September 25
Billy Graham or Martin Luther King, Jr.?
By Tom AireyPage:
- 1
- 2
Christianity’s always had a number of different voices, a number of different streams and strands, and I think we had to keep track of prophetic strands and keep track of priestly strands. There’s always been Christians who are well-adjusted to greed, well-adjusted to fear, well-adjusted to bigotry. There’s always been Christians who are maladjusted to greed, maladjusted to bigotry, maladjusted to fear. So the question is what kind of Christian, which has to do in the end, with what kind of human being you choose to be. — Cornel West
Today, the question is not “Are you a Christian?” but instead, “What kind of Christian are you?” This, actually, has always been the question, because there have always been different kinds of followers of Jesus. Like the four original Gospel writers, each Christian community emphasizes different aspects of who Jesus was and is and each Christian community interprets the life, teachings and death of Jesus in different ways. As it turns out, the diversity of emphasis and interpretation creates different outcomes, shaping the lives of Christian communities (and individuals) in radically different ways.
It is quite useful, I believe, to take as models the two most popular (and, arguably, most influential) American Christians in the 20th century: Billy Graham (born 1918) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (born 1929). These men are deeply cherished by many both inside and outside of the Christian tradition, but they represent tremendously divergent brands of Christian faith. I should know: I grew up (born 1973) in the Graham strand and, in the past five years, have transitioned into the King tradition.
Billy Graham is the face of a mostly white suburban brand of Christianity. It posits that sin is a universal condition that keeps us from the Almighty God. Only a conversion to faith in Jesus Christ can restore this relationship and be the ticket that gets us through the gates of heaven when we die. The primary task of the Billy Graham Christian is to get people “saved,” otherwise they will go to hell. Everything in life is viewed through this lens:
My one purpose in life is to help people find a personal relationship with God, which, I believe, comes through knowing Christ.
Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that to be a Christian, one must take up the cross, which surely meant confronting socio-economic and political injustice. Indeed, this is precisely what Jesus did and precisely what he called his disciples to do in his absence. For King, God’s Love moved people to a gritty kind of empathy, lobbying for the least of the these in the world:
True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
Of course, this compassion transcended charitable giving and paternalism. Real faith meant that laws had to change so that black people would stop being lynched and deemed second-class citizens. It meant that the U.S. government would need to be called to account for military interventions (like Vietnam) that devasted poor and ethnic communities, while at the same time failing to provide for a fair and equitable way of life in America. In short, the Christian experienced and spread God’s love by creatively, strategically and nonviolently transforming the laws that stripped dignity from fellow children of God.
While King was enduring bomb threats and jailings, Graham became known as a preacher to the Presidents, especially Republicans. Texas oilman, Sid Richardson, introduced him to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Ike was baptized as a Presbyterian after “consulting” with Graham, “I don’t think the American people are going to follow anybody who’s not a member of a church.” Graham held Sunday services in the Nixon White House and advised him on how to campaign in the evangelical community. He even wrote at least one speech for Nixon.
Graham translated his popularity from Christian revivals into a connection with the highest from of social and political power in the United States. True, Graham was a source of comfort to the most stressed out leaders in the world, but as evangelicalism grew in popularity, Graham became an important pawn used by political leaders to woo their votes and resources.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
Very interesting article. Well researched. Nice job Tom. I agree you could not synthesize the 2 by their political involvement.
Yet we should strive to synthesize the calling of people to faith in Christ with the prophetic call to justice and confronting injustice. The main reason why is because Jesus did. He called all people to Him and offered Himself as the Way, the Truth and the Life. At the same time he confronted the powers and religious/political structures of his time.
I don't have to choose between Graham or King. It doesn't have to be either/or. It should be both/and.
Again, loved the article. Well done.
-
This drawing of distinctions and then choosing sides reminds me of the Corinthian church in the New Testament, whose members tended to identify their faith with one or another leader. “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12) The Scripture responds to this with the rhetorical question, almost sarcastic question, "Is Christ divided?"
Graham and King both represent the heart of Christ. God calls one person to highlight one aspect of truth and another person to emphasize another because -- unlike Jesus Christ -- no one human can capture it all. Any attempt to rank King's emphasis above Graham's (or vice versa) overlooks the breadth and depth of the heart of Christ and the truths he taught.
-
Fantastic reply Tom. Exactly what I was thinking.
-
Simple. I listened to Graham on the radio at my grandma and grandpa's house on Saturday evenings in the late 1950's. Then I grew up, moved away, got to know people other than white Mennonites and MLK Jr. became more relevant. They both played a role in my journey of belief, but at this point, both are largely irrelevant, to me at least.
-
Personally, I like the holistic understanding of John Wesley. He preached both personal faith in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord and a response in "social holiness." If you have never read it, a good example of the latter expression is the United Methodist Social Creed: http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2294683/k.B1A4/Church_and_Society.htm
-
Yes, Joe, "it should be both/and."
And yet - as you note - this will not happen unless we "strive" to make it so. Why? Because Graham and King understood the mission of Jesus (i.e., the Reign of God) differently. If we want to affirm both, we first must reinterpret what one or the other said.
-
Both/and opinions are reasonable and desirable but, let's face it, we are either/or. Both/and let's us take comfort in what kind of Christian we already are, while politely respecting the other side. The real question is put well by the author: What kind of Christian are you now, and does it suit the country or the kingdom to remain that way? Thanks, Tom. Brave and urgent article.
-
Betty, I understand what you are saying, but I think in certain ways the point you are making (or the point Tom Airey made)would require us to reinterpret Jesus more than Graham or King. The way in which King worked out the Gospel in his life and ministry, and the way in which Graham worked out the Gospel in his life and ministry, are both well-grounded and well-rooted in the life and ministry and teaching of Jesus Christ. Though each of us may be called to emphasize one strain more than the other at any particular point in our own life (or perhaps each of us has a personal bent that makes one strain more graspable than the other), surely it would be inconsistent with the witness of Scripture to hold either emphasis up as more valid than the other.
-
Thought-provoking article. Well written. My only problem is with the word "or" in the title. Using the word "or" forces a choice which results in an incomplete Christian message.
Looking back on my own spiritual journey, Rev. Graham answers my questions on how to come to faith. And Rev. King answers the question that everyone should ask after coming to faith: "Now what?". God didn't save us so we could sit in church basements waiting for his return. He has called us to live lives of faith - to impact the world, through the message of our word and the message of our works. We neglect either at our peril.
-
It's so weird that this is out there as I'm taking a class about this very topic. I would have to say Martin Luther King's speech "I have a dream" touched me in ways that I can't explain as I live in the south where there were segregation and horrible racism. Billy Graham also made it so that I was a believer. Both made it possible for me to be the Christian that I am today. But as you grow as a Christian you move forward and find other minister's that help you grow and get closer to God. Am I right or do you all disagree w/ me?
Comment on the blog post Billy Graham or Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download