I’m not so much of a blogger anymore but several people have asked for my response to the fact that Sojourners, described as a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture seeking to build a movement of spirituality and social change, has refused to sell ad space to Believe Out Loud an organization who is helping churches become fully inclusive of all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
I’ll start by telling a short personal story.
Two days after Osama Bin Laden was killed, my father asked if he could read a sermon I wrote a few months back, “Loving Your Enemies Even When You Don’t Really Mean It” to the guys at his men’s prayer breakfast. Here’s what you need to know about that: my Dad is a member of the Church of Christ (they do not ordain women…indeed women are not even allowed to be deacons or lead a prayer at worship) and the men to whom he was reading my sermon are (to the best of my understanding) wealthy, privileged, and both theologically and politically conservative. Later that day when we spoke he said “That sermon was so powerful Nadia, I can’t imagine the teachings of Jesus being put more poignantly. You could have heard a pin drop in that room.” I was thrilled. Until he said “Of course I didn’t tell them who wrote it”. And then my heart sank.
I texted him that “perhaps for those in the room who believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ simply cannot be preached by a woman it might be important to know who wrote the sermon they just heard”. He texted back “I’ll fight one battle at a time, thank you very much” Did this feel like shit? You bet. Did I feel betrayal? No question. But even in the midst of this I was grateful that 2 days after Osama Bin Laden was killed and amidst the inevitable celebration of our “victory”, that a group of wealthy conservative men heard the message about how Jesus calls us to love our enemies. And they may not have had ears to hear if they knew I wrote that sermon. This is the ambiguity of our fragile, messy human existence. I long for black and white, I really do…but that’s not how I experience the world.
My name is on the Sojourners God’s Politics Blog and I serve a church that is self-described and indeed is “queer inclusive”. Some of my progressive Christian friends and colleagues are calling for a boycott of Sojourners until they make a bold stand for the full inclusion of our GLBTQ brothers and sister in the church. I respect this. I too want to take the strong stand for those who are always asked to eat last and least at the table or who are prevented from coming to it in the first place. The change needed in and indeed being experienced by the church right now in terms of full inclusion calls for bold action by those who are willing to take a stand.
But as I thought about what to say or do in response to Sojourners I felt confronted by a terrible ambiguity. The ambiguity is this: Sojourners has, in my assessment, done more than any other organization to call Evangelical Christians to the reality that a central part of following Jesus is a concern for the poor, a truth largely absent from much of American Evangelicalism. They have a platform to speak about social justice to those who otherwise may not have ears to hear and this is critical. While mainline Protestantism is on a clear trajectory toward full inclusion (shout out to the PCUSA here) our free-church Evangelical brothers and sisters are by-in-large not there yet. By taking a stance on GLBTQ issues Sojourners may lose their ability to be a voice for the poor in the more conservative areas of the church.
Are the poor more important than GLBTQ folks? Is it ok to throw the rights of one group under the bus so that another group’s rights might be upheld? I wish there were really clear back and white answers here but the fact is that we live in a much more ambiguous world than that. As a Lutheran I confess to living in the tension of being simultaneously sinner and saint and living in a world filed with the paradox of such.
So here’s my response: I confess the ways in which I have favored the rights of one group over another. I confess the ways in which I long for black and white answers to questions that elude them. I confess the fact that by staying in relationship with Sojourners I may be hurting my GLBTQ brothers and sisters. I confess that I may very well be wrong about all of it.
But perhaps by being the sell-out who claims to try and change the system from the inside I might be the one who is changed into one through whom the gospel can be proclaimed to those with whom I disagree. And who knows, maybe one day I might actually preach at a Church of Christ and if that happens may I be granted humility and grace….because I don’t naturally have those in my heart. Trust me on that one.
| Permalink
On my personal blog, I traced my journey on the issue of homosexuality and explored the challenges of coalition-building. It’s from this place that I’ve been reading about the recent critique of Sojourners over their decision not to accept an ad that would have, in their opinion, “taken sides” on homosexuality.
Some progressive Christian friends of mine have been very critical of this decision and the rationale offered for it, issuing some highly critical statements about Sojourners and its founder, Jim Wallis. Other voices have been raised to counter some of the critique. (Here’s one, and here’s another.) And a few have noticed that sometimes progressives can develop a dualistic, polarized rhetoric that is remarkably similar to that of their mirror image, as Aaron McCarroll Gallegos commented:
Yes, I would say, if it were only the ad (which wasn’t very edgy at all) and if Sojourners were only a magazine for progressive Christians.
But my more thoughtful answer is that Sojourners, as I understand it, is doing coalition work. They are currently focused on building a broad coalition of evangelical Christians, Catholic Christians, and progressive Christians primarily around the issue of poverty reduction. And the coalition they’re building is an essential one, especially as our nation makes historic decisions on getting its budgetary house in order.
Will a majority of evangelical Christians continue to support policies that are careless towards poor people – as Tony Hall has so eloquently lamented? Will mainstream evangelical and Catholic Christians continue to put weapons above health care, and tax cuts for the rich above a safety net for the poor? Sojourners’ founder Jim Wallis recently helped lead a fast on this issue — no small thing — and my suspicion is that if anyone can continue to nudge an evangelical-Catholic-progressive poverty-reduction coalition in positive directions, it’s a coalition in which Sojourners is a key convener.
But again, there’s a cost to convening that kind of coalition. One can’t lead on other issues that would split the coalition. (Yes, one can stretch the coalition on some issues, but not too many, not too far, and not too fast.) If Sojourners decides to lead on LGBTQ issues, someone else will have to arise to lead a broad coalition on poverty issues because Sojourners will be — as things stand — excluded from the table. Conversely, if Sojourners decides to lead a broad poverty-related coalition, others will need to lead on LGBTQ issues.
And that’s where I understand the frustration of those who are frustrated with Sojourners. They wish Sojourners would lead in this issue too. Frankly, so do I when I forget how hard it is to build coalitions, and when I forget that taking bold stands is only one important part of the complex process of social change.
If I were to boil down messy contemporary reality to an equation, here’s what it would be:
But as soon as that new coalition forms, you can count on this: Some folks will sooner or later want it to be more outspoken on more issues than the coalition originally intended. And tensions will arise. And these could be destructive tensions, tearing the coalition apart. But they could also be creative tensions — growing pains, if you will — pushing people out of the status quo into terra nova. I wouldn’t have moved from “conventional” to “accepting-but-not-affirming” to “internally-conflicted” to “coalition-building” to “being an ally/advocate” if it weren’t for a lot of this creative tension. And I’m still in process — unfinished, phasic — because my tensions are not resolved.
That’s one of the curses of being progressive, I suppose. Once you make progress on one issue, if you stop and conserve those gains, you become conservative. (That’s an important job. Somebody’s got to do it.) If you want to stay progressive, you must move on to new issues. Progressivism is a moving target.
Sadly, though, we aren’t making sufficient gains in relation to poverty, as I’ve written about elsewhere. If anything, in terms of income and wealth inequality and opportunity for the poor, and in terms of the raw numbers of people living in poverty globally, we’re losing ground fast, and we’re in danger of losing even more ground.
So my advice is to appreciate Sojourners for their important, irreplaceable work on building a coalition of Christians who care deeply about poverty. And look to others to take the lead on human rights and full inclusion of LGBTQ people, at least for the immediate future.
And feel the beauty, struggle, messiness, and agony of change in all its phases. This stuff isn’t easy. For anybody. And we’re all in it together.
What’s in a name? In this case, more than we realize.
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/05/13/my-thoughts-on-sojourners-coalition-building-and-lgbtq-rights/
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a former pastor and the author of over a dozen books, including Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in Twelve Simple Words.
Some progressive Christian friends of mine have been very critical of this decision and the rationale offered for it, issuing some highly critical statements about Sojourners and its founder, Jim Wallis. Other voices have been raised to counter some of the critique. (Here’s one, and here’s another.) And a few have noticed that sometimes progressives can develop a dualistic, polarized rhetoric that is remarkably similar to that of their mirror image, as Aaron McCarroll Gallegos commented:
At some point doesn’t this show the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” thinking that is exactly what we “progressives” have been fighting against all these years?I served on the Board of Directors for Sojourners for several years, the last few years of my term as the chair. So I know the organization more closely than most people who have been issuing their assessments. It’s no surprise that phone calls and emails have been coming in asking my opinion. Did Sojourners make a mistake in rejecting the ad?
Yes, I would say, if it were only the ad (which wasn’t very edgy at all) and if Sojourners were only a magazine for progressive Christians.
But my more thoughtful answer is that Sojourners, as I understand it, is doing coalition work. They are currently focused on building a broad coalition of evangelical Christians, Catholic Christians, and progressive Christians primarily around the issue of poverty reduction. And the coalition they’re building is an essential one, especially as our nation makes historic decisions on getting its budgetary house in order.
Will a majority of evangelical Christians continue to support policies that are careless towards poor people – as Tony Hall has so eloquently lamented? Will mainstream evangelical and Catholic Christians continue to put weapons above health care, and tax cuts for the rich above a safety net for the poor? Sojourners’ founder Jim Wallis recently helped lead a fast on this issue — no small thing — and my suspicion is that if anyone can continue to nudge an evangelical-Catholic-progressive poverty-reduction coalition in positive directions, it’s a coalition in which Sojourners is a key convener.
But again, there’s a cost to convening that kind of coalition. One can’t lead on other issues that would split the coalition. (Yes, one can stretch the coalition on some issues, but not too many, not too far, and not too fast.) If Sojourners decides to lead on LGBTQ issues, someone else will have to arise to lead a broad coalition on poverty issues because Sojourners will be — as things stand — excluded from the table. Conversely, if Sojourners decides to lead a broad poverty-related coalition, others will need to lead on LGBTQ issues.
And that’s where I understand the frustration of those who are frustrated with Sojourners. They wish Sojourners would lead in this issue too. Frankly, so do I when I forget how hard it is to build coalitions, and when I forget that taking bold stands is only one important part of the complex process of social change.
If I were to boil down messy contemporary reality to an equation, here’s what it would be:
- You can’t lead a coalition of progressive Christians without being an outspoken leader on LGBTQ issues.
- You can’t lead a coalition that includes mainstream evangelical and conservative Catholic Christians if you are an outspoken leader on LGBTQ issues.
But as soon as that new coalition forms, you can count on this: Some folks will sooner or later want it to be more outspoken on more issues than the coalition originally intended. And tensions will arise. And these could be destructive tensions, tearing the coalition apart. But they could also be creative tensions — growing pains, if you will — pushing people out of the status quo into terra nova. I wouldn’t have moved from “conventional” to “accepting-but-not-affirming” to “internally-conflicted” to “coalition-building” to “being an ally/advocate” if it weren’t for a lot of this creative tension. And I’m still in process — unfinished, phasic — because my tensions are not resolved.
That’s one of the curses of being progressive, I suppose. Once you make progress on one issue, if you stop and conserve those gains, you become conservative. (That’s an important job. Somebody’s got to do it.) If you want to stay progressive, you must move on to new issues. Progressivism is a moving target.
Sadly, though, we aren’t making sufficient gains in relation to poverty, as I’ve written about elsewhere. If anything, in terms of income and wealth inequality and opportunity for the poor, and in terms of the raw numbers of people living in poverty globally, we’re losing ground fast, and we’re in danger of losing even more ground.
So my advice is to appreciate Sojourners for their important, irreplaceable work on building a coalition of Christians who care deeply about poverty. And look to others to take the lead on human rights and full inclusion of LGBTQ people, at least for the immediate future.
And feel the beauty, struggle, messiness, and agony of change in all its phases. This stuff isn’t easy. For anybody. And we’re all in it together.
What’s in a name? In this case, more than we realize.
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/05/13/my-thoughts-on-sojourners-coalition-building-and-lgbtq-rights/
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a former pastor and the author of over a dozen books, including Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in Twelve Simple Words.
No comments:
Post a Comment