Why did Bob Jones separate from John R. Rice?

My, my, Dr. Bob.

I am reminded:
"A pox on both your houses." (Shakespeare)
"There are only two Fundamentalists left in this town, and I've been wondering about you, lately." (Unknown Fundamentalist)

By your words I understand that you never knew John R. Rice personally. You may have heard him preach or read some of his books, but you can't have known him personally. Therefore I assume your animus against him comes from some doctrine or stand of his. Those of us who knew him, even with his faults (and I know them well), consider him the greatest Christian we've ever known.

He truly walked with God in the Enoch way. When you heard him muttering, it was not to himself, it was prayer--all day every day. He loved the Word of God, and everything he preached about the Christian life came from the Word lived out in his life. You never knew when he would burst out singing praises to God--at home, in the car, in a restaurant!

He loved Christians and wrote hundreds of letters every month, trying to help people, including many absolute nobodies. The common Christian loved him. His workers at the Sword of the Lord knew he walked with the Lord, and had nothing but good to say about him because of his kindness and gentleness to them. (I worked there a short time.)

His family loved him and followed him as he followed the Lord. How many preachers do you know who raised six girls, all of who married preachers and serve the Lord to this day?

His burden for souls lasted until he died, and that is rare, too. I saw him in his last few months wheel his wheelchair over to a child at the invitation and ask if she was saved.

Here is one last illustration about his walk with God that every one on this forum should appreciate. Jerry Falwell was one of the speakers at his funeral. Bob Jones, Jr., came to his funeral, even though their friendship ended 8 years before. And Billy Graham, yes, that one, sent a huge flower wreath to the funeral. I don't care if you liked any of those three men, I consider it a near miracle for one man to earn such respect from three such diverse corners of Christianity.

I wish you could have known him, Dr. Bob. You would have come to admire him too. And is that so bad, even if he wasn't from your wing of Fundamentalism, or if some doctrine or practice of his offended you?

Sincerely,

John of Japan

 

For some this discussion seems to be proceeding under the assumption that we need to lay the blame for the split on one person. It seems more likely that both men made mistakes that led to their falling out. (Perhaps one person did bear the lions share of the responsibility, but that will be harder to judge from our vantage point.)

I think we all might agree that the '60s and '70s were not fundamentalism's brightest hour. It is worth considering the political climate that influenced the movement. John R . Rice and Bob Jones Jr. had lived through the McCarthy hearings, and I think fundamentalism absorbed some of the conspiratorial spirit of that era. You see this temperament in George Dollar's listmaking.

Add this political component to the legitimate gospel confrontations these men had weathered and I think you will be better prepared to understand John R. Rice, Bob Jones Jr, E. Robert Jordan, and other fundamentalist leaders who seem rather brusque to modern sensibilities.

 

Although some will undoubtedly disagree with me, I would argue that Dr. Bob, Jr. had no more nastiness in him than the rest of us. Dr. Bob, Jr. loved the sound of words and language. His taste ran to the flamboyant and colorful. He especially liked words and phrasing suited to performance on the stage. His messages were essentially monologues performed in the pulpit. This is consistent with his turn of phrase for God to smite Alexander Haig hip and thighbone. His statement is more a colorful expression than a vindictive invective against Haig.

In person, Dr. Bob, Jr. was a little earthy. He was blunt, plain and honest. Although he cried out loudly against men’s teachings, actions and associations, there was never a spirit of meanness, bitterness or personal vindictiveness. He was civil, kind and gracious in person toward those he opposed. Because he was a wordsmith, he plummeted, cut, pricked, and slashed with language over issues but he never evidenced personal rancor toward his enemies.

One very endearing trait was his humility. He never sought self-aggrandizing and he turned away many well-deserved compliments with a comment, “Well, you are very kind to say that but I really don’t deserve it.” Dr. Bob, Jr. moved in high places with the rich and famous yet he moved equally well among the commoner. He was equally at ease with dignitaries and the lowliest believer. He never curried favor with the rich and famous but he worked diligently to put the poor insignificant person at ease and paid him or her the compliment of undivided attention. He didn’t talk about himself although he did relate experiences. His stories were always more about the narratives than the person of Bob Jones, Jr.

Dr. Bob, Jr. had a sense of humor. He laughed at himself and at his own foibles. He was secure in deprecating his own shortcomings. He would freely admit that he did not know certain things and deferred to others. Others were preferred over his own interests. He boosted others, not himself. He loved people and delighted in the human-interest angle of stories. He was kind, thoughtful, gentle and considerate. Yet, he didn’t pussyfoot around about taking a stand on an idea or issue.

There exists a prejudicial critique against Dr. Bob, Jr. and he has been held accountable for things excused in other men. For example, W. A. Criswell reputedly referred to Dr. Bob, Sr. as Senile, Sr. and Dr. Bob, Jr. as Senile, Jr. Unfortunately, this was at the time when Dr. Bob, Sr., who was well into his eighties, was struggling with memory problems, possibly Alzheimer’s. No one rebuked Criswell or defended the Jones duo although the comment was in poor taste with bad timing and a personal attack. (IMHO, there is a huge ethical difference between attacking a man’s ideas or actions and his person.) Dr. Bob, Jr. would have been crucified if he had said the same of Criswell. At liberal Furman University, a SBC school at that time, Criswell, whom they criticized for his conservatism, was gleefully repeated and quoted because he had spoken against Bob Jones. If my memory serves me well, it was none other than the sophisticated Dr. John Henry Crabtree, Furman VP and Harvard graduate, who doubled over in stitches as he quoted Criswell in front of fawning students.

Dr. Bob, Jr. was genuine. He was the same in private as in public. Many public religious figures evince sweetness and virtue in public that is totally lacking and absent in private. Dr. Bob, Jr. would have rightly considered this hypocrisy. He valued integrity of character that demanded consistency in speech and behavior. The face in public had to be the same face in private. He was outspoken. Perhaps his outspokenness along with his vigorous championing of unpopular causes is what got him into trouble so often. He was blunt and forthright—that was just his style. The last time that I saw Dr. Bob, Jr. alive shortly before his death, I told him that I was leaving my long-held position for a new one. He chuckled and said, “Well, you’re been there a long time. Perhaps it is better for you to leave now while you are successful than wait for them to run you off.” Bluntly spoken—that was just Dr. Bob, Jr.’s way.

Finally, Dr. Bob, Jr. was fiercely loyal to his friends. He stuck by you in trouble. I would be less than a true friend not to defend him on this thread.

 

There you have it, Palmetto Boy. To every story there are two sides.

Were the '60's and 70's Fundamentalism's brightest hour? In some ways they were. Real Fundamentalism (not the mass media caricature) spread explosively across the globe. In particular, the 70's saw the beginning of the current massive Fundamentalist missions boom. The Fundamentalist missions force is the only segment of evangelical missions that is currently growing.

I have to say I agree with you about Dollar's list-making, though. Boy did that offend a lot of genuine Fundamentalists, and as I recall Dollar had to back down on some of his characterizations.

 

This particular thread has been a real education.Thanks.It's good to hear the stories from those who were there.

 

I agree and thank all.

 

To be rather honest, I truly wish Jon R. Rice took over after Bob Jones Jr. Sure, Jr. seemed to be an overall good guy, but he brought a lot of things into that school that have no place in being there (thinking of heavy emphasis on Shakespearean theatre, etc.).

I never had a chance to hear Rice preach as he died three years before I was born. However, I do have several of his books and also watched a video of him preaching on prayer (a very convicting sermon indeed, "Men ought always to pray and faint not." ).

 

Interesting, Spoudazo. I would say the exact opposite. Bob Jones Jr. had a lot of the same blind spots that John R. Rice had, but his emphasis on culture was his great strength--and distinguished him from the fundamentalists of his day. Looking back you can see how his emphasis on culture has had a significant impact on BJU and present-day fundamentalism. I still find it amazing that the finest collection of Christian art in America resides in a fundamentalist institution.

Also, I don't think many people realize it today, but BJU was regarded as a very progressive institution when it was founded. The school was roundly criticized for its emphasis on the fine arts (most vehemently by Wheaton). From the earliest days they used women teachers and had women administrators.

I find BJU's slow pace of change fascinating in light of its early reputation. Their conservatism (in the truest sense) has been a bane and a boon through the years.

 

I know Elisabeth Rice Handford, John R. Rice's daughter. Obviously she speaks fondly of him, but I am not familiar with this issue with Bob Jones until now.

 

You recall wrongly. I have known George Dollar for several decades and believe me, he has never backed down on anything, ever, in his whole life! </font>[/QUOTE]Well as I recall, what happened was that he toned down some of his statements in the 2nd edition of his book. I never bought the second edition and I can't even find my first edition, so I can't prove this. So maybe I shouldn't have said it?

 

She is a dear lady. If you see her say hello for me. She'll know me!

 

From your post, I take it that you believe Dr. Bob, Jr. took over and brought in things after Dr. Bob, Sr. passed away. The actual running of BJU was in Dr. Bob, Jr.’s hands from early on. He was one of the youngest college presidents in the America. It was Dr. Bob, Sr.’s original intent to emphasize the fine arts at BJC—Dr. Bob, Jr. accepted his father’s philosophy and pursued the fine arts with a passion. Dr. John R. Rice was a personal friend with the Jones’s and a BJU board member but his fervor and personal alignment was more with TTU and Dr. Lee Roberson.

 

What's wrong with learning Shakespeare in college? I teach College-level English so naturally I have to ask this.

 

Well, could it be because Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare? It was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

 

LOL, Do you also believe that we never went to the moon? What about the elusive shooter in the grassy knoll? How do you feel about that, Paidagogos?

 

Have you read Joe Sobran's Alias Shakespeare? How well are you tuned in to the authorship debate?

 

I'd say I'm much more informed than most since I teach English literature. I have heard many different arguments that Shakespeare was not Shakespeare. I guess I would take the theories more seriously if all of the theorists agreed on who the "real" Shakespeare was. My personal favorite alter ego for Shakespeare is Kit Marlowe just because I like the name Kit.

Rhonda