Nuance: Are “Liberals/Radicals/Progressives” to blame for Eddie Long’s Misuse of Power?
It’s six in the morning and I am asking myself the question, “How do you have a more nuanced conversation about Eddie Long’s sexual indiscretions and misuse of power without demonizing the Black Church or silencing the three young men’s stories by wholeheartedly denying the acts ever happened?” Honestly, it appears as if the conversation is either two extremes.
The first being: “[Most scholarly tone] See, Eddie Long is why I left the church . . . I told you the Black Church was homophobic . . . I don’t do organized religion,” and the second conversation being: “[the voice of my grandmother] We all have our Crosses to bare and just like Brother Paul thorns in our flesh . . . we will pray for Eddie Long.” On a whole, I am trying to figure out what is gained by such a conversation besides hurt feelings and thrown liberal and fundamentalist daggers of self-righteousness.
How do we have a more nuanced conversation that entail all of this—the politics of sexual abuse by leaders (in general), the homophobia in churches and in the military, the current media (i.e. CNN) demonization of black church heavily supplied by black theologians commentaries (i.e. won’t name no names but we know who they are), the marginalizing and oppressive belief, “Love the Sinner hate the Sin,” diatribes, the issues of class and privilege that rears its ugly head when critiquing people’s religious and spiritual beliefs, and the accountability of being a father or mother figure to at risk youth. For me, all of this comes up as I read about Long’s misuse of power and contradictions.
Initially, I was not going to write about the Eddie Long’s situation because I felt as if much had been written on the internet either in support of him or against him. And plus, I had hoped to be Oscar the Grouch and write about how lackluster liberals and democrats are in reframing the Tea Party’s message of social and fiscal conservatism wrapped in a big Jesus’ bow. However, over the last several days, I have had not stop discussions at coffee shops and in blogosphere about Long’s misuse of power and have come to the realization that the conversation has only two arguments (i.e. Liberal vs. Christian Fundamentalist) either you believe he did it and he’s a bonafide hypocrite or you believe he did not do it and blame it on the media.
Yet, again, I ask what is gained from such a conversation? Well, some have said, “It presents a great opportunity to talk about homophobia in the Black Church.” And to this I say, “Yes, you are right, but why is it that we—radicals, liberals, feminists, agnostic folks—wait for such things to happen before we think it is an opportunity to begin another discussion about the homophobia and hyper hetero-masculinity in religious practices.” Yes, I think we are often reactionary and deconstructionist in our commentary and approach because either we have stop going to church all together or we are on our way out.
Don’t get me wrong, I know how marginalizing religious space can be and how real and palpable discrimination is, however, if we walk away from such places (often aided by class privilege) and only return when such “opportunities” present themselves than somehow we are complicit in the act too. Because at the end of the day there are 25,000 people at New Birth both LGBTQ and heterosexual who believe in the Christian God and his earthly vessel, Eddie Long, and who are at a critical juncture of belief and disbelief. But, because we, progressively-minded people, have left the church we lack the relationships (i.e. social capital) to make this would be opportunity (i.e. homophobia is wrong) a hallmark realization, hence, aiding another cycle of silencing LGBTQ parishioners and their allies.
I know some of you are thinking at this very moment, “I know she ain’t blaming us for Eddie Long’s issues.” No, I am not, but I am saying that this issue is more complex than the current polarizing arguments suggest. Honestly, I just need a more nuanced understanding of this situation and a “constructive” critical thinking process and strategy because at the end of the day we are all responsible both progressives and fundamentalist alike for the ability of the Eddie Longs of the world to abuse their followers.
This is far less a political issue and more a social one. The progressives had as much to do with Eddie Long’s abuse of power as the conservatives did. Eddie Long, and Eddie Long alone is responsible for his actions ultimately. Knowing that, why play the blame game if you know what the final answer is?
This is far less a political issue and more a social one. The progressives had as much to do with Eddie Long’s abuse of power as the conservatives did. Eddie Long, and Eddie Long alone is responsible for his actions ultimately. Knowing that, why play the blame game if you know what the final answer is?
Yes! I really loved this piece. You are right on so many levels, and thank you for challenging my thinking. Yes, this is an opportunity, but everyday is an opportunity in our communities of faith to think about homophobia, sexism, and vario…us other forms of oppression that we perpetuate daily. I think folks who are all about church are afraid to have a real conversation, because it might force fundamentalists to acknowledge that their thinking has been wrong on the gay rights/identity issue, and it might force us liberals to acknowledge that leaving the church is not a solution to the problem. In other words, like you say, we are all responsible, we are all implicated. But if we get our heads out of our…, we would realize that if we are all implicated then we can all do something to make it better.
Yes! I really loved this piece. You are right on so many levels, and thank you for challenging my thinking. Yes, this is an opportunity, but everyday is an opportunity in our communities of faith to think about homophobia, sexism, and vario…us other forms of oppression that we perpetuate daily. I think folks who are all about church are afraid to have a real conversation, because it might force fundamentalists to acknowledge that their thinking has been wrong on the gay rights/identity issue, and it might force us liberals to acknowledge that leaving the church is not a solution to the problem. In other words, like you say, we are all responsible, we are all implicated. But if we get our heads out of our…, we would realize that if we are all implicated then we can all do something to make it better.
@J-Money, This is not a blame game J-Money. This is about seeing the complexities of issue at play. As, I stated in italics and underlined the issue is not about blaming, but about saying that the two polarizing arguments are not fully constructive and hint at the complexities of the issue.
@Brittney, I was just tired of the two opposing arguments without “constructive” engagement that is proactive and not simply reactionary.
@J-Money, This is not a blame game J-Money. This is about seeing the complexities of issue at play. As, I stated in italics and underlined the issue is not about blaming, but about saying that the two polarizing arguments are not fully constructive and hint at the complexities of the issue.
@Brittney, I was just tired of the two opposing arguments without “constructive” engagement that is proactive and not simply reactionary.
This piece speaks to very different issue and I admire it. I’ve had moments in my life in which i clung to God and the bible. I even had moments (mostly encouraged by religious speak)of struggling with my sexuality. During one of those moments I found myself in a church group titled “overcomers” at that other mega-church in Atlanta. I found that space to be filled with delusion and self-hatred. Brainwashing comes to mind, but it isnt large enough. Needless to say, I dipped. I have since accepted my sexuality, but I no longer cling to God and church in the ways that I did.
Occassionally I attend church, but it is never with the same zeal. I have straight friends that want to pray me straight. I find that offensive.
Am I off topic? Oh yeah, Eddie Long. The situation with him is not surprising, no matter if it is true or not. The homophobic climate of the black community often drives people, specifically black men, into the hole of religion-coated self-hatred. Rather than attack him for his possible foul actions, I think it is important to love on him and anyone else that has allowed religion to send them on hatred sprees.
This piece speaks to very different issue and I admire it. I’ve had moments in my life in which i clung to God and the bible. I even had moments (mostly encouraged by religious speak)of struggling with my sexuality. During one of those moments I found myself in a church group titled “overcomers” at that other mega-church in Atlanta. I found that space to be filled with delusion and self-hatred. Brainwashing comes to mind, but it isnt large enough. Needless to say, I dipped. I have since accepted my sexuality, but I no longer cling to God and church in the ways that I did.
Occassionally I attend church, but it is never with the same zeal. I have straight friends that want to pray me straight. I find that offensive.
Am I off topic? Oh yeah, Eddie Long. The situation with him is not surprising, no matter if it is true or not. The homophobic climate of the black community often drives people, specifically black men, into the hole of religion-coated self-hatred. Rather than attack him for his possible foul actions, I think it is important to love on him and anyone else that has allowed religion to send them on hatred sprees.
thankful to you! i’m tired of the hypocrite or hero” binarism that seems to drive the argument. and, like you, i think there needs to be nuance in the discussion about sexuality in general. the problem that i’m having is that this situation does not necessarily mean there will be a rich, full dialogue about human sexuality in *any* church, the black church notwithstanding. ted haggard is saved again…and straight too. and the theology allows for these sort of infractions to occur, so i don’t think people are all that surprised that he fell from (religious) grace. i think folks are really surprised that someone with access to so much capital could still easily be (allegedly) “tempted” by such “monstrous” things. the attainment of power and status in the religious context seems to be incongruous with the alleged wrongdoing he engaged. i mean, there’s all sorts of sexism going on in the stories. if the accusers were women, people would at least “understand”…but with dudes, it’s so reprehensible.
so like, i think one of the major concerns is: what does it mean that a type of queerness can make even the most successful, blessed, prosperous (and those all should’ve been in scare-quotes) man succumb, acquiesce, fall? this isn’t about him. it’s about the notion that he has all these material objects/possessions that should have been able to “protect” him from such penetrations (and i mean that in many resonances, whether or not any of the alleged sex acts were indeed penetrative). we live in a society of possession. he preaches prosperity through possession. yet, none of that could protect his libidinal borders.
this isn’t about him. it’s about those of us who don’t have these possessions. how ever will we protect ourselves? i think this is the reason why the media is harping on the innocence of the two dudes and the church is speaking about the possessions they lacked (e.g., they were poor kids, broke into the church, tried to steal possessions). the media and church also speak about Long in terms of material possession, his wife and children included. he’s attained this stuff, so these intimate zones of contact, these desires for companionship seem sorta off.
salient is the relationship between possession of stuff (capitalism) and modes of expected socialsexual behavior. we gotta rethink what it means to be a sexual being.
thankful to you! i’m tired of the hypocrite or hero” binarism that seems to drive the argument. and, like you, i think there needs to be nuance in the discussion about sexuality in general. the problem that i’m having is that this situation does not necessarily mean there will be a rich, full dialogue about human sexuality in *any* church, the black church notwithstanding. ted haggard is saved again…and straight too. and the theology allows for these sort of infractions to occur, so i don’t think people are all that surprised that he fell from (religious) grace. i think folks are really surprised that someone with access to so much capital could still easily be (allegedly) “tempted” by such “monstrous” things. the attainment of power and status in the religious context seems to be incongruous with the alleged wrongdoing he engaged. i mean, there’s all sorts of sexism going on in the stories. if the accusers were women, people would at least “understand”…but with dudes, it’s so reprehensible.
so like, i think one of the major concerns is: what does it mean that a type of queerness can make even the most successful, blessed, prosperous (and those all should’ve been in scare-quotes) man succumb, acquiesce, fall? this isn’t about him. it’s about the notion that he has all these material objects/possessions that should have been able to “protect” him from such penetrations (and i mean that in many resonances, whether or not any of the alleged sex acts were indeed penetrative). we live in a society of possession. he preaches prosperity through possession. yet, none of that could protect his libidinal borders.
this isn’t about him. it’s about those of us who don’t have these possessions. how ever will we protect ourselves? i think this is the reason why the media is harping on the innocence of the two dudes and the church is speaking about the possessions they lacked (e.g., they were poor kids, broke into the church, tried to steal possessions). the media and church also speak about Long in terms of material possession, his wife and children included. he’s attained this stuff, so these intimate zones of contact, these desires for companionship seem sorta off.
salient is the relationship between possession of stuff (capitalism) and modes of expected socialsexual behavior. we gotta rethink what it means to be a sexual being.
Fallon, I enjoyed reading this. While I certainly have very strong feelings regarding the black church, homosexuality, and eddie long, your piece forces a critical examination of the issues at hand- the fact that we never discuss the issues at hand. I too have been caught saying, ” well at least now we can talk about homosexuality and the black church” but why did I have to wait for this very moment to do so?
Fallon, I enjoyed reading this. While I certainly have very strong feelings regarding the black church, homosexuality, and eddie long, your piece forces a critical examination of the issues at hand- the fact that we never discuss the issues at hand. I too have been caught saying, ” well at least now we can talk about homosexuality and the black church” but why did I have to wait for this very moment to do so?
Predators (spiritual,financial,physical,emotional)exist in and out of the church — Black or otherwise. A predator who has acquired power and wealth by building a megachurch now has at his disposal a larger pool of victims to choose from: faithful, tithing congregants; vulnerable, impressionable young people and their trusting parents/guardians; as well as people searching for and desiring a deeper personal understanding of their own spirituality and relationship with God.
Sure, these very unfortunate events can spark conversations around intolerance and homophobia within the “Black church”…but will the conversations remind Black folks how intolerance within communities ends up weakening those very same communities?
I think another important topic of conversation should be about accountability, integrity and character — and what it means to demonstrate and live those values without using “Jesus died for our sins” as a safety net or loophole.
Predators (spiritual,financial,physical,emotional)exist in and out of the church — Black or otherwise. A predator who has acquired power and wealth by building a megachurch now has at his disposal a larger pool of victims to choose from: faithful, tithing congregants; vulnerable, impressionable young people and their trusting parents/guardians; as well as people searching for and desiring a deeper personal understanding of their own spirituality and relationship with God.
Sure, these very unfortunate events can spark conversations around intolerance and homophobia within the “Black church”…but will the conversations remind Black folks how intolerance within communities ends up weakening those very same communities?
I think another important topic of conversation should be about accountability, integrity and character — and what it means to demonstrate and live those values without using “Jesus died for our sins” as a safety net or loophole.
(hi fallon)
hmmm…while i see where you are going in this article in terms of the daily opportunities for progressive/radical black folk to have the difficult conversations with our families, friends & neighbors that are often missed because we’re often not even in the room (maybe we’re off at commie fest 2010, who knows), i don’t see how you’ve made a case for the claim you make in the title of this post. (i’m also not sure that this a claim you were actually were trying to make, or if it was to get people interested in reading the article and getting your indepth pov.) what you have done is expose a couple of things: 1, ambulance-chasing tendencies rearing its head again, and how some people to look down their noses at religious people, particularly church-goers. but you didn’t show how anyone aside from eddie long is to blame for this.
So in terms of what i see as your main point.
For some people, they could no more leave their church than they could leave their family, so they stay and engage in that heart to heart struggle, or they suffer in silence. Then there are those progressive christians or christians of faltering faith that leave more traditional churches because those communities no longer fulfill their spiritual needs, or they feel oppressed there. People don’t go to church to feel sad, frustrated, headachey, and troubled, they go because they want to feel whole. So people have personal, legitimate reasons for leaving churches. Yet, what you’re bringing up here is the (I think anyway) responsibility for progressives to embed themselves where the majority of our people are, and, for Christians, to declare their commitment to the Black Christian identity, ethics and community. (Right?)
But another conversation has to do with Black folk who are not Christians (at all, or anymore), and what their role is in this. I’ve struggled with this before, in terms of wanting to be part of church community for exactly that, the community and the opportunity to have relationships of trust and shared time & space with people. But if you left the church because your faith truly is somewhere else now, what then? Why not leave the church?
(hi fallon)
hmmm…while i see where you are going in this article in terms of the daily opportunities for progressive/radical black folk to have the difficult conversations with our families, friends & neighbors that are often missed because we’re often not even in the room (maybe we’re off at commie fest 2010, who knows), i don’t see how you’ve made a case for the claim you make in the title of this post. (i’m also not sure that this a claim you were actually were trying to make, or if it was to get people interested in reading the article and getting your indepth pov.) what you have done is expose a couple of things: 1, ambulance-chasing tendencies rearing its head again, and how some people to look down their noses at religious people, particularly church-goers. but you didn’t show how anyone aside from eddie long is to blame for this.
So in terms of what i see as your main point.
For some people, they could no more leave their church than they could leave their family, so they stay and engage in that heart to heart struggle, or they suffer in silence. Then there are those progressive christians or christians of faltering faith that leave more traditional churches because those communities no longer fulfill their spiritual needs, or they feel oppressed there. People don’t go to church to feel sad, frustrated, headachey, and troubled, they go because they want to feel whole. So people have personal, legitimate reasons for leaving churches. Yet, what you’re bringing up here is the (I think anyway) responsibility for progressives to embed themselves where the majority of our people are, and, for Christians, to declare their commitment to the Black Christian identity, ethics and community. (Right?)
But another conversation has to do with Black folk who are not Christians (at all, or anymore), and what their role is in this. I’ve struggled with this before, in terms of wanting to be part of church community for exactly that, the community and the opportunity to have relationships of trust and shared time & space with people. But if you left the church because your faith truly is somewhere else now, what then? Why not leave the church?
I agree with varies points however, the issue with black homosexuals, homophobe in the black church, does not and did not begin in the black Church, the issue began way before the mega church concept and trying to change the perception or the homophobe issues should not begin only in the black church. If your premise is to change the homophobe issue in the black church by attacking the black church then I disagree. Change should begin within the home as well as within the social economic structure of our society, not as a separate black / white issue based on whether you are a progressive, Dem, Christian Right Wing fundamentalist etc…
Keep in mind; issues such as these are grounded in the core of one’s spiritual belief. These spiritual beliefs will always be the driving force behind one’s perception or opinions about homosexuality.
I agree with varies points however, the issue with black homosexuals, homophobe in the black church, does not and did not begin in the black Church, the issue began way before the mega church concept and trying to change the perception or the homophobe issues should not begin only in the black church. If your premise is to change the homophobe issue in the black church by attacking the black church then I disagree. Change should begin within the home as well as within the social economic structure of our society, not as a separate black / white issue based on whether you are a progressive, Dem, Christian Right Wing fundamentalist etc…
Keep in mind; issues such as these are grounded in the core of one’s spiritual belief. These spiritual beliefs will always be the driving force behind one’s perception or opinions about homosexuality.