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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Graham has been one of the cleanest preachers of our time. When he started to hit the big time, he determined “I would never walk alone with my secretary, never have lunch or ride alone in a car with her. And I never have….” He rightly believed that a preacher should be blameless, giving no ammunition to the enemy.

Moreover, he has been punctilious about finances, receiving a very nominal salary especially when the size and influence of his ministry could justify a much higher personal income. The revelation that Graham’s personal worth is 25 million caused many people to raise some eyebrows; however, maybe he had good investment advice.

Graham made a massive mistake when he decided to use unbelieving pastors to gain access to their church members. I never questioned Graham’s desire to serve God and to do right but he must have become convinced that it was all right to do wrong if good could come of it. He was wrong and informed Christians know he was wrong, but most refuse to say so.

Anyone expressing criticism of such a highly loved and respected person risks being scalped by Christians and beheaded by religionists who refuse to hold their heroes to the same high standard to which normal people are held. However, Graham must be held accountable as anyone else. It is illicit human worship to put Graham in a protected class. Respect, yes; reverence, no. Honor is required but so is honesty.

There is no question that Graham had an incredible impact on the world. The numbers alone are impressive: the sermons preached, the crusades held, the crowds, the books, the television programs, the influence on politicians, and much more. However, I must add that numbers have very little to do with excellence, truth, quality, or character.

When one even suggests that Graham had some deficiencies, the critic is shunned as if he has an active case of leprosy. Graham defenders almost always suggest that he is immune to criticism until the critic has attained the stature and influence of Graham. But surely, no honest person believes that silly statement. Another arrow shot by Graham defenders of the Holy Grail is, “Oh, you are just jealous,” or “You are a hater and find fault with everyone.” Mature Christians know that unpleasant information is not always untrue, unkind, or unfair and is not always hate speech. Moreover, they know that people of lesser stature than the spiritual heroes can learn from their faults, failures, and foibles. We can learn good and bad from the preaching, policies, and practices of Billy Graham.

Many will use the same defense of Graham that is used of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “His personal flaws were very small compared to his impressive, important, and impacting accomplishments.” Is that to say that we look at everyone like that, or just our heroes? Do we decide good and bad by making comparisons? Is there an unspoken and unwritten and unbiblical rule that some people are exempt from examination of their lives? That is not biblical or good common sense. Still others accuse critics of “attacking the dead who can’t answer their critics,” but that is nonsense because it is not an attack, but observations; the record of offenses is clear. After all, Bible characters did not have that protection.

The Bible holds everyone to account: Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, etc., all had feet of clay and were held accountable. Paul pointed out the sins in others to warn the rest of us not to emulate their sins. He often called, corrected, and criticized many people by name in the Scripture for the world to know! He even publicly corrected his friend and peer the Apostle Peter because Peter needed to be corrected. Peter’s sin, if uncorrected, would have been an encouragement for others to follow in his steps. Paul disagreed with his friend Barnabas, and in that, Paul might have been wrong, or it could have been simply a matter of opinion.

The Apostle Paul spoke very clearly when he commanded in Gal. 1:9, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Paul even repeated his command, “let him be accursed.” As I can easily prove, Graham deliberately stopped preaching the true Gospel early in his ministry except to selected groups. He never antagonized modernists with the truth, knowing that was not a good career move.

Graham declared his intentions at the April 3, 1957 meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals in Buffalo, NY: “I intend to go anywhere, sponsored by anybody, to preach the Gospel of Christ, if there are no strings attached to my message.” I have no doubt that Billy would have resisted any attempt by modernist preachers to restrict his message; however, he decided to put strings on his own preaching! That is a concept missed by most of us over the years. He knew if he accepted support from infidel pastors, he had to have them on his platform, have them pray, send converts to their apostate churches, and generally hobnob with them. After all, that was the ethical thing to do. He used them and they used him. A different twist on a Faustian bargain!

Christians need to understand that there are no perfect, complete Christians. We are all flawed people who must be careful every day because we are under daily attack. Paul admitted that in Rom. 7:14, “I am carnal.” That was not false humility (since that would be lying!); it was a fact and Paul was honest enough to admit it. Many preachers seem to think they have arrived at the peak of personal perfection and often look down upon the hoi polloi as they dispense their advice and counseling from the Mount. Every Christian, without exception, struggles with sin! Everyone! Graham was no exception. His most public sin was compromise. He thought it was right to do wrong that good may come of it.

Graham was wrong and so are his defenders and their defense of Graham will be interesting and revealing. I am reminded of a statement by a radical, left-wing economist, John Maynard Keynes that is germane here: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” What will Graham’s defenders do with this factual information about him? Most will whimper, “I don’t care about the facts, I want to continue my hero worship.”

Since everyone struggles with sin, we are commanded to help each other and be the Christians we should be; and help keep the churches as pure, powerful, and perfect as possible for the sake of the Body and the testimony of Christ.

Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth” is valid in respect to Graham. We honor what he accomplished but much reject his unscriptural compromise with unbelieving pastors.

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

Jack Wyrtzen had great appeal to youth and had amazing success with his youth ministry in New York City in the early 1940s. His work inspired the more formal, structured youth ministry, Youth for Christ that I was a part of during my early ministry.

In the spring of 1945, Torrey Johnson, pastor of Chicago’s Midwest Bible Church began a weekly Saturday night youth rally that brought thousands of teens and returning service men to “Chicagoland for Christ.” Immediately, similar rallies were started across America with explosive growth. Thousands of youth met in most major cities for singing, skits, and sermons. Each city rally ran its own ministry but the international headquarters was in Chicago.

Torrey invited Chuck Templeton from Toronto’s Avenue Church and Billy Graham, pastor of Western Springs Baptist Church, a small suburban Chicago church to a rally at the Chicago Stadium. (Graham had preached at his first YFC rally in Indianapolis May 6, 1944.) More than 20,000 young people crammed the stadium with a 1,000 voice choir. Graham was to preach and just before he was introduced, he leaded over to Chuck and said, “Chuck, pray for me. I’m scared to death.”

Billy Graham was chosen to be one of three Youth for Christ International leaders and its only paid employee. Torrey Johnson was president and Chuck Templeton and Graham were vice presidents. They began a European tour of many cities with Billy and Chuck preaching on alternate nights. Life magazine sent a photographer and reporter on the tour.

Chuck Templeton wrote in An Anecdotal Memoir how he and Billy arrived in Paris a day early and wandered around the streets that were still crowded with Allied soldiers and prostitutes–everywhere. They were propositioned about fifty times as they walked down the Champs Elysees from the Arc de Triomphe to their hotel. Chuck told of one prostitute wearing a fur coat and nothing else except a garter belt and stockings. Billy said, “Chuck, we’ve got to get out of here.” They shoved the girls aside and literally ran down the street to their hotel.

At dinner that evening, they went to a “very French” place. While trying to make some sense out of the French menu, two young beautiful girls sat down at their table uninvited and ordered drinks. The girls only spoke French and the preachers only spoke English. When they paid the check, it was obvious to the two unsophisticated, uninitiated, and unaware preachers that the girls, taking each one of the preachers by the arm “tightly,” planned to leave with them.

That night Billy made an error in judgment that could have ruined him but it ended well and no doubt helped him firm up his personal convictions about his relationships with women.

Chuck’s girl pulled him toward apartments across the street and Graham’s pulled him in another direction. Billy looked at Chuck “despairingly” and Chuck yelled to Billy “Guess we’ll have to walk them home.” (No, they really did not have to do so.) As Chuck and his “date” entered the darkened apartment building, he realized he was in physical as well as moral danger so he ducked into a restroom then out of the building back to the hotel. But Billy was not there. Two hours later, he was still not there.

About midnight, Billy burst open the door, face red and wet with perspiration, hair disheveled, wide open collar, and eyes wide. He fell on the bed saying, “Chuck, you have no idea what’s happened to me. I thought I was going to walk the girl home and then leave her, but she hailed a cab. We drove and drove and drove. Somewhere outside the city in a dark little suburb, the cabby stopped. He didn’t speak any English, neither did she, and I couldn’t understand what he was saying about the fare. I took the money from my wallet and held it out, expecting him to do what the London cabbies do–take what was his and leave the rest. He took it all.

“The girl had me by the arm and she led me toward this place where she lived. It was a dump. We got inside and she closed the door. I was trying to think of something I could say or do to let her know I was leaving. She went over to the bed and without a word, unbuttoned her dress, tossed it aside, and fell back on the bed. And Chuck, she was stark naked!

“I turned, opened the door, and got out of there. In the street, I started to run. I don’t know how far I ran; it could have been a mile or two. When finally I stopped, I looked around. I had no idea where I was. I was going to hail a cab, and then realized I didn’t have any money. I asked some people the way to the downtown area but they just looked at me or rattled on in French. So I started to walk. I walked and walked and walked until I saw the Eiffel Tower in the distance. Then I knew where I was.”

My readers need to know that the incident was written many years after the event by a man who apostatized from the faith.

Whenever Chuck saw Billy after that incident, especially when he was with others, Chuck grinned at him and said, “Hello Bill. How’s the Midnight Runner?” In the early 1950s, Templeton had great success as a national television preacher on the CBS, Look Up and Live weekly show. From the beginning, he was recognized as a better preacher than Graham but Chuck turned his back on God reporting his defection in his book, Farewell to God. He died in unbelief with Alzheimer’s whimpering, “I miss Jesus.”

Both men made bad decisions. One proved he was never a genuine believer and went to Hell and Billy climbed into bed with unbelieving pastors to build a worldwide ministry on compromise, seeking to do right by doing wrong.

Billy Graham, the Midnight Runner! Well, God does command us to “Flee youthful lusts” and to his credit, Graham did that all his life.

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

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 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. He wanted Graham to pray for him. About 5:00 p.m. he trusted Christ. His life was changed immediately. He stopped his wild, hedonist living and soon the Hollywood crowd began to shun him. He was fired from his popular radio show because he refused to accept a beer commercial. Wow, a man of principle!

John, one of his old Hollywood drinking buddies, asked him one day if “getting religion” was worth all the 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. Stu 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 his ten movies where he had minor roles.

Hamblen wrote other Christian songs and “This Old House” written for his friend Rosemary Clooney was a big hit. It went to number two on the country field chart and remained there for 30 weeks! It was also named the “Song of the Year.” Most people totally missed the message.

When publisher William Randolph Hearst heard about some of the Hollywood crowd trusting Christ and getting involved, he sent a telegram to every editor in his newspaper syndicate: “Puff Graham.” Thus, began a wild ride for a lifetime of a preacher and the media, a media that never writes a critical word about him.

Hearst’s sons told Graham that their father attended the tent revival in disguise, in a wheelchair accompanied by his mistress, actress Marion Davies. Because of Hearst’s promotion of the meeting, it was extended five weeks. Hearst had promoted Evangelist Billy Sunday and Mary Baker Patterson Eddy in earlier years!

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

Another “star” walked the sawdust trail: Jim Vaus, Jr., infamous wiretapper for the number one mobster in L.A., Mickey Cohen! Cohen was uneducated but coy, violent, and street smart. Wow, things were getting interesting in the old tent. Jim was an electronic genius and worked surreptitiously (and illegally) for the L.A. Police procuring evidence to convict prostitutes and crooks; later spying on Mickey Cohen. Jim discovered there was more money working for Cohen than the cops so he decided to go full time with crime.

Cohen collected celebrities like others collect baseball cards. Bob Mitchem, Sammy Davis, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and many other stars kissed his ring. Among his girlfriends were Candy Barr, Tempest Storm, and Beverly Hills. I think those were pseudonyms.

Cohen was a street thug with a second grade education from New York. He was in a reform school at age ten and ran from home at 15. At nine he was delivering illegal booze made by his brothers in a Brooklyn drug store. He worked the rackets in Cleveland and Chicago (with Al Capone, his idol) ending up working for Bugsy Siegel in Las Vegas. Siegel had been the crime boss in L.A. but moved to Vegas to build and operate the Flamingo Hotel, anticipating the gambling tsunami that was sweeping the nation. Siegel was skimming money from the New York bosses and mismanaging the Flamingo so the mob assassinated him at his girlfriend’s apartment.

After Siegel’s murder in 1947, Cohen consolidated his hold on crime in L.A. Somehow he discovered that Vaus had bugged his house for the L.A. police but he didn’t kill him; he hired him to spy on the cops!

But Jim had been converted, not simply signing a decision card; and Graham hired him and asked him to set up a meeting with Cohen. They met at Mickey’s Brentwood home for five hours. There is no doubt that each man “played” the other. Graham knew the results if he won the number one L.A. mobster to Christ and Cohen liked being identified with this newly famous preacher. Both men revealed their relationship to the public, Cohen even stated that he and Graham were going to vacation together at a Tucson dude ranch.

It didn’t hurt Cohen’s reputation to be identified with Graham since Cohen was about to go to prison for five years for income tax evasion. Only God knows how serious Cohen was considering becoming a Christian but he was reluctant to reject his Jewish roots to become a Southern Baptist! That’s a massive leap–which he should have made in my opinion.

Graham refused to let go of the relationship even stating, “Mickey Cohen is not as bad as America thinks,” and added “I am praying that after he pays his debt to society he will give his heart and life to Christ. He has the makings of one of the greatest gospel preachers of all time, and I mean that.” (Billy said about the same about Bill Clinton.) Informed people knew that Cohen was a loveable killer, thief, and general mobster who had been the object of eleven assassination attempts by other mobsters. Cohen told Mike Wallace on ABC that he had never killed anyone who didn’t deserve killing!

Some highly visible Christians pressed Cohen to trust Christ and change his hedonistic lifestyle and he told them “You never told me I had to give up my career. You never told me that I had to give up my friends. There are Christian movie stars, Christian athletes, Christian businessmen. So what’s the matter with being a Christian gangster? If I have to give up all that—if that’s Christianity—count me out.”

Mickey Cohen was always out. He went to jail again for income tax evasion, got out in 1972, and died of stomach cancer in 1976. He died leaving an estate of $3,000 and a tax bill of about $500, 000. I don’t know what happened to Candy Barr.

However, Stuart Hamblen totally changed after his conversion to Christ as did Jim Vaus. Jim went on to preach until his death in 1997. No one questions Jim’s conversion because he was a changed man. Just before his conversion he had stolen $15,000 of electronic equipment and he sold his home and car to make restitution. “Restitution” a strange word not heard much anymore. Nor practiced.

It is interesting that Graham never had another meeting like the L.A. tent meeting. No doubt many people trusted Christ over his lifetime but Graham changed after the L.A. meeting. He rejected Christian fundamentalism and became a middle of the roader, working with anyone who could produce a crowd. Graham sincerely chose to do wrong that good might result.

Casting his lot with liberal, unbelieving clergy was the biggest mistake Billy Graham ever made.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”