The Legacy of Billy Graham

I’ve heard a number of well-known CE’s express publicly their criticism of Graham’s ecumenical evangelism and their rejection of the practice. The difference is that while they’ve rejected the practice they’ve not condemned Graham personally and separated from him (which is kind of pointless seeing that he’s in heaven).

There is an aspect of separatist fundamentalism that seems to need a visible enemy and it seems that, even in death, Graham continues to be the one, especially considering that ecumenical evangelism doesn’t seem to be a thing anymore.

I wonder how much things like Operation Christmas Child cross over to liberal churches. Granted, it’s not stadium events like Graham’s, but one might suggest that there is at least a vestige of ecumenical evangelism out there, no?

That noted, my biggest objection to Graham’s rallies isn’t that ecumenical cooperation resulted in misdirected efforts at discipleship. It’s that so many “converts” at Graham rallies got no discipleship at all unless they found a Bible-believing local church and pursued fellowship and membership. Blaming others for problems is fun, don’t get me wrong, but sometimes we need to look in the mirror.

Ron wrote:

There is an aspect of separatist fundamentalism that seems to need a visible enemy and it seems that, even in death, Graham continues to be the one, especially considering that ecumenical evangelism doesn’t seem to be a thing anymore.

Agreed. The man is dead, and young people couldn’t care less who he was. That era is past. Even the young adults in my church don’t know or care who his son is. The article would have made sense 20 years ago. There are other, more worthy foes to fight. Revoice, anyone?

Leave Billy Graham alone! As Dr. Oats always said„ “he’s dead now, so his theology has been straightened out.”

I’m not saying that I agree with Wally Morris’ conclusions about Billy Graham, but Graham’s legacy and continued impact on broader evangelicalism, including fundamentalism, is a relevant topic. It’s entirely reasonable for the FBFI or any group to editorialize on Graham’s life and ministry.

When BG died, it was “too soon.” Now it seems like the bar has been moved to “never.”

What I am saying is that his ministry and legacy is only directly relevant to men who are 50+. He and his ministry had no impact on me, and it has no impact on folks younger than me. The era of mass evangelism is largely over; that ship has sailed. We can draw appropriate lessons from Graham’s association with apostates and other groups who, by any critical examination, are not properly Christian at all. But, there are other, more relevant ways to make that same application and draw those same lessons.

I’m saying the lessons are good, but it’s time for a more contemporary application. Graham is dead. His son, by some media accounts, seems to be a mild Trump sycophant. Each sub-culture has its favorite whipping boys, and Graham served honorably and well in that capacity for many decades. He rendered good service as the boogeyman of Baptist fundamentalism; as the face of the sinister “new evangelicalism.” I just wish we in Baptist fundamentalism would at least update our whipping boys every once in a while …

Tyler, it’s bizarre to me that you would claim that BG’s ministry is only relevant to those who are over the age of 50. That’s simply not true. BG’s influence continues to shape broader evangelicalism. He does have an impact on you, whether you want to admit it or not. He remains an incredibly influential figure in Western Evangelicalism. Just because BG is dead doesn’t mean that his ideas, practice, and overall influence aren’t still coursing through the American church. His fingerprints are everywhere. I’ve never read a book by BG and never listened to a sermon by the man, but I recognize that his ministry had and continues to affect me, whether I like it or not. From the FBFI’s point of view, BG remains a relevant concern, and rightly so.

Disagree with the article all you want, but to dismiss it as the FBFI simply flogging a boogeyman is insulting to Wally Morris.

John, you’re a real nice guy. I want to say that, up front. Now that I’ve got that out of the way …

Let’s be honest with each other. Billy Graham’s influence was vast. He’s dead, and so is the kind of mass evangelism he championed. My point isn’t so much that Wally was wrong; he’s right. I shall repeat - Wally’s is right! I just wonder why on earth we continue to see critical articles flogging Billy Graham. How long will they continue? When will they end?

I grow tired of hearing about Billy Graham’s problems with separation. Isn’t there a more relevant, contemporary application to highlight the same problems? At some point, can we quit flogging a man who is already dead?

John wrote:

Just because BG is dead doesn’t mean that his ideas, practice, and overall influence aren’t still coursing through the American church

Meh. Who cares? I absolutely guarantee you nobody in my church cares about Billy Graham’s methods. I don’t either. We evangelize responsibly and properly, I don’t fellowship with non-Christian groups and the next time I’m invited to address tens of thousands of people at a mass evangelism rally, I’ll make sure I triple-check the CVs of every speaker, lest I be guilty of “platform fellowship.” But, to parachute back into the real world, that won’t happen.

I have to believe many Christian across our fair land have bigger problems in their ministries and personal lives than worrying about the sinister influence of Billy Graham’s doctrine of separation. If the FBFI wants to run an article analyzing the Revoice conference, then my ears will perk up!

I agree that Graham’s ecumenical evangelism was wrong and harmful and so do most, if not all, of the CE’s. The problem I had in the 70’s and 80’s and continue to have is that the attack continues primarily on the man and not on the issues. The younger generation has little knowledge of who BG was other than a “hero”. But if you engage them on issues you’ll get some real work done.

It strikes me that the first time I was pointing out the difficulties with Graham’s methods, Reagan was President and I was a new believer. Now I’m not a fan of mixing real believers with liberal “Christians” in evangelism at all, but at the same time, it strikes me that the bigger fish to fry with Graham’s methods is some things we see all too often all over today; the infatuation with being big in terms of numbers, an emphasis on glitzy presentation in lieu of theological depth, and finally a dearth of effective follow-up and discipleship.

Does Graham’s ministry exemplify all of these? Sure. However, my concern is that if our ire is focused on Graham, then we’re far more likely to miss the examples that are of far more concern to us; those in our own churches.

Or, put differently, no problem with teaching the good and bad about Graham in seminaries, theological forii, and history classes. Teach him alongside others who paved the way for him, like Billy Sunday and Charles Finney, and for that matter George Whitfield.

But let’s keep it in perspective of “he’s not the bogeyman now.”

Separation is an important topic. I appreciated the Paul Jackson address SI ran on the front page for several weeks. I just challenge younger fundamentalists to absorb the philosophy about historic fundamentalism that is good, and jettison the bad:

• Don’t obsess over certain men and personalities, and go beyond the same tired hobby horses.
• Engage CURRENT theological revisionism in your pulpits and in print.
• Write about the sexual revolution, about the reliability of Scripture, and about epistemology - write about all of it.
• Don’t make CEs the enemy; the revisionists are your real enemy.
• Be a real fundamentalist. Be a historic fundamentalist. Look at where the attacks against the faith are coming from, and adjust your fire.
• Your real enemy are those who seek to redefine or deliberately undermine the faith, not those whose doctrine of separation is a bit looser than yours.
• Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
• Fight and be militant for the faith, not a particular, time bound expression of it.
• Critically examine the packaged theological system you’ve been given, and think for yourself.

Don’t engage personalities. Engage issues. Above all, engage current, relevant issues that your contemporary audience will understand and appreciate.

Folks should read and carefully consider:

• Bible Separation (Pickering)
• The Tragedy of Compromise (Pickering)
• Promise Unfulfilled (McCune)
• Be Ye Holy (Moritz)
• Christianity and Liberalism (Machen)

They’re all very good and very important books.

Mistaken post!