Jim Wallis Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage (Founder and CEO of Sojourners)

Long-time evangelical Left leader Jim Wallis, founder and CEO of Sojourners, has changed his position on government recognition of same-sex marriage. He announced his support in a Friday interview with The Huffington Post.

Wallis said he is worried about the decline of marriage and wants to strengthen it, but believes that same-sex couples should be included in that endeavor.

"I think we should include same-sex couples in that renewal of marriage, [but] I want to talk marriage first," Wallis said. "Marriage needs some strengthening. Let's start with marriage, and then I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that's where I think the country is going."

The statement was prefaced by saying, "We are losing marriage in this society. I'm worried about that – among low income people, but all people. How do we commit liberals and conservatives to re-covenanting marriage, reestablishing, renewing marriage?"

When The Huffington Post asked Wallis to clarify if that meant he specifically supports same-sex marriage, Wallis answered, "yes."

A spokesperson for Sojourners confirmed with The Christian Post on Monday that this was the first time that Wallis has publicly stated that position. Wallis was stating what he believed from a "civil legal perspective" what the law should be, but was not stating a theological position about whether churches should endorse same-sex marriage, the spokesperson said. The spokesperson could not say whether or not Wallis believes homosexuality is a sin.

Wallis' new position also comes with strong support for the religious liberty of churches that hold the traditional view of marriage in states that have redefined it, and a deep concern for the decline of marriage more generally.

Wallis added that those who oppose government recognition of same-sex marriages should not be called "bigots" for holding that position.

"On the issue of gay marriage, you can be supportive of same-sex couples being able to have the same benefits that straight couples have, but you can also be in favor of religious freedom for faith communities to figure this out in their own time, in their own scriptures, their own way. I don't think they should be called 'bigots' if they are struggling with what the Bible says about this, or might we lose marriage because of this. ... But calling each other names, we've got to stop doing that."

Wallis had previously favored civil unions for same-sex couples but believed that marriage should not be redefined to include same-sex couples.

"I don't think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, and that's technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it's not gender-neutral," Wallis said, for instance, in a 2008 interview with Christianity Today.

After President Barack Obama changed his position on same-sex marriage last year, Sojourners issued a statement calling on Obama to seek "common ground" on the marriage issue.

"We believe the best path forward is a legal system that respects the rights and responsibilities of all couples, gay or straight, and also respects the religious liberty of faith communities to define marriage consistent with their theology and scriptural understanding," Sojourners said.

Tflabo, you and I and 2,000 years of Church history agree that 1 Cor 6 condemns perverse sex acts. But what you may not realize is that (1) the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the late 19th century, and (2) some Christians (mistakenly, but persistently) argue that what is forbidden in Corinthians is not homosexual acts per se, but extreme offenses like rape or boy-prostitution.

Bear with me here. I am not defending these pro-gay interpretations; but I beg you to become better-equipped for the fight by looking into the actual argument being made.

Here's a website called Gay Christian 101 (Link) Which makes the following argument to support their position that the Corinthians passage does not refer to homosexuality per se:

"Many modern Christians have embraced false teaching about 1 Corinthians 6:9. They arrive at their false teaching by assuming that the Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai mean homosexual...
"Of course, there is nothing in the Bible and very little in church history to support their false teaching. In the first century AD, no one would define malakoi to mean homosexual. The Greek word malakoi was rarely, if ever, used in the first century to indicate homosexual men and was never used to indicate lesbians.
"In the first century AD, no one would define arsenokoitai to mean homosexual. Historical evidence - the way the arsenokoit stem was actually used in the first century AD - indicates that the arsenokoit stem referred to:

Rape
Sex with angels or the gods....

"Based on the extant Greek manuscripts available to us today, the Greek word arsenokoites was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexual men and was never used to describe lesbians.
"Therefore, when someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10 to "prove" that God is against homosexuality, they are conveying nothing more than their opinion, without any basis in fact."

Agree with this? No, you don't, and neither do I. But my point is that this is where the argument has gone. These people at"Gay Christian 101" proclaim that they agree with "Sola Scriptura," "authentic Bible Christianity," And all the rest, but are convinced, and argue, that the Biblical words do not apply to such things as "gay marriage," but only to gay rape and angel abuse and the like.

That's the state of the argument now.

Which is why we have to appeal, not just to Scripture, but to "how Christians have understood this for 2,000 years." Because the interpretation of Scripture is NOT self-evident, absent the authority of the historic Church.

RE: Which is why we have to appeal, not just to Scripture, but to “how Christians have understood this for 2,000 years.”

I don’t think it has anything to do with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. One can profess to believe in it and yet ignore what scripture teaches. Just as one can profess to believe in what the Roman Catholic church teaches and not ignore it.

If the clear teaching of scripture isn’t going to convince these people, neither will “how Christians have understood this for 2,000 years.” convince them.

How do you account for Roman Catholic Politicians who favor gay marriage?

Here is what Nancy Pelosi said for instance: “My Catholic faith ‘compels me’ to support gay marriage”.”

So much for 2000 years of church teaching.

I entirely agree with you that some people , like Nancy Pelosi, have entirely and defiantly closed their minds. She will not listen to Divine law. She will not listen to Natural Law. She will not listen to Canon Law. She thinks she is a law unto herself.

This "2,000 years of Church tradition" thing would mean less than nothing, I fear, to one of her obstinacy.

(This is one reason why Catholic Bishops must beheld liable for pastoral malpractice, for allowing the continuing sacrilegious reception of Communion by these people who despise the Lord of Life. It would be pastoral kindness to exclude them formally from the Catholic community, as a difficult but shocking way to make them aware that they are in spiritual peril of the most terrifying kind.)

However, there is a surprising subset of people out there who are convinced that what I'll call "hetero-normed homosexuality" -- in other words, homosexuality lived in accord with some of the values of traditional marriage (with monogamy, fidelity, a life-long bond) ---is a new thing never addressed in Scripture, which, they say, dealt only with rape, prostitution, pederasty and the like. They say no Biblical figure, OT or NT, ever alluded to, or even imagined, let alone condemned, a consensual marriage-like bond between two equal adults pledged to a union of life until death.

Such people need to see that 2,000 years of Christian teaching shows the authentic way in which we are to understand these Scriptures, since Jesus Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the his church.

You may be familiar with Dr. Albert Mohler, a respected Baptist theologian (much respected by me!) who has concluded the same. Faced with this surprisingly large group of exegetes with this revisionist view of what the key words mean in Hebrew and Greek, he argues "Does not God guide the church? And has not the church been absolutely opposed to genital relations between two people of the same sex, from the times of the Apostles until now?

He argues on the basis of "the mind of the church" as the key to correct exegesis. Which, I think, is wisdom on his part.

While I am not able and in fact am forbidden to judge the condition of his heart, I am able and in fact required to judge the circumstances of his life. by that measure he is not living the life of a true disciple of Christ.

As I noted in correspondence with a friend over the weekend, “...frankly I find them be heretics of the first order, childishly rebelling against Biblical Orthodoxy and virtually all the fundamentals of the faith. It appears to me that they have only one doctrinal precept, that of “niceness” and its bastard child, inclusion. ... these leaders are purposefully leading seekers away from repentance and reconciliation with Christ. These are the false teachers Timothy and Peter warned us about.”

RE: However, there is a surprising subset of people out there who are convinced that what I’ll call “hetero-normed homosexuality” — in other words, homosexuality lived in accord with some of the values of traditional marriage (with monogamy, fidelity, a life-long bond) -—is a new thing never addressed in Scripture, which, they say, dealt only with rape, prostitution, pederasty and the like.

________________________

That they say it and that scripture says otherwise are two different things.

The Laws of Moses CLEARLY condemns same gender sex and so does the Book of Romans written by the apostle Paul.

It isn’t that Scripture is not clear on these things, it is that people will want to rationalize what they believe no matter what.

Similarly, you can appeal to church history or your bishops or priests can say that the Catholic church calls homosexual acts a sin, if a person refuses to accept it, it is to his spiritual condemnation. A Politician like Nancy Pelosi WILL rationalize anything regardless of whether scripture teaches it or LIVING church members teaches it, or even when the Pope clearly teaches it.

As for Albert Mohler, he clearly appeals to scripture in his arguments:

when it comes to sexual behavior, He maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:

See here:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/my-take-the-bible-condemns-a-lot-but-heres-why-we-focus-on-homosexuality/

The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.

The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.

The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Seek & Geron, we're in agreement that Holy Scripture condemns same-sex genital acts. But what these "Gay Christians" are saying (and it's very frustrating) is that the issue of "gay" marriage is simply never addressed in the Bible. This is because they claim that all the multiple condemnations of gay sex in the Bible, refer only to pederasty, lust-based promiscuity, temple prostitution, rape, and the like.

Here's the maddening part. It is certainly true that there was nothing that even remotely resembled "gay" "marriage" at the time that the OT and NT were written, and so, sure enough, Moses and St. Paul could not have been referring to "gay"marriage" --- it did not exist.

But the Bible does talk a lot about marriage. So the gays will latch onto verses like these:

1 Timothy 4:3
They [false teachers] forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer."

And they claim that WE are the false teachers because we forbid them marriage; and furthermore we are rejecting something good created by God (they point to "natural" homosexuality in he animal world), which we should allow them to sanctify by God's word and prayer, in other words, Christian marriage equality.

They point out that marriage is recommended by St. Paul inm order to restrain the passions and avoid fornication and adultery; this they apply to themselves, that they ought to be allowed to marry, and thus turn away from a promiscuous lifestyle:

1 Corinthians 7:9
Marriage is honorable for all, and the marriage bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
Hebrews 13:4

They say, "Aren't we supposed to apply Scripture to ourselves in order to live by it? We are commanded by Scripture to wed, and thus avoid fornication."

You and I see the error of this. But they would argue that they are living the Christian life by seeking marriage, which is "honorable among all."

It's this level of argument which I wish Mohler and others would more clearly address.

And yes, of couse Mohler uses Scripture. But he also has to refer to the way Christians through the ages have interpreted these Scriptures. Otherwise, it's just Rev. Doctor Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary vs Rev. Dr. Mel White formerly of Fuller Theological seminary, gay Christian.

Each of them prayerfully reading and faithfully living the truths of Scripture as he is "led of the Spirit"!

How does referring to Christian thought help change their minds?

Someone who refuses to believe scripture and rationalizes his behavior can always find a way to rationalize Christian thought away.

We already have the Bishops of the Catholic church, and the Pope himself condemning gay marriage.

Here, we have a LIVING, BREATHING magistrate giving its unequivocal teaching and yet, we have people like Nancy Pelosi ( and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina ) actually believing the OPPOSITE.

He’re one rationalization for you -— They can always say that the early church HIJACKED scripture and used the power that they eventually attained to IMPOSE their own morality on others.

Heck, there are even RELIGIOUS people (and they are against homosexuality) who rationalize that the church doctrine of the Trinity as we believe it today was a concoction of Constantine in cahoots with the Bishops in Nicea. Exhibit one : The Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Now if devout people like the Witnesses can believe this, what makes you think that gay marriage supporting rationalizers won’t do the same thing?

A person who won’t believe will not believe. It will take an act of God to change the person’s mind.

It's true that people rationalize. People under the influence of strong emotions (like sexual frustration and sexual desire, but also fear, anger, embarrassment, greed) rartionalize a lot. But I doubt that everybody rationalizes about everything, all the time.

If that were true, I would not bother to reason. I would not seek, or share, new information. I would find discussion pointless.

I think some of the "Gay Christians" may actually be open to the truth, if we can present it respectfully and reasonably.

Otherwise, nobody would ever go from sexual disorder to sexual peace and self control. And yet that does happen. So I continue to think there's hope.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.