I thought Billy Graham, "America’s Preacher", had pretty much passed the torch to his Islamophobic son Franklin. But recently, a billboard went up down the street from me with a picture of the weathered old man against a stark black background, and the caption: "Come Hear BILLY GRAHAM / Flushing Meadows Corona Park / June 24-26, 2005 / FREE ADMISSION".
Today’s NY Times features an interview with the 86-year-old Graham, now crippled by Parkinson’s. Whatever one thinks of him, he’s a pivotal figure in American culture: confidante of 11 presidents, and pioneer of televangelism, who has probably filled more arenas around the world than the Stones.
He’s obviously a forefather of today’s religious right. Yet he dates from a time when conservative Protestants saw their faith as far less worldly. Unlike James Dobson and company, he has stayed away from political endorsements — and rabble-rousing pronouncements on abortion and gays:
Some fundamentalists think he’s too ecumenical. But his ecumenism didn’t stop him from making anti-Semitic remarks to Richard Nixon, caught on tape and publicized a few years ago. The Times piece details them, along with Graham’s apologies.
Maybe that experience shaped his approach to Islam, post 9/11:
Asked whether he agreed with those who anticipate a "clash of civilizations" between Christianity and Islam, he quickly said, "I think the big conflict is with hunger and starvation and poverty."
To that, a hearty "Amen." My recent re-read of the Gospel of Matthew reminded me just how much time Jesus actually spent talking about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and helping the poor.*
Rather than focusing on the so-called "unsaved", perhaps the Reverend Graham should invite some of today’s American Taliban to come to his extravaganza at Shea Stadium. They seem to be in dire need of a refresher course.
*Probably his second-favorite topic, by verse count. But his very favorite? Religious hypocrisy. Plus ca change…
—
More commentary at The Situation Room
Interesting. I think probably some of the “Old Guard” in both politics and religion are aghast at what their words adn actions of years ago have actually wrought, even though they possibly thought that this is exactly what they wanted. Until they got it.
They are mostly now too old and too out of any sort of power to make much of a difference or to penetrate the constant right wing christianist blab blab, but hopefully they’ll keep trying.
What struck me when I read the NYT piece was how different BG’s tone was from the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson brigade. Far more “New Testament” than “Old Testament”.
He actually talks about helping the downtrodden — something the Talibangelists NEVER mention. And he talks about the Pope’s illness and death, and how his own physical suffering has brought him closer, spiritually, to others who are suffering. Again, grappling with the realities of suffering and death = things you NEVER hear from today’s media-celeb religious right-wingers.
I think that is one reason the super churches and the various other ones avoid speaking of physical suffering and death and so on… to avoid people having to address their own mortality. Mind you, I don’t attend these churches but from what I can gather, most of them seem to be about accumulating more wealth (blessed by god) and hating people and also not having to worry about those less fortunate because if they had been blessed by god, they would be rich too. This absolves them from having to think about nasty things like the poor, or death and illness.
From what I remember of Billy Graham, his message was definitely more gospel based, but that doesn’t absolve him of being a party to the rise of the christianists. One can’t hold him responsible for the actions of others tho, of course. Funny though how people often wait til they are dying (or close to it) before attempting to make amends or right wrongs.
Graham got burned badly by his association with Richard Nixon. He swore off politics, at least according to a public statement.