Billy Graham and the Mechanical Cow
A couple of years ago, I visited in North Carolina, the site of the original Billy Graham training centre. I stood behind the lectern Dr Graham used in some of his most famous crusades, with his actual speaking notes in front of me. I also saw the site Billy Graham had chosen for his final resting place, just beside the little Cove church. We were told that many of the leaders of the Billy Graham Organisation had planned to be buried here too; they are lifelong friends and wanted to be buried together.
A bitter dispute within the Graham family has now threatened those plans. Dr Graham is 88 years old; he is living with Parkinson's disease, and is now completely blind. It seems that his son and heir, Dr Franklyn Graham, is unhappy with the original plans to bury his father at the Cove site. Instead, he has hired former Walt Disney developers and is constructing a giant mock barn and multi-media exhibition centre near Charlotte, North Carolina (he descibes the place as a "memorial library"). Complete with mechanical cow, the Charlotte development appears rather "tacky" to some of Dr Graham's supporters who are, understandably, concerned about honouring his remarkable legacy with an appropriately dignified memorial.
Dr Graham's wife, Ruth Bell Graham, wants to be buried with her husband in Cove. Now, the crime writer Patricia Cornwell, a close friend of Billy and Ruth Graham, in an effort to scuttle Franklyn's plans.
Billy Graham is Charlotte's most famous son, and it is right that North Carolina's capital should have a site honouring his memory (in addition to the highway already named after him). But you can have a Lincoln Memorial without a Lincoln actually buried within it. One can only hope that a resolution can be found within the Graham family so that Billy Graham's death will not be overshadowed by pettiness.
Comments
What madness! A Walt Disney theme park for a man like Billy Graham. It's a disgrace. He deserves better treatment than this.
William,
You must spend ages looking for dirt to discredit these Evangelicals!
Would you not be better leaving Sunday Sequence to someone else and pursue your own interests!
Perhaps you could argue for a skeptics programme - or is that what you're doing with SS ;-)
busybee, what are you on? I am a great admirer of Billy Graham. I read that post as a celebration of Billy Graham! Will talks about Dr Billy's "remarkable legacy" and hopes the family can resolve their problems. What part of that is an attack on evangelicals? I am an evangelical and I agree with what Will has written without reservation. Pull your head in, busybee!
What a dreadful situation for the Graham family. Will is right to say that Dr Billy Graham's legacy is great, and that it is right to mark that legacy with a public memorial. I think Franklyn Graham, a man I respect greatly, is making a big mistake in pressurizing Mrs Graham to agree to burial for herself and her husband in a glorified theme park. This would trivialise and abuse the memory of a very great man.
From Wikipedia;
"In 2002, declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" revealed remarks made by Graham to President Richard M. Nixon decades earlier. Graham openly voiced his belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon. "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country." These remarks were highly controversial, with Jewish organizations characterizing them as antisemitic."
"When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that "although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks. If it wasn't on tape, I would not have believed it. I guess I was trying to please... I went to a meeting with Jewish leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness." According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for the conversion of the Jews."[
A wolf in wolve's clothing.
I heard that they might decide to bury him WITH the mechanical cow.
I'm going back to 'Finding Darwin's God' blog.
Let me know is anything changes while I'm gone!
Are you coming, Mark?
Maureen
#6; "We are not amused!"
He's had a go at Islam too - but I suppose he has apparently avoided the financial and moral hypocricy of many other religious evangelists.
Of course he has been using the money taken from the gullible to attempt to 'take over the world' - something he has also accussed Islam of wanting to do.
As for busybee and her attempt to censor Sunday Sequence, I am not surprised. It's the one programme (and blog) that I'm aware of, where there is a real attempt to cover ethics rather than just religious propaganda - and where believers and atheists can have a 'conversation'
I suspect it has a higher audience pull than the broadcast service which follows in the schedule.
Graham has changed his views very significantly over the years. He is derided by fundamentalists these days as a traitor to the evangelical cause, an ecumenical figure who's open to other religious and their teachings, and increasingly progressive on many moral issues. I've heard conservative christians in NI deny that Graham is even a Christian! I've no doubt that busybee will now say, "Ah! That's why Crawley likes him! He's a liberal!" It could be that Graham is worthy of respect from people of all theological stripes. I disagree fundamentally with his theology on a number of points (he's not liberal enough for my liking!), but I admire his faithfulness, his courage and his decency. Graham really is a colossus.
David (Oxford) #9
Perhaps having realized that his time draws near to meeting his maker, he's hedging his bets.
I have to say I have some sympathy with Busybee's position.
It seems that Sunday Sequence and William cannot do a story on bible believing Christians unless it is ridiculous or scandalous.
I dont oppose the inclusion of these stories at all, it is just there never seems to be any balance in the overall agenda.
ie you never see bible believing Christians given the same [virtually uncritical] free pass here as is given to Dawkins or the two heretical bishops we have been looking at in recent weeks.
And before anyone naysays me, bite your tongue until you can give me some hard evidence which contradicts what I am saying please.
PB
PB quote
It seems that Sunday Sequence and William cannot do a story on bible believing Christians unless it is ridiculous or scandalous
'Ridiculous' is a good word!
No one should be given a free pass on an ethics programme - Religion usually gets a free pass on other religious programmes on a Sunday - Count the hours yourself!
When SS becomes that type of programme will be the day I, and many of my friends stop tuning in.
The days of 'undeserved respect' for religion should have long gone by now.
BTW - You class the bishops as 'bible believing Christians'? - surely not?
When did Dawkins ever get a free pass?
Alan
It would appear your prejudices caused you to misread my posting 11.
I never ever called for religion to get a free pass and have argued counter to this elsewhere on this site in the past week, in detail.
My point is, I cannot recall seeing conventional Christian leaders getting the same platform to launch their books as Dawkins did.
If you read what William has written about him here it seems pretty clear he is in broad agreement with him.
Alan, I agree Sunday Sequence should reflect your views, but only to the extent that they are held by the audience.
So Buddhists, Muslims, Athiests etc should all get airtime in relation to their proportion of the audience.
Have you a problem with that or would you take a more fascist viewpoint?
PB
pb - you expressed sympathy with busybee
SS is a religion and ethics programme fron a public srvice broadcaster and should cover those stories and topics that the editorial team inc WC, consider to be in the public interest and make good radio within the terms of the charter. I'm sure that if we had a breakdown of the items covered over a year we would find they are so doing. There have been many religious authors and their books covered and Dawkins is one of the few atheists/Humanists who has got airtime recently. Don't forget his new book has been in the best sellers list for months. Perhaps a breakdown of the two hours live debate between Dawkins/supporters vs belivers would be an interesting figure? I would suspect even if it was 50/50 you would still say it was unfair because believers think any criticism of belief is just not accepable and prob blasphemous.
Please give me a quote from Will C supporting your allegation against him. He keeps his personal opinions pretty private as one would expect of a good presenter.
I think that your allegations are more of an indication that you are losing the battle - if not yet totally, the war.
Alan
what rubbish. I never said religion should not be questioned, on the ontrary. why put such words in my mouth?
Its funny how all the ´óÏó´«Ã½ public interest slots for SS seem to be humanist or liberal, isnt it?
I have yet to hear a slot on anything like the theme about how the church is making contributions to NI [not saying it hasnt been done, note]
There are many people in the church knocking their brains out working for reconciliation, with the homeless and addicts and pregnant teenagers who are panicking.
Homosexuals are a small percentage of the population but there seems to be a slot from their point of view almost every other week.
I am sure there must be as many muslims in NI as gay people, for example, but I rarely hear them on SS.
If you want some quotes from William look at his recent entries on Dawkins and the two heretical bishops.
Andrew Marr, who was a senior reporter with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ said in a recent ´óÏó´«Ã½ internal conference on Bias recently that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was dominated by minorities and minorty agendas, such a homosexuality but failed miserabley to reflect the views of middle England.
But there are none so blind as those that will not see Alan.
And perhaps there are none so foolish as those that strive with them.
PB
I haven't intervened before but pb's got my blood boiling. Give us your actual quotes pb ... how is WC biased? Don't just say "read him" ... chapter and verse! Come on, you're obviously obsessed with Will's views, this shouldn't be too difficult.
And while we on this, who in their right mind would want to HEAR a fundamentalist religious affairs programme? Have you tried Iranian radio yet?
Alan,
Please explain your comment to Busybee in post #8.
Censor is a strong word and I don't think that this can be taken from post #2.
It would appear (from my reading) that Busybee is not supportive of Evangelicals which would appear to be similar to your own views...
Have I missed something?
busybee quote
You must spend ages looking for dirt to discredit these Evangelicals!
Would you not be better leaving Sunday Sequence to someone else and pursue your own interests!
end quote
quote from pb
you never see bible believing Christians given the same [virtually uncritical] free pass here as is given to Dawkins or the two heretical bishops we have been looking at in recent weeks.
end quote
quote from me
SS is a religion and ethics programme fron a public srvice broadcaster and should cover those stories and topics that the editorial team inc WC, consider to be in the public interest and make good radio within the terms of the charter.
end quote
I think the potential censors are obvious!
Alan,
I don't think either busybee or pb are arguing for censorship.
busybee appears to be wondering why William wants to host Sunday Sequence at all and pb appears to be wanting more conrtibutions from bible believing Christians.
Neither of these points are promoting censorship, are they?
rubberduckie your missing the subtlety of pb's and busybee's argument. They don't think anyone should be presenting SS unless he is a fundamentalist ("bible-believing christian"). The very idea that someone would present this programme out of an interest in religion and ethics doesnt even occur to them!
While were at it, BTW: "bible believing christian" ... what's that mean? All christians believe in the bible (though they disagree about WHAT they believe about the bible!)
So when these guys say bible believeing chirstian what they mean is "literalistic, fundamentalisticly believing christians". Can you imagine how much credibility a programme would have if it was fronted by one of those types!? God (and I mean this) help us all!!!!!
Actually I think the belief police think that unless you are a card carrying Christian your opinion doesnt count.
Unless we are very careful, shortly you will be denied the vote, prohibited from owning a business, and obliged to sew a large yellow "L" (for liberal) onto your sleeve.
When fundamentalist jihad gets into full swing we will be forced into communal atheist/infidel zones "for or own protection" before the final solution is unveiled.
Sunday Sequence is for those interested in religion and ethics not only for adherents of one fantasy/religion or another. Who dares to tell me different?
Denis
In post 13 I called for more representation of all religious views from NI on SS. How would that make me fundamentalist?
On other entries on Will and Testament in the past fortnight I have stated at lenght that I have no problem whatsover with William Crawley presenting the show, and I dont.
And Eammon K, I put the onus back on you. I dont believe William is particulary more biased than the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in general but it is up to you to explain why Andrew Marrs and others said what they did about ´óÏó´«Ã½ bias?
Now if you so close to your own views and values to believe you are totally unprejudcied on all subjects that makes YOU a very dangerous person.
Everyone has bias depending on so many factors, me included. That includes William, but lets not make it personal, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has its own biased ethos just like Fox News does.
Eammon if your blood is still boiling, google "agenda setting theory" and read for a while.
But here are some examples from Will and Testament though;-
1) I have yet to see one entry about bible believing Christian which does not highlight something negative.
2) Gay rights are given much more prominence that many other minority groups in NI of similar numbers.
3) William repeatedly promotes a humanist fundamentalist view that sexuality is fixed, which flies in the face of much evidence from Alfred Kinsey, Peter Tatchell and Andy Comiskey, among others.
4) How many bible believing church leaders have their books reviewed on Will and Testament? We have Dawkins and the two heretical bishops recently.
Lastly public service broadcasting means broadcasting to the public in general. That means Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists, not just secular humanists/agnostics/atheists/liberals.
Funny how these are the people that howl the loudest about any proposed changes and yet that is also just the agenda being criticised here...
PB
PB- I ask you please to stop misrepresenting your position by using the phrase "bible believing". As other commenters have pointed out, the phrase could equally be applied to me as to you, because it's only what we believe about the bible that is different. The widely defined and well understood phrase "evangelical" should be used in its place. Thank you.
JW
if you really are a libertarian would you not allow me the small courtesy of defining my own identity?
By bible believing I simply mean all Christians who believe the bible to be the [definite article] divinely inspired word of God, and the final authority in belief and conduct. I dont think I have any serious problem with anyone who can buy that.
When was the last time you every described yourself as a bible believing Christ John, be honest?
This all seems so puerile, you self label as a post-evangelical. The only purpose all this serves is to make you look immature.
I dont buy any of you guys stereotyping me. It smacks of trying to divide and conquer Christians and also trying to convince yourselves that your liberal unbiblical views might just be traditional mainstream Christianity, which they are most definitely not and never have been.
Bono said: "I am still amazed at how big, how enormous a love and a mystery God is – and how small are the minds that attempt to corral this life force into rules and taboos, cults and sects..."
I want to be friendly and gracious with you guys... work with me here...
I dont mind opposing views...
If you can accept me for what I cam without stereotyping me I have no problems with you pulling me up if I do the same.
PB
My mother and father were Baptist Sunday School (SS) teachers, from Graham's church. He has long been a warmonger, a racist, and a bigot, and typical of political manipulators who abuse religion in a most hypocritical and immoral fashion. Most of what he says has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. A synthetic talking cow is quite appropriate for him. I am sure he will go to the the afterlife appropriate for people who do what he has done.
He is an offense to people who believe in the true teachings of Jesus Christ, and I have not doubt that God his superior will judge him accordingly.