Puff the Magic Graham -- John Fea



7 comments

John Fea

Did anyone get a chance to see the special edition of ABC’s 20/20 devoted to Billy Graham and the presidency? I am eager to hear what the “Religion in American History” blog community thought about it. Here are a few of my own thoughts to get the ball rolling.

1). While the documentary was generally favorable toward Graham, I was pleased that Charlie Gibson asked some of the tough questions about a Christian minister’s responsibility to speak truth to power. (I should add here that he never asked this question to Graham himself. This line of questioning was most evident in his interview with Charles Colson about the anti-Semitic remarks Graham uttered during a taped conversation in the oval office with Richard Nixon.

2). Was Graham a spiritual counselor or a prophet? Can we separate the two? If he was a counselor (as seems to have been the case with the Clintons), then I do not have as much of a problem with him hanging out in the corridors of power. Even presidents have spiritual needs. If he was a prophet, however, then I think he was definitely seduced by power. The Washington Post reporters who wrote the book that inspired the ABC documentary suggested that the presidents and Graham benefited from each other, but much of the focus in the show was on the way the presidents benefited from Graham and not the other way around. (With the exception of a brief commentary on how Graham used his fame to open doors for the preaching of the gospel in communist countries). Whatever the case, Graham seemed to thoroughly enjoy hobnobbing with presidents at the White House, on the golf course, and at a host of presidential vacation homes. In this sense, he was certainly no John the Baptist. (I might add here that Truman thought Graham, with his pistachio-colored suits, was a publicity hound. Carter, a strict Baptist, thought a relationship with Graham during his presidency would violate the principles of separation of church and state).

3). There seems to be a larger issue here about evangelicals and power. Pundits and commentators like to date the return of American evangelicals into public life sometime around the mid-1970s when Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority and Newsweek declared 1976 “The Year of the Evangelical.” But well before these developments, evangelicals (they called themselves “neo-evangelicals”) had made serious attempts to break away from the separatism of fundamentalism and engage the world. Graham, with his inclusive and ecumenical crusades, represented this shift. But so did a host of neo-evangelical scholars such as Carl F.H. Henry, E.J. Carnell, and others who joined the faculty of the newly established Fuller Theological Seminary. (See George Marsden’s excellent account of Fuller’s early years in Reforming Fundamentalism).

Today when we think of evangelicals in positions of power, we think about politics. But the neo-evangelicals of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s also set the stage for theologically conservative Protestants to gain influence in the academy. (And, I might add, they have done quite well—especially in our field of American religious history). If any of us were put off by the way Graham may have been seduced by the power of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I wonder if we can say the same thing about evangelical scholars and their relationship to the academy? (And I will confess that I am getting a bit autobiographical here). Is it really possible for evangelical academics to be “in the world, but not of it?” As we all know, success in the academic world requires ambition, a good bit of self-promotion, and the ever present temptation to write primarily for the approval of others. Can an evangelical be a good academic citizen without compromising her or his faith? I wonder.

4). Did anyone notice that the sole American religious historian on the show, Randall Balmer, got very little air time?

5). I still think that if you want to really understand what Billy Graham was all about, you have to watch his 1969 appearance on the short-lived Woody Allen Show. Check it out.

7 comments:

Kelly at: August 13, 2007 at 11:29 AM said...

A link to an article on Graham in _Time_:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651625,00.html

Randall at: August 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM said...

WOW! Thanks for the link to the Woody Allen interview of Graham. I had not see that before.

The clip well illustrates some of the logic of evangelicalism. I mean, the "no hermeneutics" perspective. Graham points back to God/scripture several times in that fashion.

Has Graham softened much since 1969?

I did not get a chance to see the special last night. Will have to track it down for future courses.

John Turner at: August 14, 2007 at 8:45 AM said...

I do think Graham softened in many ways as he aged, both politically and theologically. He clearly knew he had been burned by Nixon and Watergate. Even though he continued to be tempted by politics and occasionally used by politicians, he was much more circumspect.

I only saw part of the 20/20 program. I found Hillary Clinton's participation and comments very intriguing. No John McCain, Rudy G, or Mitt Romney present. I remain shocked that the leading Democrats have been much more open and explicit about relating their faith to their politics than the Republican candidates have been. Perhaps Fred T will change that.

Thanks for the Woody Allen link. It was great!

jfahler at: August 14, 2007 at 11:45 AM said...

Trying not to go off topic, but the _Time_ issue relating to the Democrats' recent interest in faith was pretty interesting. I personally remain somewhat skeptical in all honesty, even as a self-proclaimed "liberal" Protestant and fan of the group Sojourners.

Does anyone believe that we're about to see another shift in evangelical political activism? It might be too early to tell... but I wonder if this means that what's going on is actually going to transform into different attitudes among evangelicals.

John Fea at: August 14, 2007 at 9:42 PM said...

I think John Turner is correct about Graham. He has certainly stayed out of politics since the Nixon fiasco. Graham has refused to get pulled into the so-called "Culture Wars" and has taken some heat for it from the Christian Right. Of course this is not new for Graham. Fundamentalists have criticized him since he began his crusades.

Which leads me to jfahler's comment. I have found the Democratic voice on faith to be refreshing, but I am also skeptical about whether or not this will bring a significant sea change in evangelical political involvement. The evangelical left has been very vocal since 2004, but they still represent a very small percentage of the evangelical electorate.

I do think, however, that many evangelicals who vote Republican based on social/moral issues would be willing to vote for a pro-life Democrat who is socially conservative but economically liberal or populist. We saw this in Pennsylvania in 2006 with Bob Casey's win over Rick Santorum and nationally with all the so-called "Red Dog Democrats" who won seats in the House.

John Fea at: August 14, 2007 at 10:01 PM said...

Oops--I actually meant "Blue Dog Democrats."

Art Remillard at: August 15, 2007 at 7:19 AM said...

Here's a recent Newsweek article about the new Graham bio, _The Preacher and the Presidents_. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226461/site/newsweek/

newer post older post