Newly released tapes from the Nixon Library certainly make these fair questions, and not for the first time. Particularly disturbing, especially for those who have limited familiarity with the New Testament, was their conversation about those who are part of the "synagogue of Satan". But perhaps even more importantly, since Graham is an old man and Nixon is dead, it invites us to ask what it means to call anybody an anti-Semite, and who is best suited to answer that question.
Without asking those questions, this story is nothing more than an excuse for a little Jewish rage-mongering, a little Nixon-bashing, and an excuse to stir up anti-Christian sentiment. While those are all popular pursuits, they are really no healthier than the ugly conversations which Reverend Graham had with President Nixon.
Certainly, Jewish leaders should not be telling Christians what the New Testament "really means", and using their interpretation to prove that Graham was a Jew-hater. It's just more complicated than that.
The line from Revelations 3:9, that there are those who claim to be Jews who are liars, and that they belong to a "synagogue of Satan," refers to an ongoing debate within the early church. As the verse says, its author's anger was directed not at Jews, but at those who "pretended" to be Jewish. However, that verse has a long tradition of use by anti-Semites and it was foolish at best for Reverend Graham to have used it.
There is no question, though, that Billy Graham has a long history of making private statements that were hurtful to Jews, and ought to be offensive to all people. Sadly, it's a trait that his son, Franklin Graham, has picked up -- only he saves his choice remarks for Muslims instead of Jews. It's equally clear that the recently surfaced comments by Reverend Graham the elder are as bad or worse than those which surfaced in the past.
Worst of all is that when confronted with these statements, the best Reverend Graham the elder could manage by way of response, was that he was deeply apologetic for any hurt he may have caused. As we all know that's political double-speak for: "I am willing to offer you an apology even though I don't think that I have done anything wrong". That is not an apology. It's a statement of regret about the impact of one's words, but not for the words themselves.
On the other hand, more often than not, the tapes reveal President Nixon's simultaneous concern for Jews mixed with classical anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish cunning, control, and hostility to gentiles. And in most instances, they show Graham agreeing with the President, not initiating those ideas.
This certainly shows that the former President held anti-Semitic views and also that Graham was at least insufficiently morally courageous to stand up to his disciple. It may also suggest that he shared those views with the President. In either case, the apology he owes is far greater than the one he has ever offered.
The issue here is not what label we can place on those who have said and done ugly things; it is their readiness to fully address their past bad acts, and our willingness to help them do so in a constructive, compassionate manner. That's not just a lesson for Reverend Graham; it's a lesson for all of us.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Brad, Mr. Graham apologized for his private remarks to Nixon about as directly as a man can apologize. In reference to his conversation with Nixon, Mr. Graham said flatly, "I was wrong ... " And he said, addressing a group of Jewish leaders, "I need to come to you on hands and knees. ..." What else would you want him to say? In your essay, you are carefully limiting yourself to citing only one part of hs apology, so as to make your point.
Just recently I've been listening to the Billy Graham classics. He's probably the greatest preacher of our times, done more good in the world then ever, Franklin Graham also. Why do you want to pick on a righteous man? This creates Anti-Semitism. I stand against Anti-Semitism always, and I've never heard any derogatory word against any group or groups of people come out of his mouth. Maybe you misinterpreted what he meant by what he said and he still apologized. Why don't you pick on someone who is selling our Nation down the river and Israel right now? Would you not agree that we have had a lot of Jewish support in making this happen? Instead of coming against each other can you not find it in your heart to think on how we do agree. We both agree that the HOLY BIBLE is the greatest book ever written and God chose the Jewish people to deliver this book to the world to change the whole world, not to keep it on the shelf. Let's dust off our Bibles and not just kiss it, but make it our daily love letter and do our best to follow it's teachings and make a difference in this sin sick world. We can change it and we must! The Muslims say we are both INFIDELS and they have targeted both Christian and Jew. Let's come together and quit bashing one another. To slander a great man of God in this way is the same as murder in my Bible.
Asking if being just a little antisemitic is akin to the only a little pregnant answer. Of course Mr. Nixon was old fashioned anti-Jewish as is/was the Grahams. Discorses about the significance of First Century Christianity masks the real issues. Of course, Dr. Kissinger. knowing full well of his "boss'" tendencies managed to play the "Court Jew" although "born again under the Cross and forgetting the "Star." They are all as one, sad, mean spirited, intellectually corrupt and should not be allowed off easily if at all.
Judging Nixon is difficult because he'd say something crude in the morning and the opposite at night. Kissinger wrote that his close aides learned to ignore the first thing that popped out of Nixon's mouth - Watergate being the most important exception.
First of all this so called "Rev. Cathy rose Cohen" isn't truely a Rev. She bought her title off some false evagelist on tv that tells everyone that god will heal them and give them all kinds of money if they give him money first. Thousands of dollars so he can buy his own personal jet! People this is not God! She lies constantly and burns bridges within her owm family while abusing her own daughter. She is just like the pharisees in the days of Jesus.Cathy you should repent to God Almighty and stop harrasing your family members.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.