Williams Says Owens’ Apology “Ambiguous”
Yesterday, Mayor Anthony A. Williams asked Bishop Alfred A. Owens Jr. to apologize for recent toxic remarks disparaging gay men. He said a mea culpa was the only way he could allow Owens to remain an honorary member of the mayor’s interfaith council.
Today, the bishop delivered. Sort of.
In a letter in today’s Washington Post, Owens employs the classic I’m-sorry-if-I-offended-anyone apology. The bishop writes that, “During my Palm Sunday sermon, I used words that the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Men and Women has denounced as offensive. It was not my purpose to wound anyone or discriminate against any group, and I apologize for any offense.”
After outlining efforts by his Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church to address HIV-AIDS prevention and his support for those who wanted help in pursuing a heterosexual orientation, Owens went on to write: “I will not submit my sermons through political filters for fear of recrimination by political or social groups. On any given Sunday, I preach about love, faith and holiness, and, yes, about hell and sin. For that, I offer no apology.”
The way the mayor sees things, Owens hasn’t quite delivered enough. “It was a good first step,” Williams says. “I am very heartened to see that he’s taken the step.” But the mayor stopped short of saying the Bishop is now an honorary Interfaith Council member in good standing. He characterized the letter as, “a little bit ambiguous.”
Williams says that’s why he wants to sit down for a chat with the bishop and repeated his public request for a meeting. The mayor says he has not heard from the bishop about any kind of get-together.
15 Responses to “Williams Says Owens’ Apology “Ambiguous””
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Loose Lips Daily: Recycle Your Campaign Signs! (2
)
As much local politics as humanly possible. Send your tips, releases, stories, events, etc. to lips@… - Final Lottery Contract Vote Set for Dec. 16 (0)
High noon will come after all. Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans sent a letter today to Council Chairm… - Our Morning Roundup: Winter BBQ Edition (0)
Renew Shaw has the scoop on where to get a decent Christmas Tree. D.C. Foodies writes an exhaustive… - Jeffrey Wright: Washington Native Dominates a Theater Near You (0)
The District-born, St. Albans-educated Jeffrey Wright may have chosen to be more character actor tha… - D.C. Police vs. Mentally Ill Residents, Part 2 (2)
In the wake of the police shooting death of David Kerstetter, I was told by the D.C. police departm…
- Loose Lips Daily: Recycle Your Campaign Signs! (2
May 18th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
While I don’t condone what the minister said, I do think that should be a degree of independence between the church and the state.
The words used were awful, but do we really expect the government to censor church sermons?
The ministers need to stop getting money from government so that they can remain independent. What is the church supposed to do if government says to stop preaching against what is considered sin, the Ten Commandments if you will?
Owens should resign for the Council or apologize for his words. He can still preach against the behavior or act, but he needs to curtail the words used to describe people. That certainly is ungodly.
May 18th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Boot the bigot.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Owens has a right to share his own fool opinion, just like anyone else. BUT he damn well should behave responsibly and recognize that he’s seen as a leader by some, and that his comments may encourage what would legally be discrimination and contribute to someone being physically wounded.
I think the mayor’s right to recognize there are real public welfare concerns here, and seek a leader to leader talk with him.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
If the bishop says he is a man of God, he certainly should apologize for the names he called people, any group of people. A minister should never call anyone outside of their name. Apparently Satan got to him right in the pulpit. The minister can preach from the Scripture whatever his interpretation of it is and he can invite people to change their ways and follow the Word of God as his flock, religion interprets it. However, he should not use common street language in the same breath he is supposed to bring people to God.
He should try to repent and attone for his sins in terms of judging people. He can hate the “sin” but love the sinner.
I am sure he steps on people’s toes many times and probably calls people harlots as well. Name calling does not do the trick and makes people feel bad. Church must be uplifting to bring people to a more spiritual life. One can preach without treating people like trash.
A bigger issue now arises as to the separation of church and state. However, some of the world’s preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are getting out of hand and acting as it is a higher power leading them.
I like hearing ministers like Joel Olsten and T. D. Jakes, both in Texas. They have a positive message though they still denounce what they consider inappropriate behavior. This comment is not a discussion on the right or wrong of one’s lifestyles or one’s moral compass. I leave that to others. When I go to church the minister steps on my toes, but all I can do is repent and move on, but that is another subject.
What now is the role of the government in leading the church? If the minister is not on the Interfaith Council, would it then be all right for him to make those comments? I bet now with all this controversy he is getting more to attend his church just out of curiosity.
It’s too bad this negativity is going on because the minister seems to have made some progress with his flock and the community.
Is it bigotry, stupidity, or an overzealous to demonstrate a point in his sermon? Was he trying to make a point about where society is going or was he trying to help someone in a way that proved foolish?
The reverend must show others that he is a big person who knows how to apologize for using unkind words.
May 19th, 2006 at 12:18 am
These words spoken by Bishop Owens are heard every day on the streets of DC and whether or not Bishop Ownes apologizes, it will not change the words a lot in our society uses so freely.
If Bishop Owens had said the same in a church say in Ohio, South Carolina or another place, he would not have gotten this kind of press but might have seen more agreeing and disagreeing with him.
The point is, move on people.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:19 am
The apology that Bishop Owens wrote was very appropriate and was not directed to the Mayor as such. Mayor Williams is acting like Bishop Owens owes HIM an apology when he owes him NOTHING. If he felt that Bishop Owens words were offensive as others may have then he is counted in the bunch who got the apology. But it is not for him to feel that the apology that the Bishop wrote was not really an apology. Mayor Williams don’t talk about anyone else until you look in your own backyard. As far as the Interfaith Council is concerned, if Bishop Owens is an honorary member or not, I pray that he still preaches holiness and that sin is sin. My prayers are with you Bishop Owens….keep preaching the Word of God with conviction and power and let the chips fall where they may. Either people will live right or go to hell.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I think all GLBT people need to brace themselves as I suspect on June 5, 2006, the United States Congress will pass the Federal Amendment (MPA) Banning Gay marriage!
May 21st, 2006 at 12:13 am
Respectfully, I do not think Bishop Owens owes anyone an apology as he is entitled to his opinions and freedom to speak whatever words he wishes to use.
I do not agree that the STATE should ask or compel an apology or threaten to remove as that is saying,if you do not favor everything that the gays and lesbians want then you are not welcome and that puts the STATE in a compromised position and violates the separation of CHURCH and STATE.
Who is to say that Bishop Owens or the gays and lesbians are right or wrong on the issues.
Bottom line, I am opposed to the STATE interferring in any CHURCH that is doing what it believes is correct as long as no physical harm comes to others.
May 21st, 2006 at 9:47 am
Agree. The state should not interfere with the church. However, Bishop Owens should not use disparaging words when he preaches. That would not damage the message. His message may or may not have been on target, but the words used diverts from it. He obviously was trying to promote and strengthen families and wanted men to stand tall and lead in a Bibilcal way as he sees it. Nothing wrong with that. I don’t know who would go to that type of religious church and expect something different. You go to more liberal churches for a different view of the Bible. Some churches will call a adulteress woman a harlot and yet people don’t try to get rid of the minister. Maybe adultery should be made a non-sin in the Bible too.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:07 am
America has changed a lot as when I was a young man, I never heard foul language coming from a mouth of a woman as we were taught that a woman who uses dirty words is not a lady. Today, women use dirty words publicly as much as men do.
It use to be the use of dirty words was done for its shock value and Bishop Owens calling people faggots and sissies was probably done more to incite a fevor than to insult.
Bishop Owens is out to win souls and to promote his religious beliefs and calling people names is his game of marketing.
I keep on reminding my gay and lesbian friends that they are still a minority, there are limits even in DC our political leaders will not go and they need to take it easy short of maybe pushing too hard and shooting themselves in the foot but with radicals like Chris Cain over at the Washington Blade, is it any wonder we have several ministers on the war path?
I made it very clear to Rick Rosendall of the GLAA that I would remain neutral on GLBT issues as a political candidate and would abstain from any vote on such issues if elected. You can imagine he was not happy with that position I took as GLAA wants political candidates that will go what GLAA and other GLBT groups want.
I am neither a friend nor a foe of the GLBT people and I would prefer seeing the FEDS have the final say.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Thanks Jonathan.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I love these blogs as we can post anything we want, under any name and make others think it is whomever.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Nixon was a crook.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Well, I used to work for Owens, and when his people (his sister and friend, who were my bosses) found out that I was facing an illness, they fired me. Bishop Owens stood with them in that decision, and the people involved have yet to offer any sentiment of remorse.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I’m almost positive, that was an offensive move against someone personally. It’s sad, but too often preachers use the pulpit for personal battles, and Owens is a main culprit. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.