by Steve | Mar 15, 2018 | In the News
By Elizabeth Glass Turner –
“What we are facing is a classic Evangelical Takeover. We are the Southern Baptist Church, 30 years later. Those behind the Evangelical takeover are well funded, well-organized, and have no interest in taking prisoners.”
Those who raise an eyebrow at reading this dire assertion over their morning coffee are not alone.
The writer of the blog “The Thoughtful Pastor” Dr. Christy Thomas continues in “NOW Is the Moment, UMC: Will You Stop the Evangelical Takeover?”
“Those adhering to this far more fundamentalist-type theology have infiltrated themselves into the life and the leadership of the UMC. Those funding and plotting this takeover are representatives of or leaders in strongly Evangelical movements and groups like Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and The Institute for Religion and Democracy.”
Good News celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, so how one argues that it is part of a covert initiative expanding a fresh plan for domination is difficult to defend. Evangelicals have long been part of the fabric of United Methodist congregational life, as have Progressives. There cannot be a takeover when widespread presence is easily established and documented over the course of multiple decades. In fact, there are fewer evangelicals in the United Methodist Church now than there were 30 years ago: many voted with their feet and joined other denominations.
Nor are evangelicals the only voice on issues of sexuality: a group is certainly well-funded and well-organized that travels to General Conference with pockets full of duct tape so that activists can be hog-tied and silenced as an embodied protest against the Book of Discipline and its statements on human sexuality.
Elizabeth Glass Turner
Stepping away from the conspiratorial tones that suggest infiltration and plotting at the level of Russian spies poisoning a former double agent in a quiet English town, let’s consider the simple assertion here. Evangelical theology and fundamentalist theology have long been conflated, often by pollsters and journalists who otherwise have earned my respect. Thomas conflates these when she summarizes several recent articles, concluding, “In the last week, the mainstream news has come out with article after article about the devastation that Evangelicalism has brought upon itself. Three things characterize the coming demise: its unholy marriage with politics, the racism and sexism that underlie their theological stances, and their astoundingly uncritical embrace of Donald Trump as the best possible person to represent them on national and worldwide stages.”
I have not shied away from leveling warranted critiques at what I broadly define as “evangelical,” having written about evangelicalism in North America several times over the past few years. No movement is perfect, and cracks have been showing in evangelicalism for some time. But even as I have called for intellectual honesty and accountability within evangelicalism, there remains that sticky problem: how to define it. And I certainly haven’t been alone.
There are a great many descriptions and definitions of the word “evangelical.” Three years ago in The Atlantic Jonathan Merritt wrote, “Divergent definitions have led to inconsistent, even contradictory survey results about evangelicals’ beliefs and characteristics. Reports based on these surveys can shape elections, public policies, and broader public opinion.” In fact, its use has been so disputed, some people have suggested jettisoning the word altogether because it can be used in so many ways as to be meaningless. Last fall, Scot McKnight suggested that it was time to Bury the Word “Evangelical”. In December, David French wrote It Might Be Time to Retire the Term Evangelical, commenting that, “as Keller notes, it used to clearly distinguish you from the fundamentalists. Now, sadly, it’s more likely to identify you as a fundamentalist.” A recent news story about evangelical leaders calling on the President for immigration reform illustrates how a word widely used or misused can create misunderstanding. People hear, “evangelicals elected the President,” yet there are clear, sharp distinctions among people broadly generalized as evangelicals.
If you hear a poll quoted about political activity of “evangelicals,” it’s worth asking: “but how did you define evangelical?” It’s used to characterize everything from hate groups like Westboro Baptist “Church” and its protests of military funerals with placards that say, “God hates f***,” to religious fundamentalists who may pin their faith to a literal six-day creation interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, to culturally “mainstream” evangelicals (think Bill Hybels and Willow Creek), to authors like recently newsmaking Jen Hatmaker.
Mischaracterization of a movement confuses honest attempts to analyze it clearly. And questions like, “do we want a mindless fundamentalist reading of Holy Scripture to be the centerpiece of the Methodist movement?” are certainly mischaracterizations. Fundamentalists don’t support women in ministry: there are many “evangelical” women clergymembers. Fundamentalists don’t consider theistic evolution: “evangelicals” aren’t anti-science but rather embrace a robust notion of faith and reason. Further, for Wesleyan Methodist “evangelicals” in particular, social justice is a natural part of sanctification: concerns about creation care, racial justice and racial reconciliation, #metoo, sex trafficking, immigration reform, and the benefits of globalization abound. “Evangelicals” took buses down to New Orleans for mission trips to help rebuild homes after Hurricane Katrina. “Evangelicals” crowdfund for strangers, stock food pantries, respond to wildfire victims, and volunteer with Meals on Wheels.
Those who have been most burned by toxic expressions of a particular theology or faith are usually the ones quickest to condemn the entirety wholesale. It is difficult not to be reactionary against the whole when specific experiences have been so painful. It is also, however, unfair. My own early experiences of negative aspects of conservative Protestant North American Christianity served as an unfortunate gauntlet for my faith later. (“Your dad is the pastor? Wait – your mom? Isn’t that unbiblical?” the tall adult stranger asked the eleven-year-old child.)
I’m also sympathetic to a great deal of underlying angst at the current political situation in North America. On a daily basis. While I have a great deal of respect for the late Rev. Billy Graham, some of Rev. Franklin Graham’s statements on what is acceptable behavior from a sitting President have left my mouth hanging open in astonishment. The overall tensions in the nation, from a blinding succession of headlines on White House shake-ups and investigations to mass shootings, have left everyone on edge. In times like these, many find that they love to hate “evangelicals,” the population that purportedly elected the current President. If only we could reduce it to such simplicity so easily.
Whatever one’s personal experience of a theology or faith, whatever level of breaking news fatigue one suffers from, the truth is that, far from building momentum for a sneak-attack takeover of an otherwise peaceful denomination, “evangelicalism” began fracturing in the 1970’s and 1980’s, as one of the articles above points out, when evangelicals began to align themselves for or against evangelical President Jimmy Carter. For several years – preceding the last presidential election – commentators have been wrestling with whether “evangelical” actually means anything anymore. There has been a great sifting, like someone tilting a shallow bowl back and forth, allowing silt to filter away to see what is left. Like the Wall Street housing bubble, the perception of congregational health over a couple of decades was a bubble – and the evangelical bubble has burst. Now, assets are being reviewed to see what is actually left that is of value.
Takeover might be remotely possible if evangelicalism was something definable, uniform, and narrow. As it is, no one can even agree on what it is – or was. It’s hard to predict dire consequences when the supposed threat has undergone vast changes in a relatively short time on the church history span of eras. This isn’t a defeatist surrender of what remains that is valuable: but we must acknowledge that North American Protestant Christianity has morphed, retracted, grown, and reconfigured significantly in the past 50 years – all branches of it. Which begs the question – what blind spots do Progressive Christians have that are contributing to their own bubble that will inevitably burst?
Elizabeth Glass Turner a writer and frequent contributor to Good News Magazine.
.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2018 | Front Page News, In the News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe –
Recently a progressive United Methodist pastor said to me, “I don’t understand why you can’t accept the local option. It lets pastors who want to marry gay couples do so. But it doesn’t compel people like you to perform such ceremonies. It allows annual conferences to ordain married homosexuals where that’s acceptable. But where the context is different – in the South, for example – you’re free not to. I don’t understand why you can’t live with that.”
I think that pastor got to the heart of the matter even though he didn’t realize it. And the heart of the matter is he doesn’t understand classical evangelicals. It has to be frustrating for progressives to come up with an approach they believe to be very reasonable and that allows everyone to do what they desire, only for us to find it unacceptable. After all, what could be more American than letting everyone “have it their way”?
What do progressives not get about us? For starters, we believe the Scriptures really are the word of God. When a pastor holds up a Bible in church and says, “The word of God for the people of God,” we don’t cross our fingers behind our backs, roll our eyes, or snicker when we respond, “Thanks be to God.” We honestly believe the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and, therefore, authoritative for our lives. We don’t think that we know more about salvation, sexuality, or the nature of God than the Bible does. We don’t believe we get to ignore or need to correct the parts of Scripture that a progressive culture finds hard to accept. Consequently, we cannot affirm any solution that allows pastors in the UM Church to teach or act contrary to what God has revealed in his written word. I know that progressive pastors who have been trained in liberal seminaries simply cannot comprehend that we would hold such a high view of Scripture. But that’s what we believe.
Progressives also do not comprehend how offensive it is for us to hear that all they want to do is provide a solution that “contextualizes” the Gospel. If all they meant by “contextualizing the Gospel” was thinking of creative ways to present Christ so that the Gospel spoke to people in different cultural settings, we’d be all for it. Missionaries attend months, if not years, of training to understand the culture they will be ministering in. How you present the Gospel to an atheistic philosophy professor in New England is much different from how you would share Christ with an uneducated, lower caste Hindu in India.
But when progressives talk about contextualizing the Gospel, they don’t mean presenting the same message in different ways. They mean changing the message to fit the values that culture holds dear. In the Bible Belt it’s still OK to teach traditional values because people there still accept marriage as one man and one woman. But in California, progressives tell us, to reach people you must have a liberalized sexual ethic, including the normalization of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Why? Because people on the West Coast will turn you off if you tell them differently.
What progressives do not understand is that we traditionalists do not have a utilitarian view of truth. We don’t think the truth is whatever works or whatever sells. We don’t see the church as a soft drink company that is trying to offer something for everyone. Proclaiming the Gospel is not like trying to find a flavor that people will buy and decide that if it becomes popular enough, we’ll start selling it. Paul wrote, “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us” (2 Corinthians 2.17). Progressives, true progressives, believe that people are free to create their own truth and whatever works for a person is true for that person. It’s hard for liberals to understand, but it is hurtful for us to see the Gospel treated as something so cheap. It is offensive for us to hear pastors and bishops present the truth of God’s word as a lump of clay that we can fashion into our own image or into the likeness of a fallen and sinful culture. Our job as Paul tells us is not to make the Gospel palatable, but plain.
Progressives also don’t understand how we see the work of the Holy Spirit. A resolution that is coming before my annual conference this May calls upon the church to change our sexual ethic because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Evidently, they believe, the Holy Spirit is now revealing that same-gender sexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable in God’s sight. Of course, the sponsors of the resolution do not give a single reason to believe this is what the Spirit is doing. They simply state it as a fact.
What they don’t understand is that we will never be persuaded that “the new thing” the Spirit is doing is repealing the written word of God. The Spirit illumines our understanding of God and his will. The Spirit enables us to see in new ways the wonder of what God has done and what he has revealed – and even how these truths apply to our particular settings. But the Spirit never contradicts what the Scriptures teach because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Has God changed his mind, received more light along the way, or become more progressive as the ages have passed? If not, then how can the same God now be revealing a sexual ethic that contradicts what he has previously stated to be his will?
I get that progressives just don’t get us. We believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired word of God. They don’t. We believe the truth is what it is, not what we make it into. They don’t. We believe that what the Spirit reveals will always be true to the Scriptures. They don’t. We are coming from such different places that I understand it’s difficult for liberals to comprehend how we think.
But what progressives and centrists need to get is this: we will not be able to stay in a church that denies the full inspiration, truth, and authority of the Scriptures. And that’s really what’s behind “the local option.”
That’s why traditional evangelicals continue to press for a faithful church with a sexual ethic that is true to Scripture. Either the UM Church remains committed to God’s word or the UM Church will split. Progressives don’t have to “get” that, but they do need to believe it.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the co-author with Walter Fenton of the new book titled Are We Really Better Together – An Evangelical Perspective on the Division within the UMC. This book describes just how deep the division is within the United Methodist Church, provides a critique of the various plans the bishops are considering, and gives answers to the most common reasons people give for liberalizing our sexual ethics.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Students from Wesley Divinity Seminary, Wesleyan University, flash smiles and signs of affirmation during a march and rally in Quezon City, Philippines. Photo by SJ Earl Canlas and Jimuel Mari.
By Thomas Lambrecht-
Over the last several weeks of Perspective, I have been surveying the growth and decline of United Methodism around the globe. The statistical report is available here. The big picture is that most of Methodism around the globe is in decline, with the exception of certain regions in Africa. In Part 1, I went into more detail about Africa. Two weeks ago, I surveyed the situation in the United States.
Rounding out our big picture look at the denomination, our attention turns to Europe and Asia. Observers of membership statistics will notice a dramatic dip in the Philippines from 216,300 in 2015 to 140,235 in 2016. That represents more than one-third drop in membership.
According to sources in the Philippines, the difference does not reflect a sudden one-year decline in membership but is due in part to more rigorous attention to accuracy that began several years ago (not solely due to the change in reporting requirements instituted by the 2016 General Conference).
As it stands, the current membership of United Methodism in The Philippines is roughly equivalent to the size of the Illinois Great Rivers Annual Conference or Upper New York or Alabama-West Florida.
There are three episcopal areas within the Philippines Central Conference. The northern area (Baguio) consists of nine annual conferences averaging 7,200 members each, ranging in size from 2,800 to 16,750 members. This area lost 14,750 members or 20 percent of its membership. The central area (Manila) consists of 12 annual conferences averaging 5,600 members each and ranging from 966 to 14,800 members. This area lost 65,600 members or 50 percent of its membership. The southern area (Davao) consists of five annual conferences averaging 2,575 members each and ranging from 1,260 to 4,560 members. This area gained over 1,200 members for a growth of nearly 11 percent. This growth came despite being in an area beset by a violent Islamic insurgency (Mindanao).
Paradoxically, even with this loss of membership, the Philippines will gain delegates in the 2020 General Conference. They added a new annual conference for 2016 and another one in 2020, so they have gone from 48 delegates in 2012 to 52 in 2020. (Each of the 26 annual conferences is entitled to a minimum of two delegates to General Conference.) The Philippines has considered breaking off from The United Methodist Church in the past and becoming an autonomous Methodist church (similar to the Methodist churches in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and other parts of Latin America). Their future course of action will depend upon the outcome of the 2019 General Conference.
The most exciting development in Asia is the growth of mission work in Southeast Asia, currently under the supervision of the Bishop of Texas, Scott Jones. These areas have not yet formed into annual conferences, but are moving toward that point over the next several years. There are over 300 churches in Vietnam, 100 in Laos, and over 150 in Cambodia. They face obstacles in working with the government, hostility to foreigners, and in some cases even religious persecution. But these areas are growing, and most will seek to maintain a relationship with The United Methodist Church.
The Rev. Christhard Elle leads an outdoor worship service in northern Germany. Photo courtesy of World Methodist Council.
The three European regions lost about 5,500 members, or 9.3 percent of their membership. All the European and Central Asian annual conferences are tiny. The Germany episcopal area is the oldest and largest of the three European areas. It has three annual conferences ranging from 6,400 to 15,500 members. The Germany annual conferences lost 2,000 members or 6 percent of their membership. The Central and Southern Europe area has seven annual conferences, four of which are provisional and not fully able to stand on their own. They range in membership from 468 to 6,763 members, with the largest being Switzerland-France-North Africa. This area lost 2,200 members or over 14 percent of their membership. The Northern Europe and Eurasia area has ten annual conferences, five of which are provisional. They range in number from 174 to 4,237 members, with the largest being Norway. This area lost 1,300 members or 12 percent of their membership.
It is important to remember that the European and Central Asian annual conferences are subject to adverse political conditions, ranging from the armed conflict in Ukraine to religious repression in Russia and Muslim countries. The churches and conferences there are very fragile, and they are likely to be affected more severely by whatever course of action is adopted by the 2019 General Conference. They experience theological differences between more conservative areas and more liberal areas, but have been able to continue working together because of their small size and need for each other. This dynamic could change, depending upon the outcome of the 2019 General Conference.
All of the parts of the UM Church outside the U.S. are striving to become more financially self-supporting. Some parts of Europe and the Philippines have contributed to the global work of the church for many years. Other parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa are just beginning to make those contributions. Many have helped to support their own bishop and annual conference expenses, while not being fully self-sufficient. Their desire is to move in that direction, which led to the 2016 General Conference assigning apportionments to the churches outside the U.S. for the first time, based on a formula that takes into account economic conditions and membership.
The move toward self-support is not an attempt to marginalize United Methodists outside the U.S. (as I have heard some people worry). Instead, it is a desire to build their capacity, so that they can fully support the work of their churches and extend that work in their own countries and around the world.
One of the gifts for me to be a member of the Commission on a Way Forward has been to learn from members from other countries and to learn about their challenges and victories. The United Methodist Church is the only mainline Protestant denomination that is a truly global church, having members who serve equally from more than 50 countries in the world. I believe that can be a real strength of our church and help us to broaden our understanding of the Christian faith. Our brothers and sisters can teach us ways to grow our faith and our churches in an adverse environment (which many of them are experiencing). Awareness of our global Methodism can strengthen our church and give us a foretaste of heaven, where there will be “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9).
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is also a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
by Steve | Mar 5, 2018 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
By Thomas Lambrecht-
Social media is all abuzz in the aftermath of the Council of Bishops meeting that ended Wednesday. The special four-day meeting was called to enable further discussion of the Commission on a Way Forward report – updating and refining two of the three options it had previously presented to the bishops. In a press release [link] and news story [link], we learned further details about the way forward the bishops are envisioning.
This meeting marked the most extensive and frank discussions the bishops have ever had on the issue of the church’s ministry to and with LGBT persons. It is disturbing that such discussions really did not begin until the church was on the brink of separation in 2016. It is good that these conversations are finally taking place.
The two options currently under consideration by the bishops are:
* A One Church Contextual model that is a repackaging of the local option. Under this plan, the language around marriage and homosexuality would be removed from the Book of Discipline. Each annual conference would be able to decide whether to ordain self-avowed practicing homosexuals as clergy. Each pastor would be able to decide whether to perform same-sex weddings or unions. Each local church would be able to decide whether to allow same-sex weddings in its sanctuary and whether to receive an openly gay pastor. Those who could not in good conscience participate in same-sex weddings or ordination would not be required to do so. Congregations that could not continue in the UM Church under this new situation would be able to exit the denomination with their property under terms not yet spelled out.
* Multi-Branch in One Church model that envisions the creation of three new branches based on theology, one progressive, one traditional, and one following the local option approach. These branches would replace the current five geographical jurisdictions and would each cover the entire United States. The current central conferences outside the U.S. could form their own branches or could join one of the three theological branches. The traditional branch would maintain the current stance prohibiting same-sex weddings and ordination, with robust accountability within that branch. Other branches could modify or remove the language prohibiting same-sex weddings and ordination in their branches. All the branches would share a few common services and agencies, and there would still be one Council of Bishops. Each annual conference would decide which branch to belong to, and only those local churches that disagreed with their annual conference’s choice would need to vote to join a different branch. Congregations that could not continue in the UM Church under this new situation would be able to exit the denomination with their property under terms not yet spelled out.
This means that the bishops are no longer considering the possible model that would have kept the language on marriage and homosexuality in the Discipline the same, with enhanced accountability to ensure that bishops and annual conferences live by the Discipline. Under this sketch, annual conferences and local churches that could not live by the current Discipline would be encouraged to exit the denomination under generous terms.
It is not surprising that the accountability model is not being considered, since more than half of the bishops favor changing the Book of Discipline’s position to allow same-sex weddings and ordination. For the bishops, the accountability model is too much like separation, and their overriding value is unity.
For the same reasons, it is not surprising that the rhetoric coming from the Council president and other bishops is weighted toward the One Church Contextual model. This fits the desire of many bishops to change the Discipline and still stay together in one church. They cannot comprehend that many evangelicals could not continue in a denomination that condones what the Bible calls sinful behavior. And they believe that somehow the local option plan can pass the special General Conference, even though it failed in the past three General Conferences.
So what does all of this mean for the way forward for our church? The short answer is: not much. Regardless of what plan or plans the bishops put forward, other plans will be on the table to be considered at the special 2019 General Conference in St. Louis. It is not the bishops who will decide the way forward, but the General Conference delegates. A plan for keeping the Discipline the same with enhanced accountability, or a plan incorporating those features, is likely to be put forward despite the bishops’ disapproval. The Council of Bishops has a fairly low influence on U.S. delegates, due to the high level of distrust for the Council, despite the individual regard some delegates have for their own bishop. It is highly unlikely that evangelical delegates in Africa, the Philippines, and Eurasia will vote to change the position of our church, even if it is said that such a change would not affect them.
From my perspective, it is not time for traditional evangelicals to bail out of the United Methodist Church. Nothing has been decided, and the power remains in the hands of the General Conference delegates. We had hoped that the Council of Bishops would present a plan that evangelicals could support. It now looks more likely that will not happen. But for 50 years evangelicals have operated at a disadvantage, and the Lord has enabled our biblically based position that welcomes and loves LGBT persons while teaching against sinful behavior to prevail. We expect that to continue. And if not, we believe that Jesus Christ is still on the throne, and he will guide us into a way in which we can remain faithful. What he asks of us is to stand strongly on his Word and remain faithful.
Please continue to pray for the bishops, the Commission on a Way Forward, and for Good News and the other renewal groups, as we all seek to discern the faithful way forward for our church.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News. He is also a member of the Commission on a Way Forward.
by Steve | Feb 28, 2018 | In the News
In the interest of accuracy, Good News wishes to briefly respond to a false allegation by retired Bishop William Lewis against our ministry in a story filed by Cynthia Astle on her website UM-Insight. The February 27 story includes the following unsubstantiated claim: “The WCA and Good News are being funded by the IRD, which is funded by right-wing billionaires like Scaife, the Kochs and Ahmanson,” Bishop Lewis said. (The WCA stands for the Wesleyan Covenant Association and the IRD stands for the Institute on Religion and Democracy. As for Lewis, he retired as a bishop from the Dakotas 22 years ago.)
In the 50 years of its ministry, Good News has been voluntarily funded by mainstream clergy and lay people in the pews who hold to a classical evangelical and traditional vision of United Methodism. Bishop Lewis falsely claimed that we have received funding from our colleagues at the IRD. We have not. Nor have we ever received funds from any of the billionaire foundations Lewis mentions. A simple inquiry to fact-check would have insured that this false allegation and unsubstantiated reporting never took place
By way of clarity, Good News has been a charter member of the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability (ECFA), an agency that provides accreditation for Christian nonprofits for compliance with established standards for financial accountability, fundraising, and board governance.
The goals and vision of our ministry have never been secret. Good News has faithfully participated in every denomination-wide dialogue on the issues facing The United Methodist Church. Our perspectives, opinions, and alliances have always been matters of public record.
###
by Steve | Feb 27, 2018 | In the News
The Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, 1966. Photo by Warren K. Leffler.
By C. Chappell Temple –
As he sat in the front across from us, you would never have known he was in pain. For he not only took the time to answer all of our questions, he had questions for us as well, wanting to know how we were doing in the school which he had helped to start. And then, after sharing a quiet but fervent prayer, “in Jesus’ name,” of course, he quietly went out, got into an ambulance, and was taken to the hospital for a severe bout of phlebitis, never having said a word about his own discomfort to anyone. For it was never about him, just the One whom he so ably represented.
He was well known, of course, for speaking to far larger crowds than those of us in a seminary lecture hall. Likewise, he gave counsel to presidents and prime ministers, queens and countless celebrities, preaching to some 200 million folks around the globe across his long career. Some called him the Protestant Pope and others said he was “America’s Pastor” but he was clearly a gift to the entire world. We called him “Dr. Graham,” but he just introduced himself as “Billy,” for though he may have been a spiritual father to many, he made it clear that he was simply our brother in Christ.
When news of his passing came today, thus, I found myself– like millions — feeling the genuine loss of a man who not only modeled ministry to me, but helped to form my own understanding of what it means to be a Christian man. For through it all, his message never really changed, focused on the sinfulness of man, the necessity of conversion, and the anticipated wonders of heaven for all who believe in Christ one day.
Likewise, Dr. Graham himself changed very little, despite reaching the vaulted age of 99. He never made any plans for retirement, though he conceded that God might have done so for him. And he slowed down only when his infirmities compelled him to do so. Parkinson’s Disease, along with the death of his beloved wife of 64 years, Ruth, made the last decade of his life a quieter one, however, and for the last several years, he spent most of his days at his North Carolina home.
But his legacy lives on, not simply in their five children (all of whom are in Christian ministry) and 19 grandchildren, but in the literally millions who came to faith after listening to “the young man with a burning message,” as he earlier was called. And the lessons he taught us in his visits to Gordon-Conwell Seminary live on in my life as well.
- Watch your money and your morals, for instance. For Dr. Graham not only established a board that could pay him a modest salary and hold him accountable, rather than become rich himself from the many crusades he held, but he rather famously took care never to put himself into what could become a compromising position.
- Speak truth to power and don’t be seduced by success. Despite his southern upbringing, Dr. Graham insisted that all of his early crusades be fully integrated, and when Martin Luther King was once put in jail, it was Billy Graham who bailed him out. Similarly, during the apartheid era, Dr. Graham refused to visit South Africa until its government allowed integrated seating for audiences. And when Jerry Falwell invited him to join the Moral Majority in 1979, Dr. Graham declined, suggesting that preachers have to stand in the middle to speak to all people, right and left. (He also acknowledged that he had not been as careful to do that at a few points in his life, particularly with one president, and he regretted his missteps.)
- And never minimize what God can do both in and through your life. Dr. Graham often spoke at the triennial Intervarsity student missions conference in Urbana, Illinois, where he challenged the thousands in attendance to commit to following Jesus wherever He might take them. And listening to him there one year his message was just the same as in that seminary room. For he quoted a six-word phrase that had been written in the Bible of William Borden, an heir to the dairy fortune who died in Egypt in 1913 on his way to China to serve in the mission field there: “no reserves, no retreat, no regrets.”
Heaven is a sweeter place today because of the homecoming of a remarkable man whose life demonstrated the power of those words. My life is better as well because of the work he did and the witness he made. And one day, I’ll get to shake his hand once more, assuming I can make my way through the crowd in heaven of all those who are there because of him.
Well done, sir, well done indeed. You will be missed by many.
C. Chappell Temple is lead pastor of Christ United Methodist Church in Sugar Land, Texas, a southwestern suburb of Houston. He holds degrees from SMU, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Rice University, and is an adjunct faculty member in the Houston program of Perkins School of Theology, teaching United Methodist history, doctrine, and polity. Reprinted by permission. The original post is found HERE.
