JOHN MCWHORTER SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The accusations against Bishop Eddie Long are, in themselves, not a “black” story, of course. We are accustomed to the spectacle of superstar preachers opposed to homosexuality, such as Ted Haggard and George “Rentboy” Rekers, caught with their pants down with people who are not women.
However, the situation presents Long with an opportunity for true redemption, in that he could make a key statement to a black America behind the curve on the acceptance of homosexuality.
It has become, quite simply, an embarrassment. Yes, homophobia is not limited to the black community. However, it’s more of a problem: a recent Pew poll showed 65 percent of blacks thinking of homosexuality as wrong compared to 48 percent of whites.
This means a black community who played a disproportionate role in getting Proposition 8 passed. Meanwhile, the same community was celebrating how inspiring Barack Obama’s victory was, while today many of that community’s leaders and writers indignantly call for a Marshall Plan to rescue inner-city blacks and muse glumly over why Obama does not create a black agenda. This is not the best we can do.
This means basing the opposition to gays on passages in the Bible—the same Bible that was once used to justify the enslavement of black people. The very notion of prosperity-gospel churches like Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist that teach that Jesus was all about getting rich is, itself, a decidedly creative take on the teachings in Matthew and elsewhere. Clearly blackness can encompass a dynamic relationship to the Bible. Refusing to do so as a mere cloak for a visceral repulsion is not the best we can do.
This means the way some black people finesse this by saying that gay people should just keep quiet about their private life. The prototype example is the swishy black choir director; everybody knows he “has some sugar in his shoes” and won’t be getting married, but nobody talks about it. Right—so for black people gay men should be satisfied with the status of character actors like Franklin Pangborn in old movies, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is progressive. This is not the best we can do.
This means that even though we saw the gay bar scene in Far From Heaven, where the male protagonist has to go to some seedy basement to meet others like him, as grimly and thankfully antique way back in 2002, there is still the Down Low phenomenon in the black community. To the anticipated objection: there are nominally straight white men with secret gay lives too (refer back to Haggard and Rekers, or the famous snippet in The Wire of Lieutenant Rawls’s surprise secret). However, the Down Low phenomenon is especially entrenched and commodified in the black American world—now even a staple in literature and drama—because the stigma against coming out is so much stronger on all class levels. This is not the best we can do.
I think of an achingly attractive black woman I found I couldn’t have a relationship with 20 years ago partly because she, even with a college education, found homosexuality so alien that she couldn’t make peace with the fact that I, as someone who did a lot of theater at the time, had some gay male and female friends.
Or the working-class black man I know who was given such a hard time by black kids in his neighborhood for effeminacy that he sheltered himself in a deeply conservative religion he wasn’t even raised with—which, because it condemns homosexuality, has left him with no choice but to either leave a religious community that provides him with most of his social life or to be a lifelong celibate. He has made the latter choice, and feels eternally stalled and lonely.
No, no, no—this will not do.
So often it’s the ones ranting against homosexuality (or any number of other things) who turn out to be working out for themselves a predilection for same (The Root has a piece on this). I’ll never forget a guy in college who seemed almost fixated on claims that every second man we all knew was secretly gay—and wouldn’t you know he was the one who fell in love with a man in grad school to the fury of the woman he was engaged to.
Long, one highly suspects, is guilty. And there is so much more. That there are four accusers instead of one is just the beginning. His announcement last Sunday that he intends to fight the charges was tellingly vague: “I’m not a perfect man,” he repeated. Well, why that little qualifier? “But this ... I’m gon’ fight” he said—a little hazy, that this. You couldn’t miss also the unsteady gaze.
At this point, whatever “fight” Long comes up with—the best possible outcome imaginable is that he tries to get by with some kind of “I’m not really gay” explanation based on, shall we say, “Tis better to give than to receive”—these revelations will stick to him forever. They will be his legacy, in the same way that Larry Craig will always be known for the bathroom episode despite his clunky denials (not just the wide stance thing, but “I don’t do things like that,” betraying a certain preset consciousness of the “things” in question).
Eddie Long would do himself and his own race a massive favor if he, shall we say, had a conversion here. “Got the call,” to put it in language familiar in his realm. He should openly admit what he did, disavow his antigay positions, and serve as a beacon to a black community that needs to get beyond an unthinking prejudice especially unseemly in a group positioning itself as a standard-bearer of America’s moral advancement.
He should get with the times—as the NAACP has, with Benjamin Jealous announcing an upcoming “One Nation Working Together” march with gay and transgender groups. America becomes ever more open to gay marriages. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is doing a slow fade. Ever more celebrities are coming out with no detriment to their careers. Call it a new kind of New Birth.
Long likely fears how many parishioners would desert him. Plenty would. However, let’s face it – these people would be the equivalents to the hold-outs against Civil Rights, the people on the sidelines in the photos of Little Rock, the people on Mad Men making casually dismissive comments about the Freedom struggle. Perhaps Long could think about what he would leave behind—or about his afterlife. People change. Leaders help them do it.
Eddie Long could, right now, become a great man. It would be a small thing indeed for him to cave in and “fight” rather than seek the higher wisdom of acceptance—of himself and so very many other souls.
27 comments
You are very funny! You want Bishop Eddie Long to admit to his Low Down. What about Pastor Wright rejecting his anti-Semitism? While we are on the subject, what about Obama admitting that he is an anti-Semite despite his rejecting Wright and his speech on race in Philadelphia not withstanding that was in fact not about race but plain for all to see a straw man so successful he got elected? The Black community is homophobic, so? Is it the only community that is homophobic? At least you speak about it. What about the Black community being anti-Semitic? How come you do not have the you know what, to speak about it?
- Poupic
September 29, 2010 at 10:53am
You make a good case Mr. McWhorter, but on balance I fear this is the wrong messenger. One of his accusers has referred to him as a "monster" and a "predator." These words ring true, both for his predatory behavior and his insulting, greedy interpretations of the Bible (I still can't decide who galls me more - this man or the self-serving sheep who dare follow such nonsense). I would like to see someone of Coretta Scott King's stature (a tough call, I realize) stand up once again, as she so bravely did, and condemn homophobia in the black community in no uncertain terms. The Obamas are over a barrel on this as you know, at least at this point. The narcissism of this man does not bode well for any attempt he may make towards true redemption. I have hope and would welcome it with open arms, but his character is marred by more than his conflicted sexual orientation. Right now, he really is a monster. If he donated his money to the poor at the same time he apologized unconditionally for stalking and lying to young men and harming homosexuals nationwide, then he would be redeemed. Anything less would seem more harmful than nothing. Half an apology for getting caught? Who needs it? Are there no figures within the black evangelical movement who could take on this mantle? I think of the gospel singer (I forgot his name) who came out of the closet and lost his career, what about someone publicly apologizing to him and inviting him to join their church? What a beautiful, Christ-like moment that would be. I'm afraid I'm not a church-goer so I do not know, but surely there is someone else?
- WandreyCer
September 29, 2010 at 12:39pm
BTW - come to think of it, YOU count as a bigshot condemning homophobia - thank you!
- WandreyCer
September 29, 2010 at 12:43pm
This is a beautiful piece, Mr. McWhorter, and pay no mind to the above carping.
- liberal reformer
September 29, 2010 at 1:31pm
Poupic, your sentence "what about Obama admitting that he is an anti-Semite despite his rejecting Wright and his speech on race in Philadelphia not withstanding that was in fact not about race but plain for all to see a straw man so successful he got elected?" sets the gold standard for meaningless rhetorical venting.
- ironyroad
September 29, 2010 at 2:43pm
Another black leader with the stature to make a difference on black homophobia and a proud track record of confronting the black community would be Bill Cosby. Come to think of it, since he lives around here (western Mass.), I may send him a note making the suggestion.
- JackR
September 29, 2010 at 4:58pm
"Eddie Long could, right now, become a great man." Oh please. Admitting he's gay and advocating tolerance and acceptance for gays would still not absolve him of coercing young men into having sex, let alone elevate him to "greatness".
- bhunziker
September 29, 2010 at 6:04pm
It's just as important for him to state that Jesus does NOT want you to be rich. That is ruining more lives than his activities on the DL.
- zardoz67
September 29, 2010 at 6:15pm
Well-argued, nuanced piece. But let's banish "homophobia" and all its derivatives, like "Islamophobia" from our public discourse. These are psychological terms, insinuating people we rightfully disagree with are somehow mentally ill when they are respectively "anti-Gay" and "anti-Muslim." The "-phobias" are phrases that contribute to the coarsening and hardening of debate. Send them back to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) where they belong alongside "arachnophobia" and "triskedekophobia." And BTW, "homophobia" was originally coined to describe a pathologically excessive fear of friendship with the same sex.
- cansv
September 29, 2010 at 6:27pm
Wonderful piece, Mr. McWhorter. Poupic, what you write is complete narischkeit. WandreyCer, it's equally tough for me to decide who galls me more. I think, for me, it's the sheep, who have fawningly and foolishly maintained this blowhard in a multi-million dollar lifestyle for all these years, and who gave a thunderous ovation to his "I'll fight" sermon, when it's pretty clear these charges have some basis in fact. At this point, I don't think they're applauding for him. They're applauding to drown out their embarrassment that they've been such fools. They're in complete denial.
- skeebler
September 29, 2010 at 6:45pm
skeebler: I'll second all three of your comments and thank you for adding a word to my limited Yiddish vocabulary. Poupic has popped up a couple of times lately with his "anti-Semitic" paranoid non sequitur rants. Apparently a troubled and unhappy individual.
- appleton
September 29, 2010 at 7:04pm
Poopic is living up to its moniker.
- icarusr
September 29, 2010 at 7:06pm
Gotta go with Wand and Bhunz on this one. Honestly, there are better, far better prophets of tolerance than the Long oik. This, as the piece says, will not do.
- icarusr
September 29, 2010 at 7:08pm
Poupic is depraved and hateful with his incessant lies against Obama an attempt to hijack every thread with his rants, but fair and square - he has a point with the history of anti-Semitism in the black church, however paranoid his mind clearly is. There is no excuse for it. Personally, rich isn't enough for me to judge anyone on - but it undeniably sure was for Jesus. There wasn't any group he held more unvarnished hostiity towards than the rich. I guess the meek won't inherit the earth according to Long's ridiculous followers. Great idea Jack!
- WandreyCer
September 29, 2010 at 7:09pm
The ignorance that feeds the anti-gay animus in the black community is palpable. Same goes for the antisemitism of black churches, though I'd say that for a long time most churches worldwide, black, white and brown, were all the same way. It's just that now the black churches lag behind in burying that monster. Poupic notwithstanding, Mr McWhorter could have written, almost word for word, the same essay on antisemitism in the black American religious community (christian and muslim) and still be spot on.
- scrubby
September 29, 2010 at 11:10pm
It's a beautiful piece - meanwhile though I don't understand what drives anti-gay, antisemitic tendencies in the black community. ? Can somebody explain?
- Sophia
September 30, 2010 at 12:55am
That's the question, Sophia. The why is important.
- ironyroad
September 30, 2010 at 1:24am
Your question, Sophia, is one of several reasons that I don't find McWhorter's piece to be "beautiful." First, he simply assumes that Long is guilty of the crimes of which he has been accused. Neither he nor anyone on this thread knows that. Second, the question is not whether Long is homosexual, but whether he is a child-molester. If he is, the idea that he should be some kind of spokesman against anti-gay bigotry is ludicrous. And third, and most important, is the question you raise. If blacks are particularly likely to be prejudiced against gay people (or to be anti-semitic), then a very important question is, why? To simply preach at people that "this will not do," well, will not do. Dhurtado
- NR143296
September 30, 2010 at 11:30pm
So has anyone got the makings of an answer, now that three of us have put the question?
- ironyroad
October 1, 2010 at 12:35pm
Dhurt: No, it is not enough to say this will not do. But then, while we try to understand the why, we need to preach that whatever the reason, this will not do. I think McWhorter is simply trying to put a quick end to the outward manifestations of the malady, while the bigger question of "why" undergoes the decades-long sociological and psychological studies that it requires. In a larger sense, of course, I really don't care why; I want the homo-hatred (to avoid the psychiatric element) and the anti-Semitism to stop. (And not just anti-Semitism - when I was living in Boston, I attended a nearly all-white high school in a working-class suburb. The only overtly bigoted comment I heard came from a black guy. One of three black guys in a large senior class. Why? Of course, when honky tried to make a comment, I put him down - fast and brutally, even at 16, while I never replied to the black bigotry. Why?) But if you really want to know "why", see the scene in "Grand Canyon":
It all goes back to ideas, and ideals, of masculinity - and of culturally innate misogyny. To be fucked, whether literally or figuratively, is not a good thing, because, as a man, to allow oneself to be fucked is to give up the privileged position of being a man, which is supposed to be doing the fucking (to women, or to effeminate guys, or to younger guys). (To give up the gun is to be emasculated - to lose the balls and the dick - to become a woman.) In this sense, gays subvert the natural order, not by threatening to convert other guys to being gay, but by telling the world that there is nothing wrong with being fucked or with placing oneself in the position of a woman, or, in other words, with being a woman. Show me a macho/misogynist culture, and I will show you a homophobic population; show me a culture, or a cultural stratum, in which women are attaining equality, and you can bet your bottom dollar that incidents of homophobia are rare.- icarusr
October 1, 2010 at 1:01pm
Irony, please see my comment. An answer, at any rate, based on having lived for extended periods in at least seven countries and lived with partners from three more. Purely personal and cannot claim any sort of academic psychological or sociological insight.
- icarusr
October 1, 2010 at 1:04pm
Oh come on Ick. Academic psychological or sociological? Here is an academic truism..... "Shit rolls down hill." Seems to me you hit upon some valid experience/commentary. Now if you want to go all Jungian that's another story but I certainly don't dismiss your observation for lack of empirical ratification. You frickin academics......sheesh.
- jacko
October 1, 2010 at 2:18pm
That's a good answer, ick. By the way, I'm just about to post a response on the other thread about De Valera.
- ironyroad
October 1, 2010 at 11:12pm
Well, ick, if you want anti-gay bigotry and anti-semistism to just stop (as I'm sure all of us here do), I'm not sure simply yelling at people will do the trick. It surely is curious that a group of people who have historically been oppressed would have a greater propensity for bias. I'm not sure I understand your answer. I infer that your point is that misogyny and male domination are innate to black culture in America. I am not sure that is true, but if it is, it just begs the question of "why?" This is a topic that requires an analysis much less glib than what we are seeing here.
- NR143296
October 2, 2010 at 12:16am
The answer is that the black churches are conservative institutions, like the military. They'll come around, all of them. Not so long ago a pope apologized for that regrettable affair with Galileo, among other things. Patience.
- Milstein
October 2, 2010 at 1:47am
"It surely is curious that a group of people who have historically been oppressed would have a greater propensity for bias." I don't understand why that would be curious. There is little evidence that persecuted or marginalized groups, as opposed to individuals, don't seek out a group to persecute that they see as weaker.
- ironyroad
October 2, 2010 at 2:33am
I've read Mac's post and most of this thread and: 1. I most closely agree with DH's of 09/30/2010 - 11:30pm EDT but not all of it; 2. Poupic should change his handle to "Pippick": same meaning and slims down rhetorically the allusion to shit: 3. Most importantly, Mac should get into this blog his review of Robinson's Disintegration. It's a pregnant review and subject that would make for a good exchange.
- basman
October 5, 2010 at 5:25pm