How close can someone come to Roman Catholicism, how much can be embraced before the evangelical message is skewed? I wrote in my last post of just one of the affiliations Mr. Graham had with Roman Catholicism, along with his belief that those who have not heard the gospel or even of Jesus Christ will be headed toward heaven if they simply love God.
I would offer Iain Murray’s “Evangelicalism Divided” as a necessary read for those who might think that Mr. Graham has only “recently” become favorable to Roman Catholicism. The second chapter of the book is entitled, "Billy Graham: A Cataylst for Change. As early as 1950, Billy Graham was already embracing close friendships with noted Roman Catholics and Mr. Graham’s statements concerning his Catholic friends are telling. In an interview in 1991, Graham referred to the meeting of Boston’s Archbishop Richard Cushing as one of the highlights of his ministry:
“Another significant thing happened in the early ‘50s in Boston. Cardinal Cushing, in his magazine, The Pilot, put ‘Bravo Billy’ on the front cover. That made news all over the country. He and I became close, wonderful friends. That was my first real coming to grips with the whole Protestant/Catholic situation. I began to realize that there were Christians everywhere. They might be called modernists, Catholics, or whatever, but they were Christians” (Bookstore Journal, Nov. 1991).
Consider this excerpt from Graham’s autobiography:
“At that time [March 1950], Protestantism in New England was weak, due in part to theological differences within some denominations, the influence of Unitarian ideas in other denominations, and the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. In spite of all that, a number of Roman Catholic priests and Unitarian clergy, together with some of their parishioners, came to the meetings along with those from Evangelical churches. With my limited Evangelical background, this was a further expansion of my own ecumenical outlook. I now began to make friends among people from many different backgrounds and to develop a spiritual love for their clergy” (Graham, Just As I Am, p.
167).
What is at issue is that even in his early crusade, Mr. Graham purposely sought out to include the clergy of Catholics, Jews, Unitarians, and the like. On September 17, 1956, a rally banquet of some 1,100 people was held at the Hotel Commodore in New York City. Graham was guest of honor and main speaker and it here that he stated that he wanted Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to attend his meetings and then go back to their own churches. This statement was confirmed by the New York Evening Journal on Sept. 18, 1956, as follows:
Graham said: ‘Then we’ll send them to their own churches – Roman Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. We hope this way to see the forces of crime at least lose a skirmish. The rest will be up to God’ (Billy Graham, Church League of America).
Protestant Church Life, the official organ of the Protestant Council, confirmed this statement in its issue of September 29, 1956:
“Referring to the Billy Graham New York Crusade scheduled for May, 1957, Dr. Graham said: ‘We’re coming to New York not to clean it up, but to get people to dedicate themselves to God and to send them on to their own churches--Catholic, Protestant or Jewish ... The rest is up to God.” This is also cited in William Martin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, p. 223.
Why is this so dangerous? To be sure, the Lord has not used Billy Graham “because of these views” but rather “in spite” of them. While many are not familiar with Graham’s theology, such only heightens the potential for doctrinal error to continue and proliferate into full scale departure from the truth. I give thanks to God that many have been saved and gloriously conformed to the truth “in spite” of the weak gospel presented by Graham. I know that my delivery of the gospel, particularly of my early ministry was used of God in the lives of people “in spite” of my weak presentation. This does not mean I should or have a right to continue to blur the lines of the gospel. In the case of Graham, the sad truth is that there may be as many who have departed from the gospel as have come to it because of Graham’s presentation and teaching.
In Wilson Ewin’s book, The Assimilation of Evangelist Billy Graham into the Roman Catholic Church, he states:
“Never has Graham suggested to these unfortunate people that the ceremony of the Mass is in violent contradiction of what Christ actually did at the cross. Nothing can be found in Billy’s counseling address, articles or book to even suggest that a Mass is an absolute sham and the product of religious deceit. Neither has the evangelist advised or warned those Christian believers who attend his crusades and read his publications that the Mass is an abomination of idolatry, a denial of Christ’s suffering in atonement, and a cunning invention of the great deceiver. Instead, believers in Christ are led into an ecumenical swamp with Graham’s exhortation to cooperate, respect and unite with Roman Catholicism.”
Let me be clear. I do not write these things to demonstrate a hatred for Mr. Graham or to slander him in any way. The things presented here are not my opinions, but the statements, comments and clear implications of Graham’s teaching and preaching. I commend Graham for his years of laboring with the intent of glorifying God. But at issue is that Graham is too often seen as this great evangelical leader who has preached the evangelical gospel when, in fact, by his own organizations documentation, many of his so-called “converts” have continued in Roman Catholicism, Judaism or some other truth departing group. This is due, in part, to a lack of clearly presenting the fullness of the gospel. I am afraid that Graham has confused and clouded the true meaning of the gospel making it possible for those who do not truly embrace the gospel to think they are saved when they are not, thus making the work of true evangelicals are the more difficult.
Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) is one who knew what it meant to be an “evangelical.” Spurgeon’s ministry was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a gospel of pure grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. He was often maligned and misunderstood and yet Spurgeon did not draw back from separating from the Baptist Union because of the false doctrine that was being embraced there. He also stood unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism. Consider this excerpt from one of Spurgeon’s sermons:
“It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, then we who are the watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and even though his vehemence should ‘ding our pulpits into blads,’ it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).
The call of this post is not to bash Mr. Graham, but to call the evangelical community to careful discern both what is the gospel as well as how it may be best communicated. We must understand that what we do and do not say concenring the gospel has profound effects.
As D. Martyn Lloyd Jones has said, "We are not interested in numbers. We are interested in truth and in the living God."
Soli Deo Gloria,
Pastor Ed
