With our mindset of big crowds = success, and many converts = the Holy Spirit doing work, it is easy to look at these two Bill’s as one being a failure and the other being successful. Most of the Evangelical Church wrongly believes that you are not being blessed in ministry unless you have a big church and your baptismal is always full.

Both Wheaton College Grads. Both lived into their 90’s. Both in full time ministry. Both powerful preachers of God’s Word, and yet with very different visible results. One with the Lord now the other still preaching and writing.

One named Billy Graham, the other, Bill Standridge.

I’ve seen, among the many good ones, two disturbing reactions to the death of Billy Graham over the past week. On the one side, a very calloused outspoken rebuke of those who thank the Lord for the work He did through Billy Graham, because of his theological and ecumenical shortcomings.

On the other hand, an inability to recognize these shortcomings, but more than that, a magnifying of the man for the numbers he led to Christ.

That’s what made me appreciate Steve Lawson’s post last week, where he highlighted three lessons we can all learn. I’d like to add a fourth.

Bill Standridge was a brilliant man. A 4.0 student at Wheaton, he was part of the class of ‘47. A wonderful writer. A passionate preacher. But he made a decision, or I should say the Holy Spirit led him to a decision, that would radically change his life. After hearing a compelling presentation on the situation of the Evangelical Church in Europe, he decided to be a missionary to Rome, Italy.

This is, perhaps, one of the most difficult places to do missions on earth; the Reformation never happened there since most missionaries were literally killed by the Roman Catholic Church, and never made it past the Swiss Alps due to the fact that that the capital of Italy is Rome, home to the Vatican itself.

Billy, on the other hand, was also a brilliant man. Graduated as part of Wheaton’s class of ’43. And we all know of his remarkable preaching ability. He was a man whose theology was shaped in part by Charles Finney, who drove him to more of a popcorn type of ministry that lent itself, in turn, to bigger crowds and more on the spot decisions.

One goes to a country that is regarded as the graveyard of missionaries because of the lack of fruit, the other had a ministry mindset of gathering big crowds and encouraging decisions for Christ on the spot.

One with a long-term mindset, of going to a place where few men had been and ground was hard to plow, the other going to a place where many men had been, where it was ripe for the harvest .

Is one better than the other? Is one more worthy of praise?

Read More