http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_us/billy_graham_14 Clinton Honors Graham at Final Revival By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer Sun Jun 26,12:06 AM ET NEW YORK - As his final American revival meeting continued Saturday, a fragile Billy Graham was met onstage by former President Clinton, who honored the evangelist, calling him "a man I love." Clinton spoke briefly before Graham's sermon and recalled how the man known as America's pastor had refused to preach before a segregated audience in Arkansas decades ago when that state was in a bitter fight over school desegregation. "I was just a little boy and I'll never forget it," said Clinton, who was joined by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I've loved him ever since. God bless you, friend." Graham called the Clintons "wonderful friends" and "a great couple," quipping that the former president should become an evangelist and allow "his wife to run the country." Graham, 86, then launched into a short sermon that was interrupted by applause five times. Organizers estimated 80,000 people had come to the crusade at Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens — about 20,000 more than the opening night Friday. The rally ends Sunday. The evangelist is suffering from fluid on the brain, prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease. He uses the walker due to a pelvic fracture and is largely confined to his home in Montreat, N.C. He had said previously that the rally "will be the last in America, I'm sure." Despite his many ailments, he spoke strongly for about 15 minutes, in an address meant to appeal to young people. He peppered his speech with pop-culture references from Madonna to Bono to MTV. He wove a parable about bad decision-making from the plot of "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith," in which Anakin Skywalker becomes the villain Darth Vader. "The decisions you make tonight will effect your whole future and your eternal future," he said, before inviting people forward to accept Christ. Graham's son and successor, the Rev. Franklin Graham, sat nearby, ready to finish the speech in case his father could not. But Franklin Graham was needed only to help his father move onstage. Seats began filling hours before the event began, as temperatures reached into the 90s. Speakers repeatedly encouraged people in the audience to drink water to avoid fainting. Graham waited to go on in an air-conditioned tent, with aides nearby in case of a medical emergency, and the stage was shaded by a massive canopy. Graham's pulpit has a movable seat hidden from view, so he can sit if he feels unsteady. He used the seat Saturday only after he finished his sermon. Graham is considering a request to hold a rally in November in London, but Franklin Graham said his father no longer adjusts well to time zone changes and does not like to be away from his wife, Ruth, who is also in ill health. Graham has preached to more than 210 million people in 185 countries. He has been sought out by U.S. presidents and leaders worldwide and, more than any other religious figure, has come to represent the American evangelical movement. Marie St. Louis, 34, who came to the event hours early Saturday with friends and family from her New York church, called the rally "bittersweet" because it was Graham's last in the United States. "It's sad because he's such a legend," St. Louis said. "When you think of Billy Graham, you think of a lot of things a Christian should be."
Nice post rhester, and a good summary of what got us here. I had to take a while before responding becasue those were very pivotal time in my Christian walk as well, and very angering times. I’d like to reinforce a couple of points and also ask you a couple of questions about the wording in one or two places, but without taking away from the overall tenor of your post. It’s just that you touched on a couple of hot button issues for me, and I suspect others, so it would probably be useful to address them here. I’m interested in hearing your comments on them. I certainly agree with the shipwreck analogy, but from my perspective it seemed to me that many of these leaders were not well meaning at all. I think for many of them it was pure politics. They took selected passages of the Bible out of context and used that corruption as an instrument of power and control for their own personal and political purposes. I think a number of these guys were simply false prophets, the Pharisees of our time. Just as in Christ’s time, many of the Christian leaders today are corrupt. That’s just a reality that people need to be aware of. It used to drive me nuts to hear those people talk about being “born again” because I didn’t, and still don’t, see any way that they could even understand what that meant. Truly being born again changes your heart. It gives you a heart for people, and many of those leaders had no heart for people that I could see, not for people who couldn’t fill their pockets with money anyway. (Note: It’s not for me to pass judgment on these people. I don’t know their hearts, but to the best of my ability to discern these people do not represent the values and the life of Christ.) The problem on the left was more puzzling, especially in Canada where we had such a strong tradition of social gospel type beliefs. Past corruptions in the church (particularly the Catholic church) led to a lot of protesting that seemed to be enough to induce people to stray away from past positive understandings of Christianity. I think these are some of the reasons I feel it’s so important to point out that many church leaders in the past, and today, are completely corrupt. This is something that Jesus himself addressed in strong terms in a number of places in the Bible. It’s also very important to point out alongside that no one is perfect, and a lack of perfection doesn’t mean that someone is corrupt, but the damage done by the corrupt ones so immense that it really needs to be pointed out again and again that they exist and that they do not represent true Christianity. Sooo many people were led astray and became cynical about Christianity in those days. It was just heartbreaking. There were several key televangelists who were probably the most prominent culprits back then, but there were others too. The whole phenomenon was very very hard to understand. Many of these people seemed like exact replicas of what was warned against the bible, and yet people were following them and society was labelling Christianity by their examples. For the relevant biblical passages on this start with Matt 23. He’s Matt 23:23 for one example: 23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=23&version=31 Sooooo true. So sad and so true. You are so right. From the, I’ll call it fundamentalist Christian left (FCL), we could see the outrageous, over the top, moral relativism of the right. We could see them cherry picking issues in a manner that seemed to be designed to suit a political agenda. You would see people angrily and self-righteously protesting outside an abortion clinic and yet seemly in the next breath calling for cuts to taxes and therefore social programs. And there was far too little in the way of ideas or particularly funding to help young pregnant women, so while they were on the one hand angrily denouncing abortion they were on the other had creating the economic conditions that drove poor young women to do it. Remember that Christ commanded us to feed and cloth the poor, not wave a self-righteous finger at them and feel proud of ourselves for having done so. Yes, by all means, tell them what you believe, BUT: Matt 25: 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." This is the word of the Lord. God warns us in no uncertain terms not to be judgmental (Romans 2) and also tells us in no uncertain terms how we should treat the poor and less fortunate in our society. “Whatever you do for the least of these you do for me.” “Whatever you did not do for the least of these you did not do for me.” This is real Christian fundamentalism. This is what fire and brimstone messages should be about. There is so much wealth in western countries now that there is no reason for people to be starving in the streets here. Other places in the world have major problems that aren’t as easy to solve, but ours are simple. We have the money. What we as a society don’t have is a heart for the poor, a heart for Christ. I’ll correct you slightly here. The left for the most part abandoned Christianity, and social democratic Christians (the FCL anyway) were essentially left out in the dark, or we left because we couldn’t stomach the fragmented and ineffectual mess that those parties had become. It’s changing now and at the grass roots level there are more FCL becoming active in the politics again, they aren’t at the leadership levels yet. How these changes happened would be a long discussion. The legacies of MLK and Tommy Douglas fell by the wayside as a generation of rebellious and morally immature boomers swept into power claiming they had a better way. They didn’t, of course. Their way was ultimately conservative and regressive, not progressive. There was/is a group of what I’ll call non-fundamentalist Christians, the kind that say “the bible isn’t literal” and “it’s outdated” and that kind of comment. These “Christian” groups are drying up though because there is no substance to them and they aren’t attracting any young people. But at least these people are honest in the way that they are changing the Bible. The Christian right talks about its “literal interpretation” of the Bible but in actuality the more extreme elements are corrupting it beyond recognition. They take selected passages out of context, effectively denying the majority of the NT, and call themselves “fundamentalists who literally interpret the bible”. This is the very basis of large sectors of the Christian right, a selective and opportunistic editing of the Bible. There is one reportedly mainstream group we discussed here some time ago that doesn’t even read the Bible. They read one of their leader’s interpretations of the Bible! I’d like to touch on a couple of statements you make here. The destruction of the moral authority of the Bible has largely been done the Christian right, by the “fundamentalists” that Wallis was taking about, IMO. He’s bang on when he says that they can’t support their positions from the whole of the Bible, because they fundamentally misrepresent the Bible and thereby work to destroy the true meaning. And on the left, well, if you’re not a Christian then the Bible will have no moral authority for you. Non-Christians by definition don’t believe in the Bible so when you say that they’re trying to destroy the moral authority of the Bible it’s not clear to me what you’re trying to say. It seems to me that it’s a given that a non-Christian won’t believe in the moral authority of the Bible. “Christian Heritage” is also a hot button term. My first reaction to it is that Christian Heritage should be destroyed, and replace by Christian faith. Heritage is all too often a code word for conformity and legalism. Christian faith is all about a relationship with God. It’s transformative. It makes you into a completely different person in ways you never thought possible. It’s like being born again. Jesus was a progressive, remember. He opposed he traditions of the Pharisees and many of the other religious leaders of the day. He didn’t “conform and fit in.” Now you probably mean something quite different when you say this, but fyi, this is the image I and I suspect many others here get when they hear the term “Christian Heritage.” So I’d be interested in hearing what it means to you. I whole heartedly agree with this. There are a number of good people below the leadership level in some of even the worst groups I’ve seen here in Canada. And to add this, think about the welfare of the poor with your vote and your voice too. No individual can carry the weight of all of the poor on their shoulders. We can only do what we are called to do within our individual lifeworld, but the democratic process is a powerful thing that makes us all responsible for the way our countries are run. Your vote and your voice are powerful tools that you are accountable for. If you have a Christian elected representative who favours cutting basic support and services for the poor take Matt 25 to him or her and remind them of their duty as a Christian. Remind him or her of where Christ’s priories are, and where his or hers need to be.
Grizzled -- That is an excellent post. Very well reasoned. Spurs more than a few thoughts in me...here are a couple: 1. there are Christians, particularly in the States, who are fearful of "big government." they cite thomas jeffersons quote: "a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." the very heart of the Constitution is fear, frankly...fear of government. so the Constitution protects personal property like crazy. there are some in the States who would say that taxation isn't charity and thus, welfare is not the same as Christian charity. i understand that viewpoint as an American...because it's intensely American. i'm not saying it's the "right" way to view it. or the most God-honoring way. it's a hurdle, let's say. 2. i have been thinking quite a bit lately about the challenges to other Christians around the world, relative to the culture they live in. certainly in the Western world, wealth may be our own greatest hurdle. not wealth, alone, but rather our attachment to it. as a Christian, if God called me to give up what wealth I have, how would I respond? i'm very convicted by that. convicted that my lack of response to a call like that lessens the role of God in my own life...he becomes a "little g" god. and perhaps then wealth has the capital G. ouch. like the rich young prince who walks away dejected. i taught a sunday school class this last weekend on zaccheus and compared him to the rich young prince which is just a chapter back in Luke. the incredibly different responses.
Both to Grizzled and MadMax- I am very grateful to know of believers like yourselves who really seek to follow Jesus Christ in sincerity, faith and humility. We Christians can really get full of ourselves and think we are so smart and important. My personal belief is we all have that tendancy (I do) and our focus should be on Jesus Christ who is Savior and Lord. We may desire to see changes in governments and churches and such, but the best changes happen when God works His grace in our own hearts. Jesus knows what He is doing and He promised to build His church. I find it hard to stomach what I see in the church world at times, but I look at myself and see the same needs, I don't think criticism is right, but I don't want to be hoodwinked either. Let us not be decieved- the truth is in Jesus Christ (as revealed in His word). At our church we have a simple discipleship program- read the Bible every day and do what it says. Jesus said "Without me, you can do nothing" I have to agree. Please forgive me for not quoting the chapter and verse often I am typing very fast- but that is John 15: somewhere around 4-7 I think.
i sincerely disagree. this "you're either with us or against us" mentality is the crux of my disdain for religion.
Maybe you are reading the quote differently, it means Christians need Jesus' help. And I must admit I need it alot. It is like a mother saying to a baby you need me more than you can possibly realize. Not mean-spirited, Jesus is telling His followers 'don't try this on your own, you will need my help. If you are not religious this is nothing to you.
Can't deny that... my record is pretty bad, I am basically a self serving person and if any good at all comes out I must confess Jesus gave me the help to do it. Dalai Lama is probably a great person, I am not. He can do alot without Jesus except know God.
I'm betting this is what he's saying: John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
i'm confused...i'm not being cute or sarcastic..i'm genuinely confused. i thought you told me before that Buddhists didn't believe in God.
i'll answer for him again (sorry, rhester!!! ) Christians don't believe they're getting into the hereafter based on their own accomplishments. We believe we're all unworthy of God...that God made a gift through Christ which anyone can accept. And that gift leads to eternal life.
but my questions weren't answered. i'm not trying to give anyone a hard time and i mean no disrespect, but: is the dalai lama holy? who has the better chance at heaven, rhester or the dalai lama?
are you asking those questions of a Christian?? do you want the "Christian take" on that?? or are you looking to some other standard?
there's lots of standards. even within Christianity there are different standards. here's my take: no one is holy but God...we've all fallen short of what's required of us. all of us. Christ seems to indicate that he is a unique answer to this problem of how far we've fallen. Having said that, I don't know what everyone's eternity holds for them, and I wouldn't even venture a guess....He is incredibly merciful, and I have no idea what new mercies He will show.
This is where we get into that whole "concepts" thing. But you are right, they do not belive in a creator, or a being that answers petitions etc. But if you think of god as love, goodness and understanding, then yes, he knows god very well. Did Jesus mean the only way to get to know "god" through him the person, or his way? If it is his way (which I believe), what is his way? Did Jesus know god through himself?
this is where our discussions usually fall. we use different definitions for the same word. thus, we have a hard time communicating.
