The Legacy of Billy Graham

“Billy Graham was perhaps the most significant religious figure of the 20th century, and the organizations and the movement he helped spawn continue to shape the 21st.” (This is the opening sentence of Christianity Today’s special issue about Graham.)

Christianity Today’s coverage of Graham’s funeral emphasized the ecumenical character of the event: “Up until Billy Graham, people mostly identified as Protestant, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian; and what happened across America was millions of people said, ‘I believe what Billy Graham believes,’” Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, told CT. “He was an ecumenical movement of his own.”

Although Billy Graham has died and his public ministry ended several years before his death, the influence of Billy Graham will continue for many years. Before I focus on a specific aspect of his ministry, I want to mention a few important points.

Like many adults today, I grew up watching the Graham crusades. My parents attended Southern Baptist churches. Because of his formal church associations with the Southern Baptists, Billy Graham was a “household name”. Graham had a style of speaking which was informal and engaging, using personal illustrations and stories combined with usually a strong emphasis on the Bible. His early preaching in particular was some of the best preaching you would ever hear.

His friends universally comment on his likable personality, loyal friendship, and personal ethics. One noteworthy characteristic of his personal life is sexual morality. Friends and supporters of Graham often mention that his life never had any accusation of sexual impropriety or scandal, unlike many in politics and public ministry. This, of course, is significant in an age where sexual scandal occurs far too frequently. We should note that that many men and women in some type of ministry have also avoided sexual impropriety and have maintained sexual purity. God’s grace makes this the norm for Christian workers; all glory goes to Jesus Christ for it.

Several years ago, I taught a Sunday school series that I called “The Theology and Practice of Evangelism”. As part of that series, we discussed Billy Graham, including the commendable aspects of his personal life and ministry (refusal to take offerings, sexual/moral integrity, writing ministry, many who say they trusted Christ as Savior).

For another part of that series, I used YouTube to gather videos of Graham’s preaching, from his early ministry to the later years of his ministry. The difference in his message was startling. In his early preaching, his gospel message was as good as I’ve ever heard, sometimes better. His early evangelistic messages clearly emphasized trusting Christ as Savior, the ugliness of sin, eternal judgment, and the exclusivity of the gospel. Although his later evangelistic messages still referred to the gospel, Christ, the cross, and sin, his preaching on those topics was less clear and more general, using words and phrases that different people could interpret different ways.

For example, Graham eventually began to use the phrase “make a commitment to Christ” in his evangelistic appeal to come forward at the end of the message. I have even heard Fundamentalists use this phrase in evangelistic invitations and not clearly explain what they mean by it. Such a vague and nebulous phrase allowed Catholics, people from theologically liberal churches, and just people in general to understand his invitation based on their own presuppositions and beliefs.

All of the preceding comments are background for my main concern. Many people are fully aware of Graham’s extensive rejection of fundamental Biblical teaching on salvation (see his interview with Robert Schuller), evangelistic methodology, and other issues. Yet public statements about Graham by Evangelicals, particularly conservative Evangelicals, rarely address these problems. If they do comment on Graham’s theological problems, their comments usually use vague and tactful references to “disagreements”, without clearly explaining what those disagreements are. Graham would sometimes explain concerns about his public statements which contradict Biblical teaching on salvation by saying that preaching Jesus and the cross is what God called him to do and that he was not responsible to “play God” with people of other religions.

Many of these Evangelical leaders and theologians are usually very forthright in stating their strong theological convictions, but their silence about Billy Graham’s major theological problems is deafening. Their ministries are filled with praise for Graham (and he does have commendable aspects of his life and ministry), yet silent concerning his rejection of fundamental theology. To say this silence is due to their respect for Graham at a time so close to his death does not answer the question of why they have been silent the many years before his death.

The most common reason given for justification of Graham’s theological change is that thousands of people came “came out of darkness into light” (John Piper). I do not doubt that many people, hearing the gospel at Graham’s crusades, especially early in Graham’s ministry, are born again as a result. However, let me ask three questions. One: Where is the objective evidence that “thousands and thousands” of Graham’s auditors are Christians because of his ministry? Two: What happened to those people once they made a “decision”? Three: Are results the basis for evaluating a ministry?

Concerning the number of people claimed for salvation at the Graham crusades: Where do these numbers come from? As far as I can determine, when someone refers to the massive numbers of people who “came to Christ”, their main source is the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). Those numbers are simply the number of “decision cards” filled out at the end of each meeting. The BGEA reports that 33,898 people made “decisions” at the 1957 New York Crusade. This information reflects a wide variety of people. For example, the results for the crusade reveal that 57% of those who responded to Graham’s invitation at the end of his messages were already associated with a church, 59% specified a particular church they wished to be associated with, and 29% did not have a connection with any church. Considering the wide range of theological beliefs of the churches supporting this crusade, it’s impossible to know who truly trusted Christ as Savior. At best, all we have are personal accounts from people who say they were saved because of a Graham crusade. Yes, it does appear that many people came to know Christ as Savior. However, the actual number is impossible to determine.

Concerning what happened to people after they made a “decision”: Regardless of the type of decision people made, what happened to them after the crusade? For the 1957 New York Crusade, the BGEA implemented a detailed follow-up program. This effort occurred several weeks after the crusade, attempting to include all the churches that had originally supported the crusade. In principle, this program was a strategic and thorough attempt to contact everyone who made a decision at the crusade. The problem is not the follow-up program but, as in the crusade itself, the churches involved in the follow-up program. For example, the chairman of the follow-up effort was Jesse Bader, General Secretary of the World Convention of Churches of Christ (Disciples). These churches usually teach that baptism is a requirement for completing salvation (baptismal regeneration). No doubt, many of the people contacted for follow-up received instruction about the necessity of baptism but not concerning the Biblical reasons for it. Since most of the churches involved in the crusade were, to some degree, liberal in theology, many of those who made decisions, if they went to church, eventually went to liberal churches. This question relates to discipleship. What “discipleship” would a new Christian receive at a liberal church or at a church that believed baptism is essential to salvation?

Using results to evaluate a ministry

I am surprised that even conservative Evangelicals use crusade results to justify ecumenical evangelism or to minimize Graham’s erroneous soteriology. Although many well-known conservative Evangelicals express “disagreement” with aspects of Graham’s ministry, they often use crusade results to soften the seriousness of Graham’s theological compromise and silence objections to Graham’s evangelistic philosophy. I am surprised because conservative Evangelicals have stressed for many years the importance of theology in the pulpit and church. Conservative Evangelicals attract many young Fundamentalists to their ministries and schools for precisely this reason. John Piper and Al Mohler have written extensively about theology in the pulpit and church. Yet their theological emphasis tamps down when Billy Graham is concerned. To his credit, John MacArthur has made clear and public statements that Graham’s theology of salvation and associations with Catholicism were wrong. However, the Defending Inerrancy website (a conservative Evangelical site) has a recent article praising Graham’s support of inerrancy. Ironically, Graham often offered support of and inclusion of people denying inerrancy in his crusades. Reportedly, Al Mohler refused to be chairman of Graham’s last Louisville crusade if Graham included Catholic churches in the crusade. His stand here is commendable since Graham gave Mohler much needed public and private support for Mohler’s work at Southern Seminary. Nevertheless, despite these commendable actions, many conservative Evangelicals are effusive in their praise of Graham and muted in their criticism. Why?

Evangelicals (and Fundamentalists) should know that results do not determine legitimacy or God’s blessing/approval. The classic example is Moses and water from the rock (Numbers 20). God told Moses to speak to the rock in order to get water from the rock. Moses, because he was angry with people, struck the rock instead. Twice. That action was disobedience. However, water still came from the rock. Lots of water. So, even in a context of disobedience, God still blessed. Yet, Moses’ actions were so seriously wrong that this one act kept him from the Promised Land. Principle: Do not use what you see to determine God’s approval. Relying on what you see or think you see is never the way to evaluate what God is doing or what God approves of. Our plans and actions may do very well, even in a context of disobedience. The application to Billy Graham’s ministry (or any other ministry) should be obvious: Using the visible results of the Graham crusades to justify or minimize Graham’s ecumenical evangelistic methodology is a wrong and dangerous method for evaluating God’s approval.

Isaiah 55:11 tells us that God’s Word, once released into the world, will not return “void” or “empty” — God’s Word will produce results and what God wishes to accomplish. Billy Graham did quote the Bible in his crusade sermons. Many of the verses he used were well-known, foundational evangelistic verses. So of course, the crusade meetings produced results. A disobedient servant of the Lord, like Moses, can still get results as God blesses and uses His Word. Those results do not necessarily mean approval of everything else that servant does. I would think this observation would be basic exegesis.

Some question the need for discussing Graham’s evangelistic methodology today since Graham is now dead and they assume that few, if any, still practice his methodology. That would be mistake. The BGEA is still using Graham’s ecumenical methodology. Last fall, his grandson, Will Graham, spoke at a multi-day evangelistic event in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, only a short drive from my church. I spoke to one of the organizers of this event, and he confirmed that they were trying to get all churches in the area to participate in the event, regardless of theology. In fact, theology was not a serious consideration in enlisting church involvement. The only churches excluded were churches such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Well-known youth ministries and women’s ministries also use this methodology. Even on a local scale, the influence of Graham’s methodology continues. In our small town, as Christians promote different events, they encourage all churches to “work together” for evangelism or other purposes. I regularly see articles in our local paper describing events that try to “unite” the churches. This practice and attitude is a result of Graham’s multi-decade evangelistic philosophy still influencing churches and individuals today. Few seem aware of its theological basis or errors.

I am amazed that so few people, even within Fundamentalism, are willing to analyze Graham’s ministry objectively, its theological rationale, and its results. It’s almost as if Fundamentalists are tired of the issue. If this is true, we risk leaving the next generation without help to understand the serious theological problems of ecumenical evangelistic methodology. And if they do not understand it (or care to understand it), then eventually Fundamentalists will no longer be Fundamentalists

Many people wonder why Fundamentalists still have specific concerns about some conservative Evangelicals’ theology and ministries. The reluctance of conservative Evangelicals to evaluate honestly the theological problems of Billy Graham and to make those evaluations public is a key area of difference.

The following questions may be helpful in order to clarify some of the differences between conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Those Fundamentalists who believe that Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals should “work together more” should ask conservative Evangelicals these questions and carefully consider their response.

• Do you believe that cooperative/ecumenical evangelism is wrong?
• Do you believe that Billy Graham was wrong to use cooperative/ecumenical evangelism in his crusades?

(If the answer is “No”, then the differences are now clearer.)

• If you believe that Graham’s evangelistic methodology was wrong, have you ever stated that belief publicly? If so, when? If not, why not?
• If you believe that cooperative/ecumenical evangelism is wrong, are you willing to practice Biblical separation on this issue? If yes, why? If not, why not?

I suspect that many conservative Evangelicals will be reluctant to answer questions like these. That is one reason why the legacy of Billy Graham is important today.

---

Wally Morris is pastor of Charity Baptist Church in Huntington, IN. The church blogsite is amomentofcharity.blogspot.com. He has also published A Time To Die: A Biblical Look At End-Of-Life Issues by Ambassador International.