Don Boys Common Sense for Today Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:35:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Billy Graham: A Critic Looks at His Life and Death! Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:42:26 +0000 I qualify as a Graham critic not because of any animas but because of my disagreement with some of his policies, practices, and positions. However, he was my brother in Christ and anytime I criticize him I want to provide a lively yet respectful and edifying discussion. This discussion is necessary since my position is believed by a large part of the evangelical/fundamentalist world.

Furthermore, the Bible characters were not immune from a stringent examination of their lives so Graham should not be an exception. If so, then that smacks of being unsavory, unnecessary, and unscriptural hero worship.

I have noticed over the decades that my critics refuse to deal with the core issue; instead, they accuse Graham critics of being jealous or haters, or legalists, or not following Matthew 18.

Billy Graham was my brother in Christ who made some ministerial decisions that I thought very unwise. However, they were very successful on the surface. I have always had great appreciation for him as a person—husband and father. Graham was a conspicuous example of discretion and commitment in a day when some televangelists and megachurch pastors have been caught with their pants down–then flying to exclusive pleasure spots in their multimillion dollar jets.

During his long life, Graham was never involved in a financial or moral scandal! He built and supervised a massive global organization of citywide crusades, a radio and television empire, books, newspaper columns, and movie productions. He was responsible for raising and spending about $100 million annually which would justify a million-dollar salary yet he always received a very modest salary and benefits. No one ever accused Billy Graham of being greedy.

Graham-haters make much of his net worth of $25 million as being excessive; however, when you realize his long life that is not unusual. With a nominal and conservative retirement program started at age 21, he could easily be worth more than that amount. Howard Stern has a net worth of $500 million and Rush Limbaugh is worth $300 million. By any standard, other than financial, Graham was worth far more than both men combined.

Daniel Borochoff, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group the American Institute of Philanthropy, declared of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, “He’s been looked upon as the gold standard.” No one can legitimately criticize Graham relating to money.

Graham’s personal morality is impeccable and his refusal to be alone with a female, not related to him, is one I have followed all my life. That rule kept him (and me) from a hint of scandal.

Any man who lives about a hundred years, often away from home, with access to large amounts of money without a hint of hanky-panky is to be commended not condemned.

As a friendly critic, I was delighted when the powers-that-be decided to have his body lie in state in the rotunda of the capitol. I took it as an honor to all Christian leaders and a casual endorsement of the Gospel. I was pleasantly surprised when President Trump said, “Billy Graham was 15 years old at the time. Just a few months later he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. That choice didn’t just change Billy’s life, it changed our lives. It changed our country and it changed, in fact, the entire world.” Wow, that is astounding. I hope Trump follows Graham’s example.

Billy Graham’s funeral made an incredible, indelible, and lasting impact on the world! I was surprised, shocked, and satisfied at the clear presentation of the Gospel in song, testimonies, and sermon. President Trump offered the National Cathedral for the funeral but the Grahams opted for a huge tent! Good for them. His funeral at the National Cathedral would have been spiritually grotesque.

The Graham funeral was one of the most spectacular events on television! He was buried on his mountain property after an amazing service in a huge tent. The singing of Bill Gaither was superb, the personal testimonies from Graham’s children were moving, and the message by Franklin Graham was right on target. And all paid for by the liberal media! No doubt atheists’ knees jerked all over America—left ones, of course.

Fox News carried the complete funeral while CNN spent less than 3 minutes on it; however, a few years ago, CNN did run the complete funeral of another Graham—Kay Graham, the late publisher of The New York Times. MSNBC decided 26 seconds was sufficient for Billy Graham! CNN and MSNBC devoted a whole day of coverage to the funeral of Muhammad Ali! Boy, they have their priorities in order!

Graham got his start in a large tent in Los Angles in 1949 when over 350,000 people came to the “Canvas Cathedral” during eight exciting weeks. Some of the Hollywood crowd trusted Christ and according to the media, about 3,000 people trusted Christ or “hit the sawdust trail.” Thousands of hearers listened intently as Graham preached nightly while thousands more listened outside the tent and others in their parked cars.

Stuart Hamblen was a skirt chasing, boozing, fighting, cowboy radio star in Los Angeles. He heard of the Billy Graham stir around L.A. and wanted him to be a guest on his show. He attended the tent meeting one night and he thought Graham called him a fake during his message! Hamblen stomped out and two nights later, he appeared at Graham’s hotel door at 4:00 a.m. drunk as a skunk! Hamblen trusted Christ as Savior and his life was changed immediately. He stopped his wild, hedonist living and soon the Hollywood crowd began to shun him, a typical reaction. Hamblen was fired from his popular radio show because he refused to accept a beer commercial.

Wow, a man of principle! That doesn’t happen very often.

John, one of Stuart’s old Hollywood drinking buddies, asked him one day if “getting religion” was worth all the bad repercussions and Stuart told him it was. John said, “But Stuart you sure liked your booze, don’t you miss it?” He told him that he did not miss it and John said, “I don’t understand how you could give it up so easily.” Stuart replied, “It’s no secret what God can do.” His friend replied, “That’s a catchy phrase. You should write a song about it.” He did. Stuart went home, sat down at the piano and finished the song in 17 minutes. His new gospel song, “It is no secret what God can do” was the first song to cross over from Gospel to country to pop ballad reaching number one on all three charts!

His drinking buddy was John Wayne with whom he appeared in some of Wayne’s movies where Hamblen had minor roles. It is noteworthy that one of the six songs chosen by Graham for his funeral was written by Hamblen.

Other stars impacted by Graham’s meeting included the beautiful, brassy, and boisterous Jane Russell, Dennis Morgan, Virginia Mayo, Porter Hall, Connie Haines, Michael O’Shea, Roy Rogers, and Dale Evans.

When Graham decided to cast his lot with the modernist branch of Christianity thereby rejecting his fundamentalist roots, he received universal support from the media. Very seldom did the press offer even mild criticism; however, the fundamentalist media universally considered his decision a sellout.

The Charlotte Observer, usually very supportive of Graham, observed in 1971 that even some of Graham’s fellow Southern Baptists believed that he was “too close to the powerful and too fond of the things of the world, [and] have likened him to the prophets of old who told the kings of Israel what they wanted to hear.” That would be one of my major disagreements with him.

The major complaint Bible-oriented Christians had with Graham is that he pretended unbelieving ministers were believers to get their cooperation in his crusades. That was wrong and Christ healing a leper illustrates the principle that obedience to Him has priority over telling the Gospel story, even the essential and true story!

In Mark 1:40-45, Christ healed a leper and told him not to broadcast that amazing news lest it hinder His work! That was strange. Why not testify of a personal miracle? According to Old Testament law, when a person contracted leprosy he was to be separated from society. The outcast lived alone in desert places. But now he was free of leprosy but he could not immediately re-enter society.

Such a leprosy-free person had to go the priest for examination before reentering society. This forced the priest to certify Christ’s power even as he opposed Him! Note the difference between Christ’s power and that of the priests: The priests were authorized to pronounce a man clean, but Jesus had the power to make him clean!

Christ told him to see the priest and be examined, then make an offering; however, because he blazed the matter abroad, the crowds hindered Christ from doing His work. Christ could no longer enter cities because of the crowds! His fame hindered rather than helped His ministry! Obviously, having big, excited crowds is not proof of God’s will. Christ’s main purpose was not to heal every leper in Israel but to reveal Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus could no longer openly enter into the city, and was forced to live in desert places. It is interesting that Christ and the leper exchanged living conditions: the leper could now live among the people but Christ lived in “desert places” because of the former leper’s disobedience.

Dr. Billy Graham influenced millions of people but, like every other believer, his main obligation was not preaching but obedience and in that I believe he failed. The healed leper, like Graham, could boast of huge crowds but Christ wanted his obedience not crowds and the leper’s crowds interfered with Christ’s work! The leper sincerely thought he was doing right by drawing great crowds to Christ and was among the first to preach the good news about Jesus but he disobeyed Christ in doing so—just as Billy Graham did.

However, a disobedient Graham may have had an even greater impact at his death than in his life proving that a sovereign God will finally work things out to own satisfaction!

Most sensible people believe that there are two sides to every controversy; however, those same sensible people will not consider the possibility that Graham had faults, failures, and foibles! I am the only one who has provided the historical reality of the life, ministry, and death of Dr. Billy Graham but most people prefer the fable to facts.

Truth still matters and while it will set you free, it often stings!

Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
Students in Gun Control Crusade Like Children’s Crusade in Middle Ages! Sat, 17 Mar 2018 00:40:19 +0000 The New York Post on March 14, 2018 reported, “Nearly 3,000 coordinated walkouts — at elementary schools, high schools and universities — began at 10 a.m. in local time zones and were to last 17 minutes to honor the 17 killed, according to Empower, the youth branch of the Women’s March that is behind the walkouts.”

Oh, so these 3,000 plus school walkouts did not rise spontaneously without adult leadership! It was intricately planned, preached, and promoted by radical gun haters who used the tragedy of 17 deaths at Parkland to advance a leftist agenda. The student walkout was birthed and directed by the screaming feminists of the Women’s March!

Tens of thousands of students walked out of their classrooms last Wednesday to demand action on gun violence and school safety, with some students protesting in Washington, D.C. saying adults have failed them. A major demonstration is planned for March 28. Most nonthinkers consider it a noble crusade. I do not.

The student action reminds me of the Children’s Crusade in 1212 when about 50,000 children walked across nations in inferior shoes to take the Holy Land from Muslims. That crusade ended in confusion, controversy, and catastrophe.

King Philip II of France was holding court in May of 1212 at Cloyes, a small town in the province of Orléans, when he was approached by a 12-year-old shepherd boy named Stephen. The sincere but deluded boy gave the king a letter that had allegedly been given to him by Christ ordering the boy to lead a crusade to Jerusalem to remove the infidel Muslims from the Holy Land. However, the King knew there was no postal service from Heaven to France and told the boy to go back to his sheep.

Stephen disregarded the king’s command and began to preach a children’s crusade to “take up the cross” in defense of the faith and announced that children would meet at Vendome in 30 days for their journey to Jerusalem. At the end of June, about 30,000 boys, some as young as six, with a few girls, adults, and priests gathered as ordered by a 12-year-old delusional boy!

The crowd moved south, almost all of them on foot except a few of noble birth riding horses and Stephen who demanded a decorated cart in which he could ride. It was hot and no provisions were taken. They expected to be fed and bedded by the peasants who were struggling to provide for themselves during a serious drought. Many children died and others tried to return home but the remaining ones arrived in the Mediterranean seaport city of Marseilles on the southern coast of France.

When the crusaders gathered at the northern Mediterranean port, they were disappointed that the sea did not open so they could walk to Jerusalem as Stephen had promised. More crusaders left for home; however, most of them remained believers. Two merchants, Hugh the Iron and William the Pig, made ships available to them and when the children boarded to sail toward Jerusalem to convert the Muslims and take control of the Holy City, they actually sailed to what they thought were the holy lands but actually turned out to be slave markets in Muslim nations. Thousands of innocent crusaders were sold as slaves to Muslim sultans.

At the same time, another mass of child crusaders was gathering in Germany under the leadership of a boy from Cologne named Nicholas. He is reported to have attracted about 50,000 followers including more adults than did Stephen! These crusaders traveled from Germany to Italy across the Alps, and are said to have even met the Pope in Rome. The Pope praised their dedication and sincerity and told them to go home. Many did and died on the way. Others boarded ships expecting to sail to the Holy Land but disappeared from history. Nicholas decided to go home but did not survive the second attempt across the Alps. Back in Germany, his father was arrested and hanged under pressure from angry families whose children had perished while following his son.

The Children’s Crusade was the product of superstition, ignorance, and religious fanaticism. Children are not leaders and only thoughtless fools would follow a child across a continent! While they should be heard, it must be remembered that they are immature, inexperienced, shallow children. While the Bible teaches “A child shall lead them,” that refers to the millennial Kingdom. Children are to be loved, taught, and directed but never in a leadership positon.

The Children’s Crusade was a spontaneous and sincere, yet stupid movement opposed by or at least not supported by the Pope; but this modern children’s crusade is sponsored by the most disreputable, disingenuous, and devious radicals in America—the organizers of the Women’s March. Linda Sarsour (supports Black Lives Matter, sharia law, and teaching about Muslim holidays in public schools), Carmen Perez (said she admired a Black Panther that attempted to kill multiple police officers), and Tamika Mallory (praised Fidel Castro), are co-chairs of the Women’s March. Sarsour also refused to apologize for sharing the platform with Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted killer of Jews!

Mallory and Perez are big fans of Louis Farrakhan, minister of the Nation of Islam. All informed people know that Farrakhan is the poster boy for haters of Whites and Jews.

Rasmea Yousef Odeh was one of eight who organized the Day Without a Woman. She is a Palestinian who planted four bombs in Israel that killed two men! She agreed to leave the U.S. rather than spend time in prison for lying on her citizenship application. She joined with several other militants as co-authors of a manifesto for a new, more radical form of feminism. Odeh’s co-authors included Angela Davis who supported the Black Panthers, was a former leader of the Communist Party USA, and wants to abolish prisons. A real sweetheart!

Such are the people who are manipulating the modern children’s crusade to remove guns from Americans but you didn’t hear that from the mainstream media.

This student crusade is even wrong on its face. Schools are a place of learning–not for indoctrination or social experimentation. Students cannot be permitted to decide when to disrupt the educational process. If they are permitted to do so, who decides what issues will be supported? Will it be the superintendent, principal, a consensus of teachers, the teacher’s union, or parents?

Would leftist media personalities praise a crusade to promote limited government, family values, Christian education, the death penalty, traditional marriage, adoption not abortion, and other conservative and Christian issues? The answer is obvious to all honest people. School officials would not permit students to do a walkout to support such causes.

Are all leftists hypocrites or are all hypocrites leftists? For sure, they are delusional! So were Stephen and Nicholas!

Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
England’s Immigration Nightmare Coming to America? Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:11:04 +0000 It was a misty morning on June 22, 1948, that the Empire Windrush steamed up the Thames to the Tilbury Dock in London. Within minutes, 492 passengers (and a few stowaways) from Kingston, Jamaica scrambled down the gangplank to a new life. The new arrivals, most of them black, were the first wave in Britain’s post-war effort to recruit labor from their Commonwealth -nations to solve the worker shortage caused by World War II.

The arrival of the Windrush immediately prompted complaints from some Members of Parliament, and the Colonial Office, the Ministry of Labor and other national agencies expressed concern about the impact the passengers on their almost totally white society. Public officials stumbled all over themselves trying to escape responsibility for the newcomers.

There was fear among the passengers that they might be turned back but the Colonial Secretary in the Labor government of the time, pointed out: “These people have British passports and they must be allowed to land.” He added that they would not last one winter in England anyway, so there was nothing to worry about. He was wrong. It was only the beginning and Britain waited until 1962 to add immigration restrictions.

In 1948, the British Empire was collapsing. In 1947, India had received her independence and an exhausted, extended, and encumbered Britain was busy trying to stay alive after an incredible effort to lead the free world in opposition to Nazi Germany. America entered the war and, along with the Allies, saved the world from German, Italian, and Japanese totalitarians.

England was struggling to recover from the ravages of war after it was bombed nightly for eight months by Germany’s Luftwaffe. The enemy first bombed military and industrial areas but after German planes drifted off course and bombed London’s inner city, Churchill responded the next night with bombing of Berlin. Now, there would be unrestricted bombings by both sides. The dogs of war were running wild because they were accidently released! During eight months of September of 1940 to May of 1941, 18,000 tons of high explosives were dropped on English cities. A total of 18,629 men, 16,201 women, and 5,028 children were killed along with 695 unidentified charred bodies!

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, the Luftwaffe attacks on England were diverted, permitting relief for the English. About 43,000 civilians were killed in British cities by Luftwaffe bombing during the war.

Because of the bombing of English cities, housing was a major problem for long after the war ended because more than a million homes were destroyed or damaged! When these new immigrates arrived in 1948 from Jamaica, they would cope although they were often met with slurs, slander, and strife by Englishmen who were concerned that so many people of color and different customs had eagerly accepted the invitation to emigrate to the mother country.

The swiftness of immigration increased considerably because Britain needed workers and offered British citizenship in 1947 to thousands of Poles, many of whom had fought for Britain. The 1951 census recorded 162,339 Poles living in Britain.

The government, seeking workers from the Commonwealth, introduced the British Nationality Act of 1948 which granted subjects of the British Empire the right to live and work in the UK. They came in vast numbers from India, the islands of West Indies, African colonies, South American colonies and colonies in Asia. England quickly changed into a different England.

Because so many hundreds of thousands of English citizens had been killed, there was an increasing need for all kinds of laborers related to the building trades. So many men had been killed and injured there was a pressing need for teachers, truck drivers, salesmen, laborers, managers, etc. England’s officials tried to solve the problem by importing immigrants from their colonies starting with the Empire Windrush group in 1948. The importation of workers from the colonies, many of them non-white, solved some problems and made new ones.

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. wrote about the non-white 1948 immigration to England in The Occidental Observer on July 12, 2015. Joyce wrote, “In some respects it signalled the beginning of mass, organized non-White immigration into northwest Europe.”

Winston Churchill seemed to be concerned with so much non-white immigration and its impact on British culture. He declared to his cabinet in 1954, “Problems will arise if many colored people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.” (Cited in S. Pollard in Ten Days That Changed the Nation: The Making of Modern Britain (Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 4.)

By 1956, there were over 40,000 immigrants from the colonies that had made England their home. The minority population increased while many white Britons looked at these new arrivals in disapproval, disgust, and disdain–much of it driven by discrimination. As the years passed and Britain worked her way out of vast destruction, the job problem became less severe; therefore, native Englishmen thought the colonial natives were stealing their jobs since immigrants worked for a lower wage. Housing would always be a problem and the fact that many white landlords wouldn’t rent a room to the black population didn’t help the problem.

England is in trouble in 2018 because they mishandled their immigration problem in the past. A major new survey taking stock of the state of the country reveals that immigration is regarded by the English public as the biggest issue facing British society! The BBC reported on explosive research commissioned by the U.S. and European think-tanks that reveals the people in the UK are much more likely to say there are “too many” immigrants. Oddly, the percent in Great Britain of concerned people is 59% and in Germany and the Netherlands, it is 27% yet both countries exceed Britain with a higher level of foreign-born residents.

The BBC reported on the disclosure by the London School of Economics that there are about 863,000 people living illegally in Britain, with about 604,000 (70%) of those living in London! Consequently, more than one-third of inner London’s children do not have English as their first language; they speak Afghan to Zulu. The Inner London Education Authority discovered over 100 languages being spoken domestically by the families of the inner city’s school children.

Moreover, there is a major housing shortage in the UK as well as a job crisis. Any normal, thinking person would agree that the more minority immigrants that arrive the more those problems will be exacerbated. The present problem in the UK is similar to the one following World War II and British officials are making the same mistake they made at that time!

When honest liberals review the facts in England and the U.S., they understand that we have immigration problems for many reasons, not simply because of the color of the immigrants. An honest person will realize the shock to a mainly white, mainly English speaking, mainly Christian society when it is inundated with a large number of non-white, non-English, non-Christian immigrants. It is deemed racist to say (but I will say it anyway) that America can more easily absorb 500,000 Scandinavians than 500,000 Zulus. To say otherwise, is to deny reality.

Moreover, while the racists will accuse me of racism, it is also true that the Scandinavians will absorb into society quicker, with few problems than Zulus. Churchill’s question is still applicable: “Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK?” When faced with a choice, why choose the one that will produce more problems? However, in the U.S, the issue is compounded beyond color to language, work ethic, religion, and the big difference in a Constitutional Republic and a Socialist Government!

Ben Franklin in the 1750s voiced concern over so many Germans arriving in Pennsylvania! He spoke of their “swarthy complexion.” Germans call it Uberfremdung or “overforeignization.” It’s a fear that their homeland will be changed to where it is no longer home. It’s not just a foreign language and foreign practices but the extent of the changes that are overwhelming Americans.

If America is always to be put first, as all sane people will agree, (a principle that all nations should embrace for themselves) we should consider color, culture, caste, and their communication skills when doing any immigration reform. Moreover, immigration should be based on merit, assuring a benefit to America.

However, all immigration should be stopped for five years until we have a handle on the problem. After all, we should learn from the Brits; but it seems that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

Boys’ book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
Should Taxpayers Bail Out Victims of Weather Tragedies? Sat, 03 Mar 2018 01:16:22 +0000 Why should taxpayers provide financial relief for victims of weather or fire damage especially when those victims chose to live in areas prone to disasters? And many of those families refused to purchase insurance to protect against such tragedies thereby expecting the rest of us to finance their choice of location and their refusal to purchase insurance.

Practically all members of Congress and the President have been quick to help the victims with other peoples’ money. You do understand that when Congress gives away money, it isn’t theirs to give! They are giving away your money without asking your permission. That used to be called thievery.

The federal government spent billions of dollars aiding Hurricane Irma victims in Florida and Hurricane Harvey victims in eastern Texas and southeast Louisiana. Moreover, the government aided the wildfire victims in Northern California where over 8,400 homes and business were destroyed. That was followed by massive damage from mudslides.

The storm damage in various parts of America including Puerto Rico is enough to make a stone cry with all the destroyed houses, damaged homes and businesses, the cold, hunger, and general suffering. Many private individuals showed compassion toward fellow sufferers by providing clothes, blankets, water, food, and other necessities. Such kindness shows that decency is still obvious in some Americans.

However, government giveaways to help the unfortunate victims are without constitutional authorization. Let’s look at each group: No government agency has an obligation to rebuild or repair a citizen’s home or business. That is what insurance is all about. If one is so foolish to not have insurance then he should live with his decision. As to the damage of the streets and public buildings, that is the responsibility of the county, city, state, or federal government depending on what is destroyed.

When a president or governor views the destruction, he usually promises that the government will ride to the rescue with billions of dollars of help. That money does not come from the State House or the White House but from your house. Such governors and presidents are acting illegally and are giving away money that is not theirs to give.

Without any attempt to justify their “gifts,” the politicians stumble all over each other to promise that “help is on the way.” Rather than be ashamed for their illegal actions, they boast about being sensitive to the peoples’ needs. However, again, they are not giving away their own money.

Even little children know that it is stealing for anyone (including governments) to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Do sane people really believe that it is right, by any standard, to take from hardworking taxpayers and give to others–even suffering, innocent others? Sure, it is cordial, charitable, commendable and even noble to help those in need (which people should do) but it is not legal for government to do so.

We gave personal funds to aid victims in Haiti, starving people in Africa, and sufferers in Houston but that is our choice. Our grandson (a pastor) took 14 church members from his church in New Jersey to Houston to rip out damaged floors and walls of damaged homes. That was their choice, but why would they do that or give personal funds when the government misuses its power to take our money? Even for altruistic purposes.

By what logic should taxpayers bail out banks and mortgage companies for bad business practices? After all, the feds don’t rescue a small businessman who doesn’t make it in the food business or a machine shop. The noble idea of helping a failing industry is now ingrained in the American psyche and taxpayer aid is now an obligation of government and a right of natural disaster victims!

It is easy to give away someone else’s money; however, it is wrong, evil, wicked, immoral, illegal, etc., to give it away when the owner of the money has not authorized it. While I will be accused of being unchristian, unkind, and uncaring, I cannot be accused of being unconstitutional when I declare that public money (taxpayer’s) should not be used to bail out fire, flood or tornado victims! Or any other victims unless they are the victims of government. Nevertheless, politicians are always quick to dip into the pot, using “federal” money for altruistic purposes. It also helps one’s next election or legacy to point to “all I did for the poor victims.”

Many will say my position is cruel, crass, and contemptible. However, no one has convinced me that public money should be used for private bailouts, or to support AIDS victims in Africa, or victims in the U.S.! Federal politicians seem to look for opportunities at home and abroad to send in the cavalry with saddlebags full of money to rescue some needy group. Of course, hurting people certainly can’t be faulted for accepting any help they get.

The massive loss and the obscene extent of floods or fires do not justify a generous but illegal reaction. Of course, private contributions are another matter and are definitely needed.

My critics cannot stand on the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to support these efforts. It is a misreading, misinterpretation, or mishandling of that document to suggest otherwise. Thomas Jefferson aptly said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Many later presidents had the moral courage to stand foursquare on the Constitution and veto welfare benefits for private, yes, and even hurting individuals. President Cleveland (a Democrat and the only man to serve nonconsecutive terms as President) correctly said of one bill that came to his desk: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” In fact, he vetoed numerous unconstitutional spending measures during his presidency. Later presidents seemed to be afraid of the veto pen.

I am all for being compassionate but U.S. Presidents cannot be compassionate with my dollar. He can only do that with his own dollar. He cannot honestly and constitutionally give away money that is not his to give. He is only the President of the United States, not the CEO of a charity organization with unlimited funds. What is different in principle with the federal government giving aid to Americans ravaged by storms versus giving aid to a local businessman who was attacked and burned out by hoodlums? That local businessman will not be helped by government.

When David Crockett was a member of the U.S. Congress from Tennessee, he was asked to vote to provide a financial benefit to a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed everyone was in favor of the bill; however, Crockett rose to the floor and spoke against the bill! He said, “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.” He pointed out that every member of the House knew there was no constitutional authority to give public money to private individuals. The bill was defeated.

He ended his speech by saying that he was the poorest man in the House but he would be willing to give a week’s salary to the widow and if every member did the same, the amount of money would be more than the bill would have provided. Not another member of the House agreed to give anything to the widow! It seems hypocrisy was a common requirement for political office then, as now.

It is easy to give away money that belongs to others; but, Mr. Trump must realize that the money isn’t his to give and Congress has no right (power–yes, but authority–no) to give a dollar to victims of any disaster unless the federal government directly caused the disaster.

Any government official who votes for give-away largess should be horsewhipped on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Boys’ book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available. To order, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: The Old Prophet of Bethel! Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:58:12 +0000 My former pastor, Dr. Jeremy Smith’s former pastorate was in east Chattanooga in 2005 and he had two great men preach for him: Dr. Lee Roberson and Dr. J. R. Faulkner. Smith was a graduate of Tennessee Temple University where the two men had been President and Vice President. After the evening service following Dr. Faulkner’s message, Pastor Smith and Faulkner were chatting and Billy Graham’s name came into the conversation. The big issue since 1950 was that Graham was a great preacher and winning many people to Christ, but he was compromising with unbelieving pastors to guarantee a large crowd during his citywide crusades. That was the discussion on all the Christian campuses across America.

After Smith’s calm, courageous, and correct assessment of “cooperative evangelism,” Dr. Faulkner criticized him, saying that Graham “was a man greatly used of God” and Smith should not say anything against him. That shows that a good man, even a great man, and even a godly man can say stupid things! The issue is not great crowds or people getting saved but obedience to the Word. The Scripture is very clear that Christians should not encourage unbelieving preachers even if they wear sheep’s clothing over their obvious wolf skins. That is true even if they wear a bejeweled cross around the neck and carry a Bible that they no longer believe and preach.

Graham and Faulkner had known each other since young manhood and had been classmates at Bob Jones College (now University). They remained close even though Graham broke with fundamental Baptists to become the major founder of New Evangelicalism while Faulkner remained in Independent Baptist circles and became one of their most respected leaders. Graham and Faulkner were good friends and talked two or three times a month on the phone and it is good that they remained friends even though they took different paths; however, Faulkner should never have tried to justify Graham’s compromise. Faulkner was my good friend, as was Roberson for whom I had enormous respect; however, there can be no justification for climbing into bed with unbelievers. Yes, talk with them, eat with them in an exercise to influence them but never give any indication that their unbelief is acceptable.

In I Kings 13 there was an old prophet in Bethel who probably had been trained at Samuel’s School of the Prophets (Hebrew Fundamentalists) but had moved to Bethel, a seat of apostasy and location of one of the two “worship centers” boasting a golden calf. The prophet had left his calling, lost his fervor, and lined up with the paganism of King Jeroboam. He was not about to criticize, complain, or confront the king. That would not be a good career move.

So God sent a young prophet from Judah to confront the king for promoting idol worship. After an incredible public experience of his rebuke of the king, a splitting altar, and the king being smitten then healed by the prophet from Judah–the unbelievable happened: the prophet rejected the king’s offer to spend the night at his “White House” and sleep in “Lincoln’s bedroom.” Wow, a man of convictions!

The old prophet of Bethel was a coward, collaborator, compromiser, and cast-away and was overwhelmed with guilt and shame at the courage of the young prophet. The old prophet remembered his youth, idealism, energy, courage, and realized he had sold out and the prophet from Judah was him in his youth. Wanting compliance, complicity, and company for himself, he deceived and led astray the young prophet who then lost his ministry and his life.

While not a perfect example, for there is no such thing, Graham is like the old prophet who wanted the king’s favor as well as all that went with that favor. So, he trimmed his sails to the prevailing winds of political and religious opinion. After all, “one must be practical.” No, one must do right and leave the results up to God.

Billy Graham proved to be so human. He must have thought his legitimate desire for conversions trumped God’s clear commands about running with radicals. His life, like the old prophet from Bethel, proves that the flesh prefers the gold, glory, glamour, glitz, and glitter of the palace to the loneliness of the desert. No one on earth wants to stand alone.

As a young evangelist, Graham was convinced, confident, courageous, and committed but he compromised and no longer confronted evil leaders–political or religious. In fact, he admitted that he had known Bill and Hillary Clinton for many years and had talked to them often but had never discussed abortion or homosexuality with them! He confessed that if he had done so, he would not be invited back to the White House! I rest my case.

While there was some good from Graham’s life and ministry, there was also disillusionment, disappointment, disarray, and defection in the ministry of younger, less talented men.

So tragic!

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: Powerful Politicians Preferred as Parishioners. Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:48:31 +0000 Graham learned quickly that knowing powerful, influential, and wealthy people could be more profitable to his ministry than running with Fundamentalists.

After fouling his nest with President Truman, he learned how to deal with politicians. He used them and they used him. No question about that. He had access to the halls of power but did not use that access to challenge, correct, or condemn powerful officials. He refused to condemn his friend Bill Clinton even saying he was a true man of God and would be a “good Christian evangelist” and that Hillary should “run the country.” What country? And run it where?

Graham is considered the “pastor to the Presidents” but he was a pastor whose voice was quiet when it came to denouncing sin as Old Testament prophets did. Billy was a considered a “prophet without portfolio.” However, he did not qualify as Nathan to David, Jonah to Nineveh, or Jeremiah to Judah. Graham was more like the dumb dogs in Isaiah 56:10 that refused to bark. When I was young, I had a watchdog but he wouldn’t bark, but why have a watchdog that refuses to warn? Graham’s voice was silent; after all, he must not hinder his access to the halls of power. Careful what you say. It was tragic. It is also tragic that informed Christians still defend such compromise.

He was always careful to say the right thing at the right moment to keep his standing with sitting Presidents–always uncritical, unchallenging, and unquestioning. He called President Lyndon Johnson, “the best qualified man we’ve ever had in the White House” and “a very religious person.” Johnson was a moral leper like Kennedy and Clinton.

When Johnson was in deep doo doo because of the Vietnam War and his back was against the wall, Graham called him “the greatest religious leader in the world!” Incredible, since everyone knew Johnson was a filthy mouthed, loud-mouth fornicator.

Johnson knew if he got Graham into his orbit, he also pulled in his constituency. Esquire said it well of Johnson: “Westmoreland was his general, his soldier. Fortas was his Jew. Thurgood Marshall was his Negro. And Billy was his preacher.” Tragic!

Johnson was fearful that Graham would support Republican Goldwater in 1964, (Billy having received 60,000 telegrams in one day urging him to support Goldwater!) so Johnson told Graham, “Now, Billy, you stay out of politics.” Graham admitted, “He even kept me right in the White House on the weekend before the election.” Of course, Billy was not a prisoner. He chose his gilded cage. The Lincoln Bedroom is a very prestigious suite but I wonder if he slept well.

After Johnson abdicated his White House throne in 1968, Graham was called to the bedside of former President Eisenhower whom Graham had suggested a run for the Presidency in 1952. It is declared by Billy’s official biographer that Graham personally baptized Ike shortly after his Inauguration, but that is not true. The pastor of National Presbyterian Church catechized (taught the rudiments of his church) to Ike at the White House and baptized him (not immersion) shortly after his inauguration. It doesn’t matter since no form of baptism has any effect on a person’s salvation.

With tears in his eyes, Ike asked Billy “How can I know I’m going to heaven? How can I be sure, Billy, absolutely sure, that my sins are forgiven?” Graham said he took his cold hand and told him “his whole past was forgiven. I prayed for him.” Ike replied, “Thank you, Billy. I’m ready.” If that’s it, then that was “religious malfeasance” and no Bible preacher would have been so vague but would have spoken of repentance, Christ’s death and resurrection, the New Birth, and sin. Maybe Graham had dealt with that in 1953 before Ike’s election. Ike was the only sitting President who was “baptized” while in office.

Graham’s association with President Nixon is well known and as more details have emerged recently, Graham’s name was besmirched. Billy had said of Nixon, “He is a splendid churchman;” however, Nixon was not even religious or a regular church goer. Graham’s statement came back to bite him when newly released tapes revealed that Nixon used extremely vile language that peeled the paint off the walls of the Oval Office.

Many have said to me, “Well, Billy may have courted the powerful but he still preaches the Bible.” However, that is not true, except at selected times. Moreover, he stopped preaching about abortion, telling columnist Cal Thomas as reported in Flashpoint in August of 1995, “I think the top social issue of our time may be ecology. I think that’s more dangerous…and I’m going to start speaking out on that.” Oh yes, we must be more concerned about bogus global warming than protecting innocent babies!

Graham even told Larry King that sodomites are born sodomites, since, as he said, it is in their genes. Graham was quoting dishonest homosexual activists not unbiased experts or the Bible.

He stopped emphasizing the blood atonement many years ago; after all, that is not very urbane, sophisticated, and chic. A 1968 letter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association declared, “Mr. Graham believes that we are saved through the blood of Christ, however, this aspect of Christian doctrine he does not emphasize in his messages. This is the duty and prerogative of the pastors.” Well, that would surprise every evangelist for the last 2,000 years.

When he went to Russia, China, North Korea, and Hungry, he had good things to say about those slave nations; all totally untrue statements. Those trips were an amazing display of political correctness toward infamous dictators. Did Graham ever read II Chron. 19:2, “And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord?”

Graham has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy (whether Communists or radical unbelieving preachers) while trying not to disturb the very lucrative cash flow. Only eternity will reveal what he could have accomplished had he stayed true to his original calling, commitment, and convictions.

God will be the final judge in his life and mine. I want to learn from his life. That might be one of the redeeming features of his life if a large host learns from his successes and his failures.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: Liberals More Helpful than Fundamentalists! Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:35:10 +0000 Billy Graham often spoke well of radical unbelieving preachers such as Norman Vincent Peale who did not believe the virgin birth was required for salvation and did not believe the New Birth was necessary; apostate Leslie Weatherhead who taught that Christ was a bastard and Mary was a temple prostitute; and Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam who called God a “dirty bully” and was identified at a Congressional Hearing as one “who served God [not the God of the Bible] on Sunday and the Communist front for the balance of the week.”

Graham had kind words to say about preachers Henry Van Dusen (who did not believe that Christ was God and who committed suicide with his wife); John Sutherland Bonnell, who did not believe in the virgin birth, physical resurrection, etc.; and Bishop Pike who was a drunken adulterer, married three times plus had three mistresses, disbelieved the major doctrines about Christ, and died during a fall while wandering alone in the Israeli desert near the Dead Sea while on his honeymoon. (I don’t think I would want Graham to say anything good about me! Sounds dangerous.)

Graham honored as chairman of the Los Angeles Crusade Bishop Gerald Kennedy who was a rank unbeliever. He called Kennedy one of the “ten greatest preachers in America” even though he did not believe in the virgin birth and had endorsed Nels Ferre’s blasphemous book that posited the possibility that Christ was the son of a German soldier, making Mary a whore and Christ a bastard. Graham promoted E. Stanley Jones who denied the virgin birth, the trinity, etc. Graham referred to Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, as a “giant of a man.” Mike didn’t believe in the virgin birth and said he expects to see atheists in Heaven. Afraid he won’t see anyone in Heaven!

Graham told USA Today that he looked forward to seeing Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen in Heaven along with Elvis Presley!

It should be noted that all the leaders in his crusades were leaders in the National and World Council of Churches. In 1948, Graham opined he thought the World Council of Churches would “nominate the antichrist” at their August meeting! That attitude changed very quickly.

Graham often spoke of Godless Communism (into which the NCC and WCC were hip deep) even declaring in 1949, “Communism is inspired, directed, and motivated by the Devil himself.” But that didn’t play well in Peoria so he modified his stand on Communism. He was even invited to Communist Russia, North Korea, and China where he had kind words to say about those massive slave camps where freedom is only a word!

The Associated Press reported Graham saying, “For years I have not spoken about that [Communism]…I cannot go around the world and say who is right and who is not right.” Then in 1973, he was quoted by the Tokyo Mainichi Daily News, as saying, “Mao Tse-tung’s eight precepts are basically the same as the Ten Commandments. In fact, if we can’t have the Ten Commandments read in our schools, I’ll settle for Mao’s precepts.” Hand me a barf bag.

He even said that evolution is possible and that belief in the virgin birth was not necessary to be a Christian. Furthermore, he said the Bible is inspired but refused to say it was infallible or inerrant. Modernists are willing to say it is inspired. Graham seemed to always play to the gallery; after all, it opened numerous religious, social, and political doors.

Graham often declared that he did not respond to criticism; however, he often asked others to come to his defense! And he had paid defenders as well, even one professor who wrote Cooperative Evangelism that was an unabashed defense of Graham-type mass evangelism. However, we were not supposed to know he was Graham’s paid hack. The book was given away by the thousands.

Graham’s defenders often charge that his critics are unscriptural because they did not speak with him before their criticism. That is not true. I have evidence that his friends such as Rice, Jones, Riley, Bennett, and others spoke with him face to face about his defense of unbelieving pastors and their support of his crusade. Plus, his sending of decision cards to apostate churches! Moreover, a personal contact before criticism is not required since the issue was not personal. It was a public issue involving people across the nation and statements in books, letters, news releases, etc. That criticism with no scriptural justification is a red herring used by unprincipled men.

It is often said that Graham has been the “pastor” to all presidents since Harry Truman. His infamous interview with Truman in the summer of 1950 was hilarious and Graham frankly mentions this in his autobiography, Just as I am. He and three of his team showed up at the White House, wearing white suits, white bucks, and floral ties. They immediately antagonized the President. Truman told them that he was a Baptist and was trying to obey the Golden Rule and Graham started preaching to him. Truman used profanity interrupting Graham and cut off the meeting, but not before Graham put his arm around him and asked if he could pray with him.

The Graham team left the White House and met with reporters to whom they revealed the whole conversation! The reporters asked them to reenact their prayer meeting which they obediently did! I have a photo showing the four men kneeling on the White House grounds reenacting for the photographers how they prayed for the President. Not a good scene. Truman was furious!

But Graham learned quickly how to snuggle up to powerful people using them and being used of them.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: His Walk Contradicted His Talk! Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:11:04 +0000 It is far better to be uncomfortable with truth than lulled to sleep with pleasant lies. What follows is truth, not lies, which principled people must deal with even though they have had enormous lifetime respect for Billy Graham. My criterion is nothing but truth, the facts, no embellishments, just the truth. Shallow Christians cannot handle the truth. But let’s try. And even if I were to have bad motives, that would be irrelevant. What does God demand of His servants?

Billy Graham has been chosen as one of the “Ten Most Popular Men in America” for more than 40 years straight; but how can that be for a true man of God? James 4:4 reminds us: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Graham has been called the “superman of the cloth,” “the nearest thing to Jesus on earth,” “almost a divine life,” and he had a “natural glow about him,” “the Protestant Pope,” “the Pastor in Chief,” and on and on. Strange for a humble servant of God.

Not one major politician, soldier, businessman, entertainer, or media personality has ever said a critical word about Billy Graham, something I never noticed until writing these articles. God warns in Luke 6:26, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!” I wonder if Graham ever pondered that verse as he slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.

To those who want to lift my blonde scalp from my head, I remind them of the hardships endured by the Old Testament prophets, by John the Baptist who was beheaded for speaking against the King’s adultery, and by Paul who was stoned, whipped, and finally beheaded for his faithfulness. Of course, Christ was crucified by Rome and Jerusalem for telling the truth.

What happened to Graham who started so well with so much talent, magnetic personality, and commitment? His Los Angeles Tent Revival where he came to national prominence in 1949 was totally supported by Fundamentalists! What is not commonly known is that a delegation from the very liberal Los Angeles Church Federation approached Billy about a future crusade and he politely refused as reported by the famous Methodist Fundamentalist, Dr. Bob Shuler.

At the beginning of his ministry, Graham went on record as refusing to work with those pastors who were not doctrinally sound. He gave exuberant praise to Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and the university when he interviewed Dr. Jones on “The Hour of Decision” broadcast in Dec. of 1951. On June 3, 1952, Graham told Jones, “The modernists do not support us anywhere.”

Graham supporters have always criticized Graham’s Fundamentalist critics as being “unkind,” “unfair,” “unloving,” if not unsaved. And always “jealous.” However, Fundamentalists supported Graham longer than they should have. I was critical of his ecumenical evangelism as early as 1953 and began a massive Graham file when almost all my college friends thought I was a little nutty. Dr. John Rice of the Sword of the Lord supported him until 1957. John Rice, Bob Jones, W. B. Riley and others showed far more patience and grace than I did.

Graham said, “The one badge of Christian discipleship is not orthodoxy, but love.” He told Eternity magazine in 1958, “What is the great overwhelming evidence that we have passed from death unto life? Orthodoxy? Morality? Evangelistic passion? No! It is love!” Does anyone really believe that a Buddhist priest’s decency, morality, compassion, etc., is proof of his being a Christian? Biblical love and truth never conflict; therefore, love while essential never trumps truth.

Within months of his assurance to Fundamentalist leaders of his uncompromising stand, he was planning his 1954 New York Crusade where about 120 Modernists supported the meeting. Radical “Protestants” (who only protested real Bible-believing Christians) supported Graham as did Roman Catholics in the following years. In recent years, Billy insisted on having their support even to having priests on his platform, nuns singing in the choir, and hundreds of Catholic personal workers! In his 1963 Sao Paulo, Brazil meeting, a Roman Catholic bishop “blessed” those who responded to the invitation. Would any of my critics support their local pastor in such compromise? If not, why not? What’s the difference?

What does Roman Catholic support do to a lifetime missionary serving in a city where Graham works with the missionary’s opponents? Irreparable damage is done to a life’s work. The missionary sees Graham working with and endorsing the very Roman Catholic officials who have opposed him (the missionary) all his adult life. Early in his ministry, Graham had said that the Roman Catholic gospel is a “stench in the nostrils of God.” But evidently, he became accustomed to the “stench.”

In 1952, he wrote to Bob Jones, Sr., “We have never had a man on our committee that denied the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, or the bodily resurrection.” In 1958, he stated in Eternity magazine: “If a man blatantly denies the deity of Christ or that Christ has come in the flesh, we are not to even bid him godspeed (sic). Thus, the Scriptures teach that we are to be separated from those who deny the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ… I am to treat him as an antichrist and an enemy of the cross” He had his orthodoxy straight but his orthopraxy was skewed. What happened to Graham? His walk contradicted his talk.

Then Graham saw that the big crowds were in the many very liberal churches not the relatively few Fundamentalist churches so he started changing his direction. He started kicking his friends and kissing his enemies! He adjusted his preaching, policies, and practices.

He showed compromise with every crusade when he praised, promoted, and presented unbelieving pastors as good and honorable men. He told Eternity in his 1958 interview, “There come times when we are to separate on theological grounds! [I recognize] that there are some modernists we are to separate ourselves from….”

He said it but did not practice it as my next column proves.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: A Good Man Does Wrong! Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:12:50 +0000 I have climbed out on a limb in stating that Dr. Billy Graham made many major mistakes in his ministry that did great harm to the Christian cause. Moreover, he should be held up as an example lest others follow his compromise that always leads to corruption. He was never corrupt in his personal life for he was exemplary in his finances and his family; however, when one is careless with obeying the Scripture, it always leads to corruption in doctrine. While most people denigrate doctrine, which really is only truth, the Word must be preached, defended, and lived.

Graham swapped his commitment to truth for the bowl of porridge known as compromise that gave him an international bully pulpit. I think he failed and preached pabulum most of his illustrious life as the following facts clearly document.

I know many pastors and laymen who trusted Christ under Graham’s ministry; but that is not the criterion. Was he faithful in the work of the ministry? The answer is “no.” Graham showed some courage, especially in his younger days, when he removed the ropes that were to separate Blacks from Whites at his Chattanooga Crusade in 1953. But he believed that courage, convictions, and commitment to the Word were not as important as reaching the masses. He thought he had to give a little to get a lot. Surrendering Bible doctrine brought him much more than he expected.

He told the Lutheran Standard in a 1961 interview that water baptism can save a person! Dr. Graham said of infant baptism: “I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant …. I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian through infant baptism.” That statement is not surprising since his own wife and three of his children were sprinkled, not baptized. However, surrendering on the subject of baptism brought him many new friends and supporters.

In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said, “I used to believe 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 that 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.” Graham’s defenders cannot plead his age or Parkinson’s disease. His statement is perversion of the Gospel and cannot be excused, defended, or ameliorated. His defenders need to ask themselves how they can still support him with that statement hanging around his neck. And would they support their local pastor if he said the same thing? I will ask all my critics to these columns those questions.

Christianity Today magazine came to Graham’s defense saying that he was misquoted; however later interviews substantiated the early remark and his staff was kept busy doing damage control and readjusting his halo so his followers would not be disenchanted, discouraged, and dissuaded from supporting his work.
I heard Graham say the following, “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.” (May 31, 1997 interview with Graham by Robert Schuller with emphasis added.)

But it gets worser and worser! Graham continued, “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, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.” He could not have made it any clearer: He believed in universalism and spouted it on television for the world to hear!

That statement is classic universalism that has been condemned by orthodox Christians for over 2,000 years. So, why does almost everyone dismiss Graham’s belief of it with the wave of the hand? That question must be answered by Graham’s supporters.

Graham’s major error was in changing his mind about whom he would work with in his city-wide crusades. He said, “I have promised God I will never have on my committee working in an active way in any of my campaigns men who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, who do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, who do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible–these men will never be on my committee. I have promised God.” But he reneged.

I could take pages and prove that he had the most radical unbelievers on his committees as well as many Roman Catholic priests, sending convert cards to all of his supporting churches. Graham was sending new professing Christians to the wolves contrary to his earlier commitment. On Nov. 11, 1957, Graham told the San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meeting is seen later and referred to a local clergyman–Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” Gasp!

Graham is known as “Mr. Facing Two Ways” reminiscent of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. One day he had glowing praise for Bob Jones University, John Rice of the Sword of the Lord, etc., and the next he was climbing into bed with the most radical modernists in America. This supports the fact that compromise will usually take one farther than he wanted to go.

We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith” which I have tried to do. I have just climbed out on a limb and handed my critics a saw. They can do their worst.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0
Billy Graham: An Example of Disobedience! Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:53:43 +0000 It is easy to be critical of a bad man such as a killer, dictator, sleazy politician, or child molester (unless he is from the Arabian Desert) but few are willing to correct, criticize, or censure a man who has many admirable, very commendable traits. Dr. Billy Graham was such a man. He was one of the most kind, thoughtful, generous, and dedicated men in America. That makes it very difficult, dubious, even dangerous to say, “However, I have somewhat against him.”

Billy’s cooperation, complicity, and compromise with infidel pastors is the core of his sinful failure that brought enormous harm to the cause of Christ at the same time he was trying to reach people for Christ! Inadvertently, he was the source of confusion as he discouraged faithful workers, disrupted the churches, and distorted the Word of God that he was attempting to proclaim!

The uninformed or those who have conformed to the thinking of this world’s philosophy get very queasy when names are called or people are identified as needing to make personal corrections in their lives. However, John the Baptist sure called names even telling the Jews that their religious leaders were “a generation of vipers” in Matt. 3:7. Now that wasn’t the way to win friends and influence Jewish leaders. He told the world that King Herod was living in adultery, and it cost John his head! I hope I will not be “honored” in the same way because of my honest and true criticism of Graham. But when you get a wishy-washy Evangelical angry (he only expresses anger at Fundamentalists) he often reaches for his hatchet.

Paul warned in Rom. 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” He often named names! While he often praised individuals (more than 25 in one chapter), he told two ladies to stop fussing (Phil. 4:2) and pointed out an adulterous affair in the Corinthian church. He told of Hymenaeus and Philetus’ profane and vain babblings. To Timothy he revealed that Alexander the coppersmith did him much evil; He also reported that Demas was a quitter who returned to the world. He warned of Hymenaeus and Alexander’s blasphemy and of Phygellus and Hermogenes’ apostasy. Yes, Paul was a “name caller.”

Even Christ called people “serpents,” “blind guides,” and “hypocrites” in Matt. 23:23-34. According to John 2:15, He even made a whip and chased the money changers from the Temple. Note that it was premeditated in that He “made” the whip. It would take many whips to chase out the money changers today especially the television evangelists who plead like beggars and live like kings as they lie, embellish, and coerce money from the elderly, the naïve, the weak-minded, and the stupid. Sincere Christians are commanded to expose the charlatans as these Christians “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Paul commanded us to “mark” believers who believe contrary to his “doctrine” and “avoid” them (Rom. 16:17). He told us rebuke sharply those who were not sound in the faith, not to be mean, but that they “may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Moreover, he said that such Christians were to be reproved (Eph. 5:11) and sincere Christians were told to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (II Thes. 3:6). He told us to “reprove, rebuke, exhort” those who need the same (II Tim. 4:2). Few Christians obey that teaching and even attack those who try to faithfully obey!

The Apostle John, the apostle of love, used very strong language in II John 10 and 11. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Graham obviously chose not to follow John’s admonition thinking he could do wrong thereby helping him do right.

I realize that in criticizing such a popular and impressive man, I will expose myself to relentless criticism. That is only reasonable. I expect to be held to the same standard. There is no question that I have failed. However, I can honestly declare that I have never been bought, not by family, friends, foes, or fellowship. I have tried to be consistent with criticism whether of friend or foe.

There is a segment of Christians who think it is wrong to be negative, not understanding that most of the Ten Commandments are negative. They often use Matt. 7:1 as a response to any who criticize others as they tell us it is always wrong to judge others. Of course, they show how immature and uninformed they are when they use that passage against honest critics. Christians are supposed to make judgments every day about right and wrong. Christians are to judge but to judge righteously without being “holier than thou.” We are not to be hasty, harsh, or haughty in our judgment.

After looking at the facts and following Graham’s ministry from its beginning I am compelled to say that he compromised the Word of God to accomplish the task he felt called to do. It is an in- arguable fact that Graham changed 180 degrees in the early 1950s from the fire breathing evangelist who called sin by its name, lambasted Communists, and called out the radical Modernists in the National (then Federal) and World Council of Churches. Then he invited Roman Catholics into his bed. Those are facts that no informed, honest person can deny. However, if you think that plan, practice, and policy is biblical, then you can convince yourself that you have won the discussion. But, if you think Bible commands are important and all of us, without exception, are required to obey then you will be willing to look honestly at Graham’s life and admit that he made major mistakes as he was trying to do good.

Be that as it may, we must never do wrong in the attempt to do right. No exceptions!

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

]]> 0