Billy Graham: last of the mass evangelists?

I read an article in the NYT earlier this month that I found rather interesting. It was on Billy Graham and a library that has been built in North Carolina devoted to his life and teachings. Several political figures (including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) paid tribute to Graham at a gathering commemorating the opening of the library, and Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard, was recorded as having said something at the event that caught my attention:

"Nobody is going to be the next Billy Graham. What we are looking at in the future of evangelism is niche evangelism, based on ethnicity, language, worship style. Graham was no doubt the last of the mass evangelists."

Is this true? Are the younger evangelists of today inherently divisive and unable to appeal to a mass audience? Or in my own more specific, blunt terms, are many of them just plain mercenary? (One of the things I admire about Graham is that from the start he had a fixed salary; he didn't try to gain a profit out of the "evangelism business," a decision which honors his cause.)

Most people don't take evangelists seriously these days. I usually don't. I'm suspicious of how much the big ones (like Joel Osteen) are in it for success and money, and the whole prosperity gospel they can be apt to preach is very problematic and not scripturally-based.

However, I was fortunate to have attended Billy Graham's Last Crusade in Flushing Meadows two years ago, which I loved, and a year ago I went to a service at Saddleback in California, Rick Warren's Church. (Author of "A Purpose-Driven Life.") But that brings me to a more basic question: what IS an evangelist? It should be just a preacher of the gospel or a so-called revivalist, but like many other words these days, it seems to have become more of a loaded term. (Kind of like "evangelical." Doesn't that conjure up political affiliation as well?) I do like the idea of sincere and strong leaders who are spreading their faith with integrity, fervor, and overall love and kindness towards all, but when someone with such power starts taking a political stance (which harkens back to Sarah's post on political buzz words) or preaching the "wrong" gospel, then that's when there's trouble.

Whether or not Billy Graham is truly the last of the mass evangelists (and whatever that REALLY means), I think the biggest problem these days when it comes to religious expression in our society is the issue of misrepresentation. Whether in the words of a politician, the scenes of a movie, the lines of a book, the quotes in an article or op-ed piece, or the voiced convictions of a religious leader, it is so easy to distort another religion, strip it of its integrity, and thus not give it its just due. This creates a domino effect of sorts: the offender who has made the statement misrepresents the tradition with which he/she is affiliated, the offended naturally take offense, and many of those listening and watching knowingly or unknowingly become indoctrinated with a harmful bias. Individuals and groups are spiritually misrepresented every day in the mass media, and the worst part of it is that misrepresentations are much harder to reverse than they are to cause.