What would you have done in 1957?

John,

I suggest that you and others go to the Wheaton College Exhibit on the Billy Graham Crusade site at:

http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/exhibits/NYC57/00welcome.htm

Much of what you've been talking about is discussed under 'Critics."

But mainly, I'd like for you to go to:

http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/exhibits/NYC57/10sample54.htm

This is a streaming video from the 1957 black and white TV broadcast.

Then, go to:

http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/exhibits/NYC57/11sample60.htm

George Beverly Shea in his prime sings "How Great Thou Art." After looking at these please ask yourself whether this man was or was not from God and has been a graet voice for the gospel in our times.

As for me, I choose not to focus on the negatives or some poor choices he might have made. I choose to thank God for the ministry of Billy Graham.

 

Again nobody is critisizing Billy Graham.I personally admire him although I don't agree with him on everything.I think he is the most seen and heard evangelist of the last half of the last century.Would I work in one of his crusades, the answer is no.I would not be a part of a team that sent anybody to a United Methodist church or an Episcopal church or any church that had gay clergy or denied the deity of Christ (before anybody goes nuts I'm not saying he works with gay clergy or with anybody who denies the deity of Christ those are examples).He has been able to work with some people I can't work with in crusades.That does not mean I don't admire him or respect him.He does what he does the way he does it because he feels God has called him to work that way.I think people work best when they work within thier own set of convictions.I don't think they should be critisized for that.If a person feels that they would be comprimosing thier own convictions by participating in an activity that is not in line with thier convictions they should'nt be critisized.

 

It amazes me how many consider the Navigators a great conservative organization yet condemn Billy Graham. It was Billy Graham who asked Dawson Trotman to head up the follow up for the BGEA. Doesn't that seem rather inconsistent to condemn Billy Graham and praise the Navigators? In fact the Navigators are still involved with the BGEA.

Know of any of the great condemners who produce the quality and numbers of disciples that the Navigators does?

What is sad is that last year some of the shout stomp and spit folks came to the college campus to do some condemning with a little dance of shout stomp and spit. When they started their parade there was already a number of Navigators who were privately talking with people. One of the Navigators told me that when the charade started their witnessing mostly stopped because of the idiots shouting and condemining people.

The only peope Jesus condemned were the Pharisees (the religionists of the day).

 

Plain Old Bill wrote,

Perhaps you have missed the posts by John of Japan.

 

John of Japan wrote,

It is the Bible, not your personal interpretation of the Bible, that determines the rightness or the wrongness of doctrine.

 

John of Japan wrote,

Please quote the article word for word in context. Please also document your notion that Billy Graham's association with Bonnell hindered Billy Graham's ministry as an evangelist. Personally, I am getting very weary of your hocus pocus in this thread.

 

John of Japan wrote,

I have that book in my library at home. Please post the page numbers that you are referring to.

 

Craigbythesea wrote,

Dear readers,

I wish to apologize for using the wording found in the NASB, 1995. Apparently blackbird finds the "u" word to be "inappropriate" language.



***** The rest of the post was edited for it did not represent the right spirit in your effort to communicate - even though you were quoting from the KJ version of the Bible. Simply, because we do not use words as such in our every-day conversation. Trust that you'll understand. Bro. Blackbird, our BB Moderator, did what was right in editing your earlier post. Your apology is accepted in it's present format. Nothing else is to be added to it. Yours in His service, Barnabas (your friendly BB Administrator) *****

[ October 24, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas J. Halo ]

 

These comments have nothing to do with the topic.

If you have a issue with a moderator deal with it privately.

 

I have a question about anyone who can answer it. The original post talks about BG allowing and working with liberals in his ministry and using them and fundamentalists to help reach the lost. My question is about what liberal ment in 1957? If we are talking about a bunch of conservative baptists in 1957 I can only imagine what the word liberal ment to them and what they defined as being liberal. I realize the definition has not changed but what I consider liberal and what a person in 1957 considered liberal I am sure are two totally different views. A conservative Baptist might consider me way to liberal since I would prefer to wear shorts to church on a hot summer day than a suit and tie or dress up clothes. That is one question.

Another question I have is whether or not BG was always aware of what his forward men were attempting to do or if later he had mistakenly brought them on not fully realizing what their real views were? I am not talking about whether or not to use AG's or methodist who's views on gays in the church has recently become an errupting volcano in the church (the church did split over the issue)but whether or not their views on Christ were different from his? Did he intentionally recruit people who's views of the virgin birth, death and ressurection were different or did they somehow slip between the cracks?

Has Billy Graham ever been accused of moving away from Christ and His salvation to a lost earth?

Has he ever been accused of stealing money from the ministry and have it hold up with real proof?

Has he ever been accused of adultery and fornication and has there ever been proof?

I think before I would be able to fully answer your question I would need to know what being liberal ment to a 1957 baptist crowd and then answer these last few questions to decide whether or not any of that other stuff is relevant.

Billy Graham is not God and does have his flaws but are any of them that have been stated in other posts worth pushing aside the years he has dedicated to doing the will of God because we have a little dispute over things not pertaining to Christ? Has he that we know of done anything that has thwarted that cause or tried to lessen the great need for salvation?
Is his willingness to reach across denominational lines a bad thing or are the baptist the chosen people and he should stick to his own?

In my 15 years as a christian I have heard only a few lines here and there of Billy Graham and have never read more than a few lines from one of his books. But what impresses me the most is that I have heard no negative press on him from the ultra liberal media to this day. If he was to realize he was wrong in a certain area I am pretty sure he would have taken full responsibility and shouldered the whole blame himself so as not to slander or point fingers at someone else. hmmmmmm I remember Someone else who shoulder alot of my wrong doings and has yet to point any fingers at me.

You can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all the people all the time.

[ October 24, 2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: fatbacker ]

 

Read a couple of sermons by the founder of the Navigators at http://www.bibleteacher.org/Dm118_8.htm

 

In the book Just As I Am Billy Graham talks about the fundamentalists of the day. They were involved in mud slinging that were lies and he was too busy to be involved in that kind of thing. He later mentions that if their fundamentalism was of God it would have produced growing churches but instead has produced lifeless and dead churches.

I have personally seen many of those churches die and produce dead lifeless churches. A few years ago I preached in a church and a lady came forward during the invitation. That afternoon the pastor and myself visited her. She told us she decided to start going to church. So she went to the church at the end of her street. They didn't let her in the church because she had pants on and medium length hair. I hope that kind of fundamentalism becomes extinct.

If God will allow non-believers to come to Himself and receive him doesn't that kind of say something is wrong if a church will not let someone in their church building to hear. Maybe it was a good thing she was not let in the door because she may have heard some things that would have turned her away from Christ.

 

I have personally met some who have received Christ at a BGEA Crusade who have come from liberal churches that do not preach the gospel. So is it better to not invite them or let them in?

I also know that the only time a person is given back to the church is if they note that they were from that church. I have been personally involved with the follow up and discipleship at a BGEA Crusade. Those who did not write down the name of a church were given to good solid churches in the area.

I have known a number of Catholics who came to Christ at a BGEA Crusade. Years ago the Catholic Church would take a stance and approve or disapprove of particular events. In fact when I was a kid the pastor would tell the congregation that it was sin to enter a protestant church. Then later we were told we needed to go to a Catholic Church first if we wanted to attend a protestant church later that day.

Personally I believe Billy GRaham has helped to span that gap in an effort to reach people. They were not reached at all before. The Catholics treated BG just like the fundamentalists did. They would not get involved.

Jesus preached in the non-Christian churches--the synagogue. Many others did too. Is it participating with liberalism to preach in a liberal and non-Christian church?

My peronal thought is that if Graham had not left the fundamentalism of Bob Jones, etc. he would not have reached near the number he has nor would he have been welcomed into so many countries.

Over the years he has deliberatley chosen to not get involved in political and church issues. He leaves that for others to deal with. I think he has sharpened his focus and mission in life.

Years ago I had just started pastoring a church that had become nearly extinct. On my first Sunday I saw why after what happened in Sunday School. One of the men who had come that day mentioned in Sunday School that the reason why there were so many going to hell today is because they don't read the King James Bible. A few Sundays later I preached on discipleship and where we were headed. In that sermon I spoke about what a leader was and that a leader has followers. I also talekd about people who call themselves leaders should be able to name people who are living for Christ because of their life. That immediately silenced the folks who wanted to create trouble. They had not discipled people. They were just troublemakers and mud-slingers.

 

I have that book in my library at home. Please post the page numbers that you are referring to.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, for crying out loud. Do your own research. I even told you which book. You do know how to use an index, don't you? And how to spell W-y-r-t-z-e-n?

</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't it the responsibility of the person who quotes from a source to include as part of that quote a correctly given citation?

 

I think BG has wisely applied Mt. 9:17 in his work.

"Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

 

John of Japan wrote,

... and he wonders why some men of God would rather associate with God-fearing liberals than with arrogant, nasty, and outright mean fundamentalists?

 

It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about, say women wearing pants, or modes of communion, or types of music to permit, or what day of the week to worship, then there's certainly nothign wrong letting each be convinced on his own mind.

However, if you're talking about denying core doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ, the Resurection, salvation by faith alone, etc, then your point is valid.