Trevin Wax on the Legacy of John R. Rice and Fundamentalism

I recently stumbled across another review of The Sword of the Lord by Andrew Himes. I’ve reviewed Himes’ look at his grandfather, John R. Rice’s legacy, and enjoyed his analysis of the development of fundamentalism. Well, I just found Trevin Wax’s review of the same book, and learned that he also shares a fundamentalist past. His review is excellent, and his thoughts on fundamentalism and John R. Rice are worth excerpting here.

First, Trevin opens his review with his own personal story regarding his fundamentalist upbringing:

I can’t make sense of my Christian heritage apart from the independent Baptist movement of the last century. My father was born in Wheaton, IL, the city where my grandfather was employed as the printer for the Sword of the Lord, the premier fundamentalist newsweekly during the second half of the 1900″²s. When John R. Rice, the founder and first editor of The Sword, decided to move the headquarters to Murfreesboro, TN in the mid-60″²s, my grandparents moved with him. It was in Murfreesboro, at John R. Rice’s church, that my parents met each other and were married.

Rice died in the hospital I was born in. Though he died six months before I was born, I was raised in the shadow of his influence. During the earliest and most formative years of my life, I understood my identity as an independent Baptist. I was well versed in the fundamentalist distinctions that separated us not only from the world but also from “Christians who love the world.”

I’m grateful for my fundamentalist upbringing, particularly for the amount of Bible knowledge I received at church and in my Christian school. I’m also grateful for an important impulse that continues to shape me today: hold fast to precious truths. The old-school fundamentalists knew there were truths worth protecting, worth holding onto, perhaps dogmatically at times. I think they were right.

But while the independent Baptist movement succeeded in teaching me what to think, it failed in teaching me how to think. When our family joined a fledgling Southern Baptist church plant, I quickly discovered what it was like to be an outsider to the tight-knit community that had once felt like home. Many independent Baptists today would consider me a “liberal” for letting my wife wear pants, for reading versions of the Bible other than King James, or for listening to music with drums. But most of the world would still label me “fundamentalist” — if by that, they mean I adhere the core beliefs at the heart of Reformational Christianity.

Then, after his review of Himes’ book, he gives an analysis of fundamentalism and the legacy of John R. Rice.

The story of John R. Rice offers several lessons for us today. First, we ought to be on guard against a Quietist gospel that would have us retreat from the public implications of the gospel. In Counterfeit Gospels, I write:

Fifty years ago, Southern Baptist pastors admirably preached against many forms of worldliness. But there was evil that many pastors never addressed. In small towns throughout the Deep South, outside the comfort of our sanctuaries on a Sunday night, there were African-American brothers whose bodies were swinging from the trees. And many pastors never said a word… Our preaching may have been loud, but it was all too quiet.

Preaching loudly against certain sins, while leaving massive injustice untouched and unspoken of should not be the norm for Christians who believe that Jesus truly did come out of the grave on Easter morning.

Secondly, we need to recognize and resist the fundamentalist tendency to exaggerate differences and distinctions in order to provide justification for our group’s existence. “Holiness” is not defined by the doctrines that set us apart from other Christians, but the actions and beliefs we hold in common with other Christians that set us apart from the world.

Third, we must not reject everything about fundamentalism. The independent Baptists recognized that there were indeed hills worth dying on. It is possible to conceive of the doctrines and practice of evangelical identity so broadly that the “big tent” falls in on itself. I believe we may be witnessing that kind collapse today. The fundamentalists were wrong to major on minors, but we are often wrong to not major on majors.

Finally, we need to ask God to make us aware of our blind spots. Rice’s legacy was tarnished by his toleration of segregation and racial inequality. He thought he was putting forth a mediating position, but in retrospect, it’s clear that his mediation served only to buttress the existing social structures of the day.

I am thankful for men like John R. Rice. I’m thankful for their belief in truth and their willingness to defend important truths of the Christian faith. Apart from Rice’s ministry to my grandparents fifty years ago, I might not be a Christian today. I’m also thankful for my independent Baptist upbringing. The church folks who nurtured me knew the Bible well and wanted me to know it too. And although I can spot weaknesses in the fundamentalist movement, I admit that evangelicalism also has its fair share of flaws. Even so, I rest in the knowledge that God raises up imperfect people to serve imperfect people and that even through our weaknesses, God shines a spotlight on His magnificent grace.

You may also be interested in the comments under Wax’s post, because there someone mentions the possible impact that Rice and his Sword of the Lord may have had on the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

On another note, on The Sword of the Lord book’s website, they’re offering a summer digital sale. You can get an ebook copy of the book for only 7.99. Details here. You can also pick up the book at Amazon.com.

Rest for Your Souls

I had the privilege to fill in for our pastor this past Sunday, and deliver the Sunday sermon. It’s available now for free download or to listen online.

Place: Beacon of Hope Church, St. Paul
Date: July 24, 2011
Title: Rest for Your Souls
Text: Matthew 11:25-30
Theme: Jesus’ unbelievable promise to provide us true and lasting rest. (Includes a short biblical theology on rest.)

Listen online or download (right click and save it to your computer)

“Divided: Is Modern Youth Ministry Multiplying or Dividing the Church?” directed by Philip and Chris LeClerc

A new documentary DVD sponsored by The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, is beginning to make some waves. Divided: Is Modern Youth Ministry Multiplying or Dividing the Church? explores the pitfalls and problems of how we’ve done church for the last thirty to forty years (and more). You can watch the entire 54 minute DVD online through September. I have the video embedded below, but you may want to click through to watch it full size on Vimeo.com.

I found the DVD thought provoking and definitely worth my time in watching. Age segregation is a new concept in the church, and has only been around in the last hundred years or more. There is a strong argument to be made that it has contributed to many of the problems in the church.

The documentary interviews current youth ministry gurus, youth ministers with misgivings, and former youth ministers. Also included are interviews of church leaders in the Family-Integrated movement such as Douglas Phillips, Scott Brown, and Voddie Baucham, Jr. as well as other leaders less known for their preference for Family-Integrated churches, like R.C. Sproul, Jr., Ken Ham and Paul Washer.

The movie itself flows at a nice pace, tracing the investigation of Philip Leclerc into the problems surrounding youth ministry in the church. The filming is superb and well-planned, interesting shots abound. The setting of the interviews also are visually appealing and the whole movie is a great production. The Leclrerc brothers criss-cross the country interviewing leaders and digging into this problem.

Still, after all the interviews and the questions have been presented, I don’t think the case against modern youth ministry is as fool proof as the documentary claims. At our church, children age 5 and up sit with us in the worship service and that alone contrasts with what many churches do. We have age segregated Sunday School classes, but also foster a unity in spirit throughout the church cross-generationally. More could be done though. And just opening eyes to the questions in this debate can make a big impact.

I recommend you take the time to watch Divided. You may want to pick up a copy of the movie to have it in your library and show it to your church leaders. Learn more about Divided at DividedtheMovie.com. You can purchase a copy of this movie direct from the movie’s website, or through Amazon.com.

If you’ve seen this, or if you take the time to watch it, please join the discussion. Let us know what you think.

Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo.

BibleWorks 9 and a Revolution in Textual Critical Studies

Check out these two videos to see what the new BibleWorks 9 software, available mid-July, can do when it comes to textual critical tools. I saw a demo of this feature back in April at The Gospel Coalition Conference, and was blown away by the potential of this tool for textual studies of all kinds. One can only hope that many more manuscripts will be added, and fresh Majority Text collations and other tools will be incorporated into the CNTTS apparatus which is made so accessible by means of BibleWorks 9. BibleWorks promises that as more manuscripts become available, those updates will be provided free of charge to BibleWorks 9 users.

Watch the videos, and check out BibleWorks 9!

~ cross posted from my group site, KJVOnlyDebate.com

Are We Guilty of Homophobia?

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, recently was quoted as saying the following in an interview about homosexuality.

“We’ve lied about the nature of homosexuality and have practiced what can only be described as a form of homophobia… We’ve used the “˜choice’ language when it is clear that sexual orientation is a deep inner struggle and not merely a matter of choice.”

He was then asked to defend this statement in the recent SBC Annual Convention. The video of the exchange with SBC pastor and blogger, Peter Lumpkins is here.

I happen to agree with Mohler, especially as he clarified his statements. The Associated Baptist Press summarized Mohler’s response to the question by Lumpkins:

Mohler said at the convention “there is no way anyone in fair mindedness can be confused about what I believe about homosexuality,” because he has written more than 200 articles about it, but that “the reality is that we as Christian churches have not done well on this issue.”

“Evangelicals, thankfully, have failed to take the liberal trajectory of lying about homosexuality and its sinfulness,” Mohler said. “We know that the Bible clearly declares — not only in isolated verses but in the totality of its comprehensive presentation — the fact that homosexuality not only is not God’s best for us, as some try to say, but it is sin.”

“But we as evangelicals have a very sad history in dealing with this issue,” he continued. “We have told not the truth, but we have told about half the truth. We’ve told the biblical truth, and that’s important, but we haven’t applied it in the biblical way.”

“We have said to people that homosexuality is just a choice,” Mohler said. “It’s clear that it’s more than a choice. That doesn’t mean it’s any less sinful, but it does mean it’s not something people can just turn on and turn off. We are not a gospel people unless we understand that only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”

Mohler said churches have not done their job until “there are those who have been trapped in that sin sitting among us.”

Now the use of “homophobia” is a sticky subject, for sure. But I do agree that Mohler is right. And in this, I echo the sentiments of blogger Elijah Friedeman, and want to quote him at some length (HT: The Aquila Report).

I realize that much of what Mohler said flies in the face of conservative Christianity. No one likes to be called homophobic. And religious people especially don’t like to be called to repentance. But Albert Mohler is absolutely right.

What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice?Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.

I know that many conservative Christians want to turn homosexuality into an easy choice. But it doesn’t work like that. Don’t get me wrong. Everyone has a choice about whether or not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage. But not everyone has a say about whom they’re sexually attracted to.

There are a lot of people in the world with addictive personalities – they’re addicted easily – these people don’t have to give in to their addictive temptations, but they have a problem that can’t be solved with a choice – a problem that only Jesus can fix.

Homosexuality is much the same. Homosexuals have deep-rooted attraction to the same gender that they can’t solve with a choice. Mohler stated that homosexuality, like any other sin, requires a Savior. When did that become a radical sentiment? Last I checked, it’s a biblical concept.

But I have a feeling that most people disagreed with Mohler, because he labeled Southern Baptists as homophobic.

I can’t speak to homophobia in Southern Baptist churches. I’ll have to trust Mohler on that front (apparently he explained exactly how Southern Baptists are homophobic, but I can’t find the transcript). But I know from what I’ve seen, read, and heard, a form of homophobia is very present in many conservative churches.

For some reason there is an irrational fear of and extreme aversion to homosexuals in a lot of churches. We may not come right out and say that we think homosexuals are nasty creatures, but if you read between the lines, it’s pretty easy to pick up on. This is homophobia.

We should not elevate homosexuality above other sins. If we condemn homosexuality as sin, we must also condemn other forms of sexual immorality as sin.

I’ve seen many religious people castigate homosexuals, but turn a blind eye to the other, more pervasive, forms of sins in the church. I’m more concerned about the prevalence of divorce in churches than I am about a few cases of homosexuals trying to silence their critics.

What do you think? Is Mohler totally off base? As for me, I’m standing with him on this one.

For more on this question, see other articles on homosexuality I’ve posted here on my blog. You’ll find reviews of two helpful books I’ve read on this topic.