Proto-Protestantism: The PBS Documentary on Billy Graham

20 June 2021

The PBS Documentary on Billy Graham

I was at first a little surprised to see that PBS-American Experience had produced a documentary on Billy Graham. In other respects it wasn't all that surprising as he was a significant figure in twentieth century American life – certainly a household name to anyone over forty or so. I certainly grew up with Billy Graham and thus was eager to see it.

Christian reviews attacked the PBS documentary for being liberal in its perspective. I knew better. In reality the film was far too kind and its criticisms were largely muted. American Experience films and other PBS documentaries produced by figures like Ken Burns are well made but Establishment safe. Like the historical works of men like David McCullough, they only go so far and while interesting are of limited value.

The film barely touched on the monetary aspects of Graham's ministry and the real influence of oil money in the rise of the Evangelical movement. William Randolph Hearst was mentioned in connection to the 1949 Los Angeles Crusade but the documentary failed to contextualise Hearst, his influence and political role. For those unfamiliar with these factors they would have failed to appreciate just what his backing meant and why activist media moguls like Hearst and men like oil magnates would want to support him. I realise this might go a bit beyond the scope of the already compressed documentary but it's an important point. Graham became famous almost overnight and it allowed him tremendous access to the corridors of power. In fact his position was such that later presidents and politicians didn't dare ignore him.

Ironically it was Harry Truman, a morally dubious man possessing little in the way of character or wisdom who actually had Graham pegged for what he was – an opportunist and a phony. It was probably his brightest moment and yet perhaps it also demonstrates that in the shady world Truman came from – he had seen that type before.*

The film never gave voice to any kind of criticism of Graham on the basis of his theology or lack thereof for that matter. It briefly mentioned the 1957 break in which leading Fundamentalists and Graham went separate ways but never properly explained why or what was happening – how Graham was already embracing ecumenical thinking and it was playing out in his theology and altar call/invitation methodology. A mention of that heritage and the connection to other American 'Evangelists' such as Billy Sunday and DL Moody might have been helpful or at the very least was warranted. In many respects Graham echoed and emulated these men and in terms of fame and influence – surpassed them both.

I wasn't surprised by the film's failures on these points. Many Christians struggle to understand the break between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and this is further complicated by the fact that after the 1980's Evangelicals have engaged in significant revisionist history regarding their own movement.**

The myth is still perpetuated that American Evangelicals stayed out of politics until the rise of the Moral Majority in the late 1970's. It just isn't true. The significance of the Falwell movement was that it unified the Christian (and growing Evangelical) vote in the Republican Party and thus played a significant role in the shift of the Old Democratic South, the party of Jim Crow and Segregation into the GOP. It was like a Christian microcosm of the very Southern Strategy pursued by Nixon in the wake of LBJ's civil rights legislation and the Great Society.

Additionally, what marked Falwell's movement as different from previous incarnations of Evangelical politicking was that it was very programmatic, comprehensive, and agenda driven. Christian politicking had been previously less unified and specific in its goals. But by the 1970's the culture was reeling from the 1960's, Vietnam, Watergate and especially Civil Rights. These collective traumas induced a reaction, driving Southerners into the Republican Party – especially after one last chance was given to the Democrats in the form of Jimmy Carter. His failures (and perceived failures) set the stage for a massive propaganda campaign that resulted in heavy support for Ronald Reagan.

His candidacy was itself revolutionary in Christian terms. The former Democrat had signed libertarian-style legislation on divorce and abortion in California, and was Hollywood actor and divorced to boot. The older generation of Fundamentalists undoubtedly turned over in their graves as their children pulled the lever in 1980.***

Growing up it was always explained to me that while Billy Graham wasn't the deepest in terms of doctrine he was worthy of respect because he preached a simple gospel message. Only later did I realise that this was actually key to Graham's programme. His message was just as much one of civic theology – the proverbial pronoun confusion regarding the Church and America as 'us', 'we', and 'our', seamlessly spoken of in a confused and doctrinally chaotic (and frankly heretical) manner. The gospel and Christianity were more or less equated with America or being a 'good' American.

Doctrinal preaching would generate division, something Graham did not want. He sought a kind of broad and loosely-defined Christianity and as time would reveal a Christianity that wasn't even exclusive in its claims. It began as a type Judeo-Christianity as he happily worked with and aided both the Jewish synagogue and the Roman Catholic Church. If this confusion of 'Westernism' wasn't bad enough by the late 1970's and early 1980's he had abandoned the exclusive claims of the gospel and of salvation found in Christ alone. His semi-Pelagian theology and evangelism style would shift over to something far closer to pure Pelagianism, able to save righteous pagans and the like.

The film rightly charted the nature of the first phase of the Evangelical Culture War which was spearheaded by Graham until the 1970's. After this and in the wake of Graham's connection to Nixon, the famed but shamed and humiliated evangelist would step back as the Culture War entered its second phase from the late 1970's until perhaps 1992. At that point, the election of Bill Clinton, Pat Buchanan's famous speech, and Colson's Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) along with the cultural changes in the 1990's would take the movement into a new phase and one in many respects even further removed from Billy Graham. By then he had embraced an ecumenical and global vision and his post-1970's legacy is probably best understood in something like the Lausanne Movement which has become the vehicle for not just Graham's ecumenical thinking but the kind of soft and genteel Dominionism he promoted throughout his entire career – a term I use deliberately.

I was pleased to note the film picked up on this great irony in Graham's life, one of his many contradictions. More than anyone else he helped to set the stage for the rise of the Christian Right and yet just as the movement came into its own and solidified, Graham pulled back and not only that, he ended up being on the theologically liberal end of the Evangelical spectrum – in fact in terms of historical definitions he had by the early 1980's abandoned Evangelicalism altogether. In addition to rejecting Solus Christus (or Christ Alone), he turned against the Scripture and embraced his daughter who sought to become a preacher.

As the video demonstrates (though does not say) Graham was in the end a charlatan and salesman – a far cry from a prophet or herald of the Kingdom. He comes across as either corrupt or unbelievably naive. Either way it speaks poorly of him. I think the answer is he was a bit of both. His conduct vis-à-vis the presidents was pretty bad – the film doesn't even touch on his relationship with LBJ – but the nadir was definitely his relationship with Nixon. He literally turned his ministry at times into an arm of the Nixon campaign and administration. While the film ignores Graham's role in supporting the Vietnam War, it did not gloss over the shameful stunt pulled by Graham in the aftermath of the Kent State shootings in 1970.

As far as Civil Rights, Graham moved toward integration but the film was right in that he wanted law and order first and foremost. His gospel was never meant to turn the world upside down or challenge the status quo. On the contrary he wanted to defend it. He wanted the Establishment's approval and a place at their table.

But most of all he wanted fame and standing and as such did not want to be a controversialist. He would only go so far.

The film could have been twice as long. I always remember that while growing up the perception of him was that he was a humble man – but he wasn't. He was drunk on fame and to some degree fortune though his tastes were obviously restrained – especially when compared to scandal-prone preachers of the 1980's and after. That said, even his financial legacy, that of his 'ministries' and certainly his son Franklin are more than enough to raise eyebrows.†

Another sad truth is that the vast majority of his 'converts' fell away and regressed back into world. Were some saved at his rallies? Yes, this is despite his Finney-ite methods. And yet how many became 'doubly' lost or as Christ put it in his condemnation of the Pharisees – You compass sea and land to make one proselyte and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of Hell(or Gehenna) than yourselves. His watered down gospel produced visual results but in the end proved to be quite damaging.

His overall legacy was destructive and in addition to his doctrinal errors, and his watered down gospel, the pronoun error confusing Church and America always overshadowed his presentations. It is his political legacy that may in the end prove the most harmful. This grave and dangerous error continues into the present. It bears repeating.

A prophet with honor we're told. They name highways after him and dedicate days to him. In truth Billy Graham is one of the great villains of the twentieth century Church, a veritable destroyer. He railed against Communism as being the Anti-Christ of Scripture. In reality what the Scriptures envision is something far more like the kind of Church he represented – wed to the power of the Bestial state and working in concert with it. He gave his life to this cause and he had his reward. And yet great harm was done to the testimony of the Church and because of the policies he supported, Christians gave sanction to state actions that led to mass murder in places like Indochina. Graham's hands were dripping with blood.

The documentary was upsetting to watch from a Christian perspective not because it was liberal in its posture or presentation but because of who Graham was and what he represented. It was well done and fairly insightful. Not all commentators were equally helpful. Already familiar with the work of Kevin Kruse, I was pleased to see him included and would certainly recommend his work. I'll probably re-watch it at some point and would encourage others to do so as well.

It was a sobering experience if incomplete. The larger tale is much worse and few today properly appreciate its negative effects on the Church of Jesus Christ.

----

*His acumen was seemingly limited to American culture. Truman was completely out of league in international politics, let alone dealing with figures like Stalin and Mao.

**It's further complicated by the fact that by the 1960's and 1970's many Fundamentalist congregations had crossed the line over into Evangelicalism and yet still retained many of the idiosyncrasies of the older paradigm. My wife and I while growing up on opposite sides of the North American continent shared this experience. We both grew up in an ecclesiastical context that was something of a hybrid between the two and yet by the 1990's the churches we had known growing up were rapidly disappearing. The Fundamentalists had hardened and even innovated in terms of issues like the King James Bible but most of the congregations moved solidly into the Evangelical camp, which was itself undergoing rapid changes – contemporary worship, therapeutic psychology, market-driven ecclesiology, and the celebration and indulgence of middle class values becoming the norm.

Many of the congregations that tried to hold the line (as it were) in terms of old separatist Fundamentalism would eventually dissolve by the early 2000's. That's certainly the case where we live. There are at least a dozen Fundamentalist congregations in the larger region that as late as the 1990's were sizable, but today are no more. And I can think of several more that are down to single digits in terms of regular attendees.

***As mentioned in other pieces I remember well my father's visceral hatred of Carter and for the first time in his life he was motivated to get politically involved and ended up helping the 1980 Reagan campaign. I was attending a small Christian school at the time and the inauguration was a grand event. Everyone was so optimistic and even jubilant. As Christians they felt the Reagan election marked a great victory. The school had only one television in the office and we crowded in to watch the swearing-in and the news of the released hostages.

† At this point he is usually praised for avoiding scandals surrounding infidelity, something other Christian leaders seem to fall prey to. There are reasons for why leaders drunk on mammon and power succumb to temptation. Graham it seemed was able to avoid that particular pitfall. But I'm a bit baffled as to why he is praised for simply doing what is expected of a Christian husband. I wonder if the same can be said with regard to his role as father.