Billy and the anti-Billy

The Rev. Billy Graham doesn't have to worry about his legacy.

For millions, he remains the dignified evangelist who stood tall in the pulpit, offering his open Bible to the world as a bridge between an awesome God and lost sinners. Graham has preached in person to more people than anyone in history and has, for half a century, been one of America's most admired leaders.

This weekend, his third conference for itinerant evangelists will draw 10,000 men and women from 190 countries to Amsterdam. Many will come from the Third World's rapidly growing churches, which have been a major focus of Graham's work in the past three decades.

Graham is man of integrity who has touched many lives. But, ultimately, he is a pathetic figure, an unimpressive shepherd with an irrelevant, dying faith. It's sad that there are millions of sheep that flock to hear his simplistic answers to complex questions.

Wait a minute. Who would dare to say that?

The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, that's who.

America's most famous Episcopal bishop is a radically different kind of preacher from North Carolina and he all but calls himself the anti-Billy. As a boy, Spong used to deliver the Charlotte Observer to the Graham family's dairy. Today, he is the rare liberal Christian who openly says he believes Graham and his disciples are ancient history.

"Billy Graham possessed the enormous power present in the conviction, or the delusion, that he had in his possession the ultimate truth of God, enabling him to assume the reality of that ultimate divide between the saved and the unsaved," said Spong, in a recent Diocese of Newark newspaper column.

"I am confident both that he was sincere in these convictions and that this is the kind of pre-modern, religious conviction that will never carry the day in this world. Modern hearts cannot worship that which modern minds reject and I do not believe it is possible for an educated person to accept the Bible today as the literal word of God. Even if I did, I could never worship the God who is defined by many of those literal words."

Spong is no longer a diocesan bishop, but he remains busy in academia, talk shows and publishing. He also has explored cyberspace by writing about spirituality for Beliefnet.com and sexuality for ThePosition.com, a soft-core sex site. Critics note that membership declined 38 percent in his churches during his 24-year episcopate.

Meanwhile, the 81-year-old Graham continues to wrestle with Parkinson's disease and other problems that have put him in the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., since early June. While doctors are evaluating his condition on a day-to-day basis, the evangelist's staff has prepared for him to reach Amsterdam 2000 through a satellite-television connection. One way or another, Graham will speak in the finale on Aug. 6.

"I am disappointed at this turn of events, but I have great peace that this is God's plan for me and for the Amsterdam 2000 conference," he told the media.

That spiritual equation perfectly symbolizes what someone like Graham believes and what someone like Spong does not.

Spong attacks Graham and those who "envision God as a supernatural parent" who plans lives and heeds prayers. The bishop has said: "Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way." He rejects the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus as historical events. Third World Christians? Most are locked in superstition.

"I do not believe that God is a Being sitting above the clouds pulling strings. ... I do not believe that human beings are born evil and that only those who come to God through the 'blood of Jesus' will be saved," concludes Spong. "If Christianity is to survive ... it will have to evolve radically beyond the images employed by Billy Graham. It will be forced to become something new and different. It will have to surrender its claims to miracle, magic and exclusiveness."

Graham obviously disagrees. And while some may dismiss him, he is ready to pass his torch to evangelists in the Third World – or die trying to do so.

Charting the sex wars, Pt. II

"Monogamy" isn't such a scary word, once people get the hang of redefining it to fit the realities of modern life, according to gay provocateur Dan Savage.

"The sexual model that straight people have created really doesn't work," said the nationally syndicated columnist, in a New York Times Magazine piece on post-modern sex. "All it does is force people to lie. ... In this society, we view monogamy like we view virginity, one incident and it's over, the relationship is over."

Heterosexual couples, he said, should relax and learn from homosexuals. Relationships must grow and evolve. "I know gay couples who have been together for 35 years. They have separate bedrooms. Sometimes they sleep together and sometimes they sleep with other people, but they're a great couple," he said.

Is this "monogamy"? That depends on how the word is defined.

Many homosexuals agree with Savage. But some gays and many lesbians embrace a more traditional definition. Then again, many self-proclaimed "queer theologians" reject "monogamy" and "fidelity" altogether and insist that any hint at limiting sex to one partner is taboo, a lingering symptom of Judeo-Christian heterosexism.

"These debates rage on, but they haven't received much attention outside the gay community," said Larry Holben, author of "What Christians Think about Homosexuality." He is a gay Christian who is best known for writing "The Hiding Place," a classic evangelical film.

"But I think that's changing," he added. "It's getting harder to deny that internal conflicts exist, among homosexuals as well as among conservatives."

Mere word games? Last week, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops acknowledged that many believers live in "life-long committed relationships," outside of Holy Matrimony. The vote was 119 to 19, with four abstentions. The bishops denounced "promiscuity," and said they expected such relationships to be characterized by "fidelity, monogamy" and "holy love." They pledged to provide "prayerful support" and "pastoral care" for these relationships, but stopped just short of calling for rites to bless same-sex unions or extramarital heterosexual unions.

"Once again, you have to ask what all these words mean," said Stanton Jones, co-author of the upcoming "Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate." He is provost of Wheaton College near Chicago.

"Some people simply define 'promiscuity' as sex that is careless, abusive or dishonest, with no other questions asked. ... Or 'monogamy' merely means a sense of emotional fidelity to one person, not an exclusive sexual fidelity. It means that you have one stable, ongoing relationship, but that doesn't have to be your only sexual relationship."

In his book, Holben meticulously draws lines between three liberal Christian stances.

* One group argues for "pastoral accommodation" that views homosexual acts "not so much as intrinsically evil as essential imperfect," writes Holben. But in a fallen world, homosexuals may justify some sexual activity, just as other Christians now justify divorce and remarriage. This stance emphasizes monogamy.

* An "affirmation" camp goes beyond tolerating gay and lesbian relationships, saying they hold the same "potential for a self-transcending exchange of love as heterosexual unions." These Christians believe that the morality of "homosexual acts are to be evaluated exactly as are heterosexual acts," writes Holben. Monogamous, committed, homosexual relationships are truly sacred unions. But what does "monogamy" mean?

* Finally, there is "liberation." As the Rev. Canon Elizabeth Kaeton of Newark once told the Episcopal Church's homosexual caucus, the task for gays and lesbians, "our specific charism, is to help ourselves and the church reclaim the erotic as a central part of our lives." A one-night stand may be a holy act, if the sex is honest, loving and not abusive. This camp argues that monogamy may, in fact, be a mask for jealousy and spiritually destructive forms of idolatry.

The big question: Are sexual acts sacramental, in and of themselves, or is marriage, alone, a sacrament?

"For many on the left the Holy Spirit is equated, quite literally, with the erotic," said Jones. "Sex is a vehicle for touching the divine. ... Sex becomes a spiritual discipline and it's wrong – a sin even – to put any limits on the work of the Holy Spirit."

Charting the sex wars, Pt. I

You know the Episcopalians are in town when insiders do double takes at announcements for "Bishops Outings" or the "Orientation of Bishops and Deputies." Are those scenic "outings" or revelatory exits – voluntary or involuntary – from sexual closets? And who would dare ask "orientation" questions these days?

Words are tricky things. Thus, conservatives made a fervent attempt, during the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church, to seize the high ground with a campaign entitled "God's Love Changed Me." It centered on testimonies by people who said they had been healed of racism, alcoholism and various sexual sins, including homosexuality.

But everyone was reading between the lines during the July 5-14 gathering in Denver. Soon, gay, lesbian and bisexual Episcopalians took to wearing shirts that said, "Oppose hate language, no matter how it is disguised." Write it down – healing equals hate.

The Denver events were par for the course, said writer Larry Holben of San Francisco, author of "What Christians Think about Homosexuality." He is best known for writing the script for "The Hiding Place," a classic evangelical film. But he wrote his meticulously balanced book as part of his own pilgrimage as an Episcopalian who also is gay.

The religious sex wars rage on, but no one seems to be learning much, he said.

"Sure there's homophobia out there," said Holben. "But it has now become a given that any one to the right of center is automatically coming at this from a position of hate and stupidity. ... They're labeled as right-wing demons, which means they can be trivialized and treated with contempt. Nobody has to listen to what they're actually saying."

Meanwhile, conservatives often assume everyone on the left "either doesn't know what the Bible says or don't care what the Bible says," said Holben.

Face it – these people have honest disagreements about doctrinal issues. Also, liberals and conservatives rarely acknowledge the schisms within their respective camps. This makes it even harder to find common ground or, when necessary, for people of good faith to break communion with one another.

Holben's book covers a spectrum of viewpoints, seeking answers to 12 basic questions, such as "What is the God-given intent or design for human sexuality?" and "What is the spiritual significance of homosexuality?" He never settles for a simplistic left vs. right showdown.

There are, for example, at least three conservative camps, he said.

* The "condemnation" camp notes that the Bible contains zero positive references to homosexuality. Its leaders deny that a unique homosexual orientation exists and insist that homosexuals, at some point, make conscious decisions to sin, which leads to addiction and then to self-fulfilling homosexual identities. Same-sex desires are as sinful as sex acts. Holben said this camp "honestly believes that sexual sins are the worst sins, anyway. ... Then, homosexual sins are the worst of the worst."

* The "healing" camp says homosexual orientation is real, even if its origins remain mysterious. It's crucial that many who take this position can testify that they have changed their "orientation" or at least their "sexual behavior." At the same time, some concede that they continue to experience same-sex temptations and that "healing" is a life-long process. While viewing all sex outside of marriage as sin, they stress that same-sex desires, alone, are not sinful and that homosexual sin is no worse than other sin.

* Many groups, including the Vatican, now believe that same-sex orientation is an imperfection or impairment, but rarely the result of a conscious choice. Since healing does not always occur, many homosexuals face what Holben describes as "A Call to Costly Discipleship." This camp urges homosexuals to live chaste lives and, thus, honor centuries of unbroken Christian tradition that all sex outside of marriage is sinful. This approach emphasizes that life in a sinful, fallen world is often painful and complex.

"We all love magic stories ... where a person was sinful or broken and now they're totally healed," said Holben. "That's one of THE most powerful kinds of magic stories for Christians. ... Yet that's rarely what we see in real life, even in the lives of the saints. We see people struggling to deal with their sins and seeking forgiveness. That's life."

Doing conjugal evangelism

The nightmare begins when the Rev. Joe McKeever turns and faces the bride and groom.

He smiles. They smile. The family, friends and faithful smile. Then McKeever begins reciting the lovely words he has said hundreds of times in nearly four decades of ministry. Only this time, he hears a voice inside his head saying something radically different.

"Dear friends, we have gathered here today to witness a disaster in the making," says the voice. "Martha here has decided she wants to marry Chester. Martha – church-goer, hymn-singer, happy, raised right – is throwing it all away in order to marry Chet here, a smug, ungodly rascal. ... Why Chester and Martha want to lock themselves into marriage is beyond me."

And so forth. Then one day, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Kenner, La., did a strange thing. He wrote down what that voice was saying and sent this warped wedding rite to a Southern Baptist newspaper, assuming the editors wouldn't publish it. They did.

Some folks weren't amused. They accused him of saying that inter-faithless marriages are doomed and that the unbelieving spouses are automatically going to hell.

"The whole thing is a satire," said McKeever. "I know it isn't funny. But I'm not laughing, either. What I'm saying is that this seems to be happening more often. ... What we're doing is marrying two people who are like trains running in different directions or even on tracks that cross. We're causing train wrecks."

After all, he said, St. Paul warned people who were getting married in the early church: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what ... communion hath light with darkness?"

So why do Bible-preaching pastors do all of these weddings?

In McKeever's satirical ceremony, that inner voice answers: "Probably because Martha's folks are leaders in our church, and I thought it would anger them if I declined. And some people think, maybe we can reach Chester this way. Frankly, I'm not too sure that disobeying the clear teaching of scripture is a good way to reach anybody for the Lord."

And once today's pastors start asking this kind of tough pre-wedding question, others are sure to follow. What if Martha and Chester are living together? What if Martha's pregnant? What if Chester says he's a believer, but doesn't act like it? What if the bride or groom is divorced? What if they sit in the pastor's study, during the obligatory three premarital counseling sessions, and say they know they're supposed to get married "because it just feels right?"

Meanwhile, some of America's most conservative church leaders are wrestling with a report released last year by the evangelical number-crunchers at the Barna Research Group. It said 27 percent of born-again Christians are now or have been divorced, compared with 24 percent of other Americans. For Baptists, the number was 29 percent and it's 34 percent in non-denominational churches.

That could mean these churches are doing a good job of reaching people who are already divorced, said McKeever. But surely it also means that many pastors are doing lots of weddings that they should't be doing.

It doesn't help that preachers can stand in their pulpits and spot a few rascals who have, in fact, been converted through conjugal evangelism.

"It all works out just enough to keep that myth alive," he said. "We keep telling women not to go into marriage thinking they're going to fix those guys. But nine times out of 10, it just doesn't work. Then they get hurt. The kids get hurt. Everybody gets hurt."

But that train wreck comes long after the end of McKeever's bizarre wedding ceremony, after the soprano sings that "Titanic" song. First, the pastor has to wrap things up.

"I'll say some religious words over you as we all pretend that somehow God is blessing what He has forbidden," says the anti-pastor. "You will exchange rings and vows and saliva and leave here seeking the lowest common denominator in your values, your beliefs and your convictions. ... So let us pray, and pray, and pray."