Red Letter Christians

My Thoughts on Sojourners, Coalition Building, and LGBTQ Rights

by Brian McLaren Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

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:

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.

Eventually, Sojourners may change its policy. The organization may decide to switch its focus from a broad anti-poverty coalition to a multi-issue progressive coalition, the kind that many folks thought Sojourners was already leading. Or maybe more evangelical and Catholic Christians will stop refusing to be part of coalitions with gay-affirming folks, making it possible for Sojourners to stretch the coalition faster and farther? Or maybe Sojourners will stay on their current course, staying focused primarily on poverty and paying the price by having to remain silent on other issues? If so, new organizations will need to fill the role of leading a progressive Christian coalition.

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.

—-
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker who’s new book is Naked Spirituality: A Life With God in 12 Simple Words


PrintFriendly
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1388514701 Greg Dill

    Very well stated, Brian. This is why I have been, and remain, a fan of
    Sojourner’s along with their ministries and causes. The focus has been
    very intentional, not just some melting pot for all liberal or
    progressive issues. As you correctly stated, there are many other
    organizations/ministries whose primary focus is LGBTQ issues. To be
    brutally honest, I was actually glad to see this recent controversy
    arise as it seemed to weed out those who were perhaps involved in this
    ministry for ulterior motives… to promote political wedge issues that
    are divisive within the Body of Christ. I applaud Sojourner’s for their
    bold and unwavering stand on this issue. And I continue to stand with
    Sojourner’s along with their supporters to continue to fight social
    injustices, hunger, and poverty around the world. Peace and grace to you
    in Christ Jesus.

  • http://www.travismamone.net/ Travis Mamone

    Hey Brian.

    A friend and I were just talking about your original blog entry regarding the Sojourners snafu.  I had a similar experience going from “conventional” to “ally” (or at least an ally in training).  It started last year when some one called me out on something I wrote on
    my blog. At first I thought this person was just being a schmuck, but
    after the teen suicides, I finally realized if our theology says certain
    people, no matter if they follow Jesus or not, will not enter the
    Kingdom of God because of who they are . . . then something ain’t right!

    Unfortunately not everyone has had that “Holy s–!” moment,
    so what do you do? Yell at them for being stupid evangelicals? Don’t get
    me wrong, I’m not saying we can’t call people out. Far from it! If some
    one didn’t call me out a year or so ago, I wouldn’t have had that “Holy
    s—!” moment. But I think it’s way too easy to vilify people who
    haven’t gotten to that ally place yet . . . but have the potential to do
    so.

    Then again, that could be just my privilege talking again.

  • Jonathanstarkey

    It seems like the economy has become a great card to play when we want to circumvent any real issues these days.

  • Don

    …”real issues”?  Are you suggesting that the economy, and resulting impacts on the poor, are not “real issues”? 

  • http://ihopetomorrowisbetter.blogspot.com/ Molly Bandit

    “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.”

    I think that’s a pretty good summary of what I’ve learned from this debacle.  It’s been kind of a hurtful learning experience for me personally, but it’s also revitalized me to get more involved with activism and also to make my church a safe space for everyone. 
     

  • http://twitter.com/likemindead Ryan McCracken

    Thank you for this.

  • Jonathanstarkey

    No, but it is nice to have “more important problems” to rescue you from having to engage potentially messy situations.

    I’m not saying Sojourners is doing this, but I am saying I have noticed a trend of using the economy as diversion. ie. “Why are we concerned with LGBTQ issues? Shouldn’t we be more focused on finding people jobs and the economy? After all it trumps secondary issues.”

  • Jonathanstarkey

    No, I am not saying that the economy isn’t a real issue. What I am saying that it seems like the economy can be used as a card to divert/ avoid other messy issues. It is like a convenient trump card these days. ie. “Why are people focused on LGBTQ issues? Shouldn’t we be more focused on the economy? I mean people don’t have jobs.”

    I’ve seen this response in blogs all over. I’m not saying this is what SOJO is doing, but is it?

  • Jonathanstarkey

    Sorry for the double reply. It didn’t show the first time. Also, I am just responding to this article. I really don’t have any more insight other than what I’ve read here. Other than that I really liked the article and I agree with most of what it said. I just had this one question/ observation.

  • http://ihopetomorrowisbetter.blogspot.com/ Molly Bandit

    Building on my last comment, I’ve been struggling with this whole situation for weeks.  Here are my last few thoughts on the Sojourners situation and a few similar situations playing out in other progressive circles:

    http://ihopetomorrowisbetter.blogspot.com/2011/05/greater-good.html

  • http://thepangeablog.com Kurt Willems

    Brian, there is much wisdom in this post.  This is essentially what I have been trying to tell my upset progressive friends.  As a “moderate” theologically speaking, I thought Jim Wallis’ actions were a great “third way” given the times we are in.

  • http://twitter.com/qotbpaul Paul Charles

    Dear Brian,
    I think you have a fair point. I think my issue is that it’s frustrating that we need para-church organizations to do this work, when it would be nice to have the church leadership themselves taking a stand.Also, does “progressive” ever have an end in sight? What is the actual goal of the progressive movement?
    Paul

  • Cwilton

    Yes, but how does your assessment of the video ad as “not very edgy at all” fit into your conclusion? That’s the point of many of the critics of the Sojourners decision. It’s simple message of inclusion in the pew – not inclusion in the pulpit – is one that a great many opponents of GLBT ordination concede to be worthy of their support.

  • Mark L

     Wallis response made no sense.  At least yours does.  It’s honest about what agendas Sojourners is willing to tackle. I read it as Sojourners is interested in “Justice” but not for the LGBTQ* folks just now.

    I don’t particularly like that but at least your explanation seems coherent.

    MLK Jr. said two things that I think relevant: “”justice too long delayed is justice denied” “Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.”

    I think those of us who identify as GLBT* Christians have gotten used to the church to being hostile to us.  While angry at Sojourners reaction to such an innocuous video (it advocates offering welcome to the “stranger”), I’m not surprised.

  • Pastorgregg

    Brian:
    While appreciate what you are saying, I find the problems Sojourners is having is that they have stepped outside of anti-poverty issues that you say is their focus.  Their stand on the wars in Iraq and Afganiztan, the focus on inter-faith dialogue, and on immigration (somewhat closely related to anti-poverty but still a broader issue). I find it difficult to say we can only extend Christian hospitality to the illegal immigrant, to the stranger of another faith, but not to a gay or lesbian fellow Christian.  The ad they turned down was not outside of editorial stands that Sojourners had already taken on issues related to protecting the civil rights of LGBTQ folks. I pray the controversy will be crack in the wall of opposition. 

  • http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/05/24/sojourners-identity-politics-justice-ratt-3/ Sojourners, Identity Politics, & Justice: RATT 3

    [...] to explain the decision but it didn’t ease the tension for everyone.  When I saw Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, First Things, Christianity Today, Peter, David Henson, Chad Holtz, & (my favorite post) [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus