Personal Narrative-Homosexuality

---I can love the sinner, but hate the sin.

---Homosexuality is an abomination.

---To be gay goes against nature.

---If we were supposed to be homosexual, God would have created Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve.

---I don’t mind gay people, but why do they have to be so vocal and pushy about their rights?

---Homosexuality is a White thing.

---Africa did not have homosexuals before Europeans went there.

---Homosexuality is detrimental to the Black family.

~Kelly Brown Douglas

As a Black male born in the early 80s, raised in the church, and being now an adult in the twenty-first century, I have had firsthand experiences of many of the plights worthy of exploration for this project. Having been introduced to God in the Black Baptist tradition,

having been raised in the traditional Baptist Church, having commenced formal ministry in the traditional Baptist church, and being now a member of the United Church of Christ tradition have all contributed to my embedded theology. I was not only introduced to God in the Church, my first personal encounter of a same gender loving relationship was also in the Church. In that context, I was often faced with the personal, moral conundrum and of knowing that those who used scripture text to support their anti-homosexual theology were the same ones who had been accused of and admitted to same-sex relationships. I would never have known that homosexuality was a sin, according to them, had they never continually preached sermons espousing this particular viewpoint. I grew up hearing, internalizing, and struggling with the typical, biblically based homophobic discourse, which stated that, “homosexuality is an abomination,” that it was a “White thing,” and that “Africa did not have homosexuals before Europeans went there.” I found the statement about “Adam and Steve” versus “Adam and Eve” particularly irksome, since the Church was quick to affirm that we are all children of God. About the most liberal thing I heard concerning homosexuality growing up as a Black Baptist was, “Hate the sin; love the sinner.”
Being a gay Black male and having to grow up Baptist with the internal shame, frustration and other variables that came along with it, forced me to wrestle with what my mind thought juxtaposed to what my heart feels. I will admit there were times when I felt socialized to the degree of wanting what society thinks I should have and do, what society says I should do, even if that meant marrying a female. How can something that seems so harmless be so forbidden by God? What does God really say about homosexuality? Is this as close as we come to God’s message to us about it? My on-going relationship with God, my evolving understanding of God, and my calling in the service of God cause me to engage these questions. As a child, I questioned my sexual identity because the preacher always told me it was a sin to be gay. As a result of those messages preached from the pulpit, I preached messages against gays/lesbians, while being a gay man myself. As a result I hid behind a false identity, never willing to reveal who I truly am.
In this thesis, I examine the hierarchical construction of both theological identity and masculine identity in the Black Charismatic Church Tradition. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Black church’s portrayal of black homophobia and black masculinity. Two sermons were analyzed to show the theological dysfunction within each of them and how each of these messages perpetuates hyper-masculinity, which in turn, continues to destroy Black Church life. The sermons were preached by: (1) Bishop Alfred A. Owens, and (2) Bishop Eddie L. Long.
Black Church: Homophobia in Contradiction
The Black Church is seemingly engaged in a game of hide-and-seek. What is the Black Church hiding? This metaphor of hiding and seeking is vital for the framework of this project addressing the Black Church, where we are hiding Black homosexual presence behind homophobia and the presumptive need for Black masculinity, and we are seeking healthy conversations around these issues. Such conversations would include: (1) a critique of accepted standards of Black masculinity; (2) a more complex understanding of human sexuality; (3) an expanded definition of family; and (4) the embrace of diversity-in-community. Indeed, most conversations pertaining to those who are same-gender loving are complicated socially, theologically, psychologically, and in many other ways as well.
To be sure, the Black Church must be positioned to embark upon this journey towards understanding and embracing sexual difference. Unfortunately, homophobia has paralyzed the Church universal since St. Augustine. Augustine’s proclivity with sexuality had an important effect on his thoughts around what constitutes as a healthy sexual ethic. Augustine’s ideology has had and continues to have a great impact on the Western ideas as well as the Right-Wing Conservative Evangelical Christian movement. During Augustine’s childhood, he wrestled with what he was taught from his mother, Monica, versus what he felt was right.

In Confessions, he writes:
Clouds of muddy carnal concupiscence filled the air. The bubbling impulse of puberty befogged and obscured my heart so that it could not see the difference between love’s serenity and lust’s darkness. Confusion of the two things boiled within me. It seized hold of my youthful weakness sweeping me through the precipitous rocks of desire to submerge me in a whirlpool of vice.

Much like me as a child, Augustine found himself wrestling with lustful desires. Although, this was written years later, it shows the churches complication with addressing lustful desires from a healthy perspective. Augustine’s mother, Monica was a devout catholic who believed in rearing her son in a strict way. With her own embedded theology and what it meant to be a “good Christian” she believed in leading by example, i.e., being married, in hopes that Augustine would soon convert to Christianity. Due to his mother’s leading, Augustine ended up in a relationship at an early age, denouncing any other sexual proclivities that might endanger him. He got engaged, thus breaking off any other unhealthy tides that would go against his upbringing. Augustine soon “saw the light” and converted to Catholicism and developed a life of total celibacy. This is important to note, because in an attempt to follow the “right” way, the black church will have you denying your sexuality in order to be “accepted.” Taking all this into consideration, these types of conversations place a demand on historians, biblical scholars and theologians, and require a multifaceted approach.
In her classic text Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in Black Church, 1880-1920, Evelyn Higginbotham asserts “From the early days of slavery, the Black church had constituted the backbone of the Black community.” Historically, the aim of the Black Church has always been to give voice to the hopeless, the oppressed, but also to speak out against social injustices that were destroying the people in the communities, leaving the space safer for saints and citizens alike; however, the Black church and Black communities, continue to struggle with issues of gender and sexuality, particularly homosexuality.
In her book, Ancient Laws & Contemporary Controversies: The Need for Inclusive Biblical Interpretation, Cheryl Anderson cites Jack Rogers as saying, “Those who oppose homosexuality claim that (1) the bible records God’s judgment against the sin of homosexuality from its first mention in Scripture; (2) people who are homosexual are somehow inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full heterosexual “Christian civilization”; (3) people who are homosexual are willfully sinful, often sexually promiscuous and threatening, and deserve punishment for their own acts.”
Ethically, Rogers argues that these accusations are problematic and provides an invalid reading of the Biblical text. The contemporary issue certainly demands the attention of the Black Church and begs it to do what individuals alone cannot—educate, heal, and restore life to the masses of Blacks who have seemingly lost their way and are hiding behind homophobia instead of facing their genuine fears – crushing poverty, mass incarceration, foreclosure, and homelessness. The fact is, in the Black Church, gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are also hidden behind the homophobia, never to be found. They too are intrinsically valuable members of the Black Church, which has a legendary history of resistance to oppression.
When looking at Black churches and their history in America, one must first acknowledge American slavery because it essentially this institution out of which the Black Baptists grew. For the Black Church, slavery was an institution that was contrary to the Word of God as the members heard it proclaimed and as they understood God experientially. Their intuitive understanding of scripture, their experience of oppression, and their walk with God caused people in the Black Church – particularly Black Baptists – to challenge the status quo. One of the first difficulties Black Baptists faced was reconciling the Word of God with their oppressive situation. There were several challenges that the Black Baptists faced that all developed out of the institution of slavery.
18th and 19th Century Issues: Black Baptists and the Abolition Movement
In his book A History of Black Baptists, Leroy Fitts discussed these challenges. First, Black Baptists struggled with "interpreting the ethics of family life in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in light of adverse civil laws.” The legal stipulation, partus sequitur ventrem, “the child follows the condition of the mother,” guaranteed that if the mother was enslaved, the child would be enslaved too. Enslaved Blacks’ marriages were not recognized as official marriages. They were property of their owners and marriages were destroyed when one partner was sold or sent to another plantation. Furthermore, many slave owners simply prohibited the marriage of slaves. This prohibition and lack of respect for Black marriage and family life served as a catalyst that charged Blacks with the need for social change. In addition to family life, Blacks also struggled with the one in which the authorities responded to civil and human rights. After being exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Blacks interpreted a social gospel that advocated for fair treatment of the oppressed. For Black pastors, but in particular, according to systematic theologian, James Cone, God identifies with the oppressed, and Jesus urges Christians to stand up against injustices towards the marginalized.
In the institution of slavery Blacks were not allowed to make accusations of unfair treatments against Whites because Whites were not compelled or bound to or by "law or custom to recognize any civil or human rights claim by Black Christians or black people.” Blacks could not understand the theology or anthropology developed by whites concerning Blacks. The Hebrew Bible says that humans are "fearfully and wonderfully made.” Considering this, how should one argue the inferiority of another human? The anthropology of Whites influenced their decision to consider Blacks unequal to Whites resulting in Black bodies being considered as three-fifths of a person. As JoAnne Marie Terrell states, “The moral and legal codes of slavery gave the reverence due to God to whites, with priority given to the authority and persons of white males. Their pre-eminence was to be reflected in all social relations, including those with white women.” Whites justified these legally inscribed social realities with the misuse of the Bible.
Black and white resistance to institutional slavery served as the foundation for many arguments black Baptists made against the accepted theological and social norms of the day. In 1832, blacks organized a branch of the New England Anti-Slavery Society in the basement of a Black Baptist church. This branch of the society gave black Baptists an aggressive voice, which allowed them to express and present a unified church position towards the institution of slavery. Furthermore, the establishment of this branch was important because it demonstrated that blacks did not need to depend on white abolitionists to fight their battles or be their voice, because black Baptists were determined to speak for themselves.
The New England society was responsible for producing aggressive and often successful addresses and petitions instructing for the abolition of slavery. In addition, this society served as prototype for other societies that formed, such as the Providence Anti-Slavery Baptist Association and the Middle-Run Anti-Slavery Association in Ohio. These societies served not only as aides but also as leaders in furthering the cause of abolition. These societies promoted a social gospel that argued for black emancipation. “They searched the Old Testament for stories of liberation and emancipation and challenged the anthropological ideology of whites that concluded ‘subordination to the superior [white] race is a natural and moral condition.’”
Black abolitionists attacked the institution of slavery by developing a theology that called for the unity of humanity. In other words, the society argued that all humanity developed from the bloodline of Adam, thereby “linking all humanity together.” This idea of unity focused on the notion that all Christians were brothers and sisters, and that none had the right to oppress, because “brotherhood” explicitly meant equality. Black Baptists served as key participants in the formation of this new theology to which abolitionist groups across the new nation began to subscribe.
The need to control Black bodies, as during the time of slavery, shifted into the nascent, developing, and established Black Church. What slavery did to Blacks, the Black Church has done to the LGBTQ community. Kelly Brown Douglas argued: “While the Black church and community share the logic of others who denounce homosexuality, their particular history of White racist oppression and sexual exploitation makes Black homophobia appear even more passionate, trenchant, and unyielding.”
The belief in many Black churches and White churches alike is that homosexuality itself is a major hindrance to the institution’s ability to conduct healthy dialogue. This antique position causes many to wonder why the Church is even being asked to respond to this “epidemic” of homosexuality when those who are gay “willingly live in sin.” Further, as an institution committed to patriarchy, the Church is often not sympathetic to homosexuality because this orientation does not perpetuate male dominance over women—the cornerstone of Black Church structure. Therefore, since homosexuality seemingly adds nothing to the life and structure of the Church, many cannot see how healthy dialogue around homosexuality is actually beneficial to the Church’s future. Most churches would actually rather dissolve the issue of homosexuality altogether; yet since they cannot seem to get rid of it, they tolerate the “sin” and give little attention to whatever ills it might be presumed to engender.
In her essay entitled “Breaking the Chains,” Douglas argued that there is a dualistic approach with black preachers’ use of the “word of God” around the issue of homosexuality. She writes, “With such a history of the Bible being used against us, it seems abhorrent that some Blacks would steadfastly use the Bible against others,” but further notes that black people’s emphasis on doctrinal correctness and devotion to the biblical text “is a reflection of the judicious sense of biblical authority that was born during the period of enslavement and honed throughout the history of the Black struggle in the United States.”
Yet, as Douglas states, “Our homophobic views have driven our reading of the Bible, rather than the Bible shaping our views.” She further states, “In order to mitigate biblically-based Black homophobia, a meaningful discussion of the Bible and sexuality, specifically homosexuality, will have to emerge from the black community itself. Such a discussion must take place within the wider context of Black people’s own struggle for life and wholeness.” The problem is this, while those in the church enjoy having sex, find it difficult to talk about sex, which seems like a paradox to me. What Douglas is arguing here is for the bible to be read not as an instruction book, but as a liberating manifesto.
The Black Church’s mantra, “Hate the sin; love the sinner” is both ontologically problematic and theologically impossible. How, indeed, is it possible to hate a thing yet love its embodiment? Somehow, the “sinner“never ends up feeling loved. Arguably, the “sinner” usually feels the precise hatred parishioners claim to have for the “sin” alone. In his book Listen My Son: Wisdom to Help African American Fathers, Lee Butler argued, “Sexuality is an inextricable part of one’s being, like blood type, skin color, and heterosexuality. Therefore, the church position of ‘love the sinner; hate the sin’ has as much success in reality as loving brown-eye people while hating brown eyes or loving African people while hating what makes them African.”
One’s attempt to bifurcate “sin” and “sinner,” though they dwell together, shows the Church’s battle with its own demand that we Christians faithfully exercise unconditional love. Said differently, many Black churches cannot seem to figure out whom they love and why. Some of these designated as “sinful” people provide invaluable services to the institution, so the Church is more than willing to utilizing their talents without validating their being-ness. On the other hand, if the Church cannot benefit from one’s presence, then the Church appears more than willing to let one die by the wayside in the name of upholding a “Christian standard.”
In his article, “Like a Voice Crying in the Wilderness: Preaching and Professing a Sexual Discourse of Resistance from the Outside In the Black Church,” Gary L. Lemons argues persuasively against the moral posture that the rhetoric of “hate the sin, love the sinner” espouses: “I maintain that such rhetoric is rooted in self-righteous doctrinal legalism, mean-spirited heterosexist anxiety and fear—comingled with callous and venomous homophobia.” Sadly, the Church is only willing to love whomever it can benefit from—whether they are “in sin” or not. It does not “hate” the sin and “love” the sinner. The Church often hates the sin and hates the sinner, or tolerates the sin and tolerates the sinner if, somehow, the sinner’s gifts can be used unto its own glory.
In the following excerpts of sermons delivered, I will show how the “good news” of God’s love is distorted into messages of hate towards the so-called “sin” of being homosexual and towards the embodied presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer persons who love and support the Black Church.

Chapter 2
Bishop Alfred A. Owens: Black Church and Masculinity
Biography
Bishop Alfred A. Owens, Jr. is a native Washingtonian and a product of the D.C. Public School System. After graduating from Cardozo High School, he continued his education at Miner’s D.C. Teachers College with a Bachelor’s degree in English. In 1985, he satisfied the course requirements for a Master of Arts degree in English from Howard University, and he also received his Master of Divinity degree and Doctor of Ministry Degree from Howard University School of Divinity.
Because of Bishop Owens’ sincere belief that the ministry of the church must stretch beyond the four walls of the sanctuary, Greater Mt. Calvary Holy Church has remained on the cutting edge of relevant ministry within the community. Under the pastorate of Bishop Owens, an alcohol/drug abuse program has been established, which has been named Calvary's Alternative to Alcohol and Drug Abuse (CATAADA HOUSE), the church also operates both a food and clothing bank, Calvary Christian Academy, which educates children from infants to the eighth grade, an HIV/AIDS Ministry, an employment service, a prison ministry, and several other outreach and social service ministries. The church also operates a state-of-the-art outreach facility in the inner-city called the Bishop Alfred A. Owens, Jr. Family Life Community Center.
On April 9, 2006 during a Sunday morning worship service, Bishop Alfred A. Owens, Senior Pastor of Greater Mount Calvary Holiness Church in Washington, D.C. issued an altar call for “real men” to stand, not including faggots and sissies. In this altar call, Bishop Owens challenged the heterosexual men in the congregation to redefine their manhood by explaining to them that “real men” attend church, and that church is not just a place for women.
I chose this particular person because of the deep implications that are in the sermon, but also to show the ways in which trained clergy have used the biblical text as a way to oppress persons who are LGBT. The sermon excerpt that follows illustrates the venomous, virulent, and vigilant nature of the homophobia that paralyzes the Black Church and community.
Sermon #1 No More Faggots or Sissies
All those brothers who think that church is for punks and church is for sissies. You don't know the word of God. The church is never for punks or sissies. You are a real man if you can stand up and make a commitment to Jesus Christ. It takes a real man to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I'm not talking about no faggot or no sissy. I mean a real man who has made up their mind ... Wait a minute! Let all the real men come on down here and take a bow. All the real men—I'm talking about the straight men. You ain’t funny and you ain’t cranky, but you're straight. Come on down here and walk around and praise God that you are straight. Thank him that you're straight. All the straight men that's proud to be a Christian, that's proud to be a man of God. I'm proud of what God made me. Any proud men in the room?

The image portrayed the “masculine” male in conflict with the “feminine” male. The stigmatization within the message caused men who were not “straight” to deny their true identity in order to feel affirmed and validated. How often does the Black Church perpetrate this stereotyping and diminishing of the embodied experiences of LGBTQ persons in its midst? As James Baldwin stated, “If the concept of God has any validity or any use, it can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving. If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of Him.” I concur with Baldwin in that, if the God of our ancestor’s and grandparents isn’t enough to shield us from the evil and pervasive acts of warfare and raft from the people, then we need to excommunicate this God and recreate another who is a loving liberator!
According to black theologian Olin Moyd, this is precisely the definition of salvation or redemption that the Black Church has alternately preached and forsaken in regard to its LGBTQ members, a redemption that is communal and personally, socially, politically, economically, and psychologically experienced: “to set in a large place.” If the Church’s position and the gospel of Jesus Christ are rooted in an ethic of love, how, then can one dehumanize and strip persons of their identity and assert that they are less than “real men” due to their sexual orientation? This question challenges the Black Church and those studying Black theology to ask, what constitutes a “real man?” Or better yet, a gay man?
In his book, Embodiment and the New Shape of Black Theological Thought, Anthony Pinn stated in reference to black physicality in worship, “These bodies within the religious context seem to defy the reified nature of their social construction. These bodies were supple, not flat nor rigid. They did not suggest discomfort with occupying space, but in fact demanded recognition of both their existential and transcendent importance.” The quest to be accepted and affirmed as a source of validation from the Black church places onus on Black gay males to stay in their place. Such repression of their physicality continues to threaten the wellbeing of who they are at their core.

Bishop Owens homophobic sermon and the oppressive rhetoric exposed within his message force one into hiding and denying who they are as a person. As we examined, I am sure there were gay persons present in Owens’ church who felt less than who they are and what God created them to be, but instead, repressed their sexuality and silenced their voice. Owen’s sermon/altar call suggests that God’s love is limited to persons who are only heterosexual, which in turn deems their manhood, or what constitutes for being a “real man.” Owens is just one example of many who use homosexual jokes like “faggot” or “sissy” to frustrate those who are being “othered” to get a response from the congregation, or even to validate his deadly rhetoric. Many pastors are quick to say that they love everybody regardless of who they are, but it’s in contradiction to whom God is and who they preach God to be. Yet others have lifted and are lifting voices of critique and challenge to the homophobia that causes black people to acquiesce to oppression of LGBTQ persons and heterosexual women.
In his essay entitled, “The Man’s Man: Shame and the African American Male,” Biko Gray critiques the unyielding nature of Black masculinity, generally denoted in the Black Church and communities as exclusively heterosexual, void of any customarily female gendered experiences such as valuing and expressing emotions, avoiding any preening behavior, dominant in his household and social and ecclesiastical circles, overtly, internally, and vigilantly hyper-masculine. Gray queries:
What makes a man? The black community in America is particularly rigid in how it presents and preserves the African American male. Mainstream African American culture (including some forms of black religion) displays the black male as “hard”; the black male should be insensitive and defensive, and sometimes even pugnacious. He should be the “breadwinner,” making money for the family while the woman is at home with the kids. He should play sports, but he should not want to dance. He should want to hang out with other males and participate in the misogyny that unfolds. And, most of all, he cannot be homosexual. “Fags” are not men.

In his statement, Gray examines the interlocking nature of the oppressive rhetoric of homophobia that is consistently present in mainstream society. The question he asks “What makes a man? is a valid question that many are still trying to answer today. Having grown up with that question in the back of my head, has had its difficulties for me throughout my teenage years, because anytime I would do anything that did not define what constitutes as a man, I was deemed by those in the neighborhood a “faggot” and a “sissy”. It had a major effect on how I viewed myself in society.
Huey P. Newton, in his essay, “A Letter From Huey to the Revolutionary Brothers and Sisters about the Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements,” challenged the activists of the era to restructure their language and not use terms like, “faggot” and “punk.” He further stated that we should not “attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people.” I concur with Newton in that if we are going to move toward a beloved radical inclusive community, terms that does not lift the masses, must be eradicated. Terms like “faggot” and “punk” are not only derogatory and an insult to LGBTQ persons, but complicates the ways black gay men navigate a quest for self and social identity in the world amid hostile and hurtful people.
In his essay, “When you divide body and soul, problems multiply: The Black Church and Sexuality,” Michael Eric Dyson calls for a “theology of queerness” within the Black Church. This type of theology calls for “the raw material of black social alienation to build bridges between gay and lesbian and straight Black church members.” This challenge to the Black church must not only take place from allies within the gay community, but the Black gay community also has to make a decision that there are some things that will not be tolerated. Should the gay men in Owens’ church have gathered around the front of the church with their heterosexual brothers?
In my opinion, no; but as one who struggled for a while with my sexuality, I understand the need to want to be “accepted.” If the Black Church had been informed and persuaded by Gray’s critique, Newton’s aversion to homophobic rhetoric, and Dyson’s theological perspective, then gay men and their heterosexual allies might have walked out, devised a countering lecture or sermon series, or otherwise challenged Owens’ homophobic rhetoric with the loving message of the gospels, in which Jesus Christ, according to his principal interpreters, inarguably resists accepted models of masculinity, incorporates a complex understanding of human sexuality, promotes an expanded definition of family, and compels the embrace of diversity. Bishop Owens’ sermon suggests that it is diametrically problematic to be both gay and male. For Bishop Owens, there is somehow an ontological disconnection from one’s sexuality and maleness. To suggest that one’s manhood is tied to his sexuality is not only flawed, but antagonistic to how sexuality is best understood.
Chapter 3
Bishop Eddie Lee Long: Black Church and Masculinity
Biography
Eddie L. Long was born to Rev. Floyd and Hattie Long in Charlotte, North Carolina. Rev. Floyd Long was a fiery Baptist minister who not only worked as a pastor but also owned a gas station and an auto repair shop. Reportedly, the elder Long had a gift for organizing churches but not necessarily for leading the congregation. Bishop Long, according to Jonathan Walton “recounts that although he remembers his father organizing many churches, he never remembers him remaining the pastor for more than three years.” Long further states, “He would go in and pioneer a church, build a nice building and then leave.” In many of Long’s sermons, he has expressed the absence of not having his father around, because of his struggle with alcoholism, which resulted in his father’s abusive behavior. His mother, as described by Walton was a kind and warm spirit.
After completing high school, Bishop Eddie L. Long attended North Carolina Central University, where he majored in business administration. Upon graduating from there, began his career as a “factory sales representative for Ford Motor Company in Virginia.” Later on in life, Bishop Long “knew that God was calling him into the gospel ministry.” He later went on to attend the Interdenominational Theological Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia where he earned a Master of Divinity degree. Currently, long is the senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia.
I focus on the case of Bishop Eddie Long who in 2011, it was alleged, had engaged in a sexual relationship with four male youth—all the while perpetuating negative notions of homoeroticism. Bishop Long’s use of control through providing enticing luxuries such as clothes, cars, expensive trips, and money to manipulate boys into having sexual relationships with him, forces me to explore the ways in which he perpetuates notions of hypermasculine tensions.
Bishop Eddie Lee Long
On December 11, 2004, thousands of people marched behind The Reverend Bernice King, the youngest daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bishop Eddie Lee Long, pastor of a mega-church in Atlanta, Georgia, to support the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The march was called “Reigniting the Legacy.” The associated press reported that Reverend Bernice King claimed, “The march was not against LGBT people. It’s a call for God’s People to stop being silent and being about God’s business of speaking up for the Kingdom of God.” However, the first objective of the demonstration, according to the church’s website, was to support the constitutional amendment to protect marriage and define it as between one man and one woman.
Erica Edwards, the editor of The New Black Magazine, argued that the march “illustrated how the charismatic political aesthetic of the church is put to use to police African-American sexuality, to align black religious groups with the ‘family’ or ‘moral values’ agenda of the right, and to keep ideas of manhood tied to, or tangled up with, a model of religious and political leadership that relies on unyielding categories of sexuality and gender.”
The actions of Bishop Long and his supporter, Bernice King, were not surprising. Bishop Long is known for preaching against gay rights and his church has had little involvement in the civil and human rights campaigns in the Metropolitan Atlanta area. Before attempting theological and social critique of his stance on homophobia, it is necessary to give clarity to Long’s reasoning. A fair analysis of his disdain towards gays, and the ways in which it is manifested, will help us in our deconstruction. Before the “Reigniting the Legacy” March on December 11, 2004, the pastor explained to the congregation why God does not like gays. He stated that he believes that the church should be a sort of candle, shining the light of heterosexuality amid the spiritual darkness of homosexuality. Having attended Interdenominational Theological Center (ITC) and received a Master of Divinity degree from a progressive institution, with some of the most esteemed faculty, one would think that Bishop Long’s stance on homosexuality would be quite different; however, it is quite the opposite.
Within this section, I will examine (1) The church structure of Bishop Long; (2) Bishop Long’s sermon and (3) Bishop Long’s complexity of self-identity. From these three perspectives, I will explore further how he perpetuates notions of hypermasculinity.

The Church Structure of Bishop Long

According to Long, the democratic systems in place in Baptist churches, featuring management by traditional deacon or trustee boards, are “ungodly governmental structures” which are outside of God’s order.” He asserted that after much prayer about the way in which the structure of the church was designed, God spoke to him and said, “I have nothing to do with most of the churches in America because they are run by constitutions that ‘protect’ them from the ‘set ministry’ I have placed in their midst to lead them. They have replaced my order with their own rules and regulations, and they have chosen to direct their own destiny by ‘vote’ instead of my spirit and my revealed Word.” This may not seem important right now, but according to the way in which his church is built, no one can vote him out.
Building the ministry around himself, Long increased New Birth’s congregation to exceed twenty-five thousand members. Along with this growth however, Long also ushered in an oppressive presence of patriarchy. According to a faithful member, who has been with Long since the beginning of his pastorate stated “Bishop has no boards, or Deacons that he reports to.” Upon visiting Long’s church myself, I would hear members calling him “daddy.” I was shocked people would call their pastor “daddy.” The additional titles he holds: “bishop”, “pastor,” and “daddy” are indications of male dominance. African American men who have struggled with male dominance, often times feel the need to be controlling because of the absence of a father figure in the home.
I had the opportunity to interview one of Bishop Long’s former employees. For the sake of anonymity, he will be called Peter. I asked Peter about several church members addressing Bishop Long as “Daddy.” Peter informed me that Long believes, that as the man submits to God, the church submits to the pastor, and the woman submits to man which would explain his church structure. Furthermore Peter added, “Because of this tight structure, no one tells him what to do and he does what he wants to do.” Peter also stated “Bishop Long has a sick pathology that has caught up with him and will soon destroy him.” Noted scholar James Forbes suggests that, “If we name God “Father” so that we can abuse and oppress, exploit and exclude, discriminate and intimidate, ostracize, marginalize, stigmatize, and even demonize women, we have made an evil idol of masculinity.” In view of Bishop Long’s leadership style and his congregation, one can perceive immediate arising concerns in consideration of Forbes statement.
Sermon #2 I am Not the Man
This message was preached some years ago before New Birth moved to the 240 acre campus where worship services are currently held. An excerpt of the sermon is as follows:
The problem today, and the reason why society is like it is, is because men are being feminized and women are becoming masculine….and everybody knows it’s dangerous to enter an exit….you cannot say you were born this way. I don’t care what scientists say, you can be converted, and you were not born that way.

Long further stated,
Let me pray with you. Let me tell that you don’t have to become “conformed to this world, but be ye transformed.” One might say, I don’t know who I am; well pull your clothes down and I will show you who you are. Women are converted or perverted towards women, why, because the woman is acting like a man.
That he uses words like “men being feminized” and “women becoming masculine” suggest that Long’s understanding of anthropology is rooted in platonic dualism that is deeply steeped in white supremacist ideology. This concept perpetuated by Long, further calls for theologians to explore the deep psychodynamics and traumatizing force behind his rhetoric. The ideas that “men are being feminized” and “women are becoming masculine” are a concession to stereotypes which address the ways in which a man or woman should speak, dress, or how they should even look, and anything that pushes against the grain, becomes problematic. His assertions take no notice of the biology of sex and sexual preference, and in fact, are disrespectful to men and women, and intimate a violent predisposition (“pull your clothes down”) towards rape. Long’s sermon is erroneous and void of proper theological as well as biological inquiry.
Masculinity vs. Femininity
In their book Masculinity and Femininity, Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich state, “In brief, the view that masculine and feminine attributes are essentially bipolar opposites has dominated the writings of social and behavioral scientist.” They continue by saying, “The psychological dimensions of masculinity and femininity should not only be conceptually distinguished from masculine and feminine sex roles but that masculine and feminine attributes, while they differentiate the sexes to some degree, are not bipolar opposites.” Essentially, Spence and Helmreich argue the impossibility to separate the male and the female from within. These male and female qualities within show the ways in which gender roles are fluid outside of any prescribed binary constructions.
These binary constructions have been broken down into what Ronald and Celnisha have called “preverbal communication” which determines the role of the man and woman.

These socializations have caused many to stigmatize people before they are even given a chance to determine who they want to be. Normally at a birth, when it is announced that the child will be a boy, he is associate with the color blue, or if it is a girl she is associate with the color pink. These social constructions of what it means to be a man or woman are determined by others before we are even born, or at least when the gender is announced. Anything that goes beyond these prescribed notions of what it means to be a man or woman, challenges our understanding of God, what we believe in the bible, and even

biology.
A male is expected to play sports, wear masculine clothes that sag, and play video games, but he is not expected to direct the choir, or play with Barbie dolls, or become a cheerleader. A girl is expected to wear dresses with high heels, lipstick, and be the male deliverer, but she is not to act like a tomboy, or wear jogging pants, or hang around all men. In order for society to move beyond our own limited understanding of what/who determines these prescribed notions, is to redefine our image of who God is.
In the documentary, Black Is, Black Ain’t, film writer Marlon Riggs asks Bill T. Jones, an actor to describe the concept of a woman within the man. Jones states “She is strong, she has stature, she’s Black, she’s spiritual, she has a sense of humor, she swaggers when she walks, and she sings beautifully, she loves the man in him.” Jones argues that man can be both masculine and feminine and it is in that reality that we understand humanity.
As churches continue to pre-determine one’s sexuality, the less human “one becomes.” The notion of men being in touch with their femininity and women getting in touch with their masculinity challenges and complicates gender construction and its role in American society. In order for us to progress in this American context, there must be a stripping away of oppressive binaries, which does not allow for us to explore its multi-facet dynamics. The problem with accepting these constructs as norms is to realize that black masculinity is not monolithic, but fluid.
In her book Zami, Audre Lorde opens with the question of sexual identity. She asserts, “I have always wanted to be both man and woman, to incorporate the strongest and richest parts of my mother and father within/into me—to share valleys and mountains upon my body the way the earth does in hills and peaks.” Lorde’s assertion is quite provocative, in that, she forces humanity to be in touch with our whole persons. The de-construction of one’s sexuality is imperative for the development of one’s whole person, but also for border societies that continue to debate the need for inclusion, love and acceptance for each other.
To further explicate this matter, Angela Davis states “The fear of homosexuality perpetuated by the church is related to a generalized fear of sexuality. This fear of sexuality takes on a new meaning when considered in light of the fact that the freedom to choose sexual partners was one of the most powerful distinctions between the condition of slavery and the postemancipation status of African Americans.” Bishop Long’s vehemence against those who are same-gender loving further perpetuates the feeling of inadequacy among Black gay men about their sexuality and makes them more fearful to have open dialogue around the matter.
In his article, “Real Men Love Jesus? Homoeroticism and the Absence of Black Heterosexual male Participation in African American Churches,” Stephen Finley offers a “quest for meaning” which is closely connected to what Anthony Pinn calls the “quest for complex subjectivity.” However, Finley posits, “African Americans have expressed dehumanization through oppression which stripped away earlier perceptions of self and meaning and resulted in the experiences of terror and dread.” Finley continues by stating, “The experience of terror due to anti-black violence and fixed identity make this quest for meaning the central concern in the lives of African Americans and for African American heterosexual men.” Several scholars assert that identity plays an intricate role within ones sexuality. The complexities of identity often result in an individual living their life in a non-transparent manner. Furthermore, identity crises often force homosexuals to live in denial of who they are. What Finely is calling for in this article is a reclaiming of this oppressive space that has stolen the identity of who we are as a people, which gave us meaning and purpose.
In Go Tell It On The Mountain, John Grimes struggles with self-discovery: “When the family arrives home after the ordeal of the night, John asks Gabriel for the living word which would bind “father” and son in the name of Christ. Gabriel refuses to give it, John warns him that he has found salvation on his own and that his God will protect him “against everything and everybody…that wants to cut down my soul.” John’s struggle between identity and the community presence is important to note, simply because it shows the need for the community to talk about the contradictions of gender/sexual identity. To simply talk about gender/sexual identity means that one must be prepared to handle all the variables that come along with it: transphobia, homophobia, sexism, and even victimization. These problems must not only be addressed, but there must develop programs within the church that will shed light and stir healthy conversations, bring healing and understanding for the entire body. Receiving affirmation in the church around one’s gender/sexual identity is very important, but at what cost will one have to pay in order to be affirmed? This example that Baldwin so eloquently paints in the text, looms heavily in the black church, because one would whether be abused by the language from the pulpit, then to go to a place that affirms and celebrates the total person.
In his book, One More River to Cross, Keith Boykin asserts, “For black homosexuals, sexual orientation can often be just another example of their otherness, making them less inclined to view this aspect of their identity as central to who they are.

Black lesbians add another layer of difference from the cultural standard by virtue of their gender.” The problem for Boykin is that the gay community fears they will be misunderstood as being a double minority: both black and gay. What Boykin is arguing is that gay identity is problematic. Until the Black church understands sexuality, they will never grapple with or address challenges around

homosexuality.

Bishop Long’s Complexity of Self-Identity

Anticipating a large crowd, my friends and I decided to visit New Birth after Bishop Long’s “alleged crime” of same-sex relations with underage individuals. We arrived at seven o’ clock in the morning to be greeted by cars lined up and down the road leading to New Birth. As my friends and I awaited the arrival of Bishop Long in the pulpit, the church filled to capacity and was overtaken with an undeniable tension. Some were crying, others were saying, “Do you think he’s going to come out?” and some sat in silence. As the service began, the time finally arrived for the Bishop to approach the podium. As the Bishop drew closer to the podium, people were yelling, “We love you Daddy!” and “That’s my Bishop!” After a long applause, Bishop Long began to speak.
During his opening remarks, he stated, “I am not the Man that is being portrayed in the media. And I feel like David coming up against Goliath and I have 5 smooth stones and I have not used one of them yet.” As the Bishop threw the microphone down, he walked off to the side of the platform to take his seat. He never stated whether or not he committed the acts; instead he chose to use the analogy of a biblical character. I found the analogy to be interesting and deserving of attention. Here is a man who is self-dependent, but yet, he assumes the position of David. As Long equated himself to David, the question I pondered was, is he referring to the childhood of David or the adulthood of David? The childhood of David was poor; a shepherd boy; he worked on his father’s farm while he served the King, and was considered a “nobody.” However, the adult David, who had himself become King, committed adultery with another man’s wife, had Uriah killed in a battle just to be with his wife, and was considered the man whom God could trust. While these assertions about his portrayal of David are interesting, Long’s point that I want to lift is, “I’m not the man that’s being portrayed in the media.” What this forces one to ask is, if Long is not the man being portrayed in the media, then who is the man being portrayed in the media? This becomes an important question around the identity of who is the “real” Bishop.
In 2004, JL King appeared on the Oprah show as it related to his new book On the Down Low. In this book, he defines the “DL” phenomenon as “men who sleep with other men.” In addition, he draws the attention of women by telling them there are numerous ways in which they can tell if their husband or boyfriend is on the DL. The perpetuation of this falsehood has led to individuals hiding behind a false identity. In his book Beyond the Down Low, Keith Boykin rejects King’s conception of the DL by appealing to secrecy as an adequate understanding of the down low. Keith breaks this myth by interviewing six individuals who were from different cultures, races, and all of them were not gay. Through his analysis of these persons, he discovers that JL King’s definition of the DL is flawed. Many scholars define the DL as different things; however Boykin states the DL is, “about men sleeping with women, women sleeping with men, men sleeping with men, and women sleeping with women.” This perpetuation that JL King has ascribed to has caused those who struggle with their identity to hide behind the reality of who they are. This DL phenomenon Boykin argues is not a “new phenomenon” but has been expressed through music. Persons like TLC and their song: “So I creep, yeah, Just keep it on the down low, said nobody has to know”; and R. Kelly song: “You pulled me to the side and you begged for me to stay, But I was caught up in a life that forced me to walk away” are songs that alludes to a particular secrecy, but rather cause for individuals to identify themselves. The imagery used in these songs, is the same imagery Bishop Long is subscribing to.
In Gender Talk, Cole and Sheftall use the concept of “truth-telling.” However, Long intentionally chose not to tell his truth, resulting in Long’s hiding further behind his power. Truth-telling allows one to examine the fallacies within one’s own life and potentially strips a person of power and influence. This truth-telling statement challenges those who live on the DL to speak and be who they were made to be. It took years before I was able to tell my truth because I was afraid of rejection and loosing friends, and ministry engagements, but speaking my truth has liberated me from people and has given me a space to help others with their own liberation.
Furthermore, Boykin argues that it is impossible to define what the DL is, and further argues that “many reasons men are on the down low is because many of them do not believe that they can be who they are in a culture where homophobia and heterosexism are widespread” He further states, “We need to challenge the homophobia in our own lives, in our families, in our churches, and in our social settings. If we participate in this homophobia or fail to challenge it, we are part of the very problem we supposedly seek to end.” Boykin is correct in that there must be an awakening of consciousness that must be raised, which challenges the ways people are afraid to address their fear and lack of respect for LGBTQ persons. Boykin also challenges those who are gay to look introspectively at the ways in which people contribute to their own internal phobias.
Can this be what happened to Bishop Long: the “Truth” would reveal the “True” Eddie? In his book, Sweet Tea, E. Patrick Johnson states, “When a minister gay-bashes in his or her sermon, these men don’t internalize it or take it to heart because those words, in the way they have rationalized it, don’t pertain to them.” He continues by stating, “When their view differed from those of the church leaders, they relied on their own reading and understanding.” The heterosexual bias that Bishop Long preaches is counterintuitive to the homoerotic image of him wearing tight fitted shirts, and to the homophobic messages he preaches. It is counterintuitive in that, his fitted shirt suggests it is okay for the “Bishop” to dress in any manner from the because of his position of authority and power, but it is not okay to be gay. Furthermore, it excuses the behavior of the person preaching from being placed under any scrutiny of why he wears those tight fitted shirts in the pulpit, and turns the attention away from him, to condemning and sending people to hell for their sexual orientation. Could it be that wearing these fitted shirts from the pulpit proves a sense of insecurity within Long? To the natural eye it could suggest that he loves showing off his muscles, but if one looks closely, it could suggest that Long struggles for the attention and the approval of who he is not.

Chapter 4
Demythologizing the Masculine Male

Michael Eric Dyson states, “The Black church must develop a theology of homoeroticism, a theology of queerness.” This theology challenges the Black Church to reevaluate its theology which includes some while excluding others. Dyson’s theology calls for what I like to call a “demythologizing of the masculine male.” Too often the Black homosexual male’s masculinity is challenged and forced to be and act a certain way. The demythologizing of the masculine male strips away all false notions that have been prescribed for him by which Rudolph P. Byrd called “emasculating masculinity.” This statement argues for notions of traditional ideas of masculinity to be stripped away so that there can be a community between male and female.
In her book, “We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity” bell hooks argues, “I suggest that we can break the life threatening choke-hold patriarchal masculinity imposes on black men and create life sustaining visions of a reconstructed black masculinity that can provide black men ways to save their lies and the lives of their brothers and sisters in the struggle.” The struggle for black men is not only to reclaim their space, but also to reclaim and validate the space of the woman. Patriarchal masculinity not only shows its dysfunctionality within black masculinity, but produces a violent behavior towards women, as well as others in the community. In order for what hooks stated to happen, there needs to be a way in which these oppressive structures are addressed so that unity can be developed between each other, but also the church. One way I propose for demythologizing the masculine male is to redefine and deconstruct what it means for black men to be in community with the black woman, and not in control of her. I am deeply influenced by the work of bell hooks who has written extensively about black masculinity and the need for community between Black men and women to embrace each other holistically. Hooks argues, “The reconstruction and transformation of male behavior, of masculinity, is necessary and essential part of feminist revolution,” and might I add to womanist discourse as well, and that “women should speak to and about men in a feminist voice.” hooks believe that there is redemption in the Black male, only if they are able to transform themselves from the traditional norms placed on them or even acted out by society.
In writing about the hierarchical construction of the black male’s involvement with patriarchal masculinity, hooks in her article entitled “Reconstructing Black Masculinity” writes, and I quote her extensively:
Although the gendered politics of slavery denied black men the freedom to act as “men” within the definition set by white norms, this notion of manhood did become a standard used to measure black male progress. The narratives of Henry “Box” Brown, Josiah Henson, Frederick Douglass, and a host of other black men reveal that they saw “freedom” as that change in status that would enable them to fulfill the role of chivalric benevolent patriarch. Free, they would be men able to provide for and take care of their families. Describing how he wept as watched a white slave overseer beat his mother, William Wells Brown lamented, “Experience has taught me that nothing can be more heart-rendering than for one to see a dear and beloved mother or sister tortured, and to hear their cries and not be able to render them assistance. But such is the position which an American slave occupies.” Frederick Douglass did not feel his manhood affirmed by intellectual progress. It was affirmed when he fought man to man with the slave overseer. This struggle was a “turning point” in Douglass’s life: “It rekindled in my breast the smoldering embers of liberty. It brought up my Baltimore dreams and received a sense of my own manhood. I was a changed being after that fight. I was nothing before—I was a man now.” The image of black masculinity that emerges from slave narratives is one of hardworking men who longed to assume full patriarchal responsibility for families and kin.

Essentially, what hooks is arguing is that the socialization of the black man has been stigmatized by the white slave holders, which has entailed, forced the black man to turn on his own, particularly the black woman in order to gain his “freedom”. Without a sense of freedom, or benevolent patriarchy (which gave the black man power and control) the black man seemed powerless. It was this benevolent patriarchy which educated the black man and gave definition to who he was. The demythologizing of the masculine male is critically important because without it, the black woman will continue to be victimized and abused by the strategies of control used by white slave holders. Demythologizing the black masculine male strips away the old ways of patriarchal ways that are in direct contradiction to who/what the black male is.
Historically, women have been nurtures, teachers, change agents, our healers, and care-givers. They are the ones who make up a large number of our churches. Without the woman, the man cannot be. When the black masculine male is demythologized, it allows for the black man to better communicate with the black woman, as well as celebrate the gifts that she bring to the table; but more importantly, participate in the liberating process that eradicates negative images of masculinity, and affirms the worth of all humanity. What all this suggests is that in order for men to have total liberation, they must understand that the woman is the catalyst for social change in and beyond the church, community, and even the academy.

Chapter 5
Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to critique the Black Church’s portrayal of what constitutes masculinity. I analyzed two sermons in order to show the dysfunction within each of them, and how each of these messages perpetuates hyper-masculinity, which in its turn continues to destroy the Black Church. While the sermon excerpts dehumanized and demonized homosexuals, they also show how each preacher usurps power and authority within their messages, via the utilization of offensive language as a conduit to demean and degrade those of the LGBTQ community.
The challenge within the Black Church is best illustrated by its refusal to have constructive conversations around these issues that are affecting many people. When I reflect on the Black Church, historically, the Black Church was largely concerned with the needs of the people. What happened to the Black Church? C. Eric Lincoln states, “The Black Church had been born out of the travail of slavery and oppression. Its very existence was the concrete evidence of the determination of Black Christians to separate from White Christians, whose cultural style and understanding made no provision for racial inclusiveness at a level acceptable to Black people.” The Black church has a vital role in helping blacks find a sense of identity; however, currently many Black churches are more concerned with preaching against an individual who “willfully” lives in sin, as supposed to developing healthy dialogue that will strengthen the community.

In his book, Their Own Received Them Not, Horace Griffin addresses the conflict between the Black Church and the Black LGBT community, and he would certainly agree with the purpose of initiating a meaningful discussion within the Black church context. He argues: “The Black church has historically been and continues to be a wonderful institution of support, nurture, and uplift. Unfortunately, however, Black church leaders and congregants have been resistant and even closed in treating gay and heterosexual congregants equally or, in many cases, offering simple compassion to the suffering of gay people. The black heterosexual majority is presently engaged in a biblical indictment that identifies gays as immoral.” With this assertion, Griffin places a demand on the black church to become inclusive of all its members. Healthy dialogue around issues of masculinity and homosexuality must be addressed or else, the church will continue to struggle with whom and what God means to them.
Brandon Crowley, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, analyzed a sermon that the Reverend Dr. Kenneth Samuel, the Senior Pastor/Organizer of an open and affirming Black mega-church in Atlanta, Georgia preached. Samuel believes biblical literalism to be the driving force energizing homophobia in the Black Church. Below, Crowley provides us with an excerpt from one of his sermons entitled, Jesus and the Rejected:
The ultimate aim of the Bible is not to provide us with the biblical mandate or a moral justification to destroy one another. The ultimate aim of the Bible is to guide each of us into a loving relationship with God and into loving relationships with one another. God is not the contextual law of the Bible; God is love. God is not the wrath of Elijah or any of the other prophets. God is love. God is not the religious pride of the Israelites. God is love. God is not the limited understanding and expressions of any of the biblical writers. God is everlasting, transcendent love. God is not just Word. God is Word made flesh.

In this excerpt, Samuel argued that the disciples were reading the right scripture with the wrong spirit. It is harmful to read, interpret, and apply the word of God with the wrong spirit. It is Samuel’s belief that many biblical literalists interpret the scriptures about homosexuality with the wrong spirit, a spirit of otherness and rejection. This becomes critically important to note because if the bible was used against blacks during slavery, what is happening is a reversal of oppressive ideologies used to keep the black gay man captive in his own misery. In her book, Enfleshing Freedom, M. Shawn Copeland states, “If the risen Christ cannot identify with gay and lesbian people, then the gospel announces no good news and the reign of God presents no real alternative to the ‘reign of sin.’” If God cannot be a God who identifies with God’s own, then we serve a hypocritical God who is a liar and should not be served. To be created in God’s image, is to take on the character and essence of God.
How is the Black Church positioning itself to be effective in the twenty-first century? The Black church must be challenged around issues of sexuality, black masculinity, homosexuality, and HIV/AIDS. This means, those who are gay, bisexual, straight, HIV positive or battle with AIDS, must break the silence that is prevalent in the Black community. Recapturing our effectiveness in the twenty-first century is going to take a collaborative effort of both fundamental and contemporary stylization. The black church’s love for persons living with HIV/AIDS places Christ under examination because the church is to be a place of love, not hatred. In his book Fire Next Time, James Baldwin forcefully states, “I really mean that there was no love in the church’, adding that it ‘was a mask for hatred and self-hatred and despair.’ Within this text, Baldwin critiques the church’s inability to love authentically. Furthermore, Baldwin argues “the black church remains hypocritical, as it is unable or unwilling to extend the message of love to black and white alike,” and might I add, gay and lesbian persons. Realizing wholeness and acce