The allegations against Bishop Eddie L. Long of the Georgia based New Birth Missionary Baptist Church contain the two primary elements of a made-for-TV scandal – sex and money. There are other interest-generating elements to the story: religion, taxes, authority, and, of course, hypocrisy, but without sex and money, this would not be a front page story.
Bishop Eddie L. Long
To an outsider, the comparisons to Daddy Rich, a character played by Richard Pryor in the 70’s movie Car Wash, are inevitable. Daddy Rich ministered over his flock through The Church of Divine Economic Spirituality.
In a memorable scene, The Pointer Sisters defended Daddy Rich when they sang, Why Not Believe in Me?
You’ve got to believe in something, why not believe in me?
Today’s New York Times article stated, “His lavish display of wealth is in keeping with his theology. In his sermons, he often tells his congregation that God wants them to be wealthy and asserts that Jesus was not a poor man. By all accounts, he has been well compensated for his leadership in building New Birth from a church with a few hundred members into the largest congregation in Georgia.”
Still, we have to remember that these are just allegations and that it is conceivable that we are witnessing a smear campaign against an influential and wealthy person, as alleged by some of the Bishop’s supporters. We should not judge the veracity of the sexual misconduct allegations – at least not at this early stage of the investigation.
Bishop Long spoke to his congregation this morning. He denied all of the allegations.
The eventual outcome of this scandal notwithstanding, the spotlight that has been placed on the Bishop and his activities has already resulted in the raising of other questions.
Many religious leaders live their lives in luxury, not just Bishop Long, so the question we should be asking ourselves is, “Why is this ever okay?”
Much of what is preached speaks to the aspirations of people. We all want to do well, so we focus on those aspects of what we hear. The blatant contradictions seem to be ignored. Caught in the middle are the congregants who cannot control where their money goes once it’s been given.
It would be comical if it were not so sad.
As a child, I remember seeing Reverend Ike on television with the ever present plea for donations. Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Ted Haggard, and many Catholic Priests of lesser acclaim have all been involved in scandals. Each follows a familiar course.
The spiritual leader apologizes, the initial uproar fades, people forget and move on, and the money keeps rolling in.
People are often emotionally invested in their spiritual leaders. Their reasoning when making these investments is unlike the approach they use when making financial investments. The return on investment isn’t factored in, nor is the wisdom of placing too much trust in a single person considered.
If preachers were stock, those who trade in religion-based securities would be wiped out.
Many people can be generous when giving to a worthy cause, because at their core, I believe that people do want to do good deeds. Yet it seems that those well-intentioned donations often find their way into the hands of people who, having been seduced by the admiration of their flocks or the sounds of their own voices, lose their way.
I’ve long ago abandoned the notion of placing much credence in those who preach The Word, and instead focus on what religion means to me. We can all read our respective holy books on our own.
It is totally inconsistent to give charitable donations to those who we suspect are taking a large cut off the top for themselves. We are all aware of the “administrative” portion of charitable donations that are not distributed to those in need. We understand that spending some of what we give on those types of costs is appropriate.
However, administrative costs should probably not include the reported $3,000,000.00 in salary and perks for the four year period ending in 2000 that Bishop Long has received – no matter how charismatic a preacher he is said to be.
{ 0 comments }
