Franklin Graham's people play the "call" card: a cautionary tale

by Dan Phillips

In The Pastoral Call, and How There Isn't One, we accomplished two things:

1. We drove a Bibley stake through the heart of a cherished and unsupportable tradition.
2. We warned against its inherently disastrous dangers.

And now, as if ordered from a catalog, Franklin Graham and Co. come along to illustrate precisely what I'm talking about.

I'm not happy about it. For starters, long ago I wanted to be supportive of the universally-beloved icon Billy Graham... but then I read this, and watched videos like this, and heard him preaching to inmates in a prison that God had given them "the most precious gift of all" which, it turned out, was not Jesus Christ, but "free will," and the ability to "decide to become a better person" — and it became pretty tough to do.

But Franklin Graham has made statements and taken stands over the years that gave me hope that this apple fell a healthy distance from the tree.

Until this.

We read in this story that Franklin Graham was "shocked" (shocked!) to find that the organization's web site had a page labeling Mormonism as a "cult." They took the page down, and it's down for good. Why?

Graham explained, “[W]e’re calling people names. If I want to win people to Christ, how can I call them names?” Then BG media rep A. Larry Ross followed up with “Mr. Graham’s calling [N.B.] is not to pass judgment, but to proclaim the Biblical truth that Jesus is the only way to heaven, allowing every individual and group to fall along that plumb line.”

Other BG reps said “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign,” and “If [Billy Graham] would do something that would alienate an audience, he wouldn’t be able to reach them.”

Well, so much could be said about that, couldn't it? I'm going to pick only one aspect, which I just developed at some length in connection with expounding and applying Titus 1:9. Larry Ross tells us, "Mr. Graham's calling is not to pass judgment."

Let's say I'd like to dispute that. (Readers: "I'd like to dispute that." Yes, thanks, you're all very helpful.)

This is pretty important, right? Ross is claiming that Graham has a note from God, against all Scripture, excusing him from calling damning heresy "damning heresy." It is a "call" that actually cancels Scripture. Or it surely seems to.

So yes, I dispute that.

But this "calling" must be a very powerful and persuasive thing, mustn't it, to compel a man in such a public and influential position to take such a stand? It must be compelling, thunderous, huge.

So, I'd like to see it. Is that too much to ask? So where can I go to examine Franklin Graham's "calling"? Perhaps Graham misread it. If so, I'd like to help. Or if God has cancelled out what He previously said (such as in, oh, Eph. 5:11b, Titus 1:9 [et passim], and Jude 3), I really need to know it. All pastors really need to know it.

Or did God just issue an exemption for Franklin Graham? Again, if Christians are expected to support him (even to the tune of $00.01) as an evangelist, we need to know when, where and how God issued this "calling" that cancelled His holy, inerrant, unchanging and abiding word. After all, how can an "evangelist" call people to repent if he can't explain what they need to repent of and why they need to do it. Otherwise, one is reminded of the joke.

QUESTION: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness and a Unitarian?
ANSWER: Someone who goes knocking door to door for no apparent reason.

But I would bet that Ross' adept playing of the "C" card (Calling!) didn't raise a dozen eyebrows among readers. Which is a tragedy, a tragedy to be billed to Charismatics and sloppy mystical non's alike.

But that's the desired effect, of course. "Oh, that's his calling? Okay, all right, I guess we're done here."

Underneath this lies perhaps a more fundamental question is: what is Franklin Graham? Is he a pastor? Of what church? Is he an evangelist? Under the authority of what church? If this latter, do the elders of his church know enough Bible to call him aside, rebuke and correct him, call him to (wait for it) repentance?

Because I don't know any other authoritative call of God, and any other binding template for all Christian leadership, than that which we find in the Word of God. This is a calling that is out-there, that is open to examination and analysis, and that is morally binding.

An example of this is Titus 1:9, which I translate thus: "holding fast to the faithful word according to the teaching, in order that he might be able both to exhort by healthy doctrine, and to reprove those who contradict." See there a twofold exercise of the leader's powerful ability in Scripture: "both to exhort by healthy doctrine, and to reprove those who contradict." Not either/or; but both/and. It's God-given, it's non-negotiable, and it's out there for all to see.

So while we might like to prance forth, preaching (select parts of) Jesus, love, joy, puppies and wonderfulness, and just forget about sin, error, shipwreck, apostasy and damning deception, we just do not have that option.

It isn't our calling.

---