“You’ll know it when you see it.” Has anyone ever told you that? It is actually frustrating to the one who has an untrained eye to “know” anything about “it.” I have experienced this when trying to communicate to my wife about athletic skill. On the flip side with her to me trying to help me understand fashion and style. We have trouble peering over our respective contexts to really understand or know “it”, whatever it is.
Franklin Graham tried to explain the “it” of Christianity and instead found himself on the receiving end of “it” from the Morning Joe hosts a couple of days ago. I really wish Mr. Graham had handled things differently. In his effort to clarify he just complicated things. At the end of the show things were quite mismatched. Just like my fashion sense so too the sense of Christianity was out of whack. Listeners had to join the shows’ hosts in their confusion and frustration.
Here is the gist of it: Mr. Graham was asked repeatedly if he thought President Obama was a Christian. His reply was that he did not know. Graham conceded that the President told him that he was but at the same time he (Graham) had his own reservations. To be fair, Graham repeated that he can’t answer that question but that it was something that is between the President and God. He, himself, cannot judge. The issue for Mr. Graham was that the President a) didn’t go to church, and b) has given Islam a free pass.
Then things continue with reference to Republican Presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Concerning both of these men who are members of the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Graham said that he believes they are Christians. While conceding some theological differences with Catholicism, Mr. Graham said that he believed that both men were Christians.
You can guess where the hosts were going next right? How can you say that you are confident that Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich are Christians while not being confident that President Obama is?
Here is his answer:
His values are so clear on moral issues, (Graham said on Santorum)…No question about it.
The host, seizing his opportunity said,
[That’s] an amazing double standard that you just applied…Your reaction to the difference — The question about Rick Santorum and President Obama, I think, just exposes an incredible double standard you’re applying to those people. They’re exactly the same situation!
You see what happened right? In the midst of the bevy of questions from the hosts Mr. Graham’s logic seem to come through. In listening to him it sounded like he was making a political distinction and not a theological one. In other words, he obviously disagrees with the President’s position on various moral issues and he is supportive of the Republican candidates on these same moral issues. This translated into the basis to judge whether or not someone was a Christian.
One obvious danger here is that people would equate political conservative with Christian and political liberal with non-Christian. If one is political liberal then one must not be a Christian. I don’t think Mr. Graham believes this but this is surely what people are hearing.
As a Christian I am disturbed by what I would call the lazy way out. How dare we reduce our commitment to and our identity in Jesus to a blue elephant or a red donkey. The fact of the matter is that we are Christians because of the doing and dying of Jesus for us. It is Christ who came and took on our sinful identity that we might take on the identity as sons. It is the substitutionary life, death and resurrection for us that is our identity. Reducing who is in and who seems out based upon their stance on moral issues is not only too easy but it is too bad. It’s wrongheaded because it is gospel eclipsing.
Ironically this type of thing actually makes Mr. Graham sound more like a liberal than an evangelical. There are scores of mainline Protestant churches in America that are filled with people who identify themselves as Christians based upon what they do and their stances on issues rather than the death of Christ.
It would have been so much better if Mr. Graham would have said the following:
Look, I don’t know if the President is a Christian. But I do know what makes someone a Christian. It is not the life that we live for God but the life that Jesus lived for us! They must believe what the Bible says. They must understand that God is a good and holy God who deserves worship. Instead of honoring and loving him with all of our lives we have loved and served ourselves. This deserves wrath and hell. Instead, God has sent his Son Jesus to live the life that I could not and would not and to die the death that I deserve. He bore my penalty of wrath upon the cross of Calvary. I must turn from my sin and rebellion and turn to trust and treasure Christ, living in response to his finished work, submitting to his Lordship.
Then he could have also said,
My worldview has conclusions that intersect with the political and social scene. Because we are all made in God’s image I may even agree with some people who don’t agree with me on the gospel or even disagree with some people who agree with me on the gospel. The basis for being in Christ is not a social issue but a gospel issue. I’d love to talk about either with you but I am not going to confuse politics and gospel.
I happen to like Mr. Graham. And I feel for him, that was a tough scene. However, he really needs to get the gospel and it’s implications untangled from his political convictions. Let’s not forget that there is actually some pretty significant gospel differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. These can’t get swept under the carpet of morality for political expediency. At the same time an evangelical can support a Roman Catholic for President without having to baptize him into Protestant soteriology. There is a tension here that forces us to think and settle issues. Sadly, Mr. Graham seems to have politics and religion syncretized. This is never helpful or clarifying to a world who doesn’t really understand what the “it” of Christianity really is. We can and should do better.
Part 1 of the interview:
Part 2 of the interview:
