Evangelist Billy Graham - one of the most influential preachers of the 20th Century - has died aged 99
DLCreed has some good comments, even if some of them seem somewhat “emotional”. I would like to add: To the issue of “everyone knows about the problems with his ecumenical theology” - No, everyone does not know and many don’t want to know. My wife & I have many, many friends and relatives who attend, for example, SBC churches. Most of them, especially the younger adults, are unaware of the theological issues at stake. Some of them don’t want to know. Nothing wrong whatsoever with tactfully pointing out in conversations with people the errors of his methodology. A discussion like that actually opens the door for a genuine gospel witness. I had that opportunity this afternoon with a Catholic lady who does clothing alterations for me. (She brought up Graham’s name and asked what I thought about him.) One reason some of us have mentioned some of Graham’s problems in this discussion is that I get the impression that some would rather not talk about them at all, ever. Ecumenical evangelism is alive and well, as I illustrated in an earlier post. Yes, Graham’s ministry resulted in people coming to accept Christ as Savior. Yes, he had a “religious impact” on this world. But his theological errors and denial of fundamental doctrine later in life is very serious and something which apparently many don’t want to know about. I know some are “tired” of hearing about it. Nevertheless, many people don’t know about it. Also: To compare us to Fred Phelps is an emotional overreaction that helps no one, in addition to being unwise and inaccurate. Strange . . all I originally stated is that perhaps now someone may be able to write a balanced, honest, and accurate appraisal of Graham’s ministry. For some, I guess there will never be a good time for that. Debate the timing of this discussion, if you wish. But at least we are having the discussion.
Wally Morris
Charity Baptist Church
Huntington, IN
amomentofcharity.blogspot.com
It was sad to see the way the local news was reporting his death. They identified him as one who “rejected a narrow fundamentalism” and “preached unity, crossing lines between democrats and republicans.”
[josh p]It was sad to see the way the local news was reporting his death. They identified him as one who “rejected a narrow fundamentalism” and “preached unity, crossing lines between democrats and republicans.”
What is “sad” about the way they reported his death?
There was no mention of anything about the gospel?! That doesn’t bother you that a man who may have preached to more people than anyone in history died and the news just said he rejected fundamentalism and strove for unity between political lines? You have been critical of those who have criticized his ministry here. From your perspective is that an accurate portrayal of his ministry? I think those who are criticizing might say yes.
[josh p]I was just asking for a clarification. It seemed odd to me that the only thing that a secular news sources would say would be those two small snippets, but I hadn’t heard or read the report — thus the question. If that was their entire assessment of his life and ministry, I would indeed be bothered and it would also scream of incredibly poor journalism.There was no mention of anything about the gospel?! That doesn’t bother you that a man who may have preached to more people than anyone in history died and the news just said he rejected fundamentalism and strove for unity between political lines? You have been critical of those who have criticized his ministry here. From your perspective is that an accurate portrayal of his ministry? I think those who are criticizing might say yes.
A slight correction….you characterized me as being “critical of those who have criticized his ministry here.” I want to either correct a flawed perception or clarify my own position — I’m not criticizing the individuals….I don’t know them, nor their heart. I’m criticizing the tone, timing and tenor. Wally suggested that I was being “emotional” in my response — perhaps, but I think an appropriate conversation that is somewhere between calloused orthodoxy and sloppy agape can me held at — and here’s my emphasis — an appropriate time and place. I do not deny problems with some of his choices of associations — particularly in his crusade work — and some of this off-the-cuff comments frequently, with the press. But the cases have been made for many decades and history will certainly not ignore Graham and his impact in the years to come — it just seems unseemly and graceless (to me) for those whose positions are well known and previously stated to use the point of his death to reiterate their points once again. Surely, could they not hold the review until he’s buried and then conduct it even-handedly in an appropriate forum or process? Graham surely knows of the errors of his methodology and theology now….and in addition, he also knows our errors as well. I envy him the surety he now possesses.
Regular Baptist Press just put out the classiest fundamentalist response to Graham’s death yet:
And so, for many years there was bad blood between Billy Graham and the fundamentalists. It pains me now to read some of the fundamentalist critiques of Graham from that era. The motivation was no doubt commendable, but all too often those pieces went beyond thoughtful critique to impassioned name-calling and personal attacks. Such conduct was (and is) inexcusable—even when deployed in defense of something good, like doctrinal purity. “As much as depends on you,” Paul wrote, “live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18).
Doubtless there was plenty of blame to go around. I remain convinced that ecumenical evangelism was a problematic approach to take. And if Billy Graham truly subscribed to soteriological inclusivism, then that, too, is disturbing and disappointing. At the same time, it should be frankly admitted that we fundamentalists were far too quick to malign and condemn Graham, and far too reticent to acknowledge that God was working mightily through his ministry, despite the methodological imperfections we perceived. Through Graham’s tireless efforts, millions came to a saving knowledge of Christ. In response to this, Heaven rejoices (Luke 15:7)! And so, I think, should we.
Billy Graham wasn’t perfect; none of us are. But he was a godly man who devoted himself to proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ with a single-minded passion. May we, in our own grasping, fumbling, oftentimes imperfect ways, seek to do the same.
Amen to that.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[DLCreed]josh p wrote:
There was no mention of anything about the gospel?! That doesn’t bother you that a man who may have preached to more people than anyone in history died and the news just said he rejected fundamentalism and strove for unity between political lines? You have been critical of those who have criticized his ministry here. From your perspective is that an accurate portrayal of his ministry? I think those who are criticizing might say yes.
I was just asking for a clarification. It seemed odd to me that the only thing that a secular news sources would say would be those two small snippets, but I hadn’t heard or read the report — thus the question. If that was their entire assessment of his life and ministry, I would indeed be bothered and it would also scream of incredibly poor journalism.
A slight correction….you characterized me as being “critical of those who have criticized his ministry here.” I want to either correct a flawed perception or clarify my own position — I’m not criticizing the individuals….I don’t know them, nor their heart. I’m criticizing the tone, timing and tenor. Wally suggested that I was being “emotional” in my response — perhaps, but I think an appropriate conversation that is somewhere between calloused orthodoxy and sloppy agape can me held at — and here’s my emphasis — an appropriate time and place. I do not deny problems with some of his choices of associations — particularly in his crusade work — and some of this off-the-cuff comments frequently, with the press. But the cases have been made for many decades and history will certainly not ignore Graham and his impact in the years to come — it just seems unseemly and graceless (to me) for those whose positions are well known and previously stated to use the point of his death to reiterate their points once again. Surely, could they not hold the review until he’s buried and then conduct it even-handedly in an appropriate forum or process? Graham surely knows of the errors of his methodology and theology now….and in addition, he also knows our errors as well. I envy him the surety he now possesses.
Yes I apologize for misrepresenting you. You will notice that I haven’t criticized him in this thread either although after being reminded of some of his statements it doesn’t personally bother me. I think Jim’s original stipulation of a one week delay would be good, especially since this thread will likely last far beyond that.
[TylerR]Regular Baptist Press just put out the classiest fundamentalist response to Graham’s death yet:
…ecumenical evangelism was a problematic approach to take. And if Billy Graham truly subscribed to soteriological inclusivism, then that, too, is disturbing and disappointing. … despite the methodological imperfections we perceived.
Amen to that.
Sounds like whitewashing to me. Graham’s approach was far more than problematic. “Sociological inclusivism” [hoity toity] is only “disturbing” and “disappointing”?? If indeed it is what it seemed to be, it is far more than that. “Methodological imperfections”?? that “we perceived” — you see, the real problem is us and our perceptions, not the sainted Graham.
I don’t think we need to dump all over Graham at this point in time, but using the occasion of his death to call out fundamentalists as if the fundamentalists were the problem isn’t classy. Not too impressive at all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I know one pastor who also published a relatively insignificant hyper-fundamentalist paper who publicly declared that BG wasn’t a Christian. I imagine there are a few people this week who are hesitant to say BG was saved. Considering the damaging effects his egregious error of ecumenical evangelism and the hyper-tolerant statements he made in his later years and I understand why some people are also hesitant to say anything good about BG. My fundamentalist memories of the 70’s were of BG being mocked and treated as an apostate.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Don Johnson]
Sounds like whitewashing to me. Graham’s approach was far more than problematic. “Sociological inclusivism” [hoity toity] is only “disturbing” and “disappointing”?? If indeed it is what it seemed to be, it is far more than that. “Methodological imperfections”?? that “we perceived” — you see, the real problem is us and our perceptions, not the sainted Graham.
I don’t think we need to dump all over Graham at this point in time, but using the occasion of his death to call out fundamentalists as if the fundamentalists were the problem isn’t classy. Not too impressive at all.
It’s probably (almost certainly) an over-generalization to refer to “fundamentalists” as in general the problem here—as Tyler’s post today notes, we’re not monolithic—but the ugly reality is that a lot of people did indeed walk away from fundamentalism because of intemperate criticisms such as those that were often made of Graham. Generally, the issue is not that a weakness or even very significant flaw is pointed out, but rather it’s an example of Jim’s point that everything becomes a critically important/Gospel doctrine—and hence the over-generalization is kept while the specifics are lost. It is my view that a LOT of fundamental critique of evangelicals would have a ready audience if the critique were made in a specific way.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I started reading Graham’s autobiography last night. When I think of Graham, I don’t think of the bad man Pickering depicted him as in The Tragedy of Compromise. I think of the man who preached the simple Gospel over and over again, wherever he could, and whose crusade in Chicago in 1962 led a man named John Faulkner to the Lord. I knew John for five years, at the very end of his life. He loved Christ, and loved His church.
There are millions of folks like John Faulkner around the world who came into God’s family because of Graham’s ministry. A lot of them aren’t fundamental Baptists. I don’t care. I appreciate Billy Graham, and I can do it without criticizing his methods. He’s in Glory now, and I’m certain I’ll have more to answer for than him.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I have been thinking about this on and off for decades. One of the posts above listed that one of the positives of Billy Graham was his clear presentation of the gospel. I would argue that this is one of the least true statements to make. The context of a message can be as important as the message itself. BGEA compromised by allowing supporting churches to define the gospel as they wished. This enabled BGEA to include these groups and stage large enough crusades to maintain a broader cultural appeal. Unfortunately, true Bible believers were pooh poohed and marginalized by their own brethren and told to consider how successful Billy was or if Biily does it it must be all right. The ability to present the gospel clearly and without confusion was terribly damaged.
Discussion