TY - JOUR
AU1 - Glass, William, R
AU2 - Batóg,, Włodzimierz
AB - In 1959, Billy Graham visited the Soviet Union as a tourist. In his autobiography, he attributed his desire to conduct evangelistic services behind the Iron Curtain to visiting Lenin Stadium in Moscow and imagining it full of people listening to his sermon. “I bowed my head,” Graham wrote, “and prayed that someday God would open the door for us to preach the Gospel in Moscow and elsewhere in eastern Europe.”1 From 1959 until the fall of the Berlin Wall, Graham or representatives of The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) made some nineteen trips behind the Iron Curtain. Not all were evangelistic crusades with Graham present and preaching to crowds; at best, nine of these events were such evangelistic tours. The rest varied from peace conferences to music rallies to children’s meetings to Graham receiving honorary doctorates in Poland and Hungary.2 Graham’s motives are easy to understand: he saw these trips as fulfilling his obligation to preach the gospel to all people irrespective of ethnicity or ideology. To do that behind the Iron Curtain, though, required permission from the communist governments of Eastern Europe, and that permission came with a price. Specifics varied from country to country, but one part of the negotiations required some rehabilitation of the nation’s image. It is remarkable that communist governments believed Graham could influence American public opinion and policy makers in such a way that would effect substantive change in the dynamics of the Cold War, but that did seem to be a primary consideration in granting Graham access to their people. At the same time, Graham’s focus on the opportunity to preach to the people behind the Iron Curtain seems to have led to a willingness to subordinate the consideration of the way his presence legitimated the oppressive regimes of Eastern Europe and furthered their propagandistic goals. These considerations are evident in Graham’s first two trips behind the Iron Curtain to Hungary (1977) and Poland (1978). Graham was the best-known Protestant evangelist of the second half of the twentieth century.3 His career does not need to be reviewed except to note two relevant aspects. In the 1950s and 1960s, his sermons and public utterances were laced with an anti-communist rhetoric. In a 1953 newsletter from the BGEA, he wrote, “Communism is a fanatical religion that has declared war upon the Christian God.”4 For Graham, communism primarily represented a threat to his spiritual mission by offering a worldview that denied God’s existence and tempted people with material security. Secondarily, it was an existential threat to the United States both internationally in the expansionism of the USSR and domestically through internal subversion of Americans’ loyalty to their nation. Frequently, Graham used communism simply as a symptom of a world running away from God or as a sign of the end times when God’s justice would be meted out, but on some occasions, he seemed to conflate being a good Christian with being a patriotic American.5 This rabid anti-communism made communist authorities reluctant, to say the least, to allow Graham into their countries much less let him conduct a crusade in them. For example, in the 1950s, after Graham’s services in Berlin, Herman Kant, head of the East German writers’ union called Graham an “offering-plate Goebbels.”6 In 1967, János Kádár, General Secretary of the Hungarian communist party, reportedly rejected a request for Graham to preach in Hungary, saying that “Hungary’s door is open before all peace-loving men . . . but Dr. Billy Graham is not a man of Peace.”7 The second aspect of his career relevant to this essay is that Graham changed.8 While no less critical of communism as an anti-Christian ideology, Graham looked to the people living under communist rule as needing to hear the gospel. As Graham recounts the transformation in his autobiography, “I was becoming more and more appalled at the frightening capacity of nuclear and biochemical weapons to produce global genocide,” and “I was becoming more sensitive to the numerous biblical injunctions for us to work for peace.”9 Biographer Grant Wacker describes how a visit in 1978 by Henry Kissinger to Graham’s home in Montreat, North Carolina, left him shaken at Kissinger’s description of the effects of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union.10 Also pivotal in changing Graham’s perspective, though this is jumping ahead of the story for the moment, was his visit to Auschwitz during his Polish crusade in 1978. After walking through the death camp, he commented, “Auschwitz . . . stands as a warning for all humanity . . . that man is still capable of repeating and even multiplying the barbarism of Auschwitz. . . . I . . . call upon Christians everywhere to work and pray for peace.”11 Finally, Graham claimed that “Nothing I said, even in my most intemperate denunciations of Communism, was intended to be a wholesale condemnation of the Russian people who bravely endured so much,” and that sentiment could be extended to all people behind the Iron Curtain.12 Thus by the 1970s, he was seeking opportunities to preach behind the Iron Curtain and, as one part of a strategy to gain access to these countries, Graham toned down his attacks and began to emphasize the Christian duty to pursue peace.13 Graham’s first visits to a communist country in an evangelistic capacity was a two-day visit to Zagreb, Yugoslavia in 1967 and a return trip in 1970 followed by a one-day trip to Prague. His first full evangelistic crusade behind the Iron Curtain was in 1977 in Hungary (see Figure 1). The architect of this trip, as well as of subsequent preaching tours of communist countries, was Alexander Haraszti, a Hungarian-born doctor and pastor. After earning a PhD in linguistics and training as a surgeon, he worked as a professor of theology in Budapest and translated Graham’s Peace with God for use in his classes. He fled Hungary in 1956, eventually settling in Georgia where he and his wife opened a medical practice and became American citizens. In 1972, he met Graham while attending a crusade in Cleveland and introduced him to a delegation of Hungarian Baptists who expressed a desire for him to conduct a crusade there.14 Haraszti’s efforts to open up Hungary to Graham are worth closer inspection because once Graham’s team had one invitation and completed one crusade behind the Iron Curtain, they found it easier to open opportunities for more trips. Moreover, they reveal the difficult path the evangelist and communist governments trod to a place of accommodation. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Billy Graham preaching at the Tahi Baptist Youth Camp, Hungary, with translator Alexander Haraszti, September, 1977. Hungarian officials tended to keep Graham in his public appearances in remote locations or smaller venues in cities, nevertheless large crowds attended his services. Source: Bob Terrill, Billy Graham in Hungary (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1978), 10. Used with permission from BGEA. Figure 1. Open in new tabDownload slide Billy Graham preaching at the Tahi Baptist Youth Camp, Hungary, with translator Alexander Haraszti, September, 1977. Hungarian officials tended to keep Graham in his public appearances in remote locations or smaller venues in cities, nevertheless large crowds attended his services. Source: Bob Terrill, Billy Graham in Hungary (Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1978), 10. Used with permission from BGEA. It is worth noting that Haraszti’s negotiations with Hungarian officials took place during a significant thaw in the Cold War. The contested history and meaning of détente need not be analyzed here other than to suggest that, at its core, détente led to an acceptance of international borders as established after World War II, promises not to interfere in the internal affairs of nations, and meaningful negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT).15 One of the mechanisms for realizing the first two goals was the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). In 1975, it produced what is commonly called the Helsinki Accords in which the signatory nations promised to respect “the territorial integrity” and “political independence” of the states and to “refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”16 Participating states would also respect “human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction.”17 Most relevant for this study, the Accords encouraged cooperation “to promote mutual understanding and confidence, friendly and good-neighbourly relations among themselves, international peace, security and justice.”18 Thus Hungarian officials, and later Polish, could claim that their invitations to Graham demonstrated their efforts to meet this aspect of Helsinki.19 After the meeting in Cleveland, Haraszti began a patient five-year campaign to secure the cooperation of Hungary’s various Christian denominations and gain permission from the government for Graham to come. The process of arranging Graham’s visit illustrates the complicated interplay of evangelical aspirations confronting Cold War political realities. First, Kádár’s 1967 assessment of Graham’s character needed to be addressed. With the support of Károly Szabó, the Hungarian ambassador to the United States, Sádor Palotay, head of the Council of Free Churches, requested permission of the State Office of Church Affairs (Állami Egyházügyi Hivatal) to issue an invitation, but an official in this department in 1973 rejected the request because of Graham’s anticommunist rhetoric.20 Haraszti spent two years convincing the Hungarians that Graham had changed and coaxing the evangelist to overcome his reluctance to make promises to a communist government. Haraszti’s shuttle diplomacy paid off in 1975 with an agreement that Graham could preach evangelistic sermons, provided Graham would not use them as a platform for criticizing Hungary’s socialist society.21 Despite the resolution of this issue, Haraszti still needed to convince Hungarian officials that Graham’s visit would improve the image of Hungary in the eyes of the West. In April 1977, he sent a memo detailing the positive benefits that would accrue to Hungary.22 Perhaps exaggerating Graham’s potential influence, Haraszti emphasized that the BGEA was a worldwide organization with a budget of over twenty-six million dollars, and that Graham himself was well known in the United States through his newspaper column, radio and television shows, and press interviews and was a confidant of presidents and politicians. Thus, Haraszti argued that Graham’s tour would draw global attention to Hungary and perhaps contribute to reshaping Hungary’s image. “Wherever Billy Graham goes, the television goes,” Haraszti later told a Polish Cardinal, but that would have been true of Graham’s trip to Hungary.23 If nothing else, the BGEA’s own television crew would be there to document the crusade and create an hour-long television special to be broadcast on American television stations. By touring Hungary and meeting with government and religious officials, Graham could speak out of personal experience not only to the American public about religious freedom, but his words might carry weight with Congressmen and Senators considering Most Favored Nation trading status for Hungary. Finally, he pointed out that both President Carter and Graham were Baptists, disingenuously suggesting “No need to point out the importance of that relationship.”24 Over the objections of the secret police who feared Graham’s visit might become a source of unrest, the government accepted the argument that giving Graham permission to come would improve Hungary’s standing with the West in general and with the United States in particular.25 The latter was important as Hungary was in negotiations with the Carter administration for the return of St. Stephen’s crown from Fort Knox. This symbol of the Hungarian nation had been turned over to American forces in Austria at the end of World War II to avoid it falling into the hands of Soviet troops.26 Haraszti learned of these talks and intimated that Graham might put in a good word with the American government regarding the return of the crown. For Hungarians, letting Graham come was merely a small part of a campaign to secure the return of a national treasure, but for Haraszti it became evidence of Graham’s influence that he could use to leverage invitations from other Eastern European governments.27 Haraszti used that argument almost immediately with officials in Poland, and it proved effective in overcoming their reluctance to allow Graham into Poland. Polish Baptists had been trying to have Graham come to Poland since the 1950s and succeeded in gaining permission from the government to issue an invitation for Graham to come to Poland in 1966 for the one thousandth anniversary of Christianity in Poland.28 The BGEA accepted and made plans for the visit even to the point of issuing press releases announcing the visit.29 But, at the last moment, the Polish government refused to give visas to Graham and his team because the government thought it was not a good idea to have the world’s most famous Protestant come for the anniversary and not have the Pope come. The government worried that a visit by the Pope might spark anti-government protests.30 By the late 1970s, a new generation of Polish leaders was in control and, like Hungarian officials, looked for ways to improve Poland’s reputation in the West. When Haraszti made the case that what Graham’s visit did for Hungary, it could do the same for Poland, Polish officials accepted the assertion. Tadeusz Dusik, director of the Office of Faith, admitted: “Hungarians took a risk in admitting Billy Graham into their country. The results turned out very positive for socialist Hungary. They gained huge political profits through the wide propaganda reach of the Billy Graham Evangelical Institute in the mass media in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Keeping in mind the experience and results of Billy Graham’s visit in Hungary, we also took the risk of him visiting Poland.”31 Convincing communist governments to admit Graham and his team was key, of course, but it was also necessary to convince national religious leaders to see the benefits of having Graham come to their country. For every crusade, Graham required that a broad cross-section of leaders from Christian denominations issue the invitation. In both Hungary and Poland, Protestants were in the minority, with evangelicals representing a smaller subset of believers.32 The communist governments permitted the various Protestant denominations to form cooperative organizations, which became the means of secret police infiltration and influence.33 As the most broadly representative religious institutions, Haraszti sought their support for Graham’s trips. In Hungary, he secured an invitation from the Council of Free Churches, a mostly Protestant organization in which Haraszti’s Baptists were the largest group, and convinced Catholic and Jewish leaders to, if not support the invitation, at least not object to Graham’s visit to the government.34 The Polish Ecumenical Council supported an invitation sent by Polish Baptists, but Poland was more complicated because of the deep connection between Catholicism and Polish national identity. One Polish academic warned Haraszti that Graham might be embarrassed by the small crowds that would attend his services because Baptist in Poland had only six thousand members.35 Despite the doubts of this scholar, Haraszti found the Catholic hierarchy surprisingly cooperative, in part because the hierarchy had its own goals it hoped to accomplish through cooperating with Graham. The Catholic Church in Poland was between a rock and a hard place.36 Its voice was one of the few that challenged the communist regime’s place in civil society, but at the same time, the Church found itself accused of religious bigotry and discrimination against religious minorities. This issue was vividly illustrated at a press conference during President Carter’s December 1977 visit. Konstanty Wiazowski, one of the editors of the Baptist magazine Słowo Prawdy (The Word of Truth), asked his brother Baptist for help: “We the Polish Baptists live in an extra Catholic country and on occasion we are discriminated against. As a believer, as a Baptist, can you influence a change of the situation?” Carter refused to commit to any specific action but rather emphasized the United States’ traditions of freedom of religion and separation of church and state.37 The damage had been done, and the Church looked for ways to demonstrate its ecumenical bona fides and counter communist efforts at embarrassment. Eventually, the Catholic Church not only helped the Ecumenical Council organize Graham’s tour but also opened the pulpits of four of its churches to Graham, the first time that Graham would have the opportunity to preach from a Catholic pulpit (see Figure 2).38 Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide A crowd estimated at 10,000 people heard Graham preach at the Catholic cathedral in Katowice. In contrast to Hungary, Polish officials allowed Graham to preach in central locations in the main cities like Warsaw, Poznań, Białystok, Kraków, and Katowice. Source: Kristy Etheridge, “A Legacy of Faith and Unity in Katowice, Poland,” https://billygraham.org/story/a-legacy-of-faith-and-unity-in-katowice-poland/. Used with permission from BGEA. Figure 2. Open in new tabDownload slide A crowd estimated at 10,000 people heard Graham preach at the Catholic cathedral in Katowice. In contrast to Hungary, Polish officials allowed Graham to preach in central locations in the main cities like Warsaw, Poznań, Białystok, Kraków, and Katowice. Source: Kristy Etheridge, “A Legacy of Faith and Unity in Katowice, Poland,” https://billygraham.org/story/a-legacy-of-faith-and-unity-in-katowice-poland/. Used with permission from BGEA. During his tour, Graham cooperated with the ecumenical agenda in a couple of ways. First, in public, Graham was cordial and grateful to the Catholic clergy for the opportunity to preach in their churches. For example, in his press conference on his arrival in Poland, he expressed “gratitude for the opportunity I shall have to preach in your churches and cathedrals” and suggested that the cooperation between Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox clergy to make his trip possible was “a constructive example for Christians in other nations.”39 On his return to the United States, he acknowledged that without this cooperation, “this visit would not have been possible.”40 Second, and more significantly, in his sermons, he walked a delicate line between a full-throated evangelical message and not offending his Catholic hosts by suggesting listeners leave their Catholic churches to join Protestant congregations.41 Specifically, Graham asked Catholics in his audiences to rededicate their lives in service to the Church. During his sermons, he used anecdotes to lay the groundwork for his final appeal that he thought would be relevant to his largely Catholic audiences. In most of his sermons in Poland, he repeated two. He used his own life growing up in a Presbyterian household of being baptized as a baby and confirmed when he was a child and then having a dramatic spiritual experience in a revival meeting to illustrate that mere performance of church rituals did not make a person a dedicated Christian. He also repeated a story of a Polish Catholic bishop (never explicitly identified) to illustrate the same point within a Catholic context. While the bishop was studying in the United States, an African American woman asked him if he was born again. The bishop replied that he was a priest, and the woman responded that that was not the question she asked. The bishop spent that night reflecting on the woman’s question and came to a new understanding of what it meant to be a Christian and dedicated to serving God. Graham ended his sermons by asking those that were willing to follow the bishop’s example to raise their hands in public acknowledgment of their decision to renew their vows to serve Christ.42 He then encouraged the respondents to find a local church where their faith could be nurtured and could work in support of its mission. He never told them to leave their Catholic parish for a Protestant church, thus he could claim that he never compromised his message while not antagonizing the Catholic hierarchy and the sensibilities of Polish Catholics. While these services represented a partial fulfillment of Graham’s aspirations to preach behind the Iron Curtain, the Polish government’s efforts to use Graham’s visit to its advantage represent another part of the reality of life in Cold War Poland. Graham’s tour attracted the attention of the Polish secret police (Służba Bezpieczeństwa or SB), and it engaged in a comprehensive investigation of Graham prior to his arrival and a deep surveillance of him and his team that included planting informants and putting cameras and listening devices in their hotel rooms (see Figure 3). One part of the SB, Group D, though, saw Graham’s visit as an opportunity to fulfill its mission to discredit and, in the provocative title of the history of Group D, “destroy” the Catholic Church in Poland as a source of resistance to the communist regime.43 On September 25, 1978, ten days before Graham’s arrival, Wiesław Kołodziejski and Tadeusz Grunwald issued a plan with three general goals: to ensure that Graham and his team left with positive impression of Poland, to create the impression that the Catholic Church was duplicitous in its ecumenism and persecuted religious minorities, and to undermine the legitimacy of the Catholic Church in the eyes of the faithful by harassing the Catholic hierarchy.44 To achieve these goals, Group D engaged in a coordinated campaign of control, disinformation, and dirty tricks. Neither Graham nor anyone else on his team spoke Polish; consequently, they depended on translators supplied by the Ecumenical Council, some of whom were informants for the SB. For example, Kołodziejski and Grunwald had special instructions for Graham’s personal translator, Zdzisław Pawlik. He was to steer Graham away from meeting critics and complainers; he was to water down any anti-government comments in Graham’s sermons while being careful not to excite the crowds; and in his translations of Polish to Graham, he was to impress on the evangelist the way the People’s Republic of Poland respected the free exercise of religion.45 Finally, Group D tried to use Graham’s visit to discredit the Catholic leadership as compromising Catholic doctrine on the altar of ecumenical cooperation. This effort was coupled with a letter writing campaign and phone calls by agents posing as faithful congregants complaining to the clergy of the Catholic churches where Graham preached of the threat to Catholic teaching from the Protestant’s message. In Kraków, the calls became so distracting that the Church disconnected its phone,47 and some letter writers were prompted to accuse the hierarchy of heresy by associating with “the man who came with pockets full of dollars.”48 Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Surveillance photograph of an unidentified member of Graham’s evangelistic team praying in his hotel room in Warsaw. In addition to planting its agents as drivers and translators with Graham’s party, the Polish secret police conducted close surveillance that included hidden cameras and detailed record-keeping of the private activities of Graham and others traveling with him. Source: Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych (MSW), Sprawa obiektowa kryptonim “Ewangelista” dot. Billy Graham, Instytut Pamiȩci Narodowej w Warszawie archiwum, IPN BU 0236/213/2, 644. Used with permission from IPN. Figure 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Surveillance photograph of an unidentified member of Graham’s evangelistic team praying in his hotel room in Warsaw. In addition to planting its agents as drivers and translators with Graham’s party, the Polish secret police conducted close surveillance that included hidden cameras and detailed record-keeping of the private activities of Graham and others traveling with him. Source: Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych (MSW), Sprawa obiektowa kryptonim “Ewangelista” dot. Billy Graham, Instytut Pamiȩci Narodowej w Warszawie archiwum, IPN BU 0236/213/2, 644. Used with permission from IPN. Another way Graham’s goals of evangelization collided with the political schemes of Eastern European governments was in Graham’s efforts to be an honest reporter of what he saw and experienced in Hungary and Poland. This public relations aspect of Graham’s crusade seems to have been a significant part of what the Hungarian and Polish governments hoped to gain by granting permission for Graham to visit. Graham lived up to his part of the bargain with the governments and did not criticize the communist norms of Hungarian and Polish societies. In an odd sort of way, the Polish sermons could be heard as more critical of the United States than of communism. A common theme in these sermons was that material prosperity brought no satisfaction to the soul. It is difficult to know precisely how a preacher denouncing materialism and excessive consumerism would be understood by audiences who knew primarily privation and shortages, but as a BBC reporter wryly commented, “Silesians don’t have much opportunity for greed and fun.”49 Nevertheless, American newspapers noted Graham’s lack of criticism of his communist hosts and widely reported his positive assessment of religious life in Hungary and Poland.50 For example, an Associated Press story noted that Graham deflected a suggestion that the Hungarian government was using his visit “to polish their country’s image of religious toleration” by retreating into evangelical platitudes that he would be “proclaiming the same message I have preached throughout my career . . .—the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”51 In both Hungary and Poland, he found the degree of religious toleration and freedom “surprising” and suggested that the fact he could openly deliver Gospel sermons was proof that “the church could exist in any type of society.”52 Some dissents seeped through the usually straightforward reporting of Graham’s trips to Eastern Europe that colored the positive portrayal that the communists governments hope Western audiences would see. For example, in a Los Angeles Times column, Murray Seeger pinpointed the price Graham paid: “silence on public questions” deemed off-limits by his Hungarian hosts. Specifically, Seeger mentioned the persecution of Baptists in the Soviet Union.53 In Poland, a BBC television crew produced a half-hour story, which argued that the Polish government carefully controlled Graham’s schedule to give him the most positive view of Polish life. “Courtesies came before realities,” observed reporter Peter French.54 The strongest evidence that Graham was willing to cater to government wishes in return for access to their churches was the television programs produced by the BGEA and broadcast on American television. Consider the one on the Polish crusade.55 The story of its production suggests some of the compromises Graham was willing to make. The production crew arrived two weeks before Graham and filmed over thirty reels of stock footage along with scenes of Graham’s sermons and public appearances. The crew also requested and received documentary footage from the Polish government.56 The program was intended to be an account of Graham’s trip and to deliver an evangelistic appeal to American television audiences. The first cut of the show apparently leaned heavily toward the latter, and the BGEA ordered changes because, as Haraszti wrote, “we must not neglect [considerations] and . . . promises that were made.”57 Working with Graham’s assistant John Akers and Haraszti, Tom Ivy, supervisor of the production, revised the script so that “the wording of those portions of the narrative which require careful structuring [would] reflect the proper political overtones.”58 Ivy felt these changes overcorrected and obscured the Gospel message, so he reedited “to create an effective ministry with the program while at the same time reflecting all of the political considerations considered important and necessary.”59 In March and April 1979, the BGEA bought time on over two hundred American television stations to broadcast an account of Graham’s visit to Poland. While the program did end with a clear appeal to the audience to accept Christ as Savior, it also painted a rather rosy picture of Poland in 1978. It emphasized the suffering and destruction during World War II, the determination to rebuild the country, and the architectural and natural beauty of the nation. It noted the industrial growth as one of the accomplishments of postwar development, with the narration claiming that Poland was the tenth largest industrial nation. It stressed Graham’s freedom to preach what he wanted and the interfaith cooperation that supported the crusade. In short, the program seemed to suggest that life in communist Poland was not so bad. That Graham was able to come to Poland and conduct a crusade suggested that there was an unexpected degree of religious freedom. Graham’s claim that he was able to preach what he wanted implied a measure of free speech. The scenes contrasting the devastation during the war with the restored and rebuilt Polish cities indicated a government more concerned with Polish heritage than communist doctrine.60 While Graham’s generally positive perspective was broadcast to Americans, the reality was that Poland at the end of the 1970s was on the verge of a revolution that would shake the world.61 In 1970, the legitimacy of Władyslaw Gomułka’s leadership of communist Poland collapsed over a plan to raise the price of food while lowering the prices of consumer goods like televisions, stoves, refrigerators, and washing machines. Strikes and confrontations between workers and the militia, sometimes violent and deadly, eventually forced Gomułka to resign. Taking over the leadership of Poland and representing the emergence of a new generation of communists was Edward Gierek. He solved the immediate crisis through rolling back the price increases and then embarked on a propaganda campaign to rebuild Poland’s image at home and abroad. It was successful enough internationally that Gierek was able to borrow millions of dollars for development. Some of this money went into industry, some into delivering consumer goods, and some into erasing some of the scars of wartime destruction (the reconstruction of Warsaw’s Royal Palace began in 1971).62 By 1975, the value of goods and services that Polish workers could buy with their pay had risen 42 percent, but, in the words of one scholar, it was a “premature consumerism” as the inefficiencies of Poland’s industries left their products uncompetitive in foreign markets and thus unable to pay for the imported consumer goods.63 Moreover, the oil crisis of the mid-1970s undermined Gierek’s plans to repay the foreign loans with increased production of goods for foreign trade.64 Thus, Graham’s television show did reflect the reality of an improving Polish economy that met the needs of its people; the only flaw the show mentioned was a lack of housing, which was attributed to rapid expansion of economic opportunity. But the reality of shortages of basic necessities and long lines in shops was elided. Thus, the Polish government got what it wanted: a positive image of Poland, a piece of “propaganda of success,” broadcast throughout the United States.65 Moreover, whatever attention Graham’s crusade brought to Poland in October 1978 was overwhelmed when Cardinal Wojtyła of Kraków became Pope John Paul II. The elevation of Wojtyła to the papacy brought worldwide attention to Poland in ways that Graham’s tour never could and reinvigorated Catholicism in Poland as a source of resistance to the communist regime.66 These first two tours of Billy Graham behind the Iron Curtain lay the groundwork for the subsequent trips by Graham and his staff. While Graham’s motives were clear, a simple desire to fulfill his evangelical duty to preach the gospel to all nations, and on the other side, the motives of communist governments also could be stated simply, use Graham’s visits as propaganda points to reshape their image in the West. The answers to the questions of whether the latter compromised the former and whether the former could achieve the latter are less clear. Graham endured intense criticism for these trips, that his presence legitimated these regimes. But for Graham the optics matter less than delivering the message. Moreover, Graham and his team had no way of measuring the actual impact of their visits, either in the short or long terms. The BGEA was unable to establish its usual network of follow-up groups or keep records of conversions or recommitments made at the services. For the communist governments, it is doubtful that allowing Graham to conduct his crusades made much difference. Both Hungary and Poland received some international attention because of Graham’s trips, but it is unlikely that letting Graham go behind the Iron Curtain convinced anyone in the West that these countries had become models of religious tolerance. In short, the story of Billy Graham behind the Iron Curtain is one of evangelistic ambitions running into and perhaps being compromised by the propagandistic goals of Eastern European governments. WILLIAM R. GLASS (BA, Centre College; MA, PhD, Emory University). He served as co-editor of The Americanist, the journal published by the Center. Glass is the author of “Transatlantic Fundamentalism: Southern Preachers in London's Pulpits during World War I,” in The U.S. South and Europe: Transatlantic Relations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, eds Cornelis A. van Minnen and Manfred Berg (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2013). He contributed to revising articles in The Encyclopedia of Religion in the South. His publications have appeared in American Baptist Quarterly, American Presbyterians, Jewish Social Studies, and Studies in the Social Sciences. His primary scholarly interests include American evangelicalism/fundamentalism and religion in the American South. Currently, William Glass and Włodzimierz Batóg are working on a book about Billy Graham's crusade in Poland in 1978. WŁODZIMIERZ BATÓG (PhD, Postdoctoral Degree, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland). His major recent publications are “Przestrzeń miejska a uniwersytet jako przykład konfliktu społeczno-politycznego w Nowym Jorku i Berkeley, 1968–1969” (Urban space and the university as an example of social and political conflict in New York and Berkeley, 1968–69), Białostockie Teki Historyczne 16 (2018) and “Park Ludowy w Berkeley. Polityczny konflikt o przestrzeń publiczną w Kalifornii w maju 1969 roku” (People's Park in Berkeley: A political conflict over public space in California in 1969), Dzieje Najnowsze, no. 3 (2017). His primary scholarly interests include American social and cultural history and twentieth-century American history. Footnotes 1 Billy Graham, Just as I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham, revised and updated (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), 380, Kindle. 2 This analysis of BGEA events behind the Iron Curtain is based on a list compiled by archivists at the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL, available at https://www.wheaton.edu/media/billy-graham-center-archives/Chronology-1934-2013.pdf. The longer preaching tours included Hungary (1977), Poland (1978), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia (1984), the USSR (1984, 1988, 1991, and 1992), and Romania (1985). The 1992 trip saw Graham’s prayer to conduct services in a stadium answered: all the services were held in Moscow’s Lenin Stadium. See William Martin, A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, updated (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 538, Kindle. 3 Graham’s correspondence is closed to research, but a huge cache of sources from the BGEA can be found in the archives of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, Wheaton IL. The most relevant of Graham’s books for this study is his autobiography, Just as I Am. Biographical studies include the authorized The Billy Graham Story, revised and updated, by John C. Pollock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). A Prophet with Honor by Martin is one of the more carefully researched biographies, while Grant Wacker in America's Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), Kindle, provides one of the better scholarly assessments of Graham’s life and career in the context of American culture. These studies provide some narrative of the Iron Curtain crusades, but all rely heavily on BGEA and American sources without consulting those from the country where Graham preached. 4 Quoted in Wacker, America’s Pastor, 232. 5 On Graham’s public anti-communism, see Jay Douglas Learned, “Billy Graham, American Evangelicalism, and the Cold War Clash of Messianic Visions, 1945–1962” (PhD diss., University of Rochester, 2012), 146–65. 6 As quoted in Bill Yoder, “Billy Graham Tours the GDR,” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 3, no. 2 (1983): 34, available at http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol3/iss2/4. 7 George B. Balla to Billy Graham, August 31, 1967, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Collection 17: Crusade Activities, box 142, folder 134, The Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton, IL. Hereafter, material from this collection will be cited as BGEA, [collection number: name]/[box number]/[folder number]. East German authorities demanded that Graham “clarify his stance on Vietnam” before he would be granted permission to preach in the GDR. See Alexandar S. Haraszti to John Akers, memorandum, April 30, 1979, BGEA, 17/142/91. 8 Richard V. Pierard, “Billy Graham and Vietnam: From Cold Warrior to Peacemaker,” Christian Scholar’s Review 10 (January 1980): 37–51. 9 Graham, Just as I Am, 486. 10 Wacker, America’s Pastor, 240. In Just as I Am, 486, Graham says it was “military experts from the Pentagon” who briefed him. 11 Graham, Just as I Am, 485. 12 Ibid., 382. 13 This transformation seems genuine. In 1979, during the press coverage of SALT II negotiations, Graham, while not specifically endorsing the treaty, became a national voice warning of the dangers of nuclear weapons through remarks at the National Press Club and in an interview with Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News. In the former, he expressed his desire to use his influence to promote peace, while in the latter, he suggested that his change reflected a shift among his fellow evangelicals. See John N. Akers to Konstantin N. Grigorov, February 27, 1979 and April 23, 1979, BGEA, 17/142/99. Graham made similar points in a longer interview with the editors of Sojourners, a liberal evangelical magazine. “Change of Heart,” Sojourners, August 1979, available at https://sojo.net/magazine/august-1979/change-heart. 14 Biographical details on Haraszti can be found in two obituaries: “Paid Notice: Deaths Haraszti, Alexander S., Dr.,” New York Times, January 20, 1988, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/20/classified/paid-notice-deaths-haraszti-alexander-s-dr.html; and Felix Corley, “Obituary: Alexander Haraszti,” February 5, 1988, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-alexander-haraszti-1142968.html. See also the transcripts of Haraszti’s oral history interviews in BGEA, 141: Oral History Project/45/1–6. 15 For details of the origins, development, and collapse of détente, see chapter 5 of John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (New York: Penguin, 2005), Kindle; chapter 7 of John Lumberton Harper, The Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), Kindle; chapters 14, 15, and 18 of Odd Arne Westad, The Cold War: a World History (New York, Basic Books, 2017), Kindle; and chapters 6 and 7 of Carole K. Fink, The Cold War: A Global History, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2018), Kindle. 16 Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe (CSCE), Final Act (Helsinki, 1975), 4, available at https://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act. 17 Final Act, 4. 18 Final Act, 7. 19 See Zoltán Rajki, “Billy Graham 1977: évi magyarországi látogatásának politikai háttere” (The political background to Billy Graham’s visit to Hungary in 1977), Egyháztörténeti Szemle 14, no.1 (2013): 104–05. In The Helsinki Effect: International Norm, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 4, Daniel C. Thomas argues, “the Helsinki Final Act’s formal commitment to respect human rights contributed significantly to the demise of Communism and the end of the Cold War.” The argument here is not that Graham’s trips contributed in any significant way to this result, but rather that Graham had the opportunity to make these trips because of this lessening of Cold War tensions. By the time détente collapsed in the late 1970s, Graham’s team had the experience it needed to continue negotiating successfully for the opportunity to conduct his evangelistic missions behind the Iron Curtain. 20 Rajki, “Billy Graham,” 100–101. 21 Ibid., 101–102; see also, Alexander Haraszti, interviewed by Lois Ferm, May 21, 1979, transcript, in BGEA, 141/45/1. As evidence for Graham’s change, Haraszti sent a clipping from the Atlanta Constitution to the President of Hungarian Baptists in which Bennett Sims, the Episcopal Bishop for Atlanta, claimed that Graham agreed with Sims that the Vietnam War was a tragedy and said that he believed Graham’s commitment to pursue peace was genuine. Alexander S. Haraszti to Janos Laczkovszki, January 27, 1973, BGEA, 17/142/139. 22 Alexander S. Haraszti to Imre Miklos and Ferenc Esztergalyos, memorandum, April 25, 1977, translated copy in BGEA, 17/142/139. 23 Haraszti interview, transcript, 56. 24 Haraszti to Miklos and Esztergalyos. Haraszti was playing on Hungarian officials’ lack of understanding of the complexities of religious life in the United States. In an oral history interview, he described how these officials suspected Hungarians Baptists of being American agents because of the dominance of Baptists in the United States. Haraszti interview, transcript, 12. 25 Rajki, “Billy Graham 1977,” 104. 26 Katalin Kadar Lynn, “The Return of the Crown of St. Stephen and Its Subsequent Impact on the Carter Administration,” East European Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2000), http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-63126015/the-return-of-the-crown-of-st-stephen-and-its-subsequent. 27 The crown was returned in early 1978. On his return from Hungary, Graham scheduled an appointment with President Carter, but a conflict shifted the meeting to be with Vice President Mondale where he raised the issue of the crown’s repatriation. Just as I Am, 495–96. In “Return of the Crown,” Lynn provides a detailed analysis of the decision-making process in which no mention is made of Graham’s visit having any weight in the outcome. Nonetheless, Haraszti promoted this aspect of his work as an example of his negotiation skills and the extent of Graham’s political influence. See Haraszti interview, transcript, 30–36. 28 Aleksander Kircun to Billy Graham, February 15, 1966, BGEA, 17/143/29. In this letter, Kircun mentioned that Polish Baptists had invited Graham to Poland in 1958 to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of Baptists in Poland and again in 1961 for the opening of their chapel in Warsaw. 29 Press release: “Graham Will Visit Poland for Millennium Celebration,” May 2, 1966, BGEA, Collection 345: Records of the Media Office/43/24. See also memo: “Exploratory Discussion for Possible Crusade in Poland,” Forrest Layman to Wilbur H. Smyth, July 8/9, 1965, BGEA 17/143/29. 30 Press clipping, Religious News Service, “Poland’s Regime Bars Visit by Billy Graham,” September 13, 1966, BGEA, 345/43/24. 31 As quoted in Andrzej Seweryn, Na drodze dialogu: Zaangażowanie ekumeniczne Kościoła Baptystycznego jako członka Polskiej Rady Ekumenicznej w latach 1945–1989 [On the dialogue path: ecumenical involvement of the Baptist Church as the member of the Polish Ecumenical Council, 1945–1989] (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Wyższego Baptystycznego Seminarium Teologicznego w Warszawie, 2006), 142, trans. Małgorzata Gajda-Łaszewska, in “Billy Graham in Poland, 1978: Polish Hopes Pinned to the Pulpit,” in Return to Sender: American Evangelical Missions in Europe in the 20th Century, eds John Corrigan and Frank Hinkellman (Zurich: Lit-Verlag, 2019): 142. 32 Precise membership statistics at the time of Graham’s visits of the various religious organizations in both countries are difficult to pin down. In 1949, Catholics comprised about 68 percent of the Hungarian population, members of Reformed denominations about 22 percent, and Lutherans 5 percent. Paul Froese, “Hungary for Religion: A Supply-Side Interpretation of the Hungarian Religious Revival,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40, no. 2 (June, 2001): 253, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387949. In 2001, those percentages had dropped to 55 for Catholic, 16 for Reformed, and 3 for Lutheran, with 14.5 claiming no religious affiliation. Balázs Schanda, “Religion and State in the Candidate Countries to the European Union: Issues Concerning Religion and State in Hungary,” Sociology of Religion 64, no. 3 (Autumn 2003): 344, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3712488. In 1990, R. E. Davies reported that nearly 90 percent of Poles claimed some loose affiliation with Catholicism, with the remaining 10 percent scattered among 35–50 other religious groups. “Baptists in Poland—Past and Present,” Religion, Church, and Society 18 (1990): 52, pdf available at https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rcl/18-1_052.pdf. 33 In “The Policy of the Communist States Towards the Free Churches after 1945 in Hungary with Special Regard to the Methodist Church,” Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 31, no. 2 (2011): 31–36, available at http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol31/iss2/5, Judit Lakatos surveys Hungarian church–state relations and notes that under the leadership of Sádor Palotay, the Council of Free Churches “changed from a brotherly community to a controlling organization” (35). In Poland, for example, the secret police (Służba Bezpieczeństwa or SB) received reports from its agents on the Ecumenical Council about its plans for Graham’s visit. See the reports from agents “Kasprzak,” August 31, 1978, Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych (MSW), Sprawa obiektowa kryptonim “Ewangelista” dot. Billy Graham, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej w Warszawie archiwum, IPN BU 0236/213/1 (hereinafter cited as “Ewangelista 1”), 234–37; and “Marian,” September 15, 1978; “Ewangelista 1,” 311–315. 34 The details of the negotiations are covered well in Martin, Prophet, 483–493. 35 Haraszti interview, transcript, 56. The number of Baptists was much lower according to R. E. Davies, “Baptists in Poland,” 57. Baptists represented one of the smallest Protestant denominations in Poland, with less than 2,500 members in 1978. 36 Gajda-łaszewska, in “Billy Graham in Poland,” 143–146, details well the difficult position in which the Catholic Church found itself in communist Poland, as well as the circumstances of the various Protestant denominations and other smaller religious groups. 37 “Transcript of the President’s New Conference with U. S. and Polish Journalists,” New York Times, December 31, 1977, 2, Times Machine, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1977/12/31/issue.html. 38 The Catholic Churches included the cathedral in Katowice, where the largest crowd of Graham tour (over 10,000) heard him preach. He also preached in Catholic Churches in Warsaw, Poznań, and Kraków. See Alexander Haraszti to John Pollock, memorandum, December 6, 1978, BGEA, 17/142/87, 3–4. 39 “Statement of Dr. Billy Graham upon Arrival at Warsaw Airport, October 6, 1978,” BGEA, 622: Cliff Barrows Papers/9/1. 40 BGEA, Collection 24, tape 117. 41 The following analysis of the sermons in Poland are based on audio recordings, available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59F3F696925B346F). The files of the BGEA have an index and outlines of them (Collection 265: Sermons, 12/55). The outlines are just that: bullet points that Graham would make during his delivery. The index indicates that in the nine large public meetings of his Polish tour, he delivered eight different messages, using a sermon on the Prodigal Son twice. 42 Interestingly, the Polish Secret Police’s informants reported that between 20 and 30 percent of the audience raised their hands. Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych, Sprawa obiektowa kryptonim “Ewangelista” dot. Billy Graham, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej w Warszawie archiwum, IPN BU 0236/213/2, 50, 81. These were reports from agents in attendance at services at Catholic churches. It is difficult to know what to make of these reports. The BGEA was often vague about numbers in all its reports about its crusades, but 20–30% seems like a fairly significant response rate. By comparison when Graham preached in Warsaw’s Baptist church, one press report estimated only several dozen of the 1,200 people in attendance responded to Graham’s appeal. “Poland Visit Begins,” European Baptist Press Service, October 13, 1978, in BGEA, 17/143/64. In a press conference in New York on his return, Graham estimated that 7,000–8,000 people responded to his sermons. BGEA, Collection 24, tape 118. 43 Filip Musiał and Jarosław Szarek, eds., Operacja: zniszczyć Kościół [Operation: destroy the church] (Kraków: Instytut Pamięci Naradowy, 2007). 44 “Ewangelista 1,” 10–21. 45 “Ewangelista 1,”14. Graham spoke only English and thus relied on translators to deliver his message to the audience. These translators were usually local clergy who stood next to Graham in the pulpit and not only translated his words but also mimicked his gestures and intonation. Haraszti translated for Graham in Hungary, while Pawlik was a Baptist pastor and member of the Polish Ecumenical Council who was compromised by the SB. See Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych, Teczka Pracy Tajnego Współpraconika, pseudonimem “Paweł,” Instytut Pamięci Narodowej w Warszawie archiwum, IPN 00200/1171, tom1–2. 46 “Ewangelista 1,” 19. 47 Ibid., 80. 48 Ibid., 20. 49 “Opium for the People?” Everyman, reporter Peter French, producer Colin Cameron, videotape available through the British Film Institute, London, Great Britain. Broadcast on BBC One, November 26, 1978. 50 Most of the stories came from wire services like United Press International or the Associated Press, and they appeared in papers across the country, including major cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as smaller markets like Jackson, Mississippi, Tampa, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana. A search of the Vanderbilt Television News Archive results in only three stories about the Hungarian trip (two on the CBS Evening News and one on the ABC Evening News) and none on the Polish tour. 51 “Graham Brings Hungarians a ‘Message,’” Tampa Tribune, September 3, 1977, 40, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/335552833. 52 “Graham Surprised at Freedom,” Atlanta Constitution, September 16, 1977, 39, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/398740940. Cf. comments on Poland in Billie Cheney Speed, “Mission to Warsaw,” Atlanta Constitution, October 28, 1978, 17, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/398992724. For Hungary, see also “Billy Graham says Hungary Is ‘Far More Open’ than Expected,” Tampa Tribune, September 6, 1977, 17, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/335568160; and Robert H. Reid, “Graham Concludes His Visit to Hungary: Evangelist Sees Religion Flourishing in Socialist Society,” Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times, September 10, 1977, 11, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/203903524. For Poland, see also “Graham Draws 6500,” Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times, October 12, 1978, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/199115770; and “Red Christians’ Lot Improving, Graham Says,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1978, 1, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/385005755. 53 Murray Seeger, “Graham Preaches a Carefully Worded Sermon,” Los Angeles Time, September 11, 1977, 58, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/383593533. 54 “Opium for the People?” 55 The archives of the BGEA did not have a broadcast version of the show but a rough assemblage of footage with some narration by Cliff Barrows. The files had what must have been a preliminary version of the script, and much of what was in the script appeared in the rough cut but in a different order. The video is in BGEA, Collection 113: Films and Video, V446, and the script is in BGEA, Collection 622/9/1. 56 This account is based on Walter F. Bennett & Co., “Billy Graham in Poland: A Report in Summary,” signed by Tom Ivy, 622/9/1. 57 Alexander S. Haraszti to Billy Graham, memorandum, February 6, 1979, BGEA17/142/87. 58 Bennett & Co., “Billy Graham in Poland,” 5–6. 59 Ibid., 6. The overall tone of the report is quite defensive as Ivy seemed to be trying to explain the reasons for production delays as resulting partially from the difficulty in obtaining the Polish footage but mostly from demands from Graham’s team to reframe the political message. The sources are frustratingly vague as to the exact nature of the changes, though the script in the BGEA files has some handwritten additions. But those additions do not seem to rise to the level that would cause the disagreement over content that the report suggests. 60 Graham’s team used this program in their negotiations with other Eastern European governments, implicitly suggesting that what the BGEA did in creating a positive image of Poland, it could do the same for other countries. For example, in a letter accompanying a videotape of the Polish trip sent to the Bulgarian ambassador to the United States, John Akers claimed, “Many have told of the new insights it gave them into life in the Polish People’s Republic, and the misconceptions it corrected in their minds. It is, of course, primarily a religious program for an American audience, but it gives, I believe, a positive view of life in a socialist country.” John N. Akers to Konstantin N. Grigorov, April 23, 1979, BGEA, 17/142/99. For East Germany, see Alexander S. Haraszti to Walter H. Smyth, memorandum, April 27, 1979, BGEA, 17/142/129. 61 On political developments in the 1970s, see A. Kemp-Welch, Poland under Communism: A Cold War History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 180–87, 192–97, Kindle. 62 On Gierek’s economic policies, see Kazimierz Poznanski, “Economic Adjustments and Political Forces: Poland Since 1970,” International Organization 40, no. 2 (Spring 1986): 456–60, available at http://jstor.org/stable/2706843. 63 Alex Pravda, “Poland, 1980: From ‘Premature Consumerism’ to Labour Solidarity,” Soviet Studies 34, no. 2 (Apr. 1982): 168–71, available athttp://jstor.org/stable/151409. 64 See Poznanski, “Economic Adjustments,” 465–70. 65 In “Obstacles to the Establishment of Political Legitimacy in Communist Poland,” British Journal of Political Science 12, no. 2 (Apr. 1982): 141, available athttp://www.jstor.org/stable/193993, Paul G. Lewis uses “propaganda of success” to refer to state-produced media for broadcast within Poland, but it seems applicable to this international effort. Cf. Kemp-Welch, Poland under Communism, 193. Interestingly, the government allowed the program to be shown in Protestant churches. See Gajda-Łaszewska, “Billy Graham in Poland,” 150. 66 For a symbolic representation of the way the news about John Paul II overshadowed Graham’s visit, see the front page of the Los Angeles Times, which devoted a banner headline across the top proclaiming “Pole Elected Pope” and the two right-hand columns to the story, saving space for a three-paragraph blurb about Graham ending his trip to Poland in the bottom right-hand corner. See Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1978, 1, available at Newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/385005755. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Evangelical Aspirations and Cold War Realities: Billy Graham Behind the Iron Curtain
JF - Journal of Church and State
DO - 10.1093/jcs/csaa006
DA - 2019-10-25
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/evangelical-aspirations-and-cold-war-realities-billy-graham-behind-the-0DMFu5sZpw
SP - 1
VL - Advance Article
IS - 
DP - DeepDyve
ER -