| Re: |
I truly believe that most who frequent this site and are even represented on this thread appreciate the fact that we are beyond the point of mere politics rescuing our fine nation from ruin. This assembly of potential presidential candidates and milk toast Christian commentators such as Franklin is simply more evidence for what we already know.
I agree that most believers are in agreement that politics and politicians don't/won't save the nation. In fact, I don't think that I have ever known a professing believer who thought that this nation would somehow be "rescued" by politics or an election. However, I am certain that there are politicians who truly desire for professing Christians to stay home and NOT share their voice or opinion via a vote.
During college, I listened to a guest lecturer who served in the Clinton Administration. He stated that there was a real effort prior to both of Clinton's terms to lessen the impact that "evangelicals" could have in the elections. In fact, this individual mentioned that those efforts were not to try and convince evangelicals to SUPPORT Bill Clinton; rather, it was to try and PREVENT the enthusiasm of evangelical voters to the point that it would lower their turnout and decrease the support of candidates who were more aligned with the moral views of evangelicals on major issues. I suspect that the same effort might have taken place during the last couple of elections as well.
Again, no one is saying that the nation would be "saved" by elections, politics, or politicians. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that unrighteousness has increased over the past few decades -- and that it is both evident in and resultant from the changes in the laws of the land (and how politicians decide those laws).
During the 1960s, there was a sweeping misinterpretation and misapplication of "the separation of church and state" that saw the nation meander from Bibles and prayer in the public school to the removal of Bibles -- even as literature -- from public school libraries. During the 1970s, abortion became the law of the land. During the 1980s, certain politicians felt the need to pass laws that required sexuality to be taught in public schools -- to the point of distributing condoms and other materials to children (who, according to the law, are unable to make decisions on the matter to begin with). During the 1990s, pornography and smut was passed off as a form of "art" and "protected free speech" (and often paid for by taxes collected from taxpayers). During the last decade, there has been a collective push of various degrees of homosexual activism pushed upon society -- to the point where businesses and business owners might be forced to recognize homosexual "marriage."
On a personal level, I feel that believers can still petition an "unjust judge" (magistrate) just like the persistent widow did during the time of Jesus. No one is saying that the judge will somehow "save" society. However, on a smaller level, individuals in a society like this can determine who that "judge" will be via the "justice" that they propose to uphold or promote.
At the same time, I fear that we might be a bit too premature or clouded in our estimation of Franklin Graham. I am not a fan of the man...and I have never listened to him preach (although I have heard some of his soundbites). Thus, it might be helpful to leave out the critical rhetoric until we actually have the opportunity to get to know him or question him in regard to any concerns that someone might have.
I listened to the edited clips and the only "concern" that I had was with his belief that Santorum, a Roman Catholic, is a Christian. Of course, we don't know if he was using the term in its Biblically "authentic" sense (even though "Christian" was used first at Antioch, and likely as a slur at first).
It would probably have been better for Franklin Graham to have simply said that he doesn't know the ultimate eternal status of ANY of those people running for President. After all, I don't know where ANY of them stand...just like I don't know where anyone here ultimately stands (including the men whose sermons are stored here). We are all to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. While I admire and largely appreciate the passion for Christ from many believers here (including many of the men whose sermons are stored here), my opinion or insight will not be consulted when the Lord separates the sheep from the goats.
One thing is certain: I will remember Franklin Graham in my prayers. In this case, he is getting it from some of those who are upset that he didn't embrace Obama's and Romney's claim of being a Christian...and from some believers when he said that he thought that Santorum is one. People can analyze (or over-analyze) his words -- that might have been nothing more than an example of "misspeak" (which none of us can do more than guess otherwise...until we permit him the opportunity to clarify what he meant). Yet, at the same time, I don't really care either way. His words just don't hold much weight that it would sway me in any direction.
Leonard Ravenhill once said (during a message) that Pat Robertson was "backslidden" because he ran for President of the United States in 1988. Ravenhill said that being a minister was a much "higher calling" and that any man who would leave the ministry to run for office must be backslidden. Years later, a man from the church that I attended took issue with Ravenhill's statement (when we listened to that message). He argued that Pat Robertson might never have been "frontslidden" enough or a "real minister" to have "backslidden" as Ravenhill suggested. Ultimately, I don't think that it is my prerogative to make any such declarations -- especially in public.
As for Franklin Graham being "blindsided:" I don't know what he was thinking at the time. The interview itself seemed to have been an attempt to get something controversial out of him. Obviously, it worked -- because we are discussing it on a website that is dedicated to promoting Christ-centered REVIVAL.
This may have been something that Franklin Graham could have elaborated on in greater depth if he had been given the opportunity (rather than in a quick interview between commercial breaks). He may regret how he came across (although I think that he came across well for the most part...with the exception of the Santorum response). On a personal level, I know that I have been unprepared for plenty of questions and I have stuck my foot in my mouth on numerous occasions. What's more, I don't feel that I am necessarily a dimwitted person either.
Just this past week, I had a series of interviews for a job and I felt unprepared for some of the various questions asked of me. I did the best with my responses at the time, but regretted my choice of words to some of those questions afterward (but I will find out within a week about the job...so please remember me in your prayers).
Maybe a letter to Franklin Graham would suffice in all of this? He might be able to provide retrospective clarity enough to describe what he really thinks in the matter. Or, of course, he may have learned his lesson and decided to take a couple of steps back from making any sort of public "endorsements" about who is or is not a Christian. I think that I understood the gist of what he was trying to say; but, it just doesn't make much of a difference either way.
| 2012/2/23 2:34||Profile|
| Re: |
Well, I would say don't worry what folks say about Franklin Graham, heck folks talked about Jesus also and still do, so I would say Franklin is Blessed, he is in good company.
| 2012/2/23 8:59||Profile|
| Re: Franklin Graham's sad presentation of the "Gospel"|
Thank you Brother Frank for posting this, it gave me spiritual indigestion beyond belief.
There will be such Judgement visited upon this land, for ALL the sin issues, including such a scion of caesar, waffling, equivocating, giving covering to the roman institution, the church of joe smith....cant even be bold and brave, squirming in his chair, just made me sick.
all these politicians USE the Provisions of God as a TOOL for their craven vile ambitions, their idolatry, lust for acclaim, and power.
Someday......(and this is something i weep and cry over in MY life, that i dont hear)....Someday, they will hear the Words, "I never knew you".
God is Watching, He is Brooding.
| 2012/2/23 9:41|
| Brother Frank |
Sscot, you made me laugh. I can hear Ian Paisley now. He would probably blow the roof off as would almost 100% of the preachers represented here on SI.
you and i have talked about Ian before, when i first apprehended Messiah Jesus, as a Jew, i never knew the theological differences between the roman institution and protestantism, i just thought they were different variants of Gentiles, same with mormons. i also knew that at the behest and leadership of rome, that is its "church", including the two "orthodox" variants, "eastern" and "russian", more Jews were killed "in the Name of Jesus", by these three institutions than hitler EVER DREAMED of, THAT i knew....and some folk wonder why its so hard to evangelize to Jews, or that shudder just at hearing that beautiful Name.
The first sermon i heard of Ian's was "Five Steps to Revival"....it lit me up, then progressively as God revealed His Son TO me and IN me, i became aware of the Church, the Body of Christ, and the error of rome, the error of joe smith.
and Ian, via early (1965-1969) sermons spoke to me about rome. but i heard one saint, a public pastor, maybe Irish, say that Ian at one time was so annointed, preached with such unction, that could have been the next "John Wesley", EXCEPT that he went into politics...i agree.
but in the vein, of Ian laying it down, i post up his lightening bolt of a message "Why True Protestants Reject the Pope"(3/1/1965)....i pray any saint wishing to ascertain the impact of what Frank Graham said, listen to this
| 2012/2/23 10:17|
| Why was he there?|
I want to ask a question to begin with. Could we see Jesus doing an interview on CNN, say on the abilities of Herod as governor? Or...Paul the Apostle bantering about the Roman top ten and their despotic traits?..or debating who's next in line to take their place?
Why did Franklin Graham accept this assignment to begin with? He had to know exactly what the questions would be. He was prepared for everything they threw at him. He's not a moron. What could he expect as a leading Evangelical when asked to comment on the Republican candidates? Their affiliation to outdoor sports? "Now, that Romney...he can ski!"..Of course not.
In saying that Graham "did a good job", I am not endorsing him. All he did, was show his true colors, as one proposing to serve the Lord, while serving the world. Obviously he is compromised away from a holy gospel message, and his discernment and loyalties are affected in clear ambiguous terms.
He neither condemned, nor parsed the ham, but ambiguously graced all comers in a positive light, with semi-Christian kudos. He dodged every direct dart with polite and general bourgeois euphemism's, and aimed his responses to be sweet and elevating to all.
Now the guy signed on...and was probably paid...to comment on the candidates. He is a International Evangelical Icon of what a Christian is supposed to be, and act like..and he plays that part...to the T. He IS the Protestant status...the bond of "peacemaker" to the world, as he took his father's place...Billy Graham.
All I am saying, is that in that role, he did not defame the name of Christ, and he handled the sparring well. I do not endorse him...but he did not make a fool of himself.
Perhaps he should of said of Romney, right there on National TV.."Why that satanic swine, and his dirty Mormon ideas...TO HELL! yes to HELL he goes, and all who vote for him!"....and to Gingrich and Santorum..." They're Nasty Babylonian WHORES! Snake people! Hellion Caaathhhooolllicccs!"..[ eyes bulging ]...
Think he would be invited back for followup? That's my point. He was ambassadorial...milk toast? yea, I guess. He was non-committal and positive to all; not exactly like John the Baptist...and not exactly like Rasputin...but Christian enough to pass.
I may have gone off the deep end and cursed them all!.....[ it may have been live..]...frothing at the mouth, but I am not used to that kind of thing...but neither am I the worlds most famous evangelical...so..I say in that, he did a good job.
| 2012/2/23 11:44|
This world is not my home anymore.
| Re: Franklin Graham's sad presentation of the "Gospel"|
by appolus on 2012/2/21 7:06:31
Sadly I watched secular Liberals expose the preposterous twistings and turnings of a man, who seemed not to know what is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. He believes that Rick Santorum is a Christian because of his good morals??? He states that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ??? I wacthed the whole interview and it made me squirm in my seat. http://youtu.be/ntF-uIs7ork ... bro Frank
Here is a 15.51 minute interview...
Franklin Graham: Mind Bending Morning Joe Bigotry & Ignorance
My personal belief about this interview is this is exactly why Christians have no street cred among unbelievers; Franklin clearly had a different standard for judging Obama than he had for the others and wouldnt admit to it when questioned about it.
Franklin Graham should have NEVER put himself in a position of judging another mans walk with Christ OR lack thereof. He was pummeled by a liberal media and he should have known that going in (I mean, this was not his first rodeo). It never bodes well for a Christian to be prideful about that, so of course its going to fall apart, imho.
So pray for Franklin to have wisdom the next time to guide any questions like that in the interview toward the gospel and how his ministry and others are helping the world.
Just my two cents, over and out!!
| 2012/2/23 11:45||Profile|
| The art of compromise. Do you do a good job?|
It was once said; "Politics is the art of compromise."
I might add, so is the business of respectfully commenting on them.
| 2012/2/23 12:04|
| Re: |
Lysa...Franklin Graham should have NEVER put himself in a position of judging another mans walk with Christ OR lack thereof.
I hear you Lysa, for a lot of folks here, it's an everyday event. :)
| 2012/2/23 14:30||Profile|
| Laughin at my own jokes, I guess.|
"Perhaps he should of said of Romney, right there on National TV.."Why that satanic swine, and his dirty Mormon ideas...TO HELL! yes to HELL he goes, and all who vote for him!"....and to Gingrich and Santorum..." They're Nasty Babylonian WHORES! Snake people! Hellion Caaathhhooolllicccs!"..[ eyes bulging ]...
Think he would be invited back for followup? That's my point. He was ambassadorial...milk toast? yea, I guess. He was non-committal and positive to all; not exactly like John the Baptist...and not exactly like Rasputin...but Christian enough to pass."
| 2012/2/23 14:58|