Jim Wallis throws gays under the bus

[onager]

What? How can this be? Why wasn't this posted here in R/T? Where every possible "news story" about religion and the lack thereof gets posted daily?

I used the search engine and did find the story posted in GD, but not by any of our Learned R/T Theologians...the ones who manage to find all those news stories about atheists trying to buy advertising or file legal cases or commit other rude and unnecessary acts against the minority of believers.

But nobody posted about how Saint Jim Wallis, often held up here in R/T as the very paragon of lib'rul Xianity, refused to run a gay-friendly ad? And on Mother's Day, no less. (Maybe some DU'ers conveniently ignore a key line in Wallis' resume - "evangelical.")

I'll admit, I only heard about this recently myself. But I'm neither a lib'rul Xian nor a gay person. And when I did hear about it, on an atheist blog, simply Googling "jim wallis gay ad" brought up the whole firestorm:

In a written statement, Sojourners said, “I’m afraid we’ll have to decline. Sojourners position is to avoid taking sides on this issue. In that care (sic), the decision to accept advertising may give the appearance of taking sides.”

Taking sides? What are the sides here? That young children who have same-gender parents are not welcome in our churches? That “welcome, everyone” (the only two words spoken in the ad) is a controversial greeting from our pulpits? That the stares the young boy and his moms get while walking down the aisle are justified? I can’t imagine Sojourners turning down an ad that called for welcome of poor children into our churches. So why is this boy different?

I called the folks at Sojourners and asked what the problem was, what the “sides” in question might be. The first response was that Sojourners has not taken a stance on gay marriage (the ad is not about gay marriage); or on ordination of homosexuals (the ad is about welcome, not ordination); that the decision, made by “the folks in executive” (why such a high level decision?) was made quickly because of the Mother’s Day deadline. The rationale kept shifting. The reasoning made no sense.

I served as Director of Communication in the United Church of Christ in 2004 when CBS and NBC refused to air the “bouncer” commercial. It was déjà vu all over again: shifting rationales, trying to claim the ad was about something that it was not about, administrative excuses. The statements from Sojourners were the very same arguments we heard at the UCC. This was bad enough coming from network execs in New York, but from Sojourners?


http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4583/lgbt_%E2%80%9Cwelcome%E2%80%9D_ad_rejected_by_sojourners%2C_nation%27s_premier_progressive_christian_org/

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I am deeply disappointed by Sojourners and Jim Wallis on this. *sigh*

[Ron Goetz]

8. Jim Wallis

I share your disappointment.

The problem is that Wallis probably doesn't know that Jesus mentioned and accepted gays and lesbians on the same basis as everyone else. The specific passage is Luke 17:34-35.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

You can check it out here: http://biblethumpingliberal.com/gays-lesbians-in-luke/

[Bluenorthwest]

2. He's a bigot conman like the rest of them. He was on the Thom

Hartman Christian Gold Sales Program this week. Of course. Tight circle that 'faith community'.

[Thats my opinion]

3. On this one

Jim Wallis is wrong. He is right on so many other things, but has been slow in coming around on this one. I'm willing to be patient with him because I applaud where he comes out on so many of the critical issues, and I am willing to give him a bit more time to see his way to get a grasp on this one. I think he already has thought it through, but sees his role as trying to lure evangelicals into a larger liberal world.

[rug]

4. Who is Jim Wallis?

[laconicsax]

6. Try this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Who+is+Jim+Wallis%3F

This one might prove useful as well: http://tinyurl.com/3lew7rt

[MountainLaurel]

5. Not a surprise n/t

[trotsky]

7. Color me shocked. Or not.

"to avoid taking sides on this issue"

Why take a side on any issue, then? Better not take a side on racism either, that's pretty controversial.

Wallis has been lauded in this very forum as one of the best examples of the modern, politically active, liberal Christian.

How pathetic.

[Kolesar]

9. "Queer kids"

religiondispatches:
"Public Religion Research finds that two-thirds of Americans blame the recent spate of young gay suicides in part on negative messaging that queer kids receive from the religious community. "

I am sure that the subjects appreciated being called that name :sarcasm: