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.
- 117 views
I agree with some of the comments about Graham’s funeral, but I don’t think the promises of Anne Lotz to be a preacher and evangelist are typical fundamental Baptist. She isn’t talking in general terms which would apply to all Christians - She is talking about her “ministry” as a preacher and evangelist. I don’t think that is fundamental Baptist.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I’m waiting for the nit-picking to start regarding the funeral of BG. I think all of us know that he wasn’t an independent fundamental Baptist and neither were his children.
I could start a list of what I expect: the Gaither Vocal Band (The other BG that we’re against), Joel Osteen was there (please don’t judge me by who my family invites to my funeral), women spoke (preached?) one of whom has been divorced, (SARCASM ALERT) they didn’t give an invitation, they didn’t use the KJV………….
BTW, kudos to all the speakers for staying reasonably within their time guidelines and the grace of his son Ned on “yielding his time” to others.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron: I’m not “nit-picking” - Greg suggested the funeral reminded him of a typical fundamental Baptist church service. I merely commented on 1 aspect of the service. That’s all. Don’t read more into comments than intended. Of course his daughter has the right to speak at her father’s funeral. But that’s not what I was referring to. Once again, you over-state your case.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]I agree with some of the comments about Graham’s funeral, but I don’t think the promises of Anne Lotz to be a preacher and evangelist are typical fundamental Baptist. She isn’t talking in general terms which would apply to all Christians - She is talking about her “ministry” as a preacher and evangelist. I don’t think that is fundamental Baptist.
I really did not say what I said to start this silly nitpicking but I guess in hindsight, I should have known better. Suffice it to say Wally that when I compared the funeral to a fundamentalist church service, I did not necessarily mean that as a compliment and I certainly was not implying that fundamental baptists are some kind of golden standard. Really really unbelievable how the old guard fundamentalists can’t just shut up for a bit and show some grace rather than picking apart a funeral. Astounding…
[GregH]Suffice it to say Wally that when I compared the funeral to a fundamentalist church service, I did not necessarily mean that as a compliment
Ok for Greg to be uncomplimentary, but no one else?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
“old guard fundamentalists”? Wow, if stating that Anne Lotz should not be a preacher and evangelist (in the Eph 4 sense) is “old guard fundamentalists”, then I stand guilty. I would think that belief would also fit conservative Evangelicals as well. “Nit-picking” the funeral? Hardly. Franklin Graham actually said something that contradicted his father’s beliefs when he stated that other religions will not get a person to heaven. His father did not believe that. Franklin Graham had the courage to say that in front of his family and guests. I think Greg misunderstands more than he realizes.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
How far back does “old guard fundamentalists” go? Cause I’m pretty sure that I want to be counted as an “old guard fundamentalist.”
Wally, as SI’s resident conservative evangelical :) (there are more at SI than just me, I know) I agree with you that Annie Lotz should not be a preacher and an evangelist.
An old guard fundamentalist is the kind of person who is so wired to be a separatist that he can’t stop himself from attacking someone out of his little circle in such “classy” ways as:
1) Pointing out a woman is an evangelist when she clearly is speaking as a daughter at her dad’s funeral.
2) Using the words of a speaker at a funeral to take potshots at the speaker’s father in the casket.
An old guard fundamentalist just can’t say “nice funeral” and move on. Not when the funeral is for a non-fundamentalist. Gotta get some qualifiers if not digs and potshots in. Or another way of putting it: an old guard fundamentalist just does not know when to shut up about some things.
“Or another way of putting it: an old guard fundamentalist just does not know when to shut up about some things.”
So, what you’re saying is that basically every human that has ever existed (accept Jesus) is an old guard fundamentalist?
Greg: Did you pay attention to the funeral and to what I said? I never criticized her speaking at Graham’s funeral. That’s ludicrous. In her comments at the funeral, she forcefully stated that she was going to honor her father by her ministry of preaching and evangelism. She basically bragged about it. Perhaps if you would not interpret the comments of others in ways they never stated, you might get a better hearing. “Potshots” at Graham because Franklin Graham openly contradicted his father’s position on the salvation of those in other religions? Wow, you just keep misunderstanding. Read what I said carefully. I was complimenting Franklin Graham’s clear statement that Christ is the only Savior, even for those in other religions, a belief that Billy Graham did not share. For someone who likes to criticize Fundamentalists for being judgmental, you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[John E.]“Or another way of putting it: an old guard fundamentalist just does not know when to shut up about some things.”
So, what you’re saying is that basically every human that has ever existed (accept Jesus) is an old guard fundamentalist?
Sorry John, I have no time to nit and pick with someone being deliberately obtuse. You know exactly what I meant. Have a nice day.
An old guard fundamentalist is the kind of person who is so wired to be a separatist that he can’t stop himself from attacking someone out of his little circle
Greg, How is this different than you? You make a comment about the funeral that you “did not necessarily mean that as a compliment.” Why say it at all? Why not just let it pass? I wonder if you are not a bit more of a fundamentalist than you let on. You seem unable to let much pass with attacking fundamentalists in some way or another. Which seems to be almost exactly what you complain about with fundamentalists. One wonders if the description that “an old guard fundamentalist just does not know when to shut up about some things” might be applicable more broadly.
Can’t we all just get along?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I remember, with a sad smile, a person I corresponded with who was making all kinds of accusations of me being some kind of preacher. I’m not quite sure I deserve the “compli-sult” (compliment or insult, depending on your perspective), but work with me here.
My response was to point out that he was every bit as much a “preacher” as I, but that his gospel simply was different.
Regarding the definition of “old guard fundamentalism”, I guess you could accuse any number of people of that, from Machen to Don to perhaps me, but I think what Greg’s talking about is more about a lot of the “bazillion comment threads” here about social issues like dancing, music, alcohol, and the like, along with a militant separation. It ranges everywhere from BJU to the KJVO fringe, really.
And yes, sometimes this old guard, broadly defined, runs afoul of other peoples’ social conventions in the same way that the “rantings” of convergents like myself runs afoul of some of the social conventions of the old guard. And, for that matter, just like a lot of what Jesus said ran afoul of the social conventions of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
The trick is not to eschew running afoul of social conventions in toto—it’s impossible—but rather to evaluate whether these breaches are breaches for the sake of principle, or breaches for the sake of making noise.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Rodney King: Didn’t he get arrested later for fighting and breaking the law? :)
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Discussion