NOTE: In the following letter I necessarily had to refer to Biblical references. I see no other way to challenge the actions of a Christian leader without doing so. However, the purpose of this post is not to force a religious viewpoint on anyone. It is to voice my frustration at the behavior of an American Christian leader; to voice my opinion that we should expect actions and words to match professions of Christian faith. It is my hope that the letter also points out what I see as a danger in allowing religious leaders, from whatever persuasion, of attempting to downplay dialogue, of portraying one viewpoint as correct and another as ignorant, and even attempting to influence the voting process.
April 17, 2015
Mr. Graham,
I have neither expectation nor hope that you will ever see this letter. I write it anyway. I will feel better for having done so. I want to be one of what I hope will be many Christians who decide to stand against how you live out your faith.
For quite a long time now I occasionally stumble upon news about you while searching for something else entirely. And I have been both put off and baffled by your “conversation” and actions. You speak so much about Jesus Christ. But based on the only view I see, that of your public persona, I struggle to see any resemblance of Jesus in you. I am trying very hard not to judge your faith as readily as you seem to judge that of others. So I am not saying you do not have faith. I am saying that although I might technically agree with much of your theology, it is my hope that I am living my life in such a way that it reflects the exact opposite of what you appear to stand for
.
I recently learned that you were the guest on a talk show I do not watch and never intend to watch. However, wanting to listen for myself and form my own opinion, I googled the segment in which you took part. In response to the question why do you think the world will not unite to stop ISIS, you stated that Muslims have infiltrated governments, especially in Washington, and are advising the White House. When asked for the names of these Muslims your response was that you could get them, but that you did know they are there, that you had been told that by a number of people. You quickly said that you were not saying “they” are whispering in the ear of the president. You then continued to say they are in the halls and influence, are talking to staffers. At that point you were interrupted by the show’s host so I do not know what your explanation/clarification, if any, was going to be.
Mr. Graham, making statements and accusations without being able to give supporting evidence is questionable, at best. But as Christians do we not take seriously the Biblical admonition against bearing false witness? While I am most certainly not saying that you are doing so, my question to you is still, how do you know “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that what you say is fact? And if you cannot substantiate what you say, why would you take the chance of inadvertently bearing false witness by going on national television without unequivocal substantiation of what you say? I further ask how and why you have contact with people in the White House? Do these people just call you up to give you information about what is going on? If so, why do they do so? Or do you actively solicit reports? And for you as well, I would ask, why?
Yet another observation I would like to make, Mr. Graham, is that you and others seem to be in the habit of confusing deductive and inductive reasoning. Your broad, all inclusive statements about Muslims are an excellent illustration of this. You take individual, specific examples of something and make broad, general conclusions. In this case, you take the existence of one group of Muslims and make observations about that group applicable to all Muslims. But such reasoning (I admit to having difficulty using this word in conjunction with such closed minded, intentional and self-serving conclusions as I believe yours to be.) can be very faulty.
To put it in other terms, Mr. Graham, let me give you an example of applying inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about us Christians. Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas, by its name, aligns itself with the Christian faith. According to their website’s home page, they believe “...the modern militant homosexual movement to pose a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God...” Inductive reasoning could make untrue conclusions. One might be as follows: Westboro Baptist Church is a protestant church located in Kansas. They believe homosexuality is the most obvious and present-day, at hand (clear and present) threat to America. Using the inductive way of thinking I could easily determine that all protestant churches believe homosexuality (not terrorism, not ISIS) to be the threat we face. A second, equally incorrect judgment based on only inductive thought could be that all Baptist churches believe homosexuality to be the imminent peril America faces.
I imagine you understand, Mr. Graham, that other resulting inductive conclusions could be made; about protestant churches in Kansas, about Baptist churches in Kansas, about protestant churches in the Midwest, etc. I can only assume this pattern of thought is why, when asked about ISIS you answered about Muslims. The two are synonymous to you.
I’d like to suggest that, just as vinegar added to a glass containing baking soda results in expanding bubbles, inappropriate use of inductive logic also expands, filling up the “container”, which in this case is the human mind. But, unlike the bubbles in the glass which indicate a reaction that can be an excellent cleansing agent, the “explosion” of thoughts resulting from such mistaken use of inductive theory can be destructive and corrosive in nature.
Your answer cast aspersions upon all Muslims, their religion, their purpose in life and their integrity. These are but a few of the negative undertones about Muslims evoked by your response. I mentioned earlier that I have difficulty seeing Jesus in you. Here is a strong example of why I make such a bold statement. Rather than use his public teachings to berate those scorned by the more “religious”, like the tax collectors, He ate with them. He went into their homes. In fact, those that He berated most often were the Pharisees, who thought they alone exemplified faith in God.
I have done my best, Mr. Graham, to ascertain whether or not you have reached out to Muslim leaders in your own country with the purpose of spending time with them in genuine discussion. Thus far I have only found confirmation that “they” have invited you to engage in dialog; you have not approached them. In fact, in remembrance of September 11th, 2001 Christian and Muslim leaders met in September 2002. You were not there. So, I have to say that I do not understand that. Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, said “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
I believe I know what a possible response of yours would be. You might say that immediately after that He said “Blessed are those who are persecuted for doing right.” That is true. However, I think, taken together, the two make sense. I can be one who promotes peace, who encourages people getting along. I might be persecuted for doing that. If I am consequently victimized in any way for fostering peace, I can take comfort in the fact that I did what was right and therefore the reason for my maltreatment is commended by God. I do not see where the verses infer any particular notice and approval by God if I am persecuted for doing the exact opposite, for doing nothing to pursue peace. I personally think the full meaning of the message of these two verses is best seen when viewed as a causal relationship; my doing something good in the eyes of God might cause me to be discriminated against and intimidated. It seems to me that you must see it from an entirely opposite point of view. To me, your actions and speech give the impression that a Christian should attempt to avoid persecution by going on the offensive, by maligning one particular group.
Sadly, Mr. Graham, deciding to write this letter was not a result of just the interview to which I have been referring. Two other actions of yours made me feel like I wanted to express my feelings towards your behavior. One was how you responded to the shootings, both of blacks by policemen and of policemen in an apparent retaliatory action in the last year. Your March 12th contribution to the public debate began as follows: “Listen up - Blacks, Whites, Latinos, and everybody else.” Although the subject matter about which you intended to speak is of critical importance, I wish to comment on only this portion of your opinion.
Do you really have no idea that beginning an opinion or thought with “Listen up” would, in many, if not most cases, immediately put people on the defensive? Unless speaking to subordinates, such language is ill-chosen. Used to address other adults over whom you have no authority is dismissive, condescending and insensitive. I personally will go so far as to say that I find it arrogant, pompous pontificating.
As Christians we should know a number of Biblical principles cautioning us about the impact of our words, admonishing us to handle what we say with great care. James 3:5-6 says “It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire. A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that. By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke, and go up in smoke with it, smoke straight from the pit of hell.” My opinion seems fairly mild and generous by comparison, does it not?
Verse 17 in that same chapter three defines wisdom for us. “Real wisdom, God’s wisdom, begins with a holy life and is characterized by getting along with others. It is gentle and reasonable, overflowing with mercy...You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only (emphasis NOT mine) if you do the hard work (emphasis mine) of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor.” I like this verse best as translated in The Living Bible. “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure and full of quiet gentleness. Then it is peace loving and courteous. It allows discussion and is willing to yield to others; it is full of mercy and good deeds...” Verse 18 describes the result of adhering to such wisdom. “And those who are peacemakers will plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of goodness.” Mr. Graham, if I think of your “Listen up” approach, it simply does not fit the Biblical description of wisdom. I don’t see courtesy. I most certainly do not see mercy towards those whose loved one was shot. Whether you view the shooting as just or unjust should not be a factor. Do we Christians not believe one of the attributes of God is mercy? Is it not a quality that God also requires of His people?
That being my understanding and belief, let me take a look at the question of a shooting being just or unjust. I’ll first assume you deem a shooting, any shooting, to be justifiable because the deceased did not stop, did not heed what the police were saying. Let me even suppose that live video shows that the deceased person did, in fact, resist arrest; did attempt to flee. So the family sees what you see. But let me also make clear that the suspect carried no weapon. Can you truly not imagine how that complicates the family’s grief? In addition to loss, the family has to feel frustration and, at times anger, towards the loved one who, had s/he listened might be alive. And, as a parent, wouldn’t it be fairly normal to wonder if you could have done anything differently so that the result of a confrontation with police would have your child, grown or not, able to walk away? Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate then for a Christian to want to sit with those parents; to listen when they talk about the one they have lost; to cry with them? Isn’t that what you would want if you were in the shoes of those parents?
Now let me consider the other scenario, a scenario that unfolds like that of Eric Garner’s. There is a video that provides indisputable confirmation that an encounter with police results in an unjust death. The family’s grief is likewise complicated by frustration and anger; those feelings directed towards authority. And, different from the first set of circumstances, the family wants to know what can be done to redeem the value of the life lost. They can do something. In such a case your chastising inflicts grief upon grief, frustration upon frustration and anger upon anger. A national voice, a Christian voice of influence, ignores an opportunity to be a peacemaker; to offer consolation regardless the situation; to promote healing; to provide wisdom and guidance for discussion. Instead that voice disdainfully implies the fault to lie with the deceased and / or the family.
I wish I thought you would pause and consider this, Mr. Graham. But, straightforwardly, your comments seem so hardhearted that I am not sure you would even give my questions a fleeting thought.
I’ve already stated that I personally do not see how your comments in any way parallel the Biblical description of wisdom. Let me anticipate the argument of some. They are going to say that the book of James was written to Jewish Christians. My understanding is that is true. However, does not the description of wisdom sound exactly like how Jesus conducted Himself? The book of James describes it. Jesus lived it.
There are several other actions of yours, Mr. Graham, that have nothing to do with your theology. Before I mention those I would like to cite one last Bible verse, James 1:26. The NIV and TLB are somewhat less direct because they use the third person. “Those who consider themselves religious yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves and their religion is worthless.” (NIV) “Anyone who says he is a Christian but doesn’t control his sharp tongue is just fooling himself, and his religion isn’t worth much”. (TLB) I think New Living Translation says it best because it speaks directly to us, the reader: “If you claim to be religious, but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself and your religion is worthless”. (Emphasis all mine.) Regardless of which translation, it is clearly stated that there is a direct correlation between the usefulness of one’s religion and his/her speech. To my way of thinking this verse goes hand in hand with the warning about potential destruction caused by our words. On the one hand our speech can render our beliefs fruitless, of no help to anyone. Our convictions will be viewed as flat, hollow nothingness. On the other hand, our choice of words, the timing of our words and the tone of our words can go far beyond this. Our speech can take our faith from ineffectual to destructive. In my opinion, Mr. Graham, you appear to be working hard, not at getting along, not at pursuing peace, but in creating a path of hurt, misunderstanding, and fear. You are actually planting seeds of war. How? By predicting that it is coming to us and encouraging Christians to be ready for it. You are setting the stage, when you could be helping to write a whole new play with dialogue reflecting wisdom and goodwill.
Although it has taken considerable time and effort to write to you, I do still have a little more to say, things I know will never be seen by you, much less read. But I feel a need to take a stand. I want to separate myself from you and other Christians who seem to be conforming to the political world just as it is and has been. Notice I said political world. Should there not be a distinct difference in the manner in which Christians engage in the political process and those who do not profess to be Christians? Be assured that I am not referring to the choice of a political party or a political point of view. The what, the political philosophy, of course can be very different from one Christian to another. I am questioning how a political stance is taken. When you give political commentary on Muslims, Mr. Graham, I fail to ascertain any difference whatsoever between your speech and conduct and that of the elected officials.
I am sad to say that I truly believe if all of your voices were altered electronically so as to be unrecognizable, I would be unable to distinguish whose voice was whose. I think I would hear exactly the same rancor. But your “voice”, Mr. Graham, ought to stand out, not necessarily because of difference in philosophy, but in manner. Your tone, your language, your entire explanation should be markedly dissimilar. And that should be the case only because you profess your Christianity, not owing to your standing as a national figure or one known internationally.
How else should your presentation be notable, regardless of the topic? Your assertions should be easily verifiable. Again, as Christians we are told not to bear false witness. So we must take the time, do the research, and use our intellect to make sure we are sharing truth. We hear it said well in our courts, “...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
I understand, Mr. Graham, that you are planning a “Decision America Tour 2016”. You announced this by saying:
“America is in trouble. At 62 years of age, I’ve lived long enough to learn that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can turn this country around; no political party or politician is the answer.
The only hope for this country is Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Next year I am planning to travel to all 50 states to conduct prayer rallies—we are calling this the Decision America Tour. I want to challenge Christians to boldly live out their faith and to pray for our nation and its leaders. I want to encourage Christians to get out and vote, and to cast their ballots for candidates who uphold biblical principles.
I want to strongly urge Christians to run for public office at every level—local, state, and federal. We will not be endorsing any political candidates, but I will be proclaiming the truth of God’s Gospel in every state. More details will come later. I hope you will start praying with us now.”
1. Use the tax exempt status of your organization, in reality, to influence voters. The wording regarding the purpose of your tour, to challenge Christians to: be bold in how they live, to pray for our leaders, to get out and vote is so well defined as to basically mimic the IRS code regarding what is allowable to 501(c)3 organizations.
However, you begin your announcement by saying that no political party; no politician is the answer to our country’s problems (as identified by you). You say the only hope is God the Father and God the Son. So if that is true, why bother including anything about elections and voting in your tour? Why not just have an evangelizing tour such as those your father conducted? Why not focus only on that which you say is the answer?
2. To use prayer as a cover up for political activity. You say you want to challenge Christians to pray for our leaders. I cannot, Mr. Graham, find any instance in which you asked Christians to pray for President Obama. If I am wrong, I hope to find it out and I will write you to correct this statement.
I definitely agree with you that we should pray. I HAVE prayed for a former president with whom I pretty much disagreed on everything. (I found it a difficult task.) Based on your own words, it seems to me that you question most all of what the president says, including his religious faith and his nation of birth, and you oppose much, if not all, of what he intends to do or wants to accomplish. And that is definitely your right. But to have failed to pray even once, publicly, by name, for him (unless you have and I cannot find it in print) does not give credibility to this recent avowal of the importance of praying for leaders.
3. To use the Christian faith to directly influence the result of a vote. You say you plan to encourage Christians to “...cast their votes for candidates who uphold biblical principles”. The mission statement for your tour unequivocally maintains that you “...will not be endorsing any political candidates”. Yet, you are. No, you are not naming names; that is true. Nonetheless, you are endorsing candidates, specific candidates; those who agree with your theology, or at least say they do at election time.
In summary, what this says to me is that you are exploiting your organization’s classification as a charitable entity, as well as your prominence. And that your intention is to manipulate the vote by use of your religious beliefs. And what an awful shame it is.
As distressing as I find all of what I have written about thus far, none of it compares to how you speak to Muslims. As I’ve said, you say a lot of harmful things about Muslims. But what is particularly disgusting is that prior to being incredibly insulting and saying disparaging things you always begin by saying you want to assure Muslims that you love them, that you pray for them, that Jesus loves them. And that, in your mind, makes it acceptable and “Christian”? Prefacing anything harmful you want to say with such a claim is not comparable to an E-Z Pass, Mr. Graham. You can’t just slow down before saying despicable things and give yourself a green light by mentioning your love for those you are about to malign with varying slanderous statements. When you do this you demean not only the Islamic faith but the Christian faith as well.
You might have noticed that I have consistently referred to you as “Mr.” Graham rather than “Reverend” Graham. I have done so because I cannot bring myself to use that term as it should be used, as a title of respect. I don’t believe just because you have completed a theological course of study and have the degree to prove it means much. I choose to reserve the designation of “Reverend” for those whose words and actions are, from my perspective, worthy of it.
Note: I did sign my name. That is only right. AND I made sure my address was available. That is only right also, in case anything I have said should be corrected.
Well, you were frank with Franklin and took him to a metaphorical woodshed. You put a lot of thought into this and expressed yourself very well a fully.
ReplyDelete