Pastor Jamal Bryant Lied on the Ushers of the Church

Pastor Jamal Bryant’s New Year’s Eve sermon, delivered in response to criticism of his wife’s gala attire, quickly went viral, not only for what it defended, but for what it introduced into the conversation.

Among his remarks, Bryant claimed that ushers historically walked with one hand behind their back to cover their backsides from deacons and men in the church who allegedly lacked self-control.

That statement is demonstrably false.

There is no historical, theological, or documented usher training tradition that supports the idea that this posture existed to shield women from predatory men. Ushers, both male and female, have long been trained to walk with controlled posture as a sign of reverence, discipline, and readiness to serve. This practice predates modern conversations around modesty policing and applies regardless of gender or body type.

To suggest otherwise reframes a tradition of order into a narrative of unchecked male lust — not as critique, but as convenient deflection.

Let’s be clear: misogyny in the Black church exists. Women’s bodies have been scrutinized, policed, and moralized in ways men’s bodies rarely are. That truth does not need exaggeration to stand.

However, invoking false historical claims to bolster an argument undermines credibility, especially when done in defense of a moment that many churchgoers, clergy, and bishops openly criticize.

Several religious leaders, including Bishop Wooten, publicly rebuked Bryant’s presentation of his wife, with Wooten stating that the look conveyed “the image of a two-dollar whore” through the illusion of nudity. While harsh, such critiques reflect a broader concern shared by peers, not just online spectators.

What troubled many was not merely the dress, but the response. Rather than acknowledging why congregants and clergy alike felt discomfort — especially given the symbolic role of a First Lady — the sermon shifted toward:

• generalized accusations
  
  

• exaggerated historical claims
  
  

• and moral redirection
  
  

This rhetorical pivot reframed critique as persecution.

Church leadership carries symbolic weight. First Ladies are not private figures when they appear publicly representing religious institutions. Critique, when offered respectfully, is not misogyny by default.

When leaders blur facts to win arguments, they weaken trust, and when trust erodes, so does moral authority.

The Bottom Line

Misogyny deserves confrontation.

Falsehoods deserve correction.

And accountability should never be dismissed as oppression.

Two things can be true at once, and responsible leadership demands we hold both.