Theology Thursday - Billy Graham on Ecumenical Evangelism
Image
In the Summer of 1957, Billy Graham came to Madison Square Garden in New York City. In this excerpt from his autobiography,1 Graham discussed the opposition he received from fundamentalists prior to this Crusade, and his own reasoning for doing ecumenical evangelism:
Opposition also came from a few in the Roman Catholic and Jewish communities, although I had made it clear I was not going to New York to speak against other traditions or to proselytize people away from them. My goal instead was to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was presented in the Bible and to call men and women to commit their lives to Him …
To my knowledge, the only vocal opposition from the Roman Catholic community came from a single article in a limited-circulation Catholic magazine. The author, an official with the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) in Washingtin D.C. wrote, “Catholics are not permitted to participate in Protestant religious services.” He went on to state that for faithful Catholics, “Billy is a danger to the faith.”
Such a statement seems harsh in light of present-day Protestant-Catholic relations, but four decades ago the situation was much different. The breakthroughs in ecumenical relations heralded by the Second Vatican Council were still several years away, and in all fairness, many Protestants likewise had strong anti-Catholic views. For me the central issue has always been Christ and our commitment to Him, not our loyalty to an ecclesiastical system, important as the church is to our spiritual growth and service …
Much more painful to me, however, was the opposition from some of the leading fundamentalists. Most of them I knew personally, and even if I did not agree with them on every detail, I greatly admired them and respected their commitment to Christ. Many also had been among our strongest supporters in the early years of our public ministry. Their criticisms hurt immensely, nor could I shrug them off as the objections of people who rejected the basic tenants of the Christian faith or who opposed evangelism of any type. Their harshness and their lack of love saddened me and struck me as being far from the spirit of Christ.
The heart of the problem for men like Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, and John R. Rice was the sponsorship of the Crusade by the Protestant Council of New York. The council, they contended, included many churches and clergy who were theologically liberal and who denied some of the most important elements of the biblical message. It was not the first time some of them had raised their objections to my growing ecumenism, of course, but the New York Crusade marked their final break with our work. I studied and prayed over their criticisms, wanting to accept their indictments if they were right. But I came to the firm conclusion that they were not, and that God was leading us in a different direction. Ruth likewise studied the whole matter; we discussed the issue and prayed over it frequently. Her conclusion was the same as mine.
In addition, my study of the major evangelists in history also showed me that the issue was not new; every one of them – from Whitefield and Wesley to Moody and Sunday – had to contend with similar criticisms, both from the right and from the left.
Early in our work, I had tried to answer any such attacks, but I eventually decided the only course was to ignore them. The critics showed no inclination to change, and at any rate I did not have time to devote to such arguments. In a 1955 letter to Carl McIntire about an article he had written opposing our work, I admitted that, “I felt a little resentment and I got on my knees and asked God to give me love in my heart … Beloved friend, if you feel led of the Spirit of God to continue your attacks upon me, rest assured I shall not answer you back nor shall I attempt to harm one hair of your head … My objective is to glorify our Lord Jesus Christ by the preaching of His word to sinners.”
A year before the New York meetings, one of our Team members, Dr Ralph Mitchell, had an extended conversation with Bob Jones. He came away convinced Bob Jones would never change his position, which was that our work was not of God. Ralph concluded by writing me, “You must not concern yourself unduly about such critics … Nevertheless, it is a fresh challenge to all of us in the whole Association to be much more in prayer.” I agreed wholeheartedly and asked God to help keep us from being diverted from His work by such critics. Occasionally my father-in-law, Dr. Bell, attempted to answer such attacks, but with little success. I often felt like Nehemiah when his enemies tried to get him to stop rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and come don to discuss the project; he replied that he was too busy building the wall (see Nehemiah 6:1-4).
My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.
The more vocal the opposition, however, the more the supporting churches in the New York area rallied to our side. God had a way of taking our problems and turning them to His own advantage.
Notes
1 Billy Graham, Just as I Am (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957), 301-304.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 91 views
“I studied and prayed over their criticisms, wanting to accept their indictments if they were right. But I came to the firm conclusion that they were not, and that God was leading us in a different direction. Ruth likewise studied the whole matter; we discussed the issue and prayed over it frequently. Her conclusion was the same as mine.”
Maybe he wrote about this at other points, but I’m curious what he specifically studied, what he learned from that study, and what argument(s) he formulated to support his assertion that he, “should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us.”
On a personal note, it’s very frustrating to be counseling/discipling a brother or sister in Christ over a specific point of theology or even a sin issue and their rejoinder to be (and pretty much only be), “John, I’ve studied and prayed about this.”
In my experience, the phrase “studied and prayed about this” is code for “I don’t need actual arguments because my feelings are enough.” I’m not saying that’s what Billy Graham did, but, as I stated, I am curious whether or not he ever expounded on his arguments in other writings or speeches.
I had the same thoughts. I know an autobiography isn’t the place for detailed explanations about things like this, but I wish I had more details. I took it as code for “I just don’t agree.” I’d like to think Graham really studied and came to an informed conclusion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t. He wouldn’t be the first to do this (myself included).
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Yep; I’m using an excerpt from this for next week, to complement Graham’s remarks here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Key quote:
“My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.” -Billy Graham
David R. Brumbelow
So we should be willing to work with known apostates if they are willing to work with us? Is that what Scripture teaches? Compromise on the part of apostates is expected. That is at the core of who they are. Compromise by the true servant is forbidden by God.
G. N. Barkman
….is that he was saying he wasn’t trying to convert Jews and such. Yes, makes for good PR, but hasn’t he just told them they don’t need to do anything to avoid Hell?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I read that quote. In fact, I included part of it in my first comment. But it doesn’t answer my question. It simply states what he believed. I’m curious about what he studied and what arguments, shaped by that study, he used to arrive at that belief.
The questions and discussion here and in other threads show that we need a thorough, theological biography of Graham. Unless his papers and archives have something to add (and only competent research will discover that), we will never know the reasoning behind his decisions concerning his evangelistic methodology. All we have are general statements about study and prayer. What we do have, however, are the results of that “study and prayer”, results and consequences which will impact much longer than the memories of those who knew him. I suspect that eventually we will get more honest and Biblical evaluations of Graham from Evangelicals. But, for now, all we get are vague comments about “disagreements”.
Wally Morris
Charity Baptist Church
Huntington, IN
amomentofcharity.blogspot.com
I suspect that Billy Graham’s cooperation with Roman Catholic and Liberal Protestant churches may have contributed to his surprising statements on a qualified universalism in his infamous public interview with Robert Schuller. This position of Graham’s goes all the way back to a written article in “DECISION” magazine (1960). His statements in the Schuller interview are particularly alarming to those of us who believe in the exclusivity and necessity of the Gospel being understood and consciously believed in order to receive salvation. Schuller asked for a clarification of his broadly inclusive position, re-stated the inclusive position, and then Billy Graham deliberately reaffirmed it. This is where ecumenism takes a person.
Pastor Mike Harding
Thanks
[John E.]I read that quote. In fact, I included part of it in my first comment. But it doesn’t answer my question. It simply states what he believed. I’m curious about what he studied and what arguments, shaped by that study, he used to arrive at that belief.
A question I am finding myself asking a lot these days goes something like this: “So, this issue drove you to the scriptures? What did scripture drive you to affirm or change?” Sadly, most don’t have an answer to part 2 of that question, just a “felt at peace” (modern speak for “prayer and study”) or something equally nebulous which provides for the guilt-free practice of that which they wanted to do to begin with.
I am bold enough to state that scripture did not drive Graham’s inclusiveness; most likely “youthful lusts”—especially the overwhelming desire for apparent success—did. I truly hope I am wrong in assessing his motives, but the evidence is pretty substantial.
Lee
[Lee]I am bold enough to state that scripture did not drive Graham’s inclusiveness; most likely “youthful lusts”—especially the overwhelming desire for apparent success—did. I truly hope I am wrong in assessing his motives, but the evidence is pretty substantial.
What is the evidence that his motivation was the overwhelming desire for apparent success?
It strikes me that judging Graham’s motives is an inherently dangerous business. We know he did not fence off his crusades from apostates, and he explicitly said that he was not trying to convert certain populations. We also know that his crusades got huge. However, without someone fessing up about the matter, we do not yet know that B was the reason for A. It’s possible, and it’s certainly consistent with some evidence, but we don’t have causality as far as I can tell.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The information archived at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton is exhaustive. I spent a little time there. A researcher can spend valuable time there. And the Charlotte facility has fascinating information also.
Discussion