D. L. Moody Legacy: Good or Bad?

[John81]

Moody is held in high regard and many Baptists love to quote him. However, in digging deeper into his ministry it seems that if he were around today many fundamentalists would speak out against him.

Do you think the legacy of Moody has been positive or negative? Why?

[Pastor Matt]

Give us some examples of what we would speak out against. I know a few, I was just wondering exactly what it is you had in mind.

[Covenanter]

"Decisionist" evangelism;
commendation of Scofield;

but should we condemn such a dedicated evangelist? He answers to his Lord.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Covenanter

[John81]

There are many things some denounced Moody for during his time. Covenanter touched on one, the advancement of dispensationalism and its leading proponents at the time. At that time, most fundamentalist/conservative Christians didn't accept dispensationalism and some other aspects that went along with it then, such as the idea of a pre-Adamic race and the "gap theory".

Moody was rather ecumenical and his ministry tended to cause division within denominations and churches wherever he went.

Moody used "modern music" and an organ, both of which were considered unacceptable by those more conservative and fundamentalist.

Moody's use of "inquiry rooms" was a divisive issue.

Moody focused on "God is love" (similar to how many do today to the exclusion of God's other attributes), viewing almost all other matters as of very little importance. Getting folks to make a "decision for Christ" was viewed by Moody as all that mattered, what they believed or did beyond that he was open to let them decide for themselves; which included "converts" going into wayward or unsound churches...similar to how Billy Graham came to conduct his crusades.

There are probably a few othere things, but that's what I get off the top of my head right now.

[JerryNumbers]

There are many past pastors of which we probably would not agree with 100% of the time, yet they made many statements that if we quoted them, it would be 100% truth.

That said, when preaching nearly ever quote I make comes from Bible characters, I quote very few pastors. Plus, I am not very fond of the pastors that spend much of their time quoting other pastors. I think they could spend their time better proclaiming the Word.

[John81]

There are many past pastors of which we probably would not agree with 100% of the time, yet they made many statements that if we quoted them, it would be 100% truth.

That said, when preaching nearly ever quote I make comes from Bible characters, I quote very few pastors. Plus, I am not very fond of the pastors that spend much of their time quoting other pastors. I think they could spend their time better proclaiming the Word.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. I've noticed in some churches much confusion comes about because a pastor will quote some famous preacher from the past often. When some in the congregation actually look into the preacher being quoted they discover that preacher held many views contrary to what their pastor proclaims. This sometimes leads to division within the church as the pastor comes under questioning, some in the congregation prefer the quoted preachers views to their pastors, etc.

This is similar to the problem with some pastors who want to quote "Mother" Teresa even though she was yoked to the false religion of the RCC and discounted the Gospel.

Why quote those who may have made a good statement, yet they held to totally or very different views? Considering there typically several who did hold to ones views who could be quoted instead, why promote others, by quoting them often, when there really is no need to?

I was reminded of this recently when reading on pastors comments upon preaching and he cited a preacher from the 1700 or 1800s who leaned towards the teachings of the RCC and never professed Christ! So what if this false preacher could weave certain studies together well, the same could be said of many faithful preachers he could hAV cited instead.

In any event, to an extent, the more I read up on Moody, the more he seems to have been sort of the Billy Graham of his time; perhaps even helping to set the stage for the likes of Graham who helped to set the stage for the likes of Rick Warren.

[John81]

After reading more about Moody it seems clear why those who followed him and the institutions he founded took a more liberal route, to one extent or another. There is a history of accepting and promoting MVs, lowering or dropping various standards of dress and social conduct, not taking solid stands on various aspects of Scripture, embracing ecumenicalism, etc.

It's looking to me as if the legacy of Moody isn't what some have attempted to make it out to be.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Why quote those who may have made a good statement, yet they held to totally or very different views? Considering there typically several who did hold to ones views who could be quoted instead, why promote others, by quoting them often, when there really is no need to?

While I understand (and am not necessarily disagreeing completely with) your statement --- Paul did the same type of thing on Mars Hill

[John81]

While I understand (and am not necessarily disagreeing completely with) your statement --- Paul did the same type of thing on Mars Hill

If you are referring to Paul quoting some secular poems, I don't think that's the same as quoting a pastor.

What it really comes down to is the seeming endorsement of those who preached things one says they don't believe. Why would an anti-Calvinist pastor heavily quote Calvinist pastors and then wonder why some in his congregation turn to Calvinism (for example)?

[JerryNumbers]

If you are referring to Paul quoting some secular poems, I don't think that's the same as quoting a pastor.

What it really comes down to is the seeming endorsement of those who preached things one says they don't believe. Why would an anti-Calvinist pastor heavily quote Calvinist pastors and then wonder why some in his congregation turn to Calvinism (for example)?

I feel that things work out better if a pastor quotes the Bible only when preaching, and leave man's quotes off. When doing it from behind the pulpit, its seen as an endorsement by many.

Even Billy Graham has some very good quotes.

[Wilchbla]

I'm not sure about Moody but I know Billy Sunday would be blasted today if he were around. One reason would be because his kids went wild and another would be because of his stance on booze and sex education. He was against the former and for the latter. I had a Christian tell me that Sunday was going against the Constitution by his opposition against alchohol. Of course, this is because the same Christian was for the legalization of pot.

[JerryNumbers]

<br />I'm not sure about Moody but I know Billy Sunday would be blasted today if he were around. One reason would be because his kids went wild and another would be because of his stance on booze and sex education. He was against the former and for the latter. I had a Christian tell me that Sunday was going against the Constitution by his opposition against alchohol. Of course, this is because the same Christian was for the legalization of pot.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Are you saying that Mr. Sunday was for sex education? I've read several of his sermons that did not give a hint of that. Plus he stood against many false teachers that Mr. Graham embraces.