Thread: Sojourners Magazine and Homosexuality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028582
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Sojourners' Magazine is raising some eyebrows with their decision to not run an ad calling for churches to welcome LGBT people: See article here
Jim Wallis in his column states that while he and Sojourners' Magazine supports gay rights in the Church, their focus is on economic and social justice, and this advertisement might divert them from that mission: Jim Wallis replies
I respect Jim Wallis, but I'm uneasy about pitting concerns for economic justice against concerns for gay and lesbian rights. Surely, for progressive-minded Christians, justice is justice, isn't it?
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
Definitely a rock and a hard place. I didn't read the Huff Post article because that website always hangs up my browser (my computer's ancient), but from Wallis' response, what I'm reading between the lines is that maybe Sojo doesn't want to be in a position where some of their potential Evangelical allies on many other issues will write them off because of their stance on sexuality. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but ISTM the type of ads that run in a periodical might say more about who their readership is than the occasional editorial on an issue, and if Sojo could be written off as a "gay" magazine (through some really tortured logic, but it happens all the time), it could hurt some of their other work?
I'm with you on the matter of justice: denying it to any person or any group of persons is denying it to us all, really. And the above rationale that is hopefully just a figment of my imagination wouldn't justify it one bit. I'm curious, though (and maybe this was in the article I couldn't open)—what was the ad precisely, and how does Sojourners' stance for LGBTQ rights stand or fall with publishing a particular ad?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Another Sojo response, from Tim King: "Love Comes First".
I notice that both Sojo articles have interesting, well-thought-out comments. Jim Wallis's article (see link in OP) has a response from Jay Bakker--gay son of Jim and Tammi Faye, IIRC.
I'm absolutely for welcoming LGBT folks in church. I'm still trying to figure out Sojo's advertising policy, and whether this decision was consistent with it or was the cowardice that many commenters imply--or both.
**ETA: Churchgeek, I believe the video is embedded in the "Love Comes First" article. I've got dial-up, so I can't really watch it.
[ 13. May 2011, 06:27: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Sojo's advertising policy:
quote:
Sojourners accepts advertising that is: (a) deemed valuable and inoffensive to our readers, (b) not inconsistent with the publications' objectives and editorial convictions, and (c) not incompatible with Sojourners vision and mission.
All ads are subject to review and approval by Sojourners' director of advertising sales and/or the editors.
Sojourners may accept or reject advertising at its sole discretion at any time with full reimbursement being made and/or request that changes are made to the advertising copy or pictures/illustrations. Furthermore, the publisher shall not be liable for any costs or damages if for any reason it fails to publish an advertisement.
Sojourners does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse any product, program, or service advertised, unless otherwise indicated.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
This looks like it was a close call. I'm a long term supporter and admirer of Sojo and Jim Wallis, and I can see where they are coming from, but I've got a feeling that what is probably perceived by them as a prudent decision may in the end turn out to have been unwise.
I remain in dialogue with a lot of Christians with whom I disagree on homosexuality. They think I'm wrong, I think they are wrong. We value each other for other reasons. So we dont present our mutual relationships with ultimatums. This bothers me sometimes. Long term friendships can continue with no-go areas, but it does sometimes feel like cowardice on my part.
I think Sojo and Wallis faced a genuine dilemma on this, for reasons I can well understand. Loving folks who are different is a principle which cuts both ways on this issue. Particularly if the difference is that they see things differently. If I cast stones on this particular issue, they hit me as well.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Wallis and Sojo have fostered discussion on gay rights and have tried to do so in a way that provokes thought on the issue and doesn't cause those who disagree with them to write them off from the git go. You don't accomplish anything by doing that. Sojo has been written off by a huge number of conservative Christian ministries and organizations, but they still have many conservative Christians who read the web site and participate in discussions, some seriously as well as those not so seriously. You accomplish more by engaging those who disagree in honest discussion.
Sojo passed up much needed advertising dollars to keep the discussion going. Sojo has a policy of not taking ads concerning issues they put forward. It keeps them honest and from accusations of benefiting from those issues. I don't have a problem with them not taking the ad. They still make no bones about inclusion and acceptance of gay families.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Sojourners' Magazine is raising some eyebrows with their decision to not run an ad calling for churches to welcome LGBT people: See article here
Jim Wallis in his column states that while he and Sojourners' Magazine supports gay rights in the Church, their focus is on economic and social justice, and this advertisement might divert them from that mission: Jim Wallis replies
I respect Jim Wallis, but I'm uneasy about pitting concerns for economic justice against concerns for gay and lesbian rights. Surely, for progressive-minded Christians, justice is justice, isn't it?
You don't necessary have to be 'liberal' on LGBT issues to care about economic or enviromental justice. Rightly or wrongly Christians who are 'conservative' on the LGBT issue do not believe that their stance is unjust. IMO Sojourners are doing good work in engaging with moderate evangelicals on issues like enviromentalism. They are no use to anyone as another liberals-talking-to-liberals pressure group. Although I'm 'liberal' on this issue, I get frustrated by the idea that the LGBT debate has to be the hub around which everything ever revolves. There are alot of issues on which we can and do need to work together across the divide.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
[QUOTE] Although I'm 'liberal' on this issue, I get frustrated by the idea that the LGBT debate has to be the hub around which everything ever revolves. There are alot of issues on which we can and do need to work together across the divide.
For me, the acid test must by default be whether a group who disagrees with the validity of the faith of a gay man is prepared to work with me, because I agree with their stance on the other issue. I'm not going to chop anything off just to fit in with their position.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Sojo passed up much needed advertising dollars to keep the discussion going. Sojo has a policy of not taking ads concerning issues they put forward. It keeps them honest and from accusations of benefiting from those issues.
Obviously not true. Wallis' column states their primary calling is about (among other things) "poverty and hunger", and yet there's a big banner ad a the top of the page for a hunger relief charity.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think this, by Brian Mclaren, is a good exploration of the dilemma.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Thoughtful new Sojo blog post, from a former member of the board. He seems to see all sides of the issue.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sorry for the double-post. So is this.
(xpost with GK, two minds with the same thought)
[ 14. May 2011, 06:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I meant this!. Which is of course linked into the Sojo article.
Finger-fumble at work.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
So where would you draw the line. Sojourners has tried to be, as McLaren called it, a coalition organization with many different social action issues, with ending poverty and hunger at the top of the list. They have worked with both conservative and liberal Christians. They have been rejected by many hardline conservative Christians for their stand on acceptance of gays within the church and for not calling for a ban on abortion, but rather working to end the need for it. Christians DO need to work together on a myriad of social issues, and Sojourners fosters much needed discussion among both sides of the political and social spectrum. They've helped change attitudes on quite a few of these hot button (or Dead Horse as the ship likes to put it) issues. Progressives may cut off their own nose to spite their face by be as hard line condemning of Sojo as some conservatives have on these same issues. James Dobson is a good example with his hardline stance on not accepting any other issues but abortion and homosexuality for Christians to focus on. It ain't "Focus on the Family", it's Focus on Abortion and Gay Marriage" and many in the conservative Christian community have walked away from him even though they agree with him on those issues.
I would love to see gays and lesbians fully accepted in every church, but it's going to take time, discussion and enlightenment to come. It's happening as more evidence accumulates that it's not a "lifestyle choice" and that scholars have other opinions on those few verses that too many take at face value with a 20th century NIV literalist understanding.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Where would I draw the line? Truth is I do draw it. Based on experience, there are some folks with whom discussions of so-called hot-button issues are fruitful.
Before we went away on this break we had a long discussion with a young couple who are heavily involved in youth ministries. Both have been brought up with what one might call "traditional evo" values on the subject - and both are troubled about the subject. And both, interestingly, are finding Brian McLaren's writings very helpful, since he seems to have been on a journey of understanding they are on.
Since they are both strongly social-justice orientated, the recent Sojo controversy will be of interest to them. No doubt when we get back we'll talk some more.
But there are others for whom the dialogue is a closed book - so I don't bother to open it with them.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
So where would you draw the line.
<snip>
Christians DO need to work together on a myriad of social issues, and Sojourners fosters much needed discussion among both sides of the political and social spectrum.
Of course it should be remembered that Sojourners isn't being criticized for not endorsing the idea that gay families should be welcome in church, they're being criticized because apparently such a concept is considered so far outside the pale that they consider an ad buy by an independent group suggesting this to be so far beyond the pale it's inconsistent with the publications' objectives and editorial convictions. I'm not sure how banning such ads counts as "foster[ing] much needed discussion among both sides", it just looks like the same old closet.
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on
:
How much of a debate is even available? This whole discussion has behaved as if each side is as willing as the other to engage in debate with the other. I see little evidence of that: after all, how can you possibly really believe that someone who is "intrinsically disordered"/possessed by a demon of homosexuality/(insert phrase of choice) is worthy of engaging in debate with you? And, I suppose, how and why would you enter into an equal debate with someone whom you have written off as a bigot and whose opinion you believe should leave them liable to a prison sentence?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I note that the ad in question is not about ordination of LGBT clergy. Heck, it is not even about blessing same-sex relationships in the church. The ad is about simply welcoming gays and lesbians in the Church. So I don't think the ad commits Sojourners to anything other than supporting churches to be welcoming gays and lesbians in their midst. I remember when the UCC placed an ad about welcoming people into the church and some Catholics opined that their church, but of course, welcomes all sorts of people.
So I'm disappointed with Jim Wallis and Sojourners' magazine. Surely at a minimum, we should support churches being welcoming to every person, including gays and lesbians.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So I don't think the ad commits Sojourners to anything other than supporting churches to be welcoming gays and lesbians in their midst.
It doesn't even commit them to that much. All that running such an ad, by an outside entity, would commit them to was the position that they're not opposed to welcoming gays and lesbians to church. "Not opposed to" is not the same as "supporting".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
This whole discussion has behaved as if each side is as willing as the other to engage in debate with the other. I see little evidence of that: after all, how can you possibly really believe that someone who is "intrinsically disordered"/possessed by a demon of homosexuality/(insert phrase of choice) is worthy of engaging in debate with you? And, I suppose, how and why would you enter into an equal debate with someone whom you have written off as a bigot and whose opinion you believe should leave them liable to a prison sentence?
A bit of a tangent here.
I think you can always talk about what makes for bigotry. There is this standard of debate here (and on all the other Boards apart from Hell) which is that criticising arguments is one thing, rubbishing a person quite another. It's a pretty good one to apply, not just here but in RL. Personally, I'll try to apply it for quite a time before giving up. If folks give up on me, that's their freedom.
I'm not saying that such dialogue is always easy - it may require a lot of patience. In practice, very few minds are completely closed.
Taking your above description as an example, to describe any group of human beings as "intrinsically disordered" because of their sexual orientation makes for quite an easy open-ended question. "What makes you believe that?". From my perspective those are very extreme statements. It seems pretty easy to ask how such statements fit in with, for example, the good moral principle of assessing individuals on the basis of the content of their character, not their physical characteristics, or their membership of any particular group. Guilt by association is a pretty dubious standard to apply to anybody about anything.
If folks choose ground to stand on, it's always possible to ask why they do that. On the basis of their answers, we find out in practice whether there is scope for dialogue, or not.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
So where would you draw the line.
<snip>
Christians DO need to work together on a myriad of social issues, and Sojourners fosters much needed discussion among both sides of the political and social spectrum.
Of course it should be remembered that Sojourners isn't being criticized for not endorsing the idea that gay families should be welcome in church, they're being criticized because apparently such a concept is considered so far outside the pale that they consider an ad buy by an independent group suggesting this to be so far beyond the pale it's inconsistent with the publications' objectives and editorial convictions. I'm not sure how banning such ads counts as "foster[ing] much needed discussion among both sides", it just looks like the same old closet.
Wallis has always made his viewpoints acceptance of gay Christians well known, but he has done his best to engage in dialogue with everyone on the conservative side on this and other issues, including 3 separate attempts to engage James Dobson. Not to mention, gay rights is not the predominant banner for Sojourners, fighting poverty and hunger is and there are other hot button issues that he doesn't accept ads on - abortion is one. He's gotten roundly condemned for his objection to legislating an end to abortion. He'd rather solve some of the social issues that increase the number of abortions, i.e. lack of poverty, lack of access to affordable health care, etc. - which has also alienated him from both conservative and liberal Christians who favor legislating. The man has done more for social justice issues than just about any other Christian leader I know. Accepting and getting paid for an ad on this issue might very well endanger the inroads he and a very few conservative Christians have made for gay acceptance.
Read McLaren's article on how trying to build a coalition requires differing actions than just being a liberal only publication or even just being a pastor.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
So I don't think the ad commits Sojourners to anything other than supporting churches to be welcoming gays and lesbians in their midst.
It doesn't even commit them to that much. All that running such an ad, by an outside entity, would commit them to was the position that they're not opposed to welcoming gays and lesbians to church. "Not opposed to" is not the same as "supporting".
You might not read anything more than that into accepting an ad, but for those on the opposing side it gives them the excuse they need to write Jim Wallis off together. Many already have, but there are many that haven't.
BTW, accepting an on ending poverty and hunger isn't controversial - there are countless verses dealing with this. There are no pro gay verses. I don't agree with the conservative stance, but I see a huge difference in comparing running ads on both.
[ 15. May 2011, 08:36: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
...You might not read anything more than that into accepting an ad, but for those on the opposing side it gives them the excuse they need to write Jim Wallis off together. Many already have, but there are many that haven't.
...
If you want to work with or cooperate with someone who has a different view on something, you should avoid rubbing their face in the issue.
You (generic you) can believe that homosexuality is ok, and I can talk with you, even if I disagree. However, if I have to confront the issue of homosexuality every time I talk to you, the conversation will be over quickly.
The same applies to politics - a much better example than poverty - because politics polarizes people, just like the issue of homosexuality does.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Why do you think the subject polarises people?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
Issues tend to polarize when there is no room for middle ground. Or, when one or both sides insist that the other fully accept their position 'or else', leaving no room for the middle ground, when there might otherwise have been.
This is also the issue with abortion - most parties argue that either we make it available on demand, or that it me made illegal, regardless of the circumstances.
That's why they are dead horses here.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think DH is pretty powerful evidence that there are subjects on which it seems, for the present and foreseeable future, impossible to produce reconciliation on an issue. At least so far as the membership of SoF is concerned.
It's probably just me, sharkshooter. This is an issue on which I can see vast areas of middle ground, many boundary issues, and loads of scope for at least partial reconciliation. My concern is that some folks just like to preserve the polarities, rather than work at things.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
This is also the issue with abortion - most parties argue that either we make it available on demand, or that it me made illegal, regardless of the circumstances.
You've said this before and I don't think I got round to taking you up on it. I don't think this is true. Some of the best and most interesting discussions here that I remember have been around the middle ground of time limits, and the issues of under what circumstances late term abortions might or might not be needed. I cannot think of a single person here who holds the position that there should be an absolute free-for-all up to birth, though I can think of at least a few posters who are consistently anti all abortion, even where the life of the mother is concerned.
What I guess that you are characterising as 'on demand' are positions like mine, which increase regulation and restriction as a pregnancy progresses, but which do not see any reason to regulate very early pregnancy for reasons like this.
To characterise positions which set limits according to length of gestation and other issues as 'on demand' because such positions may allow for free choice on termination in the earliest stages of pregnancy is misleading.
It seems to me that you are doing the polarisation here. To get back to the OP, the advert is only talking about welcoming people - not marrying or ordaining them or having a law against those who believe or act differently, so it too lies on a spectrum of what is accepted or not. It's not black or white. It's a muddy area - when and how do you compromise to keep people on board? Hence the discussion.
L.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...
It seems to me that you are doing the polarisation here....
I'm quite willing to accept that you are correct here.
I come from the black-and-white school of right and wrong. This makes it very difficult to find middle ground.
However, even when I do, often, those on the other side of the argument prefer to accuse me of not going far enough, rather than accept some willingness to listen. That is usually a door closer.
For example, to say abortion in cases of rape and incest, but never otherwise, is attacked as being too restrictive, rather than as an attempt to show leniency.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Continuing the abortion tangent
The argument I have heard from a work colleague as to why abortion should be regarded as murder from conception is that all the genetic material is present from that point, so there is your unique human - potentiality is not seen as relevant.
I think also it's often a failure of imagination. This colleague was supported through an unexpected pregnancy and does not seem to be able to envisage any way that an unexpected pregnancy may be very challenging to deal with and gets quite judgemental about friends who have decided that they really can't deal with another child. Whereas, I have seen the other side of this, bringing up a child on my own with no support when the relationship broke down, and know how difficult that is.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...
It seems to me that you are doing the polarisation here....
I'm quite willing to accept that you are correct here.
I come from the black-and-white school of right and wrong. This makes it very difficult to find middle ground.
However, even when I do, often, those on the other side of the argument prefer to accuse me of not going far enough, rather than accept some willingness to listen. That is usually a door closer.
For example, to say abortion in cases of rape and incest, but never otherwise, is attacked as being too restrictive, rather than as an attempt to show leniency.
Leaving aside any discussion of the merits of abortion arguments for abortion threads. It seems to me that there's something important in this. I'll try and dig up the article I read recently about how people argue, and how others trying to contradict them can make people stick to their guns even more.
Partly it's a matter of culture - what one person sees as lenient in their church or culture, might seem way out and extreme to someone from another background or culture, and that can led to ill-feeling and to people not listening to each other, if they trade those views.
Also I was thinking about this
quote:
You (generic you) can believe that homosexuality is ok, and I can talk with you, even if I disagree. However, if I have to confront the issue of homosexuality every time I talk to you, the conversation will be over quickly.
You'd only need to add a 'not' as in 'not ok' and that would be very reminiscent of what I've seen some gay posters write. People do indeed tire of constantly having to defend themselves.
It's an interesting question how to engage with people who have very different views without doing more harm than good.
cheers,
Louise
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Up very early, Louise - travelling today. I agree with you. There seem to me to be two principal reasons for impatience and dropping out of dialogue. The first is "we've been over all that before" and the second is "there is nothing you can say that will change my mind".
There are many constructive approaches to the first, including an immediate apology, and a recognition of the need to find new debating territory on the issue. But the second is much more difficult. Personally, I reckon something like "Now may not be the right time, but I'd like to understand better why your mind is so made up on the subject".
Challenging deep convictions head on always seems to me to be less fruitful than seeking to understand better what produced them. Its that "walking a mile in someone else's moccasins" thing.
It's a fascinating question and an important one whose significance for attempts at reconciliation go a lot further than discussions on a website.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...
Challenging deep convictions head on always seems to me to be less fruitful than seeking to understand better what produced them. Its that "walking a mile in someone else's moccasins" thing.
...
Which brings me back to...
Running the ad would have been a head-on challenge to the readers who were not in agreement with the magazine's stance on homosexuality. This may have been why the magazine chose not to run the ad. The resulting loss of readers would have polarized their readership.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
Louise, Barnabas – very helpful comments.
I’m disappointed in the decision by Sojourners, but I can see where they are coming from on this. The impulse to keep open as many channels of dialogue as possible seems to me an important one to preserve, even if they sometimes get it wrong. It’s an approach that will always get up a lot of people’s noses because, on the face of it, no one is really being affirmed in their views (I sometimes think Rowan Williams, who I admire very much, adopts a similar position and takes a lot of flak in the process). It’s a delicate balance that could easily tip in the direction of simply maintaining the status quo, but Sojourners is one of very few forums I know of that welcomes people from such a wide spectrum of Christianity and enables them to unite over the many social justice issues that can be agreed to be of common concern.
I had my own epiphany that loosened the ties of black-and-white thinking a few years ago, when I read “Faith Beyond Resentment” by the gay Catholic priest James Alison. His basic approach is to show how it is innately human to create a kind of limited inclusivity through the exclusion and scapegoating of others. Traditionally LGBT people have been a victim of this. But it is not necessarily entirely one way, especially now that there is growing social and, in some places, ecclesial, acceptance of LGBT equality. So, for instance, if my place of worship happens to be inclusive of LGBT people, that’s great, but the inclusivity has to be rooted in Christ rather than a common (and possibly very well concealed) hatred of traditionalists... in other words LGBT Christians and their families and friends should not fight fire with fire (and I say this not as an outsider, but as a gay man myself). This doesn’t mean letting those who disagree with you trample all over you, but it does mean trying to see them only as a brother or sister in Christ, which then rather trumps any inclination to personify them as a homophobic bigot. I find this bloody hard to do, but I’m so tired of the liberal/conservative impasse on this issue that it seems an approach worth exploring. It also feels Biblically warranted - Jesus creates a space in which all are included... the challenge is learning how to inhabit that space.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
......Sojourners is one of very few forums I know of that welcomes people from such a wide spectrum of Christianity and enables them to unite over the many social justice issues that can be agreed to be of common concern.
...
That is the point. If you* only will cooperate with like-minded people, your talent/finance/whatever pool becomes restricted and you can do less. If you wish to relieve poverty, would you not be better positioned if you could draw on all resources, regardless of their stance on other issues?
If the answer is yes (whether it be politics, economic theory, theology, or stance on homosexuality) then you need to resist the urge to push those away who have different points of view, especially when it has nothing to do with your mission.
As far as I can tell, this works exactly the same, regardless of which point of view you hold on any issue, and I have been trying to construct my posts so that they are even-handed.
*generic you
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
BTW, accepting an on ending poverty and hunger isn't controversial - there are countless verses dealing with this. There are no pro gay verses. I don't agree with the conservative stance, but I see a huge difference in comparing running ads on both.
It may not be controversial, but it is a direct contradiction of your claim that "Sojo has a policy of not taking ads concerning issues they put forward". Goldenkey even helpfully posted the relevant section of their advertising policy which, if anything, takes the contrary position. Do you have a cite for your assertion?
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
I’m disappointed in the decision by Sojourners, but I can see where they are coming from on this. The impulse to keep open as many channels of dialogue as possible seems to me an important one to preserve, even if they sometimes get it wrong. It’s an approach that will always get up a lot of people’s noses because, on the face of it, no one is really being affirmed in their views (I sometimes think Rowan Williams, who I admire very much, adopts a similar position and takes a lot of flak in the process).
The problem is that it's hard to have a "dialogue" if even incredibly mild statements like the ad in question (a gay couple and their child aren't thrown out of a church) are considered so radical they're regarded as an insult. There can be lots of reasons for considering such a message unsuitable, but "promoting a dialogue" isn't one of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
This doesn’t mean letting those who disagree with you trample all over you, but it does mean trying to see them only as a brother or sister in Christ, which then rather trumps any inclination to personify them as a homophobic bigot.
That's not an either/or proposition. Isn't the whole controversy based on the idea that it's incredibly offensive to consider homosexuals "a brother or sister in Christ"?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]It may not be controversial, but it is a direct contradiction of your claim that "Sojo has a policy of not taking ads concerning issues they put forward". Goldenkey even helpfully posted the relevant section of their advertising policy which, if anything, takes the contrary position. Do you have a cite for your assertion?
Actually, that assertion was in one of the Sojo columns that was linked to earlier. Maybe in Jim Wallis's?
I can see more than one side of it, and I'm not sure what Sojo should have done. In church circles, LGBT issues are much more controversial than helping the poor. If Sojo is primarily focused on building a broad-based coalition to help the poor, then running an ad re any LGBT topic is apt to harm the coalition.
If Sojo was worried about losing subscribers, well...this decision is costing them many, judging by comments on the site.
The problem with proclaiming that you're devoted to social justice is that people will expect you to be socially just...at least, by their definition. And be consistent.
I suspect any of the obvious possible decisions would have wreaked havoc.
I wonder if they might have done some edgy bridge-building if they'd tried to include a series of ads and/or articles about welcoming everyone---all sorts of people--to church, *including* LGBT folks?
People who think that homosexuality is a sin--generally meaning that it's intrinsically disordered/evil AND freely chosen--theoretically should welcome LGBT folks to church on the basis that they're sinners who need to repent. (*I* don't think they're sinful nor sick, FYI. I think it's like being left-handed.) But I think many people who proclaim homosexuality a sin really just mean "ew, ick", whether consciously or not.
I think it *is* possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is some sort of disorder and yet have compassion for folks thus "afflicted". But the people who do the most anti-LGBT yelling don't seem to be in that camp.
IMHO, Sojo needs to do something better than what they've done to deal with this mess, but I don't know what that should be.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the whole controversy based on the idea that it's incredibly offensive to consider homosexuals "a brother or sister in Christ"?
I doubt it. Back in 20004, a lot of the objections to the UCC's "G-d is Still Speaking" ad that featured homosexuals being rejected from different churches and being accepted at the UCC were because of the implication that churches that teach that engaging in homosexual behavior was sinful would actually reject homosexual people as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than embrace them as fellow sinners. They said they didn't and wouldn't; others argued that... well, there are several whole long threads here in Dead Horses on the subject.
Given the way certain hot-button topics (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.) have been used by politicians in the US to distract the average voter from other concerns, I understand where the magazine is coming from in rejecting the ad. I'm not convinced they're right, but I do think it's possible that there are enough prosperity-gospel-leaning pastors out there who would have used this as an excuse to reject what is already a shaky coalition that it may have been necessary.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]It may not be controversial, but it is a direct contradiction of your claim that "Sojo has a policy of not taking ads concerning issues they put forward". Goldenkey even helpfully posted the relevant section of their advertising policy which, if anything, takes the contrary position. Do you have a cite for your assertion?
Actually, that assertion was in one of the Sojo columns that was linked to earlier. Maybe in Jim Wallis's?
I can see more than one side of it, and I'm not sure what Sojo should have done. In church circles, LGBT issues are much more controversial than helping the poor. If Sojo is primarily focused on building a broad-based coalition to help the poor, then running an ad re any LGBT topic is apt to harm the coalition.
If Sojo was worried about losing subscribers, well...this decision is costing them many, judging by comments on the site.
The problem with proclaiming that you're devoted to social justice is that people will expect you to be socially just...at least, by their definition. And be consistent.
I suspect any of the obvious possible decisions would have wreaked havoc.
I wonder if they might have done some edgy bridge-building if they'd tried to include a series of ads and/or articles about welcoming everyone---all sorts of people--to church, *including* LGBT folks?
People who think that homosexuality is a sin--generally meaning that it's intrinsically disordered/evil AND freely chosen--theoretically should welcome LGBT folks to church on the basis that they're sinners who need to repent. (*I* don't think they're sinful nor sick, FYI. I think it's like being left-handed.) But I think many people who proclaim homosexuality a sin really just mean "ew, ick", whether consciously or not.
I think it *is* possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is some sort of disorder and yet have compassion for folks thus "afflicted". But the people who do the most anti-LGBT yelling don't seem to be in that camp.
IMHO, Sojo needs to do something better than what they've done to deal with this mess, but I don't know what that should be.
The point is that Sojourners is saying essentially that issues of dignity for LGBT people take a back seat to social justice issues. One writer wrote that the problem assumes that there is a clear-cut division between the two. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, it is well known that a disproportionate number of homeless youth are gay or lesbian. The reason they are sleeping on the streets is that their families have kicked them out. Dealing with their poverty means confronting homophobia.
Building a coalition is difficult, but it can't simply involve gently comforting conservatives telling them that they are free to be prejudiced against LGBT people. What about LGBT people and their allies who might potentially have to endure conservatives within this social justice coalition who will take this as license to continue to preach inaccurate and harmful lies about them?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't the whole controversy based on the idea that it's incredibly offensive to consider homosexuals "a brother or sister in Christ"?
I doubt it. Back in 20004, a lot of the objections to the UCC's "G-d is Still Speaking" ad that featured homosexuals being rejected from different churches and being accepted at the UCC were because of the implication that churches that teach that engaging in homosexual behavior was sinful would actually reject homosexual people as brothers and sisters in Christ rather than embrace them as fellow sinners. They said they didn't and wouldn't; others argued that... well, there are several whole long threads here in Dead Horses on the subject.
If that's the case, then why would the Believe Out Loud ad be considered "controversial"? If you're arguing that an openly gay couple would be welcome in any church as fellow believers, then I don't see what's so controversial about an ad depicting . . . an openly gay couple being welcome in church as fellow believers.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Only capable of a brief observation because of mobile phone use and display limitations.
When we are convinced we are reading a justice issue or a personal morality correctly, does this also give us the right to proclaim our views from a 'high horse'?
Much as I would like it personally if the justice and morality issues here were resolved the way I've resolved them, the reality is that opinions continue to differ. So the only real issue is what is the most effective way to proceed, to foster change in the direction we believe to be right.
I think the moral principle is that if you know what being marginalised feels like, don't marginalise in retaliation. The most effective confrontation is nearly always the penetrating question, rather than the superior asserion.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The point is that Sojourners is saying essentially that issues of dignity for LGBT people take a back seat to social justice issues. One writer wrote that the problem assumes that there is a clear-cut division between the two. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, it is well known that a disproportionate number of homeless youth are gay or lesbian. The reason they are sleeping on the streets is that their families have kicked them out. Dealing with their poverty means confronting homophobia.
Building a coalition is difficult, but it can't simply involve gently comforting conservatives telling them that they are free to be prejudiced against LGBT people. What about LGBT people and their allies who might potentially have to endure conservatives within this social justice coalition who will take this as license to continue to preach inaccurate and harmful lies about them?
Yes. Personally, I think that LGBT acceptance is a social justice issue. But Sojo may have felt that they couldn't take on so many issues--that their anti-poverty work might be jeopardized by taking that ad.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The most effective confrontation is nearly always the penetrating question, rather than the superior asserion.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Hey, if you had spelt it correctly that would have been the most profound comment ever on the ship. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
I’m disappointed in the decision by Sojourners, but I can see where they are coming from on this. The impulse to keep open as many channels of dialogue as possible seems to me an important one to preserve, even if they sometimes get it wrong. It’s an approach that will always get up a lot of people’s noses because, on the face of it, no one is really being affirmed in their views (I sometimes think Rowan Williams, who I admire very much, adopts a similar position and takes a lot of flak in the process).
The problem is that it's hard to have a "dialogue" if even incredibly mild statements like the ad in question (a gay couple and their child aren't thrown out of a church) are considered so radical they're regarded as an insult. There can be lots of reasons for considering such a message unsuitable, but "promoting a dialogue" isn't one of them.
I agree with you that Sojo are failing in this instance to "promote" dialogue, or indeed the socially just action which is their mission.
My point, though, was somewhat more nuanced: I think their decision, wrong though I believe it is, was based on a laudable desire to keep as many people at their table as possible, from across the spectrum... not to close down possible channels of dialogue, including dialogue with, and indeed social justice for, LGBT people.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
This doesn’t mean letting those who disagree with you trample all over you, but it does mean trying to see them only as a brother or sister in Christ, which then rather trumps any inclination to personify them as a homophobic bigot.
That's not an either/or proposition. Isn't the whole controversy based on the idea that it's incredibly offensive to consider homosexuals "a brother or sister in Christ"?
It depends from which perspective you are looking at it. As a Christian, I think that being "in Christ" should trump every other other label we might otherwise wish to apply to people. But I can only put that into practice myself. If any other Christian finds it incredibly offensive to regard me as their brother in Christ because I'm gay, ultimately that really is their problem not mine. That's not to say they can't cause problems for me - or any other LGBT person - but I have a choice as to how to deal with those problems, and my much preferred choice as a Christian is not to go to war with them. I will always openly state my sincerely held convictions, but I think head on confrontation and labelling only stokes the fire.
Barnabas expresses it perfectly, I think:
quote:
I think the moral principle is that if you know what being marginalised feels like, don't marginalise in retaliation. The most effective confrontation is nearly always the penetrating question, rather than the superior asserion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the moral principle is that if you know what being marginalised feels like, don't marginalise in retaliation. The most effective confrontation is nearly always the penetrating question, rather than the superior asser[t]ion.
That seems an awful long way to go to coddle people's prejudices. I have a hard time believing that simply making the suggestion "maybe homosexuals and their children can be fellow congregants" is a truly marginalizing statement and, if it is, I think it says a lot more about the sensibilities of anyone who would regard such a suggestion as an affront.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
My point, though, was somewhat more nuanced: I think their decision, wrong though I believe it is, was based on a laudable desire to keep as many people at their table as possible, from across the spectrum... not to close down possible channels of dialogue, including dialogue with, and indeed social justice for, LGBT people.
Except that the whole premise from which you're arguing seems to preclude the possibility of dialogue. If saying anything positive (or, in this case, neutral!) about gay people is enough to automatically make people leave your metaphorical table, how can you possibly have a "dialogue" about this issue? In other words, if anything other than a negative portrayal of homosexuals shuts down a "dialogue", doesn't that limit the accepaable boundaries of such a dialogue to ragging on gays?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The point is that Sojourners is saying essentially that issues of dignity for LGBT people take a back seat to social justice issues. One writer wrote that the problem assumes that there is a clear-cut division between the two. I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, it is well known that a disproportionate number of homeless youth are gay or lesbian. The reason they are sleeping on the streets is that their families have kicked them out. Dealing with their poverty means confronting homophobia.
Building a coalition is difficult, but it can't simply involve gently comforting conservatives telling them that they are free to be prejudiced against LGBT people. What about LGBT people and their allies who might potentially have to endure conservatives within this social justice coalition who will take this as license to continue to preach inaccurate and harmful lies about them?
Yes. Personally, I think that LGBT acceptance is a social justice issue. But Sojo may have felt that they couldn't take on so many issues--that their anti-poverty work might be jeopardized by taking that ad.
That might have been the intent but I think that this decision might end up biting them in the behind. With increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in society and in mainline Protestant churches (cue the recent decision by PCUSA to allow openly gay clergy), many people might think twice about supporting Sojourners if they perceive that they are hesitant in supporting full civil rights. Sojourners might increasingly find itself only as speaking for the group of socially conservative, yet social justice oriented Protestants and perhaps Catholics.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
That might have been the intent but I think that this decision might end up biting them in the behind. With increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in society and in mainline Protestant churches (cue the recent decision by PCUSA to allow openly gay clergy), many people might think twice about supporting Sojourners if they perceive that they are hesitant in supporting full civil rights. Sojourners might increasingly find itself only as speaking for the group of socially conservative, yet social justice oriented Protestants and perhaps Catholics.
Anyone who reads Sojourners on a regular basis knows that they have called for acceptance of LGBT in the church. Is it really necessary to accept money from a political action group for an advertisement to be displayed on the page? Frankly, Wallis' work towards LGBT acceptance and working within relationship to accomplish that is far more valuable and effective than an advertisement. His stance on LGBT acceptance has cost him rejection from the far right Christian establishment. People abandoning him for rejecting the ad will cause more damage to the acceptance cause.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Croesos, I understand your point but I'm not sure you understand mine, since you highlighted only the first sentence in the para. The second strongly related to the first and is not a separate point.
There is nothing mollycodling in asking penetrating questions. Whether you or I like it or not (and personally I don't like it at all) the winning of hearts and minds on issues of justice and morality is a tricky business, not just determined by who has the best argument, or the best means of presenting it.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
My point, though, was somewhat more nuanced: I think their decision, wrong though I believe it is, was based on a laudable desire to keep as many people at their table as possible, from across the spectrum... not to close down possible channels of dialogue, including dialogue with, and indeed social justice for, LGBT people.
Except that the whole premise from which you're arguing seems to preclude the possibility of dialogue. If saying anything positive (or, in this case, neutral!) about gay people is enough to automatically make people leave your metaphorical table, how can you possibly have a "dialogue" about this issue? In other words, if anything other than a negative portrayal of homosexuals shuts down a "dialogue", doesn't that limit the accepaable boundaries of such a dialogue to ragging on gays?
Well, I don’t think the decision not to run this particular ad at this time necessarily shuts anything down or shuts anyone out definitively. It does send out a negative signal, however, and given the ‘neutral’ quality of the ad I think Sojourners has made a poor decision on this occasion. I haven’t been seeking to defend that decision.
To address your specific point, perhaps I should clarify how I am using the word "dialogue". I am using it more in a metaphorical sense, not just in the conversational sense of thrashing things out verbally from different perspectives in direct debate. Dialogue could perhaps take place over time in a more indirect, fragmentary and even partly non-verbal form. Maybe it would be better to describe what I mean as "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" and allowing that to be a transformative experience. And working together for a common cause under the broad umbrella that Sojourners has traditionally provided seems to be a very practical way of doing it. Maybe this is all too idealistic or optimistic, but I don't think taking entrenched liberal vs conservative positions and flinging mud at each other from either side of the fence has been a conspicuously productive approach.
I've just been trying to consider that there might be a deeper principle at work here: the principle of seeking not to marginalise specific groups who may disagree on some vital issues but not on others. That seems to be a guiding principle for Jim Wallis and his colleagues at Sojourners. Choosing to focus on social justice issues around which people can unite, and to limit the stress on issues that are known to polarise is a stance that I can understand according to that principle. Commitment to non-violence or alleviating poverty* seems to be something on which Christians from ‘progressive’ or ‘conservative’ backgrounds can agree and work together. If in the process – even if only as a byproduct - working together for a common cause enables people to hear and learn from people they wouldn't normally even meet, let alone agree with, then that is surely a good thing.
Yes, by not running the ad, Sojourners missed an opportunity to make a positive statement in what would seem to be a very non-confrontational and gently symbolic way. I can’t easily see in what way they would be marginalising or alienating any of their supporters by running the Believe Out Loud ad. Hopefully they will reconsider their decision, but in the meantime, looking at their position on LGBT issues over many years, it would seem an over-reaction to condemn them outright for what hopefully will prove to be an isolated loss of nerve.
(*Some posters have commented on the link between social injustice for LGBT people and poverty. There's also the issue of anti-gay violence. I agree that social justice issues cannot easily be compartmentalised. Traditionally Sojourners has been very strong in speaking out against homophobic violence. But Jim Wallis' latest statement does seem to take a step back from a broader, more integrated approach to social justice. Hopefully he and Sojourners will nevertheless be moving in that direction.)
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
...... I can’t easily see in what way they would be marginalising or alienating any of their supporters by running the Believe Out Loud ad. ...
Maybe, maybe not. However, e-mailing the ad to the subscribers would have been much more "in your face", and probably would have alienated more: quote:
Campaign organizers tried to buy space for the video on the web site and email list of Sojourners... [emphasis added]
I know that if I got such an ad from a sponsor of an on-line magazine or newspaper I subscribed to, I would cancel. It is reasonable to assume I am not alone. There is a difference in knowing what the official stance is on something, and having it demonstrated graphically in your face.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos, I understand your point but I'm not sure you understand mine, since you highlighted only the first sentence in the para. The second strongly related to the first and is not a separate point.
There is nothing mollycodling in asking penetrating questions. Whether you or I like it or not (and personally I don't like it at all) the winning of hearts and minds on issues of justice and morality is a tricky business, not just determined by who has the best argument, or the best means of presenting it.
I'm pretty sure I understand your point, I just think that anyone who considers a statement like "maybe the church won't eject people you don't like" to be some kind of attempt to marginalize them personally has an assumption of privilege so great neither "penetrating questions" nor "superior assertions" are likely to be regarded as anything other than a further attempt at "marginalization".
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
To address your specific point, perhaps I should clarify how I am using the word "dialogue". I am using it more in a metaphorical sense, not just in the conversational sense of thrashing things out verbally from different perspectives in direct debate. Dialogue could perhaps take place over time in a more indirect, fragmentary and even partly non-verbal form. Maybe it would be better to describe what I mean as "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" and allowing that to be a transformative experience.
Except that your assumption seems to be that any kind of "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" would automatically terminate whatever it is you mean by "dialogue". If just watching a video portraying open homosexuals as fellow Christians is enough to do that, I can't offhand think of a more oblique "meeting" or "encounter" that wouldn't pass completely without notice or effect.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
I'm sure Sharkshooter is not alone, in fact.
It's very radical in some conservative evangelical circles to suggest that gay couples and their kids should in fact be welcomed to church. Single gay people have literally been chased away from congregations - people here on SoF have stories to tell about this - so I can only imagine what a gay couple with kids would face.
Some of my evangelical relatives post (often defamatory and false) anti-gay news articles on Facebook, just as if it were still 1978: gay people are mentally ill reprobates, and we should just cut it the hell out. This, even when they know some of us in the family ARE gay.
So this issue is still a live one in some places and with some people. It actually would be taken as very "in-your-face," and not gentle at all.
[ 17. May 2011, 17:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
To address your specific point, perhaps I should clarify how I am using the word "dialogue". I am using it more in a metaphorical sense, not just in the conversational sense of thrashing things out verbally from different perspectives in direct debate. Dialogue could perhaps take place over time in a more indirect, fragmentary and even partly non-verbal form. Maybe it would be better to describe what I mean as "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" and allowing that to be a transformative experience.
Except that your assumption seems to be that any kind of "meeting" or "encountering" or "being with" would automatically terminate whatever it is you mean by "dialogue". If just watching a video portraying open homosexuals as fellow Christians is enough to do that, I can't offhand think of a more oblique "meeting" or "encounter" that wouldn't pass completely without notice or effect.
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Are you denying that a coalition organisation of Christians from across the spectrum, that has in common a shared commitment to a wide range of social justice issues, can create an environment where hearts and minds might over time be changed?
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
I'm sure some of our despisers themselves would be happy if we took up this latter option, but why give them that kind of satisfaction... far better, I think, if LGBT Christians remain as much as possible in the mainstream of Christian witness. Sojourners has traditionally been one of the spaces where we can do that, and I hope despite this setback it will continue to be.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Seems only practical, since anyone who gets the vapors over something like the Believe Out Loud video would probaby collapse into a dead faint in the presence of an actual homosexual.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Are you denying that a coalition organisation of Christians from across the spectrum, that has in common a shared commitment to a wide range of social justice issues, can create an environment where hearts and minds might over time be changed?
Creating such an environment is certainly possible, though as noted above the dead faints and recoiling in horror might be an obstacle at first.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
I'm suggesting that someone who regards something like Believe Out Loud's ninety second video to be an unbearable marginalization of their views is unlikely shift their perception regardless of the approach taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
That seems to be the position adopted by Sojourners and its defenders, not so much that LGBT Christians and their supporters shouldn't work with other Christians, but that they should at least have the "decency" to do so from the closet. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You know, so no one feels "marginalized". [Yes, that's sarcasm.]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Croesos, you make excellent points and currently I'm frustrated by the limitations of a tiny touch-screen. Back on 20 May when I promise to respond in some depth. There is not much difference between us but what there is may be worth spelling out.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
OK, Croesos, fair enough. I put the first line of the opening question in my last post rather badly, which then gave you an opportunity to go to town on the sarcasm. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
FWIW I'll just say that I'm not persuaded that it automatically follows that someone who finds the Believe Out Loud video too in-your-face (however ridiculous you or I may think that is) would not be able to work with an openly LGBT Christian on a social justice issue that didn't involve direct engagement with LGBT issues. Maybe it's unlikely, but you can't definitely say it's impossible. That's all I'm saying.
Believe me I know it's emotive issue, but a bad call by Sojourners and a less than satisfying explanation for it from Jim Wallis does not make me think they as an organisation are basically no better than the gay-rejecting Christians they may be trying to keep onside. Sojourners have been doing good work on social justice issues for forty years. And the manner in which Sojourners has been openly supportive of LGBT people in recent years contradicts your notion that they really want their LGBT supporters to stay closeted. In an ideal world, they'd have run the ad. In reality, they had to make a tough decision with a view to the bigger picture.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or are you suggesting that there are no circumstances in which people might experience a shift in perception other than by being confronted with a sustained verbal argument (however rational and just)?
I'm suggesting that someone who regards something like Believe Out Loud's ninety second video to be an unbearable marginalization of their views is unlikely shift their perception regardless of the approach taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
Or maybe you are implying that LGBT or LGBT-friendly Christians should out of principle always refuse to embark on any work or join any organisation that works for the common good if even some of that organisation's members happen to despise them (in contradiction to that organisations mission statement, as far as Sojourners is concerned)?
That seems to be the position adopted by Sojourners and its defenders, not so much that LGBT Christians and their supporters shouldn't work with other Christians, but that they should at least have the "decency" to do so from the closet.
You know, so no one feels "marginalized". [Yes, that's sarcasm.]
Sorry to double post, but just a further thought to address the specific point you make about "marginalization". My own take on it is not that I think that Christians who are prejudiced against gay people are themselves being marginalized, or are in any danger of it, even if they feel they are. However, as someone who really has been marginalized by mainstream Christianity, I have to consider whether I want to respond to anti-gay prejudice within the church with the same viciousness with which I have sometimes been treated. I just don't think it helps anybody, least of all myself, if I do. Hence my conviction that it's best to seek common ground first and try to work from there.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
My own take on it is not that I think that Christians who are prejudiced against gay people are themselves being marginalized, or are in any danger of it, even if they feel they are. However, as someone who really has been marginalized by mainstream Christianity, I have to consider whether I want to respond to anti-gay prejudice within the church with the same viciousness with which I have sometimes been treated.
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Croesos, you've misread me. Please will you do me a favour? I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from further comments on my posts until I'm in position to respond with something better than a tiny touch screen and a mobile connection which keeps coming znd going. My mistake for re-engaging with limited means and I apologise for thar. Back home friday evening.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Croesos, you've misread me. Please will you do me a favour? I'd be grateful if you'd refrain from further comments on my posts until I'm in position to respond with something better than a tiny touch screen and a mobile connection which keeps coming znd going. My mistake for re-engaging with limited means and I apologise for thar. Back home friday evening.
But the world ends the next day! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Thanks
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
So, are you saying that if someone can't bear even to see a video depicting openly gay people as fellow Christians, then it automatically follows that they will not be able to tolerate working alongside or contributing to a commonly agreed cause (that is not LGBT-related) with openly gay Christians?
Seems only practical, since anyone who gets the vapors over something like the Believe Out Loud video would probaby collapse into a dead faint in the presence of an actual homosexual.
...
Your opinion is unfounded. But then, I expect you know that.
The issue is not about marginalizing anyone. It is about whether both sides are willing to put an issue on the back burner for a greater good. In this case, the issue of homosexuality would be shelved for the sake of dealing with poverty.
Let's try something else. Because this is a theological issue, let's see if another theological issue helps to illustrate what I am trying to say.
If a Baptist and a Catholic wanted to work together to resolve economic issues, they should not continually challenge each other on the issue of communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist and the meanings behind the bread and wine (or grape juice). If one party insists the other conform to their theology on that issue in order for them to work to gether to help the poor, then they will go their separate ways, to the detriment of the poor. Then who wins? No one.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Croesos, in view of your "end of the world" concerns ....
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This looks like it was a close call. I'm a long term supporter and admirer of Sojo and Jim Wallis, and I can see where they are coming from, but I've got a feeling that what is probably perceived by them as a prudent decision may in the end turn out to have been unwise.
This was my first post on the thread and should have given you a sufficient clue that I had misgivings about the refusal to run the ad. I'm not sure the term "innocuous" covers it, but if allowing it provoked a negative reaction amongst some more conservative Sojo supporters, it is pretty easy to defend that allowing in line with the pre-existing Sojo stance. Or so it seems to me. Hence my gut feel that in the end the position adopted might not turn out to be wise.
But to make things clear let me spell out my personal position.
1. If the decision had been down to me, I would have run it. I agree with the view expressed in this thread that you cannot separate social justice in general from any particular prejudice.
2. If it was a collegiate decision, I would have advocated running it. But my position did not prevail I would not resign, rather I would seek to work for change from within. That's because I believe Sojo has been "on the side of the angels" on social justice issues in general for forty years. So if they got this wrong in my view, that wont stop me supporting them.
Now to the "marginalisation" point. I did not foresee the effect of my use of the term. I've been marginalised by majorities in a number of different ways in my life and I do know what it feels like. And there have been times when I retaliated in kind. But I learned that in the process of doing that I did damage to myself.
I learned that "turning the other cheek", "not repaying evil with evil", "love of enemies (or those who would enemise or demonise me)", were better principles to apply. In general I characterise this as "coming in the opposite spirit to that I have received". What I was trying to do was illustrate that principle in this case, in the belief, as I said, that it is the right moral principle. At least I am sure it is for a Christian. Bertrand Russell said about love of enemies that there was nothing to be said against it as a moral precept - except that most people found it too hard.
But it would have been better to have stuck to that kind of language, rather than experiment with the marginalisation metaphor. I can see now that my use of language didn't help - in fact it confused the issue. The above para is I hope a clearer picture of what I was trying to say.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
I don't think the video marginalises people who see gay relationships as wrong (no matter how stable). I think it might provoke them, but that's another matter. If you look at what I said "don't marginalise back" is basically a general guideline. It was not intended to convey that the video did that specifically. But I guess you weren't to know that, given its clumsiness.
Croesos, I'm happy to put my hand up to misrepresenting myself to some extent in this thread. Looking at all my posts on this thread (and a fair number of others over the years), I've adopted a pretty consistent stance in favour of acceptance of what Golden Key describes as all kinds of "left-handedness". I'm not in the business of derailing threads or nannying the inappropriately sensitive. As plenty of other threads have demonstrated.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I just get irritated that folks like Barnabas62 either feel that something like that innocuous video truly marginalizes people or that he realizes it doesn't but warns against it marginalizing people as a topic-derailing distraction.
I don't think the video marginalises people who see gay relationships as wrong (no matter how stable). I think it might provoke them, but that's another matter. If you look at what I said "don't marginalise back" is basically a general guideline. It was not intended to convey that the video did that specifically. But I guess you weren't to know that, given its clumsiness.
The problem with citing general guidelines as a response to specific situations is that it's implied that the guidelines are applicable to that specific situation. In other words, despite the fact that "don't go on a psychotic killing spree" is a good general guideline, saying "don't respond to the current situation by going on a psychotic killing spree" implies that the speaker thinks there's at least a good chance of that actually happening (or has already happened).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's a fair point. I was quite specific about my response to the advert and "what if" questions if I was part of Sojo decision-making.
If there is no journey from principle to practice, we're just shooting the breeze. But I guess you may be thinking about other scenarios, e.g.
'What would I do if I was a gay Christian and experiencing marginalisation or rejection in a local congregation? What courses of action might be compatible with "coming in the opposite spirit"?'
Or maybe you had something else in mind? What would you do, yourself?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's a fair point. I was quite specific about my response to the advert and "what if" questions if I was part of Sojo decision-making.
If there is no journey from principle to practice, we're just shooting the breeze. But I guess you may be thinking about other scenarios, e.g.
'What would I do if I was a gay Christian and experiencing marginalisation or rejection in a local congregation? What courses of action might be compatible with "coming in the opposite spirit"?'
Or maybe you had something else in mind? What would you do, yourself?
Nope, I was thinking about the current scenario and wondering where the idea of gay rights groups "marginalizing" people came from. Given the actual actions of a group promoting gay equality (Believe Out Loud) didn't seem to be marginalizing, it seemed like concern trolling.
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
I think the key question for GLBT* people viz a viz Sojourners is "how far does social justice extend?" We are, after all, quite used to being marginalized in the church. Many have left the church permanently. I expect some GLBT* folks with Christian background or inclination look at Sojourners and wonder, "Do they really mean what they say?"
Sojourners have made a decision based on a political calculus that was explained by Wallis and McLaren (Wallis' explanation disappointed and read to me as a waffle; McLaren's made more sense even though I don't agree with it).
For this gay Christian, Sojourners has drawn their line in the sand. They have said quite clearly "No; our social justice remit doesn't include you."
Wallis, et al should simply stop talking about acceptance of LGBT folks in the church and the need for recognition of "civil unions" (which I read as "let the faggots have their second class status"). He has no credibility with me at this point.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I get you, Croesos. (Finally).
It is much more helpful to say that I think its a good idea to be more generous to others than they've been to us, which was what I meant to convey in the first place. How we do that is a matter of individual choice. The red herring was inadvertent and I regret using "marginalise" in that way. It did not convey what I meant. I hope you can accept my sincerity in that.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
Along with iGeek I think the way Sojourners has handled this sends a negative and even ominous message to LGBT Christians and to our friends in the churches. The most charitable interpretation might be that this is in the too hard basket in terms of engaging the more conservative elements of Evangelicalism that Sojourners seek to engage with social and environmental issues. I am dissapointed but hardly surprised.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0