To large extent, he's earned it. Billy Graham has served in ministry longer than most of the rest of us have been alive. He's been an adviser to presidents, he leads massive crusades that are major events in their own right, and he's done all this with no missteps serious enough to be reckoned as a scandal. With few exceptions, he has reserved his influence for the church, and he's been a guidepost for many.
Back when Time magazine was looking for the Person of the 20th Century, there understandably was a big e-mail campaign to have him named.
And yet, for all his reputation, I don't think his influence has been all that great. Everyone's heard of Billy Graham, and has respect for him, but for all the numbers he draws to his crusades, I really have to wonder at the supposed conversion rates attributed to his ministry. From what I've seen, the people who attend his crusades either already are Christians or belong very much to the churched crowd.
Who accomplishes more, the person who keep drawing crowds that already agree with him; or the one who beats the bushes and draws a handful here and there who never would have heard the message otherwise?
Billy Graham's ministry has followed a pattern set at least a century ago and that had held for a generation or two, but is no longer valid for much of the United States.
How many crack addicts and teen prostitutes are going to attend a big revival meeting?
His reputation is relatively clean and free from the scandal that has felled so many others, and there's something to be said for that. But in the final analysis, is he a titan of the faith, or just a very popular preacher because he represents an era that people feel is slipping away?
No comments:
Post a Comment