Well, I find this incredible. Sorry if you don’t.
Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter might play a significant role in the second coming of Christ, evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham says.
“The Bible says that every eye is going to see [the second coming],” Graham told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour. “How is the whole world going to see [Jesus Christ] all at one time? I don’t know, unless all of a sudden everybody’s taking pictures and it’s on the media worldwide. I don’t know. Social media could have a big part in that.”
Graham said he believes that when Jesus returns to earth from heaven, he will come on the clouds and the world will record the event using cell phones and cameras.
Must be a fairly loose interpretation of the “every eye” clause, since there are millions of people who don’t have any access to social media whatsoever.
You mean incredible in the sense of shaking your head in unbelief? If so…I agree. I agree that we don’t know how everyone in the world will see Him. But — that’s not important. What is important is that EVERY KNEE WILL BOW! Cell phone cameras? Social media? Give me a break! Doesn’t Paul state that when this happens (1 Cor.15:52) that this will happen in the “twinkling of an eye?” Don’t think phones or media are that fast.
i thought the days of interpreting prophecy in light of technological advances was over.
*sigh*
(I’d just leave it at that but the site said my comment was too short.)
Graham’s rather silly beliefs about the second coming don’t disturb me nearly as much as this: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/25/2247541/franklin-graham-talks-politics.html
His eschatology doesn’t really have any affect on me, other than the collective tarring it gives all Christians as being rather silly. However, he is rather influential in certain circles, and his political beliefs and endorsements could have a real impact on everybody. I mean, how could anybody, Christian or not, take “The Donald” seriously as a presidential candidate.
I guess that means I’m not one of the elect. I don’t have a cell phone and my Facebook account is deactivated.
Wow, I think that’s a really strict interpretation of something someone started by saying “I don’t know” to…
What’s your problem? I don’t think Franklin said “I believe Facebook and social media will herald the coming of Christ”
I’m not a Franklin fan, but I’m less a fan of people who take off the cuff comments literally just so they can have a blog post.
I do believe everyone deserves more respect than that. That’s what I believe.
If you view the video clip, you might notice that Graham says explicitly, “I don’t know.” In fact, he says it a couple of times. When Amanpour asked if he was saying that the Second Coming would be a social media event, Graham said No.
It is an interesting speculation about how the Second Coming might play on Facebook and smartphones, but I don’t get any sense that for Graham it is anything more than an interesting thought, not a serious conclusion.
Lighten up, everybody.
It must have been a while that Franklin actually read the Bible or he may have come across Matthew 24:23 or the fact that it is highly unlikely that the cosmic event that puts an end to history as we know it, will be anything but unnoticable without visual helps or notifications, may a person be awake or sleeping, physically blind until this point or not.
May Franklin and all of us experience the reality of the resurrected and ascended Lord! And may the Jesus Creed become embodied in every fiber of our beings. Amen.
Jesus has already come in the clouds, and it was as invisible as when He sat down at the right hand of God.
But wait! I was told by a “scholar” of end times in the 70′s that it was satellite TV that was going to make the 2nd Coming a technological possibility. How could he have been so wrong and deceived me in my vulnerable teens?
With todays culture, it is more pressing on us that we need to invite others to be a part of Gods kingdom movement NOW!
hmmm…maybe if we got everyone a social media acct of some type, we could force Jesus’ hand!
~ Judas
Unfortunately, this is the sort of silly thing that Dawkins and other atheists will post in their sites to “prove” that evangelicals are stupid people.
Franklin’s starting to move toward the fringe.
Jeff @8, now if we take what you say into consideration our mocking of Graham wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Besides, nobody really believes in the physical return of Christ. Everything was spiritual and fulfilled in the first century. Silly Fundies.
Not enough people in the world will have cell phones by May 21 of this year.
A theologically conservative makes an offhand comment about the physical return of Christ and Jesus Creed posters have a field day of ridicule. Rob Bell writes a whole book that pushes the envelope on soteriology and Jesus Creed posters scream about how unfair and uncivil his critics are and Scot begins every post with a prayer that everyone will play nice. Would it not be constructive to give the son of Billy Graham the same generous leeway given to Rob Bell?
Last I remember the Nicene Creed said “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”. Franklin is affirming the visible return of Christ, perhaps in less than elegant terms, though I could easily hear his father saying something similar. Hardly anything novel or controversial about the substance, right? Not the first guy to affirm that the Christ who rose physically will return physically, is he?
Everybody here seems so concerned about style points when a conservative affirms fairly tame doctrines but so quick to want to have dignified “conversations” with brave pioneers who challenge traditional doctrines of hell (Bell) sexual morality (Tony Jones) historicity of Genesis (Peter Enns) God’s sovereignty (Greg Boyd), etc., etc. (I see Karl W. Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, John Polkinghorne and Ken Miller are joining the likes of John Spong and Michael Dowd to proclaim the virtues of Evolutionary Christianity.) http://evolutionarychristianity.com/advent/
“Franklin’s starting to move toward the fringe.” Really?
I guess all ideas are welcome, as long as nobody can call us fundies.
The parts I saw of Amanpour’s interview seemed as if Graham is more credulous or literal about some interpretations of Scripture or people than makes me comfortable. My perception was, though, that Amanpour baited her questions with a barb or 2, & the subsequent written coverage drew more bold lines about his words, than I considered solid, ethical journalism. (Although I was pretty floored Graham was so positive on Trump of casinos, bankruptcies, ego, and wives.) DanS, #19, ISTM you’re painting with too broad a brush the folks who comment to be fair. I agree some comments weren’t helpful (yours, included), but others were gentle & re-focused us on what we do know we’re called to do, here & now or in the meantime (depending on our eschatology). cf. Timothy, #10, for instance.
Thanks, DanS # 19. I agree. There does seem to be a double standard here. One can be incredulous about Franklin Graham, but not about Rob Bell.
Are we to embrace all quirky fundamentalist ideas–like protesting the funerals of the war dead with signs saying “God hates f*gs”? And would you defenders of Franklin Graham’s comment PLEASE read Scot’s review of Rob Bell’s book *Love Wins*? Rob was called to account by Scot for his quirky theology.
Graham’s idle speculation about what the return of Christ would look like in the age of iphones and social media is nothing like the depraved rantings of the Westboro Baptist Church. It is silly to try to put them on same plane, as if to accept one as harmless speculation is to embrace the other.
I’ve have read many of Scot’s posts and threads about the Rob Bell brouhaha. I don’t recall, though, where he ever began one of those with, “Well, I find this incredible. Sorry if you don’t.” Quite condescending, I think. No, his Bell posts began with a prayer for peace and understanding.
Jeff (#23),
Do you really believe Franklin’s comments are at the same level with the same potential influence as LOVE WINS? Who is even going to remember or care for Franklin’s social media ideas? LOVE WINS is spreading some aberrant theology, not regarding debatable end times speculation, but about atonement theology and the necessity of conversion to avoid hell. That is why I think Scot began each Bell post with a prayer. What did you think of Piper’s, “Farewell, Rob Bell”?
I believe that Graham’s comments are idle speculation, an interesting thought about what the coming of Christ might look like in regard to smartphones and social media. As I noted in #8, he says a couple of times, quite explicitly, “I don’t know.” And when Amanpour asked if he was saying that the Second Coming would be a social media event, Graham said “No.”
This is not some doctrine he is making, not some major point he is trying to make. Just a simple musing.
And of course, it is not like Rob Bell’s books, in which Bell, in his idiomatic way asks a number of questions and is not very clear about what his answers are or what his position is. Nothing comparable between Graham and Bell. But Bell has raised some very controversial positions. Graham has raised an idle speculation of a very tame nature.
I’m not in any way suggesting that we should treat Bell’s ideas with any incredulity or dismissiveness or disrespect him in any way. What I am saying is that Franklin Graham should be treated with the same respect for a musing about which he clearly says, “I don’t know.” It does not deserve the condescension Scot has given it here.
But because Graham is more toward the fundamental viewpoint (not to mention conservative regarding politics), and not as enlightened as folks here at Jesus Creed, I guess he does not rate the same love, respect or fair and evenhanded treatment as those who are pushing the Christian envelope.
I’m not a big fan of Franklin Graham. I respect the work of Samaritan’s Purse and the evangelistic efforts he has led. And I do have great respect for his father.
But what bothers me — and DanS nailed it pretty well in #19, is the double standard I see in place here at Jesus Creed. I had expected better when I came to this blog.
I though Piper’s “Farewell, Rob Bell” was very condescending and boorish, and in a word, unbecoming of Christ. Scot’s “Well, I find this incredible. Sorry if you don’t” was of the same dismissive, condescending nature, though not to the same degree.
The real problem here is the media, and perhaps some naivety on the part of F. Graham.
The only criticism I would level is this: when you speak to the media, keep your idle speculations to yourself and the people you trust.
Jeff (#23, #25)
I could be wrong, but I’d wager that Scot’s tone of “incredible” wasn’t meant in a condescending or sarcastic sense at all. I interpreted it as he actually thinks it’s an interesting theory or at the least an interesting story, and suspects that he might get some flack for it.
Amanda #27,
It’s the added, “Sorry if you don’t,” in conjunction with the “Well, I find this incredible,” that is the tip-off. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he means, “Hey, this is super-cool, and I hope you think it is really neat, too.” With the rhetoric he chose, I think the point was to ridicule (again, Scot can correct me if I’m wrong) and, indeed, many did follow the lead and chose to ridicule.
You find it ‘incredible’ as in w/o credit? LOL
Jeff, I think it’s important that we urge & encourage one another not to read “ridicule” (or “scream[s]” – #19) into written words, unless the written words specifically name them so. (RJS wrote a post about Mohler who had used such words.) I’d hope that my family & friends couldn’t tilt their heads and comment, “hmmm, I think you could have said that more gracefully” rather than jumping on me with both feet & presuming to read my heart, my motivations & my attitude as filled with ridicule toward others. We’re human, we get tired, we write in a hurry, we speak when we’re really thinking of the next thing that needs to get done, and we all need good friends to love us, anyway. Oh, and “tongue in cheek” remarks don’t come across well in print, either.
Let’s give grace to one another, please. As John Frye pointed out, the Love Wins commentary was about controversial opinions over theology, not about a media interview regarding Facebook, and Scot critiqued theological points. Are you asking Scot to critique Graham’s eschatology & social media slant on the 2nd Coming here, too? Really?? LW had already engendered some very harsh words & aspersions. Rather than reading bias into the non-posting of a prayer before a comment on an unusual but lighter, less controversy-laden interview with some quirky tangents, a simple comment about giving grace to Graham would suffice, don’t you think?
In fact, we could just re-post the prayer to remind ourselves of Whose we are, together, again.
O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:
Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,
which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,
without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.
Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,
now and for ever. Amen.†
So, it is okay to ridicule our brothers and sisters in Christ as long as we don’t actually use the word “ridicule” while we are doing it?
I would like for everyone here to give grace to Franklin Graham for making an idle speculation, but I’ve seen how that flies here.
No, I am not asking Scot to critique Graham’s eschatology. Nothing in anything I’ve said should come even close to suggesting that. What I am asking is that Graham be given the same sort of civil treatment that is accorded to Bell.
If I have misread Scot’s intent in how he opened this thread, I am certain willing for him to correct me if I’m wrong and I will withdraw my objection. So far, he hasn’t said one way or another.
I have wondered about the passage about everyone seeing Jesus’ return. Perhaps some amazing thing will happen in the sky, like it all lights up or something. But if Jesus returns with the resurrected body that he had, I don’t know how everyone would actually see his body. Perhaps God will just make it so that somehow Jesus is visible to all. I have no idea how.
If only we acknowledged the presence of Christ here now.
Jesus just Twitted me and said he’s not coming back until all of you “Christians” behave. So pack up your swords and unpack your suitcases: we’re in for a VERY long wait!
To those who find it imposssible to see Jesus anyway in a twinkling of an eye, unbelievers will not see him because that verse refers to the rapture, ” two women grinding at the mill, one will be taken the other left” (Every eye will see him) that is the verse that refers to the second coming of Christ. The rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events. If God says every eye will see him, it will happen. dont worry about how,just trust Him.