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
BG is fairly candid in Just As I Am, but I have two observations about that work. 1. He wrote it many years after the fact, so memory is suspect. 2. He (naturally) thinks what he did was right, and thus puts the best face on it.
In other words, I don’t think his explanations are complete or objective, but they are a start.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
is Mr. Graham is guilty of seeking to re-fight the last war and winning it. In his case, his goal was to hold the same sort of city-wide evangelistic campaigns as Moody, Torrey, and others held. But conditions had changed much like the French sought to refight the Franco-Prussian War in the face of German machine guns.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Perhaps people were hurt and grieved.
Rob Fall has a good point.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Also: Adding to the information - A 1995 article by George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, “Some Thoughts On Ecumenical Evangelism - A Case Study”:
https://www.faith.edu/1995/04/some-thoughts-on-ecumenical-evangelism-a-case-study/
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[WallyMorris]Also: Adding to the information - A 1995 article by George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, “Some Thoughts On Ecumenical Evangelism - A Case Study”:
https://www.faith.edu/1995/04/some-thoughts-on-ecumenical-evangelism-a-case-study/
Great article
I’ve been looking at the Graham online archives at Wheaton - The article Billy Graham Answers His Critics
In the section “Link With Churches” Graham says “We believe that the church, with all of its faults, is Christ’s organization upon earth.” Another part of the answer to “Why?” is perhaps a wrong understanding of ecclesiology, a too broad definition of what the church is. The statement, in itself, is fine. But perhaps he viewed even liberal churches as part of “the church” and therefore justified including them in his crusades because of his understanding of ecclesiology. Therefore, Dr. Oats’ book is helpful to understanding this question.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I was planning to get down to the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton in the fall to do some research (although my interest is more the Lausanne Conference of 1974 and the relationship between evangelism and social responsibility) but I might have to check the archives to see if there is more than what has been displayed online about Billy Graham and his ecclesiology. My son just committed to attending and playing football for Wheaton college so I’ll be on their campus fairly often starting in August.
I’m about 100 pages into the autobiography. Graham was raised Presbyterian, but is open to all denominations:
- He explains he was ordained in the SBC as a matter of political expedience.
- He was impatient with the doctrinal questions the ordination board put to him, and explains he told them something like, “You’ve seen me preach, and you know I love the Lord, and that ought to be enough!”
- He appears to have no firm ecclesiological convictions so far.
- He left Bob Jones College after one year because of what he perceived as a harsh, narrow-minded legalism. He told Bob Jones he was having problems with the school’s military-like climate, and Jones told him he was a worthless failure. That precipitated his withdrawal from the school. No kidding …
- He has made some comments about Wheaton’s school behavior code being “fundamentalistic,” where he’s currently enrolled ca. 1941 (at my point in the book).
Ya’ll can see where this is going.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
If anyone knows about any statements from conservative Evangelicals which address Graham’s ecumenical evangelism, either pro or con, I would appreciate the link or citation. Thanks.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
I have in my personal library a hard copy of Farly P. Butler, Jr.’s Ph.D. dissertation on BG. The title is “Billy Graham and the End of Evangelical Unity”. This was submitted in 1976 to the University of Florida. Though it does not cover from 1976 to the present, the research is very thorough and exhaustive. The dissertation is 308 pages in length. DBTS and CBTS also have copies in their libraries.
Pastor Mike Harding
Looks like the dissertation Mike Harding references is also available here:
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Mike and Mike: Thanks very much !
(Mike Osborne: I like dark roast coffee too)
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Daisy and I watched the recent funeral of Billy Graham with much fascination. We were both teen-age Christians when Youth for Christ began in the mid 1940s and a Rally came to our area through two ladies from the First Mennonite Church, Berne, IN. I remember being thrilled beyond words at the 1949 Los Angeles Crusade. An offshoot of the YFC Rally was the Youth Fellowship Club, started by some Bob Jones students from the Berne area. A fellowship meeting was held once a month with a street witnessing and tract distribution at nearby towns the following week.
The first class service for Graham brought a torrent of mixed emotions—the music, tributes to Graham, the exaltation of the love of God in Christ and the cross, and all the invitations to salvation that were woven in by the speakers. It was difficult to recall the problems and controversies of the 1950s onward in Crusade evangelism. We also linked to the funerals of Cliff Barrows (2016) and George Beverly Shea (2013), which were quite similar to Graham’s, even down to the pine caskets made by inmates of the Louisiana State Prison.
Viewing these funerals and some of the negative memories that were generated brought to mind the conclusion of J. Greshem Machen. He observed that “Paul could endure people who preached the true gospel for bad motives (Phil 1:15-18), but he could not abide anyone who preached a ‘bad gospel’ even with good intentions” (Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation [Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1998] , p. 44).
Rolland McCune
[Rolland McCune]The first class service for Graham brought a torrent of mixed emotions—the music, tributes to Graham, the exaltation of the love of God in Christ and the cross, and all the invitations to salvation that were woven in by the speakers. It was difficult to recall the problems and controversies of the 1950s onward in Crusade evangelism. We also linked to the funerals of Cliff Barrows (2016) and George Beverly Shea (2013), which were quite similar to Graham’s, even down to the pine caskets made by inmates of the Louisiana State Prison.
Yes, while watching that service, I was struck by the fact that there really could not be very much that anyone here could complain about really, no matter how conservative. The whole thing felt an awful lot like a typical fundamental baptist church service that I grew up with. It was interesting how conservative the music was for example. (I was interested in the music because the pianist and long-time Graham musician John Innes was a former teacher of mine and a big influence on me.) I found myself musing about the fact that it is clear that Graham’s crowd and conservative fundamentalists have a lot of shared roots.
I watched the service as well as and was impressed with the repeated clear presentations of the Gospel. Our President is now officially without an excuse.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Featured Resource
Discussion