Billy Graham

Today, I test the results of yesterday’s post.

I am too young to have known of the decline of Billy Graham as it happened. I have always been under the impression that his slide into ecumenism and theological liberalism began fairly late in life. Reading Evangelicalism Divided by Iain Murray, I am learning a different story. By the time Graham gained prominence on the word stage, his journey of compromise was already well underway. And while his descent into heterodoxy can be described as a slide, his embrace of ecumenism can only be called an enthusiastic leap — with a decidedly pragmatic motivation.

Murray writes of a time in 1965 when Graham was seeking support for his crusade in London from Anglican Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who

did not hold all Scripture to be the authoritative Word of God, nor did he believe in such doctrines as the penal, substitutionary atonement. . . .
   At first Ramsey opposed Grahams beliefs as heretical but he seems to have been charmed by the American’s amicableness when the two met at the New Delhi Third Assembly of the World Council od Churches. The evangelist has recorded how their friendship began on that occasion when he asked the archbishop, ‘Do we have to part company because we disagree in methods and theology? Isn’t that the purpose of the ecumenical movement, to bring together people of opposing views?’ Thereafter there was no more opposition.

—Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), 40–41.

When criticizing an evangelical idol like Billy Graham, one is often challenged with the claim that, as so much good is done, faults should be overlooked. Setting aside the seriousness of the faults in question, and the corresponding impossibility of letting them slide, we need to ask, has so much good really been done? Are these methods which we deplore really producing as advertised?

The record says, “No.”

In 1968 the Evangelical Alliance, BGEA’s first sponsor in Britain, published a report on evangelism that included a survey of eighty-five churches which had participated in Graham’s shorter London crusades of 1966–67. Its authors (a large committee) concluded:

On mass evangelism generally, the recurring theme was that the crusade did not make a lasting effect on the complete outsider. Even when they went, they either made no response, or made no lasting response . . . Church members, whether they went forward or not, found blessing and encouragement from the services, but the complete outsider tended to go back outside again. in the words of one comment, ‘If they asked, “What shall we do?” they seem to have been given little answer beyond “to decide for Christ” . . . On inquiry they were unable to give any real answer as to what this meant, other than they desired to live a better life.

—Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), 56–57.

Now, let’s go back a century and a half and examine the record of one of Graham’s most famous predecessors. Charles Finney preceded Graham in implementing results-oriented methods. Finney claimed that the right use of the right means was guaranteed to produce conversions, and there is no denying that his methods produced massive results. But what results? In Revival and Revivalism, Iain Murray reported that

. . . the permanent results were considerably fewer than had initially been claimed. In the course of time, Finney himself admitted this. Joseph Ives Foot, a Presbyterian minister, wrote in 1838: ‘During ten years, hundreds, perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is easily admitted, that his [Finney’s] real converts are comparatively few. It is declared even by himself, that “the great body of them are a disgrace to religion”.’

—Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism (Banner of Truth, 1994), 288–289.

Evangelical icon worshippers — those who have not already skedaddled, that is — will be relieved to know that this will probably be my last mention of Billy Graham for the present time.

Compromise with people of all theologies was a common thread running through Billy Graham’s ministry. In the effort to garner support for his evangelistic crusades, it seems there was no heresy he was not willing to let slide. As time passed, it was not merely his associations that were unorthodox; as the following account* of his embrace of inclusivism will demonstrate, his thinking was altered as well.

   Achieving common ground with the Roman Catholicism is one of the things for which Mark Noll commends Graham. But agreement with non-evangelicals has gone still further. In 1978 McCall’s magazine quoted Graham as having said, ‘I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that.’ That statement alarmed supporters BGEA and Christianity Today was quick to claim that the evangelist had been misquoted. Subsequent disclosures would appear to show that it was Graham’s paper rather than McCall’s which was inaccurate, for a Graham interview with Dr Robert Schuller on 31 May 1997 put the matter beyond doubt. Schuller has attained fame as the promoter of a liberal ‘self-esteem’ gospel which he preaches in his Crystal Cathedral in California. In the course of his discussion with Graham, conducted by means of a television link-up, Schuller asked for the evangelist’s view on the future of Christianity. Graham answered by giving his belief about the final make-up of the body of Christ. That body would be made up, he affirmed,

from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. And I don’t think that we are going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at one time. I think James answered that — the Apostle James in the first Council in Jerusalem — when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that is what he is doing today. He is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.

   Surprised by this, Schuller was anxious for clarification: ‘What, what I hear you saying, that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they have been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?’
   ‘Yes, it is’, Graham responded in decided tones. At which point, his television host tripped over his words in his excitement, and exclaimed, ‘I’m so thrilled to hear you say this: “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy”.’ To which Graham added, ‘There is. There definitely is.’

—Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), 73–74.

* Those who doubt the veracity of this account can easily find video of the Graham-Schuller exchange on YouTube.