Ship of Fools: Did you ever see Billy Graham preach live?

Thread: Did you ever see Billy Graham preach live? Board: All Saints / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=006299

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Just curious about how many people saw him in person. You can just answer yes or no, or share a few memories if it's "yes".

And, for the record, yes I did, as a kid in the late 70s, even though I was Roman Catholic.

I can't say I was entirely comfortable with the experience; I think it had the same feeling of "weirdness" that often accrued to religious experiences when I was a kid. I knew who Graham was beforehand, and while I had nothing against protestants generally(my dad was not Catholic at the time, and never seriously so), I think I sensed there was something vaguely "wrong" about Catholics going to see Billy Graham. (Not that the Church AFAIK ever told people not to see him.)

I remember my mom wanted to go up to get a blessing at the end, but I declined.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, in London in 1966 (IIRC), along with a coach-load of other teenagers from the large Yoof Group we had at the church I then attended.

Can't say I was much moved personally, but a lot of people were. How many of those who came forward at that rally are still faithful to the Lord, I wonder?

A great man, though. Here's the BBC News obituary.

RIPARIG.

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Yes -- and it was MWd.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you, Miss Amanda - that report reminds me that George Beverley Shea sang at the rally I went to, back in '66.

IJ

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

I saw him preach during his Seattle crusades at the Kingdome (ugliest stadium ever!) in '76 or '77. We would always watch him on TV, too.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And since I neglected to mention it before, I saw Graham in my hometown of Edmonton. Going by wikipedia's "List Of Billy Graham's Crusades", it would have been in 1980.

[ 21. February 2018, 14:33: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That list is truly amazing.
[Overused]

I see Billy was in London in 1966, and again in 1967, so I'm really not quite sure which of those I attended. It's a while ago now.... [Ultra confused]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That list is truly amazing.

Yeah, it wasn't linking in my last post, so I'll try this...

https://tinyurl.com/y9kzrzp2

There ya go.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Yep, at Haringey and Wembley several times in the 50's.
I think we also should acknowledge that of those early converts (I don't know about the later ones) a significant number went on to train as ministers/ missionaries: we heard the testimonies at Bible College.
I supported him at the time and found him inspirational (and in my teenage naivety suspected he was manipulative).

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I supported him at the time and found him inspirational (and in my teenage naivety suspected he was manipulative).

I'm not sure what you mean here. You supported him AND suspected he was manipulative, at the same time? Was it some sort of mixed-emotions thing?

And why would thinking someone is manipulative be connected to naivety? To the extent that any position can be assumed naive, I would think it's thinking that someone is motivated by pure intentions.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Badly put and trying hard not to be critical.
I was naive in not recognising or not wanting to recognise the manipulation. I was naive in my unquestioning support of what he was doing and preaching. It's a long time ago and I was very young [Snigger]

and much water has flowed under my bridge since. [Biased]

Posted by Diomedes (# 13482) on :

Yes 1966 at Earls Court. The preaching didn't move me particularly but the music was amazing. I still remember the thrill of singing 'How Great Thou Art' - and I've loved that hymn ever since.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Yes, 1984 in Norwich.

There, he was not being manipulative, and he explicitly said that there would be no music during the appeal.

He gave a fairly standard talk. GBS sang (and we had thunder and lightening while he sang "How great thou art". It was all a bit old-style for me, but a simple, basic message.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

i heard him in Bristol in 1984. My main memory of the event is that his sermon was very factual and basic, not emotional at all, but there were hordes of people who responded to the "altar call".

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
i heard him in Bristol in 1984. My main memory of the event is that his sermon was very factual and basic, not emotional at all, but there were hordes of people who responded to the "altar call".

Likewise - also heard him in Bristol in 1984 - from memory I'd volunteered to act as a steward/usher or something like that. Similar experience - after he spoke I thought "was that it?" and then thousands of people poured down to the front of the stadium. Don't remember it being at all emotionally-driven.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

/slightly odd tangent/

Schroedinger's Cat said:

quote:
GBS sang (and we had thunder and lightening while he sang "How great thou art". It was all a bit old-style for me, but a simple, basic message.

I took a service (Communion by Extension) at a church near Our Place a few years ago, and, right on cue, we duly had a thunderstorm during the singing of HGTA ....... [Ultra confused]

Noted what others have said about Dr. Graham's simple, basic, and unemotional message. That chimes in with my own rather hazy recollections.

IJ

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

I went with the Sheffield University Christian Union to London in 89. I just remember thinking that I really didn't want to be part of it all anymore and I dropped out of the CU the following week. It took The Nine O'Clock Service to completely destroy the last vestige of Christianity in me but the Billy Graham trip was the start of my exit.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
i heard him in Bristol in 1984. My main memory of the event is that his sermon was very factual and basic, not emotional at all, but there were hordes of people who responded to the "altar call".

So did I - and my experience was exactly the same.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Bob Two-Owls, I don't wish to pry into what may well be a sensitive issue for you, but what was it about Billy Graham that began to put you off Christianity?

I can quite understand, though, why The Nine O'Clock Service business gave the coup de grace.

IJ

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I don;t know what Bob Two-owls experience was (I am sure we will find out), but within the evangelical circles I was in, there was a lot of pressure and a lot of focus on the visit.

I can see, if someone was unsure about evangelicalism (whatever and however), it could be a breaker. I was glad I went to hear him, but I came to realise very soon that his time of that style of evangelicalism was at an end.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, when he was here in the late 50s/early 60s. I've forgotten the exact year, but I was in senior school by then. The youth group at my church organised it all. My memory is of very powerful preaching but of wondering on the train home what it had all been about. I did not go forward at the call - I had already been confirmed and did not know what the extra call meant when I had already committed myself.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I too attended then Gee D. The crusade was strongly supported by the Sydney Diocese then and I attended some counselling classes at St Columbs, West Ryde, but did no counselling later.

I loved the singing, and was envious of the choir. I have since found similar reactions to massed choirs, so it was not because of the occasion. I am as much moved by spectators at Welsh rugby singing and also by choir and audience at the Last Night of the Proms. As I was by crusade singing.

[ 21. February 2018, 20:34: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Bob Two-Owls, I don't wish to pry into what may well be a sensitive issue for you, but what was it about Billy Graham that began to put you off Christianity?

It is hard to say, it just felt like everyone around me was getting much, much more out of the experience than I was and that people were judging me for wasting what was, for them, a golden opportunity. I was searching for something meaningful and that just wasn't it. Maybe I went with the wrong people or maybe it came at just the wrong time for me but I kind of wish I had not gone along.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

He came here some 20 years ago. There was a big push to go, to volunteer etc. We took part in none of it. There was something profoundly negative for me about him. Something about accepting things and not being sceptical which put me completely off.

Seeing the poison that his son Franklin spews and strews, I've felt it was right to avoid him. I also see in my mind's eye the movie version of Elmer Gantry re Billy.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Paris, 1986; I was leading an open-air evangelism team that promoted the campaign in collaboration with the main organisers. As a result I spent a fair bit of time at the campaign HQ. The main thing I remember is the campaign chairman in France concluding afterwards "I don't feel called to work with Americans long-term".

I think it was quite a defining event for evangelical self-perception in France, though.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you, Bob. ISWYM.

IJ

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

Ipswich 1984. We were a shared venue with Norwich (hiss hiss) during his last British tour - I think there were 4 nights in Ipswich and 4 nights in Norwich. I was there every night, singing in the choir (which my father had trained) and also a counsellor ....something I felt I had been pressured into by the large Baptist church I was attending at the time, and not something I felt wholly comfortable about, even back then in my GLE days.

Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on :

Pittsburgh, 1968 in Pitt Stadium.
Our little country church (UCC) hired a bus and nearly all of us went to the crusade. I remember thinking that I wished our preacher could speak like Billy Graham.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I did not go forward at the call - I had already been confirmed and did not know what the extra call meant when I had already committed myself.

I think that's what I was alluding to earlier, about it seeming "vaguely wrong" for a Catholic to be at a Billy Graham service. The "call to the altar" seemed particualrly disassociating, since while I don't think I had an entirely firm grasp on theology, I kind of wondered why I would need to go up, since I was already going to Mass every week.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I heard him preach in Norwich football stadium in 1984, one pf the Mission England venues. I was part of a locally recruited choir. He came across as simple, modest, thoughtful, even a little nervous. Not at all "fire and brimstone".

I have a vivid memory of George Beverly Shea singing the Lord's Prayer, very beautifully. That was moving.

Also of a most effective interview on local TV where Billy Graham hoped that he had not personally converted anyone, since conversion was the work of the Holy Ghost. It knocked the interviewer off a clearly prepared line of questioning.

The modesty and humility seemed quite genuine to me and I think those characteristics may have been his most powerful assets as a preacher. Not so much what he said, but the way that he said it.

The follow up system for folks who came forward was pretty good. We had a number of folks converted at the Norwich events referred to our local church and, mostly, they stayed the course. Two of them became full time church ministers.

[ 22. February 2018, 08:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by GordonThePenguin (# 2106) on :

I saw him twice in London in 1989 - once at Earls Court and then at Wembley Stadium a few days later in an event that, IIRC, was very hurriedly arranged to accomodate demand to hear him.

I have to admit it left me cold on both occasions.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I was in the Billy Graham Choir when he came to Blackpool - just a theatre venue - in the early 1980s. I heard him again, as part of the huge crowd, at Anfield in 1984(?)

I find any accusation of him being manipulative or strange or suspect or questionable, actually very offensive. We're not talking Joel Osteen here, or Morris Cerillo or that ilk. This is an old fashioned Gospel preacher who preached with no gimmicks, no hysterics, no call for money! no promise of cures thruugh 'miracle spring water', no prosperity Gospel, NOTHING!

I also find strangely condescending the whole 'I am a Catholic but I still went' or 'I'm not sure about his theology, but...' What the hell??

Here is a man who spoke about Jesus to millions and then sent them back to their own Catholic/Liberal/non-evangelical churches as well as the evangelical churches he was comfortable with. He was not a recruting officer for the Southern (or any type) of Baptists - he was a recruiting officer for Jesus and he did not specify anything other than salvation through the blood of Christ and repentance and faith in him.

What is so objectionable aboutt that?
There is such grudging admiration and such mean-spirited 'assessment' of this man who even secular sources say was a simple, humble man of God with a consistent message and a consistent life to back it all up.

I think some of you, who will have hardly any positive influence on more than a handful of people, are in no position to be sniffy about the man that is being hailed as the greatest preacher, the greatest representative of Christ to the world in the entire 20th Century.

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

Sydney 1979, I went to the opening,closing and a few in between. Went with a friend, at the time, who went forward at the appeal. I had to go too as we would have been separated in the crowd. Loved the singing but the message could have been interchanged with selling Amway, Avon and vacuum cleaners!!

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

Mudfrog: I felt that the music was manipulative; ok, it always is but it was consistently used to bring people to the point of responding. Also, the first people up from their seats when the appeal was given were hundreds of counsellors and advisers - thus encouraging others to respond and I find that manipulative.
As for Billy Graham's lifestyle, I well remember a lot of criticism that he stayed in expensive hotels and this was defended on the grounds that he needed to be assured of rest IIRC.
Edited to say that he went out of his way to only come to UK in response to invitations from the churches and to agree that he consistently stated 'Go back to your churches' (i.e. whatever the hue).

[ 22. February 2018, 10:30: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Mudfrog, in all fairness, the OP asked for (in effect) personal memories of seeing/hearing Billy Graham, so those memories, being personal, are what you're now reading on this thread.

What a contrast between Dr. Graham's approach, indeed, and that of creeps like Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland etc..

IJ

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Seeing the poison that his son Franklin spews and strews, I've felt it was right to avoid him.

Franklin is like his father in many ways, but very unlike his father in many ways.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Billy's last years must surely have been saddened by the shite spouted by Franklin.... [Disappointed]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

I went to one of Mission 89's London Events. My friend talked me into it as a chance to see a great speaker and experience a piece of history. Neither of us thought anything like this would happen again. It felt like something whose time was passing.

I don't remember a word he said, but I do remember he wasn't manipulative or emotional ... And I still don't know how I ended up down the front being prayed for. Despite all that's happened since, I've never given up on the church or on God.

[Shame about Franklyn who is trashing the great legacy he's been left]

[ 22. February 2018, 13:29: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

As Billy Graham himself said, it wasn't he who was doing the converting, but the Holy Spirit.

I gather that Dr. G. is believed to have preached in person to about 210 million people, let alone those who saw/heard him on TV or whatever. Quite a feat - over a very long life, of course, but still...

[Overused]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My Dad was at Haringey in 1954. He was impressed, especially by the numbers there. I asked if he went forward. He didn’t. He was already converted (by my Mum, he had no Christian background until he met her) and at theological college, that’s why he was in London.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I also find strangely condescending the whole 'I am a Catholic but I still went' or 'I'm not sure about his theology, but...' What the hell??

I wasn't trying to be condescending. My moderate feelings of unease were not stemming from "Oh, we have Rome and the Apostolic Succession, why do we need some cracker preacherman from the American backwoods to bring us to God?"

I am no longer Catholic, and thus have no sense of the RRC being superiour to protestantism(whose various faiths are coherent in their own right), but I still kind of think that what Graham was offering would be superfluous and/or redundant to what was already being offered in Catholicism.

As an example, I have nothing against the altar call, for people whose faith is compatible with that, but if you ARE a believing Catholic receiving the sacraments on a weekly basis, what exactly is the point?

If anyone here saw the movie W.(about the life of George W. Bush), there is a scene from the 1988 election where George H.W. Bush is asked by some Moral Majority types to declare himself "born again", but refuses, saying "You're talking to an old-line Episcopalian, boys."

And theologically, that makes total sense. Were George H.W. Bush to have used the phrase "born again" in the sense that those evangelicals understood it, he would essentially have been saying "My baptism and my confirmation weren't enough, I needed to have a born again experience as well, in order to be fully alive in Christ". Which of course would be a repudiation of everything he as an Episcopalian believed.

[ 22. February 2018, 14:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

An interesting variety of POVs on this thread.

One wonders how many of those who heard Dr. Graham were already 'converted', so to speak, but perhaps found their faith encouraged and warmed by his words?

If you see what I mean (I'm not entirely sure I do....).

IJ

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Bishops Finger wrote:

quote:
One wonders how many of those who heard Dr. Graham were already 'converted', so to speak, but perhaps found their faith encouraged and warmed by his words?

I seem to recall reading(I think in a book by this guy), that Billy Graham mostly preached to the converted, literally.

Which kinda makes sense, because if I am someone with no inclination toward religion in the first place, why would I go out of my way to drive somewhere(often quite a distance, it seems) to hear a traveling preacher?

I'm probably more likely to be converted just from walking into my local church on Sundays, since that's the kind of thing that some people are likely to do on an impromptu basis. Or by someone I've developed a personal rapport with, as I'm more likely to put stock in what they have to say, and they'd have a better idea of how to approach me.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, and on something of a tangent, I have a similar feeling about a major evangelistic effort being mounted in this Fair City this coming June.

Individuals from local churches (of all denominations) are being encouraged to invite 'just one' person (let the reader understand and Google, if necessary) to come and hear a well-respected evangelist (J. John - none of yer horrid televangelist prosperity-gospel stuff).

I dunno. It all seems very worthy, and 'right', but I can't help feeling that it is the people who are already within the churches - or perhaps on the fringes thereof - who may be encouraged and enlivened by Canon John's preaching.

Sorry - this is a bit off-topic.

IJ

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just to clarify, I don't in any way denigrate the preaching of Billy Graham, or J. John, or anyone who sincerely preaches the Gospel of repentance, and faith in Jesus.

It seems to me that the Holy Spirit can work in any way, and with whatever material, She chooses...

IJ

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Conversion. It isn't necessary and I dislike it. It stirs up ideas for me of personal extremity, hitting crisis points, and rescue from the perils of the world in a sudden emotionally laden circumstance. Followed by excited, zealous behaviour, difficult to sit with while having quiet cup of coffee.

Did Graham believe in improved worldly circumstances for a person on account of their conversion? Did he also believe in the conversion of a society?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I don't think he ever preached the 'prosperity gospel' shite, if that's what you mean!

Re conversion - when I expressed my doubts about our local evangelistic campaign to a friend (presently training for ordination), she concurred, and said that she didn't know anyone she'd particularly like to see changed in such a way, and at such an event.

Make of that what you will... [Help]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Ipswich 1984. We were a shared venue with Norwich (hiss hiss) during his last British tour - I think there were 4 nights in Ipswich and 4 nights in Norwich. I was there every night, singing in the choir (which my father had trained) and also a counsellor ....something I felt I had been pressured into by the large Baptist church I was attending at the time, and not something I felt wholly comfortable about, even back then in my GLE days.

hiss hiss back at you.

Barnabas62 - we were in the same place at the same time. Who knew?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I went with the Sheffield University Christian Union to London in 89. I just remember thinking that I really didn't want to be part of it all anymore and I dropped out of the CU the following week. It took The Nine O'Clock Service to completely destroy the last vestige of Christianity in me but the Billy Graham trip was the start of my exit.

I don't think a similar type of world-wide preaching would work in the same way today - I hope not anyway. We are more aware of the term 'emotional blackmail' and how people can be manipulated by the sounds and surroundings of such gatherings.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
We are more aware of the term 'emotional blackmail' and how people can be manipulated by the sounds and surroundings of such gatherings.

While earlier generations may not have known the term "emotional blackmail," I seriously doubt they were more naïve than people today about the possibility of manipulation through the sights and sounds of mass gatherings.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
We are more aware of the term 'emotional blackmail' and how people can be manipulated by the sounds and surroundings of such gatherings.
While earlier generations may not have known the term "emotional blackmail," I seriously doubt they were more naïve than people today about the possibility of manipulation through the sights and sounds of mass gatherings.

I think they were, or at least I was. It wasn't until a learned minister (United Church of Canada, of the Presbyterian variety) sang a wee [un]hymn to a small group of us that I properly understood: Drop Kick Me Jesus (through the goalposts of life).

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

I well remember the extensive advertising / hype on London buses and the Underground and on hoardings: this was enough, I think, to get people motivated to 'go and see'. I am sure that many of those who went forward were not church-goers, although possibly not as many as were already committed.
Surely I am not the only one who remembers whole carriages on the Underground singing on their way home?
It was all such a remarkable phenomenon and, like Topsy, it grew from its own success.
As others have said, I don't think it it would happen today and in that sense it was a 'move' of its' time.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

No, but my parents did, and they spoke very highly of him.

I am concerned that he will be adulated now that he has died. Not sure that is terribly healthy. Am also pretty sure that he would not have wanted it, either.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I never heard him preach, but when I was a student at Duke University in the 1950s, he came and preached at the university chapel.

Apparently his preaching. was not at all what was expected. It had a solid intellectual basis, which was appropriate for that particular audience. People who came to sneer were impressed.

Moo

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

threadjack/

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Drop Kick Me Jesus (through the goalposts of life).

If you can't shout Saved! you'll have to face the penalty

/threadjack

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There is a meme going around FaceBook quoting him as saying all homosexuals should be castrated. Is this genuine?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No it is not.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

They had shepherds with the requisite castrating tools on stand-by alongside the platform, Mousethief, so as to intercept any homosexual fellas who happened to respond to the appeal ...

I mean, c'mon ...

Graham did say some daft things, including some anti-Semitic remarks during the Nixon era, a President with whom he was infamously close.

But give him his due, he acknowledged his mistakes. It's a sorry state of affairs, though when his financial probity and lack of scandal are cited in news reports as worthy of note by contrast with other American evangelists, as though Graham was the exception in that regard rather than the norm.

Which I rather suspect he was ...

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm not prepared to excuse the man after doing some research today. I reject the man and what he espoused, and am less inclined to excuse him than others with lesser following. This appears to be a nuanced review of the man,
this:

quote:
Graham had the opportunity to lead fundamentalists into a new era. He could have pushed them to take social reform seriously as a God-given mandate to save the world from environmental destruction. He could have tackled racism, America’s original sin, by championing the federal government’s aggressive civil rights policies.

But he squandered it.

He held that the world would not “be saved through legislation”. The federal government, he indicated, had no business passing laws to protect the earth for future generations.

Completely irresponsible. There's more within the article.

[ 22. February 2018, 23:39: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
He came here some 20 years ago. There was a big push to go, to volunteer etc. We took part in none of it. There was something profoundly negative for me about him. Something about accepting things and not being sceptical which put me completely off.

Seeing the poison that his son Franklin spews and strews, I've felt it was right to avoid him. I also see in my mind's eye the movie version of Elmer Gantry re Billy.

m

Fwiw, I think there's a world of difference between Billy and Franklin. Billy is an old school evangelical, with all the pros and cons that that implies, but he was a man of integrity. He made a lot of mistakes-- and acknowledged them. His best moment was probably in the 60s when he gave MLK a platform, and broke Jim Crow laws to desegregate his Southern crusades

Franklin.... not so much. A self-serving piece of work

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, he desegregated his southern crusades but didn't 'follow through' any further, as The Guardian article relates.

It's as if he raised his hand or 'got out of his seat' on that issue, as he later did on environmental issues, only to fail to carry on with those particular 'conversions'.

Yes, Graham moved away from the narrow confines of southern evangelicalism but there was only so far he was prepared to go. All these things are relative, though and he moved further than many from that stable.

I think one of the issues here is that of cultural and crowd-expectations.

If a powerful guy with a mic invites you to 'get out of your seat' then you don't have to be Mr or Mrs Susceptible to go along with that.

One of my uncles attended the 1984 rallies with his brother, then a Methodist minister. He was impressed and found it less 'manipulative' and emotional than he anticipated. He didn't 'respond' though. And of those that did, there will have been a mixture of motives and levels of understanding.

A good friend was a counsellor at the Birmingham rallies in 1984 and said that he didn't 'deal' with anyone during the entire event who had the foggiest idea why they had 'gone forward' or what it was supposed to mean or achieve.

Most had done so simply because they had set other people doing it.

Now, in and amongst, of course, there will have been people for whom it was a life-changing step and the start - or continuation - of their journey to Christ.

I've met lots of clergy, church leaders of all stripes and people active in all manner of churches who were converted during the Graham Crusades of the '50s and '60s. I don't meet that many from the 1980s.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

no prophet - he made mistakes. He got things wrong, but knowing the evangelical environment he was in (and to an extent leading), I am prepared to forgive him for getting it wrong.

As others have said, he often realised it, and came clean.

I think he was a man of integrity. Compared to many of his contemporaries, that is something important. I know that I have learnt from him the importance of being open, of changing your own mind, and of admitting that you had it wrong.

He wasn't interested in converts for the sake of it. He was genuinely interested in giving an opportunity for people to respond to Gods call (IMO).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I read somewhere that, when the Crusades had the choir sing "Just as I am" at the appeal, that was said to be manipulative. So he tried silence instead - and got criticised for that, too!

I heard him twice, once in '67 (though we actually got shunted to an overflow room with a big screen as Earl's Court was full) and again in about 1990, when I felt that the whole presentation had become a bit "tired". I also heard a sermon from 1984 which was broadcast live on the BBC World Service (from Sheffield, I think).

RE. integrity - didn't he set up an organisation for evangelists and mission organisations based on having open and transparent accounting? I believe he himself got paid a salary from the BGEA.

[ 23. February 2018, 07:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I went on a coach with the college CU, and a strict instruction that no-one was to go forward as we had to get back before signing-in time (it was a very old fashioned girls only college at the time).
I had no intention of doing any such thing. I had declared myself for Christ when I became a church member in the Congregational Church. (But hadn't been attending regularly at the college town branch.)
We were right at the front, and I was sitting on the low boundary wall. I wasn't much moved in my head by the preaching. The music was powerful, though. At the call to go forward, I felt a strong urge to do so. I would only have to stand and take a few steps. I resisted. I didn't like being got at like that. It's the nearest I've been to being hypnotised. And it wasn't the warning about the coach which held me back. It was my natural bolshieness kicking in.

[ 23. February 2018, 10:47: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Billy's last years must surely have been saddened by the shite spouted by Franklin....

IJ

I don't think Franklin Graham has a Grady B Wilson at his side. Amongst other things Wilson was an advisor to Billy who would prevent him "Pissing in the soup" (however you say that in Baptist).

Anybody who wants to change the world or feels on a mission needs such an advisor.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think Penny S has highlighted something here.

However 'manipulative' or otherwise a big public event is, there's always an atmosphere and always some kind of tug on the emotions. We are people. That's how we are wired.

I once attended a performance of a Mystery Play in Lincoln Cathedral. At the climax of the performance huge white and red sheets were drawn out, one representing Heaven, the other Hell.

Actors dressed as imps and demons hauled the 'damned' off to the one, others dressed in white robes led others off to eternal bliss ...

They began to select people out of the audience and I'm pleased to say, one of the 'angels' came and led me into my heavenly rest ...

The wierd thing was that I 'felt' something very powerful - even though it was a play and I knew darn well that it was a performance, I had a kind of 'gut-frisson' and reaction ...

My wife, who is far quieter and more introverted than I am, didn't want to leave her seat and follow the angel, so she was 'left behind.'

I must admit, I had a knot in my stomach ... my poor wife! Was she not among the Elect?

[Biased]

I only share this story to make the point that in any large gathering people are going to respond in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reasons.

My friend who was a counsellor at one of the Birmingham crusades said that he spoke to people who were there 'because they wanted to stand on the sacred Villa turf' ... or who said they wanted to 'be close to him', meaning Billy Graham rather than Christ.

The vast majority had no clue whatsoever as to why they had 'gone forward' other than they had been asked to do so.

Anyone can 'get out of their seat' and 'go forward' at a meeting. Anyone can raise their hand or parrot or recite the 'sinner's prayer' ...

Some of them will be sincere and for them it will be a significant step forward in their journey towards and with Christ.

For others it won't mean very much at all.

None of that was Billy Graham's 'fault'. He was simply doing what he knew, presenting the Gospel and inviting people to respond.

But it does beg more than a few questions for me when it comes to public declarations of faith or mass evangelism of that kind.

None of that detracts from his integrity nor his achievement. To remain unsullied by the faintest whiff of scandal in the kind of religious environment he represented is no mean achievement in and of itself.

Yes, he said some daft things - and yes, he could have used his influence within the US evangelical constituency to press for further change ...

But what am I doing within my own context to promote the cause of Christ and improve the lot of my fellow human beings?

Within the parameters in which he operated, I'm sure Graham deserves a 'well done, good and faithful servant' and the tributes that have been paid.

I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted any more than that.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Yes. As a parish we were offered free tickets to one of his meetings in, I think, London; my clergyman father offered them to members of the congregation without comment and a coachload of us went. As there were spare tickets we used these for houseguests, one of whom was my cousin.

When Mr Graham asked people to go up I was curious and went up with the cousin (also curious) in tow. We were given a pretty hard-sell about Bible reading and so forth. I said that I was already a member of the BRF but was told firmly that this was not the right thing, which I found odd.

I found the whole thing rather disquieting and didn't stay in touch with Mr Graham's ministries.

In later life I found his disparagement of Jews very disturbing, and his statements about AIDS being God's judgement disgraceful.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

For anyone keeping score, by my count 24 shipmates(myself included) have posted here to say that they saw Graham preach in person. That's not including people who didn't personally go but who had a close relative or friend attend, of which there have maybe been three.

I guess that's about what I would have expected.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

He preached at our place in 1976 (before my time). A plaque was placed on the (wooden, Edwardian) pulpit to record the event. During a re-ordering in the 90s said pulpit was declared surplus to requirements. Opposition to its loss coalesced around "You can't get rid of that, Billy Graham once preached from it!"

I think it may still be in a shed somewhere...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
He preached at our place in 1976 (before my time). A plaque was placed on the (wooden, Edwardian) pulpit to record the event. During a re-ordering in the 90s said pulpit was declared surplus to requirements. Opposition to its loss coalesced around "You can't get rid of that, Billy Graham once preached from it!"

That's funny, because more often than not, he also preached in big stadiums and the like. In my hometown, I think he preached at the Coliseum, one-time home-rink of Wayne Gretzky(arguably the greatest hockey player in history) and innumerable rock-music icons(let's just use Supertramp as as example). I doubt anyone would think Graham's presence at that particular venue constituted anything historic.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

That, I think, is the very problem. Few people seem to have anything but praise for his message, commitment and probity but the manner of delivery is another matter. A pulpit is treated like a saint's relics because he was someone extraordinary in the Church as a whole. A stadium is not treated with the same reference because he was what you expect to find at a stadium, like a rock star or a sporting great. The adulation he received at the stadium was the kind of adulation that was given to The Beatles or Elton John not a deep appreciation of a profound and meaningful message. At least that was the impression I got, I have no criticism of the man himself, just the expectations and mythology that people had built around him.

I think if I had ever got the chance to sit and talk quietly with him I would have rather enjoyed it, as the people around him seem to have done.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Few people seem to have anything but praise for his message,

Gay people such as myself have things other than praise to say about his message.

(Though I accept that he was sincere, rather than a con artist trying to make as much money as possible.)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, he desegregated his southern crusades but didn't 'follow through' any further, as The Guardian article relates.

It's as if he raised his hand or 'got out of his seat' on that issue, as he later did on environmental issues, only to fail to carry on with those particular 'conversions'.

Yes, Graham moved away from the narrow confines of southern evangelicalism but there was only so far he was prepared to go. All these things are relative, though and he moved further than many from that stable.

I think one of the issues here is that of cultural and crowd-expectations.

If a powerful guy with a mic invites you to 'get out of your seat' then you don't have to be Mr or Mrs Susceptible to go along with that.

One of my uncles attended the 1984 rallies with his brother, then a Methodist minister. He was impressed and found it less 'manipulative' and emotional than he anticipated. He didn't 'respond' though. And of those that did, there will have been a mixture of motives and levels of understanding.

A good friend was a counsellor at the Birmingham rallies in 1984 and said that he didn't 'deal' with anyone during the entire event who had the foggiest idea why they had 'gone forward' or what it was supposed to mean or achieve.

Most had done so simply because they had set other people doing it.

Now, in and amongst, of course, there will have been people for whom it was a life-changing step and the start - or continuation - of their journey to Christ.

I've met lots of clergy, church leaders of all stripes and people active in all manner of churches who were converted during the Graham Crusades of the '50s and '60s. I don't meet that many from the 1980s.

Yes, as I said, his record is mixed and in many ways reflects both the best and the perils of old-school evangelicalism. My point was that it's unfair to equate Billy with Franklin. While Billy's record was mixed, Franklins is more uniformly bad-- if not evil. While Billy represents the best & worst of old school evangelicalism, Franklin is the poster boy for the rotting carcass of what American right wing fundamentalist evangelicalism has become

[ 23. February 2018, 21:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Few people seem to have anything but praise for his message,
Gay people such as myself have things other than praise to say about his message.

(Though I accept that he was sincere, rather than a con artist trying to make as much money as possible.)

Fwiw, his horrid statement on AIDs was one of many such missteps which he acknowledged and said (in the 1990s) he regretted. Not an excuse of course (as he would no doubt agree) but rather again to the difference between Billy and Franklin

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I've complete support for that objection DT.

Is it generalizing to say that he vastly over-simplified Christianity into the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" thing? (this seems to be one of his slogans). Isn't it nonsense to turn Christianity into such a simplistic thing, as if the individual is the only relevant focus? But perhaps he was merely spouting the excessive individualism that is part of his cultural background? was he never aware of the good and bad in societies, in cultures, in even his own religion? maybe he was blindsighting himself intentionally?

Posted by Puzzler (# 18908) on :

My parents went to Haringay, and I went to Eearls Court on the night that Cliff Richard sang and publicly declared himself to be a Christian. I did not go forward because I was already a committed Christian.

When I was a student I was a counsellor. Those whom I spoke to who had come forward were all genuinely interested. The follow up system was impressive, linking with local churches.

I knew several ministers who had been called to serve Christ thanks to Billy Graham’s ministry.
His preaching was sincere and convincing.
By the time of Mission England, I did feel that this type of evangelism was almost past its sell-by date.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I never saw him in person; but I watched his crusades on TV for years, especially when I was growing up. And since there's no other memorial thread for him, I'll squeeze in here.

--I grew up fundamentalist, so the main content of his speeches was certainly familiar. BG preached well. Not like the evangelists who seem to have mainlined espresso before preaching. (On my NPR station, there were clips of his early preaching, before his crusades. Much more like the stylized, rhythmic, punctuated method of some Southern preachers and evangelists. His wife Ruth nudged him to change. [Smile]

Yay, Ruth!)

--As far as that particular perspective on Christianity goes, BG was biblically sound. He kept to the basics, and IIRC fairly literal interpretations: Virgin birth, shepherds, Magi, stable, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, end times, second coming...all fact. IIRC he was pretty literal about Genesis, though I don't remember if he was a 7 day or 7 time periods creationist. (The latter allows for lonnnggg stretches of time, and possibly some form of evolution.) He believed in various forms of angels, and wrote a couple of books about them.

--Other denominations: I don't think he was trying to get anyone to convert to his part of the church spectrum. He sometimes told the audience to go back to their own churches. And, when there's an altar call anywhere, people sometimes go forward not just for a conscious conversion, but because they want to rededicate themselves to God, deal with some guilt and sin, are looking for something, or simply feel pulled. For those of you from other sorts of churches who felt you shouldn't go forward, or didn't understand why people did: it's ok. It's a method that works well for some people. It's about personally choosing which side you're on, who you're going to follow. (Cue Bob Dylan's "You Gotta Serve Somebody", written after his own conversion.)

--Watching at home was sort of answering an altar call. A jolt of God stuff. A quiet time to consider your life, in the company of folks all over. And hear some great music. George Beverly Shea had this amazing, deep, powerful voice. Kind of a handful of Tennessee Ernie Fords and Jim Nabors (other great singers) put together.

--Flaws: He had them But, over all, my main issue was his closeness to political power. (I don't think I heard about some of his other issues until much later.) He never, ever should've used the term "Crusade" for his meetings.

--Tidbits: a) He loved golf so much that he asked his wife if there would be golf in Heaven. Ruth replied "If not that, then something better". :cool": b) He was flying over India, and a Hindu man knelt down and said "you are the holy man of Christianity". BG didn't want him to kneel, and corrected him. (I don't remember details.) c) He was once talking with JFK, and mentioned the Second Coming. JFK asked if his (RCC) church believed that, and BG said yes. JFK said "That's wonderful".

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I've complete support for that objection DT.

Is it generalizing to say that he vastly over-simplified Christianity into the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" thing? (this seems to be one of his slogans). Isn't it nonsense to turn Christianity into such a simplistic thing, as if the individual is the only relevant focus? But perhaps he was merely spouting the excessive individualism that is part of his cultural background? was he never aware of the good and bad in societies, in cultures, in even his own religion? maybe he was blindsighting himself intentionally?

Respectfully: Many, many Christians deeply believe that you have to choose to follow Jesus, choose what side you're going to be on, and commit yourself. Because Heaven/Hell, plus recognizing what God did and being grateful for it.

The individual is NOT "the only relevant focus". But personal choice is believed to be necessary. Often demonstrated by citing John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Signaller:
He preached at our place in 1976 (before my time). A plaque was placed on the (wooden, Edwardian) pulpit to record the event. During a re-ordering in the 90s said pulpit was declared surplus to requirements. Opposition to its loss coalesced around "You can't get rid of that, Billy Graham once preached from it!"

The father of a friend was Mission England director for the west of England in the 1984 campaign, and Billy Graham came to their house for lunch.

They had a visitors' book that one was only eligible to sign if one had stayed the night, but they broke their historic rule in order to get Graham's signature in it.

(As a result, when the Eutychus family got a visitors' book we decreed we would have no such overnight-stay rule, just in case Billy Graham ever came to lunch).

[ 24. February 2018, 06:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He never, ever should've used the term "Crusade" for his meetings.

Probably true. Fact is, I never heard the terminology questioned, and of course it was common parlance among the evangelical community "back in the day". I think most of us were much less aware of the historical and religious connotations of the word 40 years ago!

I mean, as late as 1998 the British Government was promoting Educational Action Zones as " the first 25 EAZs were formally announced as the “a new crusade uniting business, schools, local education authorities and parents" in modernising education within deprived areas.

The mission organisation I was part of was called "Worldwide Evangelisation Crusade" until (I think) the 1980s.

[ 24. February 2018, 08:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
RE. integrity - didn't he set up an organisation for evangelists and mission organisations based on having open and transparent accounting?

Yes: the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
--Tidbits: a) He loved golf so much that he asked his wife if there would be golf in Heaven. Ruth replied "If not that, then something better". :cool": b) He was flying over India, and a Hindu man knelt down and said "you are the holy man of Christianity". BG didn't want him to kneel, and corrected him. (I don't remember details.) c) He was once talking with JFK, and mentioned the Second Coming. JFK asked if his (RCC) church believed that, and BG said yes. JFK said "That's wonderful".

And then there was this.

While I take the point about Graham's message being open to all faiths, I am having some difficulty with the idea of the Supreme Governor going forward for an altar call!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I find this very hard. For all that's said, Graham's down the line Evangelicalism, its simple "you'll burn in Hell for your sins unless you explicitly convert" message, is something that's done my feelings about God inestimable damage. It underlies every reservation I have about him, and for all I complain that God never makes himself seem real to me, there is a massive reluctance on my side for him to do so, lest he be how the Evangelicals describe him.

So I can't laud Graham. His message was either toxic for me in what it said about God should he be wrong, or is the footsteps of utter despair should he be right.

[ 24. February 2018, 10:31: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Is it generalizing to say that he vastly over-simplified Christianity into the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" thing?

Quote from Luis Palau, heard at Spring Harvest.

"Evangelists are dumb".

He unpacked that, very well. Observing that he preached for decision, that's what he was called to do. So he was almost certainly guilty of oversimplifying. Like most evangelists.

But he knew there was more to it than that. Basically he talked from this well known text.

quote:
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

Evangelists are not necessarily all that good at pastoring, or teaching, or prophesying. In fact, said Palau "most of us aren't". In my experience, that's also true. It's just a different sort of calling.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing about Graham is that he was my parents generation - getting on for half a century older than me. And he was a product of that age.

His "repent or die" style message actually is appropriate for some people. It works. It is not the whole gospel, but it is a challenge for some people that they need. For others, it is not.

He preached a message that was very much in line with evangelicalism at the time. Which is very different from what it has become. His message and style when I heard him in 84 was very much a standard evangelical message of the time. As such it was thought out, bible based, focussed on the positives.

A story from my university time. I was a fully signed up evangelical, on the more literealist leaning if anything, charismatic, everything that people hate. I was a member of the CU, which was closely aligned to one of the house-church movements, which tended to draw it towards a more conservative theology.

I had a friend from my residence who came out as gay. He had at least some faith too. At one point, he asked me to sign a card to his boyfriend (so it wouldn't be recognised), which I did. What is more, there was no concern, no problems with this. He was a friend, so I helped.

This was the environment I grew up in, this was the environment that Grahams Mission Englan tour was in. It was not condemnatory. It was accepting, and seeking for people to accept the gospel. His rallies were an opportunity to make a decision - something that I was cool with, because it was a YFC rally that I made a committment, something that was not then a solitary event, but around other things happening in my life.

Now, in the last 30 years, an awful lot has changed. Particular elements of the more fundamentalist evangelical church have taken over. Even in my last year at university, I saw soem of the most agressive evangelicals (with some stupid ideas). But I moved into the non-university world, an evangelical church, where I found reasonable evangelicalism in practice.

SO yes, I have been lucky, But the route through evangelicalism that I have followed is one that I think Graham tried to follow. I think he tried to be honest and authentic. I think he was wrong, but he would have discussed with me seriously. It is his heirs (biological and otherwise) who have fucked things up, and made evangelicalism something I now disown. While I have moved partly, the evangelical party has moved far more.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I can identify with most of that. Thank you.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Same here. His preaching in the 50s and 60s, undoubtedly, was 'of its time'.

There was also a certain amount of optimism in the mainstream churches round about then. The C of E, for one, enjoyed some modest growth in the 50s and 60s, and I'm sure some of the other denominations could say the same.

Ah, that's the trouble with nostalgia. It's not what it used to be....

IJ

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find this very hard. For all that's said, Graham's down the line Evangelicalism, its simple "you'll burn in Hell for your sins unless you explicitly convert" message, is something that's done my feelings about God inestimable damage.

And yet Graham apparently made comments at a later point that implied a belief in universal salvation. One wonders what this says about his life as an evangelist....

Actually, I get the impression that his greatest success was not so much in evangelism, but rather in encouraging people who were already Christians. He created the opportunity for ordinary folk to leave their little churches and gather together in vast stadiums with others, which must have been a great boost to the morale, especially in places where secularisation had taken hold. He made Christians feel less marginal.

Mind you, I didn't hang around with the sort of Christians who had much interest in Graham, so I never felt personally aggrieved at what he did or didn't do. Some people I know have been critical of the man since his death, but I wouldn't have expected anything else of them.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I went with a Methodist youth group (hi Svitlana [Smile]

) to see him at Upton Park (West Ham Utd) in 1989. I was already a Christian, I enjoyed it, some of the group who were maybe a bit more marginal about their faith went forward, and as I remember from their experience the local follow-up was good.

As far as I know neither of the two blokes I'm mainly thinking of are in a church at the moment. But a great friend of my Mum was a convert from an earlier BG UK mission. Charismatic (in the old sense) intelligent preachers with integrity - well, yes please.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Oh - double post - did anyone else notice on that list that he was in Eastern-Europe (incl. DDR), USSR and China all through the 80s?! How did that come about?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

His "repent or die" style message actually is appropriate for some people. It works. It is not the whole gospel, but it is a challenge for some people that they need. For others, it is not.

This bear of very little brain cannot understand this. If it's true that everyone who doesn't explicitly convert will burn in Hell then it's something everyone needs to hear; if not, then how can it be the right message for anyone?

[ 24. February 2018, 15:35: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

mark_in_manchester

I get the impression that my circuit was particularly liberal, so I wouldn't have heard about Billy Graham there (and nothing approving, more to the point).

He came to my city when I was a teen, but I have no memory of it. Although I was still part of my church's Sunday school, I didn't belong to a Methodist youth group as such. A Methodist church up the road had a youth club, but I only knew of it because some non-Methodist friends went along. I can't imagine either church encouraging young people to see Billy Graham.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Oh - double post - did anyone else notice on that list that he was in Eastern-Europe (incl. DDR), USSR and China all through the 80s?! How did that come about?

I'm not sure, but he also went to the DPRK a few years later.

Despite the headline, that article doesn't really tell us "how" his visit to a hardcore atheist dictatorship came about. My guess would be, there was some backroom politicking going on, ie. someone in Washington thought he should go there, and the North Koreans thought it was somehow in their interest to let him in.

Plus, apparently, Ruth Graham had been a missionary in what is now North Korea, so maybe she had some influence as well. And the ruling family are ancestrally Christian, of the American evangelical variety, so that might have played a role.

I'm pretty sure he was preaching to a very select audience anyway, not the sort of people who would likely abandon the ruling philosophy after hearing one good sermen.

[ 24. February 2018, 15:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Apparently, this is the church where Graham preached in North Korea. Possibly just a show church, but according to that, they do make some attempt at appearing politically independent.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

His "repent or die" style message actually is appropriate for some people. It works. It is not the whole gospel, but it is a challenge for some people that they need. For others, it is not.

This bear of very little brain cannot understand this. If it's true that everyone who doesn't explicitly convert will burn in Hell then it's something everyone needs to hear; if not, then how can it be the right message for anyone?

Because it is a very blunt version of the truth. It isn't true as it stands, but it is true that God calls us to change, and this is a point of making that clear.

What it doesnt mean is "this is your only chance - follow this route or die". It doesn;t mean an "exlicit conversion in this way", but it does mean that an individual needs to rethink their life.

It is a bit like the reports I might give to management. "We need to do this now". We may not need to do it now, and there may be other options and choices, but management need to make a decision, and this will drive that.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It doesn't mean what it says? How are people to know what it does mean then?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

"Repent or die" would be ridiculous if it doesn't harmfully frighten people into marching up the sawdust trail of Jesus tears and love in the evening and then like sobered up drunks, asking what happened the next morning and worrying.

I think it is quite harmful. Particularly when it is proffered in support of status quo societies, and as my father once said, in Billy's confusion of the American dream with proper understanding of history and that there aren't any special and particularly holy countries. He was a refugee from the Hitler madness, from where his perspective of societies as the appropriate unit of analysis for change is derived.

Is the Billy type of message the ultimate consumer good? Where vendors play on fears and anxieties? I think it is.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Plus, apparently, Ruth Graham had been a missionary in what is now North Korea, so maybe she had some influence as well.

Ruth was never a missionary to Korea. Her parents were medical missionaries to China from 1919–1940 or 41. Ruth was born and raised there, but she was not a missionary as an adult. He father, though, remained active in the mission work of the Presbyterian Church and undoubtedly had Korean connections.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Other denominations: I don't think he was trying to get anyone to convert to his part of the church spectrum.

Ruth never became a Baptist, though admittedly she, and the congregation of which she was a member, were at the very conservative end of what is now the PC(USA). That congregation (which left the PC(USA) a few years ago) was very slow to accept the idea of female elders. When they did decide to elect and ordain a woman, the woman was a Ruth Bell Graham.

I never went to one of Billy Graham's crusades/events. If I ever heard him preach, it was when I was young enough that any significance was lost on me. I’ll admit I did not like his preaching style at all, either when I was young or once I became an adult. It just didn’t resonate with me.

But I had great respect for him as a person. I didn’t always share his views, but I appreciated the integrity with which he held them, and in some instances changed them, and I appreciated his willingness to acknowledge and learn from his mistakes. He was not perfect. He was human, like the rest of, with missteps, contradictions and, I think, growth, both with regard to who he was publicly and who he was in private. He had a humility that I wish was more common in others who have come after him. In his mind, it really wasn’t about him.

His death has been front-page news here in North Carolina all week, where flags have been flying at half-staff. For those of us with deep roots in Montreat, where he lived and died (a place that’s somewhat difficult to explain to those not familiar with it), it's the person more than the preacher who’ll be remembered.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Karl: Liberal Backslider

People obviously become Christians for different reasons.

It's clear that some are engaged by the idea of a great cosmic battle between good and evil, with God as the great Judge over all. For them, there won't be a conversion unless they believe that the whole thing really matters. They won't join a church just to gain access to a friendly community, or to enjoy highly trained musicians, or to lend their expertise to some church-based social justice programme, even if these outcomes eventually become important to them.

That doesn't necessarily indicate an emphasis on hell, does it? Maybe theologically, if not rhetorically. TBH I find it hard to believe that Graham would have made any headway in Europe with hell fire preaching. Did he really take that stuff to London, Paris and Berlin?? Or did he save it for people and places that were used to it?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Karl: Liberal Backslider

People obviously become Christians for different reasons.

It's clear that some are engaged by the idea of a great cosmic battle between good and evil, with God as the great Judge over all. For them, there won't be a conversion unless they believe that the whole thing really matters. They won't join a church just to gain access to a friendly community, or to enjoy highly trained musicians, or to lend their expertise to some church-based social justice programme, even if these outcomes eventually become important to them.

So we spin them an angry God who's going to squash them if they don't swap sides line, regardless of whether it's true?

quote:

That doesn't necessarily indicate an emphasis on hell, does it? Maybe theologically, if not rhetorically. TBH I find it hard to believe that Graham would have made any headway in Europe with hell fire preaching. Did he really take that stuff to London, Paris and Berlin?? Or did he save it for people and places that were used to it?

Why not? It was the basic of every evangelist I ever heard - "you deserve to and will go to Hell unless you convert".

[ 24. February 2018, 20:36: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
you deserve to and will go to Hell...

I'll speak up for that gospel truth [Smile]

But it's so hard to encounter it as a liberating reality (I know, it sounds strange) since the language is so old and our route with it so pre-defined.

I'll be brief. If I don't deserve to go to hell, no-one does, so sin does not exist, and truth does not matter.

But if my sin is real, then I have transgressed a standard that exists; this paradoxically gives me hope that my life means something, and that my cries of 'that's not fair' (about anything) have a chance of being something of more consequence than the self-interested bleats of a spoilt child.

F***, I sound like Mudfrog [Smile]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Karl - sorry, I am not expressing it properly, because a) I no longer subscribe to that view and b) My head hurts - I am not thinking clearly at the moment.

I totally accept that for you - and for others - his approach is wrong. But for some his approach was right. And his approach is no longer one that makes sense today. So I struggle to justify a position that is not applicable today, I don't hold, and I never really explored it when I did hold it.

I suppose I never took the view of "you are going to hell". My position was always "you need to receive God". But there is am implication of one with the other, but I never emphasised it.

But I don't really take a black-and-white view of things. It is not "this is right, that is wrong". It is more "this is what I believe."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we spin [non-believers] an angry God who's going to squash them if they don't swap sides line, regardless of whether it's true?

Ah. Who knows what's true?

quote:
[Hell fire preaching] was the basic of every evangelist I ever heard - "you deserve to and will go to Hell unless you convert".

Having been an evangelical you've probably heard far more evangelistic preaching than I have. Nevertheless, I understand that there's been a declining belief in hell since the late 19th c. Westerners are far less fearful of hell now than in the past, so it would be strange for evangelists (or other preachers) to prioritise it. Perhaps they just mention it briefly in passing? Or do they say the same fiery stuff but with far lower expectations of non-believers responding than used to be the case?

Anyhow, with declining religious affiliation the number of non-believers listing to preaching of any sort is probably quite low. It seems that many who attended Graham's meetings were already faithful churchgoers, so what purpose were hell fire preaching and altar calls meant to serve? As I said above, I think Graham was more about invigorating Christians than frightening non-believers out of hell.

My main suspicion about the popularity of hell fire preaching today, however, is related to the fact that firstly, there doesn't seem to be that much evangelism around in Britain anyway. And secondly, the declining number of Christians here suggests that many churches, evangelical or not, have moved towards universalism in practice if not explicitly in theory.

From the MOTR perspective, I'd say that evangelism (where it exists) has very little to do with hell, or even heaven. It's about stemming church decline and closure.

[ 25. February 2018, 00:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There is a meme going around FaceBook quoting him as saying all homosexuals should be castrated. Is this genuine?

Sounds more like Franklin Graham would say.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

In Bristol, he had an agent called Antony Bush (who runs a ‘creationist zoo’ in a nearby village) who presumably fed him news stories to help make his preaching relevant.

On the day I was there, he mentioned a woman who’d committed suicide, commentint that if she’d known Jesus, she wouldn’t have.

Well, the woman in question was from my house group and she definitely ‘knew Christ’.

Her son was also in the audience that day….

The whole thing disgusted me – and Bush never replied to my letter.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In Bristol, he had an agent called Antony Bush (who runs a ‘creationist zoo’ in a nearby village) who presumably fed him news stories to help make his preaching relevant.

On the day I was there, he mentioned a woman who’d committed suicide, commentint that if she’d known Jesus, she wouldn’t have.

Well, the woman in question was from my house group and she definitely ‘knew Christ’.

Her son was also in the audience that day….

The whole thing disgusted me – and Bush never replied to my letter.

Holy crap, that's horrible. I guess one could try to defend it by saying, well, they somehow just got the story wrong through no fault of their own, but still, you shouldn't be using second-hand anecdotes about known and recently-deceased individuals to make your point in the first place.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Looking over some old magazine covers.

I realize that nudity is a defensible aspect of prelapsarian-themed art, but its inclusion in this Time cover seems like a bit of a stretch.

I mean, yes, Graham preached against sin, and that business in Eden was the first sin. But you could just as easily, if not moreso, have justified a picture of the crucifixion on such grounds.

And, anyway, by the traditionalist interpretation, wasn't it ADAM'S disobedience which brought about the Fall? Guess that wouldn't have been as big a hit with the target demographic for Time magazine in those days.

[ 26. February 2018, 13:52: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Ozzymum (# 18916) on :

I went to a crusade when I was about 13. It was the early 70s and the "Jesus Movement" was big news. Lots of shiny, happy people on TV talking about knowing Jesus personally. It looked pretty good to me and I was eager and waiting to join the family, but I didn't know what to do.

Then a church-going neighbor invited my family to the Billy Graham crusade. I accepted gladly, because I thought somebody would tell me what I needed to know. I couldn't wait!

So, he preached about sin and Hell, and I don't remember much more. By the time he finished, I no longer wanted to be a Christian, but I was afraid not to go forward. I'm still sad about that. It was like I was waiting for my first kiss, and I suppose I was kissed, but I got slapped around first.

So what I don't get, and still don't get, is why the neighbor didn't just witness to me in the first place. But after attending church for some years I saw that a lot of Christians can't or won't share the gospel. Graham comes into town and they charter buses to get the unchurched into stadiums so he can do the talking and get'em all saved.

It's not very healthy, is it? But now I'm straying into Purgatory territory.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Hello Ozzymum.

Yes it is unhealthy. But still common. I have heard more comments than I like indicating that many Christians feel that their role is to get people into church, where the "professionals" can convert them.

It comes with the assumption that once experiencing church everyone would be as enamoured as they are.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ozzymum:
But after attending church for some years I saw that a lot of Christians can't or won't share the gospel. Graham comes into town and they charter buses to get the unchurched into stadiums so he can do the talking and get'em all saved.

It's not very healthy, is it? But now I'm straying into Purgatory territory.

It is sadder than that, Scotland had just got a "Tell Ten"* campaign starting to take root and then Billy Graham came and everyone stopped trying. My source was James Whyte while at University.

Jengie

*"Tell Ten" are campaigns that try to get every Christian to tell ten people about the faith. There have been several over the years. The Church would have doubled in size if just 10% of those people had found the faith.

[ 28. February 2018, 09:41: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

One of the problems with such Crusades (not just graham's) was that, very often, churches hired coaches but nearly everyone on board was already a Christian.When I was at Uni. many years ago, we had a rule that unaccompanied Christians would not be allowed to attend the CU's evangelistic meetings!

[ 28. February 2018, 09:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ozzymum:

What I don't get, and still don't get, is why the neighbor didn't just witness to me in the first place. But after attending church for some years I saw that a lot of Christians can't or won't share the gospel. Graham comes into town and they charter buses to get the unchurched into stadiums so he can do the talking and get'em all saved.

It's not very healthy, is it? But now I'm straying into Purgatory territory.

I once read that in the late 19th c. evangelistic revivals ceased to be spontaneous events and began to be professionalised. Churches would pay experts to lead revivals on their behalf.

This was part of a process whereby church life itself was becoming professionalised and routinised. The clergy in the mainstream/mainline churches were expected to have more and more education, while old-time evangelical churches were losing their fervour and becoming more sedate.

The laity began to feel that without the right status and theological training they couldn't go around talking about Jesus. The gradual relaxing of traditional habits, e.g. Bible reading, family prayer, quiet Sunday contemplation, as well as increasing confusion about what constituted Christian orthodoxy and morality probably didn't help either.

Nowadays, both the slick, professional tel(evangelist) and the highly cerebral mainline minister are taken for granted in their different fields. Neither role leaves much room for the quiet evangelism of the ordinary Christian. There's the odd book on the subject, but churches offer very little preaching, training or mutual encouragement for layfolk who might embark on this task. Of course, the average minister isn't skilled in this area either.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Nevertheless, the quiet evangelism of the ordinary Christian still goes on, in churches of all denominations.

Unspectacular it may be, but it is more in obedience to Our Lord's teachings than the shite spouted by Dollar, Hinn, Copeland etc.

IJ

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes, but you would be amazed how many ordinary Christians have lost their confidence to do it. They feel they need to be Billy Graham before they can do it. Putting huge stress on it does not help.

Jengie

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, he desegregated his southern crusades but didn't 'follow through' any further, as The Guardian article relates.

Graham's desegregated Crusades were kind of scattershot. At some Graham would ostentatiously hold mixed-race events, like his Crusade in Birmingham shortly after the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. Later events at other venues would be segregated or not, depending on Graham's whim.

According to Graham, he had two main regrets in his life. The first was his sitting on the sidelines for most of the Civil Rights movement. Graham didn't have as much to be embarrassed about as a lot of his Southern white Protestant contemporaries, so this could be considered a 'sin of omission'. Graham's position was that he didn't want to get distracted from the message of the Gospel. Others would argue that justice and brotherhood are the message of the Gospel. For historical reference here's a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Billy Graham in which King urges Graham not to appear publicly with Texas Governor Price Daniel (a race-baiting segregationist) at his 1958 Crusade in San Antonio. King argues that it would be seen by many as an endorsement of Daniel (who was up for re-election that year) and his policies. Graham naturally ignored King and had Daniel introduce him at the San Antonio Crusade.

His other regret was his friendship with Richard Nixon and the corrupting influence that had on Graham. That one is more of a sin of commission.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, he desegregated his southern crusades but didn't 'follow through' any further, as The Guardian article relates.
Graham's desegregated Crusades were kind of scattershot. At some Graham would ostentatiously hold mixed-race events, like his Crusade in Birmingham shortly after the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. Later events at other venues would be segregated or not, depending on Graham's whim.

According to Graham, he had two main regrets in his life. The first was his sitting on the sidelines for most of the Civil Rights movement. Graham didn't have as much to be embarrassed about as a lot of his Southern white Protestant contemporaries, so this could be considered a 'sin of omission'. Graham's position was that he didn't want to get distracted from the message of the Gospel. Others would argue that justice and brotherhood are the message of the Gospel. For historical reference here's a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Billy Graham in which King urges Graham not to appear publicly with Texas Governor Price Daniel (a race-baiting segregationist) at his 1958 Crusade in San Antonio. King argues that it would be seen by many as an endorsement of Daniel (who was up for re-election that year) and his policies. Graham naturally ignored King and had Daniel introduce him at the San Antonio Crusade.

His other regret was his friendship with Richard Nixon and the corrupting influence that had on Graham. That one is more of a sin of commission.

Yes. Again, his humility/ willingness to admit his (very real) mistakes was one of his better qualities, and sorely missing among today's conservative evangelical crowd.

It should be noted that the times when Graham did desegregate he was breaking state law and could have been arrested-- although his popularity was so great there was very little fear of that happening.

otoh, Graham's father-in-law was a leading segregationist, and part of Graham's organization. Some see that as strategic, others as evidence of his accommodationism.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0