Nadia Bolz-Weber: On Sojourners’ LGBTQ Fiasco…
Posted: May 18th, 2011 | Author: Peter | Filed under: LGBTQ, Sojourners, blogging, church, culture, oppression | 7 Comments »
I was surprised, at first, to read Nadia Bolz-Weber’s response to the Sojourners fiasco, given that she pastors a church known for queer-inclusivity. When I heard she was trending toward a defense of Sojourners, I was ready to denounce, (surprised?) but like Brian McLaren’s response, hers is pastoral, and carries hope that forward motion is worthwhile, even if it is not in the fullness of what we pray for. Does that satisfy me? I can’t say that it does, but neither am I ready to decry her individually. I have mixed feeling about her conclusions, just as I have mixed feelings about Brian’s, because both analyses carry with them an implied prioritization of one marginalized group over another. This is deeply problematic. But I’m not ready to rant against what she says here, because it is thoughtful, compassionate and well-said…
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 a commenter responded to Nadia’s post: “What if SoJo had done the same to an African American group? Or, a woman’s group? Would you feel so conflicted?” And that brought the whole thing back to much clearer terms for me. Would we tolerate racism for the sake of the poor? I think not (although I think sexism would be – and is – tolerated for all sorts of political expediencies). So is this tap dancing really okay?
I don’t like it, it’s not “good enough,” but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t nodding my head in agreement through Nadia’s entire post… I hear her. Which makes all this so confounding.
What do you think?
I get that argument, too. but like you, I doubt this would be so "ambiguous" if we were talking about racism (at least I hope not).
i am so tired of people/pastors who speak from a place of privilege speaking on what is "RIGHT" on this matter. SOJO FUCKED UP! Tap dancing is what it is and what it feels like is being thrown under the bus. Being poor is not only poor in wealth but poor in spirit as well. When these lovely people, and i know them so they are lovely, walk in my shoes then i will listen to them.
I think it's a false dichotomy. GLBT people disproportionately *ARE* "the poor," in comparison to their hetero peers. Doubters: check out the Jan 2011 report from the Center for American Progress, titled "Helping All of Our Homeless: Developing a Gay- and Transgender-Inclusive Federal Plan to End Homelessness." It's filled with sobering data, like children from same-sex couple households have poverty rates twice those of children from heterosexual married couple households.
I think this controversy presents Sojourner's with an incredible opportunity to reduce or even eradicate a serious cause of poverty (social discrimination), with very little financial expenditure required. For example, while approximately 5% of youth in the US identify as GLBT, they make up 20% of the homeless youth population. Get families to stop rejecting their queer kids (it happens to up to 25% of GLBT youth), and the rates of youth homelessness *will* decline.
Fuck, my comment didn't show up and i have no idea what i said! Damnit!
given that LGBTQ people are a minority group, it would seem critical that those who are not LGBTQ speak up and out and embody advocacy in solidarity with their LGBTQ neighbours. but….. inevitably, they will always have the filter of privilege that their LGBTQ friends do not have….. additionally, they may be living in tension of embodying advocacy for many groups on the margins…… does this mean they ought not to speak at all ….. even to honestly express the paradoxes they experience …..
as a side note, as a canadian, everyone i know here who has any sense of who sojo's is assumes they are progay anyway ….. when wallis is out here he has spoken carefully but clearly as an LGBTQ advocate ….. so this whole thing surprised me. and i'm saddened that they don't seem to using this clear opportunity to integrate the need for justice for ALL people who find themselves on the margins – for whatever reason. they have a voice – and the voice is needed in the free-church evangelical world to build a solid and strong foundation of dignity and respect and hospitality for all regardless of particular convictions around sexual ethics.
Even though I think the world of Nadia, I wish she would speak out more for her LGBT brothers and sisters.
Sounds like politics to me. Compromises get made in order to advance common goals. The GLBTQ agenda is an important one. And I agree with Adele that the justice agenda includes the GLBTQ agenda by definition. Justice should be about everyone who suffers injustice, although Sojo chooses to focus on “racial and economic justice, war and peace, and stewardship of the environment”. Having a focus is a good thing I guess. So I don’t fault them for wanting to maintain that focus and to keep their partnerships as strong as possible for the good of that focus.
It’s pragmatic. I believe in a lot of things. Some things are more important to me than others. And I am willing to sacrifice some things I believe in for the sake of other things I believe in. I prioritize, as we all must. There are those for whom the GLBTQ agenda is of primary importance. And they rightly sacrifice other issues for that sake. Even though Sojo’s hiring practices and stand on civil rights show that the GLBTQ agenda is one they believe in, it is apparently secondary for them. We might wish it were primary for them, but it doesn’t seem to be.