An Open Letter to Franklin Graham: “Mr. Graham: Put that page back up!” by Peter Lumpkins

I've never been one for writing open letters. In fact, I don't recall ever writing one. But I can no longer say that. Albeit my full support and unshakable appreciation for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) since the late seventies of the last century, I continue to be stunned by their recent action in taking down a webpage on which a partial list of religious "cults" containing several sectarian groups were named.   >>>

Among those named as examples of heretical "cults" within the Christian tradition were "Mormons" (link to a snapshot of the missing page). Concerning these "cults" Dr. Graham spoke no vagary whatsoever. "It is very important that we recognize cults" he answers. Consequently, we presumably should "avoid any involvement with them." 

The best I can figure, the page with the partial "cult" list was taken down within minutes after a commenter linked to the now missing page in response to the first media blitz BGEA posted which favored Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. The media report on Dr. Graham's positive visit with Mitt Romney was the initial step in fulfilling Dr. Graham's promise to do "all I can" to support Governor Romney for president. Both Franklin and Dr. Graham wholeheartedly support Mr. Romney's purported prolife/pro-family/pro-Israel values. Indeed Franklin Graham had already made his case in justifying how an evangelical Christian could legitimately lay his or her theological objections aside and vote for a non-Christian candidate who nonetheless embraced solid conservative values to protect home and human life (October 2012 edition of Decision Magazine, “Can an Evangelical Christian Vote for a Mormon?”). In the article, Franklin Graham called for the possible formation of another "Moral Majority" similar to the nineteen eighties group called by that title and led by the late Jerry Falwell. Later, Graham ends his piece with a short, succinct answer to his initial question: "Can a Christian vote for a Mormon? My answer is yes" (p.5). 

Thus, it remains entirely inexplicable why the page was removed. All BGEA respondents really had to do was point the commenter who presumably perceived a contradiction in supporting a candidate whose religion Dr. Graham and BGEA had identified as a "cult" to Franklin Graham's piece on Christians voting for non-Christians. The probability highly exists that had they done so, the issue the commenter raised would have dried up and disappeared almost immediately, and disappeared even if the commenter (or anyone else for that matter) found Franklin Graham's answer to the dilemma weak and even unacceptable. What undoubtedly would not have occurred is an understandable perception many evangelicals expressed that expunging Mormonism from the BGEA archives constituted a political compromise to the biblical faith once for all given to the saints. 

In response to BGEA's removal of the now missing page, a fairly popular Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) group called The New Civil Rights Movement published the initial exposé. Shortly after, the mainstream media got hold of it subsequently causing it to go viral. BGEA officials immediately released a quick response. Ken Barun, chief of staff for BGEA, reportedly said:

"Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ," Barun said. "We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign."

The hardcore irony is striking: while BGEA suggests it removed the now missing page in order to avoid a politicizing of the issue, the very act of removing the page itself was de facto politicizing the issue.

Enough.

The letter below constitutes my "open letter" to Franklin Graham. The immediate question to raise is, will it do any good? My answer is both "probably not" and "perhaps." It probably won't do a single thing to influence either Franklin Graham in particular or BGEA in general to put the page back up. On the other hand, it perhaps will do me some personal good in exercising my American right of free speech and my Baptist right of free religious dissent.

As for the "open letter" itself, it is meant to be neither formal, nor clever, nor profound, nor pedantic. Rather I wanted to communicate my change in status as a longtime supporter of BGEA who now has become a disappointed supporter of BGEA.  That's all... 

==================================================================== 

Dear Mr. Graham,

I have long been and remain a fervent supporter of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). I've been trained in the BGEA Counseling Course and have taught thousands of local church believers in several states the course myself. In addition, I only recently attended the first session of My Hope with Billy Graham at The Cove and committed to do all I can to assist in preparing churches in the Southeast in hospitality evangelism in conjunction with your father's last crusade scheduled in November 2013. Now, however, I am faced with rethinking my intent to honor my full support and cooperation with the My Hope with Billy Graham crusade preparation.

On October 11, 2012, Dr. Graham met with Republican nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, at his mountain home in North Carolina. As Dr. Graham has so often done through the years, he offered his honest counsel to and prayer for political personalities, personalities mostly, I might add, whether or not the politician embraced a worldview perspective in agreement with his own. We remain confident Dr. Graham makes those meetings into opportunities to speak truthfully the gospel of Jesus Christ into their lives.

According to media sources, Dr. Graham promised he'd do all he could to assist the election of Mr. Romney. One major news outlet reported: “I'll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that,” Graham said at the end of the 30-minute meeting, which also included Franklin. " And, while I personally think even this was a bit too emboldened in promising a particular candidate his uninhibited public support and promotion, I was willing to just let it go.

Even so, what followed admittedly stirred within me a restless unwillingness to just let it go. The way I understand the circumstances, when the BGEA media department posted its first indication of carrying out Dr. Graham's wishes to assist in any way he could the election of Mitt Romney for President of the United States, within minutes on media pages encouraging the election of Mr. Romney (though Mr. Romney's name is not mentioned), a commenter posted a link to the Resources page on the BGEA website which included a list of several "cults." Among the list of "cults" Dr. Graham offers as examples of which he counsels the questioner to avoid are "Mormons." Subsequently, and apparently within only a few moments of the commenter's link being posted, the page with the partial list of "cults" Dr. Graham had written disappeared.

In light of the disappearance of the partial list of "cults" a LGBT website group documented the missing page, and the rest is history. The mainstream media picked upon it immediately and so convincingly that the BGEA had to issue an official response. Nor was the response especially soothing to many of us who have supported the BGEA over the last generation. Ken Barun reportedly said in part, "We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign." Ironically, removing "Mormons" from the website as theologically objectionable constituted the very politicization of the issue Mr. Barun desired to avoid.

Mr. Graham, please put that page back up! Most of us are willing to grant that neither you nor your father issued the direct order to take the page down. I have no doubt you are not and have not any intention of actually softening your understanding of the biblical gospel. But such an action surely looks like it on the face. Please, Mr. Graham, please. Put that page back up.

We understand the probability exists that neither you nor your father personally made the decision to take the page down. Granted. All of us are perfectly aware that sometimes employees make both inappropriate and even crass decisions. But, know we also are very much aware that either you or your father could merely say the word, and the page would be put back up. So, please, Mr. Graham. Put that page back up.

Who do you suppose you are going to influence by taking the page down? Evangelicals? Pardon me, Mr. Graham, but evangelicals in large part have already conceded that they were going to cast their vote in large part for Mr. Romney with full knowledge he was a faithful member of the Latter Day Saints. Critics may call it hypocrisy, looking the other way, inconsistency, or any number of other practices. Even so, most conservative evangelicals view voting for Mitt Romney--right or wrong--as voting for the only electable alternative to the current administration. So, pulling down that page will not affect the evangelical vote for Mr. Romney in any substantial way whatsoever. So, please, Mr. Graham. Put that page back up.

On the other hand, by taking that page down, BGEA has ignited a visible resistance, a resistance from supporters like me who love BGEA. In short, by taking that page down, you have created an absolutely lose/lose for BGEA. By taking the page down, you lose because it will most probably not secure a single vote for Mitt Romney. You also lose because you've created a sour taste for BGEA in the mouths of countless evangelicals who will view your taking down the page as a compromise on the biblical gospel. So, for the gospel's sake, Mr. Graham, the gospel your father has faithfully preached the globe over for well over half a century, please. Put that page back up!

Finally, you'll also lose because you've created a barrier between BGEA and otherwise cooperating, supporting evangelical churches who would gladly partner with BGEA over the next year leading up to the final crusade with America's legendary evangelist, the My Hope with Billy Graham crusade. Instead, however, do not be surprised if you receive cold shoulders from many evangelical churches. Nor must you fail to consider, Mr. Graham, that those like myself who have committed to assisting churches in planning for Dr. Graham's last evangelistic crusade will needlessly but necessarily spend an extraordinary amount of precious time defending BGEA for taking that page down.

Know also, for my part, I must honestly consider the reality that I do not want to be placed in a context where I cannot be fully supportive of both Dr. Graham and BGEA.

Mr. Graham, please. Put that page back up.

Sincerely, I am...

Peter Lumpkins

Carrollton, Georgia

Comments

[Don]

"You also lose because you've created a sour taste for BGEA in the mouths of countless evangelicals who will view your taking down the page as a compromise on the biblical gospel."

Yes. It is only because we have a Mormon that evangelicals feel they "must" support that Mormonism is now, somehow, more acceptable than before.

[Mary]

Peter, I don't have a lot of time but I'd like to throw something out here.

What if BGEA was worried that the opponents of Romney were using the word cult in a way that BGEA doesn't intend? Was it Hagee in 2008 who had his use of the word cult against the Cathoic church used against McCain? I think there may be a whole big can of worms here. The word cult means different things in different settings. I think the majority of people when they hear cult are thinking of something like Scientolgy where people who dissent disappear, you can never leave, billion year contracts etc. Yet as Christians we are concerned with orthodoxy and Mormonism obviously strays far far away. so it seems to me BGEA couldn't really win - critics of Romney would use the BGEA's cult to spin and make Romney look like a David Koresh cultist type and that's not what BGEA intends in their use of the word cult.

so I'm not as up on this as others. I just wonder if we need to very careful now in how and who we are calling a cult because different people are hearing different things. to me it seems like the casual tossing around of the word heretic. FWIW :)

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Mary. I think your concern is correct in noting the variety of ways employed in the way "cult" is perceived. And, if I were gut level honest, I'd fully concede I don't like the term "cult" either as a one-size-fits-all broad-brush branding on sub-Christian sectarian groups. Personally, I think there's merit in reserving "cult" for groups--religious or otherwise--which fiercely employ psychological manipulation to recruit supporters and handle authority. In this sense, David Koresh and the almost forgotten "moonies" would definitely qualify as "cults" while it remains much more difficult to see how "Mormons" would qualify if that particular model which focused specifically on aggressive psychological manipulation were emphasized. Indeed if psychological manipulation is and has been a demonstrable aspect of Mormonism per se I have failed to perceive it throughout the years.

Lest I be misunderstood, while I personally see merit in reserving the term "cult" for say, "moonies" but not "Mormons" it remains clear that both "moonies" and "Mormons" embrace doctrinal standards which beyond doubt places them both outside the clear boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy. Another way to say it is, both "moonies" and "Mormons" hold doctrinal views broadly judged to be Heresy as you rightly pointed out. But with the addition of the aggressive psychological manipulation tactics easily demonstrated by the practices of the Unification church, "moonies" well earns the branding "cult."

Unfortunately for BGEA, the model I just described is not an option for them--at least not as a way to escape what appears to be just criticism in dropping the partial list of "cults" with "Mormons" listed. The way they clearly intended up until now to employ the term "cult" as applied to JWs, Scientology, moonies, and Mormons concerned their sectarian views alone. If they wanted to propose the proverbial kinder, gentler model, they surely showed up at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong response.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, "wrong place, wrong time" I think is the key.

Neither candidate in my opinion is within the realms of orthodoxy. Everything I've heard the President say in regards to his "christianity" leads me to believe that he is no more accepting Christ the One and Only than is Mitt Romney. Both men call themselves "christians" but that doesn't mean we're all believing in the same Savior.

So again I think there are these broader themes - no one has dared to push back against the idea that Barack Obama does not speak like an orthodox Christian - his views seems to be the more generic "if I'm good, show concern for the poor, think Jesus had some good things to say" liberal views of Christianity.

So I don't know enough about the BGEA but the fact that we've spent these last several years not pointing out that Obama's open inclusivist I just have be a good person ideas on Christianity are not orthodox either is also a serious problem I think for Christians who are now outraged about BGEA's removal of Mormonism from cult status. I don't know if I'm articulating this well, but if what BGEA has done is wrong now hasn't it been wrong to not point out that Obama isn't exactly believing the same gospel?

In regard to this particular incident to me it seems like BGEA could be more saying we don't want to give anyone a weapon to use against Romney. I think people are wrong to interpret this as we will back off what we believe to help Romney. Does that make sense? It's not about helping Romney by hiding something but it is helping in not allowing critics a weapon. BGEA could have explained "look cult doesn't mean what you think it means" but that explanation would have been ignored. Of course the fact that the page was removed is now being used as a weapon too so I don't know.

At the end of the day all I can say is GO CARDS!

[Max]

I swear the Baptist lines are getting more blurred by the day. If we don't stand for something, we will fall for anything!

Mary, I think you mean GO "CARDIAC" CARDS! It will be a nail-biter tonight. But, it ain't over 'til the fat squirrel sings! (Card fans will understand that)

[CASEY]

I PROPHETICALLY SPEAK that, "The National League Baseball playoffs will get a bigger viewing audience than the Presidential debates."
:)

[stan schmunk]

But Peter, the Grahams are at least being consistent. They're endorsing Romney so they have to take that page down. This is Dr. Billy's pattern over the decades, as much as I love him. (My favorite uncle worked with him in his very early London campaign. He was YFC, too.) Graham endorsed the pope, saying that he certainly was in Heaven and was a greater evangelist than Graham. Evangelicals are following his pattern. We grudgingly accept the notion that Mormonism may or not be a cult but even if it is we're going to vote for one of it's highest representatives to lead us. It's called 'falling away' and we will rue the day.