Wearing Down the Edges of The Sword of the Lord

Dana Ayoob
Religion 201 Section AG
October 21, 2011

Introduction to the Book

Fundamentalism, in the general sense, is a Christian religion
based on the strict keeping of the fundamental theological beliefs
within the Protestant tradition. It was a movement formed largely in
response to rising modernism and liberalism, with the core impulse
[to] rediscover and cherish the essence of Christianity(295). The
essence of Christianity was, according to Fundamentalists, based
majorly on the following fundamental beliefs: the virgin birth, the
inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible, the need of sinners for
atonement, Jesus death and resurrection, and the miracles attributed
to Christ(295).
Andrew Himes grew up in one of the most prominent
Fundamentalist families in America. As a child, he grew up in love with
his lifestyle. As a teenager, he rebelled against the lifestyle. Now, in
his sixties, Himes reflects fondly and honestly upon the lifestyle with
which he was raised and many of his family members continue to
practice. The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an
American Family is for the most part a memoir of Himes family yet,
due to his familys long, influential past, also serves as a history of the
Fundamentalist movement in America. Through stories of his
grandfather and his predecessors, Himes reflects the changes and
shifts in the Fundamentalist beliefs and lifestyles throughout history.
He speaks of the movement with honesty and a great sense of intimate

knowledge. Himes exposes many of the internal struggles the men of

his family had, and his own personal struggles with fundamentalism
and religion in general. Throughout his book, Himes leads up to his
ultimate conclusion: religion is about knowing your fundamentals. And
reminiscent throughout his commentary on the history and struggles of
his family is Himes own personal set of fundamentals: Honor truth.
Love well. Live your faith(306).
Introduction to Himes Theories
Himes begins the story of his family when the Scots-Irish
immigrated to Northern America in the early 18th century. He takes us
through the history of his predecessors, the Rice family, while
simultaneously guiding us through some of the most influential periods
in the shaping of Americas culture. Himes describes his family and
their role in the history of America through their strong Fundamental
beliefs, bringing to light the faults and struggles their beliefs
presented. Through Americas ever-changing society, Himes family
struggled with their beliefs, fluctuating back in forth from representing
a majority of societys beliefs to declining into societys minority.
Himes tells the stories of his grandfathers as a documentation of the
society of fundamentalism as it strove to conserve its fundamentals in
relationship to the ever-changing values of the greater American
society. In a religion so literally fundamental, changes in belief can
become scandal. Throughout the history of the Rice family, however,

changes to the traditions definitely occurred. Himes highlights these

changes and marks the slow progress of his familys beliefs.
Through the stories of his early predecessors in post-civil war
era, the life of his grandfather, and his own personal memoirs, Himes
seems to be arguing that traditions should change with time according
to the changes of the surrounding society. However, a person should
still retain their fundamental beliefs. While at times Himes seems to
critique his familys adherence to certain fundamentals, he takes the
word into new context. Himes redefines fundamentals as general
values which a person should hold throughout ever-changing times,
and apply to all new situations, rather than being stuck in the mold of
certain concrete beliefs.
The Evidence
James Rice was Andrew Himes great-grandfathers grandfather;
or something like that. He had grown up in the South prior to the civil
war to become a Baptist preacher, and in addition ended up a wealthy
plantation owner in Missouri. However, Missouri soon became the
grounds for combat between the North and the South in the struggle
over slavery. Himes described James personal experience with the
war: James had fought for the South and eventually been captured by
the Union army. When threatened with being shot for being a criminal
seditionist, and given the opportunity to escape death by pledging
loyalty to the Union, Rice explicitly refused. However, he was given

another chance to simply give up fighting, and after contemplation,

Rice agreed and went home (70-71). James Rice fought for his
fundamental beliefshe believed in the Confederation and the
freedoms it allowed him. However, when confronted, he maintained
his beliefs, but shifted them a little. Instead of continuing to fight, he
kept them to himself and his family.
Generations later, when John R. Rice came along, he faced
similar controversy with his beliefs, but this time on a much more
personal level. His biggest conflict came in his relationship with his
good friend, a man who had grown up learning from him, Billy Graham.
John and Billy had begun to grow apart due to their conflicting views on
separatismthe idea that Fundamentalists should separate
themselves from other denominations because if the beliefs differed
from the fundamentals, the religion should not be promoted
whatsoever. While Rice stuck to his fundamentals, Billy had begun to
reach out to other denominations so as to gain the ability to preach to
larger and larger crowds. Himes commented on the conflict:
The split between fundamentalism and evangelicalism was
a watershed even in the history of Christian Protestantism
[] Fundamentalists continued to inhabit the wilderness of
the American political landscape, powerless to affect public
policy or even influence the public understanding of God,
morality, and faith (247-248).
Graham seemed to be moving with the times, adapting his faith
to preach to more people. Rice, however, refused to give up his
values. That is, until one of his last speeches of his life when he

recommended the political camaraderie of the different Christian

denominations. Himes summarized the goal of the speech, saying,
The principle of separatism in religious affairs [] still held [].
However, it was perfectly permissible for conservative, orthodox
Christians to unite in political action with others who had different
points of view on certain religious issues(273). This example, just one
of various others, signified Rices adaptation of his beliefs to suit the
society around him. He lessened his strictness on the issue of
separatism hoping to help the country progress politically. It seemed
he still held many of his fundamental values, but had eased back on
the traditional restrictions these values had placed.
Conclusion
Himes himself briefly discussed his own struggles with religion.
He went from devoting his life to Fundamentalism as a child, to strictly
rebelling against the practice as a teenager. In his adulthood, after
much struggle and confusion with his trying to find a set of practices to
believe in, Himes came to this conclusion about his faith: Following
Jesus evidently requires much more than orthodoxy or platitudes about
love [] Honor truth. Love well. Live your faith (305-306).
Through the memoirs of his grandfather along with other
important men in his family lineage, one constant remained throughout
Himes book. Each story had a similar pattern: while trying to hold on
to ones fundamental doctrines, its often found that these doctrines

must be opened up or loosened a little. While his family began as

fundamentalists in the strictest sense, time changed their views and
practices greatly. However, what mattered most was that their
fundamental beliefs transcended. Himes seems to argue that its less
about the process of religion, and more about the fundamentals of
faith. A person can maintain their values throughout changes in their
practicesone of the biggest issues his family had to overcome.
Himes was extremely successful in pleading his argument
through his book. He wrote more as if he, too, were grappling with
understanding religion itself, and the whole point of everything. Hed
grown up blindly accepting and then blindly rejecting the traditions of
his family, only to find he was switching one tradition in for the next
tradition, and not happier in either. The conclusion that religion is not
about traditions, but rather about general fundamental values is a
conclusion that I think applies throughout many aspects of life. Himes
doesnt argue for any certain set of beliefshe argues for a way of life.
No matter what a person believes in, its less important to hold strong
beliefs about traditions, and all the more significant to simply believe.

Bibliography
Himes, Andrew. The Sword of the Lord: Roots of Fundamentalism in an
American Family. Seattle: Chiara Press, 2011.