May 22: We’re Still Here… So… Here’s More on SOJO:
Posted: May 22nd, 2011 | Author: Peter | Filed under: LGBTQ, Sojourners, fundamentalism, inequality, liberal, oppression, religious left | 4 Comments »I mean, my last post was… I guess a little… premature. I HOPED… but… ahem.
Anyway.
Here’s an excerpt from what truly has been the best response I’ve read so far, from Jim Naughton, at The Guardian (UK):
“In the flurry of commentary that followed Sojourners’ rejection of the anodyne advertisement, Wallis’s allies and defenders have argued that accepting the ad would have jeopardised the coalition that Wallis has built. It is not clear that this is true…
…
At this potentially historic moment, the religious left cannot afford to speak through a man whose position on the issue in question places him to the right of Dick Cheney. It is obvious that Wallis in not the right leader for this particular parade; what is less evident is whether he plans to step aside or block the road.”
Click here for the full article. It really is well written, cogent and – yes – provocative.
Peter, this whole thing is really scaring me. I don't like the way this is handled. I don't know Jim Wallis personally and I don't know his heart. But this whole thing is turning into a witch hunt. Maybe the whole problem lies exactly in the fact that we need a spokesman, a leader, someone who is "right". Shouldn't Christians know better that we're all not fit to be in such a position and that none of us is getting it right? And shouldn't we extend our love also to people like Jim Wallis even though they might hold positions we disagree with? I do wish that LGBTQ Christians will eventually prove him wrong but not by screaming at him because he does not support them enough but by being a source of love, grace and kindness in the world. And as I said, maybe it's rather time to question our dependency on leaders rather than the validity of this or that organization.
Tobias, this is profound: "maybe it's rather time to question our dependency on leaders rather than the validity of this or that organization."
Christianity has, indeed, been trapped up in the "cult" of leadership – another manifestation of us hitching our trailers to a corporate business model. We need CEOs and spokespersons.
This is probably the last post I'll be doing on the whole ordeal, simply because there's not much more to say that hasn't been said. But I think what you're saying is absolutely right. The problem is, Wallis has been positioned – and positioned himself – as the "leader" of the Christian left (picking fights with Glenn Beck, the Bush Administration, the Religious Right)… so frankly, I think he's sort of brought this controversy on himself.
Tobias, as a queer woman, i have every right to call Jim Wallis out on his shit!
@Adele: Sure, you have every right to call everybody everything.
And in case you haven't read this from other comments, I'm a gay man.
The thing is… I don't think it's helping anybody to be angry. I'm not saying we should be quiet. Far from it. But from how I understand the Christian faith, our call is to patient persistence, hopeful kindness, and so forth. None of us knows Jim's heart. We can give our opinion on this. Even more important, I think it's good to hold Sojo accountable for their own promises (as expressed in their FAQ). But I don't like the anger and animosity I feel gets expressed in some places over the web. And to be honest I can also understand and appreciate people taking a long time to wrap their head around this issue. I'm gay and still it has taken me years. I think it is an important topic for the church today. And that's exactly why I don't want to fight people but win them over. In my opinion, this is about far more than gay rights. It is about the relevance of the church today. I don't know… I'm not sure if I'm well in expressing my feelings. It would be easier to discuss this over a cup of coffee.
I think we should all ask ourselves about our motivations. Does anger drive us or compassion? Are we speaking the truth in love or are we becoming defensive?