https://www.christianpost.com/news/us-capitol-unveils-statue-honoring-evangelist-billy-graham.html
I'm not Roman Catholic and reject the many claims of Rome concerning its apostolic and particularly Petrine foundations. Whether Peter is actually buried beneath the Vatican or not is immaterial. I toured the Scavi back in the 1990's on one of my many stays in the city. It was fascinating but not entirely convincing. I felt like the Vatican had hijacked the history much in the same way one encounters when touring the catacombs.
But the symbolism and the claims are clear enough. Peter's grave is here beneath the high altar and dome and this is the city where the Pope rules. The actual papal throne is across town in the Lateran which historically was a more important church. Regardless a claim is being made and the symbols are clear for all to see.
And thus it's appropriate that Billy Graham has been given a monument in the crypt of the US Capitol. Graham was not the Pope but for several generations was viewed as a religious authority, the kind of religious father or soul of the nation. He championed the nation (instead of Christ's Kingdom), baptized its narratives, and told its leaders to 'go up' and fight their wars of atrocity, theft, and slaughter. In every way he was the modern day version of the false prophets we see in the Old Testament that championed the kings of Samaria-Israel and heaped praise on the bad kings in Judah - while opposing the true prophets sent from God.
As the article (linked below) suggests, Graham could actually have been tried for war crimes if he were held to the same standards as some of the Nazis were. His sin was to bless and encourage Nixon who was soaked in blood and deceit and Graham played his part in all of this. He wasn't just the dupe as he is sometimes presented. He was that, but worse. He was what the Scriptures refer to as a deceived deceiver (2 Tim 3.13).
But it is his country-club Anti-Semitism that is more likely to upset contemporary Evangelicals. He and Nixon were apparently of one mind on this point - even while they were willing to support the Zionist state of Israel. Graham of course would have had the additional motivation of Dispensational theology of which he was an advocate.
And while I will grant that people were saved at his rallies and crusades, it was in spite of his methods which did far more harm than good. And his message continued to slip over time. This didn't begin just in the 1980's or 1990's. The downgrade in his thinking and doctrine was already at work during the Eisenhower years. Even then Fundamentalists were turning away from him and they were right to do so. Did his preaching lead to the salvation of millions? I doubt it. But I know millions were (and remain) deceived by his cheap grace gospel and his legacy has been carried on by not only his son but other Court Evangelicals like Greg Laurie - men who clearly think godliness is gain.
Graham's real passion was to break with the Fundamentalism that had emerged in the early twentieth century, a movement that had rejected modernity and seemed isolated in terms of culture and influence. This rejection of Fundamentalism was at the heart of the Neo-Evangelicalism that emerged after World War II, a movement led by Graham and others. He wanted Christians to have a respected place in society and to influence culture. This would later play out in the Lausanne Movement and generally speaking helps to explain his focus on numbers and the idea of a mass movement.
It did not all go the way Graham had hoped and he also changed over time. The movement was given a more robust foundation through the influence of other thinkers - Graham was clearly something of a lightweight. The movement remained fragmented until the political shifts of the 1960's and 1970's allowed the Evangelicals to coalesce in the Republican Party - which then proceeded to move ever to the Right, to the point of abandoning Liberalism altogether. One might also raise the question of whether they still possess any integrity or morality at all as clearly the only ethic that guides them is consequentialism. Winning is the only outcome that matters and if evil leads to victory, then it is the right thing to do. This is embodied in the Christian support for Donald Trump and this anti-Christian ethic now reigns supreme within the Evangelical movement leading one to wonder if it even qualifies as Christian anymore.
The movement was also derailed in the 1990's as sections of the movement (parroting the culture they were supposed to influence) were transformed into a new wave of celebrity 'ministries' and mega-churches, utilizing technology and ever-larger facilities. Their ecclesiology was not based on Scripture but marketing principles and therapeutic teaching. In some ways Graham had (perhaps unwittingly) opened the door to this as well. It was all American as apple pie and looking back it's not hard to trace the progression from figures like CG Finney, DL Moody, and Billy Sunday to Graham himself. One wonders if he was somewhat disappointed in the end. He wanted to change the world but instead played a major role in inviting the world into the Church and changing it for the worse.
He embodies twentieth century Evangelicalism and thus his placement in the crypt of the capitol is entirely apropos. It is a fitting monument to a deluded sell-out, probably one of the greatest and most destructive heretics to plague the Church in the post-World War II epoch.
And he certainly paved the way for the new generations of Court Evangelicals that by comparison make Graham look moral and restrained. When you see all the frauds and corrupt church leaders praying over Trump - just remember they wouldn't be there if it wasn't for Billy Graham.
I was not really that surprised to learn that Speaker Johnson and Franklin Graham were involved. This was certainly a political move in every way connected to the 2024 election - even though it's doubtful Graham thought much of Donald Trump. Obviously Franklin and Johnson have both literally sold their souls to Trumpism and are determined to paint Billy Graham as being part of that camp - but doubts remain. In some respects it's kind of sick to witness Franklin manipulate the legacy of his father in this way - but again it's all about consequentialism, the end justifies the means.
For
my part, it doesn't matter. The opinions of the Graham family have no
bearing on me as I believe they are a cabal of false teachers and
prophets - and mammon-driven frauds. Just because they're not as
ostentatious as some does not mean they're not profiteers - making
merchandise of God's people.
As I've mentioned before, it's ironic but Harry Truman (a corrupt and worthless blood-soaked simpleton) was the only president that immediately recognized Graham for what he was - a man who was just interested in getting his name in the paper. In other words, a charlatan and opportunist. That about sums it up and Graham stands condemned as his many statements and interviews later in life reveal that he had lost his way concerning the faith.
Perhaps others realized this as well. I think you could argue that Johnson and Nixon were happy to let Graham 'get close' - so they could use him to reach out to a rather substantial voting base.
As far as the Christian Post article, it's exactly the kind of hagiography we've come to expect.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.