As 1999 wound down, the Associated Press’ Religion Writer, Richard N. Ostling, interviewed Billy Graham for his perspective of the 20th century. The article was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on December 17th, under the title “Billy Graham: Everything Changed in Century, Except Humanity” (all quotations are from page 5A). The headline could have easily have read: “Billy Graham Bows to the Spirit of the Age.”
After several paragraphs of astute observations (“man’s heart has not changed” and “God has not changed”), the well-known religious figure threw away everything the Bible stands for by praising the spirit of compromise. Graham is no stranger to compromise; he has kept baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) out of his “preaching” for years in order to maintain his popularity. Just consider the significance (not to mention the effect) of that decision: When Peter was asked by those on the day of Pentecost what they should do, the inspired apostle answered, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). In all of the years of his “preaching,” how many times has Graham mentioned that verse, or quoted it beyond the first word? If he ever did preach on that text, his purpose would be to try to explain away its obvious meaning.
Why does he not include the message presented in the Scriptures? He waters down the gospel (actually, he drains the water out of it) because people are much more likely to want salvation if it can remain a mental decision rather than an observable response.
After lauding the “ecumenical movement,” Graham selected Pope John Paul II as his man of the century:
He “has brought the greatest impact of any pope in the last 200 years,” Graham thinks. “I admire his courage, determination, intellectual abilities and his understanding of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox differences, and the attempt at some form of reconciliation.”
What? Pardon us for stating the obvious, but there is no such office as the papacy delineated in the Scriptures. The pope claims to be the head of the church; he claims to be Christ’s representative here on earth. “Protestants,” not to mention Christians, deny both the title and the office created by men. Exactly what kind of reconciliation can there be between those who accept the pope as their spiritual leader and those who emphatically reject that concept? When Truth finds itself compatible with error, it is Truth no longer. When God’s people start admiring the craftsmanship of the golden calf, instead of being outraged by its very existence (in violation of the commandments of God), it will not be long before they want a replica of one for the mantle above their fireplace.
If the pope wants to bring about some sort of reconciliation between religious people, he should begin by announcing that there is no Biblical authority for the office he holds, that tradition is not equal to the inspired Word of God, that all Christians are priests and that therefore there is no need for a separate priesthood, that Mary has been exalted too highly, and that the Bible never mentions “the rosary.”
After he shocks the world with those statements, he could turn to Protestants and say, “You know, you folks don’t have it right, either. You have depended on grace so heavily that you have eliminated from salvation baptism (which is the working of God–Col. 2:12) and good works, in which Christians were appointed to walk (Eph. 2:10).” One can almost see Graham’s mouth pop open while he sputters, in search of a coherent thought.
Graham’s ecumenical spirit is further seen in his praise for the Jews:
Another huge change is improved relations between Christians and Jews. “We have grown. The two don’t see the vast differences and hold the prejudices they did. People have friends across all kinds of lines.”
Is there a point here somewhere? We have friends that are atheists, also. Having Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, or atheistic friends does not does not make them spiritually acceptable to God. This sort of statement implies that we must be openly hostile to everyone we disagree with, in which case it would be fairly difficult to get along with our neighbors or even hold a job.
There will always be a vast difference between Jews and Christians. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Peter affirmed (before the high priest of the Jews): “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).
Paul wrote the following concerning his fellow Jews who rejected Christ:
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things of your countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2:14-16).
What would Billy Graham think of someone who would make such a strong statement? Would he affirm that Paul was prejudiced against the Jews? Would he rebuke Paul for focusing too much on their “vast differences”? Did Paul not love the Jews? If not, why did he always preach to them first?
Both Jesus and Paul spoke the truth whether it fit the multi-cultural thinking of the first century or not. They did not elevate popularity, public opinion polls, the news media, or the Roman government above truth. Spiritual truth, the gospel, needs to be publicly proclaimed regardless of who is offended by it or what the adverse response is (stoning, beheading, crucifixion).
Imagine a reporter interviewing Demas at the end of the first century and the following interview being published. After a discussion of the changes that had occurred since the establishment of the church, the reporter asks if Demas had not once worked with Paul.
Demas: Yes, but I just had to quit working with him. Paul was a great evangelist, but he was too legalistic. Well, you have read some of his letters; he was always naming names, telling everyone who would listen about those who opposed him or who failed to measure up to his standards. I was even berated in one epistle.
Reporter: Do you think the church is more tolerant now than in those days?
Demas: Yes, we have made a lot of progress. I really admire Diotrephes. He has shown great courage, determination, and intellectual ability. He has been able to understand the differences between his followers, those of the Judaizing teachers, and the Nicolaitans as well. No one has worked more tirelessly at achieving Christian unity than Diotrephes.
Reporter: Wasn’t he the moving force behind the Christian Scholars Conference in Ephesus earlier this year?
Demas: Yes, John was a stumbling block to such an event, although some had wanted this meeting for years. His passing two years ago has ushered in a new era of tolerance. Diotrephes was able to schedule the son of Demetrius the silversmith as one of the speakers. We have grown. We and the idolaters don’t see the vast differences and hold the same prejudices we once did. People have friends across all kinds of lines.
Reporter: Do you think that the emperor will relax his persecution of Christians in the near future?
Demas: The great emperor Trajan has never bothered us. We understand that offering a pinch of incense and saying, “Caesar is Lord” is just a formality–actually an expression of patriotism. We are always willing to comply with our government–especially when the economy is this good.
Reporter: How do you account for the deaths of so many Christians that we have occasionally reported?
Demas: Those are the fanatics who still follow the teaching of Paul and John, who steadfastly refuse to compromise or show any flexibility. We feel sorry for them, of course; they will probably die out soon. We think it’s better to adapt to society. We practice this philosophy even in our doctrine. Recently, some professors at Aegean Sea University have questioned the “virgin birth” doctrine, and whether baptism is “for” or “because of” the remission of sins. We really want to “get along” with others. We have such a sweet spirit; it should last another 2,000 years, at least.