The Legacy of Billy Graham

I appreciate SI posting a notice about my article at P&D. I am also working on an article about the preaching of Billy Graham.

Apparently some did not read my article carefully and are not aware of what is happening in Evangelicalism. The article never “condemns Graham personally”. The fact that younger Christians do not care about Billy Graham and some of the theological issues of his ministry which are still impacting our churches today is irrelevant. Our job is to help them understand why it IS relevant. That does not mean that we ignore other important concerns. But to dismiss the continuing impact of Graham’s philosophy is naive and theological malpractice.

Concerns about the continuing impact of Graham’s philosophy cannot be dismissed by using worn-out accusations of “whipping boy” and that Fundamentalists “need an enemy”. Such statements reveal an unwillingness to wrestle with genuine issues and conveniently shut down discussion by accusing those who point out problems..

Evangelicals today continue to practice Graham’s philosophy of ecumenical evangelism. Let me give one illustration I did not use in the article. After the SBC Annual Meeting this summer in Texas, Southern Baptists joined with Greg Laurie in Dallas-Fort Worth at his Harvest America rally in a mass evangelism event, an event promoted by Southern Baptists. I talked with one of the organizers of this event, and he admitted that all churches in the area were invited to participate and work the event. Laurie also used the phrase “make a commitment to follow Jesus”, a phrase made popular by Graham.

How can anyone say that Graham’s philosophy of evangelism is not relevant or used any longer? The facts say otherwise. My article is not motivated by jealousy of anyone. To make that accusation assumes knowledge of personal motivation and assumes what they cannot know. The article is about more than Graham. The article is also about well-known Evangelicals who emphasize theology but are quiet about this aspect of theology. Anyone who thinks I am “attacking the man and not the issues” didn’t read the article carefully.

Some suggest that we should “look in the mirror” and solve our problems first before we express criticism or concern about something. If true, then no one would ever be able to try to correct anything or anyone since we all have sins and problems which will continue the rest of our lives. Although it sounds very pious, the “look in the mirror” suggestion is naive and assumes knowledge of theological logs and splinters.

The quote from Dr. Oats is correct but assumes more than intended. Graham’s theology is now “correct” (as all of ours will be one day), but the impact of his incorrect theology continues now. All of us should care about that.

I think your points are good and the article is good. But, to be honest, I’ve read so much about separation that uses Graham as a foil that, whenever I see another article by a Baptist fundamentalist that highlights Graham, I immediately think of Reagan (“there you go again …”).

What left an impression on me in the battle against BG’s sinful ecumenical evangelism was the failure to stress the issues. I knew I was to separate fromm BG, from anyone who associated with BG, from anyone who might say anything positive about BG, and anything that looked like what BG was doing. I recall many meetings where BG was soundly condemned but “why” was seldom if ever mentioned. He was “the enemy” and treated like an apostate.

This is the first time I’ve heard about Harvest America which inclines me to think that it hasn’t been a priority issue for us.

Isn’t this the main problem with ecumenical evangelism? Graham needed to present a gospel that appealed to and supported the various stripes of “christianity” present. Words needed to be used that would be just right so that all groups present on the platform could say, “I like that! I can use that and not lose anybody!”. The catholic listener hears “commit to follow Jesus” to mean “go back to the mass and keep the sacraments”.

Greg Laurie’s Harvest Crusades uses the term “Profession of Faith,” but will interchange that with commitment to Christ. Here is what is on their website from the FAQ page.

“What’s a “profession of faith”?
We believe that only God has the power to “convert” a person’s heart to Himself. We use the term “profession of faith” to indicate that a person made a public, formal profession of a desire to follow Christ and live by His Word (whether that be a first-time commitment or a recommitment). While many of these people will be discipled, grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, and bear lasting fruit, we know that this is a matter of the heart and some will not continue on in the Christian faith (see Matthew 13). This is the reason that there is a follow-up process in place—to ensure that as many people as possible are given the tools, prayer, and biblical counsel that they need.

What happens when someone makes a profession of faith?
Those making a profession of faith in Christ are paired up with a Decision Follow-Up Worker and receive a free Start! Bible. The Decision Follow-Up Worker prays and encourages the new believer. He or she also documents the person’s decision to follow Christ. The documentation is then given to a local church representative on the night of the crusade. Within 48 hours of the crusade, local churches mail letters and make phone calls to the new believers. To ensure the success of this step, Harvest Crusades utilizes mailings and other resources to encourage the local churches to follow up with all new believers. Harvest also has follow-up curriculum available for churches that haven’t yet developed their own.”

Now, this would be a good subject for an article. Much more contemporary and relevant than more about Billy Graham.