WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING?
By Keon M. McGuire | With thanks to NewBlackMan
Monday, June 27, 2011.
Much
attention has been (re)devoted to the Atlanta megachurch pastor of New
Birth, Bishop Eddie Long, since his recent out of court settlement of
an alleged $25million in his hopes to bring an end to a saga dating
back to September 2010, in which he was accused of sexual improprieties
with four young men – Anthony Flagg, Spencer LeGrande, Jamal Parris and
Maurice Robinson. Long’s first sermon to his congregation post the
allegations was at best a rhetorical “two-step” around the issue as he
stated “I’ve never claimed to be a perfect man . . . but I’m certainly
not the man they’re portraying in the media” (paraphrased). A casual
listener may accurately surmise that while this was no admission of
guilt, it was far from a declaration of innocence. Long concluded his
sermon by likening himself to David – the young, pre-sex scandal David
– facing Goliath and ready for battle; yet, he had yet to throw one
stone.
Potentially
most troublesome is that most of the media attention surrounding Long’s
fall from (some) grace has, in many ways, ignored the serious trauma
experienced by the four young men. The most recent dismissal and
downplaying of their experiences came from Bishop Long’s friend, Creflo
Dollar. Also himself an Atlanta megachurch pastor, Dollar recently addressed
“his” congregation explicitly about Long’s incident. Dollar’s constant
referral to Long’s wreck (re: sexual indiscretion) seems to be the
closest we will get to an actual confession of some guilt. Yet, the
term wreck in itself exemplifies the negligent care and concern offered
these young men. Unless we agree that emotional and psychological
damage and coerced sexual interactions constitutes just a “wreck”. I
disagree. As a friend pointed out, such bully tactics used to keep the
people quiet only serves to perpetuate the predator’s – yes, Eddie
Long’s – power. Tamura Lomax
offers an exceptional critique of the violence that surrounds this
incident and how the church has pattern of condoning clergy’s abuse of
power.
Dollar’s
defense of Long’s “wreck” went viral, primarily because of his rant in
which he told anyone who was a member of Long’s church that they could
not join “his” congregation. He did not want them at “his” church! Why?
Because according to Dollar, Long was still anointed for his position
and he was still going to heaven. Since when did Dollar become St.
Peter at the pearly gates eludes me? But then again, we might have
missed that while we were all awaiting the rapture. While several have
pointed to the faux theological grounding for Dollar’s claims, it is
his justifications of Long’s actions and his critique of BOTH his and
Long’s parishioners that demonstrate the seductive (and dangerous)
nature of soft patriarchy.
At
some point Dollar pauses and states: “That pastor [Long] has loved ‘em,
taken care of ‘em, and given to ‘em and done that” and later “taught
them how to tie their shoes.” One is left wondering: so does that make
everything ok? Does the benevolent father (or soft patriarch) get a
pass because he delivered gifts and presents? I borrow the term soft
patriarch from Christian Feminist Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen to describe
the ways in which modern Christianity has created a theologically
justified and sociopolitical “necessary” masculinity that does not rely
on the brute (physical) force typically associated with (destructive)
hypermasculinity. Nonetheless it comes with the same privileges. Often
offered as a male servant, it never challenges or disrupts the
(heterosexual) male’s right to leadership and authority.
Long’s
service to those young men, thus, excuses his wreck. I mean after all,
he did fulfill his responsibility of soft patriarch by not “physically”
abusing them or neglecting them financially. Considering the constant
critique of absentee fathers in the Black community, the soft patriarch
is (re)presented as the antithesis of the negligent Black male who is
never physically present in the home, absolves himself of all financial
responsibility and neglects the mentoring of his children –
particularly his Black son(s). Thus, Long receives a pass as, according
to Dollar, he did teach them to tie their shoes.
Although
soft patriarchy may purport to be the better of the two, we must
remember – it is still patriarchy. Meaning, among other things, Long’s
authority and position does not require him to be equitably accountable
to these young men, his congregation, or the broader faith community we
are apart of, beyond the terms established by him and his lawyers. And
if his parishioners dare decide – as critical, conscious human beings –
to choose another worship community, they are publicly chastised for
being disloyal, spiritually immature (Black) Christians. I emphasize
Black because Dollar, in one instance, tells the congregation “You clap
your hands now, but let me have a wreck, I wonder how many of you
Negroes will still be here . . . I mean precious saints of God”.
Dollar, in that one statement, effectively rehearses a racist trope of
Black cultural relations; essentially stating, “You all know Black
folks don’t know how to be loyal and unify. You say one thing and do
another”. Dollar’s odd, but not surprising, rhetorical gesture left me
thinking – well dag, I guess I need God to help me fight my flawed
humanity AND fix and cleanse me of my Blackness!
I’m
sure this will not be the last hooray we hear from Long, Dollar or
others in their positions. However, I’m sadly disappointed as I’m not
sure those who share the same Christian capital and public platforms
similar to Long and Dollar will publicly push back against these bully
tactics. In addition, I’m not sure we, as a faith community, will
demand and require a critical redefining of Christian masculinity. One
that is more accountable to the people served and one that does not
receive passes because of its perceived distance from the “Other” Black
guy.
Long
may have compared himself to David, but he may be more like his
predecessor Saul. The same Saul who didn’t follow God’s instructions
and instead of coming clean, attempted to offer a sacrifice instead.
From Saul’s mishaps we learned that God honors obedience over
sacrifice. As a result, God chose David to replace him because he was
no longer fit to lead. While I’m not saying Bishop Long will leave his
pastoral post, I do believe it gives us another Biblical figure through
which we can think through this fiasco.
***
Keon
McGuire is a third year doctoral student in Higher Education and
Africana Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. His research
focuses on issues of race and gender among Black college students. You
can follow him on Twitter @YngBlkScholar