Belief Beat

Belief Beat


Eddie Long, Black Megachurch Bishop, Vows to Fight Gay Sex Scandal

posted by Nicole Neroulias

I haven’t blogged yet about Eddie Long, the black church pastor who has preached against homosexuality and is now accused — falsely, he insists — of coercing men into sexual relationships. After sifting through dozens of stories about this emerging scandal, I don’t even know where to begin — so, here’s the gist, from the latest Religion News Service story:

Bishop Eddie Long, the Atlanta-area preacher facing charges from four young men that he coerced them to have sex, told his congregation Sunday (Sept. 26) he is “under attack” and will fight the allegations against him.

“I’ve been accused,” Long told the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga. “I’m under attack. I want you to know … I am not a perfect man but this thing I’m going to fight.”

Four men, all in their early 20s, filed suits alleging that Long used his spiritual authority to coerce them into sexual relationships. The men said Long gave them gifts of cash, cars and overnight trips. The fourth suit, filed Friday, alleges that Long paid for shopping sprees and tuition for a 22-year-old with whom he had a sexual relationship.

Long has protested gay marriage and is known for celebrating “muscular Christianity,” which supports strong heterosexual male leadership.

Three more useful links on this topic:

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below.

*Click here to subscribe to Belief Beat and click here to follow Belief Beat on Twitter.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(31)
post a comment
JohnQ

posted September 28, 2010 at 9:33 am


The important aspects of this situation are becoming intertwined. IMO, it is important to keep them distinct.
The more important question/aspect, is did Bishop Long use his position, power, money, and sleeping pills to coerce one or more young males into engaging in sex with him? If he did, this is wrong. Just as it would be wrong if the young males were young females.
Second, will black churches and/or the black community begin to openly acknowledge that homosexuality exists among blacks and/or in black churches and the black community. Is it not obvious that when groups ignore and/or vilify homosexuals/homosexuality it lead to lying, dishonesty, and harassment?



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted September 28, 2010 at 10:49 am


Has this guy leanred nothing from his equally vocal colleagues who later had to admit their own prediliction and orientation? Billy the Bard said it best,
“Me thinks thou do’st protest too much”
Thems what makes the biggest noise gots the mostest to hide.



report abuse
 

Rob the Rev

posted September 28, 2010 at 11:35 am


From Religious Dispatches and worth the read.
September 23, 2010, 12:44AM
Eddie Long Case Should Mark the End of Black Church Homophobia
Post by Anthea Butler
Bishop Eddie Long, megachurch pastor and prosperity purveyor, has now been named in three separate lawsuits alleging sexual coercion of two young men in Atlanta, Georgia. Bishop Long, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, “is one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement.”
Read the remainder of the essay here:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/antheabutler/3398/eddie_long_case_should_mark_the_end_of_black_church_homophobia/
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2010/09/prominent-atlanta-minister-nam_comments.php#ixzz10q35GhG7



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted September 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm


I don’t wish to engage in schadenfreude, and it is possible, if not likely, that Long has not done what these young men allege. However, his record of preaching against homosexuality makes him particularly vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy, as of course, his record of living high off the hog makes something of a mockery of Jesus of Nazareth, who was no man of wealth and taste. Please to meet you, hope you guess my name, Bishop Long.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm


More than likely he has been playing to the prejudice of his community with the bigoted position against homosexuality. The black community is singular in its opposition to gay rights.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted September 28, 2010 at 2:45 pm


Which makes it possibly more likely, Robert C., that these young men are telling the truth, since they will likely have to put up with a lot of abuse from their own community for admitting to being involved in a relationship with a man.



report abuse
 

Jean

posted September 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm


“The black community is singular in its opposition to gay rights”
Oh wow, how offensive. The black community is not singular on any issue. “Blacks” are not the Borg. Blacks are individuals with varying world views as any other ethnic or racial group.
Long remains to be seen. Let ye not be the first to cast a stone



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted September 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm


How many ministers who were wholeheartedly against homosexuality turned out to be guilty of molesting children? More than several, if one counts the RCC’s priests. If he is guilty, off to jail, with some of his large salary/income used for the 4 victims he took advantage of.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm


Perhaps ‘singular’ was not the best adjective used singularly. how about ‘predominately singular’, with the notable exception of those on the DL, like the Rev. Long( gotta love that name). That works mo’better, speaking from experience. My better half is black and oh the trials and tribulations.



report abuse
 

Ms. Living Testament

posted September 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm


We tend to forget that the media make things bigger than they really are. Innocent until proven guilty! If you were not there and going by hearsay take the mote out of thine own eye.



report abuse
 

Connie

posted September 28, 2010 at 9:01 pm


Oh please, Robert.
Blacks aren’t the issue. The fact of the matter is this: The more religious a person is, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew, the more opposed they are to homosexuality. This cuts through racial identity.
I’m proud to say that as a Black American who is an agnostic, everyone in my Black and non-religious peer group fully supports gay rights, and equal rights for all.
Might I add it seems funny to me that you rail against the Black community’s supposedly absolute (in numbers) homophobia, while freely demonstrating your own contempt for Blacks through your juvenile and somewhat hysterical posts. Your hypocrisy is astounding and doesn’t help the issue of homophobia at all.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm


Then you are rather an exception to the rule in my experience. But then it is acknowledged that Proposition 8 was passed in CA due to the strength of the black community’s opposition. Exit polling indicated that seven in 10 black voters voted yes to uphold the same-sex marriage ban. Fifty-three percent of Latinos also backed Proposition 8, along with 49 percent of whites. That despite the fact that Barack Obama carried the state handily. They may not have all been agnotics, but they certainly were not all religious.
A Pew study conducted at and after the fight over Proposition 8 in California determined by actually polling that two-thirds of blacks polled opposed gay marriage, while 49 percent of Hispanics and 52 percent of whites are opposed to it. Fifty-two percent of blacks oppose civil unions for gay people.
Prominent individuals in the community have expressed feelings about this issue openly. The Reverend Jesse Jackson, in a speech at Harvard Law School spoke out against same-sex marriage and rejected comparisons between the civil rights and gay rights movements. “Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution,” he said, and “they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” So much for the Rainbow Coalition. BTW we never made it into the constitution.
Keith Boykin has written a book about gay black America and also a stunning essay entitled “Why Black Churches Oppose Gay Marriage”. Additionally “Boykin’s recent book, ‘Beyond the Down Low: Sex, Lies and Denial in Black America’ focused on the down-low phenomenon, was published in February 2005 and released in paperback in February 2006. From December 2003 until April 2006, Boykin served as president of the board of the National Black Justice Coalition, a Washington-based civil rights organization dedicated to fighting racism and homophobia.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-18/news/whose-dream/1/
I fully recognize that in some urban areas that the face of LGBT leadership is often black. Often LGBT rights are seen — incorrectly — as a “white issue.” Whenever the gay equality movement is integrated, outreach becomes less of an issue. But this is the exception to the rule and it is black gays that are spearheading this outreach. I don’t blame the black community. The issue of patriarchy was certainly influenced by white oppression, however it is time for such attitudes to change, and to change fast.
I could go on but if you think I am unique in this observation then there are many, many links I could send you. I am not. As to any hypocrisy or contempt, since you fail to cite one instance aside from the comment which I addressed, then i must disregard your overt pandering on the matter.



report abuse
 

Madex

posted September 28, 2010 at 11:26 pm


Innocent until proven guilty?
I don’t care if this pastor is or isn’t guilty. He has devoted his life to a ruthless discrimination and persecution of homosexual lifestyles–and all in the name of a compassionate, and “all-loving, all-forgiving” God. This man should burn in hell for fostering the kinds of anti-gay sentiments that have led many parents to disown their children. How much suffering; how many ruined families; how many teenagers have been driven to the brink of suicide because of the dangerous, homophobic philosophies pandered by this demagogue? Bishop Long and his entire bleating congregation should shame themselves for disowning so many good, compassionate people–simply because of their sexual orientation. If these people studied science, they would understand that sexual orientation is dominated by genetic influences. But of course they don’t study “science”–because this, essentially, is the ultimate refutation of their faith.
I wished I believed in hell. It’s where these sanctimonious, self-righteous monsters belong.



report abuse
 

yn

posted September 29, 2010 at 12:54 am


No black kid ever got kicked out of his family for being black.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted September 29, 2010 at 10:45 am


“The black community is singular in its opposition to gay rights.”
Hmm, that’s an odd thing to say, especially considering that you yourself say you are gay and have said your euphemistic “other half” is black. Why would people be opposed to their own rights?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 10:48 am


“More than likely he has been playing to the prejudice of his community with the bigoted position against homosexuality.”
Odd to hear a (presumably) white man witha black “other half” admit/suggest that an entire “community” has a “prejudice”.
I wonder where that prejudice might have originated???
Be that as it may, it’s good to see you admit that the “position against homosexuality” is, indeed, “bigoted”.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 10:52 am


“how about ‘predominately singular'”
And you accuse ME of not being able to spell (when my sticky old keyboard repats a letter)!



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 10:53 am


Oops, – “repeats” (before Monsieur J’accuse jumps on me again).



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 10:59 am


Connie,
“The more religious a person is, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew, the more opposed they are to homosexuality.”
I disagree. I was raised half Salvation Army, half Pentecostal, went to a Lutheran University, and have been a (very) active member of my current Church for more than 30 years, including 10+ years as a deacon. And I am in no way “opposed to homosexuality”.
I doubt the Quakers could be considered un-religious and their position differs from your conjecture. As does the United Church, and both the Reformed and (ahem) Conservative branches of Judaism. And let’s not forget the Universalist-Unitarians. Plus, of course, the Metropolitan Community Churches, and about half of Anglicans. In fact, I’ve even found a Pentecostal sect that favors same-gender marriage.
Your over-generalization is as bad as Robert’s “singular black” slur against thinking, religious black folk. (I wonder what his “better half” thinks of his characterization of “the black community”?)



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 29, 2010 at 11:12 am


GOP you are adept , as usual, in misrepresenting others positions and statemnts to serve your own purposes. Expert trollish behavior.



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 29, 2010 at 11:15 am


read; ‘statements’ and you are the one who began the spelling wars many threads ago, so if the shoe fits,,,,



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 11:21 am


You will be explainning exactly HOW I’ve misinterpreted anyone’s positions and statements, won’t you?
And as for your statement (and I’m NOT “interpreting” it, I’m commenting on it): “But then it is acknowledged that Proposition 8 was passed in CA due to the strength of the black community’s opposition. Exit polling indicated that seven in 10 black voters voted yes to uphold the same-sex marriage ban.”, well shame on them, then.
You’d think a minority wouldn’t want another minority’s rights to be subjected to a popular vote in the first place. Because one would have to ask, ‘Who’s rights can/will be voted on next?’



report abuse
 

Robert C

posted September 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm


1st: “Hmm, that’s an odd thing to say, especially considering that you yourself say you are gay and have said your euphemistic “other half” is black. Why would people be opposed to their own rights.”
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
2nd: In that statement, “the prejudice of his community” I was referring to his parishoners. You took the liberty to again misinterpret and expand upon it without asking for clarification.
3rd: “Be that as it may, it’s good to see you admit that the “position against homosexuality” is, indeed, “bigoted”.”
Spare me the patronization. As is typical of your posting style, you’ve again misinterpreted my belief that the gay marriage initiative is a bad TACTIC and expanded that to wrongly assume that I do not support gay rights on other issues. You are typical of the uber left of the gay spectrum in that if you don’t hear everything you want to hear parroted back to you then you attack and use Alinsky methodolgy to belittle others’ positions. yes you misrepresent.
4th: “You’d think a minority wouldn’t want another minority’s rights to be subjected to a popular vote in the first place.” Isn’t that what I said in so many words?
5th: I believe that predominately is indeed spelled correctly.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predominately
Doesn’t mean that you won’t find spelling errors elsewhere in my posts. But a dose of your own medicine is fun to spoon out.
6th: Connie at least felt legitimate cause to post her rebuttal. However, “Your over-generalization is as bad as Robert’s “singular black” slur against thinking, religious black folk. (I wonder what his “better half” thinks of his characterization of “the black community”?)” You fail to account for the amendment to my statement, and then you go on to apparently agree with what I inferred ( see #4)
unless you didn’t mean to agree at all, and that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.



report abuse
 

wildstar

posted September 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm


What’s missing in all the posts here is what God thinks about the matter. Or maybe you think His opinion doesn’t count while everyone is busy beating everyone else up.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted September 29, 2010 at 2:02 pm


Why don’t you ask Him, wildstar? (Or Her.) Then turn your pipeline to the possibly non-existent but at least very mysterious and remote deity over to the rest of us.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted September 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm


1. Me: “Hmm, that’s an odd thing to say, especially considering that you yourself say you are gay and have said your euphemistic “other half” is black. Why would people be opposed to their own rights.”
You: “That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever”
I agree. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to be opposed to one’s own human/civil rights.
2. You: “In that statement, “the prejudice of his community” I was referring to his parishoners. You took the liberty to again misinterpret and expand upon it without asking for clarification.”
Then I will ask for clarification now, since your original statement is by no means clear. In its entirety, it’s actually two statements, one following directly on the other, it actually said (and I quote): “More than likely he has been playing to the prejudice of his community with the bigoted position against homosexuality. The black community is singular in its opposition to gay rights.” I trust you cann see WHY I was confused – “his community” followed by “the black community”, I hope one (me) could be forgiven for being confused by such sloppy writing.
3. Sorry you found me quoting your own words to be patronizing. If you didn’t mean them, why did you type them? (And again, I quote:
“More than likely he has been playing to the prejudice of his community with the bigoted position against homosexuality.”
). I.E. it was YOU who said the position against homosexuality is “bigoted”. And I agree. (Or is it my agreement that you found patronizing?
3a. You: “you’ve again misinterpreted my belief that the gay marriage initiative is a bad TACTIC and expanded that to wrongly assume that I do not support gay rights on other issues”
Huh? I haven’t been discussing gay marriage with you “again” on this thread. How have I “misinterpreted” your beliefs on that topic “again”? (Though, if you want to re-hash that topic “again”, I’d be more than happy to ask you WHY it’s a “bad TACTIC” to work towards full equality for LGBT citizens. As for your “support” of gay rights, you’re the one that kept saying a vote on gay people’s civil/human rights was fine by you. Go ahead and make my day and let’s begin yet another debate on same-gender marriage. I’m up for it – since you don’t have a Constitutional leg to stand on – but it’s off topic on this particular thread.)
4. Me: “You’d think a minority wouldn’t want another minority’s rights to be subjected to a popular vote in the first place.”
You: “Isn’t that what I said in so many words?”
Again, off-topic, but, in fact, NO. You said the precise OPPOSITE. Which is why I argued with you about it. (Which also goes against your above counter-rebuttal, “then you go on to apparently agree with what I inferred ( see #4)”. (Shall I be-bop over to the old gay marriage thread and copy and paste your words about you being okay with having a vote on gay marriage rights? I’d be more than happy to.)
5. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologize. I had never seen it spelled any other way than ‘predominantly’.
6. While I, too, “felt (and still feel) legitimate cause” for my many rebuttals, your counter-argument here is just way too convoluted to make much sense of, let alone respond to. So let me simply say that I have now taken into account your “amendment” and agree that, yes, there are examples of thinking black folk. Thank you for the Boykin example. He is much more reasoned than Mr. Jackson. Jackson’s comments, “Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution,” and “they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”, while accurate in and of themselves, simply ignore the fact that at that time, gay people had to lie about themselves or find themselves in jail. I don’t think it has ever been illegal to simply BE black.
But that was then and this is now, and in 30 American States, one can still be fired from one’s job for merely being homosexual – or for even being THOUGHT to be homosexual. How many years have blacks been allowed to serve in the military now while gay citizens still cannot (and be honest about themselves)? Are blacks still not allowed to get married? And, to echo yn’s comment of September 29, 2010 12:54 AM,
No black kid ever got kicked out of his family for being black.
Sorry if you feel I’ve over-generalized. I tend to rebut things point-by-point and it seems it all began with your own over-generalizationn (“singular”).



report abuse
 

Brenda D. Kamau

posted September 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm


Eddie Long, has a serious problem on his hands, whether he’s gay or not gay.
If he is, he should have learned how to control his impulses with the younger set. The proper examples where there for his eyes to examine. And women were at his feet. A KING can do whatever he pleases, and I am sure that the outcome will let the world know exactly what I am saying. Homosexuality is nothing new to politics nor religion, so why do some idiots pretend that it is, it is beyond me. He should close the door for a while and rest his glorious loins, and then everthing will be for the betterment of GOD’s kingdom.
Yeah, I said it and meant it!!!! The times are here for all of us to
share in Babylon, Isreal, or any other forbidden land, including the United States of America. B.E.L.I.E.V.E.



report abuse
 

wildstar

posted September 30, 2010 at 11:56 am


Why don’t you ask Him yourself, Alicia?



report abuse
 

wildstar

posted September 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm


I don’t know if this article is appearing in another Beliefnet newsletter but it appeared in Beliefnet Bible Reading which is how I received it. There is a lot of hate being expressed here. Humans are a hypocritical species in that they will protest against war while they verbally (or physically) annihilate one other on a daily basis. It is unfortunate that Jesus Christ is often represented by extremely flawed humans who do not practice what Christ preached. Others, who do not know Christ, judge Him by the actions of those humans. That would be like any one person judging another by, let’s say for example, Adolf Hitler. Since he was born Austrian, then all Austrians are like him because they were born in the same country. (which is pretty ridiculous.) Those misrepresenting Christ and those hurling stones at Him, don’t know Him at all and wouldn’t know Him if He walked up to them.(and they probably don’t care.)
Pema Chodron, a Buddhist nun, once said…”people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King..who recognized that the greatest harm comes from our own aggressive minds…devoted their lives to helping others understand this truth.”
Whatever Long got himself involved in (or not) is coloring the landscape for the rest of us in some pretty horrific hues. As long as there is hate, there will never be peace and there will never be compassion or understanding.



report abuse
 

Alicia

posted October 1, 2010 at 10:30 am


wildstar, the still small voice says that God doesn’t care about homosexuality, but hypocrisy makes him weep (or sometimes laugh) and hate confounds him.



report abuse
 

craig ward

posted May 17, 2011 at 10:49 pm


This post has been edited by the moderator, due to offensive language

You are not born that way,you are born a virgin.Blacks religious people have the right to believe what they want,so why is it hard for queers to understand that?[SNIP]
someone said vote on abortion ,and i vote against abortion should I be called a abortion-a-phobic .My opinion counts.But a queer judge in California don’t think so,he just Jim Crowed the popular vote,and yet queers want democracy,Hypocritical [SNIP].Two men or two women cannot,cannot make babies,sex is for reproduction,love is just an emotion.You love your grand parents,do you have sex with them?No. But queers say sex and HIV,STD,and parasites is love [SNIP].If you believe in the bible and queers don’t,the bible as well as science say every seed after it’s own kind.So in order for a queer/queer to make another queer nature would have to be different.[SNIP]



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting Belief Beat. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy:   Beliefnet News   Good News Happy Reading!  

posted 4:57:28pm Feb. 14, 2012 | read full post »

Fun Friday: Atheist Temple Planned for UK's Nonbelievers
Author Alain de Botton has announced plans to build an Atheist temple in the United Kingdom, presumably so nonbelievers have a place to gather and share their philosophies. Um... isn't that what Starbucks is for? Also, I can't wait to see how the architect will handle this kind of project. May

posted 2:53:42pm Jan. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Alaska Airlines: High Payers No Longer Offered Sky Prayers
Alaska Airlines, now the country's seventh-largest airline, has announced it will stop offering prayer cards with its in-flight meals. (It's just raining religion news in the great unchurched Pacific Northwest lately.) I've flown Alaska several times since moving to Seattle, but I confess that I'

posted 11:07:56am Jan. 26, 2012 | read full post »

Washington's Gay Marriage Debate: Clergy vs. Clergy
I reported for Reuters at the Washington state Capitol yesterday, covering the public hearings on a gay marriage bill -- and in between, the breaking news that the state Senate now has enough votes to pass the bill. (The House already had enough votes.) It now appears that Washington's lawmakers wi

posted 11:24:39am Jan. 24, 2012 | read full post »

What Israel's Domestic Policy & Santorum Supporters Have in Common
Hope everyone had an introspective Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, whether observed as a faith-related holiday, a nice break from the work week or something else entirely. Check out this story from Religion & Ethics Newsweekly about how mandatory sentencing for drug crimes and non-violent offens

posted 1:32:44pm Jan. 18, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.