Joshua L. Lazard: "While there are segments of online communities, such as those here at Religion Dispatches, that have graciously accepted the task of doing the heavy lifting when it comes to public theological discourse, I ask the question: who will be there to help bridge the gap to what Donnie McClurkin said in his video response to the actions of the promoters disinviting him to sing? McClurkin said in a Socialcam video that “It is unfortunate that in today that a black man, a black artist is uninvited to a civil rights movement, depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance….” He goes on to say that: “…Discrimination, bullying is still a part of this…its bullying, it’s discrimination, it’s intolerance and it is depriving someone of their civil rights when they’re told they cannot come to an event and by coming it would cause a disruption. Yet they haven’t told those 15 to 20 people who protested, 15 to 20 people compared to the thousands on top of thousands coming out to worship Jesus and to hear the gospel of music. The promoters had the greatest integrity and fought very hard for this to continue on, but the mayor office systematically and continuously shut it down…. This is unfortunate, this is intolerant, these are bully tactics simply because of stances I took; never ever demeaning, never ever derogatorily addressing any, any lifestyle. But this is a civil rights infringement situation. Imagine that in the 21st century, 2013, I, a black man asked not to attend an affair, because of politics.” Based on those comments McClurkin doesn’t seem to see his 2009 comments of referring to gays and lesbians as “vampires” and young gay males as “broken and feminine” as speech that is considered the epitome of intolerant! Whereas McClurkin employed a rhetoric that was the antithesis of decent pastoral care, and as speech that some could easily see as “unfortunate,” “intolerant” and “bullying,” he then turns to social media, the same platform that carried his own questionable rhetoric in 2009 to the world, to say that he is really the victim, and then oddly chooses to assert his race and gender as the reason for the discrimination. Who is there to engage with him publicly in theological terms?"
Posted on: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:33:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015