I have taken the following quote from Kait Dugan’s blog, and a post that she has written, inclusive of this paragraph from Eberhard Busch (a student and research assistant to Karl Barth). In the quote, Busch is reflecting upon 
Karl Barth’s thoughts on famed evangelist Billy Graham; the quote notes Barth’s impression of Graham from his personal meetings with him, and then from personally hearing Graham preach at a “crusade.” I’ll let you read the quote, then comment on the other side:
“The same frontier was evident in a conversation Barth had with Billy Graham, in August 1960. His son Markus brought them together in Valais. However, this meeting was also a friendly one. ‘He’s a “jolly good fellow”, with whom one can talk easily and openly; one has the impression that he is even capable of listening which is not always the case with such trumpeters of the gospel.’ Two weeks later Barth has the same good impression after a second meeting with Graham, this time at home in Basle. But, ‘it was very different when we went to hear him let loose in the St Jacob stadium that same evening and witnessed his influence on the masses.’ ‘I was quite horrified. He acted like a madman and what he presented was certainly not the gospel.’ ‘It was the gospel at gun-point . . . He preached the law, not a message to make one happy. He wanted to terrify people. Threats – they always make an impression. People would much rather be terrified than pleased. The more one heats up hell for them, the more they come running.’ But even this success did not justify such preaching. It was illegitimate to make the gospel law or ‘to “push” it like an article for sale . . . We must leave the good God freedom to do his own work’.” (ht: Kait Dugan)
Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, 446.
Pretty critical, eh? Barth raises an intriguing point, though; especially for us American Evangelical types. I grew up in the house of an evangelist (pastor, my dad), and I myself, am quite an evangelist. The question that Barth raises is an old one, how do Law and Gospel relate? Luther and Calvin have their famous, and disparate approaches to answering that question; as does T.F. Torrance and Karl Barth. I doubt (not to be mean, but honest), that Billy Graham ever really thought about that in theological terms. But what do you think, do you think that Barth is ridiculously harsh on Graham? Do you think that Barth may be reading Graham not just through a theological paradigm, but that there might also be socio-cultural baggage informing Barth’s interpretation of Graham’s method? Or maybe it’s both? And then how do you proclaim the Gospel? What approach do you take in articulating the Gospel in given situations? Is there one way, one emphasis; or is presenting and proclaiming the Gospel more situational and “Spirit-led?” This is a 20 questions post π .
I heard “Billy” preach in England, so I side with Law & Gospel, this was both Luther & Calvin! Thank God for the old Reformation/Reformed Gospel!
“Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.” (Jude 21-23, NASB)
I wonder how “anxiously” (prosdechomai, Gk.) or expectant we are looking, for the Lord? Note, Heb. 12:28-29.
In this particular instance, I would tend to agree with Barth, that the proclamation of the Gospel is joyful proclamation of reconciliation and the end of sin and death.
Yet, knowing how Barth treats this topic throughout his Church Dogmatics, I would disagree with Barth’s own radical reversal of the Law-Gospel hermeneutic to Gospel-Law, where the Law is too much (in my opinion) dissolved into Gospel. I would rather, like Bavinck/Brunner/Berkouwer/etc., keep the traditional ordering and dialectical tension in play, where reprobation is still firmly posited as a real possibility with a proper place in dogmatic formulations…something that Barth was unable to do.
If I could pinpoint the single thing in Barth that I disagree the most with, with all of its ramifications, it is his reversal of Law and Gospel. As Fr. Robert notes, that puts me on the side of the Reformers as well as on the side of some of the best contemporaries of Barth.
Sorry, one more comment!
I’m currently reading a Phd dissertation on Brunner (from a friend at Aberdeen), and this dissertation demonstrates, among other things, that Brunner throughout his career consistently attacked Barth’s treatment of Law/Gospel as the fundamental and continuous error in Barth’s thinking. This ties into the pamphlet war on natural theology, but Brunner saw the real issue as a matter between properly discerning Law and Gospel.
Kevin,
This was one of the very things that keep me from the EO finally! Amen, with Bavnick/Brunner & Berkouwer, and just the Swiss & Dutch Reformed! Note I. John Hesselink’s book: Calvin’s Concept Of The Law. Even Barth made positive reference to this work, and T.F. Torrance also.
Nice post, and good to note the place of “reprobation” in these three men. Without this, we loose the edge of the Gospel, and certainly ‘Law & Gospel’.
Amen, indeed, Fr. Robert. This has also been a large reason why EO has never been a real option for me.
Remember that Graham was a door-to-door salesman before evangelist. Interesting parallel between learning to close the sale at the door and at the end of the service. His sales was not so effective but he could close a service. Sincere as he could be and acting passionately out of his theology.
Kevin,
Also since my theological life and study has been with St. Paul, their loss of the doctrine of Imputation was just too important also.
Seriously, I find that to even question Graham’s Gospel is to miss the forest for the tree. Graham was instrumental in the conversion of probably millions of people who are still walking with the lord today – his fruit!! While I don’t know Barth’s conversion rate, his fruit consists (in my naive opinion) of Banal posts about abstracted concepts and theological hair splitting. Law/gospel ordering be damned, people heard about Jesus and wanted to follow jesus by the millions, with Graham, while people who heard Barth, closed themselves away in seminaries trying to figure out the best way to understand the right ordering of abstracted theological jargon that they read in books.
This is fine if it is your calling, but for Barth to say what he did about Graham is similar to how most theological educated teachers react to the popular forms and messages of proclamation, they usually, in sad attempts to validate their particular theological calling, end up sounding like envious theological elites straining at gnats. Graham lead people to Jesus period and that is what is most important!
@Fr Rob and Kevin,
Law and Gospel are very important concepts, and both present in Scripture. I do find it to be helpful dogmatic cipher for trying to engage the Scriptures, but of course there is always a dialecticism involved. Kevin, from my knowledge of Barth, I would agree with you; that’s why I like Torrance, better on this, to me he provides more of a balance — yet still grounding his discussion in grace/Gospel (but of course Law is an aspect of God’s grace in salvation history).
@Paul,
Hello. And true, this is certainly part of Graham’s background.
@Kenny,
I am in total agreement with you. I think Graham has been used of the LORD in absolutely amazing ways. He’s an Evangelist, not a “Theologian,” per se; there is place in the body for both! But I think if someone’s theology relegates them to ridiculing the various outward attempts to proclaim, then this is ultimately a problem and reflects on a lack of spiritual depth and maturation.
Bobby,
I did not want to press this really, but as Kevin has brought it up, Barth’s putting grace/Gospel, then Law is just a tremendous error and loss, especially from the Reformers. Indeed both Luther and Calvin place it as does the Scripture, with Law and Gospel…”For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17) See too, the Book of Hebrews. And also Romans chap’s 1 thru 3, etc. Note also Gal. 4:1-4, etc., and again Rom. 15:3 ; 8, etc.
Fr Robert,
Of course, as Kevin says, there is a dialectic, I think, here. Clearly both components are present in Scripture, but how they relate interpretively and dogmatically is what’s under some dispute.
Bobby,
I believe in divine mystery in Holy Scripture very much, as the word and concept is there certainly, especially the NT. But the idea and really logic of dialectic is certainly Hegelian (truth is a reached by a continuing dialectic). And I am not sure this was ever fully out of the mind of Barth? It is also interesting that Barth insisted that creation was the external basis of the covenant, and that the covenant was the internal basis of creation. But to see this apart from the place of God’s divine will and purpose, presses out God’s freedom to see God only as a lover, apart from His holiness and complete otherness, and again His sovereign and divine purpose, known only to God! (Rom. 11: 33-36)
Note, this new debate with people like Bell, who make God into just an “immanent” lover, and loose the God Who is Holy and Totally Other, even to use one of Barth’s favorite terms. π
*is reached..one too many a’s.
Fr Robert,
Come on now, you know better than that. Dialectic is at least as old as the scholastics as a methodology (check Muller on that π ). I can appeal to dialectic, and not appeal to the immanentism of Hegel or even Barth.
But one can certainly talk about God as love in much more responsible and dogmatically/Scripturally (I Jn 4.8 etc) ways than someone like Bell; that seems to be a bit of guilt by association. That’s not at all how TFT or even Athasansius would conceive of God as love (e.g. in the terms of Bell, whatever those are).
Bobby,
I am really convinced myself that Barth was not really able to shed himself from Hegal, and the Hegalian! I have read Hegal myself, he is hard not to like, i.e. his method. It really has affected modern theology!
And scholasticism is not Hegal, but Hegal uses scholastic ideas certainly. Again, we must be careful with biblical “mystery”, and the later idea of the theological-dialectic. My thinking anyway. π
Bobby,
I am closer to classic Calvinism (with my FV ideas), and you are seeking your ‘Evangelical Calvinism’. Though, I am also just a “Biblicist” quite literally also. Now that’s a tension! π
Fr Robert,
Yeah, but that’s my point. Why do you assume because I use the language of dialectic that I’m Barthian, why not scholastic? And why do you want to necessarily imbue some sort of metaphysical meaning into dialectic, Muller makes the point, clearly that it is primarily methodology. I’ve used the language of dialectic long before I ever read any Barth or TFT. I’m not referring to Barth or Hegel when I use dialectic, I’m referring to the methodology!
I am highly biblicist myself, Fr Robert. To claim such doesn’t really get us too far though, it only presumes that one is following the Bible, and the other isn’t; and clearly I’m the former π !
And Evangelical Calvinism is very traditional and metaphysical. This is the difference between a Barthian and Torrancean; a Barthian is “postmetaphysical” and a Torrancean is “metaphysical” or “traditional” still (this is what the whole “Companion” debate is over between McCormack and Hunsinger on reading Barth, I believe that McCormack is right . . . Barth was postmetaphysical and not trad).
Bobby,
I did not say “Biblicist” to try and one up on you, its just closer to where I live! And, if your “method” is closer to scholastic, so be it. My point, is both Barth and TFT cannot be unaffected by Hegal, especially Barth. We all live in some “theological” place. I want mine to be more Reformed Scholastic!
Yeah Bobby, I just seek to avoid all of the Barth debates now. Though I do like and read Barth some, though as I have said over and over… he is more like a Church Father to me. Which means I respect him, but he is hard to understand, and hard to place biblically. But again, I read him more for spiritual thought and even devotion, but not really hard theology for myself. I am a “Biblicist”! π
Bobby,
Btw, you might find this link by John Frame of interest, on Law & Gospel? He touches on Westminster Sem CA. today..
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2002Law.htm
Fr Robert,
I think, as method, scholastic has been around for a long time (even longer than medieval, it’s “Classical” even). Sure there is Reformed scholasticism, Barthian scholasticism (where metaphysical construals are intertwined with the method). EC seeks to avoid actually be more of a Christian humanist in method; either Yes or No (and allow that to be the “dialectic”).
Thanks for the link.
Reopening the discussion per your suggestion today. I’m with Kenny on this one. I saw Billy Graham in Philly in the 90’s. I like and respect him. I would love to have his gift. That said, strictly on a personal level, I saw some of Billy Graham on tv in the 70’s before I was saved. I did not understand what he was getting at then, nor did I understand his gospel in the 90’s. It would have never been an “effectual call” for me. I needed the clear cut message of a “free grace” gospel. I’m far too realistic to put any stock in my ability to “commit myself” to anyone, or to “forsake my sin” etc. I believe the issue of law and grace are much simpler: “You! You are a sinner! You are lost! You need a savior! Jesus is that Savior. Trust Him! Period.” You can (and should) fill in some more info, like what makes me lost, and what makes Jesus the Savior, but as far as “doing” is concerned, anything beyond trusting (if you must include repentance, specify that that is repenting of trying to save myself) just muddies the waters, and adds me into the act of salvation.
All of that said, Rev. Graham’s message has been effectual for millions, and I would take nothing away from him, and I would add that the faith he had to step out and speak where this particular messenger fears to tread is much much to his credit.
Duane,
I think many of the attacks are unwarranted as well.
I agree with Kenny Chmiel: I am an Evangelist and minister with a doctoral degree in Theology. I like a lot of the theology of Barth, BrΓΌnner, and other big guns. However; Christ’s command to the disciples was an easy one: “Go and make disciples … not theologians, critics, wise guys, etc.” Be like DL Moody (also a shoe salesman); who’s motto was: “I want to go to heaven and I want to take as many people as possible with me” … and I trust that all of them are in heaven and the theological differences are sorted out in 30 minutes after arrival!
GET SAVED FIRST AND THEN BEGIN THEOLOGISING!