let’s face it, Sojourners is largely a cult of personality. It does some good things on poverty and other issues, but it is, first and foremost, a Jim Wallis PR machine. When the media or anyone else looks on Jim Wallis as the face of the “religious left,” whatever that means, it’s ludicrous.

What would we have thought of a “progressive” religious organization in the 1960s that refused to accept an ad saying churches should welcome African Americans? Oh, it’s okay because this “Christian” organization doesn’t “take sides on issues” … ?

What would we have thought of a “progressive” religious organization in the 1960s that said we’ll allow African Americans to have civil unions, but marriage is intended to be only between a white man and a white woman? And god forbid, they sure can’t marry someone of another ethnicity, especially a white person.

And no, I’m not equating blacks and gays. I’m drawing the analogy of people in the majority denying equal rights to anyone in the minority.

Here’s an FAQ Sojourners put on their website to explain their positioning here … http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.advert_faq