|
|
May 20, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Ironies of Bishop LongPosted on Sep 27, 2010One of the small ironies of the Bishop Eddie Long scandal is the preacher’s self-pitying complaint, in a Sunday sermon vetted by his lawyers, that he feels “like David against Goliath.” Really? Let’s see, on one side we have one of the most prominent and influential clerics in the country, the pastor of a suburban Atlanta megachurch that claims 25,000 members. On the other, we have four young men who claim in lawsuits that Long abused his clerical authority to lure and coerce them into having sex with him. Unlike the bishop, as far as I know, none of the accusers is driven around in a Bentley. Or is constantly attended by a retinue of aides and bodyguards. Or cultivates and maintains first-name relationships with famous politicians, athletes and entertainers. I’m pretty sure the preacher has that whole David-Goliath thing backward. A much bigger irony, of course, is that Long has been a vehement crusader against same-sex marriage—and against homosexuality in general. And the biggest irony of all is that his very public travails may force the African-American church to finally confront its long history of homophobic hypocrisy. Starting in 1987 with just 300 members, Long built the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church into one of the nation’s two or three biggest and most important black congregations. The 240-acre church complex is located in DeKalb County, one of the wealthiest majority-black jurisdictions in the country. The church is popular among Atlanta’s black celebrities, and its success has made Long a celebrity, too. Advertisement The black church in America has long mixed political activism with a deep social conservatism. But while polls show that the nation has become much more understanding and tolerant of homosexuality, the black church has been painfully slow to change. I wrote a column several years ago suggesting that black preachers come down from the pulpit and get to know their parishioners—and I still think that would be a good start. “This is probably the most difficult time in my entire life,” Long said in his sermon Sunday. “There have been allegations and attacks made on me. I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man. But I am not the man that’s being portrayed on television. That’s not me. That is not me.” Then who is Eddie Long? The upstanding father of four who came to the pulpit hand-in-hand with his wife and denounced—but did not deny—the allegations against him? Or the manipulative sexual con artist who, according to his four accusers, does not remotely practice what he preaches? The four men, in their civil lawsuits, tell remarkably similar stories. They say that Long took a special interest in some of the young men who attended his church in Atlanta and a satellite church in Charlotte, N.C. They say he took them separately on trips to such destinations as Kenya, South Africa and New Zealand when they were teenagers—but above the age of consent in Georgia, which is 16. The men say that Long bought them lavish gifts, including cars and jewelry, and led them gradually into sexual activity, citing biblical passages as justification. One of the men says that Long performed a religious “covenant” ceremony with him that sounds strikingly like an exchange of marriage vows. I’m guessing that maybe Long has some questions of identity to grapple with. He might choose to seek and confront the answers, or he might not. But meanwhile, African-American preachers and worshipers across the nation are watching—and, one hopes, learning. “That is not me,” Long said. But what if it is? Nothing he learns about himself can negate all the good works he has done in his ministry—all the people whose lives he has changed with a message of faith and hope. Maybe he could forgive himself. Then maybe he could forgive all the gays and lesbians he so coldly condemns. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.  TAGS:
|
Global Capital and the Nation State
 . '/' . substr('9781586481223',-6,3) . '/' . '9781586481223' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Brad Evans, October 5, 2010 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How many choir directors and organists do black churches have to put in the ground before they’ll do more than light a candle?
Report thisPitiful. Blacks got a pass (and still do!)for saying and doing things against gays that would get catholics, jews, eastern Orthodox and Evangelicals banned from polite society. But because they’re a “victim”, a key element of “the progressive coalition”, they don’t get called on it. Rich Volvo voters look away and make excuses.
End dependence on clergy. Only small ignorant tribes should be ruled by their witch doctors. The sooner Blacks get at atheist as Whites, the healthier their culture will be.
And for christssake, tell the folks at church to stop eating so much. Too many big, fat asses in those pews!
By nwb, September 30, 2010 at 11:01 pm Link to this comment
@Arouete
Trolling. I believe what I said for the most part, but
Report thisI did it to troll.
By Arouete, September 30, 2010 at 11:00 pm Link to this comment
Who are these people? What is this cyber-masturbation? Aristotle? Ibn al-Haytham? Sir Francis Bacon? What pseudo intellectual rubbish. We all impressed that a high school student can squawk like a pet-shop parrot? And conclusion, conclusion, concision utterly devoid of foundation. Hitchens, God is Not Great is full of holes. No foundation. Oops, pardon me, a few unnamed ‘theologies” said so. Now there is some credible authority for ya! Gotcha. Dawkins’ own (again unnamed) colleagues consider him a nut job ruining science. Ah yes, spoken like one with true respect for scientific method. “I am proven right by my unsubstantiated conclusions.”
What does any of this pseudo-intellectual clap trap have to do with the tub-thumping bible bumping, sanctimonious, self-righteous, bigot Bishop show-preacher Long who used scripture and flashy-trash-bling to bugger teenage boys at the same time he stood on his despicable soap-box and hurling rocks at others?
Report thisBy nwb, September 30, 2010 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment
@maani
God is not an ontological question. If you believe
that he created the universe, it isn’t an ontological
question. I may not have read all five of the New
Atheists, but at least, as a trained social theorist,
I understand the much more fundamental concept
ontology.
I didn’t laud bombs, I simply noted their creation,
your point is irrelevant to the discussion. The
existence of god is not an ontological question.
I said “essentially believe the earth is flat;”
double check your reading comprehension abilities. I
am comparing that belief to your belief that God
created the universe. The existence of god is not an
ontological question.
MLK should not have kept his mouth shut if he was not
only talking about religion. That his religion
informed his morals is merely circumstance, religion
is not necessary for morals. If the only thing MLK
did was preach religion and not advance civil rights
- which is not a religious issue - then yes, he
should’ve kept his mouth shut. I made it plain in my
last few posts that I am saying religious leaders
should not be given credence because religion is
fantasy, and the parts that aren’t do not require
religion.
Check your reading comprehension. The existence of
god is not an ontological question.
Lastly, I don’t care if you once successfully debated
in front of a skeptical audience, that’s anecdotal
evidence. Provide me with a video and I still won’t
care because that doesn’t change the fact that the
existence of god is not an ontological question.
The study of ontology is metaphysical. It is more of
a study of personal experience, and of concepts, than
what is concretely real.
Unless, of course, you believe that Plato’s forms
really exist.
I’ll say it one last time. The existence of god is
not an ontological question, any more than evolution
is an ontological question. If you posit that god
exists and he created the universe, it is not only an
ontological question. Again, do you believe in
Plato’s forms? That there is a perfect something for
every thing out there that we cannot see but just
assume to exist? That when you know something, you’re
actually just remembering it, as he also believed?
Or do you realize that ontology is now a small subset
of social theory, part of a broader spectrum of
epistemology, phenomenology, postmodernism,
poststructuarlism, etc.? Science is appropriate in
some domains, and not all - but if you claim God
exists and created the universe, that is not an
ontological question, because you’re stating he is
‘out there’ and we should be able to discover him.
Since we haven’t, you must agree it’s reasonable to
assume for now s/he doesn’t exist.
Of course, you can continue to say that Santa Claus
is an ontological question, and not in the purvey of
science to decide if it exists or not. Or if rocks
exist or not. Right? Those all do with ‘existing’,
and that’s what ontology studies, so it’s a
philosophical question.
Judging from your reading comprehension and your
Report thismisunderstanding of ontological questions, you should
probably re-do a good liberal arts education in
something like anthropology or political or critical
theory, if you ever had one in the first place.
By Maani, September 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment
nwb:
“Since you do not actually claim that God made the universe, but simply say it is no more supportable, I’ll address that.”
I did not say that I do not believe God made the universe; I do. I was simply making a separate statement based on the science-v-religion issue.
“But let’s look at the qualitative differences between science and religion. You see, science is based off something called ‘evidence,’ where you test something over and over again to make sure what you are claiming is true almost 100% of the time - and then you have a bunch of other people test that to see if it’s true and if what you did is flawed or not. It works pretty well. It created the computer you’re using to spew your inane bronze age babble. Where are religion’s computers? bombs? skyscrapers? factories? fission technology? Religion makes claims about the nature of reality, but it is painfully, painfully obvious that science is much more well equipped to do this.”
First, I fully accept the scientific method. (As an aside, although it began with Aristotle, the two people who developed the scientific method were Ibn al-Haytham (a devout Muslim) and Sir Francis Bacon (a devout Christian)). And I never suggested that religion is or should be used to answer scientific questions. But neither should science be used to answer philosophical/ontological/theological questions. The very question “Does God exist?” is not a scientific question. Science is concerned with the discovery and verification of knowable facts. Religion is concerned with questions of existence and meaning.
Second, I would hardly be crowing about science and “bombs.” Indeed, science has developed the atom bomb, VX gas, Zyklon B, depleted uranium ammo, and all sorts of wonderful people-killing technology. Personally, I don’t think this is something to be proud of.
“Plenty of other more well-known atheists have debated your point…other than the author you mention I’ve never heard of. Try watching debates by Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins instead.”
That you have never heard of Stenger tells me how narrow your reading is. He is considered the “fifth” member of the New Atheists (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett). And I repeat that he was unable to refute my point in front of an audience of audience comprised entirely of science-minded skeptics. As for Hitchens, God is Not Great is so full of holes you could drive a truck through it – and many theologians and historians have done so. And re Dawkins, even many of his own colleagues consider him a nut job, and believe he is doing more to ruin science education than any person on “my” side.
“Last, in re: to ministers speaking publicly, I’m not attempting to suppress free speech rights. I’m merely stating that once people such as yourself realize you are essentially still believing that the earth is flat, the public will have no need to call upon you for your religious credentials.”
I believe the earth is flat? Where did you get THAT idea? I believe in a 13+-billion-year-old universe, evolution (with “first cause”), plate tectonics, continental drift, and probably everything science-based that YOU believe in as well. And every single rabbi, minister and imam who is a colleague of mine believes similarly. Where on God’s great earth do you get off making such an insulting, insupportable statement?
“And yes, ministers can be educated on numerous issues, but you have just demonstrated how much you muck up your religion with separate issues, and we both know how much religion plays into politics. I think we’d be better off with it.”
I repeat my question: do you believe that MLK should simply have kept his mouth shut?
Peace. (??)
Report thisBy tomack, September 30, 2010 at 6:09 am Link to this comment
Peace back at ya, Preacher.
Report thisBy James M. Martin, September 30, 2010 at 5:59 am Link to this comment
Long’s failure, given ample opportunity now, to simply deny having relations with these young men is a clear indication of his guilt. His congregants should see through it, but no, they are indoctrinated into a cult whose focus is Rev. Long. They can’t possibly worship Jesus, as he would be appalled by the so-called prosperity gospel. One supposes Long believes he can pass through the eye of a needle and that the word “charity” never appeared in crimson in red letter editions of the Booble. Instead, money that could feed the poor will be spent on law suit settlements designed to hush up the scandal. I feel sorry for his parishioners, who are obviously brainwashed. (Look at them swooning in the aisles, halleluyaing his ever word.) Shame! Shame!
Report thisBy basho, September 30, 2010 at 2:06 am Link to this comment
fools like this flourish only because of the fools that follow them.
Report thisBy Arouete, September 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
Mr. Robinson:
Thank you for your splendid editorial however, like Bishop Robinson with his false David v. Goliath analogy, you too get it a bit bass-ackwards. It is not for Bishop Robinson to “forgive” gays and lesbians for anything. Rather it is for him to ASK forgiveness for the damages he has done to our human dignity.
C. S. Lewis once wrote that “Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst.” To paraphrase the words of Mark Twain, my favorite Connecticut Yankee who, they say, had a pen warmed up in Hell, “... if Bishop Robinson continues on the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of decency.”
Report thisBy nwb, September 29, 2010 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Maani
Yep, you’re one of those. You need to rethink your
understanding of science and your reasoning ability.
“Actually, not quite. Science does not have an
explanation for the origin on the universe either.
It barely even has a theory. I am talking about what
initially created the “Big Bang.” Thus, the theories
of science in this regard are no more supportable
than the theory that “God” was already there and set
it off. In fact, I debated Victor Stenger (author of
God: The Failed Hypothesis) on this very point - and
he could not refute my position.”
I think you need to reevaluate your understanding of
the atheistic/apatheistic position. Since you do not
actually claim that God made the universe, but simply
say it is no more supportable, I’ll address that. No,
scientific theory does not say there is no
god/creator and has disproved it, but that is a two
sided coin; by the same evidence, there is no reason
to believe a god exists at all. So why are you a
minister, why do you believe in god(s)? Your argument
only validates the atheist position - that any
explanation for where the Big Bang originated has no
support, and anyone can claim anything, but because
there is no evidence, no one can know they’re right.
It was made by a ninja. Or a pink elephant. Or the
greek pantheon. There is no need to bring God into it
until the believers have evidence - the burden of
proof is on YOU, not atheists.
But let’s look at the qualitative differences between
science and religion. You see, science is based off
something called ‘evidence,’ where you test something
over and over again to make sure what you are
claiming is true almost 100% of the time - and then
you have a bunch of other people test that to see if
it’s true and if what you did is flawed or not. It
works pretty well. It created the computer you’re
using to spew your inane bronze age babble. Where are
religion’s computers? bombs? skyscrapers? factories?
fission technology? Religion makes claims about the
nature of reality, but it is painfully, painfully
obvious that science is much more well equipped to do
this.
Plenty of other more well-known atheists have debated
your point (which is essentially misleading logic)
other than the author you mention I’ve never heard
of. Try watching debates by Christopher Hitchens or
Richard Dawkins instead.
Last, in re: to ministers speaking publicly, I’m not
Report thisattempting to suppress free speech rights. I’m merely
stating that once people such as yourself realize you
are essentially still believing that the earth is
flat, the public will have no need to call upon you
for your religious credentials. And yes, ministers
can be educated on numerous issues, but you have just
demonstrated how much you muck up your religion with
separate issues, and we both know how much religion
plays into politics. I think we’d be better off with
it.
By Maani, September 29, 2010 at 8:36 am Link to this comment
nwb:
“I’m not dumb enough to think all ministers read are their respective holy books. However, if you are one that tries to say God(s) oversaw evolution/the big bang/whatever, then yes, continue being insulted, because that is idiotic and you need to consider your understanding of current science, because it does not allow you to make such a claim.”
Actually, not quite. Science does not have an explanation for the origin on the universe either. It barely even has a theory. I am talking about what initially created the “Big Bang.” Thus, the theories of science in this regard are no more supportable than the theory that “God” was already there and set it off. In fact, I debated Victor Stenger (author of God: The Failed Hypothesis) on this very point - and he could not refute my position.
“My problem is that we draw on ministers and reverends as leaders in society and let them speak on national TV on behalf of religion as if religion actually has any credentials anymore. It doesn’t. Again, if that insults you because you are a minister, please be insulted. CNN has yet to call me up for being a Lord of the Rings nerd, but that is essentially what they do when they ask religious leaders to give their opinion on political issues.”
You have made two different comments here: ministers speaking about religion, and ministers speaking about politics. Re the first, whatever your personal beliefs (or lack thereof), ministers discussing religion is no different than psychologists discussing psychology: both are inexact “sciences,” filled with claims that simply cannot be proven in any definitive way.
As for ministers speaking about politics, I disagree with you on two counts. First, they may have just as much knowledge and understanding of history, economics and politics to speak intelligently about politics as anyone else. Would you say MLK had no right to speak about politics? Second, the “public square” is open to EVERYONE. And if the media (which, despite its well-deserved reputation as corporate shills, is a part of the “public square”) chooses to have ministers and other religious leaders talk about politics, I see no reason why they should be denied that opportunity, since there are plenty of secular pundits on the air.
Peace.
Report thisBy raykeith7, September 29, 2010 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
Why wont the preacher just say gay is good & young boys are just more fun, then everyone will be happy again.
Report thisLets all be happy.
By tedmurphy41, September 29, 2010 at 5:46 am Link to this comment
Brilliant; by such logic, Hitler was innocent.
Report thisBy nwb, September 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
@Maani
No, but you’re welcome to paint your own broad brushstrokes about my extremely short comment and take offense simply because you are a minister. I’m not dumb enough to think all ministers read are their respective holy books. However, if you are one that tries to say God(s) oversaw evolution/the big bang/whatever, then yes, continue being insulted, because that is idiotic and you need to consider your understanding of current science, because it does not allow you to make such a claim. However, that may - or may not - be me putting words in your mouth.
Let’s consider my actual comment. My problem is that we draw on ministers and reverends as leaders in society and let them speak on national TV on behalf of religion as if religion actually has any credentials anymore. It doesn’t. Again, if that insults you because you are a minister, please be insulted. CNN has yet to call me up for being a Lord of the Rings nerd, but that is essentially what they do when they ask religious leaders to give their opinion on political issues.
Report thisBy Maani, September 28, 2010 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment
nwb:
“Ministers/reverends/preachers whatever are given
consideration in national debate on televised media as if they have actual credentials but all they study are fictional books. Our society should pay them no heed anymore.”
Are you suggesting that I (as a minister) - or other ministers - have never read anything except the Bible? That we don’t read science, politics, psychology, history, art, economics, etc., etc., etc.?
Your outrageously broad-brush generalization is as stupid as it is insulting.
Report thisBy nwb, September 28, 2010 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment
I’ll add my two cents, but I think Lou’s comment is the
Report thismost informative and important. So, two cents: there
should be no oxymoron of a ‘wealthy preacher’ because
there should be no preacher at all.
Ministers/reverends/preachers whatever are given
consideration in national debate on televised media as
if they have actual credentials but all they study are
fictional books. Our society should pay them no heed
anymore.
By RayLan, September 28, 2010 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment
It has almost achieved the status of a law- religious homophobia= homosexual scandal. From Salient Swaggart to Pope Rat it confirms historical determinism , at least when it comes to the disturbing institutional paradox called religion.
Report thisBy Lou, September 28, 2010 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hypocrisy aside, to a degree I could care less whether the civil standard of proof (more likely than not) is present under the current set of facts. Although I would be tickled to hear the rationalization of any individual who would claim they’d have no problem or issues with their significant other sextexting to someone 17 years old of the same or opposite sex. It kills me when people want to give Eddie Long Stroke a break, a break they’d NEVER give their significant other. This is it’s own example of hypocrisy to high heaven. Most persons would go ape shit were they in the position of the Bishop’s wife.
The issue I have is not whether he’s gay or not. I have a problem with Black churches spreading homophobia for a couple reasons: (1) this is not a priority “Black Agenda” item, it’s a priority White Christian Conservative Item, and it’s pushed at the expense of items 10X more essential to AAs, and (2) the Bishop’s stance on gays drive’s bisexual behavior of Black men UNDERGROUND which in turn puts Black women (or women in general) at SIGNIFICANT RISK.
This ain’t goddamn rocket science! I mean, the CDC is right down the street from where those people were marching and bashing gays. The historical Black church has no place or room to jump on this White Christian conservative bandwagon, it’s suicidal in that it means they are pushing an agenda, with all of its economic, social, financial and political implications and pratfalls on Black folks anathema to their interests, instead of concerning themselves with working/middle class issues, education, decent housing and jobs.
Report thisBy Maani, September 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
tomack:
“Not everyone was accusing—I wasn’t. I was commenting on the ‘breed’ of individual. Those that let power and money go to their head. Like this character. This very, very, wealthy ‘preacher.’
Should those two wordas even be side by side? Wealthy & Preacher?”
Re the first (power and money), I completely agree, which is why it is largely politicians and “wealthy preachers” (plus a few “titans of business”) who lead the pack.
Re the second, I also think “wealthy preacher” is, or should be, an oxymoron. Good call.
Peace.
Report thisBy Fat Freddy, September 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment
Maani
It’s a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. Preponderance of the evidence, is the standard, not, beyond a reasonable doubt. Granted, however, that Mr Robinson may be jumping the gun with a knee-jerk reaction. Personally, I think he is chastising the Bishop for being homophobic. The lawsuit only shows possible hypocrisy.
Report thisBy tomack, September 28, 2010 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
Not everyone was accusing—I wasn’t. I was commenting on the “breed” of individual. Those that let power and money go to their head. Like this character. This very, very, wealthy “preacher”.
Should those two wordas even be side by side? Wealthy & Preacher?
That aside, if I had to bet, I’d bet he did it (four seperate accusations). In that case he’s no better than the priest who raped all of those deaf boys.
Report thisBy bogglesthemind, September 28, 2010 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“Then maybe he could forgive all the gays and lesbians he so coldly
condemns.”
A good one Eugene, a good one!
Report thisBy Maani, September 28, 2010 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
Uh…um…Excuse me? My understanding of American jurisprudence is that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty - in a LEGAL court, NOT in the court of public opinion and the media addiction to controversy and “what sells newspapers, advertising, etc. I find it absolutely amazing how quickly all of you simply jumped on the media-created bandwagon in this regard.
Has it occurred to you that Rev. Long might very well be innocent of the charges? Has it occurred to you that there may be more to this story than currently meets the eye?
I am shocked that Robinson would simply tow the mainstream, “controversy sells” (particularly re religion) line, and that all of you would follow like sheeple instead of actually doing any research to find out what may or may not lie behind this story, or at very least give the actual legal process a chance to work before you convict and incarcerate him.
Holy cow! I seriously can’t believe I am seeing this on TRUTHdig!
Report thisBy Lou, September 28, 2010 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with all of the comments posted thus far. But allow an African American (AA) male to give you another perspective. With incarceration rates for AA’s at shocking levels, with REAL unemployment hovering at 50% in some cities, with the Real Estate debacle visited more harshly on AAs who were steered in disproportionate numbers into subprime loans, I can assure you that issues that predominant discussion amongst the White political classes like gay marriage and homosexuality are very low priorities for AAs. Don’t think for a minute that the majority of these preachers even reflect the AA political consensus. Most AAs are too busy “surviving and struggling” to give a damn about gay marriage or DADT, they’re trying to keep the lights on and rent paid.
And adding insult to injury, the net effects of Long and his congregants’ homophobia is catastrophic damage to the AA community. Long and his minions should have marched to the Fulton County Jail and the Atlanta Federal Pen to protest COERCIVE AND PREDATORY SEX on heterosexual Black males, who when released, often engage in “down low” bi-sexual lifestyles and aggravate risk factors that spread AIDS/HIV to Black Women in particular and women in general. The cohort of Black Women is the most affected with AIDS/HIV transmission.
So the net effect of this virulent homophobia is to harm Black Women the most, to remain silent on sexual rape and predatory behavior in prisons and to remain silent about disproportionate numbers of Black men in prison who receive longer sentences than their counterparts for similar crimes. (Think crack cocaine vs. powder sentencing disparities). Long should have sold the Bentley to fund an effective Prison Ministries.
So here we have the travesty of clamoring against CONSENSUAL sexual behavior by FREE individuals but SILENCE towards the IMPRISONED heterosexual victims of rape and sexual exploitation who are not CONSENTING!! Is it not clear that Long and other pastors of his stripe have their priorities totally f***ed up??!!!
Is it not also clear that most people on this planet need their energies to regulate their OWN libidos, I mean these people can’t control the sexual behavior of their CHILDREN, but they want to control the sexual behavior of free, consenting adult people, who live in a subdivision 25 or 2500 miles away? Incredible.
Report thisBy photoshock, September 28, 2010 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
We in America live in a society of the ‘cult of
Report thispersonality.’ We set up men and women who are
supposed to be role models and upstanding citizens,
when in actuality they are nothing more than humans
with feet of clay. We then, after making these people
almost ‘g-ds’ worship them with our whole heart and
mind. We cannot distinguish between them and the one
‘true G-d.’
Why do these people crave this kind of adulation and
adoration? Is it because they are themselves people
with no self worth and no idea who they really are?
One should realize that these people are nothing more
than people and not worthy of the kind of praise and
worship they get.
I must state emphatically that if they, these
Christians continue in this vein, they will disappear
and make themselves useless in the world. For no one
is above the law and no one is and should be
worshiped as G-d.
As for Bishop Eddie Long, I have long thought
something was wrong with ‘his’ ministry. He placed
himself above the people of his congregation, by
buying jewelry, clothing that the people who attend
his church could not afford and mansions and
vacations financed by the people of his congregation.
All aboard his private jets and in full view of the
congregation he was fleecing with his holier than
thou attitude.
I hold out no hope of redemption for this man, he has
judged others of the same sexuality as his, and
harshly at that. For what goes around, comes around.
Placing oneself above the people will only get you in
trouble, how do I know this? Because I once preached
in a church for 10 years.
By tomack, September 28, 2010 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
These types become Celebrity because they CRAVE it, they NEED it, and so fall prey to all that Celebrity has to offer. If they were truly in it to help people—to do whatever—they would not want the money or notoriety. They would quietly go about their lives helping others—not convincing others to help them.
I put these types of individuals in the same pool as politicians. The cess pool.
Report thisBy SoTexGuy, September 28, 2010 at 6:00 am Link to this comment
It’s interesting how many of the big name Evangelicals get in to trouble.. adultery, embezzlement, drugs, prostitution and so much more.
From the outside looking in I often think I see in many of these leaders the signs that they are not quite right.. but what do I know? It could well be due to the fact that I am opposed to their brand of religion and their politics!
It has been proven to be true that it’s hazardous to give to anyone the kind of trust that these self-promoted truth-speakers ask for and get from their congregations! That level of trust and dependence is unhealthy and a fertile field for abuse.
Here’s the deal.. we’ve watched as one after another big-name white preachers go through this and mostly survive to have a self-revival and reaffirmation of faith.. and a resurgence of their following..glory be!
Will this young black pulpit-star really become the fallen? What will it say if he is indeed de-throned and cast out? My opinion is it will say a lot of very good things about his congregation!
Adios.
Report thisBy Fat Freddy, September 28, 2010 at 3:41 am Link to this comment
Here’s what happens to bad boys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B808tB5vmKM
Report thisBy aacme88, September 27, 2010 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment
Scratch a homophobe, you find a self hating closeted homosexual underneath.
Report this