The question as I see it is framed by his prose that welcoming LGBT "has not been at the core of our calling" - that the core of their work is poverty, racial equality, stewardship of creation, etc. Specifically, that welcoming LGBT is not of a piece with these concerns, or that it's detachable, or some kind of throwaway or add-on, when clearly all these things belong at the core. If he's incapable of seeing this holistically then his organization is less calculating than anyone figured, which I do not believe is the case. He's simply not going to take a clear stand, and will continue to be mealymouthed about this, until something outside him shakes him, and what he's written backs that up - "all show and no go," as they say. Therefore, it really is time to ask: Who is capable of speaking for the religious left in a way that is comprehensive, holistic, and unapologetic?
Instead of what Sojourners did yesterday, they should have reprimanded the responsible parties, rewritten their policies, and put out a brief statement declaring inclusion of all persons as a basic tenet of Christian life. Anything else would have fallen short, and did.
Mr. Wallis, by his prose, seems to think he's dodging a bullet, but what is he protecting after all? The causes for which Sojo stands are basically virtuous, but you can't play pick-and-choose as they've done here.