And THIS is why The Mo’Kelly Report exists.
With little fanfare or news coverage, the four sexual coercion lawsuits confronting Bishop Eddie Long had its first hearing recently, with both sides opting for mediation to avoid a trial.
Why no major news outlet or editorial columnist has discussed the implications of such a move is nothing less than egregious in nature. Despite the initial media crush and coverage and the incessant analysis of Bishop Long’s statement on his website and “sermon”…there’s been nary a peep in response to the quest for mediation.
Granted, if the future mediation in February does not solve the dispute, there is a tentative trial date of July 11, 2011 set. This could still end up being resolved in a courtroom.
But…
Did everyone EXCEPT The Mo’Kelly Report miss the gargantuan elephant in the middle of the room?
Again, this is why The Mo’Kelly Report exists.
Bishop Eddie Long agreeing to mediation of sexual coercion charges is an end-run around the universally accepted moral and ethical responsibilities of any ecumenical leader. Mediation of sexual allegation grievances is tantamount to an admission of “some” guilt, “some” form of ministerial misconduct. Innocent folk don’t make deals if the claims against them are baseless and untrue. Mediation for the accused is a forfeiture of the right to ever claim innocence and readers should be absolutely clear on this point.
Let me be clear: The charges against me and New Birth are false. I have devoted my life to helping others and these false allegations hurt me deeply, but my faith is strong and the truth will emerge.”
– Bishop Eddie Long (in a written statement)
Yes, the truth IS emerging.
Did you hear that? THAT was the sound of Long publicly admitting to some degree of guilt when he agreed to mediation. The public wanted Long to thoroughly address the allegations…well there you have it. He said it all, you just had to have been paying attention to hear it.
Long has said that he is “not a perfect man,” outlandishly compared his plight to that of David when confronting Goliath. We all remember Long admonishing his congregation and news media, “I’ve got five rocks and I haven’t thrown one yet.”
If mediation is his first “rock,” then a complete admission of guilt must be the next. There’s just nowhere else to go. Instead of opting for the opportunity to clear his name for the sake of his congregation and legacy; Long has chosen to quietly, secretly, address the allegations of sexual coercion; presumably with a sealed “mutual agreement.”
Recognize the strategy for what it is and its obvious transparency. Long is forfeiting the opportunity to clear his name publicly to pay for his sins privately…pun absolutely intended.
Again, this is why The Mo’Kelly Report exists.
The court has only been tasked with determining whether Bishop Long is liable for sexual coercion, whether he used his power, influence and more specifically, lavish gifts as a pathway to sexual relationships with at least 4 young males. In a court of law, Bishop Long conceivably could have been found “not guilty” (of the charges) but still had engaged in the sexual relationships. In other words, he would still be guilty in an ethical or moral sense with his congregation. The alleged relationships mean multiple adulterous affairs, with a homosexual twist…not a good look for homophobic Bishops.
Translation…even if Long were to win the suit, he could still lose everything. “Not guilty” (of the charges) is not to be confused with being “innocent” and Bishop Long seems to clearly understand the distinction. Readers and the New Birth congregation need to understand it as well. Do not let these actions pass unnoticed or without response.
For a completely innocent man with no extra-marital dalliances (heterosexual or otherwise), a trial would be a welcome option to pursue complete and irrevocable exoneration. In fact, it’s the ONLY option. In this instance, the accusers would tell their side, Long tells his and he presumably walks out of court with his image, career and legacy intact.
A completely innocent man that is…
There is no compromise on the truth. Either Long is innocent or he is guilty. A court deems someone “guilty” or “not guilty” but the truth determines innocence or guilt.
O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty.” Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon (Rodney King) were found “not guilty.” Don’t confuse verdicts with the truth.
Speaking of the truth…
The truth in this instance is far more complex than just the stories of the four accusers. There are implied issues of sexual misconduct, marital infidelity, undertones of pedophilia and child molestation and questions about the authenticity of the mission of the LongFellows Youth Academy. Long’s possible guilt extends beyond the courtroom, which is the fly in the ointment; and mediation more than just suggests he has unclean hands.
Long wants to have it both ways, and the public shouldn’t allow for it. He should not be allowed to claim innocence publicly while admitting degrees of guilt privately in the hopes of making all of this go away with checks and handshakes.
Mo’Kelly wishes for two things in any court case; for justice to be done and the truth to come out. A mediation only allows for some semblance of both but not all of either. For the accusers, mediation is better than a lengthy trial against a bishop with longer money than theirs. For the accused, it’s glaringly obvious what’s going on here.
“Innocent” men don’t “mediate” supposedly “categorically untrue” allegations to reach an “agreement.” “Innocent” men SPEND money to help expose false allegations, not reward them; especially when one’s livelihood, career and reputation hang in the balance.
It makes perfect sense why the accusers would accept mediation and is consistent with the contention that they had sought out an internal solution long before filing the lawsuits. Not only that, the accusers likely don’t want to publicly recount the gory details of the alleged crime no more than Bishop Long wants the public to hear them.
In any event, an “innocent” man (not to be confused with a “not guilty” one) forces the accusers to prove the allegations and does not sit down at the table to iron out a secret agreement with money, a non-disclosure agreement and a cherry on top.
Long should be called on the carpet for making mediation his “first rock.” Either he is innocent or guilty, (the truth) including, yet not limited to the specific accusations. He’s never acted as such (innocent) and should be held accountable. He is completely innocent or he is guilty of all sorts of crimes in the court of public opinion, above and beyond sexual coercion. This question remains, irrespective of whether the allegations eventually make their way into a courtroom.
The answer to that question is becoming clearer by the day. Why the media and New Birth congregation haven’t recognized the obvious is still cloudy.
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published at The Huffington Post and www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. For more Mo’Kelly, https://mrmokelly.com. Mr. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected].
Free Subscription to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE
Follow The Mo’Kelly Report on Facebook Network Blogs HERE.
22 responses to “Media Misses Message Behind Bishop Eddie Long Mediation”
The nail has been hit on the head!
I wish everyone would just stay out the man of God's business..
When there are four lawsuits being adjudicated, it is a public interest issue, hence why the court paperwork is available for anyone and everyone. You can even petition to see the court hearings in person. This is hardly “Long’s business” and is surely up for debate as to whether he’s a “man of God.”
So you can wish everyone would stay out of Long’s business, but when he gets sued, it’s no longer “his” business. Those are the breaks.
@ Tina Davis, this man should have stayed out of those boys' business then. SMH. Let's protect the kids instead of the abusers.
Amen Sister!!!
This story illustrates why some spiritual people choose not to participate in "organized" religion. How someone can suggest this is solely a "man of God's business" is beyond me. Why are you afraid to be open-minded, objective and seek the truth?
I hope the congregation of New Birth realizes that Eddie Long has lied to them. First, you are going to fight the allegations, but then you ask for mediation? Eddie long has lied to the people who were willing to support him….how does he look at himself everyday in the mirror!!!
The issue that is so troubling to me: Eddie Long's is a gay man that used the pulpit to seekout = target, coerce and sexually abused teenage boys, while the congregation unknowningly was footing the bill, for Long's homosexual twist. The youngmen faced their demon and publically told the story. So why is the congregation still in support of Long, is it because Long has not sexually abused all of the congregation's sons, yet? or it because the congregation embraces sexualing abusing teenage boys?
From a a purely legal perspective, unfortunately the system is broken and sometimes the way things work is that it’s easier to prove guilt than establish innocence. Plus, in a civil trial, the burden of proof is lower than a criminal trial, so while you may be found liable, it’s not because the jury thought so beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of the evidence (take that term for what it’s worth). There’s a reason why jury selection is one of the most important parts of a trial – just as OJ was found not guilty, many others that are not guilty have been found guilty. Juries are unreliable and unpredictable.
Realistically, you could be found liable by a cooky jury, even though you are “not guilty” AND innocent. In that case there REALLY is no way to get out from under the implications of a public verdict, so why not mediate? We can’t be so naive as to think things are really as simple as innocent people don’t mediate or settle. They do everyday. Sometimes it’s no longer a matter of guilt, but a matter of strategy.
That having been said, mediation is absolutely not a standard admission of guilt in any way. Some innocent people do opt for the privacy of mediation rather than the circus of a public trial. I’m not saying that I believe Long’s innocent – or guilty for that matter – I don’t even know the man. What I’m saying is that I would probably mediate if I were Eddie Long, for many reasons.
Maybe he doesn’t have all the money you think he has to dump into a defense. The possessions that you see he has represents already spent money and tied up money.
Maybe he wants to do damage control. Just the allegations and testimony, whether true or fabricated, are enough to ruin his career and reputation. Can you imagine the trial? Seriously. Even you would probably try to avoid it.
Maybe he has to. For practical purposes some jurisdictions require mediation in civil suits to cut down on docket congestion – I don’t know about his jurisdiction but mine does.
Yeah, he sounded big and bad at the beginning – probably before he spoke to his lawyer and got a real legal picture of what was happening and what his options were. Now it’s probably all about strategy.
Either way, on the subject of mediation and trial strategy I suggest you do some reading up on it or consult an attorney. Just sayin’.
The only point and the most salient point you ignore is the specificity of this case. If you ignore the facts that Long pledged to “fight” the charges, then ok…mediation means nothing in this case. If you are willing to look at this from the standpoint of “trial strategy” (your phrase) and not truth seeking (my phrase) then yes, mediation is a viable option.
Before you assumed that I’ve neither done my reading nor consulted a lawyer lets me mindful of the fact trial strategies have to do with whether Bishop Eddie Long can/will win a trial. That has nothing to do with the truth.
And since you mention preponderance of evidence, although it is a lower standard, it is still a worthy standard; be it cirumstantial or substantive.
You’re debating this issue through purely a legal perspective and conveniently ignore the ecumenical, moral and spiritual perspectives; which all in many ways supersede the legal in terms of a minister’s reputation.
Having said that, I suggest you consult your pastor…if you are a believer.
Congregations aren’t interested in mediation with non-disclosure agreements, they are interested in only the fullness of the truth. Either he is (morally) innocent or he is not. The outcome of a liability verdict in a trial doesn’t necessarily address that question.
But eschewing the chance to clear his name in open court decidedly adds to the preponderance of evidence in the court of public opinion. Innocent until proven guilty is on relative to a court of law, not societal perception. A minister’s perception as to being upright and circumspect is in many ways far more important than the best litigious strategy available.
Thank you for contributing.
I appreciate that, but I’d like to point out that I did not ignore his pledge to fight the allegations. Please reference the part where I mentioned that he sounded big and bad in the beginning.
I apologize for the assumption. What you expressed in your original post was far from the objective, realistic purpose of mediation so I did assume that you hadn’t done your homework. I lost sight of the fact that this is a subjective entertainment editorial.
Yes, I approached it from a legal perspective because if I did it from the ecumenical, moral or spiritual perspective it would be folly and arrogance. What you speak of is gossip and has more to do with outrage than spirituality. If the congregation wants the truth – the real and whole truth – they can demand it but more than likely will never get it, whether or not it goes to trial. They are going to have to wait until they can ask God for themselves. By the way, are we talking about societal perception, his fiduciary duty to his congregation, a court room verdict or “moral” innocence? Each of these should be separate discussions, not a hodge-podge of ideas seasoned with semblances of spirituality.
Morality is fluid and subjective and has no place in God’s Word. Yes, he had a duty to his congregation and he is accountable to them, however, don’t assume that every member of the congregation is of the same mind. If any individual member of the congregation feels that he has failed them then that individual should seek God for their answers, resolutions and healing – not Long. That’s counseling 101. Besides, they are in no position and are not qualified to judge Long and neither are we.
My previous church was a mega church where the pastor behaved himself inappropriately with women and abused his authority, among other things. He still discretely does so. I left but others stayed even when they were confronted with specific situations of misconduct. Some of these people were my closest friends and I know that they love God. I left because I could not reconcile the man on the pulpit with the message and I was led to leave. Those that stayed, stay for their own reasons and I have no right to question them, judge them, or to tell them how they should behave toward their pastor. I would be no better than that same pastor who tried to control my friends, my employment and even my marriage prospects.
With regard to societal perception, who can call it? Are we beginning with the presumption that most people who have heard of Long had warm feelings toward him? Or are we going with the possibility that just the mere accusation has sparked immediate judgment in the minds of those who heard it? As for a court room verdict, I’ve already touched on that.
I am a believer and as a believer I understand that real truth cannot come from a court of law or mediation. This legal system is a worldly establishment that is not built on the Word of God and, contrary to your apparent belief, (pardon my assumption) is not a truth-seeking machine. Only God knows the hearts of Long and his accusers and God is the only one that knows the real truth about what happened. If Long sinned only he and God can address that sin. As for his responsibility to walk upright and be beyond reproach, that train may have left the station a long time ago, therefore, turning down a chance to mediate probably wouldn’t change societal perception. It might be foolish, though.
So trial or no trial, what you seek and what you feel the congregation should seek will not be found. God has promised to work these kinds of things out without our interference or input in His own way and time.
“So trial or no trial, what you seek and what you feel the congregation should seek will not be found. God has promised to work these kinds of things out without our interference or input in His own way and time.”
Of course God gets the last word, but it would be unwise to suggest that we have no role in how this progresses. Many individuals will be used as vessels in the interim to guide this accordingly. If not, “prayer” would be sufficient. “Faith” without works would not be dead. We as believers would not have been charged with cleansing the church of iniquity. We as “the church” “the congregation” have an active responsibility to use spiritual discernment.
No, neither a trial nor mediation bring about the fullness of truth. But if ANY semblance of the accusations is true, be it sodomy, improper sexual relationship(s) with minor(s), marital infidelity…run the list, that is consequential.
No, we don’t need to know “all the truth” to know if Long is “guilty.”
He need only be “guilty” of ANY accusation of ANY of the accusers or have engaged in ANY romantic/sexual rapport. Long doesn’t need to be “guilty” (in a morality sense) of all of it.
He only need be guilty of ANY of it.
I am at a loss and need your assistance in pointing out where, in the fulfillment of the Law, (the New Testament) we are commissioned to cleanse the church of iniquity. Sure, in the Old Testament, according to the Law, whole families had to be stoned for the husband’s sin, children were stoned for unrepentant rebellion and God speaks of cleansing often. However, the coming of Christ brought mercy and grace. Not for some but for all who accept it. I know where God speaks of bringing a unrepentant believer that is known to be entrenched in sin before the congregation and then if he has not changed his ways after the second broadcast to the congregation he is expelled from the congregation’s midst – but that’s not the situation we have here.
You’ve moved the discussion from a legal perspective to a spiritual one but little of what you have said is biblically based. It bothers me that Long’s crisis and that of his accusers is being approached in such a witch-hunt manner. While Long is accountable in some manner to his congregation just by the nature of his position, nothing about the doctrine of forgiveness says that the wrong-doer owes anyone anything because we have to look at ourselves and make sure that in discerning a situation, we don’t end up judging and sinning ourselves. Remember, sin is sin. Any sexual improprieties Long may have engaged in is no more spiritually egregious than exceeding the legal speed limit. As a society we place greater weight, but God doesn’t, even though the consequences and the harvest may differ in severity.
If someone in the body of Christ – anyone in the body of Christ – admits guilt or sin and claims repentance, our responsibility as joints that supply is to forgive, show mercy and grace, help bring restoration and edification. On the other hand, if one sins and they carry that UNKNOWN sin, our responsibility to that person, as Christians, IS mere prayer. What else can you do? If God does not see fit to force us to tell the truth to ourselves or others who are we to require more? Let each man is to be responsible for their own and we are to handle situations like Long’s with love.
So, it could be that just the sinful approach taken by many people toward his choice for mediation makes them just as “guilty” as Long, as far as God is concerned.
Au contraire…I began this discussion with the inclusion of moral and ecumenical concerns. Your first missive clearly delineated that you were speaking from a purely legal perspective.
But to specifically and biblically answer your question. 1st Corinthians…Paul’s letter to Corinth, Chapter 5 gives us the guide…
Going further, the story of Jesus throwing out the Moneychangers? Ring a bell?
Jeremiah discusses trusting in lying words of a preacher and turning a church into a den of thieves. It’s all over the bible about cleansing the church. Prayer alone is not enough.
Your turn…
Your most sound post yet. Mostly the words of others, but sound. Thanks for directing me to that chapter. I concede that Paul talks of himself passing judgment but if you look to the amplified the church is instructed to pass censuring sentence as the facts require. Again, we have no facts and the witch hunt is premature. The man in that scripture did his deeds publicly and the church was boasting of it. That’s not what we have here. In Long’s case we don’t KNOW anything about what really happened – which is the point we were really discussing – to say that he is guilty or admitting guilt to anything when agreeing to go to mediation. Clease? Fine. Cleanse away – but don’t put your cart before your horse. There must be known facts and unrepentance.
If Long admits guilt and is unrepentant and proud of his sins then, of course, remove him from the fellowship and the midst of the brethren. But until then we wait and we pray.
It’s interesting that the very next chapter speaks of how Christians who bring lawsuits in worldly courts should be ashamed. “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.” I haven’t heard anyone approach the angle that the accusers are just as spiritually culpable. Sounds like what I mentioned to before. Sin is sin, and we need to check ourselves before we check other believers so that we don’t end up spiritually on par with those we are judging.
By the way, did we ever find out whether or not mediation was mandatory? (And by we, I mean you.) This whole convo could be moot.
Not mandatory, but mutually agreed. For different reasons, I understand why mediation would appeal to either or both sides. Mediation for Long seems to assure he will (publicly) be forced to admit nothing, so him being unrepentant would be moot if it never goes to trial. The specifics of what did or did not happen will never be made public…conveniently enough.
I agree with you (and the bible does) that “sin is sin” but there is something also to be said for those who consciously lead the flock astray. Grievous wolves who enter and not spare the flock is not the same as general sin. There is a higher standard and higher expectation placed upon those “anointed.” I hope you would agree with that.
Our own personal sin does not influence our responsibility to check iniquity elsewhere. Otherwise nothing can be purged as we are all cracked vessels and fall short.
This is not a sin contest as to who has less sin and more “worthy” of casting the first stone. I’m only advocating and have only ever advocated for the truth to come out. Through legal maneuvering…it likely will not ever come out. That bears mentioning.
Long is within his legal right to choose mediation, but it’s also within my right to acknowledge the implications of such a decision and the ultimate truth it obfuscates.
I concur.
How is the world concerned about other people businesses? Are the guys at the justice courtroom perfect to judge another? Have you been there when they do commit adultery? What about yourself the writer up here? Are you faultless?
What about what western countries do in Africa and other third world countries, to make them poor and poor by orchestrating war and stealing resources? There is too much injustice in this world. Thank God , the end is near!
At the end of the day, everyone will stand in front of one day for judgment. Whatever wrong we`ve done to our friends, family or individuals will be known. For before God, nothing remains covered.
May God help us… and give us a voice that people can hear.
Nobody has to be “faultless” and “perfect” to assess innocence, guilt or liability in a court of law. Your comment is both misguided and useless. Otherwise, there is no need for police, law or a judicial system.
Remember that if/when you are taken advantage of or a crime is committed against you. Just wait for the eternal and final judgment and do nothing.
He is a world renown Paster my dear, of course well are in his business..This jerk has deceived millions of people. How dare you say mind “our business”. We all are not perfect, however; WE as people need to watch ALL we do, especially something which what Eddie and his gang did.
The reason why this went to mediation, is so the public would not hear all of Eddie’s sins, and the details. God is not thru with him YET!!!
Actually God is not thru will all of them!!! Poor Vanessa, how could she be blinded by all this mess?