Moving Beyond Graham’s Legacy: Raising the Bar on Evangelical Participation in Civil Rights
The late Billy Graham said in an Associated Press interview in 2005 that he wished he had done more for Civil Rights. He especially regretted not partnering with Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I think I made a mistake when I didn’t go to Selma,” he said.
Since Graham died earlier this year at the age of 99, a gush of commentary regarding the evangelist’s legacy has poured forth. His legacy around civil rights has come under a microscope, and some writers reflected fondly on Graham’s civil rights efforts while others unabashedly criticized his lukewarm engagement.
Supporters of Graham’s moderate stance highlight his actions on one evening in 1953 when he personally removed the ropes separating white and black attendees at one of his crusades. Others note that Martin Luther King, Jr. counted Graham as a friend and King even delivered the opening invocation at one of Graham’s rallies in 1957.
Yet, critics of Graham’s record on civil rights note that while he seemed willing to engage with African-American brothers and sisters, his individualistic approach to the Gospel, Scripture, and salvation put him at theological odds with King and colleagues. Moreover, his prominent ministry shaped U.S. evangelical culture into one that is prone to looking at personal sin while failing to consider how society’s sins are upheld by unjust structures.
Within days of the publication of King’s famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should ‘put the brakes on a little bit.’ He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts,” explained historian, Matthew Sutton, in an article on Graham.
Graham’s Impact Today
White evangelicals still cling to Graham’s emphasis on preaching salvation rather than addressing so-called “social issues” like racism. In this popular view, Christian leaders shy away from speaking to and supporting specific policy measures and institutional reforms. Instead, they concentrate on gaining converts to the faith.
In response to the trope about fighting racism merely through converting individuals to Christianity, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.”
Yet, ”changed laws do not change hearts” is a persistent sentiment in today’s evangelical culture and many current race-relation efforts reflect this effort. Christians who fall in line with Billy Graham’s Christianity exhibit no shortage of goodwill when it comes to race relations.
From commemorations of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination to statements condemning racism and apathy within their ranks, white evangelicals often demonstrate a desire for improved relationships between black and white people in America. But today as in Graham’s day, interracial friendships and pronouncements denouncing racism are necessary but cannot happen in isolation from social action. Moreover, there is no need to choose between preaching against an individual’s sins (such as racism) or addressing societal sins. We must have a robust theological imagination that creates space for both to happen in tandem.
Moving Beyond Graham’s Legacy
We can account for the importance of Graham’s legacy in Christianity and affirm the sincerity of his belief in racial equality while drawing attention to deficiencies of his theology. Graham’s version of evangelicalism failed to address the wealth gap, under-education, over-policing, and many other injustices. We must decide if we will overlook that error or learn from it. Will we limit the good news of the Gospel by reducing it to an individual’s salvation? Or will we also consider the Bible’s power to transform societies?
Today, evangelicals still hesitate to march, perform acts of civil disobedience, and face imprisonment along with black activists for the sake of justice. Friendly feelings toward people of a different race and private support of racial equality are too low a standard. While the options for advocacy are limitless, history shows us that addressing such issues as unemployment, police brutality, and voting rights are helpful starting points for evangelicals who want to raise the bar on evangelical participation in civil rights.
True allyship with black Americans must account for the insidious nature of sin and its power to infest economics, politics, and society. Therefore, it must promote economic, political, and social justice. This is where Graham fell short.
The Importance of Justice
Toward the end of his life, King became increasingly focused on economic justice, but as early as 1963, he recognized its importance. The March on Washington For Jobs and Freedom had a list of ten demands. One of them was the call for “A massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers – Negro and white – on meaningful and dignified jobs at decent wages.”
King’s concerns about the financial well-being of black people are still salient today. According to the latest data, more than 7 percent of “African Americans were unemployed in 2017, compared with 6.7 percent in 1968 — still roughly twice the white unemployment rate.” If Christians in the tradition of Billy Graham want to do better on civil rights then their efforts must include job creation for the poor and other forms of economic relief.
Police brutality is another reality in which evangelicals should be vocal and public supporters of reform. The issue of violence and murder perpetrated by those charged to “serve and protect” is a perennial one. The infamous Detroit uprising of 1967 occurred when police raided a party celebrating the returning of two black servicemen from the Vietnam War. Local residents grew frustrated when the police roughed up the patrons and arrested all of them. As rumors of further brutality swirled, the community erupted in violence. By the time the streets cleared, 43 people had been killed and 33 of them were black. Similar instances of police brutality were at the heart of the uprisings in Los Angeles in 1992 and the Ferguson protests in 2015.
Evangelical emphasis on “law and order”—often used as a euphemism for harsh policing of poor and minority communities—has meant that support for anti-police brutality organizations like Black Lives Matter has been tepid or non-existent. If white evangelicals today want to go further than Graham, then they must push for significant changes in policing as well as sentencing and prison reform.
Some of the Civil Rights Movement’s most important moments were part of the attempt to secure voting rights for black citizens. The March on Selma, which Graham wished he had participated in, had black voting rights as its goal. Today, voting rights are still limited for black communities. Parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been struck down and gerrymandering remains a critical issue in many states and cities. Evangelicals should be active supporters of changes to voting laws and redistricting that ensures maximum participation from the poor and racial minorities.
Looking Beyond the Church
Billy Graham’s lackluster record on civil rights teaches that support for black equality is not just about changing attitudes but about encouraging activism. Evangelical promotion of racial equality must spill out beyond the church walls and conference panels and into city halls, courtrooms, and streets.
Debating the impact and legacy of Billy Graham, especially in terms of race relations, will probably occupy commentators and scholars for decades. But Graham’s own words offer a challenge to present-day Christians, especially the evangelicals whom Graham represents.
In the same breath that he lamented not marching to Selma, Graham concluded his thoughts by saying, “I would like to have done more.”
Evangelicals today have the opportunity to do more for racial justice and move beyond the civil rights legacy of Billy Graham.
Thomas W.
Amen. DCSTUDENT
Honestly, one should learn from the past mistakes of white evangelicals in their legalism. If the “moral majority” didn’t work, why make the same mistake by advocating for political posturing that just made white evangelicals look angry and hateful?
Has Jemar spent equal time on the front lines of the abortion fight, where almost 20 million black babies have been slaughtered over 40 plus years? Can one talk of “social justice” without looking at that effect on its community and this nation? It’s actual bloodshed, but nary a mention.
What is left out above in skewing the unemployment picture is that as begun by Obama and continued by Trump is that unemployment is lower than ever, including for minorities and African Americans. There are more jobs currently, than job seekers. Even an article this week was talking about the need for truck drivers because of the high economic demand. You can make good money driving a truck with little training/education.
Modern activism is largely ambiguous, purposeless, and inefficient with little tangibles to show for it.
White evangelicals have been active though. They voted Trump, who put Gorsuch on the stand which has already shown results in religious, Christian, and personal liberty in this country. And with Kennedy retiring, it means the entire possibility that post 6 week abortion bans can be upheld. It means saving hundreds of thousands of black lives by reducing and ultimately ending abortion for personal convenience.
It means the opportunity to end the drug war and move past that legalism. It means more bipartisan bills toward prison reform.
JC
Mr. Buller,
Does the Gospel really “demand that we protest the evils of abortion”? Does the Gospel really demand that we protest any sin? Are you saying that we must march and protest and speak out against all sins? Do I have to speak out against racism, gluttony, taking the Lord’s name in vain, murder, adultery, etc. on a regular basis? If not all sins, then who determines which sins/issues Christians have to protest or march against?
I think the Bible demands that we repent of our sin, that we turn from our sin, that we use church discipline if a fellow church member engages in unrepentant sin, but I am unaware of any verse in the Bible that says we have to protest specific “sins” that are legalized (or not made illegal) by the government.
Would you say that North Korean Christians or Chinese Christians or Islamic Caliphate Christians are not doing enough to protest “over policing” or “gerrymandering” in their countries? Would you tell them that “our Gospel demands us to speak out about injustice” so get out and start protesting and marching? Would you tell them to quit being so individualistic?
Again, I believe the Bible calls us to personal holiness. It does not demand that we speak out on social justice (Whatever that is – I say that because different Christians have different ideas of social justice and they may be radically different and/or opposing ideas). Nor does it forbid us from speaking out about an issues. If a Christian wishes to protest/march about abortion, gambling, prison sentencing, etc., by all means, have at it. But I think that when we start demanding that fellow Christians march/protest for the “social justice” that we deem to be important, that can lead to legalism very quickly. I can be against racism without marching just as you can be against abortion without plastering a Choose Life bumper sticker on your car.
I think what is lacking (among other things) is the need for each Christian to have wisdom and discernment. Sometimes we may be compelled (from a Christian standpoint) to “Get involved” and sometimes we may not. It can be different answers depending on a variety of factors.
Take these two scenarios for example:
1. I see two neo Nazis getting ready to stab an 8 year old black girl
2. I see a 25 year old wealthy white woman who is 7 months pregnant walking into an abortion clinic
Am I obligated to physically stop the 2 neo Nazis? Is it a sin if I don’t? Am I obligated to physically stop the woman going to abort the baby? Is it a sin if I don’t?
I would like to think that I would get involved in example 1 but I probably would not in example 2 if I am being honest. Is that right or wrong? Is there really any difference in God’s eyes between the two situations?
My point – we need to be careful about what topics we demand that our fellow Christians speak out on. It is one thing to confront a Christian about a specific sin they are committing, it is another to judge their Christian walk by which social topics they choose to speak on publicly.
Stephen Buller
If you read the the 5th paragraph Jemar is explicit about the Gospel, “Yet, critics of Graham’s record on civil rights note that while he seemed willing to engage with African-American brothers and sisters, his individualistic approach to the Gospel, Scripture, and salvation put him at theological odds with King and colleagues. Moreover, his prominent ministry shaped U.S. evangelical culture into one that is prone to looking at personal sin while failing to consider how society’s sins are upheld by unjust structures.”
We have to stop thinking that social/structural issues aren’t Gospel issues. Why can’t our Gospel demand us to speak out about injustice? If the Gospel demands we protest the evils of abortion then why won’t we have the same fervor and zeal for the sin of racism (including social/structural racism).
DCStudent
I apologize for the duplicate posts. The first one, this one, did not post correctly. I appreciate the mercy of the website’s administrators in allowing me to comment anyway, especially since my comment was critical.
DCStudent
For some reason, my previous comment did not post correctly. The full comment is as follows: It is time that the contributors to this website take a good, hard look at what they believe as Christians. In this article, Jemar Tisby accuses white evangelical leaders of “concentrat[ing] on gaining converts to their faith” rather than social reform. And, in so writing, Mr. Tisby shows that he, and this website, are focusing on the wrong things.
The central message of Christianity is not to raise the unemployment rate by one or two percent. The apostle Paul did not go on trial in Rome to protest gerrymandering. Rather, the message of Christianity is Christ-His birth, death, resurrection, and the salvation He offers to HIs people. In direct contradiction of Mr. Tisby’s lament that evangelical leaders are focusing on gaining converts, the New Testament tells us to “go and make disciples of all the nations.”
Mr. Tisby is correct to note that the Gospel does more than transform the individual. It also transforms societies, and, as Christians, we are certainly not mandated to ignore people’s physical needs just to focus on people’s spiritual needs. And that is why the history of Christianity is full of abolitionists, humanitarians, medical workers, statesmen, and others who have sought to provide help to the bodies and souls of those around them. It is right to follow in their footsteps, and I assume Mr. Tisby is trying to do that.
But the heart of our message is still Christ and Him crucified. That is something that I need to remind myself of, even as I write this. And it is something that Mr. Tisby needs to remind himself of. We should not lament that evangelical leaders focus on gaining converts, if they are focusing on gaining converts for Christ. After all, the greatest joy any of us can have is to know Christ. If we start there, societies will transform, and history is full of examples. But if our focus is on mere social policy changes instead, we will be engaging in an unending social war that will leave our hearts tired and embittered. History, and the articles on this website, are full of examples of that too. As the Bible notes, “What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world yet loses his own soul?”
DCStudent
It is time that the contributors to this website take a good, hard look at what they believe as Christians. In this article, Jemar Tisby accuses white evangelical leaders of “concentrat[ing] on gaining converts to their faith” rather than social reform. And, in so writing, Mr. Tisby shows that he, and this website, are focusing on the wrong things.
The central message of Christianity is not to raise the unemployment rate by one or two percent. The apostle Paul did not go on trial in Rome to protest gerrymandering. Rather, the message of Christianity is Christ-His birth, death, resurrection, and the salvation He offers to HIs people. In direct contradiction of Mr. Tisby’s lament that evangelical leaders are focusing on gaining converts, the New Testament tells us to “go and make disciples of all the nations.”
Mr. Tisby is correct to note that the Gospel does more than transform the individual. It also transforms societies, and, as Christians, we are certainly not mandated to ignore people’s physical needs just to focus on people’s spiritual needs. And that is why the history of Christianity is full of abolitionists, humanitarians, medical workers, statesmen, and others who have sought to provide help to the bodies and souls of those around them. It is right to follow in their footsteps, and I assume Mr. Tisby is trying to do that.
But the heart of our message is still Christ and Him crucified. That is something that I need to remind myself of, even as I write this. And it is something that Mr. Tisby needs to remind himself of. We should not lament that evangelical leaders focus on gaining converts, if they are focusing on gaining converts for Christ. After all, the greatest joy any of us can have is to know Christ. If we start there, societies will transform, and history is full of examples. But if our focus is on mere social policy changes instead, we will be engaging in an unending social war that will leave our hearts tired and embittered. History, and the articles on this website, are full of examples of that too. As the Bible notes, “What will it profit a man if he gain the whole world yet loses his own soul?”
DCStudent
It is time that the contributors to this website need to take a good, hard look at what they believe as Christians. In this article, Jemar Tisby writes accusingly of white evangelical leaders that they “concentrate on gaining converts to their faith” rather than social reform. And, in so writing, Mr. Tisby shows that he, and this website, have the wrong priorities.
The message of Christianity is not to raise the unemployment rate by one or two percent. The apostle Paul did not go on trial in Rome to protest gerrymandering. Rather, the message of Christianity is Christ-His birth, death, resurrection, and the salvation He offers to His people. It is a light that stretches from the fall of man to the future of a new heavens and earth.