In a statement issued by Billy Graham’s long-time spokesperson A Larry Ross (whose present and previous client list incidentally represents a veritable who’s who of evangelical power players), the man dubbed as America’s pastor continues in his newfound role as an anti-gay crusader by throwing his support behind Minnesota’s Amendment 1 that defines marriage as being behind a man and a woman.
“For more than 50 years, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was based in Minneapolis and we were blessed by the support of thousands of Minnesotans who helped us spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the world. As a former resident with strong personal and ministry ties to the North Star State, I pray that the good people of Minnesota will show their support for God’s definition of marriage, between a man and a woman. I wholeheartedly endorse the Marriage Protection Amendment, and urge you to vote Yes to pass Amendment 1.”
David Silverman President of American Atheists noted, when Graham endorsed Romney, he totally abandoned his faith’s primary tenet (there is one god) by endorsing a polytheist instead of a Christian. As I noted in The Washington Post’s “On Faith” column, he’s also abandoned another core belief of his Baptist faith as set forth by Roger Williams, founder of the Baptist Church in America.
No way would the founder of Rhode Island who created the first charter granting religious liberty all align himself with any Christian entity that sought to sit at the right hand of the president of the United States. Rather, he would be appalled at the sight of Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and other Baptists draping the cross of Christ with the American flag as they advance the notion of American exceptionalism. Instead, Williams would storm the halls of the annual National Prayer Breakfast and turn over the tables – temple style. (See Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-22).
But instead, Graham seems to be going the way of Minnesota Senator Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) by trying to legislate his version of God into the public sphere. Not only is this move anti-Baptist, but his quest to deny people their basic human right to love strikes me as downright unbiblical as well.
Excellent article. Spot on.
This relic from yesteryear needs to be called home by his maker!
As a former Minnesotan, I remember when Billy Graham was in Minneapolis and it was my understanding that his organization owned several blocks of prime downtown real estate, all tax-free, of course! Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
What’s he angry about? He doesn’t look like a happy man doing God’s work.
If Franklin Graham had you locked up all day and told you what to say whenever visitors came on threat of having your dinner withheld, you would be angry too.
I have trouble believing the old Billy Graham would have publicly gone this route. This is a senile old man who is being manipulated by his son and his fellow-travelers. I have never been a particular fan of BG, but I’ve worked around enough elderly people with dementia to be highly suspicious of his authorship of the statements being attributed to him.
Am I the only one that finds it incredibly odd that the older and sicker Billy Graham becomes, the more politically active he is? This is a man who worked extremely hard to be non-partisan at the zenith of his career. So why now? Or…are these political ads coming from Billy Graham at all? Knowing the history and recent practices of Franklin Graham, I strongly suspect that he is the one behind all these ads, and not his father. Franklin will NEVER have the respect that his parents have had and he’s proven that he’s not above trading on their good names and reputations to build his career…and his fortune. I have always respected Billy Graham, even when I have disagreed with his theological perspectives – I therefore reject that these ads are him speaking, but are indeed his shyster son!
I hear you but according to Billy Graham’s long term spokesperson A Larry Ross, these are in fact Billy’s words. Just FYI.
Becky–I think this piece is as exploitive of the man as those who are exploiting the man–not the least of which were Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. i.e. You get to forward your views by commenting on B Graham (even though it is as obvious as the words on the screen that this is not something he drafted). Secondly, are you asserting that Baptists, of ALL people, have some kind of uniform stance towards the engagement of faith with culture and politics? Thirdly–why would you expect him to articulate some kind of ethic different from what 90% of the culture thought for most of his life–and what a large majority of Evangelicals continue to believe.
I just have lots of trouble with these kinds of arguments that demand that everyone, everywhere, for all time, think a certain way–or else they are something other than good. And then criticize them for trying to mandate their way of thinking.
My critique is not with Baptists in general — the Association of Welcome and Affirming Baptists does some amazing work toward living out the baptismal covenant to welcome all. But a major historical tenet of the Baptists has always been the separation of church and state. This is why Falwell’s foray into politics was seen as so controversial at the time. But since the major split in 1979, the Southern Baptist Convention has abandoned this core belief, thus becoming more fundamentalist than other Baptists in other loosely formed groupings.
Another core tenet of the faith is that one can only be saved in Jesus Christ – along with this came the long-standing teaching that Mormonism is a cult. This belief was on the BGEA website for years until it was scrubbed in mid-October to permit evangelicals to vote for a man they were told until that moment was a member of a cult. This move was followed by a host of evangelical led voter initiatives to get the vote out for Romney. This proved to many folks that the end goal for the Grahams was electing a Republican and denying gays and lesbians the right to marry (a conservative value if there ever was one) not saving souls for Christ.
Secondly, instead of critiquing me for quoting Billy, you need to go to the source – his long-term spokesman A Larry Ross. He is the one who is releasing press releases stating these despite Billy’s age and health, these are his words. He also conveyed this to me via an email interview. But since media is not allowed ANY access to the elder Graham, there’s no way for us to ascertain to what extent his son is manipulating his father. All we can go on are Ross’ statements – he used to rep the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Billy but informed me that he only reps Billy these days.
Now Ross’ PR firm’s client list list is a who’s who of evangelical power players – so he has a clear vested interest in promoting a form of the faith that is opposed to granting LGBT people the same civil rights given to other US citizens. But I am not about to speculate further as to why Ross states these latest moves into the political sphere are coming from Billy and not his son.
My point is there is a long parade of people that attempt to use Billy Graham. He was not always circumspect about this (think “Richard Nixon”) nor innocent. But in the macro he led a remarkable global life and in a sense had a large political impact while largely avoiding the political.
But there are varied ways folk “line up” at his door. One way is like Barack Obama making the pilgrimmage. Another is by giving press. Was this really newsworthy?? If Larry Ross released the statement after Graham’s death–is it news?? Is it right, ethical or newsworthy to make this news just because the man still breathes?
Folwell’s foray was not rejected by Baptists anymore than they rejected Jimmy Carter becoming President. It was rejected by Fundamentalists whose separatism was not driven by Baptist history.
In fairness to the ridiculous behavior of political operatives attempting to exploit the Evangelical vote — if Evangelicals refused a Republican candidate because of his Mormonism you would take criticize them as opponents to religious liberty for all except them. And in a second dose of fairness–his candidacy has brought about serious reflection amongst some Evangelicals in regards to Mormonism.
I am sure you are aware of that. So the reason for the broadbrush dismissals of folk??????????????????
There are other sides to the Billy Graham story – read Cecil Bothwell’s “The Prince of War” (http://bothwellsblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/hello-world/). Billy’s campaign’s against Communism (1950s) and Catholicism (1960) were partaken of his own free will as was his decision to appoint his son as his successor (this appointment took place in 2002 when Billy had full use of his facilties).
Again, if Graham didn’t issue these statements of his own free will, then why is his publicist saying otherwise? That’s a Q you need to ask A Larry Ross given the lack of press access to Billy.
There was no serious conversation among evangelicals re the tenets of the Mormon faith – rather you had an endorsement by the Grahams followed by a scrubbing of the website and then an article from Franklin in October 2012 who assured evangelicals they can vote for a Mormon. His last public atatement here was in June 2012 when he said that the thrice divorced Gningrich was a good Christian but that Obama and Romney were not even Christian.
At this point, I would like for us to agree to disagree and leave it at that – I have some pressing deadlines that require my attention.