Bishop Eddie Long is the pastor of an Atlanta megachurch and a prominent and controversial opponent of gay marriage. Earlier this fall, Long was accused by four young men of coercing them into sexual relationships with him. Their sexual misconduct lawsuit against him is scheduled to go to mediation in February, with a trial date set for July if the case does not settle before then. Writing in the Huffington Post about the agreement to mediate, blogger Morris W. O’Kelly fumed:
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.
O’Kelly is arguing that Long has an obligation to litigate if he genuinely believes that he is factually blameless. I disagree with Long’s views on gay marriage (and on other things) and I have no idea whether he engaged in sexual misconduct. But let’s say for a moment that he is innocent of the charges (or at least that he genuinely believes he is innocent). That would mean that he is being wrongly accused by his parishioners, who must be in some distress of their own to make such (hypothetically) false accusations. Wouldn’t it be a noble gesture to meet with them to try to resolve their grievances without the public spectacle of a trial? Is it wise to establish a precedent that blameless people should never meet with their accusers to seek reconciliation? Is that the best thing for the victims?
I cannot weigh in on the merits of this case; again, I have no idea what happened, who is acting in good faith, etc. But I would suggest that where the alleged victims of a wrong seek the opportunity to meet with the alleged wrongful actor, we should encourage that kind of engagement.
No one seems to be able to answer the question as to whether this case was court ordered to mediation before trial or not. And that concerns me.
If this case was ordered to mediate before a trial by the judge then all of the accusations that Long is taking the easy way out would be inaccurate.
Mediation is an appropriate way for professing Christians to resolve disputes. See 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Verse 7 is particularly blunt: “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.”
Churches should have bylaws that contain a med/arb process for resolving disputes.
Morris, thanks for the response. What I hope to suggest is that we want to encourage mediation in precisely the cases where there is a wide gulf in perception between people who feel they have been victims and people who feel they have been wrongly accused. I don’t know whether that’s what’s going on here. But it might be. I’d hate to see us create an environment in which accused people feel they cannot meet with their accusers, even when the accusers want to meet.
One other point I should mention is that, as of now, this is a civil matter. If it were a criminal matter, the stakes would be different because of society’s interest in the outcome. I am much less sanguine about mediation in criminal cases, though I believe it can be effective in certain situations.
“Is it wise to establish a precedent that blameless people should never meet with their accusers to seek reconciliation? Is that the best thing for the victims?”
There are a couple of questions to consider within your questions. Is Long “blameless?” Does he consider himself “blameless?” And if either are true, is it appropriate to consider his accusers “victims?”
They’re alleged victims and Long has maintained his innocence. The question for me is then, what is there to “mediate.” There seems to be a wide gulf as to where the truth lies.
If the mediation is to avoid a public spectacle (as opposed to publicly revealing the truth of the nature of the allegations and their validity) then who are the victims and how is justice served?
Remember, (as I indicated in the piece) the truth surrounding the lawsuits involves more than just the issues of sexual coercion. There’s the reputation of the preacher, the ministry and every program/project in which he’s attached.
Again, so I pose the question…where is the upside in mediating “completely false” allegations? Expediency alone doesn’t seem enough.