Pneuma 33 (2011) 254-270

brill.nl/pneu

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
The 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 preachers 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 Thomas Weeks, YouTube, domestic violence

Constructing Gender: Old Messages in New Media(skins)

The public can virtually attend church at computer stations, by way of live
Internet streams, merely by the click of a button. There 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 Thomas Weeks III. The 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 fty-ve second portion of this
teaching.1 This clip and the ready access to it speaks to one of the essential
1
Throughout 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

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, oers a sermon espousing traditional gender relations within the institution of marriage with an iconoclastic spin. To quote
Weeks at length:
The Bible says that the bedroom is undeled. Now if the bedroom is undeled, that
means God wants some undeled stu to take place in the bedroom. He wouldve
never said that the bedroom is undeled if you did not have any undeledness [sic] to
operate the bedroom . . . So some of the stu that you just dont say outside the bedroom is supposed to be saved for the bedroom . . . Dont say that while were in here.
Thats not good. Lets just say I love you baby, ooh baby you feel good, ooh youre
wonderful. I wish I could say what I want to say right here. You need to get some
words that start expressing! You dont hear me right now, you dont hear none of that,
Baby, blank, blank, blank, blank, blank! Yall aint 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, lets touch and agree that aint the place to
touch and agree. Dont take your salvation into the bedroom because the bedroom
becomes the balance to your salvation. . . . And most people dont get the enjoyment of
that bedroom because you are trying to hold back all of that stu cause you think
Gods 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, Weekss message 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
This essay argues that the preached word at least the ways in which certain Christian teachings, doctrines, theologies, and moral ideologies are often
2
YouTube, Bishop Weeks Cussin in the bedroom, accessed at http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=waXrbpFikZU.
3
Ivone Gebara, Out of the Depths: Womens Experience of Evil and Salvation (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2002), 79.

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 instrument 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 oense, this paper examines the
tacit violence that emerges in and is perpetuated through the mundane practice of religious broadcasting.5 Feminist theologian Ivone Gebara argues that
institutionalized violence against women is not just one specic act of violence but a social arrangement, a cultural construct geared to degrade one pole
of humanity and exalt another.6 Thus, gender discourse, through which the
institutionalized violence and/or social arrangement (of what some might call
heteropatriarchy) is framed and maintained, will be examined. The 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 websites; internet streaming portals; and video sharing sites like YouTube) provides both positive and unconstructive opportunities for shaping an audiences
understanding of gender. More specically, this essay will address how broadened 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 diused. 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 identication or the naming of ones 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 indenite and invented
categories that are considered xed 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 Denos 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 Womens History 16, no. 3 (2004): 83-105.
6
Gebara, Out of the Depths, 81.

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

257

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

The Power of the Medium

The publics 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 megachurches, 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 The intent here is not to rebu Jonathan L. Waltons prudent consideration 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 viewers perceptions, particularly viewers understandings of gender.
The 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 transgures 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 Think They Are: A Prole of
the People Who Attend Americas Megachurches, by Scott Thumma and Warren Bird. Assessed
at http://hirr.hrtsem.edu/megachurch/megachurch_attender_report.htm.
8
Religion Dispatch, Watch This: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism, by
Jonathan Walton. Accessed at http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/rdbook/1138/rd10q:_
watch_this!_the_ethics_and_aesthetics_of_black_televangelism/. See also Jonathan Waltons
Watch This! The Ethics and Aesthetics of Black Televangelism (New York: New York University
Press, 2009).
9
See Marshall McLuhans classic work Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York:
Mc Graw-Hill, 1964).

258

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

the message is packaged. As a case in point, consider the capabilities of YouTube 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, YouTubes uncomplicated functionality allows the viewer
to engage, manipulate, and/or dialogue with the video and other viewers as
well. The 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. This 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-tomonth trac 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 Dening
Masculinity (Part 1), Be a Man . . . Biblically [PM Service] Paul Washer, and
Black Manhood A Preachers Perspective were listed. In addition, viewers
can upload their edited videos and respond to those posted by others as well.
This 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 interaction with a public in need of a fresh word.
There are some issues that could complicate the constructive uses of YouTube and other forms of media technologies that make possible the proliferation 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 normative ideologies such as those associated with race, class, or gender.11 In this
regard, Kellner and Kim assert, While new media technologies allow individuals 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,
The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 32 (2010): 3-36, at 17.
12
Ibid., 6.

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 sermon 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 doesnt
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. Specic instance, to get right to the point, if youre a woman pastor this is critical information because when youre 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
dont understand you when you talk in feelings; you have to talk in facts. Were moved
by facts more than feelings. We talk in straight lines, you talk in circles.

Here Jakess teaching is based on the presupposition that men lack aect and
emotion and rely solely on cognition and rationality. This short YouTube segment 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 benet of a fuller and more detailed context. The viewer seeking to observe
a nuanced teaching moment on the perceived dierences between male and
female communication and relationality observes instead a fragmentary and
potentially pithy instructional tidbit. Thus such decontextualized clips have
the potential to belie the preachers intent. In this case, it may (or may not)
have been Jakess intent to suggest that men and women communicate dierently because they are innately wired to do so. But without a broader context
that allows the sort of nuance and room for qualication and exception that
such an unscientic profession would require, listeners may (or may not) (mis)
interpret Jakess intent.
Second, it also seems that YouTubers are often inuenced 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v07YXfQf4K0.

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 positively, a much-needed form of communication/interaction between listeners
and preachers. Yet, this particular conversation demonstrates how prevailing
the messengers words are in determining the religious discourse of participants. This example also demonstrates the inuence maintained by the YouTube 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 Jakess teaching regarding the gendering of emotions: that is, feelings are feminine characteristics and rationality is a masculine characteristic.
For this particular viewer, Jakess teaching framed an inequitable conception of
gender. His message recongures 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
dierence 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 emotion 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 oer an arming amen or strong
critique in response to the message within a cyberspace community.16 Moreover, YouTube provides the viewer with an opportunity for dialogue with
14
15
16

Ibid.
Gebara, Out of the Depths, 79.
I would like to thank Ashon T. Crawley for pointing out the various ways in which new

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

261

others who may post constructive or problematic responses to clips. This innovative 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 subscriber seemingly acquiesces to Jakess imprudent teaching on gendered emotions) or for constructive catechizing that can inevitably shape the views,
theologies, and lives of millions of viewers.
To be sure, Kellner and Kim oer 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 culture, there are also limitations that must be confronted concerning the political economy 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. The
aective power of these messages and the media through which they are channeled 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 Jakess teaching, which reinscribes the false notion that
women are complicated, impulsive, and irrational and that men are unambiguous, targeted, and cogent. Jakess 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.

The Power of the Message: Im Still the Man

When considering the power of the message and the medium and, in particular, the ways in which messages serve as scripts or playbooks for gender performance 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.

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
oered. 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 assumptions have the potential for obstructing human relationality.18 Furthermore,
this analysis will attempt to demonstrate the amplied nature of such gendered messaging when propagated through new media means and how the
production of these videos and audio clips heighten opportunities for decontextualized yet overdetermined discourse on the part of the viewers.
This 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 discussion at hand, Im Sill the Man! The particular clip was uploaded on a
website titled takemeblack.com.19 As I write, this sermon clip upload on YouTube had been viewed 11,654 times.20 The following analysis centers on Bryants conception of The Man, or rather, the characterizations that Bryant
presents that may shape viewers understandings of masculinity.
In this particular clip, Bryant oers an impassioned exhortation on what it
means to be The Man. He states, . . . being the man aint 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 ones
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 The Empowerment Temple AME Church, C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence Mamiya trace neo-Pentecostalism to
Bryants father, Bishop John Bryant. See C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence Mamiya, The Black
Church in the African-American Experience (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990). Thus
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 The Man! Committing adultery on his wife, ignoring his
illigitimate kids, assessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIiS-wzLsrM.
20
Takemeblack.com, Dr. Jamal Bryant: Im Still the Man, accessed at: http://takemeblack.
wordpress.com/category/dr-jamal-bryant.
21
Ibid.

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

263

appearance. In contrast to the ways that real men are typically characterized
in lm, 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
Davids adulterous behavior with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah.
Nathan tells of a rich man who, despite owning many ocks of herd, elected
to take the sole lamb owned by a poor man in town for himself and guests. The
Scripture passage then states that Davids 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
The reader encounters Nathan rmly rebuking David, as the indictment
You are the man! is not referencing Davids acclaim, power, or status. Yet,
Bryants use of the colloquial phrase Im the Man, supposedly mirroring the
Scripture reference, underscores a dierent use of the term that seems to maintain 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 Im nished: I want you to know
Im 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 Im still the man. If youre not here next week, Im still
preaching. If you dont come Tuesday, Im still preacher. If you turn the TV o
next Sunday night, Ill still be a preacher.23 Moreover, the visual dimensions
of the medium come with their own sets of polyvalent messaging that potentially belie Bryants initial articulated sentiment of modesty and sobriety. An
exquisite white Windsor collar, a custom-tailored navy blue suit, and a conspicuous 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
indelity and fathering an additional child outside of his marriage, had to
have realized when preparing his sermon that Im the Man is a phrase that
implies everything but humility. Rather, the use of the phrase Im the Man
as a title and theme projects an air of hubris that is evinced through Bryants
own words and performance. After having preached a denitive word, Bryant
simply places the mic on the podium, turns away from the congregation, and
condently walks o stage.
22
23

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

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

264

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

One way to interpret Bryants sermon is to understand the man as always

appointed and only accountable to The Man. This is to say, no one besides
the real MAN (God) can impinge, threaten, or call into question his charismatic gifts, power, and appeal. In this regard The Man is omnipotent and,
in eect, free from censure and reproof. This 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. This particular medium aorded Bryant the opportunity to convey competing messages to multiple audiences. To some, the
selection of this particular scriptural text and references to Nathans reproof of
David can be read as Bryants own admission of guilt I am the man!
and acknowledgement of a need for pastoral accountability. To others the sermon title coupled with his physical posturing might be read as his deant
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 The Man.
This example also reveals the power of new media to complicate potentially
problematic discourse that might otherwise go unchecked. As previously discussed, 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 Bryants message. For example, one YouTube subscriber commented, Huh?? David had a
BROKEN & REPENTANT spirit over his sins. . . . he didnt get in a pulpit
saying Im still the man! 24 This particular subscribers comment illuminates
the ways in which contextual factors may also inuence viewers understandings 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 stds dealing 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 inuence the
ways in which viewers will read Bryants sermon and to explore the counterreadings that are oered by the viewers. It is clear that some viewers consumed
Bryants sermon while others interrogated Bryants interpretation of The
Man vis--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
25

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

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

265

dialogue, however, are the several piercing critiques of the invisibly-visible

characterizations of men (overcondent, controlling, fearful of no other but
God) that is present in Bryants words and performance.
You Aint Getting It . . .
Juanita Bynum: Shes Not a Woman of Her Word26 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 potential for new media to serve as hyperspaces where critical dialogue between the
message/messengers and recipients/participants can take place. The subscriber
captures Bynum preaching a sermon in church in which she explains the roles
and rules of the wife. The video is edited such that the subscriber only includes
several moments from the sermon that she or he apparently wanted to criticize. As a result, the viewers are left without the benet of having access to a
full sermon. Actually, a viewer noted the following in a comment responding
to the video: What I dont like about this is, its not showing the whole thing.
Its 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 inuence the ways in which viewers understand
gender roles and rules for either good or bad.
The 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 dont care if me and my husband get into an argument, Im not gonna ever deny my
husband what God says is his. I aint aint gonna do . . . Im mad at you . . . and dont
you touch me . . . you aint getting it for three days and you aint getting it for four days
and you aint getting it for ve. Well, you keep on doing that kind of foolishness cause
after while he aint 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 Bynums sermon, 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: Shes Not a Woman of Her Word, accessed at http://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=6UwxKboxj60&feature=related.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.

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 aint gonna
want it. Many may nd 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, This 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. Thus, while there were many who voiced their endorsement of
Bynums 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 womans body belongs to her husband, so wouldnt
that mean your husband had every right to beat the snot out of you? After all you
sicko, you said he owns your body. Its sick thinking like that that leads to the devaluation of females lives. I bet you odd balls cant wait till the 21st century witch hunts of
women star. Youre an embarrasement to females . . .31

The viewers comment, notwithstanding the use of the pejorative tone in

which it is presented, presents a direct retort to the message and messenger.
The viewer reads Bynums message as a catalyst for the devaluation of female
lives in contrast to Bynums 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.
Though 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, Shes got a lot of bitterness and has a dominating womens empowerment spirit that is NOT of God. This is ungodly
demonized stu.32 The viewer characterizes Bynum as a bitter and dominating womens empowerment propagandist. The subscribers 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
30
31
32

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

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 stu.33 The 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, produces 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. The 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 presented through new media means, YouTube in particular. This 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). Thus, this example illumines the
ways sexual identity is gendered and how gender is sexualized.
The audio clip opens with Owenss demand that all of the men in his church
stand up. All the men in the church, all the men, stand up right now. Aint 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 expressions 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 Owenss excited voice, which
blazed throughout the clip, had been matched by the fervent and arming
responses of the congregation. It is important to note this observation because
it possibly conrms what appears to be the complicity of many in the congregation regarding Owenss remarks.
33

Ibid.
Washington City Paper, Bishop Alfred A. Owens, accessed at http://www.washington
citypaper.com/cd_img/0505owens.mp3.
35
Ibid.
34

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 dont know
the word of the Lord. The 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. Im not talking about no faggot
or no sissy, I mean a real man who has made up their mind, Im 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 Owenss 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 eeminate (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 orientation and who does not identify as heterosexual is not considered a man at all;
any man who does not t 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 identication 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 identication is no more tangible than his denition of the real man. Indeed,
such linkages and denitions are the reason that many men and women acquiesce to constructed rules and roles that frustrate their senses of self and relationships 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. Im talking about the straight men, you aint
funny and you aint 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 Owenss sissy hunt served as a
36

Ibid.
See, for example, Mark Anthony Neals New Black Man: Rethinking Black Masculinity
(New York: Routledge, 2005).
38
Ibid.
37

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 lifetransforming and potentially edifying dimensions of this ministry that attracts
thousands of worshipers each Sunday?

Principal Lessons
The popular sound clips examined in this essay perform the task of gendering
bodies. The 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 nurtured 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? That 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

The 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.
These 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 language promotes a timeless or traditional sense of gender and family.40 Within
39
Johnnetta Betsch Cole and Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Gender Talk: The Struggle for Womens
Equality in African American Communities (New York: One World, 2003), 104.
40
Deno, God, Authority, and the Home, 99.

270

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

the sermons oered, there exists a seeming prescriptive gender motif (physically 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 audiences within the Pentecostal tradition, largely because of this traditions creative 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 The answer falls on the potential of language to shape the cognition, 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. This is why serious consideration must be given to the
medium through which messages are transmitted.
New media are terrains of conict. 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 reect on the routes through which information rapidly and
freely ow 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 shouldnt talk
in circles or express emotions because men only talk in lines and cant process in the same way; real men arent sissy/cranks/faggots), this can inuence
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. The 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.