Tags
501 c 3, Billy Graham, Election, Evangelical Christians, Obama, Religion, Romney, Wall Street Journal
In a recent full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal, 93-year-old Billy Graham made a drastic political about-face by endorsing President Barack Obama for another term. The lifelong conservative evangelical Christian appears to have had quite the change of heart just days after meeting with Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
Although The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association said, “The ads intentionally do not mention any candidate, political party, or contest,” the support for the incumbent candidate is evident when one reads between the lines. For those who have difficulty decoding politically suggestive messages, have no fear: my expertise in composition and rhetoric will serve to guide you through Graham’s thinly veiled support for Barack Obama.
First, let us take a look at the text of the ad in its entirety:
The legacy we leave behind for our children, grandchildren, and this great nation is crucial. As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe that it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God.
Now there is certainly some fluff to Graham’s message–and I do like how he cleverly reminds everyone to send him a birthday card—but there are three specific points in the advertisement that prove Graham wants Americans to “gobama” this election:
1. “…it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”
[Expert Analysis] Since deciphering “biblical principals” is impossible (an eye for an eye?–or–turn the other cheek?), Graham is clearly nudging voters toward the candidate who supports Israel. A quick look at Barack Obama’s website provides plenty of cited evidence for the claims that the President “has repeatedly stood up for Israel in the international community, has sent record levels of security assistance as President, and believes that Israel must remain a Jewish state.” Graham could have probably stopped here, but he wanted to make sure Americans understood some other reasons why Obama deserves their votes.
2. “I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life.”
[Expert Analysis] This one is easily pointing to Obama, and even Mitt Romney makes a strong case for the President on this issue. Romney keeps mentioning how Obama has enabled more poor Americans to benefit from food stamps than ever before. If providing nourishment to hungry people isn’t protecting the sanctity of life, I don’t know what is. There is no life without food, and maybe there is an explanation as to why Romney is anti-food: he is constantly accused of being a robot, and a robot doesn’t even need food!
3. “I urge you to vote for those who… support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.”
[Expert Analysis] Apparently, Obama supports this particular definition of marriage so much that he actually went out and married a woman. Now that is backing up policy with action. So many politicians say one thing about how people should live and yet don’t model the behavior. It is nice to see that, although President Obama doesn’t tell people what socio-religious practices they should follow, he leads by example instead. It was nice of Billy Graham to point out the President’s often overlooked relationship to the First Lady.
In conclusion, the current President of the United States clearly meets all the requirements that Billy Graham thinks are important for this nation’s leader. Yet it is understandable that Graham chose not to explicitly name the President in his “non-political” advertisement; after all, the 501(c)(3) government entitlement program that benefits Graham’s non-profit association stipulates that organizations “may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” Well played, Mr. Graham. I am sure that as a gesture of thanks for your coy public advertisement, President Obama will put in a good word for your organization with the IRS so you can continue to “not” support any political candidates–wink, wink.
Raunak said:
hahahaha…a great expert interpretation :)
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jason:
Just curious…who is the one giving “expert analysis”?
Mark
J. Palmer said:
Mark:
The expert is yours truly. Just havin’ some fun.
But on a serious note, what do you think about the 501c3 restrictions for churches, pastors, etc.? And do you think Graham was indeed endorsing a candidate (as many believe) under some kind of more generalized “social responsibility” guise?
Darlene said:
I truly hope anyione who follows your blog realizes your interpretation of Billy Graham’s remarks are nonsense and certainly tongue in cheek. If I were a democrat and a Christian, I would have a serious issue with the fact that your party denied Christ three times during the convention. It was obvious to all that the party wanted God removed from the platform, yet the leaders appeared to hear what they wanted to hear. They knew if they went with the majority it would be political suicide. How can this not be an alarm of the times in which we are living?
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jason:
Shame on me! I thought it was a serious post…I guess i’m a bit defensive, or paranoid, or both!
Seriously, you may want to indicate, in some way, that the post is not a serious one. I read the post yesterday morning about 6:30 am and I was a bit worked up over it! But, maybe that’s an issue I need to deal with.
Regarding your question about 501c3 restrictions:
I’m undecided.
I think you know my feelings regarding the differentiation between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion”. It seems as though the trend now is to completely remove all religious influence from society, when I don’t believe that was the intention of our founding documents.
With that in mind, what we may be seeing is a sort of evangelical “fight or flight” experience. If conservative Christians feel there is aggression from the left to completely remove religious reference from society, the BREA ad may be evidence of some kind of pushback to the aggression. In other words, stand your ground now or forever lose it.
There are laws in place regarding 501c3 status and non=participation, or non-endorsement, in political campaigns. We need to respect the laws that are in place. However, the field is not level. It seems that some African-American churches have no problem endorsing candidates (or platforms) in church, and they do it without repercussion from the IRS. If it’s against the law, then it needs to be enforced.
Personally, while I believe Christians should actively influence government, i.e. voting, supporting a candidate whose views reflect biblical morality, and so on, our mission as a Church is sharing the message of the Gospel. Christ did not commission us to be political activists – he commissioned us to make disciples of the Gospel.
With that being said, I don’t think we can stick our head in the sand and ignore the progression and activity of society. We are most definitely citizens of two kingdoms, and this requires a concern and participation in both.
Do I think the BREA was supporting a candidate? Absolutely. But, they did so without naming a candidate (and, thus, the satire of your post). Did Billy Graham do this? I doubt he was the architect of the ad campaign – more likely his son, Franklin. I’m more disappointed that the BREA removed Mormonism from their list of cults page.
In a nutshell, that’s my view. And yours?
The Confirmation Files said:
This had me laughing out loud….good job.
J. Palmer said:
Mark,
Great explanation of your thoughts. I agree with much of what you say.
My opinion on the 501c3 exemption stems mostly from personal experience, so it may seem a little small-minded, but I feel it is valid nonetheless.
A few years ago I was attending a non-denominational Christian church in Athens, GA. Now, it goes without saying that this church’s congregation, like most other churches in the deep south (save African American churches) consisted of mostly politically conservative-minded folks. However, this particular church seemed to be both apolitical and more diverse (culturally, philosophically, etc.) than I knew other churches in the area to be. During election season, the focus of the church seemed to change a little. The church pastor even invited the local congressional candidate to attend a service and called him up so the congregation could pray for his success in the upcoming election. I, along with my wife, felt like we no longer belonged at this church because our political leanings differed so much from what seemed to be the majority. We were also aghast that our seemingly open-minded pastor would endorse this particular candidate (Paul Broun), a candidate who has said some incredibly close-minded things (like Obama is not American or Christian, and is like Hitler) and recently has come under intense scrutiny for his comments asserting that the earth is 9,000 years old. Typically, such a comment from a religious fundamentalist wouldn’t set off the firestorm it did, but Broun sits on the House Science Committee. But I digress.
Anyway, this experience cemented my belief that matters of state should not, as Roger Williams once put it, “contaminate the pure religion of Jesus Christ.” And sadly, we ended up leaving that church partly because of that incident.
The way I see it, all churches, pastors, and citizens are free to support any candidate they choose vocally or not. Churches’ freedom of speech is in no way under attack as some claim. They just can’t have their cake and eat it too. If they want to get into the political arena, they can. And they can still preach the Gospel if they want–they just lose their 501c3 status. I think that is fair.
With that said, I believe strongly that when pastors/churches get political, they are making a huge mistake. Christ is supposed to bring people together,and politics do the exact opposite (99% of the time). There are few more effective ways to drive someone away from Christ.
It is not worth losing one soul to promote the earthly matters that govern our finite lives.
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jason:
Wow! So sorry you had that experience in church. I, like you, would have been very uncomfortable.
I have, however, served in churches where we did invite local politicians to participate, but it was not to endorse them or a political philosophy. We did it as a way to pray for our elected leaders and the decisions they make regarding our communities and nation. As Christians, we are called to pray for our elected leaders, regardless of who they are or what political party they represent.
While I am not a supporter of President Obama, I have prayed for him and his administration many times, not to think or act like I would, or to change his mind regarding abortion or marriage, but that he would lead with wisdom and accomplish God’s will. I fully believe that God is sovereign in all matters – even who is elected. On November 6, the candidate chosen will be the one God places in the White House.
Nevertheless, our ultimate calling – yours and mine, as believers – is to share the Gospel and work out our own salvation here and now. Part of that working out our salvation is to reflect the mind and heart of Christ as presented in Scripture. I fully believe that if we all did that, there would be less divisiveness and immorality. I say less, because we are all sinful by nature, and we will many times choose to disobey God’s laws and his will for us. In other words, no matter how hard I try to keep focused on Christ, I will hurt others with an unkind word or deed, and so on.
So, in short, churches should focus on sharing and living the Gospel. We’re taught in Scripture that we should meet the physical needs of those around, first to brothers and sisters in Christ, then to others. It’s not a “social Gospel”, but rather a Gospel that seeks the glory of God alone – who he is and what he has done for us.
If we do that, then we’ve not only influenced those around us, but we have, in essence, influenced the secular world, i.e. the political arena.
I’ve preached long enough!
J. Palmer said:
Thanks CF!
J. Palmer said:
Thanks, Mark. Good discussion, as always.