In his Good Friday sermon, Bishop Alfred A. Owens Jr., pastor of Greater Mount Calvary Church in Northeast D.C., screamed that “it takes a real man to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior”. To punctuate the point, he clarified that he meant only straight men, “I’m not talking about no faggot or no sissy”. He then invited all the straight men to come down to the altar to thank God that they are straight, saying “You ain’t funny and you ain’t cranky, but you’re straight,” – a comment I am still pondering in confusion.
Bishop Owens has spent several years on DC Mayor Anthony Williams’ Interfaith Council. The council was formed to foster understanding and inclusion among people of different faiths and identities. By implying that gay people can not receive salvation from God, Owens is spreading the worst kind of bigotry and ignorance, certainly counter to the aims of the Interfaith Council. As such, many groups are calling for his removal. Mayor Williams is supposed to consider the matter upon his return from a trip to Africa on May 16.
We can agree that there are many people of faith that recognize that one can be both Christian and gay. The more important question here I think is, what is the proper response to such hateful comments in our society of open, free speech? This has always been a tricky subject but it’s increasingly important as well. What can be done to influence “hearts and minds” while preserving the rights of all involved?
Check out this Washington Blade article for more detail and a link to a recording of this part of the sermon.
I’m not sure that this is really all that tricky of a situation. Surely the mayor is not being asked to close down the church and forbid Bishop Owens from preaching. He’s being asked to clarify the purpose of the Interfaith Council by deeming the clearly stated conflict of interest inappropriate for a member of that council. I would expect the same for anyone who states a point of view contrary to the groups to which they belong.
Colbert I King, a well-respected African-American columnist for the Washington Post had a very intriguing column in Friday’s paper about this incident – written allegedly as a “heads up” to Mayor Williams on his African trip. He noted the call by the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Men and Women for Williams to remove Owens from the Council, and that Mayor Williams’ own spiritual advisor denounced the remarks, but also noted the mayor cannot control what is said in the pulpit.
King also noted that, at a mayoral candidates forum he hosted just after the publicity about Owens’ sermon broke, [i]t’s fair to say that each of the candidates, with varying degrees of passion, denounced the bishop’s remarks. But to my recollection, not one of them criticized Owens personally, either by name or by title. ‘Course it’s worth remembering that Bishop Owens is reported to have a 7,000-member congregation, and his church is a “must” stop for vote-seeking D.C. politicians.
I think it is going to be tough for the mayor, or for any of the candidates to replace him, to denounce this minister completely – certainly that did not happen with the last such incident by a DC-area pastor. On the other hand, any DC mayor is going to have to deal with the rising tensions between the gay community and certain African-American churches in town. It will certainly call for a balancing act, especially when you consider that the only two real constituencies in DC politics are the African-American and GLBT communities.
As for the appropriate response – I would love to see Williams not only cast Owens off, but stand up strongly for mutual respect and decency that seems to be ebbing from far too much of our political discourse. I don’t expect to see such a strong response, however, from Williams or any of the leading contenders for his job – and that is a town where the “conservative” position on gay marriage is to be for civil unions.
King’s column is at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201657.html – but registration is required for the Post’s site.
Robis, you are correct, the mayor is being asked to remove Owens from the Interfaith Council, as his statements clearly conflict with the purpose of that group. The tricky part I mentioned, and if you don’t think it’s tricky look back at some of the mega-threads we have had on the subject, is how best to counter the kind of thinking expressed by Owens in his sermon. Certainly nothing as drastic as you mentioned, but should we not respond at all? He has a 7000 member congregation, that’s a lot of influence.
David Roberts
Anyone notice that he’s also offending the female members of his congregation who also are confessing Jesus Christ as savior? (Aside from the doctrine of salvation by grace, which would seem to imply that the holy balls it requires to confess Christ in a manly way are GIVEN, not grown.)
How does gender have anything to do with the ability to believe in Jesus? Even the apostle Paul, who is (in my understanding) against homosexuality and for a very patriarchal structure in the family, argues that when it comes to *salvation*, there is neither Jew nor Greek, nor male nor female.
This guy outta have his ministerial credentials examined, along with his head.
For a black pastor to call people to the altar to thank God for being straight is no different than a white pastor calling for people to thank God they’re white. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
It makes me sick to hear about such things.
By implying that gay people can not receive salvation from God, Owens is spreading the worst kind of bigotry and ignorance…”
I’ll outdo Owens. I flat out state that ~nobody~ can receive “salvation” from God because there is no such thing as God. Is that bigotry?
Well, this is where I get to call up Owens and tell him, that I, as a black woman, he’s not speaking for me, by bad mouthing gay folks.
And that I don’t appreciate it whatsoever.
The fellowship of the church isn’t to exclude a portion of the church, because of their identity.
Fellowship is about a meeting of the minds and hearts in expansion, and helping someone realize their best selves without it being at the expense of someone else.
More and more black churches are investing a lot of their time in gay bashing, instead of addressing the chronic plagues of black people (who cannot blame institutional bigotry anymore, but their own excesses now).
And this investment serves exactly what?
No one is made better, whole or important by how much they can punish, not an individual, but a group-that itself isn’t in the business of wronging anyone, but being honest about what they are.
Wronging, and wrongdoing, is an issue of ethics that deserves far more discussion than arguing over sexual orientation and gender identity.
Those are a given.
Taking the license and privilege to wrong someone for that reason ALONE, is not.
Black folks like this Owens are a trial and an embarrassment, just like other black self righteous ministers I have encountered.
And having thousands of congregants has only exacerbated their arrogance.
Pharisee status don’t take much, does it?
Just remember this profound statement:THE BIGGER THE LIES FROM THE PULPIT, THE LOUDER AMENS FROM THE PEW.
Warren said:
Just remember this profound statement:THE BIGGER THE LIES FROM THE PULPIT, THE LOUDER AMENS FROM THE PEW.
I find that assumption far too sweeping, not to mention cynical, to be considered anything close to “profound”. If that is your opinion, so be it, but I don’t think it can be called profound.
David Roberts
The Washington Post reports today that the mayor has demanded that Owens apologize, otherwise the mayor will seek his removal from the interfaith council.
In the interest of “balance,” the Post makes it appear that local clergy are divided:
It would have been more informative for the Post to poll local clergy to determine how prevalent Haggray’s bigotry and we’re-above-the-law rhetoric really is.
Addenda: Owens replies to the Post with a non-apology in which he merely says, “It was not my purpose to wound anyone or discriminate against any group, and I apologize for any offense.” In other words, Owens is “sorry” that others were offended, but he’s not sorry for what he said.
Keith Boykin and Kevin Naff both say a pseudo-apology is inadequate and that he must be removed from the interfaith council.
Naff:
Boykin notes that Owens has a history of issuing phony apologies. Boykin also calls upon black churchgoers and community leaders to stand up to homophobic pastors:
I think it’s unfortunate that Exodus lacks sufficient moral courage and integrity to condemn blatant and unrepentant bigotry among people like Owens.
“Just remember this profound statement:THE BIGGER THE LIES FROM THE PULPIT, THE LOUDER AMENS FROM THE PEW.”
In my observation, the amens have little to do with the pulpit. I would say that the louder the amens, the more likely the concregant is hiding something.
The guy who listens and nods to himself is probably applying the message to his life. The guy who says “amen” may be appreciating the message and encouraging the preacher. These folk are generally devout in their faith and looking for ways to be better people.
But, from what I’ve seen, the guy who is shouting “amen” the loudest and who always finds a way to insert “praise God” into every conversation is someone who wants you to think he’s a good rightous man. He’s trying to sell an image.
There was one such guy in my church when I was in my teens. I instinctively knew this guy was trouble. Because I was the pastor’s son, he would make a point of talking to me and working something about Jesus or God into the conversation.
John: “Tim, good morning.”
Me: “Oh. Hi John.”
John: “Nice day today. Every day that the Lord has made is a nice day, though. Praise God”.
It really was about that bad. And I hated to sit near him in church because he loved to shout “amen” or “that’s right”. This guy registered so high on my phoney-meter that I could hardly be civil to him.
Eventually it came out that he was molesting his children.
Not every “amen” shouter was molesting their kids, of course. But living in the pastor’s family you tended to have an inside scoop on the problems in families in the church. And I can say as a general rule – at least in that church – the ones most trying to convince the world that they were holy (shouting amen and praising God right and left) were the ones with the biggest problems.
What many of you seem to be forgetting is that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Bishop Owens is an adherent of the Bible and it makes perfect sense that he would condemn that condition. What next? Should those passages that are offensive to homosexuals be stricken or reinterpreted?
Perhaps then murderers and thieves can also demand that the prohibitions against them be rewritten as well. How about the passages that condemn prostitution or child molestation? The truth is, there is a disconnect between Christian belief and homosexualty and no amount of ranting will change that.
Making something legal does not make it right. Prostitution is legal in Nevada but no one in their right mind would suggest that it be exalted and encouraged. Alcohol is legal but who among us hasn’t known the devastation it can bring to individuals and families?
So, yes, sodomy between same sex persons is legal. That simply means you cannot thrown in jail for practicing it but it does not mean that it should be exalted and proclaimed as righteous and good.
Isis- while people can legitimately disagree over Biblical interpretations, there’s still no excuse for namecalling “foggot or sissy” from the pulpit. Jesus didn’t say “Blessed are the meek, and I’m not talking about no faggot or sissy.”
Isis,
I can appreciate that you think that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Most Christians never get beyond “that’s what my chuch believes” and actually study the language and context of those condemnations. So I can hardly blame you for your ignorance (as long as you don’t stay that way).
Just as a little example (I won’t get into everything) the most common quoted condemnation is in Leviticus 18:22 which deals with lying “with mankind as with womankind”.
Some, such as yourself, see this scripture as proof that all homosexual sex, romance, or identity is sin. This is the interpretation of most conservative evangelical Christian churches.
Some think this forbids all sex between people of the same sex but not necessarrily an identity. This, I believe, is (or was) the position of the Catholic church. Some also think that a romantic and emotional relationship is not forbidden as long as it is non-sexual.
Others think this is a prohibition on a specific sex act between men and does not deal at all with other sex acts or with lesbians at all. This is the most literal translation and I think that I read that some branches of Judaism hold to this belief (but don’t quote me on that).
And some believe that this scripture should be read in context of “the doings of the land of Canaan” and in worship of Molech. They believe that this scripture refers to male temple prostitutes and isn’t relevant to non-ceremonial sex.
And finally, many mainline Christian churches believe that this prohibition was made for a particular people at a particular time, a culture in which women were property and multiple wives was the norm and in which sex with a man was demeaning to him and brought him down to the level of a woman (ie a lowly subservient piece of property). They say that the writer of the scripture was not conceptually aware of men who are internally structured to find fulfillment with another man and that times have changed. I believe this is also the teaching of reform Judaism (and I know that they are more familiar with Hebrew writings and understanding than either you or I).
So, Isis, you can see that even what seems to be a straight-forward scripture can have many different interpretations.
I would caution you from claiming that your interpretation is the right one. For example, if we wanted to totally dismiss the whole idea of cultural context as being “liberal permissiveness” then you would have to reconsider the story of Rachel and Leah. After all, today most of us find the idea that a father would sell off two of his daughters to be wives of one man abhorrent. Cultures do change.
Although Bishop Owens does speak-out against the sin of homosexuality, he speaks out against the sins of fornication, adultery, lying, pride, unforgiveness, etc. He is a man that doesn’t categorize sin as “big” sins and “little” sins. Rather he preaches the Truth contained in the Word of God.
Although his recent words about homosexuality have received a lot of press, he has also vehemently come out against dead beat fathers, men who try to be “players,” and women/men who whore themselves for materialistic things.
The wonderful thing about Bishop Owens is that he not only comes against sin, but that he has a loving pastor’s heart that will embrace those who want to make a change.
I invite everyone to visit Greater Mount Calvary Church and I guarantee you will feel the love of Christ.
Richard Banks said:
Although Bishop Owens does speak-out against the sin of homosexuality, he speaks out against the sins of fornication, adultery, lying, pride, unforgiveness, etc.
I should say up front that I don’t agree with your assumption that homosexuality is a sin, or even that the Bible states this. However, this is a point over which I understand even people of good conscience can disagree. Bishop Owens certainly has the right to claim this is his understanding of scripture. He even has the right to say the following:
I’m not talking about no fagot or no sissy… You ain’t funny and you ain’t cranky, but you’re straight.
But even if he has the right to do so, that does not make it right to do so. Those words do not convey love, even for those he perceives as sinners, but instead bigotry and hatred. And I don’t see how his other “good works” negate this. Even his apology, if one could call it that, does not admit that using “fagot” and “sissy” to describe gay people is wrong, but only that it is deemed wrong by others. Making that distinction strongly implies that he still believes those are valid descriptors to use. This disturbs me almost more than the original outburst.
David Roberts