Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
May 16, 2012

Home > 2010 > August (Web-only)Christianity Today, August (Web-only), 2010
Wallis Apologizes to Olasky after Sojourners Funding Flap
Sojourners founder apologizes for suggesting World's editor-in-chief 'lies for a living' but stands by his organization's accepting grants from George Soros.




Sojourners founder Jim Wallis apologized Wednesday to Marvin Olasky for saying, "Glenn Beck lies for a living. I'm sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing."

Wallis told Christianity Today that he sent a private e-mail to Olasky and plans to speak with the editor-in-chief of World Magazine by phone on Friday.

"I was wrong, out of anger at the insinuation about the dependence on these foundations, I was wrong to imply that like Beck, Marvin lies for a living," Wallis said. "Glenn Beck does lie for a living. Marvin Olasky doesn't lie for a living; that's not something I should say about a brother in Christ."

At 3 p.m. Wednesday, Olasky said he had not received Wallis's apology. "I'm always glad to talk with Jim," he said. "It's educational and entertaining." He said that he later received an apology and welcomed it. "I look forward to our conversation on Friday," Olasky said. "It's always good to see Christians following the Matthew 18 pattern."

Olasky published a column in World's July 17 issue asking Wallis to admit his affiliations on the left, reporting that Sojourners receives funding from George Soros's Open Society Institute (OSI). In a later interview with Timothy Dalrymple of Patheos, an interfaith website founded in 2008, Wallis suggested that Olasky was lying and said that Sojourners does not receive funding from Soros.

Wallis said that part of his e-mail to Olasky reads, "I remember getting angry when Dalrymple reported to me that you had said that Sojourners was dependent upon and beholden to Soros on the left," he wrote. "That's no excuse for using such language about a brother in Christ, and I hope you will forgive me."

After his interview with Dalrymple, Wallis released a statement saying that Sojourners has received three grants from OSI.

"I was really tired that day. I did one interview too many. I was in the back of a taxicab. I would normally read an article. And I didn't, and that was a mistake, and I'm sorry for it," said Wallis, who recently returned from vacation. "It is, however, inaccurate to say George Soros is or has ever been a major funder of Sojourners."

Wallis said that Sojourners applied for and received three grants totaling $275,000 from OSI between 2004 and 2007. After consulting with a staff member on the specific dates, Wallis said Sojourners received $200,000 in 2004 that was spent on "broad civic engagement." In 2006, OSI gave Sojourners a branding grant of $25,000 that Wallis said was used to merge the organization Call to Renewal with Sojourners. In 2007, Sojourners received a $100,000 grant for immigration reform, half of which went to another local organization in Los Angeles, he said.

"I have no apologies for taking a donation on immigration reform from Open Society. We'd do it again."

Wallis said that OSI funding made up less than 1 percent of Sojourners' total revenue in the past 10 years and that the organization's books are open.

"We don't give out all of our names. We comply with every legal standard for nonprofits, form 990s and disclosures," he said. "The idea that left-wing foundations are responsible for our funding and we're beholden to them because they're trying to make us vote a certain way, that's a lie."

Olasky says he "buried the lead" by reporting the OSI funding further down in his column, but he stands by his story.

"George Soros, one of the leading billionaire leftists—he has financed groups promoting abortion, atheism, same-sex marriage, and gargantuan government—bankrolled Sojourners with a $200,000 grant in 2004," Olasky wrote in his original column. "Since then Sojourners has received at least two more grants from Soros organizations. Sojourners revenues have more than tripled—from $1,601,171 in 2001–2002 to $5,283,650 in 2008–2009—as secular leftists have learned to use the religious left to elect Obama and others."





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 56 comments

Ray Rodden

September 02, 2010  11:32pm

Gee I think there are a few things still amiss here, I don't see any comments to counter or inquire about the wisdom of the "Glenn Beck lies for a living" portion of this discussion ... Perhaps there is proof, and if so, it should be posted, provided or otherwise shared... till then - one would expect a further apoligy from our brother in Christ.

Mark S

September 02, 2010  10:21pm

Dean O, you're at least right about one thing: capitalism without Christ does become cruel. I don't advocate unrestrained capitalism. But socialism, even if implemented by Christians, is even more cruel for a simple reason: it's a terrible system. An objective study of history shows this. Socialism denies human nature, destroys ambition, and creates a ruling elite corrupted by power. Capitalism may destribute wealth unevenly, but socialism distributes poverty evenly. You cannot fix a problem with an even bigger problem.

Dean O

September 02, 2010  2:25pm

Mark S says, "Jesus' admonition to help the poor was first and foremost an instruction help the poor individually, not via the coercive and inefficient hand of government. There's nothing wrong with the government providing a safety net, but we shouldn't relieve ourselves of responsibility for helping the poor by getting the government to do it (it's always easier to be charitable--in the effort to feel good about oneself--when it's done mainly with other people's money)." Which is better, government using taxes to help the poor or free-marketeers believing that simply by investing and making a profit you automatically help the poor: i.e. the trickle-down theory. We could call that "trickle-down compassion" where you don't even have to smell dirty bodies. "A rising tide lifts all boats," say the capitalists--except boats tethered to the bottom and un-seaworthy boats. "Let 'em sink," says the capitalist. "That's how the system works." Capitalists without Christ become cruel.

Guest

September 01, 2010  11:10pm

"Why is the State not to help the needy in an organized fashion when Christ commanded everyone to concern themselves with caring for the poor, which presumably, would include people in power? " I think the state can help the poor and needy. Centralized governments simply have a poor track record of doing so. I don't think Christ called people in power to spend other people's money in order to give to the needy. Both of the above are open to interpretation. The question of how to best serve the poor AND to minimize the prevalence of poverty speak to ones ideology. If Wallis were interested in building an argument for state-centered solutions to poverty, and were to honestly argue his case, I would have no problem. In lieu of argument, he simply asserts his position, slaps a bible verse on it, and accuses those who disagree with his ideological positions of denying Christ.

Mark S

September 01, 2010  1:49pm

Dwayne, you miss the point that so many statists do. Jesus' admonition to help the poor was first and foremost an instruction help the poor individually, not via the coercive and inefficient hand of government. There's nothing wrong with the government providing a safety net, but we shouldn't relieve ourselves of responsibility for helping the poor by getting the government to do it (it's always easier to be charitable--in the effort to feel good about oneself--when it's done mainly with other people's money). There's nothing in what I've said that, in your words, advocates refusing to help the needy and allowing them to starve and suffer in misery. Such incendiary, straw man arguments are exactly why the country is so polarized right now. Statistics show that persons who don't believe in massive government welfare programs are, in fact, more personally charitable.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



When the Unsinkable Sank

When the Unsinkable Sank

Leadership lessons from the deck of Titanic

Faith that Sticks

Faith that Sticks

Intergenerational connections and parental involvement give kids a faith that lasts beyond high school.

more | current issue

Small Groups

Let God's Love Overflow

Small groups can serve...

Kyria

Sloth

One of the "seven deadly...

Preaching Today

The Spiritual Importance of Becoming an ...

Key issues to address...

Building Church Leaders

Dealing with the Big Questions

Allow interns opportunities...

Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper