The refusal of Sojourners to run the Mother’s Day Believe Out Loud advertisement has many on the Christian left wondering what’s going on. (Get the original story from the Rev. Robert Chase at RD and see a play-by-play of developments from Sarah Posner, also at RD.) Worse than this was the response posted by Jim Wallis which appears to divide “real social justice issues” from “political wedge issues” (read issues of class, war, and race from issues of gender and sexuality). It’s same-old, same-old in some respects (I have to push back against this to some extent in my thesis, recently posted by UTK by the way), but it’s still disconcerting to see this from Sojourners, which seemed to be one of our better bridges.

The Rev. Susan Russell has details on the Integrity/Episcopal response, in addition to ways to write Sojourners and thank Integrity. I’ve attached my letter below; hope similarly invested folks will make an effort to keep Wallis accountable.

Peace,
J.

To whom it may concern:

My name is Justin Crisp, and I am a graduating senior of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, where I also have served as Peer Minister for Education at Tyson House, an ecumenical campus ministry for Episcopalians and Evangelical Lutherans.  I will matriculate as a M.Div. student at Yale Divinity School in the fall, and I am in the discernment process for the priesthood in the Episcopal Church.  More important than this, I am a Christian, one who has looked to Sojourners to provide a prophetic religious voice in the public sphere.  I have often been impressed by and supportive of your organization’s efforts, have used your material in my classes at Tyson House, and have even purchased a gift subscription to your magazine for a family member this past Christmas.  I am now, however, concerned both by the decision not to run the Believe Out Loud advertisement and by the response to criticism of this decision provided by the Reverend Jim Wallis on the “God’s Politics” blog.

In this response, Wallis stated, “But these debates have not been at the core of our calling, which is much more focused on matters of poverty, racial justice, stewardship of the creation, and the defense of life and peace.”  As a Christian and a student, I posit that you cannot so easily divide out issues of gender and sexuality from other forms of systemic oppression, and I call upon Sojourners to reorientate its mission accordingly.

One should carefully discern which form of oppression is most important from case to case, while always remaining conscious of how different forms of oppression reinforce and mutually constitute one another.  In other words, we should not lose sight of real situations on the ground just because we cling to theoretical commitments.  I would argue, however, that your disregard for issues of gender and sexuality is opposed to the real state of affairs on the ground.  We grievously need the voice of Sojourners to speak prophetically to our society—and to our churches.  The stakes are quite too high—as Wallis’s own blog on bullying (10/21/2010) so clearly articulates.

To refuse to speak clearly to churches whose theologies devalue and degrade the status of LGBTQ people before God their Creator is not a “refusal to pick sides.”  It is an irresponsible use of Sojourners’s public voice.  Moreover, Wallis’s response—which suggests that issues of gender and sexuality simply do not matter as much as issues of class and race—is not only irresponsible but dangerous.

The advertisement in question did not argue explicitly for the approval of same-gender blessings or for the ordination of LGBTQ persons.  (And even if it had, I would hope that Sojourners would run such an ad—as I hope my comments above suggest.)  The Believe Out Loud ad called upon churches to treat LGBTQ families with respect and dignity, to welcome them into their congregations.  The advertisement addressed the matter of whether or not our churches, in effect, bully LGBTQ persons.  If this is, as Wallis states, “a political wedge issue,” then so be it.  Should we not pick sides in such a situation?  Should we not embody the solidarity modeled for us by the incarnation of Jesus Christ?

I respectfully contend that to use “what would Jesus do” as ethical justification for your organization’s decision, as Wallis’s response does, mistakes the gospel of love for a gospel of complacency.  In that other Christians, who look to Sojourners for guidance on moral and theological issues, could read those words and be thus persuaded is, to my mind, frightening.  And it works against all the causes for which your organization desires to mobilize Christian communities.  Why are issues of poverty, race, class, and war issues of Christian conscience for Sojourners, while issues of gender and sexuality are written off as political wedge issues?  I urge Sojourners to raise issues of gender and sexuality as priorities and to provide a forum in which Believe Out Loud is a voice.  I remain

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Justin E. Crisp
Senior in English & Religious Studies
University of Tennessee