Jim Wallis and Sojourners' disappointing stand on LGBT inclusion

Episcopal Cafe has been one of a number of progressive religious groups to express their deep disappointment by the recent decision of Sojourners to reject a Mother's Day ad by Believe Out Loud, a Christian group working for full inclusion of GLBT persons. Sojourners responded not once, but twice yesterday to defend their position.  The response to Wallis's rationale for the decision has largely been negative, at least from my most recent perusal of the comments on his blog post. 

My own view is that Wallis' position is indefensible, and reflects a lingering theological abstraction in some evangelical thinking. Note the language referring to GLBT people as 'wedge issues' or as 'controversy' and the eloquent responses by GLBT persons to Wallis,  rejecting this way of seeing them as issues. And who can anymore honestly think that full welcome requires one to chose this over and against orthodox and biblical faith? Has he not read James Alison and Eugene Rogers or spent time listening to the many many other gay Christian writers, thinkers, and worshippers who are often more theologically literate and biblically rooted than the denominations in which they  serve?

The ad itself was not at all controversial in my view, and so it is rather shocking that Wallis, who has made a life's work fighting for justice, cannot see this as simply another aspect of his justice work. It is tempting to try to 'keep the dialogue safe and open' as he says, but part of fighting for justice will also mean taking stands that one knows will cause such dialogue to break down over irreconcilable positions. Perhaps this inability to make a strong stand on full inclusion reflects some of the theological problems with Wallis' recent Covenant for Civility. While in principle civility is an important virtue, and one can certainly see evidence of its erosion in American public life, anyone who recalls the fractious battles over Civil Rights in the 60's knows how readily such a call for civility was all too often mobilized by those seeking to cling to power in order to squelch any real dissent. Prophetic dissent, as Wallis' mentor William Stringfellow often noted, will necessarily be seen as uncivil and  be parsed as impatience and arrogant pride by defenders of the status quo. One can see this view in the debate between Wallis and his opponents in the comments to his recent blog defense. 

More troubling to me in Wallis' defense of his rejection of the ad was his third point, in which he says: 'We have also suggested that the major differences of theology and biblical interpretation in the church with regard to issues such as the nature of homosexuality, gay marriage, and ordination are not issues that should be allowed to divide the churches – that local churches should lead the way here, and that an honest, open, respectful and, hopefully loving dialogue should characterize the church on these very controversial questions.'

Again there is the theological abstraction: it is 'issues' rather than loving, committed Christian persons that he sees here. Further there is his troubling use of  the passive voice: such issues 'should not be allowed to divide the churches.' My own denomination is one that is now so divided. But the question is: who is dividing it? Surely not LGBT persons and their allies! Again and again we have insisted that there is room for all at the table even as we move forward boldly for full inclusion, only to be met regularly by rather uncivil and often rather violent rhetoric against GLBT persons and their allies. The church is insisting that the denial of full inclusion of GLBT Christians in all aspects of church life is no longer a legitimate position. But in most cases it is those holding this position who have excluded themselves, as in the recent boycott of the Primates meeting by conservative Anglican leaders. For sure, it is a challenge to come to the table when one's position is no longer recognized as authoritative, and is even held as illegitimate. But it can be done. Again, in my denomination, Dan Martins, who rejects gay marriage and same sex blessings, has stayed in the church and was recently elected bishop of Springfield, which required the consent of the church who, as a whole, no longer accepts his view as legitimate. He received those consents and is now the bishop of Springfield. This isn't to say that it will be easy for Bishop Martins to be at the House of Bishops meetings, nor will it be easy for those who see his view as de-humanizing of GLBT Christians. But the prophetic witness is never easy, never without pain, and division, as Paul has reminded us, is sometimes necessary in order for the truth to be made manifest in the fires of dissent and passionate love. 

 Perhaps around the editorial tables at Sojourners such scenarios are not yet conceivable. But more often and perhaps in this case the peace has been kept only by putting dissent 'on the back burner', which is exactly what Wallis defends when he says that Sojourners simply doesn't have time to focus on GLBT justice. 

Fair enough, no one has time for everything, but it seems dishonest to say, as he does, that a simple stand on the side of justice for GLBT persons would necessitate taking him away from his own mission fighting poverty and economic injustice. That's another false choice and one suspects he knows it.  

Comments

[Mary Jean Dolan]

I love this blog, and have really appreciated Clark West's recent posts -including the wonderful theological reflections on gender throughout church history.
I'm writing now, however, as a huge fan of Jim Wallis. I understand the position in the blog, and have very deep concerns and empathy for the suffering of gays in the Christian church (one of my best Catholic friends moved, reluctantly based on his own beliefs, from the Catholic priesthood to become Episcopal), and also actively seek change on that front.
But Jim Wallis's project, and his unique value, lies in his outreach to the Evangelical/conservative Christian groups - in no way would it serve gay Christians for him to declare himself, and Sojourners, on their side. Instead, that public crossing over would serve only to lose the middle ground - to lose those conservative who might be willing to take on the Republicans on issues of economic social justice, so long as the "messenger" was one who still appeared to ascribe to core "Christian" social values.
I don't think this is an arena where each individual must conform to the same political/rights agenda - Jim Wallis, to me, is a true hero, a unique centrist resource who tries to bridge the harsh gap and move forward on some, if not all, human rights issues.
"Religious left" is such an important, small gathering spot. I think it's important to be open to allies whom some may consider imperfect, and to bear in mind that such differences sometimes are based on inviolable conscience, and other times are defensible moral strategies, employed in order to stay useful and relevant to the groups who still hold power over the government's ability to take care of the least of our bretheren.

[Steve Shiffrin]

Mary Jean, I did not know but am glad that you are a appreciative reader of our blog. I hope that Wallis's position is in fact based on conscience (flawed though the judgment seems to me)and I agree that he would lose power if he took a different position and that the loss of power would generally be bad for the left (though it is far less clear to me that it would be bad for gay Christians though it might be). I have more trouble accepting that it would be an acceptable moral strategy for him to take a position he believed to be mortally wrong in order to maintain power to do good things. I think that political leaders may rightly make such compromises, but I think that it would be the rare case for a religious leader to do so. I would like to hear more about your thoughts on this.
Steve

[Mary Jean Dolan]

Hi Steve,
How nice to get a response from you! And yes, I do love this blog -- in fact, reading your post on finally drawing the line and leaving the Catholic church was the last push for me to attend the United Church of Christ (no one in my family agreeing to come along, I'm going to reflect more this summer - maybe we can discuss in June, I think I'll see you in at AALR).
I agree with you that it would lack integrity if Jim Wallis took a public position he felt was morally wrong, solely in order to maintain influence. That's not really what I meant to suggest. All my years in the Catholic world have steeped me in that culture (similar to the evangelical in some ways) enough to understand the social/institutional power felt by committed members, and also the highest, best case to be made on divisive issues of gender, especially abortion and same-sex relations/marriage.
I have complete, whole-hearted admiration and respect for Jim Wallis, after following him for some years, including the weekly Sojourners column. I also fully support gay Christians (and people more generally, of course), and their rights to participate fully in their faiths and religious/secular institutions, and would go to the mat against harsh religious leaders who use the gay issue to promote themselves, stir up hatred.
But I disagree with condemning people who are living their best vision of faith, and appear somewhat reluctant, yet sincere in their position of "love the sinner, hate the sin" - especially when they are leading so well on many critical issues.
And I think it's short-sighted to insist on agreement on every single issue. You might be interested to hear that during Obama's presidential race, I put together a "brief" of sorts, which I sent to many Catholic friends and family who might be ready to vote for him-- except for the abortion issue and the conservative blasts they were receiving. The main features were a bit on the Illinois "born alive" bill controversy, from Doug Kimiec's book, Why a Catholic can vote for Obama, and an excellent Jim Wallis blog on what Christians should base their vote on - overall, it added up to Obama, without naming a side, but it did still discuss (from memory, something like) the "culture of life" and "traditional marriage and family." I succeeded in turning a number of votes, with these tools.
Abortion is different from gay rights, of course, in that while it is so closely tied to women's rights, it is not disparaging to women to reject the pro-choice position. Nonetheless, it seems to me that those of us who want to promote (economic) social justice need the help of those religious persons, including leaders, who still hew to some of the more traditional views on social issues. And even if we didn't need the help as a matter of power/strategy, to the extent that such views are expressed with respect and humility, there should be room on the relgious left (or maybe an affiliated center) for diverging views on deep-seated gender-related issues - otherwise, we're adding to the polarization, not to the solution.
(That's the best response I can manage quickly, and in this little box!)
Best,
Mary Jean

[Steven Shiffrin]

Mary Jean, awfully good response in that little box. Would be happy to share notes in Chicago. I look forward to seeing you.

[Taryn]

I thought this was an interesting addition to the conversation from Brian McLaren, former chair of the Sojourners board.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/my-thoughts-on-sojourners/