Book Review - The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family
[amazon 1453843752 thumbnail]
For over 75 years, a small, independent newspaper has been the face of fundamentalism in America. John R. Rice founded The Sword of the Lord in 1934 and continued to manage the paper until his death in 1980. After Rice’s death the fundamentalist movement fragmented and the paper has lessened in influence, although it still represents an old-fashioned, fundamentalist faith.
In a new book released this week, one of John R. Rice’s grandsons, Andrew Himes, takes up his pen to tell the story of fundamentalism from an insider’s perspective. Himes grew up within a leading fundamentalist family in the hey day of American fundamentalism. His book [amazon 1453843752] includes personal encounters with several big names widely known even outside of fundamentalism. Himes tells a story his mom related of Billy Graham moving a piano in their home when he was a sophomore at Wheaton College. On the occasion of John R. Rice’s death, Himes himself attended the funeral and ate a meal afterward with Jerry Falwell, then just embarking on his dream of establishing the Moral Majority, soon to be known as the Religious Right.
Himes traces the roots of the Rice family back to the Revolutionary War and interweaves personal accounts of his ancestors’ lives with an account of the historical background of fundamentalism. He explores the sociological elements of the Scots-Irish people and the Southern mindset during and after the Civil War. His family ended up in Texas, where the Civil War lived on as the great lost cause. Himes also details the beginnings of American evangelicalism and the influence of the 18th century revivals on fundamentalism.
The book is more intriguing when John R. Rice comes on the scene and we hear of his mentor, J. Frank Norris. When William Jennings Bryan died suddenly after the conclusion of the Scopes trial, J. Frank Norris picked up the mantle of the leadership of the fundamentalist movement. Norris’ fights with the Southern Baptist Convention eventually included his young protege, who followed Norris out of the SBC. Himes traces the career of John R. Rice from his early days of evangelistic crusades in various towns in Texas to his national prominence as a leader in fundamentalism and even a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rice’s early days included numerous revival crusades in small towns throughout the South. It seems he often built a tabernacle for the meetings, and a few months later would leave behind a new Fundamentalist Baptist Church (they always had the same name), unaffiliated with any convention. Rice eventually took to radio and various newspapers to help expand his reach. He moved to Wheaton soon after he broke with Norris (who seemed to grow jealous of John R. Rice’s influence). Rice then became a mentor for Billy Graham, and the tale of Rice’s painful parting with Graham is told from Rice’s vantage point. We then learn of Rice’s conflict with Bob Jones in the 1970s.
The history itself is fascinating and the book is well documented. But Himes’ personal tale remains an enigma for most of the book. Has he lost his faith completely? What is his ultimate assessment of fundamentalism now? Why is he writing this book? These and other questions will fill the mind of any reader who views fundamentalism favorably—as standing for the truths of Scripture, even if fundamentalists may have gone awry in some respects. Himes seems to misunderstand much of what fundamentalism was about, particularly when with respect to theology. In the chapter on “The Fundamentals” he says: “However, before the end of the 18th century, few Christian theologians had claimed that the Bible as a whole was without internal contradictions, or textual and factual errors.” This is just not the case, as D. A. Carson and others have demonstrated. He also errs when in the same chapter he states that the “oldest extant texts of the Old and New Testaments were Greek manuscripts dating from the fourth century.” We have numerous manuscripts that date earlier than this and we have Hebrew OT scrolls going back to 100 years before Christ.
Throughout the book, a critique is leveled at Rice himself, to an extent, and at fundamentalism in general. Himes points out the narrowness of fundamentalism, and the political aspirations the movement harbored. The issue of race, and the notoriety of the Ku Klux Klan, which early fundamentalist leaders tolerated, is his biggest critique of the movement. The race issue plays a big role in the book. Particularly poignant is the description of the Sherman Riot in north Texas, where George Hughes, a black man, was murdered by an angry mob who also destroyed most of the town’s black businesses. One year after that 1930 riot, John R. Rice came to town with his evangelistic crusade. He preached on a lot of sins but failed to bring up the bloody riot. Himes gives some explanation for why Rice failed to confront the topic of race in the chapter entitled “The Jim Crow Challenge.” First, he claims it would have been a deviation from Rice’s primary motivation of saving souls. Second, he “could not possibly offer a critique of racial oppression in the white South without destroying his own ministry and undercutting his movement’s support for The Sword of the Lord. Even if he had been opposed to racial injustice, his Texas audience was not.” Himes does share one family story where Rice was indignant that a southern establishment wouldn’t serve a black friend of his some ice cream. Rice was a product of his time, but it is a sad fact that fundamentalism as a whole turned a blind eye to the civil rights movement.
The fundamentalist inclination toward separation began to spiral out of control toward the end of Rice’s life. It got to the point where John R. Rice saw the need to stand up for a less strident fundamentalism. Himes shares the account of Rice’s last address at a Sword Conference in August of 1980. Rice’s text was John 10:16, and he spoke of the other sheep that Christ has. In the chapter “Jesus Has Other Sheep,” Himes quotes at some length from Rice’s sermon. The quote helps us see where Himes is heading with his book.
Do you love the people of God who don’t see things like you do? How about Billy Graham? I love Billy Graham. I pray for him every day…. I read recently that Pope John XXIII wrote out a wonderful meditation, and he said, “Lord, I’m that prodigal son who said he wanted to come home from the hog farm to his father.” He said, “Lord, I’m that publican in the temple who prayed, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.” And my heart went out to him and I said, “Amen!” When I get to Heaven I’m going to put my arm around him! Would you be glad to see someone saved who doesn’t agree with you?… In John chapter 13, Jesus said, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.” Of course, Jesus meant you and your little buddy, didn’t he? No he didn’t! He meant the rest of ‘em too. If you’re going to love like a Christian, you’ve got to love everybody Jesus loves.
The ironic twist to this sermon is that Rice had planned to end his message by having the audience sing Bill Gaither’s song, “The Family of God.” The lyrics start with, “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God.” Curtis Hutson, who was Rice’s successor at the Sword, made sure that didn’t happen.
At the conclusion of the book, Himes describes a meeting with his uncles and aunts where he asked them about fundamentalism. He was surprised when they didn’t claim to be fundamentalists. One of his aunts said it this way, “You know, those people who claim to be ‘fundamentalist’ nowadays wouldn’t want to be associated with us, either! They’re what Daddy (John R. Rice) would have called, ‘ultra-fundamentalists,’ arrogant and self-righteous, very sure of themselves.” Himes singles out “the lack of Christian love for others” by those claiming to be fundamentalists, as being the key reason why John R. Rice’s children eschew the fundamentalist label.
Himes doesn’t tell us exactly where he lands with respect to religion, although he keys in on love as being of primary importance. He concludes the book with what he’s learned from his “post-fundamentalist” family: “Honor truth. Love well. Live your faith.” Wise advice, for sure, but something is lacking. Fundamentalism today is a many-headed, varied movement, but the uniting factor throughout fundamentalism is a passion for the truth of Scripture. There is a simple dedication to the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ that is truly commendable. Evangelical Christianity today shares a common lineage with fundamentalism, and many conservative evangelicals would be described as fundamentalists by the average American. So I’m not too keen on becoming “post-fundamentalist,” if that means shirking a high view of the fundamentals of the faith. I do agree that Christian love and the expansive spirit that John R. Rice exhibited is largely missing in today’s fundamentalism. Himes is right to push us on these points. But the truth of Scripture and the gospel of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ remains an essential “fundamental” in the life of any Christian.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, even if at times some of the back-story seemed to take too long to develop. The topic was of great interest to me, and the more I got into the book the more intrigued I became. There are bits and pieces of history that will be new to almost any reader, and the personal stories from the recollection of the Rice family are fascinating. For fundamentalists, this book will challenge your perspective of the history of your movement, but it won’t be a slap in the face. Himes is not out to attack fundamentalists, he is simply sharing his family’s history. His historical account educates and informs those not familiar with the history of fundamentalism, and if anything ugly is uncovered, the fault is not his. Rather than ignoring the past, we can seek to learn from it. May we all redouble our efforts to be always reforming our church practice and our personal lives into greater conformity to the truth of God’s Word.
Bob Hayton Bio
Bob Hayton has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He is a happily married father of seven who resides in St. Paul, MN. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at FundamentallyReformed.com, where he has also published over 190 book reviews. He can also be found occasionally at KJVOnlyDebate.com.
- 227 views
Himes doesn’t tell us exactly where he lands with respect to religion, although he keys in on love as being of primary importance.People have questioned if he is a Christian or not. Here is Andrew Himes’ response within the blogging world.
I am a passionate follower of Jesus and of the Way of Jesus. I must admit that I am leery of applying additional labels to myself or to other people. I’m afraid that labels are sometimes used to summarily dismiss others without listening to them or learning from them. If “fundamentalism” means following the fundamental teachings of Jesus that we are to love God with heart, mind, and soul, and love our neighbors as ourselves, then yes, I am a fundamentalist. But perhaps we need to redefine fundamentalism.
I was struck that the book was not just a single book. It was really multiple books. It was a personal memoir of a man, whom I believe is still searching for who he is and to what extent he was and still is impacted by his religious upbringing and his family’s legacy. It is refreshingly transparent and the author does not stray too frequently into making the story too much about “him”. I was left feeling sad for and concerned about the author. I would love to have the chance to have coffee with him someday. (BTW, I know that his brother, a wonderful missionary in Japan, and I believe at least one of his nephews, frequent this board and I’d really be interested in their perspective though I doubt they’d share it in such a public forum.)
This was also a history book of “Southern Fundamentalism” and I’m not sure that Himes recognizes (or may even be aware of) the other branch(es) of fundamentalism. But during the era and in the geography in which he lived — the SOTL branch was the dominant branch and it is fascinating tale. It is also an interesting look into the culture and values of the South during the 1850-1980 period of time. Himes comes off a bit fixated on the racism issue though I don’t deny that he described it accurately. I just think that there were other factors at play that were overshadowed by his attention to that topic. I think his record should, however, lead to some genuine soul-searching even among current fundamentalists about their racial attitudes which are now more hidden, but present nonetheless, in my experience.
Finally, it was family’s story and I found that interesting in a prurient way. The Rice family, for those who grew up fundy in this orbit, was ‘royalty’. It was both intentional and unintentional. They were a clan and celebrities and they appealed to typical American curiosity and our fascination with star power.
I was struck at how angry, bitter, small-minded and divisive that Bob Jones, Jr. was painted to be. Those that knew Rice will tell you that his pen was sharper than his spirit. In private, he was a kind and gracious man. Jones, Jr. came off in contrast as vindictive, petty and mean. There’s enough in print to confirm much of what Himes wrote, but to see it as part of this narrative emphasized the starkness of that era and left me feeling disappointed and saddened.
I think the most important and poignant chapter for me was the final one describing Rice’s last meeting which Bob describes in his review. I saw Rice preach at Hyles-Anderson for one of his last times and in one of their typical and ridiculous demonstrations of man-worship, they paraded the poor old gentleman around like a sideshow freak. They propped him up in the pulpit and asked him to speak. He sadly repeated himself over and over and mid-way through the sermon turned and announced that he needed to visit the restroom. They awkwardly escorted him out of the packed chapel and he was out for what seemed to be about 30 minutes and then he was rolled back in to complete the sermon. I felt bad for his loss of dignity during those final days. But in Himes description of that final meeting with Curtis Hutson, we see a man who perhaps got a glimpse of the “monsters” that had been created by all those years of over-separation and competition as he was refused his last request for reconciliation and a gentler tone. Compared with one of Curtis Hutson’s (his successor) final national sermons at Northside Baptist Church/Southwide Baptist Fellowship where he preached — “Things that Are Different Are Not the Same” and left an attitude of defiance and unBiblical divisiveness, we see the fruit that was eventually borne.
I think this is a book worthy of an open-minded reading for those in, out of or in-between residency within fundamentalism. I didn’t intend to write another review. Bob’s was good enough. I just ended up sharing some of my own perspectives. Would be interested in hearing others as well. (Watchman….are you reading this?)
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
You add a lot of context that I can’t as you lived in the Rice era. I was born in 1980 so I can’t speak from that historical vantage point.
There certainly were sections of fundamentalism that weren’t covered in the book. I was hoping for some thoughts on Jack Hyles, but he barely appears in the book.
Another angle he pushes is the political aspirations of fundamentalist leaders and their involvement. He sort of sets up Rice as being anti-political and the other leaders as being more politically minded. That’s probably true to an extent, and it is an interesting angle. I found it interesting to see some anti-Semitism even in some of the early 20th Century evangelists like Mordecai Ham.
All in all, it is a fascinating look at history and definitely an interesting book.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
The book was an interesting read, but (IMHO) it was somewhat undermined by the author’s tunnel vision regarding racism. Were (are) some fundamentalists racists? Sure. But correlation is not causation. There were also Catholic racists and Yankee racists and Presbyterian racists and atheist racists and even African-American racists. The list goes on and on. Each session I would ask my American history classes where the Board of Education in the famed 1954 Brown case was. None of them ever got it right. They always guessed somewhere in the deep South, which Topeka, Kansas most certainly is not. Racism is not a defining characteristic of the fundamentalism I grew up in, nor is it the underlying basis for separation as a doctrine.
The Dr. Rice I knew was most certainly not a racist. (I don’t think Andy argues that he was—just that he wasn’t sufficiently interested in racial justice.) And if you accused him, as the book does, with being more concerned with soul winning than housing or voting rights, I believe he would gladly plead guilty. I watched him preach many times with tears in his eyes as he urged people to win their family members and neighbors to Christ. That was his central passion.
I followed Andy’s personal story through the book with great interest. I wish he had defined his current position more thoroughly, but I’ve heard that there may be another book still to come, and perhaps that will answer the remaining questions. It’s definitely worth taking the time to read.
“In 1975, Hutson was a member of the North American Overview Committee for the New King James Version of the Bible.”
This fact is also mentioned in this information put out by Thomas Nelson: http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm
I remember Roger Martin making mention of this.
As to the NKJV, I heard that originally Jack Hyles was going to be on some advisory board for it, but he declined once he heard Falwell was going to be on it, or something like that. In the mid-70s many fundamentalists were not beholden to the KJV. Rice never was KJV only.
Many Bible colleges and seminaries today which stand firmly for the KJV, originally were more ambivalent on the issue. They just don’t share that history as readily with people. All this speaks to the fact that the KJV Only position is basically new. There were different waves of the expanding influence of the movement, but its origins in large measure trace to the late 60s, early 70s and the influence of Benjamin Wilkinson’s book from 1930….
Back to the Rice issue and the book, I wish someone could enlighten me more on Rice’s difference on secondary separation that Dr. Doran recently commented on over at his blog. He mentioned something about how Rice was wrong on separation….
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
So I read this book with more than a passing interest. I was not disappointed, I found it fascinating.
Concerning your comment about KJV Bible colleges, I know first hand that my alma mater is disingenuous when it claims to have always been KJVO. It was not when I went there in the late seventies. The college president would quote favorably from other versions and told me personally that he was not a KJVO. My Greek professor often corrected the KJV. It was only after it became a hot button issue for “fundamentalists” that the school and president switched sides.
Greg Wilson
[Robert Byers] The book was an interesting read, but (IMHO) it was somewhat undermined by the author’s tunnel vision regarding racism. Were (are) some fundamentalists racists? Sure. But correlation is not causation. There were also Catholic racists and Yankee racists and Presbyterian racists and atheist racists and even African-American racists. The list goes on and on. Each session I would ask my American history classes where the Board of Education in the famed 1954 Brown case was. None of them ever got it right. They always guessed somewhere in the deep South, which Topeka, Kansas most certainly is not. Racism is not a defining characteristic of the fundamentalism I grew up in, nor is it the underlying basis for separation as a doctrine.Just a small correction, Robert. I don’t believe Andrew implied in his book that correlation was causation or that fundamentalist theology was linked to racism. He simply reported that some fundamentalists were linked to the difficult racial history of the South.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I went to his http://andrewhimes.net/blog] blog , found http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-himes/jesus-was-a-fundamentalist_b… this post , where he says:
Now I find I am once again willing to describe myself as a fundamentalist, for the first time in almost 50 years. As I try to follow the example and most fundamental teachings of Jesus, I come to better understand my grandfather’s motivations, his own all too human attempts to follow Jesus. I find myself having more compassion for my neighbor, and slower to condemn those who don’t understand the world exactly as I do.Whereas in the book he says this:
I am no longer consciously a fundamentalist, but my family and closest friends will happily tell you that I have a deeply ingrained or at least well-trained propensity to be pugnacious and overly certain of my own opinions (along with more attractive traits such as my love for silly wordplay and my glorious hair).Not sure what he means by all that. The statements seem contradictory.
Himes, Andrew (2010). The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family (p. 12). Chiara Press. Kindle Edition.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I think following the example of Jesus and majoring on love is what Andrew Himes is considering being a fundamentalist in the sense he says he is one. On my blog, he said this to me in the comments:
I consider myself a passionate follower of Jesus and of the Way of Jesus, though I shy away from additional labels because I think we often use them to dismiss others without listening. But I am on a path to learn, so I appreciate everything you had to say.Still, though at times he seems to be oversimplifying history, the book becomes more interesting and wins you over by the time you get to the end, at least for me. I disagree with many of his perspectives, but some of the history he shares I have to agree is genuine, and it’s that transporting to another time from the world of fundamentalism 50 and 80 years ago (and more), which makes the book an interesting read.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Still, though at times he seems to be oversimplifying history, the book becomes more interesting and wins you over by the time you get to the end, at least for me. I disagree with many of his perspectives, but some of the history he shares I have to agree is genuine, and it’s that transporting to another time from the world of fundamentalism 50 and 80 years ago (and more), which makes the book an interesting read.Yes, I think he is on firmer ground describing the events in his family’s life, because, of course, he was there. His read of the history ‘way back when’ seems a bit cursory and seems to be an attempt to build his case rather than accurately and completely understand the historical background (and it also sounds a lot like Tim Keller, at least according to the critique of Keller we read few weeks back). In any case, he isn’t a historian, so I’m not expecting him to be one.
I think he is a very engaging writer, in spite of my criticisms. I note from his web-site that he lives in Seattle area, so maybe I’ll get a chance to talk to him at some point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1680011.
Discussion