Billy Graham, God’s Ambassador or Not: Have the Ears of Southern Baptists Been Tickled?

By Mark Christy, PhD

Recently, I ran across a book entitled Billy Graham, God’s Ambassador by Russ Busby as it was being donated to a ministry (owned by an SBC church) for the purpose of reselling. Given that Graham was ordained by an SBC church, this donation at first glance seemed entirely in order. As I reflected on its title, I checked Lifeway.com (owned by SBC) and noted that many books by and about Billy Graham are available. Then, I suddenly remembered that the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Missions (https://www.sbts.edu/bgs). Obviously, the SBC seems captivated by the ministry of this so-called ambassador for God. Before we consider rather or not this is an apt description, perhaps we should consider the NT prototypes for ambassadors of God.

Writing to the Ephesians, Paul describes himself as an “ambassador in chains” whose task was “to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19-20 NASB; cf. 2 Cor 5:20). In the context, such a role would require him to faithfully and obediently follow God by continuing to walk in keeping with his new self in Christ so that he could be continually renewed (filled) by the Spirit. According to 2 Corinthians 5:20, Paul makes it clear that all Christians are ambassadors for Christ.

At this point, it would seem that Graham might just be such an ambassador. But, before such a conclusion can be made, one must dig deeper into what it means to be a proper gospel declarer. In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul makes it abundantly clear that doctrine matters, and therefore, believers are to submit themselves to instruction in the Word of God so as to obtain a mature witness. By doing so, Paul adds in v.15 that believers will learn to speak the truth correctly and ensure that their active and ongoing obedience to the Lord sustains their witness (Eph 4:25-32).

While writing to Timothy, Paul demonstrates his concern that Timothy, his protégé and fellow ambassador) actively speaks against “strange doctrine” that were seeping into the Ephesian church (1 Timothy 1:3 NASB). Unlike those who promulgate false doctrine, Paul charged Timothy to hold and teach “good doctrine” (1 Tim 4:6 NASB). Concerning Timothy’s congregation, he demonstrates his supreme concern over the potential for correct doctrine being maligned by discussing the importance of upholding proper character in one’s relationships (1 Tim 6:1-2).[i] In regard to “anyone who advocates a different doctrine,” Paul labels them as “conceited: and says such a person “understands nothing” (1 Tim 6:3-4 NASB). In 1 Timothy 6, Paul goes on to demonstrate that sound doctrine and godliness are inseparable (3-16).

Another protégé of Paul was given essentially the same directives on doctrine. In his instructions to Titus, he comments that elders/pastor/overseers must thoroughly uphold sound doctrine and be well-versed in it so that they can speak against false teaching (Titus 1:7-9; cf. Titus 2:1). Titus’ doctrinal soundness was, according to Paul, to be manifestly evident in both his speech and actions (Titus 2:7-8).

From Paul’s example and directives to his fellow ministers, it seems clear that any true ambassador of God must be an upholder of sound doctrine both in word and deed. In seeing the future (which certainly includes the present time), Paul warns of those who will not be taking his advice: “For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires” (2 Timothy 4:3 NASB). Given this warning, the biblically responsible way to determine Graham’s authenticity as an ambassador for God would be to carefully consider any and all matters relating to his upholding of doctrine.

When considering Graham’s many books, articles, interviews, and sermons, one will find a fairly consistent teaching on the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ among other core doctrines related to evangelism. As a fulltime evangelist, his hyper-focus on evangelism may be understandable, but it should be noted that Paul instructed Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” along with his other directives for Timothy to carefully maintain his doctrinal purity (2 Tim 4:5 NASB).

In 1997 (and even before[ii]), Graham’s doctrinal stance came under question when, in an interview with Robert Schuller on the Hour of Power, he said the following regarding some people are being saved from places where the name of Jesus is not even heard: “they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved.”[iii] He added, “I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they’ve believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.”[iv] While he never publicly clarified his comments so as to reiterate an exclusivist position concerning this interview in particular, he did offer the biblically correct position to Larry King in an 2005 interview: “But Jesus made this astounding claim. Jesus said: I am the truth. Jesus said, I am the truth! I am the embodiment of all truth. And if you’re going to get to heaven, you’ve got to believe that.”[v]

While Graham’s lack of consistency regarding salvation, especially as the most prominent evangelist during his time, should at least sound an alarm of any discerning believer, his overt ecumenism certainly draws a dark cloud over his ministry as it demonstrates a lack of solidity in his handling of doctrine. With apparently little regard for Paul’s admonitions to Timothy and Titus concerning the importance of correcting false teaching and defending against those who spread it (cf. 1 Tim 6:1-4; Titus 1:7-9), Graham apparently did not mind turning recent converts from his crusades back over to the Roman Catholic Church. In 1952, Graham said, “Many of the people who reach a decision for Christ at our meetings have joined the Catholic Church and we have received commendations from Catholic publications for the revived interest in their Church following our campaigns.”[vi] In 1957, he said, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman, Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish.”[vii] From this time until the very end of Graham’s public crusades, he continued to openly work with Roman Catholics and hand over converts to them when apparent abandonment to any concern over doctrinal integrity.

By 2005, Graham demonstrated his positive view regarding the salvation of faithful Roman Catholics when responding in an interview with Larry King on the death of Pope John Paul II: “I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the Cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the Cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.”[viii]

On the surface, Graham remarks on the Pope may seem tolerable, but a closer look reveals serious error. First, Graham employs a postmodern slight of hand in his discussion of the Pope’s belief in the Lord, the Cross, and the Resurrection. Since the onset of the Reformation, various particulars regarding the Lord, the Cross, and the Resurrection have led to huge debate and even major persecutions (including martyrdom) of both Protestants and Catholics. The question is not, therefore, whether or not the Pope believed these three things; rather, the question is over the details of his beliefs regarding these things.

As the Pope and Head of the Roman Catholic Church, he would certainly not uphold sola scriptura because the Catholics believe the Church, its teachings, its councils, and even its pope (speaking ex cathedra) share the same level of authority with Scripture. Along with their rejection of Scripture being the sole authority, the Catholics also do not uphold the centerpiece of the Protestant Reformation—sola fide. Rather, they see one’s conversion to Christ as covering only sins committed up until that time. From that point forward, the convert’s sins will have to be covered by works and paid for in purgatory. Beyond this, converts can also commit mortal sins and thereby forfeit their salvation altogether. From these two differences alone (that of sola scriptura and sola fide) although there are many others, it should seem astounding that Billy Graham would speak so certainly of the Roman Pontiff’s eternal security if one assumes he holds to a traditional Protestant understanding of justification.

Overall, Graham’s lack of regard for doctrinal differences in his driving ambition to turn out massive crowds to his crusades seems to demonstrate that he, at the very least, ventured off course from the clear guidance of Paul. By allowing new converts to come underneath false teachers, he failed to correctly manage God’s sheep by preventing them from receiving sound instruction and moving onto maturity (Eph 4:25-32).

Assuming these converts were indeed true converts and therefore part of the church, he would be guilty of allowing “strange doctrine” to come into church (1 Timothy 1:3 NASB). By proxy, he failed to teach “good doctrine” (1 Tim 4:6 NASB), and this would preclude him from being able to sync up with Paul’s list of characteristics of elders/pastor/overseers (Titus 1:7-9; cf. Titus 2:1). By disregarding Paul’s instructions to Titus over the matter of doctrinal soundness being manifestly evident in both his speech and actions, Graham most certainly would be found lacking (Titus 2:7-8).

At this point, a faithful Christian should at least consider whether or not this so-called great evangelist is guilty of tickling the ears of his audience (cf. 2 Tim 4:3). While Graham seems to have accurately portrayed the gospel for the most part, the occasional slippages may be a sign of something being off. His lack of public apologies and attempts to properly clarify his poorly articulated utterances (assuming the positive) only add urgency to this present evaluation. Though the primacy he placed on evangelism may indeed be worthy of praise, it hardly excuses his apparent lack of fidelity toward converts won during his crusades. Given his public witness and the many souls who see his witness as the definition of what it means to be a Christ-follower, his ecumenism in regard to the Roman Catholic Church was most certainly a dereliction of duty as a supposedly faithful minster of the gospel. Even today, his heightened focus on evangelism and his corresponding denigration of the proper place of doctrine among Southern Baptists and others has at least contributed to a modern church filled with Christians who are at best immature and at worst completely deceived in regard to their salvation.

---

[i]Specifically, Paul is addressing the relationship between masters and slaves. The principle, however, is what I allude to in this article.

[ii]Billy Graham, McCall’s Magazine (1978). “I used to think that pagans in far-off countries were lost–were going to hell–if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God–through nature, for instance–and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying yes to God.” Interview of Billy Graham by David Frost, quoted in the Charlotte Observer (Fe. 16,1993). “And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know.”

[iii]Interview of Billy Graham by Robert Schuller, Hour of Power, “Say ‘Yes’ to Possibility Thinking,” #1426 (May 31, 1997).

[iv]Ibid.

[v]Interview of Billy Graham by Larry King, Larry King Live, Transcript (June 16,2005), available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/16/lkl.01.html.

[vi]Billy Graham, Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph (1952), quoted by David W. Cloud, Flirting with Rome: Evangelical Entanglement with Roman Catholicism, Way of Life Literature (1992).

[vii]Interview of Billy Graham, San Francisco News (Sept. 21, 1957).

[viii]CNN Larry King Live, A Look at Legacy of Pope John Paul II (April 2, 2005), available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/02/lkl.01.html.