Archives

2016 BGC Archival Research Lecture

Dr. Wacker's Notes for His Lecture

BGCA Archive Lecture
09.23.16 c

Countless friends at Wheaton

Risky to try to name them all because I will forget

Two who go back longer than I can remember are Mark Noll and Edith Blumhofer. 

And also, especially, Bob Shuster and Paul Erickson.

First visit to BGCA in summer of 2006.

I had no idea what I was looking for, just “stuff” on BG.

Immediately I learned 4 things.

First, leave your backpack outside the reading room.  Also leave your coffee mug.  And your ball point pens.

Second, sign out when you go out for lunch.  But not if you are just going out for a drink of water.

Three, ask questions.  Bob, Paul, in those days Wayne Weber, later Marla, made clear that they were there to help.  And help they did, every way imaginable, even staying after hours.

Four, if ever you are stumped, ask Bob.  Without question Bob knows more about the details of BG’s life and ministry, as well as most of the evangelical projects associated with him, than anyone else alive.  Someday Bob will be beatified as St. Archivist.

Tonight, my topic is “The Making of a Leader: Billy Graham and American Culture.”
. 

Tonight I will look at three ways that BG found his calling in the leadership of the evangelical movement. First, how he contributed to his own role, second how the press contributed to it, and finally how ordinary Americans contributed to it.  At the end I will talk about some of the ways that the BGCA helped me navigate this intriguing territory.

Before plunging in, let me note that I am not going to fuss with conceptual or definitional issues about what a leader is, or how leaders differ from celebrities, or how fame differs from influence.  Those are all important topics, but they would take us far afield tonight.

One more preliminary note.  Harold Myra, former editor of CT, and Marshall Shelley have written a fine and under appreciated book, aptly titled, The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham (2005).

I have profited from this book, and draw on its insights here.  But Harold and Marshall’s focus falls more on BG’s admirable character traits, all of which I heartily endorse, while my thoughts tonight run more toward how BG drew on cultural expectations of a leader, as well as external trends that helped define and preserve his status as a leader.

I.  First, how did BG construct his own leadership skills?

Inherited traits—physique, looks, blue eyes, voice—that he made the most of of. 

He astutely understood that leadership could be enhanced or diminished by image.

He said he trained like a prize fighter before crusades.

Careful to dress the part.  His wardrobe changed with the context.  (Usually…)

Cultivated his voice, described by Gibbs & Duffy as “an instrument of great range and power.”

Role of blue eyes in an age of color TV.

Reporter to BG aide: what if the Lord had made BG short, chubby, and scrappy of hair?  Response: but the Lord didn’t, did he?

Self-developed leadership abilities

How did BG himself hone his leadership abilities?

At FBI practiced and polished his preaching style.  Nothing was accidental

Went to Wheaton to enhance education (partly his mother).  At a cost, too, for it took him a long time to adjust to Yankee culture

Significantly, at Wheaton majored in anthropology, not theology, as he knew anthropology would be more useful for missions. 
He never went into missions in a conventional sense, but he seemed to sense from the outset the need for an evangelist to be sensitive to the changing culture.  

And he deployed these skills in his world wide ministries, although here as everywhere with BG things were complicated

Perennial tension between coming across as a paradigmatic American, marketing an American product like an American-made bar of soap, and trying to present the gospel as a transcultural ideal, independent of parochial American trappings, relevant to all cultural settings. 

And with time he grew increasingly sensitive to the wider poverty and suffering of the world, which he addressed

Role of networking in YFC.  Not suggesting that he made friends intentionally in order to network, but he instinctively understood the role of knowing other people engaged in the same mission as he was

Avoided seminary.  Sensed that it would not give him the kind of tools he needed in order to be the kind of evangelist / leader he envisaged for himself.

As early as mid-1940s, he started bringing on board highly expert associates who could do what he could not do. 

Knew how to pick the right men.  (Given the times, all were men.)   Most of them stayed all their lives, Barrows, Shea, Ford, but also Grady and T. W. Wilson brothers, and George Wilson. 

And yet he retained for himself the role he knew only he could do.

Early on, organized the BGEA.  On the face of it, for tax and business purposes.  But also to regularize his evangelistic efforts.  Bring order.

Prevailing image of him as a hands-off CEO, who gave everyone a long rope.  But in fact everyone knew he held the far end rope firmly.  Called into the Minneapolis office every night. 

Media outreach.  HOD radio and TV, magazines, books, My Answer, World Wide Pictures.

Insider accounts invariably present all this as an effort to market/herald the gospel message.  And clearly it was.

But also important to recognize that these endeavors boosted BG’s own visibility as a leader of the modern evangelical movement.  He clearly knew his own role as the leader of a movement. 

Throughout his career, we see a mix of professional ambition and personal humility.

Sometimes personal ambition too, nothing wrong with that, all great leaders are ambitious for their cause as well as for their own role as leaders.

II.  How did the press construct BG as a leader?

Foundational role of Hearst and Luce.  BG allowed that that his rise grew in great part from their support.

For nearly 70 years BG relation with the press crucial, frequent, and generally congenial.

Mutually supportive relationship. 

He liked them, they liked him.

From BG’s side…

He understood how they helped establish his leadership of the evangelical movement.  (Andrew Walsh: BG was an expert with the press, treated them directly, cordially, professionally)

He cultivated the press, with countless conferences and interviews

Willingness to apologize.

 (Unfortunately, the BGEA did not follow through.  On the other hand, I do not see MLK monuments apologizing either.)

Press’s side…

Press found him a lucrative subject. 

Press’s use of photos, “he never took a bad picture.”

Emphasized the dashing, daring side of BG

Emphasized human side, with family, recreational golfing

Emphasized BG with the rich and the powerful

Aside: under appreciated crucial role of Russ Busby

Evolution of press attitudes…

Throughout 1950s boosted him

Early 1960s, lionized him, though less and less as VN progressed

Early 1970s sharply criticized him, White House chaplain

Late 1970s till 2002 admired him

2002 Jewish revelations: uniform dismay, gradual acceptance, never forgiveness

2005 on: admiration returned, bordered on veneration

2005 on: complication of Franklin, who won little praise in the press, but on the whole admiration persisted to the end

III.  How did ordinary Americans make BG as leader?

Most obviously, they attended his crusades, tuned in to his programs, bought his books.  By definition a leader requires followers (= faithful hearers, viewers, readers).

(There were BG groupies, too.  How much they helped burnish the image, hard to say.) 

 Almost as obviously, followers funded his ministry and him.  They voted with their wallets.

Three million converts. Indirectly but importantly sustained him in his role as leader.  An evangelist who wins no souls soon loses his power of command.

Finally, the millions of letters, represented at BGCA, document his ability to touch heartland Americans.  Taken together, these letters leave no doubt that they regarded him as a leader (if not the primary) leader of the evangelical movement.

They also show that they regarded him as not only a leader but also as pastor, priest, confessor.

Amazingly, they do NOT treat him as a pundit.  Of the hundreds of letters that I worked through (and worked through is the right word, too, since the handwriting often is intimidating), none asked him a political question, or even a larger moral question such as what should we do about the environment.

Letters from children excellent index of BG’s connection with grass roots America.

“Tell Jesus hi for me…” 

Same point: these documents demonstrate the breadth of consensus that BG served as the symbolic and real head of the evangelical movement.

IV. This leads me to a final comment about the Archive.

On my second visit to BG in his home, he asked me what I thought of the BGCA.  I sang its praises, and added that Bob Shuster is a national treasure who will be impossible to replace.  BG smiled and said he agreed.

Some concluding words about the BGCA…

It really is a truly remarkable collection of source materials, and expertly managed.  The curators know where everything is, and they get it for you promptly.

I conclude my stressing my appreciation for the BGCA, and especially for Bob, Paul, and all the others who helped me with my work on BG.

I know many other historians who have worked here too, including some who are sharply critical of BG and paint a harsh portrait of him in their work.  And yet they uniformly applaud the professionalism and courtesy of the BGCA staff. 

To all of them, and to Mr. Graham himself who saw fit to house his materials in this manner, I express heartfelt thanks.