A Statement on Sojourners' Mission and LGBTQ Issues

Sorry, but I'm not the one who's blind here. I've already mentioned that I've dealt with this issue ad infinitum in two other churches, and if anything I see things more clearly than most. I have personally witnessed what happens when sin is not addressed in a church -- it becomes dysfunctional.

BD wrote: "one of the prime purposes of marriage is for rearing children -- and this cuts all across all cultures -- the preponderance of the evidence suggests that same-gender relations simply serve no purpose other than physical gratification."

Oh, so now we're at the childbearing theme. So I gather that people who cannot bear children, or else do not wish to bear children, should not be allowed to marry or have relations with each other? After all, such relations would serve no purpose other than physical gratification.

I am deeply disappointed in Jim Wallis and in Sojourners. To quote Jim's response, "We have said that the most important message we have to offer is the love of Jesus. Clearly, many gay and lesbian people have not felt loved by the church and, indeed, have often been mistreated. We believe such abusive treatment saddens the heart of God and is not what Jesus would have us do. So at an even deeper level of "welcoming" and "affirming," which have become such code words for competing positions, we believe Jesus would have us be "loving" first and foremost

Justice is not about taking a stance, it is about standing with people. And a man of good faith knows when to stand. Although I wish they would have run the ad, I do believe there will come a time and place for Jim Wallis and Sojourners to make a strong stance. It is about waiting for the right time. Being angry about this will not change what has happened, we can only be patient to ensure that we are ready to stand together, unified. Being angry will not change opinions, for no argument can truly convert a person.

At least Jim Wallis stands for civil rights, it is a start. Jim Wallis is not the opponent.

Being angry with them will not change anything, attacking back will not change anything. My heart goes out to those offended by these actions, but let us not forget who the real oppressors are. It is not worth it to turn on each other now.

Ankaboot wrote: [Kirieeleison wrotte]'Is all sexual expression outside of reproduction "idolatry'?

"[Ankaboot] Not at all ~ it's a form of worship and praise, a celebration of His Mercy, and obedience to God. It is sometimes idolatry."

I don't understand. You say that sex does not have to be reproductive. And yet you seem to have said that any sex outside of that which reproduces is "counterfeit sex" and thus would "destroy humanity." Please clarify.

Since when did this turn into the "Blue Deacon" Blog? All of your arguments boil down to the Church should not welcome LGBT people--and that Love therefore is not part of the Christian message...for them.

Check out and explore thoroughly, with an open mind if you can muster it, the Evangelical website for Soulforce. It addresses the Scriptures you cling to to justify excluding LGBT people from the Christian community. (http://www.soulforce.org/)

How many LGBT people does God have to create before He/She/It gets your attention? You may think your responses are not bigotry just because you throw *your* understanding of Scripture over it--but your cloak of understanding is transparent and those of us who believe God is Love, and believe in loving our neighbor and judging not, can clearly see your bigotry and prejudice through it. We are not deceived.

"Essential to our mission is the calling
together of broad groups of Christians, who might disagree on issues of
sexuality, to still work together on how to reduce poverty, end wars,
and mobilize around other issues of social justice."

So your organization wants to work for social justice -- equality, human rights, and recognition of the dignity of every human being -- without offending the views of people who think gays and lesbians don't deserve equality, rights, or dignity.

Good luck with that.

I understand, every organization has to decide what fights to fight. If GLBT rights isn't your main focus, I get that. But I think it's a mockery of the term to suggest a group can be for "social justice" while opposing equal rights for gays. It doesn't sound like your group wants to eliminate the idea of second-class citizen; you just want to promote racial minorities to first-class status.

Micah, the great majority of of people here are unhappy with Sojourners' rejection of the "Welcome, everyone" ads. That's just the way it is. If you find that repetitious, well, what do you expect when most people feel one way?

What is that you think should change in this discussion? I mean, other than the majority's strong opposition to Sojourners' decision to reject the ads. Because that isn't going to change.

Okay, here's your explanation: Exodus is a fable. There is zero corroborating evidence that Hebrews, as a race, were enslaved by Kmet (ancient Egypt).

You are so thoroughly incorrect about Roman and Roman-era slavery it hardly merits consideration.

And if YOU want to go NT on me, the word "slave" itself is derived from Slav, the ethnic group reduced to chattel status by CHRISTIANS during the Middle Ages.

Micah, the great majority of the people here are unhappy with Sojourners' rejection of the "Welcome, everyone" ads.

The majority of the people who have been commenting in these discussion threads are not even a significant plurality of the Sojourners, and are "with" the Sojourners only to jump on the Sojourners bandwagon. The Sojourners knew this, and the comments have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The irony is that this militant party of the people of Lot have been accepted and welcomed into these discussion forums, their concerns have been addressed by the Sojourners, their claims to justice and fair dealing have been honored and satisfied in these discussions, and their advocacy of their separate and singular agenda has been not only allowed in these forums, but supported in this virtual social milieu and venue. And while this alone has caused supporters of the Sojourners' "social justice" agenda to abandon their organizational support, no voice has been stilled, no advocacy has been removed from view, and no one has been exiled for their excesses and vituperative venom. And while you distinguish yourselves as a people unique and distinguishable from other Sojourners, this separateness is not remarked or held to exclude you from the work of the Sojourners ministries.

So what part of "No" do you people not understand? "Justice" does not require that you be allowed to take the helm of the Sojourners organization and make it your own. It is not going to happen in these forums, it is not going to happen in the magazine, and it is not going to happen in the churches. Sojourners are not going to follow your leadership, adopt your social agenda, or demand that others "accept" your stance as religiously valid.

Among the Sojourners' agendas is an inclination to become informed about, and possibly develop comity and cooperation with, America's muslims. I support that agenda.

I am a muslim; a leader, director, guardian, commander, and judge of a muslim community; an administrator of Muslim America of forty years' professional standing across the entire spectrum of indigenous American Islam and the religious, political, and legal affairs of indigenous American muslims; and the spokesman appointed in direct apostolic succession to make Islam known to Americans. I know the dispositions, diversities, divergences, deliberations, directions, dilemmas, and devotions of America's muslims; the histories, agendas, and origins of the various active and dormant parties among America's muslims; the strengths, weaknesses, advantages, dangers, essentials, merits, and status of the relations between America's muslims and the muslims of the eastern hemisphere whether abroad or here in America; and the religious guidances, directions, nuances, understandings, and attitudes of every other religious or irreligious party with whom indigenous American muslims have friendly, cooperative, distant, defensive, or cautionary relationships. I know the partisan spies and clandestine agents sent by muslim parties into other muslim parties, by other subversive parties into Christian congregations, churches and movements, and by national intelligence/counterintelligence agencies into political, religious, and other instituted, constituted, or ad hoc collectives, and the agendas, strategies, and tactics of each. This is not a boast, it is a job description ~ of a job I did not seek, desire, or even imagine when, of necessity, I was gaining experience and developing competence in its various elements.

In other words, I am an asset for the Sojourners agenda to develop amicable relations with America's muslims, and have been demonstrating that in these discussion forums for the better part of a year. The Sojourners agenda for which I am an asset is to know Islam; my agenda is to make Islam known. There is a concordance, a confluence, an identity of objectives, a natural symbiosis, and a mutual affinity. I do not seek the Sojourners' support for any muslim agenda, but I support those agendas of the Sojourners that are consistent with a muslim understanding of the Christian ministry of Jesus. And I remain a visitor, a guest, an outsider, representing another people with differing aims, understandings, and devotions, a potential ambassador, and an inviter to Jesus and his ministry that God ordained from the beginning of creation. I am not a director, administrator, executive, manager, or any other part of the Sojourners ministry, and do not attempt to be.

And I most certainly do not propose, ask, recommend, urge, or demand that anyone among the Sojourners abandon their understanding of Jesus, his ministry, or Christianity, either to adopt what I articulate or to become more congruent with the muslim understanding that we follow. I articulate the muslim understanding of Jesus the Word of God, clearly, authoritatively, and explicitly appointed to do so, for anyone able to recognize it as their own.

I do not support the agendas of some Sojourners to welcome a self-identifying homosexual, "practicing" or not, into any Christian communion. I declare, unequivocally and without any qualification or exception, that this is an unavoidably fatal error for any faith communion. This is not "homophobia," it is not emotional, it is not a response to peer pressure or popular opinion or sentiment, it is a conclusion reached by reason on the basis of Scripture and directly-observed empirical evidence affirming Scripture. And that conclusion was not reached quickly or without considerable strenuous effort applied repeatedly and continuously over long periods of time, and with diligent consideration of every argument, proposition, and contention offered in opposition on whatever purported basis, including many I raised myself from a desire to avoid reaching this conclusion.

But "what to do" is Sojourners' affair and decision, on the basis of Sojourners' convictions, not mine, and not mine to urge or influence one way or another. The Sojourners will have to live with the consequents to what they may decide, I won't. As a muslim, I have no right to even ask anyone else to consider my understanding. I set it forth strictly and exclusively as a warning from "outside," from a differing understanding of the nature and demands of faith, a voice in the wilderness of North America with no standing, let alone stature, among the Sojourners, from someone whose claim to be a follower of Jesus is held suspect by many on that account, that I do not claim to be "of" the Sojourners or a Christian according to contemporary understanding. I don't counsel the Sojourners one way or another on this: muslims are called "warners" and "guides" in the Qur'an, but we are not supposed to give good counsel to people who are likely to reject it ~ so we only warn when there is some question about offering suggestions.

Many Evangelists, however ~ possibly the majority ~ hold the same conviction regarding the people of Lot, from whom God saved Lot before dramatically destroying them root and branch, as Saul did not do to Amalek. As a consequence, Sojourners is not going to allow professing sodomites to jump on the Sojourners bandwagon except as passengers hitching a ride to where Sojourners is going.

And the current cacophony supports the view of many Sojourners supporters that some hitchhikers should be left beside the road.

Markus, I do think that people have a right to leave an organization when they discover it is not in line with their values and to express why they are doing so.

Very disappointing and troubling. That Sojourners is afraid of an ad in support of the very people the organization claims to be supporting is an act of cowardice. If an organization like Sojourners is afraid of a simple ad I wonder what is its credibility going to look like on other issues.

Perhaps you should take the time to acquaint yourself with the work of Sojourners before hurling stones.

BD wrote: [WT wrote]'Your church eventually became racially integrated. It might have taken 20 years. Eventually, your church will become integrated with LGBT people, even if it takes 20 years.'

"[BD]Oh, no, it won't. One reason the church integrated was because it was in a black neighborhood, and we're one of the few evangelical churches nationwide to do so."

It is your right and privilege in the United States to go to a church with your beliefs. Myself and many others won't be joining you, rather we will celebrate our inclusivisity and diversity.

By the way, my church is integrated both in terms of race and sexual orientation. You are welcome to it any time, but you might not wish to go there. It is an Episcopal church.

Sorry, but you miss Jesus' point. Completely.

The idea is that ancient Israel was to remain separate from the nations that surrounded them to demonstrated just Who God is to an unbelieving world, thus the dietary laws (obliterated in the New Testament) and other statutes. Same-sex conduct was (and I would argue, still is) considered a sign of unbelief

In short, you ignore the utter holiness of God.

Deacon, you have every right to say that same-sex relationships are Biblically wrong. Preach it all day long if you want, though if you are that obsessed with other people's affairs it makes me wonder about your motivations (or Bishop Eddie Long's, for that matter). And your church denomination is protected in not employing LGBT for jobs directly relating to church and in opting not to perform marriages for gay or lesbian couples.

But under a republican, federal, representative and secularly-grounded form of democracy, you should not have the right to codify disparate punishment for sexual behaviors that are performed by people of every sexual orientation; refuse LGBT individuals or couples public accommodations; discriminate in government or private business employment, credit, or housing; forbid service in the armed forces; deny equal treatment under the law with regard to taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, spousal privilege in making medical or financial decisions, hospital visitations and disposal of remains; to deny LGBT individuals or couples the right to adopt children or to deny custody of children to gay or lesbian parents.

I could go on and on with all the ways in which anti-gay organizations and institutions have historically sought to marginalize the lives of LGBT people, threaten their livelihoods and welfare, and even attempt to stamp out any trace of the real-life existence or historical contributions of homosexual individuals. And, above all, sought to make us feel unwelcome in our families of origin, our workplaces, and our places of worship--which, full circle, brings us back to Mr. Wallis's, Sojourner's, and apparently your disturbing willingness, in the case of the disputed advertising campaign, to give lip service to the principles inclusivity and justice while failing to walk the walk.

Reverend Wallis, I'm sure you've read many of these comments, and you must know where most of the commentators' hearts are on this matter, so I'll try to keep this short. Run the ad. Just run the ad. These sexual minorities(my name for the LGBTQ set) have done a lot more to keep our country moving out of the Dark Ages than the rest of us put together, and precious little thanks they get, especially from many "in need," who not infrequently don't even vote, much less think much about how to be of use to anyone else, especially gays, Jews, racial out-groupers, leftists(so help me!), and, oh yes, gays. We at Sojourners are pouring our hearts out, even threatening our health (with the Hunger Fast) on behalf of multitudes who perform almost none of their civic duties, while this very brave and very active group struggles against hate crimes, abusive legislation, military discrimination, and, in Africa, legislation calling for genocide, with almost no help or support from us. I say again: run the ad, and give the little people of the Church something to think and pray about. Whatever homoerotic relating is to God, be it blessed or damned, the Lamb will be the ultimate Judge of us all -- and he will remember Hitler's Pink Triangle

I wonder however if all ads are screened for whether or not they are directly on point to the issue of Sojorner's "primary message." For example, if I wanted to place an ad for a non-secular summer camp, or for a craft shop, or for clothing would they be rejected because they did not address hunger or homelessness? Their page seeking advertisers doesn't mention that ads need to be geared only towards the "primary mission" of Sojorners or be religious in nature.

"A new coalition" representing ten major denominations. And blocking this ad isn't "standing between Mathew Shepherd and his attackers." It's more akin to silence, acquiescence, and "standing aside and looking the other way."

I took him to mean humanity (i.e., ours) as opposed to Humanity (?)

Ankaboot?

Yes. The humanity of one or both.

How many more gay people does God have to create before Christians start paying attention?

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people, Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." "We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

-- Coretta Scott King

But this is SO reductionist!

The image of personhood you convey here is so flat and dead - what we call 'two-dimensional' in literature; it looks nothing like that marvellous creation we are designed to be - oh the sorrow of it!

And Hallelujah that it is for Freedom; that wonderful gaiety of heart and life and soul that we have in the new creation; that Christ has set us free! Freedom from all this dreadful drab stuff! Freedom from the piling up of burdens on backs, for His yoke is easy and His burden light! Praise His name in the highest heavens for what it means to walk with him in the liberty of his love; for Him to draw us after Himself that we might run with Him in our open places, our Beloved, in the freedom of our own identity validated by Him!

'For who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.' Romans 14.4

We who are created in the image of our God are a multi-faceted people; a people created from matter and the very breath of God, which is our Life-force.

We relate and receive through our five physical senses, our emotions, our spirituality, our sexuality, our intellect, intuition, our memory, subconscious, experience - a wonderful extraordinary multi-dimensional creation! Just look at us dance with our Lord of the Dance!

Do you not remember what Jesus said to the Sadducees?

'You err, knowing neither the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.' Matthew 22.29

What use have we of the reproductive in our sexuality in eternity? Yet, as surely as we are sexual people and created in the image of our God, our sexuality remains, an eternal part of us. The reproductive element will be utterly transcended by the reality! And in part is being now - re-population is hardly a pressing issue of our times!

Sex is not just a physical act for the purpose of reproduction; that merely describes it's animal function as you have shown; this is what will pass away when we live in the full and entire, for truly we see through a glass darkly as yet - but then we shall see as we are seen - Maranatha! We look for his coming in Glory!

Really? Your mission is making you too busy to take on this issue? Running an ad about inclusiveness will bring your work to a stand still?
I don't believe that working on moral budgets is truly an excuse for censorship of the type of inclusiveness that I always thought Soujourners stood for.

Jackie Griffin
Ventura, CA

My dear WaveTossed:

I value the mutual respect that grew between us early on when you, I think, anticipated that I, as a muslim, would be hostile toward you because of your domestic partner relationship, and you found that not to be the case. I will not jeopardize whatever rapport we may have established by arguing with you about something that is of no more than academic interest to me, but of critical importance to you. You are aware that we differ, but I will not insult you by urging you to "repent" of what you do not believe requires "repentance" or anything of the kind. You have your convictions, I have my convictions, and I do not want to urge anyone to act against their convictions. Whether anyone chooses to reconsider their convictions in whatever light might be shed upon them is dependent solely on the degree to which they themselves feel any urgency to do so, I do not want anyone to feel any "urgency" to do so on my account or to "pacify" me ~ I do not need to be pacified in the first place, and certainly do not want to be taken for an object of anyone's devotion that they should seek to please me, rather than or in addition to pleasing God.

Just so we have an understanding on this: I would not turn you away from my door.

But I will tell you a story ...

I was a manager for one of the first "fast-food" businesses in America ~ all we did was push hamburgers, fries, milkshakes, and the things that go with such a meal, through a walk-up window. During the lunch-hour rush, which lasted about three hours, I cooked, while another employee took orders and handed an unceasing stream of lunches through the window. Our 36 square feet of grill space stayed full for the entire lunch "hour." The hamburgers were delicious.

She was good. She never dropped a stitch. In Levis, a denim vest, short hair, no makeup or jewelry, she was a diminutive, slender, reasonably attractive, mannerly, and very busy young lady. I liked her, although I was not particularly attracted to her otherwise. It would have been frustrating in any case, because it was immediately obvious that she wasn't particularly attracted to the male of the species at all, but to someone I never met or even heard mentioned. Besides, with us it was about the hamburger dance, and we meshed perfectly.

I did as I was taught by my mother. I opened doors for her. I picked up whatever she dropped that she didn't get to before I did. I made sure her coffee cup or whatever she was drinking stayed full and hot or cold as the case might be. She never had to reach for french fries or a hamburger, they were always at her elbow. I smiled and said pleasant things to her, but never anything that could be perceived as flirting with her, or indicating any "personal" interest in her (although on occasion I entertained the thought), and never a question about anything not hamburgerish. We did our dance, finished a jillion lunches, and that was it. This went on for a year, and I don't even remember her name.

But after six months of this, she showed up with lipstick one day. Three months later, she was wearing a skirt. And by the end of the year her features had softened, her voice became musical, and her always-deliberate movements became smooth and relaxed, like she was swimming. She relaxed, and even began to hum on occasion.

Other than in the hamburger dance, I never so much as touched her ~ which at that time in my life was completely out of character for me. Our eyes never met to communicate any magnetism. Not so much as a whisper of an intonation or inflection of voice ever suggested there was anything that might ~ or could ~ arise between us. And I never saw her again, which is probably a good thing, because I wondered, later, whether I had missed a serious and durable opportunity. It's possible, but inconsequential.

But I like to think, after five more decades of life, that something did happen between us; that she found, in me, that not all "heterosexual" men (and she, along with everyone else, knew I was that) are sex-crazed boys with nothing else on their minds; that some of us are capable of genuine affection not inspired by prospects of the bedroom; and that she could return it, which I think she did in her own, very guarded, way.

And I hope that her man found her. There's no question in my mind that he's tried to find her, and I've always wondered whether the lipstick and the skirt were her way of checking to see whether I was him and not just a test that she might have expected me to fail.

And I don't even remember her name. I can't even call up a picture of her face in my mind. But I did love her, as a man loves a woman, and have never forgotten our dance.

Or those delicious hamburgers ...