"but this seems to be one of the self-congratulatory new books which thinks it is so compassionate "

You read his last one, right? That's kinda his genre. It sold a lot of copies, though, so it must have been good.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2008 2:33 PM

Here's something else to chew on: many states did not have anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments before 2004. Now they do. (Including my state. And yes, I voted AGAINST the ban.) So did the east-coast and west-coast gay marriage push really benefit the cause for those in the midwest and south? Or did it just make it much harder for GLBT's in those states to eventually see their hopes of marriage fulfilled (literally setting back the cause)?

Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 3:27 PM

I would like to see this new, emergent Christianity support the legal rights of us gays who want to live in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and adopt children.

For serious evangelicals, even more "progressive" ones such as yours truly, that will never happen. What you don't understand is that we reject homosexual conduct, let alone the "lifestyle," for some very good theological reasons, primarily because we see it as part of the "world system."

That said, at this point more important than politics is the spiritual condition of the church -- and by that I mean not necessarily the number of "souls saved" but a greater maturity from its members. Before God can move us out we need to get our own house in order, and based on what I've seen since the fall of 2004 that seems to be happening.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 3:28 PM

"those are all basic fairness issues that should be defended now, but you and the other LGBT activists really ought to cool your jets on the marriage thing for a while."

Why isn't gay marriage a basic issue of fairness? For those who believe gay marriage should be legal, it is a crucial, and very basic, issue of fairness.

Gay marriage is often deemed a wedge issue, but it divides for a reason. For those who believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry (each other), this issue represents a very basic denial of rights, and a seemingly arbitrary one at that.

To say that homosexuals should set aside this issue in favor of another issue is, at minimum, extremely condescending. At the very least, Sojourners should articulate its viewpoint, giving folks like Ashpenaz an opportunity to determine whether this movement merits his support.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2008 5:23 PM

ashpenaz; these folks are not interested in dealing with the real world. i see them as self promoting, not willing to deal with the secular world or the world beyond their definition of christian progressive liberalism. i haven't read the book and probably won't. don't want to contribute to wallis' fortunes. I and I is a classic example. it's all about them not us. rick, we know what you reject. you reject everything that is not in line with what you think we all should be. where is your love. we aren't asking you to endorse everything just come up with some ideas that are relevant to the society you live in. otherwise go live in a commune that suits you and clean it up, make it more mature. and just where is God going to move us out to? . i don't endorse gay marriage but i can live with it. can you rick? can wallis? it's time. time to see the world as not being progressive christian. and in fact, mostly not even knowing what that means. i'm not sure Jesus wanted to change the u s or the world, maybe just people.

Posted by: jerry | January 10, 2008 7:07 PM

So I don't get accused of repeating myself, here's a link to a site, Gay Christian 101, which puts together the same evidence and arguments I've been using:

http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Carry on!

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 10, 2008 9:20 PM

The problem with politics is that any marginal position, like supporting gay marriage, can prevent one from affecting change in other areas. And I do think Wallis and others, regardless of their personal views on this, are trying to maintain and gain support within the evangelical community. I, for one, believe we need to take a stand on the issue nonetheless (and I support equal rights), but I also believe there is a fundamental difference between the allegiances and purposes of the U.S. government and those of the body of Christ (hopefully this is obvious but the lines are often blurred). We shouldn't compromise what we believe is right in order to achieve a "lesser evil" or even the greater good. Let's be careful utilitarianism doesn't replace authentic Christianity in our lives.

Posted by: Andrew | January 10, 2008 11:07 PM

Marriage is a covenant and ought to be kept within the church. My state marriage license is just a discount coupon on taxes and something that makes drawing up some other contracts less expensive and less difficult. It has no spiritual significance. Therefore, I advocate the elimination of the privileges enjoyed by some under the state, for the sake of justice for all.
End state sanctioned marriage, don't extent the franchise!

Oh, and why not make a PDF of the new book available for Sojo readers online to drum up interest in the print copy?

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 10, 2008 11:19 PM

"ashpenaz; these folks are not interested in dealing with the real world. i see them as self promoting, not willing to deal with the secular world...I and I is a classic example."

Hey, Jerry, get real. I'm comfortable living in a society that allows gay marriage, and I've got close friends and relatives who will probably take that opportunity when it is provided to them. But I don't want to see any more presidential elections get lost over this issue. Cool it this time around, folks, and don't "eff things up" for the many other progressive causes.

Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 8:54 AM

I look forward to reading his new book. (hope it is better than GP)

Has or does Wallis review what his former book might have done for people on the other side of the 'political' fence from him? I know that he presented copies of GP to students at my son'e college a few years ago. After reading it, my son and several of his friends that were more 'middle-of-the-road' for the most part, became more committed conservatives than they were prior to reading GP.

Maybe the new book might create more conservatives than GP's...?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 11, 2008 9:21 AM

Wallis will also need to give more concrete ideas on abortion, culture, education, and national security. And in order to keep peace with the secular left, Wallis will probably need to come up with original ideas on a lot of these.

That will be difficult because the Bible offers nothing cut-and-dried on those issues, not even abortion (which isn't even addressed in the Scripture). The reason the "right" was so successful in the 1980s was precisely because it did offer easy-to-follow specifics but usually went far beyond Scriptural warrant in the process. And I don't think Wallis really cares that much about the "secular left" -- I think "God's Politics" sold so well because of a reaction against the right that even I underestimated.

It could be, however, that Wallis actually is coming out with something meatier. The key is to introduce Christian "values" in a new way that alienates the fewest people possible, that many people can agree with for the greatest possible good for all while maintaining an evangelical outlook which desires that folks know the God Who gave those values in the first place. That's the only way it can be done, really; the right's biggest mistake, for which it still hasn't repented, is that it tried to "lay down the law" and expected everyone to follow them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 12:39 PM

And I don't think Wallis really cares that much about the "secular left" -- I think "God's Politics" sold so well because of a reaction against the right that even I underestimated.

I think Jim Wallis does care about the secular left, for the same reason I care about the secular right -- In political terms we share a lot of similar views. They've contributed to my understanding of the world and I like to think I've contributed to theirs. Plus they are human beings and Christ died for them. They're people, they're redeemable, so of course I care about them. I honestly hope Jim Wallis has friends on the secular left, and I hope he cares about what they think, even if he has to risk disappointing them.

That having been said, It's certainly possible that Wallis might decide to lay it all on the line, come out foursquare against gay marriage, for instance, and risk angering the mainstream left. I'll admit, if he did it would almost certainly make for a more interesting book, but if he does he'll be taking his movement down a very new path. It'll be more radical than the Religious Right was in a lot of ways. Probably a lot smaller too, at least at the start.

To this point I've seen little evidence that Wallis feels such strong convictions on the "moral" issues that are most likely to cause a breech with secular liberals. In fact, he has criticized Christian Conservatives for focusing too much on abortion and gay marriage. I doubt he'll turn around and announce "Hier stehe ich"
on any of these same issues.

Which means Wallis will either have to try to fudge on them (which I don't think will work anywhere near as well as it did the first time, either financially or politically) or come up with creative solutions that offer something valuable to both secular liberals and morally conservative evangelicals.

But I could be wrong. I didn't expect Michigan to beat Florida a couple weeks ago either.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 11, 2008 1:14 PM

I think Jim Wallis does care about the secular left, for the same reason I care about the secular right -- In political terms we share a lot of similar views.

Oh, I think Jim is apart from the secular left more than you might believe. He is not secular, for openers, and in theological terms that's a big a gap as can (and should) be found. My overall political ideology is often considered left, yet I have precious little in common with the secular left as well. I remember some years ago that Tony Campolo actually used such an encounter with some folks on the left -- he said, "I agree with what you're doing, but you're going about it all wrong" and used that opportunity to preach the Gospel.

I don't think, on the other hand, that you would have ever seen that on the right. I hate beating a dead horse, but the modern right is and always was a secular movement; Christian conservatives were added in only to give it some "certainty" because of their religious values.

It'll be more radical than the Religious Right was in a lot of ways. Probably a lot smaller too, at least at the start.

Compared to "pro-family" organizations (which it is older than), Sojourners has always been far smaller because it does not have the connections to liberal groups they have to conservative ones. Those kind of ministries don't and never will attract large numbers of people because, frankly, most Americans have the mindset of "What's in it for me?" rather than "What's in the best interests of my neighbor?"

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 1:38 PM

"It's nice to know you will support civil unions for gays, but not marriage. Do we get "gay-only" drinking fountains and rest rooms, too? Where do you want us to sit on the bus?"

Assuming the question was intended for me, I do support marriage, eventually. Like when the country is ready for it.

Come out here to the hinterlands some time where most states now have anti-gay-marriage amendments to their constitution, and ask gay folks if their prospects for marriage rights are better off or worse off than they were four years ago. Then thank the east coast gay elite for messing things up for the GLBT's in the red and swing states.

Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 2:57 PM

Kevin S.,is that really you?
Kudos to you for your thoughful comments on the gay marriage issue.
God bless you all.

Posted by: El Petey | January 11, 2008 3:07 PM

Payshun wrote:
"The country was not ready for a lot of civil rights issues and I don't think it's fair to LGBTQ community. I think they have waited long enough and it's just time...The only way the country will become ready is when the legislation is passed."

Big difference, though. When things started to shake and move on behalf of racial civil rights, things improved. Brown v. Board, the Montgomery bus boycott, the televised coverage of fire hoses and little black girls being taunted by white adults, the March on Washington... all of this served to united the majority of the country against the insitutional racism being practiced in the south. Compare to the gay marriage movement: what it basically did was to trigger reactionary "gay marriage bans" in state constitutions across the country that will make it harder to win equal marriage rights. Whether gay marriage is right or wrong is not the point, the fact is it was the wrong battle at the wrong time. It has set back GLBT causes rather than moving them forward. And, possibly, it resulted in the current clown being reelected to the White House.

My suggestion for GLBT's and those who sympathize (like yours truly) is to support and encourage commitment ceremonies in their churches and work to make the idea of long-term committed gay relationships more mainstream. Push for state level domestic partnership laws (civil unions if you will) without using the word marriage. Eventually, the idea of same-sex marriage will be more acceptable. Call it the camel's nose in the tent or the slippery slope, but there are better ways to work for full equality than trying to make gay marriage part of a progressive agenda that is already having a hard time taking hold (which was what was originally proposed on this thread).

Posted by: I and I | January 14, 2008 9:58 AM

I agree. I don't have any problem with the "should" part of your comment. And I think in forty years this won't even be a question any more, as same-sex marriage will be legal in most or all of the country and people will be used to it even if they do not agree with it. But not in five years, and I think continuing to push for SSM at this time will just result in larger pushbacks: more anti-gay constitutional amendments, more denominations and churches splitting... and more social conservatives being elected leading to more pollution, deficits, assaults on labor rights, and preemptive wars.

Posted by: I and I | January 14, 2008 3:17 PM

Payshun, I hope you are right. If you are, I will cheer the progress.

Posted by: I and I | January 14, 2008 5:14 PM