November 18, 2004

I really agree with your first paragraph. I've been involved in college ministry a bit, and there are always "Christian" groups that want to work together to try and make a bigger impact. From what I've seen, this can work well to some extent, but once it becomes too broad, things quickly end up sinking to what I've heard called "lowest common denominator". You can't talk about any doctrine because someone may be offended, since you don't agree on anything -- so teaching can end up just being a bunch of stories. It's not far from that to total neglect of the Bible.

That's true David. Many of these groups work exceedingly hard to build a coalition. But, once it's built, everyone is walking on eggshells so as not to offend, lest the whole structure comes tumbling down.

Interestingly, the seeker-senstive churches are a by-product of this ecumenism. More recently the so-called emergent church has emerged. I believe these are a direct result of efforts at unity rather than standing firm on the basics of Christianity.

You might check out Challies dot com for a great article on the emerging church

I believe just like Billy Graham, as a matter of fact, I'm a graduate of Wheaton College, and have already fought this battle 50 years ago when John R. Rice and Bob Jones tried to discredit Billy Graham. I think the word 'fundamentalism' is a bad word, not because of Islam, but because of people like yourself who refuse to admit that the gentile sinners have any place in the Kingdom of God.

Unfortunately, we cannot all be as 'enlightend' as you are, and I'm glad for that.
Perhaps you would do good to listen to the Lord Jesus, as he anticipated your view, and warned so clearly about judging another man's servant.
(Romans 14:4), or again, one who 'is all things to all men, that in any way may win some' (I Cor 9:22).

I remember visiting Northwestern college in Minneapolis, and viewing some of their relics, from the days of Dr. Ridout, who led the way to preserve 'fundamentalism', where Billy Graham was the President of that school for awhile. He knew full well what he was doing, and how he would be judged by some, but he did it anyway, and God empowered him in a most dramatic way. I would never sit in judgement of Billy Graham, in some misguided desire to be a 'fundamentalist'. Its far too much like the Scribes and Pharisees of
Jesus' day, for whom He had his most vitrolic rebukes.

I pray you, Brad, walk softly in this path. I just read this morning in I Tim 5:1, "rebuke not an older man (elder), but intreat him as a father'. I'm older myself, so maybe I can sympathize more, but it makes me weep to hear you lay the charge to B.G. for the 'decline' of Fundamentalism, as thothat were true, or even desirable.

I'm sad to hear that you believe just like Billy Graham. The Lord did call us to make judgements (See Matthew 18). Paul called for us to "put sinners out of the church". John told us not to associate with those who distort doctrine. Dr. Graham has consistently rejected Truth for the sake of Evangelism. Evangelism is a good thing, obviously. But, to what do you win someone to if your campaigns and crusade are comprised of unbelievers?

I'm sad that Dr. Graham has gone down this path. Do you believe that people can get to Heaven some other way than through Jesus Christ? Graham does. He said so in a an interview with Robert Schuller. Do you believe that it's ok to have an Evangelization conference comprised of groups who believe in evangelizing people to Allah, and Buddha?

For what 'sin' are you excumunicating B.G?? The list Paul gives is very clear.
Out of thine own mouth will I judge you, brother. Quoting from the chapter you gave me, Matthew 18, it says clearly, 'So my heavenly Father also will
do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses (Mat 18:35). That doesn't sound like what you're doing, but
you're setting yourself up as BG's judge, and who has made YOU that???
You're a 'self-made' judge, my friend, and that's a dangerous place to be. You didn't give me a reference in John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. I've translated the works of John from the original language, and would never quote John as one who would be against BG. Amazing how you can do that!!
Please give me the reference as to where you get such an indictment. Be prepared to PROVE all of your allegations, Brad, don't try to snow me,
because you can't. I'm two or three times your age, and have been fighting this fight for decades.
Maybe since I'm off your list, you won't bother. I do wish however, that I had your list! It sounds like you're poisoning the minds of a lot of people. 'but to what do you win someone if your campaigns are comprised of unbelivers??" I can't believe you said that! Its the SICK that need a Doctor! Why would you preach the gospel to BELIEVERS??????
Amazing! I would question your own salvation if I were you, with such a self-righteous spirit, but that's not for me to say.
John, whom you quoted makes clear, 'if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' Thats what you sound like
you're doing to me.
Let him that hath no sin, cast the first stone. You're sure casting stones, so you must have no sin. Very serious.

Thanks for your input. Obviously, you have some misguided ideas about Christ, Paul and John (and Billy Graham for that matter).
The principle found in Matthew 18 is simple. If someone is sinning, remains unrepentent and continues to indulge in that sin, we must make judgments. That person must be dealt with. It's not being judgmental when the Lord commands that we judge. This is the principle at work in Paul's statement that I quoted earlier. It is also pretty naive to suggest that the only sins someone could be excommunicated for are the ones Paul listed. In Ephesians, he said "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (5:11). Again, in II Timothy 3:5 it says that we are to "turn away" from those who propogate false doctrine. Many of the leaders and participants in Graham's crusades are producing works of darkness. They are "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (II Cor. 11:13). They are to be rebuked and shunned, not lauded and embraced as Graham has done. Here is but one of many examples:
Graham's crusades are supposed to be an evangelization outreach program to win people to the Lord Jesus Christ. In 1957, at his New York crusade, he put out a statement saying that "the sponsoring committee are godly men who are seeking to reach the....population with the testimony of the risen Christ". However, one of these "godly men" on the sponsoring committee was James Sutherland Bonnell. Bonnell wrote in Look magazine that he didn't believe in many of the gospel doctrines, including the bodily resurrection of Christ. How can men promote the "testimony of a risen Christ" when they don't even believe in a risen Christ? Can you imagine Paul placing a man like that on one of his mission teams???

I didn't give you a reference in John because I couldn't pinpoint it at the moment. I actually was thinking of I John, but I still can't find the passage I was thinking of. So, please forgive me for speaking too soon. However, I will take exception to your statement about not quoting John as one who would be against BG. Many passages of I John clearly sets BG at odds with the beloved disciple. (By the way, John explicitly commands that we test the spirits to see whether they are from God or the devil. That is to judge). A key component of the ecumenism is to disregard doctrine in the name of unity and "love". Graham, and those of his following, overlook doctrinal error and embrace almost everyone who claims to be a christian. I submit that it is wrong to disobey scripture on the plea that we are displaying God's love. Allowing people into key leadership positions in Graham's crusades is exactly that, which is proof of a lack of love for God. First John repeatedly reminds us that "If you love me, you will keep my commandments (14:15). "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (14:21). If a man love me, he will keep my words" (14:23). These passages, along with Eph. 5:11 above, show that even Graham's love for God is suspect.

I said, "but to what do you win someone to if your campaigns and crusades are comprised of unbelievers?" Let me explain. When someone who claims to be a Christian shares the stage with a Catholic, a Muslim, a Buddhist and someone who denies the deity and resurrection of Christ, to what are you calling the people you are trying to evangelize? Christ? Mary? Allah? Buddha? Atheism or self? I think you get the point. It's futile. Ecumenism doesn't work. I agree that it's the sick who need a doctor, but as Christians we need to be united in who the Doctor is! Graham blurs the lines. Plus, one of the rules of the Graham crusades is this: When someone comes down to recieve Christ, he is counseled to go back to his church. That is amazing. How can someone in good conscience point someone to Christ (or whoever) and then send them back to an apostate church? That's like helping someone climb to the top of ladder and then pushing it over. Are you comfortable sending someone back to a liberal church that doesn't even believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven?

Sometimes you can learn as much about something from those who criticize it as from those who praise it. After reading these posts, I believe I will buy this book!

I have read stuff by Pickering, though I have not read all of The Tragedy of Compromise. Because Pickering is clear on the gospel when many evangelicals aren't, I agree with much of what he says. I agree with his assessment various ministries and people (i.e., Billy Graham).

However, I don't believe he is clear on how to apply passages on church discipline. It seems as though he tries to get people to do what amounts to "disciplining" people outside their church. He likes Second Thessalonians 3 a lot. I do too. :) However, though Paul is giving instructions to people in a local church, Pickering acts as though he is giving instructions to the universal church. It makes sense to treat someone like an unbeliever when a person in your local church is disobedient after 2 previous warnings. It doesn't makes sense to treat Billy Graham like an unbeliever after 2 previous warnings if he isn't in your local church to begin with. For one thing, you can't even "treat" him like anything since you have no contact with him - it certainly isn't hard to stop all fellowship with him. :) Also, if you are in some way able to treat Graham like an unbeliever, is it reasonable to think of that as "discipline." What's painful about that? I'm sure Billy Graham is not considering it painful to have Ernest Pickering treating him like an unbeliever. I guess I'll add one more thing. :) How do you put Graham out of the church? His local church could do that, but can the universal church even try to do it?

So, I don't agree with Pickerings "secondary separation," but I like the fact that he helps people see the difference between the whole gospel and the partial gospel so that others don't end up being like Billy Graham.