Featured The Influence of John R. Rice in the SBC

Glad to see the fellowship going on here, and glad that you all are enjoying the thread.

I probably won't get to the next installment for a day or two. I have a service at 5:00, then what is called the "pre-service" for a funeral, which will be tomorrow morning.

 

Have a good time with your brother, and may God save his soul.

When you get back check the "Missions/Witnessing/Evangelism" forum for an account of a Japanese Christian funeral, including several salvation stories.

 

The funeral is over and I have a little bit of free time before bed. As I said, I want to share something from JRR's magnum opus on verbal-plenary inspiration as relates to the SBC of his day. This will give you an idea about his passion against liberalism, and in particular one liberal welcomed in SBC circles. He was writing about noted modernist Nels F. S. Ferre.

"Ferre says, 'The use of the Bible as a final authority for Christian truth is idolatry.' (Rice footnotes this quote from Ferre's book, The Sun and the Umbrella, p. 39.) To accept the Bible as inspired is idolatry, says Ferre! It was Ferre who said that to worship Jesus as God is idolatry, that Jesus was only human, that He was sinful, that Jesus may have been the b*stard son of harlot Mary and of a blond Roman soldier. Yet his publishers speak of 'Ferre's commitment to evangelical Christianity.' Northern Baptists sponsor him as professor at Andover-Newton; Methodists kept him some years teaching in Vanderbilt University; Southern Baptist Seminary at Louisville had him for his infidel lectures" (Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible, p. 262).

More later as I go through his book, Southern Baptists and Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. This book is a compilation of many articles over the years about liberalism in the SBC, seeking to warn Southern Baptist conservatives of the theological wolves in their midst.

 

In the previous post I mentioned JRR's book, Southern Baptists and Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. This was actually a follow-up to a previous book of articles from the SOTL, Southern Baptists, Wake Up. Unfortunately I only have the second book (but the first was much like it), from which I'm going to be quoting to track JRR's efforts to get Southern Baptists to stand up against liberalism.

The SOTL from June 9, 1967, had an article, "Liberal Southern Baptist Advises." This was about L. D. Johnson, who had been appointed chaplain at Furman U. Johnson wrote a 30 page paper about where the SBC should be headed. Some of it was quoted in the Baptist Courier.

Johnson wrote: "Insistence upon the literal meaning of all of the Bible is no longer a tenable position among people who are educated, and the education of the American people will be the mark of the 70's" (JRR's book, p. 104).

Rice wrote in the article, "It is shocking, and sad that Dr. Graham selects men like Bishop Pike and Dr. Johnson to head his campaigns, and thus gives them standing with ordinary Christians, which they do not deserve because of their unbelief in the Bible. And it is shocking that Southern Baptists go on supporting with their money and influence men who are opposed to the very thing that old-time Baptists stood for and counted as their deepest convictions!" (ibid).

What was JRR' solution? "There is a remedy which Southern Baptists who believe the Bible and put Christ first can use: That is, simply to decide an announce that they will give no more money to Furman University as long as the administration goes along with Dr. Johnson and his liberal attitude against the infallibility an absolute authority of the Bible. And why should Baptists go on raising money for schools that train students to disbelieve the fundamentals of the faith and that is set to get tax dollars fro the government to run these so-called Christian schools?" (ibid).

So Rice had a plan: expose liberalism in the institutions of the SBC, and challenge conservatives to fight the liberalism and cut off funds to said institutions.

 

John R. Rice considered liberals to be infidels, people who were actively attacking the Christian faith. When you young people hear the term "infidel," you may think of a wide-eyed radical Muslim calling for the death of all infidels, but back in the first half of the 20th century and into the 1970's it did not mean that. Christians used the word for such opponents of Christianity as Tom Paine in his Age of Reason, or the Frenchman Voltaire who opposed the Bible in his writings.

One such infidel was George A. Butttrick, editor-in-chief of the notorious Interpreter's Bible commentary, which was being used by liberal profs in SBC seminaries in those days. JRR pointed out in an article in the SOTL on Nov. 12, 1965, that in his book The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, Buttrick said on pp. 158-159 that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate, and then on 163 that the Bible is morally impure: "Thirdly, the Bible was called to task for low ethical and spiritual standards." According to Rice, "On pages 173 to 175, he tells in detail how he heard a sermon on the atonement from the text, Galatians 3:1q3 and objected, because, he says he does not believe that man is a fallen creature, does not believe that Christ atone for sin on the cross, that men need to be born again; he tells how he got up and left that church and he says about the doctrine of the blood atonement, 'Your God is my Devil'" (Southern Baptists...," Good-bye New Orleans Baptist Seminary," p. 59).

In June of 1964, NEBS had Buttrick in as their main speaker for their "Pastors' Conference," and many Southern Baptists students and pastors objected and kept JRR informed. JRR cheered them on and gave them ammunition through his articles. In this particular article, he tells how one student there even lost his job with the seminary for objecting to Buttrick! Many students and pastors kept JRR informed. One SBC pastor, Orvall Bruce of Flat River, MO, wrote the Sunday School Board and objected, and in a reply the seminary president, H. Leo Eddleman, referenced Rice in his reply, so Rice wrote him an open letter, included in this article.

In one place he wrote in answer to Eddleman’s assertion that Buttrick preached a good message: “Of course Dr. Buttrick did not preach in New Orleans Seminary what he preaches In his books and in the radical Northern seminaries. But nevertheless, you made Buttrick respectable to your students and the pastors in the area. You gave him standing as a Christian when he is not a Christian, according to the plain statement in II John 9-11. You taught Bible believers to listen to this infidel with respect” (ibid, p. 60).

The open letter to Eddleman was much gentler than a letter JRR might write to an infidel (and he did correspond much with liberals). He called him “Dear brother,” and appealed to his sense of Christian decency, but he did take him to task for a statement in the letter to Orvall Bruce in which Eddleman called “malcontents” those opposed to having Buttrick in to an SBC seminary. This was JRR's way: strong rebuke to liberals, brotherly entreaty to born-again Christians.

 

JRR carried on a truly voluminous correspondence throughout his ministry, including with many in the SBC. He literally had two or three full time secretaries to keep up with his dictated letters. Back in the day they used the Dictaphone for this, which recorded sound on a little record. The secretaries would listen with earphones and type out the letters on a typewriter. (For you youngsters, a typewriter was a computer with no memory, nothing but a keyboard and a primitive printer which used ink on a ribbon. :type

When a Southern Baptist objected to his articles and books aimed at their convention, he would immediately write back and either scold or commiserate with them, depending on their attitude and knowledge.

One such letter was written in answer to an SBC official objecting to the pamphlet, Southern Baptist Leaders Committed Liberals, and published in the SOTL of 9/4/70. It is reproduced on pp. 79-81 of the above mentioned book, SBAWISC. The man made the mistake of calling Rice unethical and of giving distorted remarks. He had the gall to say that Rice shouldn't criticize, to which of course Rice replied, "Why then is it proper for you to criticize and not for me?" (p. 80).

The essence of the man's criticism was that Rice had no standing to criticize liberalism in the SBC. To this Rice replied, "Who appointed you to speak for Southern Baptists in this matter?" and then pointed out that he and various SBC leaders such as W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee and E. J. Daniels were longtime close friends. He said that he spoke on the side of these men, that many SBC pastors and laymen took his paper and wanted his input, and furthermore that he himself had a long history as a Southern Baptist, having graduated from and taught at their schools and become an evangelist for many years in the SBC.

 

Thanks, Tom, good post.

As per this post, I don't see John R. Rice as having caused or planned the resurgence. His role was to provide information and encouragement through his paper, the Sword of the Lord.

 

I didn't want to kerflummox the youngsters too much! :laugh: