Is he? Or isn't he?

NOTE: I'm using the here's more link on this one...


I've wanted to leave this alone ever since I saw it first posted at ER's place. Day's later I found a commentary making sharp use of the word 'Apostasy' in it's title. So what I did was step back, and let it all settle in my head. I wanted to just walk on by, but I can't... I have to throw in my own two cents-- and that's about all my opinion is worth on this.

Evangelist Billy Graham was recently featured in Newsweek; a nice lengthy article extrapolated from interviews over a period of 'months'. And in it is food for either great praise... Or scorn, depending on what's in your heart, or rather who. I've seen articles over the years blasting Graham as an apostate, and I've always ignored them. Then I come across high praise for the article and Mr. Graham at the Erudite Redneck. Normally, this alone would make me suspicious, but thankfully there's this ever present sense of warning deep inside that cautions against speaking ill against God's anointed (where that verse is, at present escapes me-- some help would be appreciated), which is why I approached Tom Flannery's stinging commentary, Billy Graham's Apostasy, with great caution.

Last year I began a series of articles called, Lessons in Thinking for One's Self, establishing for myself a set of criteria for determining what is and what is not true... In essense to learn enough to not allow others to pull the wool over my eyes. The series is unfinished-- I got distracted --but what's there is enough of an illustration for anyone reading to understand how I approach the news, opinion, and conversation... most of the time. In my last post I mentioned the fact that I like to 'create constructs to support what I believe.' The aforementioned 'Lessons' are no different.

It's not enough to take what Newsweek has written-- what ER and his visitors have commented, and Mr. Flannery's rebuke --unchallenged, without first studying the language. Assuming of course Newsweek has accurately quoted Mr. Graham in regard to context. And Context is extremely important.

With all this in mind allow me now to address the article in question.

One thing Mr. Flannery seems to not have realized is that articles are largely the opinions and impression of the writer. True impressions, generally, but personal nonetheless. However honest the writer, personal impressions are still not completely reliable; revisiting this blog's namesake we encounter this bit of secular wisdom for an illustration... "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have."

I can understand why Mr. Flannery would get all bent out of shape by this statement, but please note what Graham's statement does NOT say... That good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus [and] secular people WILL enter into heaven. I am not a Graham apologist, but in all fairness the only thing I see here is humility. No one can know what God has in store for any "good" person, and from the author's own impression, Graham is "certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation." Granted, the word 'only' does not appear in that statement, but realistically 'only' is not necessary for exclusivity. 'The' is quite sufficient. One could say, " 'The' key to the front door is under the mat." But what about the key in my pocket? It fits the lock too. But my car key will not open the front door, so not any keys will do the trick... It requires a specific key, designed and shaped specifically for the lock.

"There are many things that I don't understand," [Graham] says. He does not believe that Christians need to take every verse of the Bible literally; "sincere Christians," he says, "can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology — absolutely."

Since not every verse in the bible is meant to be taken literally, I see no problem here either. Some verses are allegorical, some are figurative, while many many more are indeed literal. Imagine trying to convince a Pharisee of Jesus' day that Daniel meant a 'literal' beast would rise out of the sea with ten horns...

"I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years." He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative — a journey that began in 1949, when a friend challenged his belief in inerrancy during a conference in southern California's San Bernardino Mountains. Troubled, Graham wandered into the woods one night, put his Bible on a stump and said, "Lord, I don't understand all that is in this book, I can't explain it all, but I accept it by faith as your divine word."

Grahams first statement is troubling. Jesus Himself said not one jot or tittle shall depart from the law until all things are fulfilled, but this by no means earns Graham the "Apostasy" label. Furthermore, Graham demonstrated the perfect attitude by admitting to God the he "can't explain it all, but [he] accept[s] it by faith..."

"I think about heaven a great deal, I think about the failures in my life in the past, but know that they have been covered by the blood of Christ, and that gives me a great sense of confidence," says Graham. "I have a certainty about eternity that is a wonderful thing, and I thank God for giving me that certainty. I do not fear death. I may fear a little bit about the process, but not death itself, because I think the moment that my spirit leaves this body, I will be in the presence of the Lord."

Here Graham reflects on his failures-- we all have them --but he is confident of heaven because his sins are covered by the blood of Christ... and God has given him assurance. Now, how can a man say his confidence is based upon the shed blood of Christ covering his sins, and state that good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus [and] secular people can enter heaven without the same shed blood of Christ? He can't. Nor has he stated this anywhere in quoted text. The impression that all these adherents of all these diverse religions can make it too heaven without the shed blood of Christ is the author's take on Graham's beliefs.

Now, from Flannery's piece we get the following...

In a profile of Graham in the current issue of Newsweek, managing editor Jon Meacham asks the 87-year-old evangelist whether those who belong to religions that reject Christ as savior (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) and secularists will be saved.

Nooo... Sorry, that's not what was said. It is quite clear from the Newsweek piece that Graham relies on the blood of Christ to pay his sin debt. It is also quite clear from Graham's most recent crusade tour that he still preaches the blood. So what has honestly changed?

In all of Flannery's article the only actual Graham quote is the one attributed above. The rest are strenuous objections to the impressions of Jon Meacham the Newsweek article's author.

Tom Flannery, however, is not at all wrong on his defense of the Gospel. And no where in the Newsweek piece does Graham reject the Gospel-- Read both for yourselves. So let's look at Flannery's arguments.

Of course, it's true that Christ is the eternal Judge and will determine who spends eternity with Him and who does not. But it's also true that He has told us plainly, through His personal testimony and the many corroborations contained in His Word, that it is only by believing in Him that a person can be saved.

He is, after all, the One who said of Himself: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live." (John 11:25)

I haven't read anything in the Newsweek piece that says Graham believes otherwise.

In the Newsweek profile, Graham explains his new thinking thus: "I believe the love of God is absolute. He said He gave His Son for the whole world, and I think He loves everybody regardless of what label they have."

Indeed, He does. John 3:16 assures us: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ..." The question isn't whether God loves every one of us or not, but why would He allow His beloved Son to die on the cross? He answers that question in the conclusion of this same verse. It is so that "... whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (emphasis mine). Because He loves us so much, Christ took the punishment we deserved for our sins and died in our place on the cross because it was the only way that any of us could ever be saved.

Mr. Flannery injects his own reasoning here-- reasoning even I am guilty of! He accuses Graham of 'new thinking' even going so far as to say Graham felt the need to defend his reasoning by way of explanation. It is true that Jesus died for everybody despite any labels they attribute to themselves, but this doesn't mean Graham believes that a man, apart from the shed blood of Christ, has even the remotest chance of entering heaven. Graham could be more forward with his defense of the shed blood of Christ, but this hardly amounts to apostasy.

Graham's redefining of salvation doctrine also separates him from any number of others who were considered radicals in their day.

One of them was the apostle Paul, who wrote by inspiration of God: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 2:5)

Graham's own acceptance of the shed blood of Christ as reason for his assurance of heaven, does not contradict this. Nor does any other impression given by Jon Meacham concerning Graham's supposed 'new thinking.'

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) This verse is a four-fold declaration of the truth that salvation is found only in Christ, and in Christ alone.

How much clearer can it be?

Well, even more important is the testimony of one other "radical" ... Jesus Himself, who declared unequivocally: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

So Tom Flannery isn't wrong about the Gospel. He's dead on. But he's jumped to a few conclusions based on the impressions of another writer, rather than the actual words of Billy Graham. Has Graham mellowed with age? I think that's a safe bet... everyone mellows with age. Is Graham an apostate? I honestly don't think so, and that's judging the tree strictly by it's fruit. No one could do what Billy Graham has done if God were not with him. Has Billy Graham made mistakes? Does he cast a shadow beneath the noon-day sun? Besides which, he's admitted as much.

The simple truth is, no one get's to God except by Jesus. After all God had suffered to make salvation possible, it would be a great affront to Him to tell the world "you can get there another way." No. You can't. Jesus Himself said as much...

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

The one who wants us all to believe otherwise is the enemy... Or an agent of the enemy.