I get this strange feeling that Bateman might just want Christians who go along to get along. Just pop culture Christianity without any actual beliefs. Look, I have met plenty of self-righteous Evangelicals who are terrible Christians and all around terrible people. I am skeptical that is the case here. For one thing, Christianity is the only religion that falls into the modern list of “acceptable targets” to attack and is viciously attacked by leftist culture and politicians. The second is I have seen many hated figures lionized by their enemies as a farce after their death and the record rewritten. All just to attack their successors and pretend they are worse. I will give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I cannot help but be a little suspicious.
I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows full well what he does. The funny thing is that the people on that side of the fence have no problem pummeling Christians, who would mostly give their lives for Mr. Bateman’s right to mock them. However, if given the chance, his kind would likely stomp on the throats of those who don’t agree. No comments whatsoever about what Muslims believe of gays and transgenderism.
I don’t agree with Franklin’s hard line in that we are all sinners, every last one of us. And my sin is no worse or better than anyone else’s. The difference is that I am not proud of my sin and would never flaunt it by having a parade to celebrate it.
What told me enough about the writer’s political bent was his line: “the 1973 Supreme Court decision that women had a fundamental right to choose.”
Someone not too familiar with recent history might wonder: choose what? The color of their party dress? Hair in a ponytail, a bun or just let it all hang loose? NO — it gave women the power to impose death sentences on innocent babies, without even asking their fathers’ opinions.
The author is wrong to say that Franklin Graham’s political views are polarising – apart from abortion which is (inevitably) so – defunding the police and open borders until a few years ago would have been anathema to the Democrats as well as Republicans. It will be interesting to see if Latinos keep trending Republican whether Democrats will be so laisse faire about an uncontrolled (southern) border. It should be noted that Republican views have stayed the same on abortion, policing, guns and even softened on things like gay and transgender rights compared to when Billy Graham was in his pomp.
On the religious side should a religious leader not be able to describe another religion as evil or that secularism leads to godlessness? For a preacher to be branded divisive over those sort of comments (i.e. not calling for violence against other religions or secularists) is a pretty low bar. Someone calling for the opposite (i.e. more secularism or pro-islamic views) would not be described as such.
I tend to agree – these views aren’t polarising, the poles are well and truly in place. Pole One: those who accept limits and the ‘givenness’ of human life derived from ideas of God or nature. Pole Two: those who refuse these things and commit to endless self-creation.
This article is just another example of the left deploying their standard playbook
Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
William Hickey
1 year ago
A formerly homogeneous nation, 90% white in 1950, becomes openly — if undemocratically — multicultural and the results are increasing factionalism and conflict. Even religious leaders find they have to “take sides” in the new heterogeneous nation instead of reaching out across the no longer broad social and cultural consensus.
Who would have ever predicted that? Too bad there aren’t things called history and sociology to help smart people warn us against these preventable evils.
Luckily we do have people like Oliver Bateman to scold us for being too self-centered and our leaders for being too loyal to their beliefs.
Well said. It appears the author would be favorable only to “cafeteria Catholicism”. It’s utterly flabbergasting that someone who calls themselves a historian and a journalist could be so ignorant about history and the world.
There is one Gospel and its believers follow what the Bible says. Today’s Left illiberal humanists despise Christians for their adherence to truths that were established over millennia, and prefer their own ever changing beliefs which whenever followed have led to misery, nastiness, cruelty, selfishness and broken societies lacking freedom.
If Franklin follows his father’s faith in Jesus and teaches what the Bible says, he is neither conservative nor liberal, but a disciple of Jesus.
Seeking to place people in identity pigeonholes not of their making is divisive. This article’s sneering tone says all you need to know about its author. Very disappointing.
Gerald Arcuri
1 year ago
Where to begin? And, where to end. The author is keen to mischaracterize the Christian faith, that much is clear. He neither understands it, nor gives much credit where it is due. The moniker “evangelical” has now become an epithet, by the simple linguistic magic of emptying it of any real meaning, and filling the void with whatever cant is convenient. ( see the author’s use of the capitalized term “Religious Right”, which is code for whatever concocted group the secular Left wants to demonize. )
Franklin Graham is not Billy Graham. Anyone familiar with the family knows that. And, Franklin Graham is a flawed human. Welcome to the human race. But a fair examination of his life and work would acknowledge the unimpeachable humanitarian organization he has nurtured, Samaritan’s Purse. It has done more good for more people in more places – with no strings attached – than perhaps any other humanitarian agency, governmental or NGO on the planet.
When the author has an accomplishment he can compare with this, I might listen to what he says. Until then, he should consider whether or not to cast any more stones.
Last edited 1 year ago by Gerald Arcuri
Daniel Lee
1 year ago
Liberal journalists always love the last conservative and hate the new one.
Bryan Dale
1 year ago
Billy Graham was from an age when conservative Christian’s were as likely to be Democrats as Republicans. That’s no longer the case. Christians are nearly all republicans while the Democrats have become the party of satanists.
Do you mean that satanists have a domineering or defining influence on the Democratic Party, or merely that the existing, practicing satanists in the US today tends to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.A big difference, I do say.
Oh come on, Billy G was clearly a conservative republican, there is no way in 2022 that he would be able to avoid the culture wars. The left does not tolerate dissent.
He surely was conservative but I agree with the author that he avoided advocacy for one party over the other, and that he would do so today. I believe that true Christians don’t ultimately care about politics, as people are flawed and will always seek their own interests instead of God’s.
I agree that ultimately true Christians don’t care about politics and I think that here in England Christians are not as almost exclusively right wing as in the US. Thankfully we have Christians across the political spectrum and our centrist party, the Liberal Democrats, was led by a Christian, Tim Farron, until he had the integrity to stand down for misleading a journalist regarding his views on homosexuality.
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Jesus Christ was so divisive in His day that he was murdered for His radicalism! And you want to single out Franklin?
Radical indeed, but radically compassionate and forgiving too. While he advocated and lived according to a rigorous ethical code, I don’t see how the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are well-aligned with any conservatism that is unwilling to question tradition or inherited beliefs.
I am not saying he was simply a leftist radical, as some attempt to argue, but the hearts of all who condemn and judge in his supposed name–wherever they fall on the ideological spectrum–are far from him. And yes, I could stand to be less judgmental myself.
Richard Ross
1 year ago
The Grahams, father and son, have never moved in their spiritual beliefs. It’s the Democratic Party and the left wing of society that has moved, and now expects those who stand for goodness (like the Grahams) to “unify” us all – under the Leftist umbrella. To quote President Reagan, “I didn’t leave the Dem. Party; the Dem. Party left ME”.
Dominic S
1 year ago
What an appalling, inaccurate, and anti-Christian article.
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago
We should mention that Samaritan’s Purse, under the leadership of Franklin Graham and his team, has provided disaster relief, on a massively global level, for victims of cataclysm and storm damage around the world.
Another detail that should be mentioned is this. In the history of mankind, there is only one person who has suffered a criminal execution and death, and then lived to tell about it. When we–each one of us–face that ultimate, common destiny, death–would we. . . would you. . . choose to ignore the only human who has conquered death itself? Would you not accept his invitation to eternal life? This is the question that all men and women should consider. Franklin will, as we all will, face his Creator on the other side of death’s door.
But more importantly, when your moment arrives for crossing that dreaded frontier, what will you say when you’re offered the path to follow Christ into eternal life?
Quo Peregrinatur
1 year ago
What is a Christian to do? Conciliate on political projects antithetical to Christianity, which are propped up by government, quangos, academia, mass media and the full spectrum of high corporate globocapital? And to do this in the name of “unity?” What unity? Whose unity?
Even Billy would be forced to enter the political fray were he preaching in our era. The center is gone.
Quincy Collins
1 year ago
As a retired Baptist pastor, I welcomed God’s forgiveness and love after hearing Billy Graham on TV in 1977. All I can day of Franklin, who earns a million plus a year, his Dad he ain’t, especially as a preacher. I quite frankly have no use for the man and his message which included suggesting Canadians break the law during the Trucker’s blockade in our nation’s capital last winter.
His ministry, Samaritan’s Purse is admirable, and I wish he had stuck with that.
Kat L
1 year ago
Great hit piece.
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago
Apart from the distraction of secular politics, Franklin Graham has re-oriented his father’s emphasis on salvation . . . to an international ministry to disaster and disease victims throughout the world.
Just now, as we write, Samaritan’s Purse has teams of medical personnel operating in Turkey, ministering to the needs of people there after the earthquake.
Franklin is simply learning, the hard way, by the school of hard knocks, that close affiliation with contemporary politics, and the people therein, is not a direct path to the hearts of world citizens from all faiths and cultures who need the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
The immensity of his father’s legacy presented to Franklin a complex international organization that will be redeemed by the grace of God, not the savvy ability of one heir, to negotiate and work with all the forces of civilisation that tear us apart and sometimes compel us to work together as human beings, citizens of this planet, children of God… a Deity who will still save each one of us from the consequences of our own sin if we are willing to turn to Jesus, the only man in all of human history who lived, died, and the lived to tell about it. . . (See Gospels.)
I get this strange feeling that Bateman might just want Christians who go along to get along. Just pop culture Christianity without any actual beliefs. Look, I have met plenty of self-righteous Evangelicals who are terrible Christians and all around terrible people. I am skeptical that is the case here. For one thing, Christianity is the only religion that falls into the modern list of “acceptable targets” to attack and is viciously attacked by leftist culture and politicians. The second is I have seen many hated figures lionized by their enemies as a farce after their death and the record rewritten. All just to attack their successors and pretend they are worse. I will give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I cannot help but be a little suspicious.
I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows full well what he does. The funny thing is that the people on that side of the fence have no problem pummeling Christians, who would mostly give their lives for Mr. Bateman’s right to mock them. However, if given the chance, his kind would likely stomp on the throats of those who don’t agree. No comments whatsoever about what Muslims believe of gays and transgenderism.
I don’t agree with Franklin’s hard line in that we are all sinners, every last one of us. And my sin is no worse or better than anyone else’s. The difference is that I am not proud of my sin and would never flaunt it by having a parade to celebrate it.
The Bible is very clear that we are all, every last one of us, sinners.
What told me enough about the writer’s political bent was his line: “the 1973 Supreme Court decision that women had a fundamental right to choose.”
Someone not too familiar with recent history might wonder: choose what? The color of their party dress? Hair in a ponytail, a bun or just let it all hang loose? NO — it gave women the power to impose death sentences on innocent babies, without even asking their fathers’ opinions.
Wow I had that same thought exactly.
The author is wrong to say that Franklin Graham’s political views are polarising – apart from abortion which is (inevitably) so – defunding the police and open borders until a few years ago would have been anathema to the Democrats as well as Republicans. It will be interesting to see if Latinos keep trending Republican whether Democrats will be so laisse faire about an uncontrolled (southern) border. It should be noted that Republican views have stayed the same on abortion, policing, guns and even softened on things like gay and transgender rights compared to when Billy Graham was in his pomp.
On the religious side should a religious leader not be able to describe another religion as evil or that secularism leads to godlessness? For a preacher to be branded divisive over those sort of comments (i.e. not calling for violence against other religions or secularists) is a pretty low bar. Someone calling for the opposite (i.e. more secularism or pro-islamic views) would not be described as such.
I tend to agree – these views aren’t polarising, the poles are well and truly in place. Pole One: those who accept limits and the ‘givenness’ of human life derived from ideas of God or nature. Pole Two: those who refuse these things and commit to endless self-creation.
This article is just another example of the left deploying their standard playbook
A formerly homogeneous nation, 90% white in 1950, becomes openly — if undemocratically — multicultural and the results are increasing factionalism and conflict. Even religious leaders find they have to “take sides” in the new heterogeneous nation instead of reaching out across the no longer broad social and cultural consensus.
Who would have ever predicted that? Too bad there aren’t things called history and sociology to help smart people warn us against these preventable evils.
Luckily we do have people like Oliver Bateman to scold us for being too self-centered and our leaders for being too loyal to their beliefs.
Well said. It appears the author would be favorable only to “cafeteria Catholicism”. It’s utterly flabbergasting that someone who calls themselves a historian and a journalist could be so ignorant about history and the world.
People used to worry that various kinds of Roman Catholic ethnicities (Irish, Polish, Italian etc) where making the US heterogeneous.
It did not turn out well though did it
There is one Gospel and its believers follow what the Bible says. Today’s Left illiberal humanists despise Christians for their adherence to truths that were established over millennia, and prefer their own ever changing beliefs which whenever followed have led to misery, nastiness, cruelty, selfishness and broken societies lacking freedom.
If Franklin follows his father’s faith in Jesus and teaches what the Bible says, he is neither conservative nor liberal, but a disciple of Jesus.
Seeking to place people in identity pigeonholes not of their making is divisive. This article’s sneering tone says all you need to know about its author. Very disappointing.
Where to begin? And, where to end. The author is keen to mischaracterize the Christian faith, that much is clear. He neither understands it, nor gives much credit where it is due. The moniker “evangelical” has now become an epithet, by the simple linguistic magic of emptying it of any real meaning, and filling the void with whatever cant is convenient. ( see the author’s use of the capitalized term “Religious Right”, which is code for whatever concocted group the secular Left wants to demonize. )
Franklin Graham is not Billy Graham. Anyone familiar with the family knows that. And, Franklin Graham is a flawed human. Welcome to the human race. But a fair examination of his life and work would acknowledge the unimpeachable humanitarian organization he has nurtured, Samaritan’s Purse. It has done more good for more people in more places – with no strings attached – than perhaps any other humanitarian agency, governmental or NGO on the planet.
When the author has an accomplishment he can compare with this, I might listen to what he says. Until then, he should consider whether or not to cast any more stones.
Liberal journalists always love the last conservative and hate the new one.
Billy Graham was from an age when conservative Christian’s were as likely to be Democrats as Republicans. That’s no longer the case. Christians are nearly all republicans while the Democrats have become the party of satanists.
Do you mean that satanists have a domineering or defining influence on the Democratic Party, or merely that the existing, practicing satanists in the US today tends to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.A big difference, I do say.
I’d say both are the case.
Billy Graham still holds the record for the biggest crowd at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
What? He beat Donald Bradman? Surely not?
Oh come on, Billy G was clearly a conservative republican, there is no way in 2022 that he would be able to avoid the culture wars. The left does not tolerate dissent.
He surely was conservative but I agree with the author that he avoided advocacy for one party over the other, and that he would do so today. I believe that true Christians don’t ultimately care about politics, as people are flawed and will always seek their own interests instead of God’s.
I agree that ultimately true Christians don’t care about politics and I think that here in England Christians are not as almost exclusively right wing as in the US. Thankfully we have Christians across the political spectrum and our centrist party, the Liberal Democrats, was led by a Christian, Tim Farron, until he had the integrity to stand down for misleading a journalist regarding his views on homosexuality.
Jesus Christ was so divisive in His day that he was murdered for His radicalism! And you want to single out Franklin?
Radical indeed, but radically compassionate and forgiving too. While he advocated and lived according to a rigorous ethical code, I don’t see how the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are well-aligned with any conservatism that is unwilling to question tradition or inherited beliefs.
I am not saying he was simply a leftist radical, as some attempt to argue, but the hearts of all who condemn and judge in his supposed name–wherever they fall on the ideological spectrum–are far from him. And yes, I could stand to be less judgmental myself.
The Grahams, father and son, have never moved in their spiritual beliefs. It’s the Democratic Party and the left wing of society that has moved, and now expects those who stand for goodness (like the Grahams) to “unify” us all – under the Leftist umbrella. To quote President Reagan, “I didn’t leave the Dem. Party; the Dem. Party left ME”.
What an appalling, inaccurate, and anti-Christian article.
We should mention that Samaritan’s Purse, under the leadership of Franklin Graham and his team, has provided disaster relief, on a massively global level, for victims of cataclysm and storm damage around the world.
Another detail that should be mentioned is this. In the history of mankind, there is only one person who has suffered a criminal execution and death, and then lived to tell about it. When we–each one of us–face that ultimate, common destiny, death–would we. . . would you. . . choose to ignore the only human who has conquered death itself? Would you not accept his invitation to eternal life? This is the question that all men and women should consider. Franklin will, as we all will, face his Creator on the other side of death’s door.
But more importantly, when your moment arrives for crossing that dreaded frontier, what will you say when you’re offered the path to follow Christ into eternal life?
What is a Christian to do? Conciliate on political projects antithetical to Christianity, which are propped up by government, quangos, academia, mass media and the full spectrum of high corporate globocapital? And to do this in the name of “unity?” What unity? Whose unity?
Even Billy would be forced to enter the political fray were he preaching in our era. The center is gone.
As a retired Baptist pastor, I welcomed God’s forgiveness and love after hearing Billy Graham on TV in 1977. All I can day of Franklin, who earns a million plus a year, his Dad he ain’t, especially as a preacher. I quite frankly have no use for the man and his message which included suggesting Canadians break the law during the Trucker’s blockade in our nation’s capital last winter.
His ministry, Samaritan’s Purse is admirable, and I wish he had stuck with that.
Great hit piece.
Apart from the distraction of secular politics, Franklin Graham has re-oriented his father’s emphasis on salvation . . . to an international ministry to disaster and disease victims throughout the world.
Just now, as we write, Samaritan’s Purse has teams of medical personnel operating in Turkey, ministering to the needs of people there after the earthquake.
Franklin is simply learning, the hard way, by the school of hard knocks, that close affiliation with contemporary politics, and the people therein, is not a direct path to the hearts of world citizens from all faiths and cultures who need the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
The immensity of his father’s legacy presented to Franklin a complex international organization that will be redeemed by the grace of God, not the savvy ability of one heir, to negotiate and work with all the forces of civilisation that tear us apart and sometimes compel us to work together as human beings, citizens of this planet, children of God… a Deity who will still save each one of us from the consequences of our own sin if we are willing to turn to Jesus, the only man in all of human history who lived, died, and the lived to tell about it. . . (See Gospels.)