Reverend Billy Graham Veers Into Partisan Politics—A Tainted Legacy?
One of the reasons that evangelist Billy Graham achieved the status of a respected and renowned national leader is that he was the clergyman and advisor of presidents of both major political parties and did not personally involve himself in election campaigns nor make endorsements ... until now.
At the age of 93, ill and enfeebled, Reverend Graham, most certainly at the direction of his son, Franklin, has taken out full-page advertisements in prominent newspapers to endorse "biblical principles," "sanctity of life" (anti-abortion), "marriage between one man and one woman," and support for Israel, i.e., a de facto expression of support for Mitt Romney. Just in time for the Romney endorsement, the Graham Foundation has rescinded its offensive tenet that the Mormon faith of Mr. Romney is a cult.
I belong to a religious institution in which most of the members favor what I do not: the "social justice" that is delivered through big, expensive government that is espoused by the Democrats, yet to my knowledge, there has never been a political endorsement from the pulpit in the almost 50 years that I have worshiped there, and I would not like it if there were. In every religious group of any size, there are individuals with differing political views. When a clergyman or woman places their imprimatur on a certain candidate, it serves to exclude and marginalize those that do not follow the leader.
I believe we travel down the proverbial slippery slope when religious leaders begin to publicly choose candidates, and to do so places their tax-exempt status in jeopardy in this country.
For decades, Billy Graham traveled the nation to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, but he was seen as an honest and even-handed broker when he met with presidents as ideologically diverse as Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan. The middle ground which he admirably staked out for years is now eroded as we approach what Reverend Graham acknowledges is likely to be the last presidential election for which he is alive.
It would be unfortunate if this good man's reputation were forever tainted for his actions in a controversial and regrettable advertisement placed in the final stage of his long and laudatory life.
Roger
4:47 pm on Sunday, October 28, 2012
The time for Christians to stand up for biblical principles on all matters of life and faith has long since passed. This includes public proclamations of matters that are important to our society, or any other society. For years and years, Christians have been silent about these matters, and it is time for this to change. The full-page ad is a start to let others know of what the Bible says about these matters. We know the non-biblical perspective is not working.
We realize from a previous blog entry that you do not embrace the Bible as a standard for these matters. For the Christian, the Bible is the only source for these non-negotiable matters. While anybody is free to be critical of this position, it also gives any statement credibility when it is accompanied by the writer's source of absolute truth, the basis for belief and the setting of the moral compass. Christianity is primarily about eternal destiny. When outsiders try to derail this message, the lack of understanding and dealing with the eternal destiny question is clear.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is available to all of mankind. It transcends US Presidents and who may or may not visit the Oval Office. While it may be sport to focus on matters that come and go, the truth of God's Word on Himself, on mankind, and the gospel remains unchanged.
James Dale Barrington
10:17 am on Monday, October 29, 2012
Oren and Roger -- While I agree with you Oren about the separation of church and state the individual should be involved enough to promote his/her causes fully. Billy Graham has endorsed others as well, Richard Nixon, being one, and gave a distinct nod toward others. He proudly said he was registered as a Democrat, but voted for the individual. When the religious right became prominent in the 60s and 70s he clearly gave his more then subtle preference to the candidate. -- I don't see anything wrong with that. Where I take issue with some is when they speak to their choice as the right choice for others and from the wrong place; the pulpit/lectern... Both of you give strong opinions to the place of the individual. I agree that the voter, be he/she Christian or an agnostic or atheist should stand up and be counted. No ones 'values' exceeds the other one because of who they are, - and their sense of drawing strength from scripture authority or from others they trust or from within themselves to make decisions in life I fully respect. -- I am a humanist myself, agnostic, but spiritual from creation's birth. I suspect we are more alike than not. Where we are different it is mostly from culture's influence upon our lives. Christianity doesn't have a pretty history, and the gospel that I believe in is 'doing unto others as you would want them to do to you.' This saying preceded Jesus by several thousand years and is a formula for getting along together. -- And it works.
Ed M
10:52 am on Monday, October 29, 2012
"Reverend Graham, most certainly at the direction of his son, Franklin,"
What facts do you have to back this statement up, Oren?
Why can't Mr. Graham support a candidate for the Presidency? He is a registered voter and entitled to his opinion.
JS
11:07 am on Monday, October 29, 2012
As long as Mr. Graham is willing to give up his tax-exempt status, he can preach his opinion all he wants. He, and others like him, want it both ways. They want to be able to influence election outcomes using money that has been exempted from taxation by the laws of the US, with the agreement that those funds not be used for political purposes.
As soon as Mr. Graham renounces his tax exemption, he can use his billions to promote any political candidate that he wants to like any other tax paying voter.