The Influence of John R. Rice in the SBC

[John of Japan]

Sorry I've not been able to get back to this. I promise I will when I can. In the meantime, here is a tidbit. Some authors (such as Daniel K. Williams) have referred to John R. Rice as a dispensationalist. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was premil and pretrib, but he came to his premillenialist position independently of dispensationalism, and never was a dispensationalist. (It disappointed him when I came to the dispensationalist position.) This is actually pretty typical of conservative Southern Baptists back in the day, I believe (can't prove it).

This can easily be seen in his writings such as his pamphlet, Churches and the Church, or his book on the Second Coming, The Coming Kingdom of Christ. For example, one place where he differed strongly from dispensationalism is that he believed the OT saints were part of the church, so he didn't believe in a "church age" per se (or any of the other ages of dispensationalism).

 

[John of Japan]

Let me clarify the issues, the reasons John R. Rice wrote articles and letters about the SBC and to SBC pastors and believers.

1. The most important point JRR was making was that SBC institutions were not only having in liberal speakers, but hiring them. I've already discussed some of these cases.

2. He also objected to SBC institutions approving of and using liberal materials, in particular the Interpreter's Bible, which was a liberal commentary set put out by the United Methodists. The main problem with the IB was its teaching in the area of higher criticism. More about this later.

3. JRR objected to the way the SBC Cooperative Program was run, in that funds from conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptists were used for a liberal agenda.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are some of the literature issues that JRR addressed in the SBC:

1. The SBC SS board Training Union quarterly for the 3rd quarter of 1964 had recommendations for further study on race relations of books by James Baldwin (profanity, obscenity, etc.), Martin Luther King, Jr. (whatever you may think of him he was a theological liberal) and John Howard Griffin. The SS Board head, James L. Sullivan, was forced to issue an apology (SBaWiSC, Rice, p. 107).

2. Another quarterly in 1969 quoted liberals Bonhoeffer, Tillich, Thieliche and others, with the book The Power of Sexual Surrender by Marie Robinson being recommended (p. 109). Karl Marx was also held up as a good example in 1969 literature (p. 111).

3. In 1971, the above mentioned Sullivan was again forced to defend SBC literature which referred to the Noahic flood as "a parable." According to Sullivan, even a parable can be based on an historical event, but JRR pointed out that no one defines a parable that way (p. 113).

I could give other incidents, but this should give you an idea about how the battle was shaping up in the SBC in the late '60's and early '70's. JRR was the one who ran the ammunition factory for the SBC conservatives who were fighting the good fight in those days.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I believe Dr. Rice did a good job of pointing out what was going on. I had friends back then who were pastors of churches in the convention and they were glad he was there. As one pastor told me back then, the average member is up to 20 years are more behind on know what is going on in the colleges and seminaries or less the pastor does a good job of keeping them up on what is going on.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe Dr. Rice did a good job of pointing out what was going on. I had friends back then who were pastors of churches in the convention and they were glad he was there. As one pastor told me back then, the average member is up to 20 years are more behind on know what is going on in the colleges and seminaries or less the pastor does a good job of keeping them up on what is going on.

Thanks, Bob. 20 years behind! That's a real eye opener, but I can see it happening.