Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Billy Graham Matters
In the early 1900s new ideas began to take root from Germany. Instead of starting with the Bible as the source of authority and working out to change lives and culture, we should begin with the authority of the Enlightenment — reason, scientific method, and literary criticism — and mold the Bible to its conclusions. The result of this movement is called modernism or liberal theology where one was free to rearrange any doctrine from the virgin birth to the resurrection to the writings of Paul according to this presumably higher criticism of truth.
In response to this movement Bible believers financed and distributed to churches a volume of books called The Fundamentals enumerating historical Christian beliefs in an attempt to push back this new onslaught. The Bible was God’s revelation and therefore its truths and teaching should prevail. Those behind this way of thinking about the Bible were called Fundamentalists.
During those days of debate, both sides of the schism, Liberals and Fundamentalists, were mainline churches. Neither took on the emotional baggage these words may produce today. Liberals pushed towards an intellectual honesty that produced a Jesus so neutered that he really wasn’t much of a savior. Fundamentalists held fast towards the most literal interpretations possible.
This came to a standoff in the Scopes evolution challenge by the ACLU. The Fundamentalist held to a literal seven 24-hour days (now called Young Earth) Creation position (not essential for even Conservative Christianity but it is the most literal reading of Genesis 1). In the end, they won the trial but lost the cultural imagination.
H. L. Menchen was an anti-religious, cynical reporter who was given an opportunity of a lifetime to cover the trials. He believed that Fundamentalism belonged to the ignorant masses who were too stupid to see their own folly. His harsh and biting sarcastic report was syndicated throughout the nation and the stereotypes stuck. Fundamentalists were ignorant, backwoods, and intolerant.
Growing at that time was a Dispensational theology that taught among other things that the world was going to get worse before the day of Christ’s return was ushered in. Following this impulse, Fundamentalists moved out of culture and became a separatist movement. The liberals could have the worldly educational institutes, entertainment, and politics. The Fundamentalists will have their camp meetings and Bible prophecy studies harkening the day of the Lord.
After World War II, a new movement began to develop. Men and women felt a calling to take a softer (albeit Bible-believing) form of Fundamentalism that was called Evangelicalism, into the public square. Billy Graham was a prominent face of this movement.
Unlike liberalism, he didn’t preach a gospel that started with cultural sensibilities and attempted to work it into the Bible. Rather, like the Fundamentalists, he preached a message that started with the Bible and proclaimed it to change lives and culture. The singular difference with his ministry is that he wasn’t doing it in a separatist church or a backwoods camp meeting. He was doing it in stadiums and arenas and before world leaders. Though it would be an exaggeration to say he did this single-handedly, he was a significant instrument of taking Bible-believing Christianity out of the backwoods and making it acceptable and even attractive in culture again. He could have easily had the slogan “Make Bible-Believing Christianity Great Again.”
Since that time, many responded to gospel presentations, a Jesus movement sprung up among the hippies, Campus Crusade for Christ and the Navigators engaged college students, Christian publishing and music hit the charts, and many megachurches have been built. Those in this movement today span denominations, politics, and nationalities but are held together by fundamental beliefs such as the authority of the Bible, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the necessity of Christ’s atonement for salvation. Many on this side of the aisle have people like Billy Graham to thank for making this gospel accessible to the culture at large.
Both liberal theology and fundamentalism/evangelicalism have gotten more diverse, complicated, and nuanced. The question of where authority begins — cultural sensibilities or the Bible — remain the crux of the division to this very day. This division will probably always be with us, at least in our lifetimes. Nevertheless, it was men like Billy Graham who helped level the playing field.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
A delightful essay, God Bless you, brother.
I agree that you’ve written an excellent essay. Modernism goes back at least to the 19th Century with JEDP (Documentary hypothesis) and other attacks on the Bible.
Good stuff. Here’s a piece I did on him: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/billy-graham-now-rides-chariot-fire/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=06e18f6600-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-06e18f6600-83962481
Very interesting. Thanks. I watched the Buckley interview of him on Firing Line and I simply was captivated by his mind and the discipline he imposed on his mind — always keeping his mind on Jesus first. It is really interesting to watch and listen to him and his way of responding to some difficult questions.
At one point early on he talks about how respectful the young long-haired hippies and other students were when he talked about Jesus. But then he says that they turned away when he talked about churches. His message was always about Jesus first and foremost but he had very nuanced understanding of what he was about and how to do it. (He was not against churches, for example, he just knew their priority.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoaUw3ZrcVQ
Keeping your mind continuously on the Lord is one of the greatest and sometimes the most difficult practice one can take on.
Very nice — loved this especially, where you say:
Thank you @larrykoler for that link. Very interesting. I was also fascinated to see the three panel questioners — Jeff Greenfield, Frances Fitzgerald, and John Coyne. Greenfield, of course, made his name in broadcasting. Fitzgerald won a Pulitzer and has returned from time to time to write about evangelicals. Coyne has written numerous novels.
This was an error IMO, and Evangelicals continued/compounded the trend. Camp meetings and bible studies are great, but gathering together is only one part of people of faith. The main part is a human being’s relationship with God and being in the world as its “salt” and “light” — including educational institutions, entertainment, and politics (as involved citizens, office holders, etc.)
Over the past couple decades Evangelicals have seen where their pulling back from society (voluntary or involuntary) has led and tried to re-enter the public square somewhat, although perhaps that pendulum has swung a bit far in the other direction in certain areas. The manner of some ministers’ heavy involvement with specific politicians/campaigns walks a Biblical tightrope, I think.
Wonderful piece, @davidbsable. Thank you for writing and posting it.
Good post.
YEC wasn’t just the most literal reading. It was also a very venerable tradition. Augustine, e.g., is a YEC.
Yes, Augustine is famous for a non-literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis. That doesn’t matter.
One of the most important points of Augustinian hermeneutics is that a Bible passage can have more than one meaning, and he does read Genesis historically–as we now call it, “literally,” although it’s true what folks like @andrewklavan say who point out that no one reads the whole Bible literally because we all recognize literary things like metaphor.
Depending on how we define “fundamentalism,” it easily goes back as far as Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Paul, and John!
I am neither a theologian nor a Christian but, so far as I can tell, there is no reason why one must take the historical account of Genesis literally in order to achieve salvation through Christ or to live a moral life in accordance with Christ’s teachings. In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion, insisting on an account of history that is in stark opposition to “reason and the scientific method” gives people grounds to be suspect of all scripture, including the teachings of Christ that are in no way opposed to either reason or the scientific method. If the purpose of one’s testimony is to lead others to a belief in Christ, then I think it is a very bad rhetorical tactic to start by insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Many non-believers (not including myself) argue that religion stands in opposition to science. I see no contradiction between the two, and I think that people of faith do themselves a disservice if they accept that dichotomy as being true.
Most scriptures in the world are not written for their historical value — instead, shared historical vignettes of the time are put in service to tell of a higher truth. In India, many orthodox Hindus insist on putting Sri Lanka in the category of a bad place to visit because of the horrible demon (Ravana) who ruled there in the Ramayana (one of the two most important Hindu scriptures along with The Mahabharata). This has caused communal strife between India and Sri Lanka. This is much like the role that Egypt plays in the Bible.
This is true.
Steady on! What six-day creationist does that? I’ve known dozens, probably hundreds, of young-earth creationists who do no such thing. I don’t believe I have met even one who did.
Indeed.
But which people of faith are you talking about? I don’t think I ever met a Baptist in Texas, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, or Hong Kong who thought that. Nor a Catholic or Anglican or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or Mennonnite in Kenya, Texas, Georgia, or Pakistan who thought that. And hardly any Muslims in Pakistan. (Maybe a handful of my students in Pakistan were Muslims who thought that–a tiny minority.)
At least not exclusively. The very meaning of the Abrahamic religions’ theologies includes quite a few historical claims.
Quite right. There is no contradiction and there is no reason to insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis must be the foundation of Christian or Jewish faith. And as I like to point out, if you want methodological naturalism, look no farther than Genesis. Those glowing points in sky at night? They’re just lights, not gods and goddesses. The sun and moon? Same thing. Just objects.
Auggie, the supposed dichotomy between a “fundamentalist” understanding of Scripture and the Enlightenment values of “reason and the scientific method” is not my dichotomy. It is the one presented in the OP. I think that dichotomy is only valid if one feels that one must accept Scripture as an accurate historical account. I guess you believe otherwise, since you have previously told me that you accept every passage of Scripture as literal and accurate. I don’t actually understand how you square that with an acceptance of reason and scientific method, but you are certainly entitled to hold beliefs which seem (to me) to be inconsistent.
Often when discussing the issue of the literal reading of scriptures I bring up this quote:
This is only to illustrate a simple point not to get into a big discussion of this line of scripture but to make it clear just what it is that is meant by allegory, allusion, metaphor or simile.
Hi Larry
There is only so much you can do in an article so often one is forced to speak in generalities. Nevertheless, the idea that not all Scripture is to be taken literally and that there are various genres in the Bible is not lost on Evangelicals scholars. They believe that taking a passage literally is not always taking the passage seriously. One example I use in Genesis is where God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. No conservative theologian will then conclude that God has legs, a body, and is constrained to space and time.
Genesis 1 is a debate within Evangelical Christianity, all of whom believe the essentials and affirm the authority of the Bible, of how how you read the word Day. I hope to write about this some time.
-Dave
Well said. If people don’t contend with my challenge (at least in their own minds) then I just don’t think there can be a serious discussion.
I greatly appreciate that you think about the issues!
Yeah, I know you said it wasn’t yours. But you said it was someone‘s, did you not?
I can ask who, can I not?
Where is that in the OP? There’s not even a hint of it in this description: “Bible believers financed and distributed to churches a volume of books called The Fundamentals enumerating historical Christian beliefs in an attempt to push back this new onslaught. The Bible was God’s revelation and therefore its truths and teaching should prevail.”
Really? When did I say that?
I may be stupid, but I’m probably not stupid enough to say that. I profess the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and I say every passage in the Bible is accurate, yes. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s all literal. I’ve known well enough for many years that the Bible employs metaphor and so on.
Yes, yes, yes.
(There is a bit more to the debate than just whether the word “day” is meant literally, but, all the same, yes.)
Let’s take another look at this.
Continued:
(Continued)
The OP suggests that the liberals thought that orthodox Christianity could not measure up to modern science or to reason. In response, the Fundamentalists emphasized the truthfulness of the Bible and the importance of the traditional doctrines. There are at least three things a Fundamentalist might be doing here:
Larry presumes that the OP presents Fundamentalists as doing the first thing, and he refers to Fundamentalists who do that thing. I’d just like to know whom the heck he’s talking about.
Maybe Josh McDowell is a number 2 kind of guy, and maybe Machen or some other classic Fundamentalists are. Greg Bahnsen and the O. C. Supertones are clearly number 3s.
I’ve encountered at least five Baptists over the years who strayed into number 1 territory, saying things like “the Gospel is for babes” or talking about “blind faith.” However, I doubt even one of them would really accept number 1 if you sat them down and talked them through these things slowly. (Three were family members or friends whose theology I think is far too orthodox to go too far into number 1 territory. Like Chesterton’s Father Brown says, “It’s bad theology” to denounce reason.)
The folks at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research are never number 1 folks–probably almost uniformly number 2 with a few number 3 types. The authors and signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy are never number 1, with probably a good mix of 2 and 3.
I myself have left an enormous e-paper trail on Ricochet (and even a bit elsewhere online) in the number 3 category.
Actually, I am talking about any one of those three, with the exception of someone in camp #2 who does not insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture as being historically accurate. Otherwise, the OP is accurate in identifying a “schism” (the OP’s word, not mine) between Fundamentalism on the one hand, and Enlightenment rationality and the scientific method on the other. Auggie, you claim to be in camp #3, which means that you reject both reason and knowledge as understood by the Enlightenment and embodied in the scientific method. Yeah, I know you’re going to tell me you didn’t say that, but that’s how David defined camp #3. Anyway, that position is about as schismy as one can get. And I still say that the schism is both unnecessary and counterproductive. But feel free to schism away, if you wish.
My dear fellow, you appear to be contradicting yourself:
This describes 1 and 1 only. Numbers 2 and 3 have nothing to do with what you describe here.
And this describes 1 and does not describe 2. It does not describe 3 either, though perhaps your mistake in thinking it does is excusable. But we’ll get to that later.
In fact, in that long e-paper trail to which I alluded, the interested reader will be able to see that I defend both reason and science and profess that we get knowledge from science. You, however, cannot do this. The most important thread here is “Empiricism and the Sources of Knowledge,” and the interested reader might consult the following:
–Auggie at comment # 53 professing that he accepts what we learn from science,
–Auggie at comment # 102 explaining why Larry’s epistemology denies the possibility of scientific knowledge and, again, professing that he happily recognizes scientific knowledge,
–Larry at comment # 130 denying that any scientific principle which entails anything about the future can be knowledge,
–and Auggie at comment # 131 remaking on # 130 and professing again that we do get knowledge from science.
To the contrary, nothing of the sort is in the OP. Return, please, to its first paragraphs and read them more carefully. Paragraph # 1 describes Enlightenment standards of reason as they were understood by the liberals.
Paragraph # 2 only states that the Fundamentalists insisted on the truth of the historic Christian doctrines and on the truth and inspiration of the Bible. Whether those theological claims are in conflict with the liberals’ understanding of Enlightenment reason or not, and whether the liberals understood Enlightenment and scientific reasoning properly, and whether an Enlightenment understanding of reason is even reasonable or not, are plainly not even mentioned in paragraph # 2.
This is precisely why 1, 2, and 3 are all available strategies for the Fundamentalist, at least within the bounds of the OP’s description of them.
See above: David did not in fact define camp # 3 in this way.
And, as usual, I said nothing of the absurd sort of thing you accuse me of saying. I only said that, as a # 3 kind of guy, I do not think “reason as understood by liberal theologians” is correct, and that I object to their epistemology, and that I profess a better epistemology.
You will (I hope) notice that I never even mentioned whether the liberal epistemology is an Enlightenment epistemology or a scientific epistemology.
The liberals thought it was, but I am free to disagree! Indeed, at “Empiricism and Miracles” it is most plain that I object to the sort of reasoning used by liberals in no small part because it is not empirical reasoning! In other words, their epistemology is anti-science, and I think that’s bad.
(This is very typical thinking for me. At # 27 of “Some Metaphysics: Point by Point” I explain, and Phil covers this towards the end of one of my YouTube philosophy dialogues, why my rejection of materialism is more consistent with science than materialism is. I can disagree with scientists on global warming or whatever, but a materialist who understands metaphysics will find it difficult to agree with scientists on anything!)
Auggie, I always get a kick out of your approach to argument. It is seldom productive, but always entertaining. In any event, experience has taught me to recognize the point where there is no value to further comment, so I will leave you with #26-28 as the last word.
Meanwhile, how are you enjoying Hong Kong?
What am I to do that’s productive when my interlocutor is refuted meticulously and ignores the fact?
Well enough, thank you, at least most of the time. I can get to the top of Lion Rock from my office in just under an hour. Beautiful city!
Students are remarkably disinterested in talking in class. I could babble for hours about philosophy and religion, but I’m supposed to get them to talk or at least to do something during the tutorial sessions. That’s a bit of a challenge.