Billy Graham retired (no spam)

[HighLordDave]

This past Sunday, Reverend Billy Graham held his last public appearance in New York, ending 60 years of ministry.

With his retirement due to various ailments afflicting both his own body as well as that of his wife, and the death of Pope John Paul II, two of the most visible Christian ambassadors of the past half century have left the public eye.

While a new man occupies the office of Pope, there is no one ordained to take over the mantle of Protestant Christianity's most public messenger. Billy Graham was seen in person by more people than St. Paul (including myself). He was beloved by people of all denominations, and equally respected by persons outside the faith.

With a growing distrust of televangelists and the political alignment of many religious leaders, is there someone who can lay claim to the moral authority Graham commands?

[fable]

Unless one believes moral authority is automatically limited to religious figures, why not Nelson Mandela? Unlike Graham and JP2, Mandela has never failed to castigate powerful political figures on his own side if it seemed appropriate. Again, unlike the other two, he was tested in mind, spirit and body for years, alone, unjustly imprisoned; and he didn't rule his people by executive fiat. Nor did he tell the world what any god wanted everybody to do, according to his religion's interpretation of a specific book. He ruled pragmatically but from a deeply humane perspective.

I think JP2 will be remembered chiefly for the extreme centralization during his rule of the RCC, and Vatican-sponsored lies about condom use. Graham, for me, will always recall his friendship and "religious counseling" of Richard Nixon in the White House, and his efforts to convert bast numbers of Eastern Orthodox Christians after the Soviet broke up. Mandela's legacy is by contrast one of grace under lengthy torture, and a sense of perspective that never deserted him whether among the wealthy and powerful, or the slums of Suweto. I'll take Mandela over either of the two, anyday. Maybe the current Pope should step down, and Mandela could assume the mantle of both churches. Not that this will occur, but far worse things have happened.

[HighLordDave]

I was thinking of someone younger than Mandela.

John Paul II was young for a pope and Graham's first crusade was in 1949. Mandela has basically faded from view and at least in the US, I think he's regarded as more of a regional figure. To be fair, both John Paul II and Billy Graham faded from relevance over the past 10 years due to declining health, but they still commanded "name" level recognition.

One of the things both John Paul II and Graham have is common is that even people who don't agree with the things they say respect them and went to them for counsel. I know a fair number of Catholics who didn't agree with a lot of the things John Paul II said or did (such as limit the roles of women in the church, stay silent on the sex-abuse scandals, etc.) but they felt a connection to him personally and like him (personally) anyway.

I don't know of too many people who dislike Billy Graham or his message. His ministry has been scandal-free and he has steered clear of political minefields and alignments to focus solely on his message.

Moral authority is certainly not limited to religious figures, but this came up in my Sunday school class last week with regards to Christian leaders. With Christianity losing its long-time Catholic messenger, and now its Protestant messenger is retiring, our attention span has dropped and there is no one set to take up Graham's mantle.

There is a new pope, but I think he will, by design, have a short tenure. When Graham first went on the air in 1957, he bought blocs of prime-time scheduling and didn't have to compete with cable, satellite and the internet for attention. When Billy Graham was on, that was it. It also helped that he was a pioneer of televangelism, so as long as he stayed clear of scandals (which he did), by the time the Jim Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggarts came along and spoiled the public on TV preachers, he was already a known quantity.

I disagree about your assessment of John Paul II. I think both he and Graham will be remembered as Christian ambassadors and as men who brought people into their churches. Before being plagued by a long series of illnesses, both men were out and about in ways no one had ever seen before. Whenever either man appeared in public, thousands of people came out to see them. What remains to be seen is whether people were going to see the man, or going to see the office

[fable]

If the question is simply "moral authority," I think Mandela wins over the other two I've mentioned, hands down. Just my opinion, of course, and I'd also put another former national leader who never had pretentions to being one, Vaclav Havel, in the same position. To me, Mandela and Havel wield a moral authority that comes from within, based upon conscience, personal suffering, commitment to humanity, and a willingness to wield their respective powers on behalf of humanity and against the bullies that rule it everywhere.

I don't know of too many people who dislike Billy Graham or his message. His ministry has been scandal-free and he has steered clear of political minefields and alignments to focus solely on his message.

I suspect this has to do with the message: convert everyone who doesn't believe as we do. This, I have problems with, and many people I know do, as well. I have to also ask myself, would the scandalous televangelists like Swaggert and Bakker have done what they did instead of moving into other fields, if Graham hadn't shown just how much power and money could accumulate to a televangelical ministry? As I consider the profession worth than useless and in fact a matter of harm, I find Graham responsible in more ways than one.

Nor has Graham steered clear of minefields. There's an interesting White House tape made during the Nixon administration of the two of them in conversation. During it, Graham complains that Jews have a "stranglehold on the media," and he blames them for "all the pornography" in the US. Nixon agrees--his bigotry against Jews and blacks is well-known--but Graham then presses him: When you get a second term, you can do something about it. Graham also defends the fact that many Jews feel friendly towards him by saying, "They don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country."

Graham pulled a Reagan when those tapes came to light, and claimed he didn't remember any of it. His apology consequently rings flat, since he's never repudiated the sentiments expressed. I guess the best that Graham can be credited with is avoiding minefields by dint of being a bigot in private, while he was leading his Crusades for Christ in public. Which is very Christian of him, if you'll pardon me for saying so with a wink, since I'm thinking of that other golden-tongued orator, John Chrysostom, at the moment. Only John, of course, wasn't a hypocrite about his rampant prejudice.

I disagree about your assessment of John Paul II. I think both he and Graham will be remembered as Christian ambassadors and as men who brought people into their churches.

Graham brought them in through conversion, and I agree: this will be remembered, and reviled, as well, by quite a few religious people who feel there are as many doors to getting where you want to go as there are people. But although numbers for the RCC have remained good in Asia and Africa, they've actually declined severely in Europe and the US during JP2's tenure. More people show up on scientifically conducted polls as disaffected with the RCC because of JP2's authoritarian stance on many issues; and this was before the pederast priest scandals broke. So did he bring people in? I'm thinking he's cost the RCC quite a few intelligent people and driven them into being nominal RCCs or over to the Episcopal ranks.

[HighLordDave]

I think by and large both John Paul II and Graham built more bridges than they burned.

You say that Graham will be reviled for converting people to Protestant Christianity, but I fail to see that as the prevailing point of view. What religion doesn't seek to bring people into the fold? Some have a seasoned sales pitch, some do so at the point of a sword, but it seems to me that spreading the message of God/Allah/Thor/Kahless is at the heart of most religious practises.

The logical extreme of evangelism is say the Taliban or what the fundy Christians in this country would do if given half a chance: force everyone into a state-sponsored religion (preferably theirs). I have never heard Billy Graham advocate this, nor have I ever heard of him pressuring anyone into converting to Christianity. On the contrary, where other Christian leaders have aligned themselves with political factions who will kow-tow to their agenda in exchange for support at the polls, it seems to me that Graham has distanced himself from people of Dubya's ilk who use politcs to fuel their religious agenda and vice-versa.

Maybe Graham has mellowed in his old age; I do not remember him from his professional heydays of the 60s and 70s and he has acknowledged that he will not answer questions now that he might have thirty years ago (mostly involving politics) but he brings a "name" recognition to the pulpit that, in my observations, no one else has right now.

[fable]

Originally Posted by HighLordDave

You say that Graham will be reviled for converting people to Protestant Christianity, but I fail to see that as the prevailing point of view.

Except I didn't write that: it isn't a matter of converting people especially to any specific religion that bothers me. (For one thing, Graham didn't convert people to Protestantism; there were at least some Protestants he converted, as well. He converted people to a specific evangelical Baptist Christianity.) My concerns are that his main goal was and is religious conversion. I don't care who does it, or for whatever religion or un-religion (including atheism). It implies an incredible pride, a knowledge of what the universe is all about that others on the outside simply don't share. It is socially disruptive, and almost always comes accompanied by a political agenda. I don't say this is true of Christianity, but it has been true over the years for every proselytizer I've heard, met, or listened to.

What religion doesn't seek to bring people into the fold? Some have a seasoned sales pitch, some do so at the point of a sword, but it seems to me that spreading the message of God/Allah/Thor/Kahless is at the heart of most religious practises.

Hinduism, for one, doesn't send out missionaries to convert anybody, and never has. The various Eastern Orthodox denominations haven't done so in at least 150 years. Judaism doesn't do so, and didn't, even during its heyday. Buddhism, which is arguably not a religion, is still a "belief system" that doesn't do so. Zorastrians don't do so. Pagans don't do so, and never have, in recorded history; and that covers a lot of territory, including ancient Greek and Egyptian mystery religions, Scandinavian worship forms, etc. Various Amerindian tribes have never done so, in so far as we can determine. Really, Christianity and Islam are the only ones that focus on this. They are by definition evangelizing creeds.

Maybe Graham has mellowed in his old age; I do not remember him from his professional heydays of the 60s and 70s and he has acknowledged that he will not answer questions now that he might have thirty years ago (mostly involving politics) but he brings a "name" recognition to the pulpit that, in my observations, no one else has right now.

I realize this matters a great deal to you, but I have a horror of bigots on pulpits who pretend to divine messages while secretly harboring hate. Doesn't matter whether the hatred is directed at me, or somebody else. Make of that what you will.

[Magrus]

I've no clue who this guy is to be honest. I've heard of him, like twice when dealing with my grandparents. They switch religions like they do t-shirts though, so I've always done my best to ignore them when they open their mouths on the subject, not to mention quite a few others.

Reading the back and forth between HLD and Fable however gave me a slight insight into the guy. Christian preacher does TV, and he's retiring. Good thing in my opinion. Religion is a personal thing. I have my religion, you have yours, it works for each of us, keep it to yourself unless asked type deal.

Any religion, don't care what it preaches or spreads that feels the need to "spread" the religion, doesn't sit right with me. A religion as I said before is a personal spiritual belief. That's it. It should be something each person goes out to discover on their own. There's a use for knowledge of the religion, and someone there to teach it yes, in the event someone comes looking for help discovering what is best for them. Actively spreading a religion? That screams greed and need for power to me.

You don't need anything but you, and your faith to have a religion. Everything else is just gimmicks and marketing. That building, that book, the guy preaching, etc. That's all human greed and lust for power speaking. You don't need the book, or the guy on TV, or at an alter, or anything to know what you believe and act on it. It's all just fluff that costs money. As you can probably guess, I've an intense disdain for organized religion based on this outlook.

Anyways, my point. Needless position, he should retire and they should just cut that out of the program. Along with the rest of those in power with the other religions.

[HighLordDave]

Originally Posted by fable

Except I didn't write that: it isn't a matter of converting people especially to any specific religion that bothers me.

You wrote, " . . . this will be remembered, and reviled, as well, by quite a few religious people . . . "

Personally, I don't know anyone who "reviles" Billy Graham, inside or outside teh faith. At worst, people are indifferent about him, mostly those who are too young to have seen/heard him before his health got int he way.

I realize this matters a great deal to you, but I have a horror of bigots on pulpits who pretend to divine messages while secretly harboring hate. Doesn't matter whether the hatred is directed at me, or somebody else. Make of that what you will.

That bothers me as well and is the source of my initial question. When I listen to Billy Graham, I don't ever hear him preaching hate, nor do I hear him telling others to push their religion on to the heathens and heretics. He opens the door to everyone; indeed asking people to come forward and become Christians has been a centerpiece of his ministry for decades.

But unlike other religious figures (Pat Robertson, for example), Graham put the Gospel first, not some political agenda, which is what many of the preachers on TV and in the news do. It seems to me that our culture caters to extremes, which is why only the most rabidly conservative religious figures get to be talking heads on TV or in the news.

Billy Graham was respected by people inside and outside his faith; people may not have agreed with some of the things he said, but I don't know anyone who thinks he is a bad guy. I'm not sure that there's anyone else out there who can take his place.

[fable]

Originally Posted by HighLordDave

You wrote, " . . . this will be remembered, and reviled, as well, by quite a few religious people . . . "

What I meant, Dave, was that he wouldn't be reviled specifically for converting people to Protestantism, as you stated I'd said. What I think he will be reviled for is the same thing many people of other faiths and no faith at all realize: that no one has any business assuming they know more than you or I what ultimate spiritual truths are. Any person who seeks to convert or express such views, from a sidewalk preacher to the most powerful televangelist, is intensely disliked for that reason by a large number of people who simply don't want to be told their own spiritual truths are lies.

Let me ask you something: do you think non-Christians are destined for hell? What about non-monotheists? That can be the only justification I can see for your suporting evangelical proselytizing activities such as those of Graham. But assumiing you do feel this way, doesn't mean the vast majority agrees with you. Quite a lot of people in the US possess non-evangelical religious views. At best, these people view religious proselytizers with neutrality when they're at a distance, and usually with annoyance or anger when their own belief systems are challenged by people who automatically assume they know better.

That bothers me as well and is the source of my initial question. When I listen to Billy Graham, I don't ever hear him preaching hate, nor do I hear him telling others to push their religion on to the heathens and heretics. He opens the door to everyone; indeed asking people to come forward and become Christians has been a centerpiece of his ministry for decades.

I never said Graham preached hate, but I don't believe anybody who maintains the kind of hate-filled bigotry he has of Jews deserves to be preaching about anything. To be preaching about love while harboring bigotry is hypocrisy. And Graham doesn't open the door to everyone: he opens a door to those who will convert to his belief system, while denying the existence of any doors for anybody else. That's the definition of an exclusivist religion.

But unlike other religious figures (Pat Robertson, for example), Graham put the Gospel first, not some political agenda, which is what many of the preachers on TV and in the news do.

No; the tape from the Nixon White House blatantly, factually contradicts that. He did have a political agenda; probably still does. It consists of at least the following, though I suspect there's a lot more:

1) Build awareness of the Jews as the owners of all the US media.
2) Get the Jews removed this ownership.
3) Build awareness of the horrors of pornography in the US.
4) Get the Jewish involvement with the spread of this pornography recognized, and removed.

Graham just kept it hidden, and tried to achieve it at the highest level of the land, as my previous quotes from the tape show. Rather than seeking to preach hatred and politics to the masses, he preached it to his buddy Tricky Dic!, and he stated his goals very clearly. In that sense, Graham was the consummate religious-political rightwing insider, the first and most prominent of a breed that now has far more than simply a direct line to the White House.

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by HighLordDave

Personally, I don't know anyone who "reviles" Billy Graham, inside or outside teh faith.

Now you know one: me (well, internet sort of "know") and that is because Billy Graham is the only person I know about (I am sure there are many in the US but televangelists do not exist here), and one of the first if not the first, to exploint the mass medium of TV in order to propagate an exclusive and missionary religious message. This I view as a severe moral flaw, although by far not as several as the late pope JPII's condemnation of use of condoms in HIV-dense areas.

[Cuchulain82]

I agree with CE- I dislike Billy Graham (revile is probably too strong a word) for the simple fact that he spawned televangelism to a large extent.

[Chanak]

This discussion brings to the surface many of the problems I personally have with Christianity, and other like-minded religions in general. Since the topic here is Billy Graham and protestant christianity, this is what I'll focus on. Protestant evangelism - especially the evangelism as taught and espoused by an allied coalition of Protestant denominations, chaired by a prominent Baptist figure, culminating in the doctrine contained in the "Evangelism Explosion" of the early 1970s, and expanded upon in recent years by the SBC - has only one goal in mind. That goal is to increase church attendance. Evangelistic efforts are increased or targeted according to membership data collected from the denomination's churches worldwide; this information is used to coordinate prostelyzing efforts.

There is a method by which the prostelyzing of non-christians is carried out. Evangelistic sermons, while their styles may vary, all contain the same message:
1) Man sinned against God;
2) This sinful nature is within all mankind, and there is no true escape from it by any means available to man;
3) God is basically highly PO'ed at man because of this sinful nature, and in his eyes no amount of "good" deeds on your part can save you from his wrath, because your guilt is simply too great;
4) God will consign all with this sinful nature to a lake of fire for eternity, where he will also throw Satan;
5) Man's state is essentially completely hopeless, and God knows that, so he has provided you with a way to get back in his eternal good graces;
6) This way is embodied in his son Jesus Christ, and is the *only* way;
7) He sent him to earth to die in your place, to take your guilt for sinning, so what you have to do now, if you want to be with God forever and not burn in agony with the sinners, is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal savior;
8) You can do that with me right now, if you feel it in your heart.....etc, etc, etc;
9) ...and now that you are saved, and belong to God, witness to others that you are saved so they might accept Jesus Christ too, and attend the "church of your choice".

In a nutshell, that is *always* what Billy Graham preached. I have both heard and read his sermons in past years, and his method conforms to the evangelistic formula as I briefly described it above. In his later years he avoided much mention of the Lake of Fire - true - but his message has always been the same, and his goals have never changed. Billy Graham needn't preach "hate" - instead, he uses the time-honored tool of fear, and this fear is the glue that holds the memberships of churches together, keeps them active, and keeps them funneling money into the churches. It is also what is used to keep the pews full as the revolving doors of church membership and attendance fluctuate over a period of time.

Protestant christianity can't be targeted soley in this fashion. The same can be said of Christianity in general, as well as Islam. I am simply most familiar with Protestant Christianity, as I have had the most exposure to it.

Graham was and still is a politician, and as fable has pointed out, he is practiced at appearing as non-offensive as possible on the surface. He has become more adept at this over the years. This simply cannot compensate for nor lessen his responsiblity for the message he believes in and espouses, as I detailed above. And trust me, the message I detailed above is exactly what Protestant christianity teaches, and men like Billy Graham preach. Simply ask him yourself, or talk to any Protestant preacher.

[CM]

Hinduism has a system of conversion and there are converts. They have done so in history. With Judaism, it is a dynasty system or based on family. You can only be a Jew (religiously) if your mother was a Jew. That however does not stop people from converting to Judaism.

[Chanak]

I think what fable pointed out earlier - and I agree with this, since historically the data supports it - is that Hinduism does not have a doctrine of prostelyzation, as evidenced by Christianity and Islam. Neither does Judaism, nor Buddhism. That there will be converts to any religion at all is of course a natural occurence, independent of any prostelyzation efforts.

[CM]

Actually that is incorrect. When Mohammad Bin Qasim landed at present day Karachi he set up trading posts with what now constitutes in historical imperial india. However he was not allowed to stay nor trade if is men did not convert to Hinduism under the rule ofr Raja Dahir the then ruler of Karachi.

The first war or battle between muslims and hindu's in India started because Muslims were forced to convert if they wished to stay in Karachi.

Judaism i agree it is based on genes or family ties. So there is no concept of conversion. To say there is no doctrine of conversion in Judaism is one thing and to say that there is no conversion to judasim is another.