Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did you ever see Billy Graham preach live?
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote: you deserve to and will go to Hell...
I'll speak up for that gospel truth 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
-------------------- "We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard (so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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."
-------------------- Blog Music for your enjoyment Lord may all my hard times be healing times take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/ My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ozzymum
Apprentice
# 18916
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Feb 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Blog Music for your enjoyment Lord may all my hard times be healing times take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
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
-------------------- Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
-------------------- "To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|