Constructing Gender Old Wine In New Media(skins)

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

Constructing Gender: Old Wine in New Media(skins)

Darnell L. Moore

Visiting Scholar, Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality,

New York University New York

mooredarnell@gmail.com

Abstract

Te purpose of this essay is to assess how the preached word — at least the ways in which certain Christian teachings, doctrines, theologies, and moral ideologies are often framed for us through the preaching moment — has much to do with the ways in which gender roles are imagined, constructed, and lived out and even the ways in which gender-based violence and violation can be reinforced. By engaging the teachings of several prominent Pentecostal preach- ers as posted on YouTube, and the multiple/competing responses of the comments sections therein, I seek to demonstrated how new media tools can serve as catalysts for the production and/or reproduction of problematic understandings of gender roles, and how these mediums reinforce sexual ethics that ultimately result in human violation.

Keywords

Juanita Bynum, Bishop Tomas Weeks, YouTube, domestic violence

Constructing Gender: Old Messages in New Media(skins)

Te public can virtually “attend” church at computer stations, by way of live Internet streams, merely by the click of a button. Tere are some who can even load video clips of their favorite sermons directly on their mobile phones. For instance, “Teach Me How to Love You” is an instructional series on intimacy and relationship produced by Pentecostal evangelist Juanita Bynum and her then-husband Bishop Tomas Weeks III. Te YouTube clip aptly labeled “Bishop Weeks Cussin in the Bedroom” (which, as I write this essay, has 302,997 views) captures a six-minute and fifty-five second portion of this teaching.1 Tis clip and the ready access to it speaks to one of the essential

1

Troughout this paper, I include comments that YouTube subscribers have provided in response to the various YouTube clips that are referred to in this essay. As a result, all comments will appear as they were posted on the particular sites both in terms of form and grammar.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/027209611X575041

1

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

255

issues that will be examined in this essay, namely, how televisual and new media means can be used as catalysts for the production and/or reproduction of problematic understandings of gender. Indeed, Bishop Weeks, who was licensed to preach and ordained an Elder under the auspices of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, offers a sermon espousing traditional gender rela- tions within the institution of marriage with an iconoclastic spin. To quote Weeks at length:

Te Bible says that the bedroom is undefiled. Now if the bedroom is undefiled, that means God wants some undefiled stuff to take place in the bedroom. He would’ve never said that the bedroom is undefiled if you did not have any undefiledness [sic] to operate the bedroom . . . So some of the stuff that you just don’t say outside the bed- room is supposed to be saved for the bedroom . . . “Don’t say that while we’re in here. Tat’s not good. Let’s just say I love you baby, ooh baby you feel good, ooh you’re wonderful.” I wish I could say what I want to say right here. You need to get some words that start expressing! You don’t hear me right now, you don’t hear none of that, “Baby, blank, blank, blank, blank, blank!” Ya’ll ain’t sayin’ nothing! “Turn that blank blank blank BLANK blank blank blank blank blank!” Say it! Speak in tongues when you get outside the bedroom. “Ooh, let’s touch and agree” — that ain’t the place to touch and agree. Don’t take your salvation into the bedroom because the bedroom becomes the balance to your salvation. . . . And most people don’t get the enjoyment of that bedroom because you are trying to hold back all of that stuff ‘cause you think God’s gonna send down lightning if you say a couple of extra things . . .2

It goes without saying that Weeks leaves much room for critique in this excerpt. To the more traditional ear and theologically conservative eye, Weeks’s mes- sage provides viewers with an array of problematic sound bites concerning notions of intimacy and relationality. And for those viewers for whom cussin’ — whether partnered with a kick, punch, or shout — is not or has never been a novel practice in the bedroom, the overemphasizing of this practice on the part of Weeks could further the physical violence that takes place within their walls. Yet, what does it mean for us to consider this particular message as a possible normalizing of both a cognition and practice of male-domination, female-subordination that perpetuates the damaging social phenomenon that can lead to what social theorists refer to as institutional violence?3

Tis essay argues that the preached word — at least the ways in which cer- tain Christian teachings, doctrines, theologies, and moral ideologies are often

2

YouTube, “Bishop Weeks ‘Cussin in the bedroom,’” accessed at http://youtube.com/ watch?v=waXrbpFikZU.

3

Ivone Gebara, Out of the Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 79.

2

256

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

framed for us through the preaching moment — has much to do with the ways in which gender is imagined, constructed, and performed.4 In addition, this essay considers the potential of the preached word to function as an instru- ment that may, at times, contain prompts that reinforce gender-based violence and violation. And while physical abuse and sexual violation are imagined as the most conspicuous forms of gender-based offense, this paper examines the tacit violence that emerges in and is perpetuated through the mundane prac- tice of religious broadcasting.5 Feminist theologian Ivone Gebara argues that institutionalized violence against women “is not just one specific act of vio- lence but a social arrangement, a cultural construct geared to degrade one pole of humanity and exalt another.”6 Tus, gender discourse, through which the institutionalized violence and/or social arrangement (of what some might call heteropatriarchy) is framed and maintained, will be examined. Te purpose will be to theorize the extent to which the preached word — and its increased proliferation via new media means such as YouTube — might reproduce or counteract such violence.

In the following, then, thoughts are provided regarding the ways in which increased public access to the preached word through traditional (televisual and radio broadcasts) and new media means (such as social marketing web- sites; internet streaming portals; and video sharing sites like YouTube) pro- vides both positive and unconstructive opportunities for shaping an audience’s understanding of gender. More specifically, this essay will address how broad- ened public access to traditional and new media, particularly online sites such as YouTube, can be the vehicle through which diverse types of theological concepts are diffused. In doing so, this essay will examine the construction of gender through the YouTube sermon clips of three well-known evangelists

4

I am using the term gender to refer to characterizations that are constructed and constituted through the process of identification or the naming of one’s gender identities (i.e., masculine and/or feminine) and through the ways we perform gender identities. In sum, gender roles, or what we name “masculinity” and “femininity,” are nothing more than indefinite and invented categories that are considered fixed and instinctive. Gender orientation, then, is a performance, a caricature at best, of those roles. For some, this concept will appear to be heretical because it challenges the assumption maintained by many that gender is an innate quality. Instead, we (meaning societal groups) construct the gender roles/rules, characterizations, and scripts, and this, in turn, informs our own gendered expressions. In fact, preached messages are but one example of a type of conduit for this gendering process.

5

See Vivian Deno’s very useful article for more on the intersections of gender, race, and Pentecostalism in the United States. “God, Authority, and the Home: Gender, Race, and U.S. Pentecostals, 1906-1926,” Journal of Women’s History 16, no. 3 (2004): 83-105.

6

Gebara, Out of the Depths, 81.

3

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

257

who are clergy within the Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal/Charismatic, or Holi- ness traditions in order to explore the prominent themes present within each message that may illumine the prevalence and presence of naturalized concep- tions of gender within those traditions.

Te Power of the Medium

Te public’s greater access to enhanced modes of new media enables increased contact with preachers and other spiritual teachers. And while recent research suggests that outcomes like increased church membership, at least at mega- churches, may not necessarily be a result of individuals viewing televisual or Internet media, it is important not to understate the potential impact of increased access on viewers’ understandings of Christian faith, principles, and teachings as garnered from messages like Weeks’ “Teach Me How to Love You.”7 Te intent here is not to rebuff Jonathan L. Walton’s prudent consider- ation “to reduce viewers and participants to passive, uncritical spectators . . . deny[ing] the moral agency or critical posture of participants who turn on the television, purchase a DVD, or attend these megachurches who possess their own spiritual aims, interests and concerns.”8 On the contrary, the purpose is to draw attention to the power of the word, in whatever form it is shared, as well as the potential of the medium through which messages are transmitted and assessed to shape viewer’s perceptions, particularly viewer’s understand- ings of gender.

Te distinguished philosopher and communications theorist Marshall McLuhan reminds us through his now classic formulation that the medium itself is the message.9 In other words, the medium — whether it is a televised production, real-time Internet streamed podcast, radio broadcast, or printed material — transmits and transfigures the message in ways that act upon viewers’ perceptions. As such, it is vital to consider the medium through which

7

See Hartford Institute for Religion Research, “Not Who You Tink Tey Are: A Profile of the People Who Attend America’s Megachurches,” by Scott Tumma and Warren Bird. Assessed at http://hirr.hrtsem.edu/megachurch/megachurch_attender_report.htm.

8

Religion Dispatch, “Watch Tis: Te Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism,” by Jonathan Walton. Accessed at http://religiondispatches.org/archive/rdbook/1138/rd10q:_ watch_this!_the_ethics_and_aesthetics_of_black_televangelism/. See also Jonathan Walton’s Watch Tis! Te Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism (New York: New York University Press, 2009).

9

See Marshall McLuhan’s classic work Understanding Media: Te Extensions of Man (New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1964).

4

258

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

the message is packaged. As a case in point, consider the capabilities of You- Tube as a medium: it can be loaded on a computer or mobile phone; it is fairly easy to maneuver and manage; and it is one of the quickest ways to locate a video clip. Moreover, YouTube’s uncomplicated functionality allows the viewer to engage, manipulate, and/or dialogue with the video and other viewers as well. Te power of this particular medium is its ability to provide the space for the viewer to exercise her or his “agency” in ways that traditional media do not. Tis might be one of the reasons why in May 2010 alone, 5,280,027 viewers assessed videos on YouTube, accounting for an increase in month-to- month traffic of 6.8 percent.10 Nonetheless, viewers can easily type in any number of words in the search box and gain instant access to thousands of video clips. For example, after typing in the words “preaching manhood” short and extensive video clips with titles like “Matt Chandler — Defining Masculinity (Part 1),” “Be a Man . . . Biblically [PM Service] Paul Washer,” and “Black Manhood — A Preacher’s Perspective” were listed. In addition, viewers can upload their edited videos and respond to those posted by others as well. Tis particular medium is a virtual gateway into worship spaces across the globe and provides viewers with boundless options in terms of the preachers they choose to view and the video clips that they choose to upload or share. For these reasons, YouTube can appear to be a neo-evangelistic mode of gospel sharing, an advanced form of ministration that may include greater interac- tion with a public in need of a “fresh word.”

Tere are some issues that could complicate the constructive uses of You- Tube and other forms of media technologies that make possible the prolifera- tion of the word. For example, YouTube, arguably, provides viewers increased access to information and enables individuals to “exercise critical human agency through communicating with others,” as Douglas Kellner and Gooyong Kim posit; however, individuals may also encounter virtual spaces that are overdetermined by dominant theologies that further the maintenance of nor- mative ideologies such as those associated with race, class, or gender.11 In this regard, Kellner and Kim assert, “While new media technologies allow indi- viduals to secure unprecedented space for an alternative/counter-hegemonic politics, they also face the risks of ensnaring established social constituencies in the tentacles of the dominant culture and ideology.”12

10

Nielsenwire, “Top Online Video Sites in US for May 2010,” accessed at http://blog.nielsen. com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-online-video-sites-in-u-s-for-may-2010/.

11

Douglas Kellner and Gooyong Kim, “YouTube, Critical Pedagogy, and Media Activism,” Te Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 32 (2010): 3-36, at 17.

12

Ibid., 6.

5

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

259

Take for instance, a nine-minute and 39-second portion of an extensive sermon series by Bishop T. D. Jakes titled “He-Motions,” which the YouTube subscriber notes “. . . is a VITAL sermon on the struggle of manhood . . . that should be passed on to the men in the lives of the viewers.”13 In this particular clip the viewer receives, what seems to be initially a culturally subversive ser- mon on the nature of maleness. But soon into the video Jakes contends:

When women talk, they talk in circles. It reminds me of a plane about to land on a runway [laughs in background]. When a plane is about to land on a runway it doesn’t come straight at it, it circles around and around and then it makes its approach and then it makes its descent and then it hits the runway . . . women talk in circles, men talk in straight lines. Specific instance, to get right to the point, if you’re a woman pas- tor this is critical information because when you’re getting ready to motivate the men in your church, if you approach them in a circular motion you will lose them every time. You gotta be straight, direct and to the point . . . put your feelings out of it. Men don’t understand you when you talk in feelings; you have to talk in facts. We’re moved by facts more than feelings. We talk in straight lines, you talk in circles.

Here Jakes’s teaching is based on the presupposition that men lack affect and emotion and rely solely on cognition and rationality. Tis short YouTube seg- ment raises other issues as well. First, unless the viewer chooses to view the additional clips of this particular series on YouTube, she or he is left without the benefit of a fuller and more detailed context. Te viewer seeking to observe a nuanced teaching moment on the perceived differences between male and female communication and relationality observes instead a fragmentary and potentially pithy instructional tidbit. Tus such decontextualized clips have the potential to belie the preacher’s intent. In this case, it may (or may not) have been Jakes’s intent to suggest that men and women communicate differ- ently because they are innately wired to do so. But without a broader context that allows the sort of nuance and room for qualification and exception that such an unscientific profession would require, listeners may (or may not) (mis) interpret Jakes’s intent.

Second, it also seems that YouTubers are often influenced by the comments of subscribers, regardless of how instructive and informed their comments may be. For example, in a segment of this same series a viewer can also read the following conversation between two YouTube subscribers:

13

YouTube, “HEMOTIONS PT. 6,” accessed at http://youtube.com/watch?v=v07YXfQf4K0.

6

260

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

Subscriber 1: “Can somebody preach a sermon on the He-motional woman?” Subscriber 2: “She-emotional?”

Subscriber 2: “No, the he-motional woman . . . a woman with He-motions (when a women processes emotions like a man.”14

Again, this could be read as a blameless attempt on the part of the viewers to engage the video. Some may even regard this type of virtual dialogue posi- tively, a much-needed form of communication/interaction between listeners and preachers. Yet, this particular conversation demonstrates how prevailing the messenger’s words are in determining the religious discourse of partici- pants. Tis example also demonstrates the influence maintained by the You- Tube subscriber in terms of shaping the thoughts of other viewers. In this case, it is clear that at least one of the viewers walked away having concretized in their minds Jakes’s teaching regarding the gendering of emotions: that is, feel- ings are feminine characteristics and rationality is a masculine characteristic. For this particular viewer, Jakes’s teaching framed an inequitable conception of gender. His message reconfigures the gendered paradigm that constitutes the heteropatriarchal social arrangement. It is an institutionalized violence that is steeped in our understandings of gender as a particular understanding of difference maintained through what Gebara names “a historical process that has subjected women to domination and marginalization because of their enculturated biology.”15 For Jakes and the particular viewer mentioned above, the demonstration of “feelings” is ostensibly understood as a gendered emo- tion that is a product of biology.

While it might have been the case that the viewer brought to the video particularized understandings of gender insofar as what was observed merely reinforced previously held notions, this example demonstrates the power of the message and the medium: the message functions as a script, of sorts, providing the language and cues that may, indeed, shape the ways in which viewers will subsequently perform gender in their relationships and the medium, serving as a platform for communication and exchange, functioning as a site for the production and proliferation of dominant gender knowledge. YouTube, in this case, becomes a virtual portal for cyber call and response where the viewer is provided the space to offer an affirming amen or strong critique in response to the message within a cyberspace community.16 More- over, YouTube provides the viewer with an opportunity for dialogue with

14

Ibid.

15

Gebara, Out of the Depths, 79.

16

I would like to thank Ashon T. Crawley for pointing out the various ways in which new

7

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

261

others who may post constructive or problematic responses to clips. Tis inno- vative form of engagement, that is, a virtual encounter with both the message and the viewing audience, presents an opportunity for potential theological spillage (as evidenced through the aforementioned example where the sub- scriber seemingly acquiesces to Jakes’s imprudent teaching on gendered emo- tions) or for constructive catechizing that can inevitably shape the views, theologies, and lives of millions of viewers.

To be sure, Kellner and Kim offer the following consideration on a few of the dangers present within emergent technologies:

Although emergent technologies provide the potential that individuals can ‘‘empower themselves in relation to dominant media and culture’’ . . . and can provide the oppressed with ever more liberating forum for the counter-hegemonic politics of cul- ture, there are also limitations that must be confronted concerning the political econ- omy of the media and technology, their imbrications in the dominant social and political system, and the ways that media and technology generate social reproduction and can be part of an apparatus of social domination [emphasis added].17

For this reason, it is vital for the messengers, who may or may not use new media to spread the word, to consider the potential impact that their messages will have in the lives of those who consume them via new media means. Te affective power of these messages and the media through which they are chan- neled is evidenced through the capacity of these messages to serve as scripts that without doubt frame the viewers’ cognitions and actions. I cite, again, the YouTube clip of Jakes’s teaching, which reinscribes the false notion that women are complicated, impulsive, and irrational and that men are unam- biguous, targeted, and cogent. Jakes’s message on “He-motions” does nothing more than re-script an old caricature for male viewers to perform: He-Man, “the most powerful man in the universe.”

Te Power of the Message: I’m Still the Man

When considering the power of the message and the medium and, in particu- lar, the ways in which messages serve as scripts or playbooks for gender perfor- mance that are readily accessible by way of new media means, it is important to inquire how gender roles and rules are characterized in these messages. In

media reinvents call and response and for the potential of new media to serve not only as a medium for messages but also as a means through which gender is queered.

17

Kellner and Kim, “YouTube, Critical Pedagogy, and Media Activism,” 6.

8

262

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

the following, an analysis of two video clips and one audio clip that were accessed online, capturing portions of the messages of three familiar preachers whose ministries are informed by Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal traditions, is offered. I will analyze posted sermons of Reverend Dr. Jamal-Harrison Bryant, Dr. Juanita Bynum II, and Bishop Alfred A. Owens with the purpose of exploring the ways in which hegemonic gender characterizations and assump- tions have the potential for obstructing human relationality.18 Furthermore, this analysis will attempt to demonstrate the amplified nature of such gen- dered messaging when propagated through new media means and how the production of these videos and audio clips heighten opportunities for decon- textualized yet overdetermined discourse on the part of the viewers.

Tis section begins with a turn to a video upload of a sermon by Reverend Dr. Jamal Harrison-Bryant, which is entitled, most appropriately for the dis- cussion at hand, “I’m Sill the Man!” Te particular clip was uploaded on a website titled takemeblack.com.19 As I write, this sermon clip upload on You- Tube had been viewed 11,654 times.20 Te following analysis centers on Bry- ant’s conception of “Te Man,” or rather, the characterizations that Bryant presents that may shape viewers’ understandings of masculinity.

In this particular clip, Bryant offers an impassioned exhortation on what it means to be “Te Man.” He states, “. . . being the man ain’t what you drive and what you wear or what it is that you possess and command, but being a man is what it is that you have on the inside.”21 Bryant seems to suggest that one’s sense of “manliness” is independent of markers like materiality or outward

18

Rev. Dr. Jamal Harrison-Bryant, Dr. Juanita Bynum II, and Bishop Alfred A. Owens, Jr. maintain connections to Pentecostal traditions. Bynum was reared in the Church of God in Christ, served as a Pentecostal evangelist during her teenage years, and would later be responsible for the management of the Bible institute and training ministry at New Greater Bethel Ministries in Hempstead, New York. Owens is the founder and pastor of Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church and was consecrated a Bishop in the Mt. Calvary Holy Church of America, Inc. in 1988, and Vice Bishop in 2001. Owens has also served as the Dean of the Joint College of African American Pentecostal Bishops. And although Bryant is the founder and pastor of Te Empower- ment Temple AME Church, C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence Mamiya trace neo-Pentecostalism to Bryant’s father, Bishop John Bryant. See C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence Mamiya, Te Black Church in the African-American Experience (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990). Tus the messages that are assessed in this section are those of pastors/evangelists with deep roots in the certain sects of the conservation tradition.

19

YouTube, “(Jamal Bryant) Still Te Man! “Committing adultery on his wife, ignoring his illigitimate kids,” assessed at http://youtube.com/watch?v=tIiS-wzLsrM.

20

Takemeblack.com, “Dr. Jamal Bryant: I’m Still the Man,” accessed at: http://takemeblack. wordpress.com/category/dr-jamal-bryant.

21

Ibid.

9

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

263

appearance. In contrast to the ways that “real” men are typically characterized in film, print, and other forms of popular culture — for example, money, cars, clothes, and beautiful women — Bryant provides a welcome amendment. What is more, he references 2 Samuel 12 as the scriptural passage that grounds his sermon. In this text the prophet Nathan uses a parable to condemn King David’s adulterous behavior with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah. Nathan tells of a rich man who, despite owning many flocks of herd, elected to take the sole lamb owned by a poor man in town for himself and guests. Te Scripture passage then states that “David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die. He shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and because he had no pity.’ Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man!’ ”22 Te reader encounters Nathan firmly rebuking David, as the indictment “You are the man!” is not referencing David’s acclaim, power, or status. Yet, Bryant’s use of the colloquial phrase “I’m the Man,” supposedly mirroring the Scripture reference, underscores a different use of the term that seems to main- tain a latent theme that is more adverse than useful. Bryant goes on to declare, “so let me say to all of you who are here, and I’m finished: I want you to know I’m still the man. In spite of what it is that God has provided me through. In spite of my failures, in spite of my shortcomings, in spite of my failures, in spite of me falling down I’m still the man. If you’re not here next week, I’m still preaching. If you don’t come Tuesday, I’m still preacher. If you turn the TV off next Sunday night, I’ll still be a preacher.”23 Moreover, the visual dimensions of the medium come with their own sets of polyvalent messaging that poten- tially belie Bryant’s initial articulated sentiment of modesty and sobriety. An exquisite white Windsor collar, a custom-tailored navy blue suit, and a con- spicuous diamond pinky ring model for viewers the materialism consistent of a hip-hop mogul that Bryant professes to reject. Not to mention that Bryant, who at the time was going through a very public divorce due to charges of infidelity and fathering an additional child outside of his marriage, had to have realized when preparing his sermon that “I’m the Man” is a phrase that implies everything but humility. Rather, the use of the phrase “I’m the Man” as a title and theme projects an air of hubris that is evinced through Bryant’s own words and performance. After having preached a definitive word, Bryant simply places the mic on the podium, turns away from the congregation, and confidently walks off stage.

22

2 Samuel 12:7-10 NRSV (emphasis added).

23

http://takemeblack.wordpress.com/category/dr-jamal-bryant.

10

264

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

One way to interpret Bryant’s sermon is to understand the “man” as always appointed and only accountable to “Te Man.” Tis is to say, no one besides the real “MAN” (God) can impinge, threaten, or call into question his charis- matic gifts, power, and appeal. In this regard “Te Man” is omnipotent and, in effect, free from censure and reproof. Tis is, of course, in contrast to the manner in which Nathan employs the phrase used by Bryant to ground his sermon. In fact, his words and performance appeared to be antithetical to the very theme of the passage. Tis particular medium afforded Bryant the oppor- tunity to convey competing messages to multiple audiences. To some, the selection of this particular scriptural text and references to Nathan’s reproof of David can be read as Bryant’s own admission of guilt — “I am the man!” — and acknowledgement of a need for pastoral accountability. To others the ser- mon title coupled with his physical posturing might be read as his defiant stance of righteous indignation against critics, the proud declaration of one who acknowledges his mistakes, yet refuses to allow himself to get in the way of the call of “Te Man.”

Tis example also reveals the power of new media to complicate potentially problematic discourse that might otherwise go unchecked. As previously dis- cussed, YouTube allows for a dialogue between the message and the recipients of the message. Interestingly, of the eleven comments that can be found on the YouTube page as of this date, all of them criticize Bryant and/or Bryant’s mes- sage. For example, one YouTube subscriber commented, “Huh?? David had a BROKEN & REPENTANT spirit over his sins. . . . he didn’t get in a pulpit saying ‘I’m still the man!’ ”24 Tis particular subscriber’s comment illuminates the ways in which contextual factors may also influence viewer’s understand- ings of the message. Another YouTube subscriber stated, “So thats it? A jack leg preacher can cheat all over his wife, and get back up in the pulpit and keep on pimping? Its amazing the game you can run on a black women. and they wonder why they spend their entire lives, mad, lonely, dealing with std’s deal- ing with men who want sex but not marriage, or want kids, but not a family.”25 Yet, the intent here is to draw attention to the issues that may influence the ways in which viewers will read Bryant’s sermon and to explore the counter- readings that are offered by the viewers. It is clear that some viewers consumed Bryant’s sermon while others interrogated Bryant’s interpretation of “Te Man” vis-à-vis 2 Samuel 12:7, thus illuminating the potential of new media to serve as a medium for cyber-dialogue and critique. Most obvious in the

24

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tIiS-wzLsrM. 25

Ibid.

11

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

265

dialogue, however, are the several piercing critiques of the invisibly-visible characterizations of men (overconfident, controlling, fearful of no other but God) that is present in Bryant’s words and performance.

You Ain’t Getting It . . .

“Juanita Bynum: She’s Not a Woman of Her Word”26 is a video upload named by a YouTube subscriber. It is clear that the subscriber created and posted this video with the intent to challenge Bynum; this, again, demonstrates the poten- tial for new media to serve as hyperspaces where critical dialogue between the message/messengers and recipients/participants can take place. Te subscriber captures Bynum preaching a sermon in church in which she explains the roles and rules of the wife. Te video is edited such that the subscriber only includes several moments from the sermon that she or he apparently wanted to criti- cize. As a result, the viewers are left without the benefit of having access to a full sermon. Actually, a viewer noted the following in a comment responding to the video: “What I don’t like about this is, it’s not showing the whole thing. It’s cutting certain parts out.”27 But what this example demonstrates is the potential of the message, even when it has been manipulated and presented within new media means, to influence the ways in which viewers understand gender roles and rules for either good or bad.

Te clip begins with a title page created by the subscriber that includes the words “Pride vs. Proverbs 31: She Preaches the Word but Can She Live It” and follows with a segment in which Bynum delivers the following:

I don’t care if me and my husband get into an argument, I’m not gonna ever deny my husband what God says is his. “I ain’t ain’t gonna do . . . I’m mad at you . . . and don’t you touch me . . . you ain’t getting it for three days and you ain’t getting it for four days and you ain’t getting it for five.” Well, you keep on doing that kind of foolishness cause after while he ain’t gonna want it . . .28

Although the video has been edited in a way that does not allow the viewer the opportunity to place this statement within the fuller context of Bynum’s ser- mon, it is important to consider the impact that this statement could have on the viewer. It appears that Bynum, essentially, reduces the role of the wife/

26

YouTube, “Juanita Bynum: She’s Not a Woman of Her Word,” accessed at http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=6UwxKboxj60&feature=related.

27

Ibid.

28

Ibid.

12

266

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

woman to that of a passive, pleasure-providing, non-agential sex apparatus. In fact, she hints at the possibility that the wife/woman who fails to provide her husband with pleasure/sex is responsible when he decides that “he ain’t gonna want it.” Many may find fault with this sentiment (possibly including Bynum herself); however, it was clear from a cursory review of the 996 comments left in response to this video clip that there are many who agree.29 For example, one viewer commented, “Tis is a awsome word!!! she is a true woman of God, while another wrote, “your are an inspiration to women every where. stay strong in the lord at all times.”30 Yet, the power of YouTube as a means of new media communication is, again, its potential for enhanced dialogue in the cyber domain. Tus, while there were many who voiced their endorsement of Bynum’s’ remarks, there were others who provided rousing rejoinders to the message, the messenger, and the thoughts of other viewers. For example, one viewer commented:

. . . you preach that in marriage a woman’s body belongs to her husband, so wouldn’t that mean your husband had every right to beat the snot out of you? After all you sicko, you said he owns your body. It’s sick thinking like that that leads to the devalu- ation of females lives. I bet you odd balls can’t wait till the 21st century witch hunts of women star. You’re an embarrasement to females . . .31

Te viewer’s comment, notwithstanding the use of the pejorative tone in which it is presented, presents a direct retort to the message and messenger. Te viewer reads Bynum’s message as a catalyst for the “devaluation of female lives” in contrast to Bynum’s seeming understanding that her message provides the rubric for executing the proper role of the wife/woman. What Bynum sees as womanly respectability, the viewer sees as sexism.

Tough some of the viewers of this clip cast Bynum as the promulgator of sexist ideology, she also becomes the target of sexism and chauvinism. For instance, one viewer declared, “She’s got a lot of bitterness and has a dom- inating women’s empowerment spirit that is NOT of God. Tis is ungodly demonized stuff.”32 Te viewer characterizes Bynum as a bitter and dominat- ing women’s empowerment propagandist. Te subscriber’s remarks remind us that new media can function as a means for the virtual embodiment of those who are typically subjugated within the Church. In this case, the viewer

29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.

13

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

267

responds to a video recording of a sermon by a woman and aimed primarily at woman as “ungodly demonized stuff.”

33

Te mere presence of the video within a cyber domain that is partially controlled by the individual viewer (whether the viewer is female, male, gay, bisexual, transgender, and so forth, as opposed to a physical domain controlled by hierarchal and often sexist systems, pro- duces a dogmatist, sexist reaction from a viewer. In sum, what I am attempting to demonstrate is the complex process of gender-constructing — and even gender-razing — that new media, in this case YouTube, allows.

No Faggot or No Sissy . . .

“Fan or Follower,” is a sermon given by Bishop Alfred A. Owens, pastor of Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church in Washington, D.C. Te particular segment discussed below is captured on an audio clip maintained on the Washington City Paper website.34 Up until now, this essay has given attention to matters of gender, gender roles and rules, and gender orientation and performance as constructed or challenged in the messages of preachers as pre- sented through new media means, YouTube in particular. Tis example, however, provides another vantage point for investigating the power of the message and the medium in constructing gender. Even more, the listener is not only instructed on the nature of masculinity (gender), but is admonished about homosexuality (sexual orientation). Tus, this example illumines the ways sexual identity is gendered and how gender is sexualized.

Te audio clip opens with Owens’s demand that all of the men in his church stand up. “All the men in the church, all the men, stand up right now. Ain’t no use hiding ‘cause the women outweigh you three to one. Just look around . . . look at somebody and say, ‘Where the brothers?’ You may be seated.”35 Unlike a video clip in which one visually assesses the corporal movements and expres- sions of the messenger and various sounds that emanate from the video, the audio clip only allows for an audio assessment. To be sure, it was certainly clear to me upon listening to these opening words that Owens’s excited voice, which blazed throughout the clip, had been matched by the fervent and affirming responses of the congregation. It is important to note this observation because it possibly confirms what appears to be the complicity of many in the congre- gation regarding Owens’s remarks.

33

Ibid.

34

Washington City Paper, “Bishop Alfred A. Owens,” accessed at http://washington citypaper.com/cd_img/0505owens.mp3.

35

Ibid.

14

268

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

Owens continues developing his sermon and draws a distinction between “real men” and those who are not. He ardently declares, “All those brothers who think that church is for punks and church is for sissies, you don’t know the word of the Lord. Te church is never for punks or sissies, but you a real man when you can stand up and make a commitment for Jesus Christ. It takes a real man to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. I’m not talking about no faggot or no sissy, I mean a real man who has made up their mind, ‘I’m gonna serve God to the. . . .’ ”36

Here Owens begins to delineate “real men” as those who “confess Jesus as Lord and Savior,” men who have “made up their minds” about serving God, brothers who are not “punks,” men who are not “faggots,” and brothers who are not “sissies.” So, in Owens’s estimation, and apparently that of many of his congregants, real men are not feeble (not punks), they are not homosexual/ bisexual (not faggots) and they are not effeminate (not sissies). In other words, real men are always physically strong, heterosexual, and stridently masculine in posture. In fact, any man who does not perform a masculine gender orien- tation and who does not identify as heterosexual is not considered a man at all; any man who does not fit the categorical representation appears to be reduced to an uncomplimentary other and no-thing (punk, sissy, faggot). It also seems that Owens understands masculine gender and heterosexual identification as being mutually inclusive, that is, he seemingly understands gender and sexual identity as unequivocally linked. What Owens fails to understand, though, is the reality that his understanding of gender and its connection to sexual iden- tification is no more tangible than his definition of the “real” man. Indeed, such linkages and definitions are the reason that many men and women acqui- esce to constructed rules and roles that frustrate their senses of self and rela- tionships to others.37

Next Bishop Owens requests that all the “real men” walk to the altar when he commands, “Wait a minute, let all the real mens come on down here and take a bow . . . all the real men. I’m talking about the straight men, you ain’t funny and you ain’t cranky but you straight, come on down here. And walk around and praise God that you straight!’ ”38 Is it possible that some of the men — particularly, those who are homosexual/bisexual — walked to the altar out of fear or complicity? Is it possible that Owens’s “sissy” hunt served as a

36

Ibid.

37

See, for example, Mark Anthony Neal’s New Black Man: Rethinking Black Masculinity (New York: Routledge, 2005).

38

Ibid.

15

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

269

prompt/cue for gender and sexual identity conformance? And in what ways does the recycling and audio extending of this message reinscribe particular logics about gender and sexuality in the community while obscuring the life- transforming and potentially edifying dimensions of this ministry that attracts thousands of worshipers each Sunday?

Principal Lessons

Te popular sound clips examined in this essay perform the task of gendering bodies. Te leitmotif of each of the sermons bears remarkable resemblance to what black feminist scholars Johnnetta Betsch Cole and Beverly Guy-Sheftall describe as the “principal lessons” that they learned as children who were nur- tured in Black churches. Cole and Guy-Sheftall recall:

What were the principal lessons about gender that we were taught and indeed that countless African American children learn in Sunday school, church services, and the year-round church activities in which they participate? Tat God is male and that Jesus is both white and male; that the relationship between women and men in everyday life is to be like that between God and His church, for God is the head of the church, and all members are to follow Him; and that God and all of His people will look down on a “bad woman” (for example, one who gets pregnant out of wedlock) and praise “a virtuous woman” (for example, one who is a loyal helpmate to her husband and a good mother to her children).39

Te sermonizing of Weeks, Jakes, Bryant, Bynum, and Owens, like the lessons shared with Cole and Guy-Sheftall, serve as forms of heterosexist policing, that is, the words/messages/acts seek to maintain the static formulations of gender and relationality bound up in the heteronormative imaginary and ostensible desires to regulate the bodies, the agency, the volition, and the essences of being of those who may traverse the bounds of those formulations. Tese messages function as apparatuses of power that arrest (and assault) the agential and ontological potential of men (and women) and function, therefore, as nothing less than a form of institutional violence enacted from the pulpit.

Vivian Deno argues that both “Pentecostal and conservative evangelical lan- guage promotes a timeless or traditional sense of gender and family.”40 Within

39

Johnnetta Betsch Cole and Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Gender Talk: Te Struggle for Women’s Equality in African American Communities (New York: One World, 2003), 104.

40

Deno, “God, Authority, and the Home,” 99.

16

270

D. L. Moore / Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

the sermons offered, there exists a seeming prescriptive gender motif (physi- cally and emotionally strong, head/king of the home and the bedroom, “the Man”) that is promulgated. But with the prevalence of women preachers, like Bynum, who were able to carve out an empowered space and claim vast audi- ences within the Pentecostal tradition, largely because of this tradition’s cre- ative use of media technology, how might we begin thinking about this tradition as both a “site for male-centeredness and a site to resistance to male domination”?41 Te answer falls on the potential of language to shape the cog- nition, ideologies, and practices of audiences and the potential to produce particularized gendered bodies as a result. Not just the orality of these gifted homileticians, but their aesthetic postures and visual presentations within multiple contexts. Tis is why serious consideration must be given to the medium through which messages are transmitted.

New media are terrains of conflict. While the potential for information sharing and viral communication is promising, it is important to consider the possibility that such media might enable and enhance the reproduction of social ideologies and theologies that sanction unjust social arrangements en masse. Considering the number of individuals who peruse new media sites, it is important to reflect on the routes through which information rapidly and freely flow and the ways the word is reshaped, distorted, decontextualized, and even damaged in the process. My particular concern is gender and gender orientation. And when potentially damaging themes are projected uncritically with the potential to take on a new media life of its own (for example, godly wives should “give it up” when their husbands want it; women shouldn’t “talk in circles” or express emotions because men only “talk in lines” and can’t pro- cess in the same way; real men aren’t sissy/cranks/faggots), this can influence the ways in which we relate as intimate partners and as neighbors. Because of this, it is vitally important that we seriously consider what we preach and propagate regarding gender and human relationality overall. Te lives of those on the receiving end of the words that we emit, especially the growing number of those engaging new media, depends on our ability to be ever vigilant, thoughtful, and nuanced with our words and with our bodies.

41

Cole and Guy-Sheftall, Gender Talk, 121.

17