Jamie L. Manson has a point worth making in the ongoing conversation over who gets to speak for you in the “progressive evangelical” debates of the past week.
I believe there is an ever more disquieting question that arises out of this situation. What is the real reason that progressive evangelicals try to sidestep taking a stance on welcoming gays and lesbians into churches? Much as I would like to believe that their desire is to unite Christians with differing opinions on sexuality in the work of social justice, I cannot help but think that this ultimately comes down to a fear of losing financial and communal support.
Wallis himself admitted in his statement that, “Like the larger church, Sojourners’ constituency, board, and staff are not of one mind on all of these issues.” So, if Sojourners were to make a definitive statement about something as innocuous as welcoming gay and lesbians into church pews (not even the “full monty” of supporting gay ordination and marriage), they would risk losing a crucial segment of their funding….
What does it profit a Christian social justice organization to gain the admiration of the political and religious the world at the cost of harming the soul of so many of its own servants?
What’s your take?