Joey Garrison at The Tennessean reports on the dust-up over whether to name a Jefferson Street overpass after Bishop Joseph Walker:
But the at-large Metro councilwoman’s proposal to name a small overpass bridge on Jefferson Street after Bishop Joseph Walker III, pastor at Mt. Zion Baptist Church, has stirred an unexpected debate in the Metro Council, particularly among some of the council’s African-American members.The bridge spans just one block between 11th and 12th avenues over the interstate. [Councilwoman Erica] Gilmore’s ordinance ultimately advanced by an overwhelming 29-1 council vote, with four abstentions, Tuesday night, setting up a final vote in two weeks.
But it came after Councilwoman Tanaka Vercher asked whether renaming the bridge would set a precedent to honor other spiritual leaders similarly. Councilwoman Sharon Hurt said the proposal lacked proper vetting among Jefferson Street businesses. Both women cited other Nashville pastors they say are worthy of being honored as well.
Three women sitting around talking about whether to name a bridge after Bishop Walker and the problem is "what about all of the other deserving spiritual leaders?"
I am dumbfounded.
What about the allegations of sexual and spiritual abuse? What about the fact that some of the lawsuits against him were dismissed not on evidentiary grounds but because of the statute of limitations?
As I said back in 2012, dismissing the charges against Walker was the correct thing legally, but it left everyone in a difficult bind. If Walker does the things alleged, then it is really not good that he’s still free to do those things. If he was falsely accused, then it sucks for him that these allegations are still out there.
That the city’s response to this difficult bind — that 29 city council members are complicit in this nonsense — is to just ignore it is disgusting.
Here’s how I see it: if we hold off naming the bridge after Bishop Walker because we’re not sure if we believe he’s innocent, then the worst that happens is that we wait until after he’s dead and wait for a full accounting of his life, good and bad, and we see how we feel about him then. Yes, he’s built a thriving church. A lot of people build thriving churches. And some of those people are later undone by scandal. So the wait-and-see approach allows us to not embarrass ourselves.
Also, though I doubt it rises to a First Amendment issue, we should still consider that Nashville naming a bridge for Bishop Walker has certain theological implications that differ from naming a bridge after other ministers. His preaching of Prosperity Gospel is based on the idea that God provides earthly rewards for those who are doing what he wants them to do. If we as a secular city provide Walker with an earthly reward, we could be seen as endorsing this theological viewpoint, especially if other religious leaders aren’t so honored.
But say he did do the things he’s been accused of. What does it say about us as a city then, if we name a bridge after him? How are his victims supposed to feel about the bridge? That we weighed them against Bishop Walker and found him more valuable and important to the city than them? How are other victims of sexual abuse supposed to understand this bridge? That if your abuser is prominent enough, there’s nothing he can do to you that will keep him from being the city’s hero?
It’s distressing to me that this difficult discussion hasn’t been a part of the city council’s deliberations. Councilwoman Erica Gilmore, according to Garrison, is shocked that “there are many structures and many streets that have been named in the city, and it seems like this one is a little bit controversial, and I don’t know why.” I don’t know how to read this statement. Does she not know of the allegations against Bishop Walker? Or does she, but she’s just assuming all ministers get accused of this kind of stuff, so you can’t take it too seriously?
There isn’t an easy solution here. If we hold off on naming the bridge after Walker and he’s innocent, then we are depriving him of an honor for no good reason. If we name the bridge after Walker and he did those things, then the city looks like a conglomerate of assholes who care more for important men than we do their victims. My gut says it’s better to err on the side of victims, but of course I’m not the one making the decision.
The ones making the decision voted 29-1 with four abstentions to err on the side of Walker. I hope that’s the right decision. But I don’t how the Metro Council can know either way.
