It doesn’t make sense how much I love Rich Mullins.
I am, probably—for the preponderance of our population in the way that they use the word—a fundamentalist. No, the folks over in the Independent, Fundamental Baptist world certainly wouldn’t call me a fundamentalist, and I admit that the word is used probably with too much variance in meaning for it to be helpful. I don’t introduce myself to people by saying, “Hi. I’m Bart Barber. I’m a fundamentalist.” Dave Miller introduces me to people that way, but I don’t introduce myself that way.
But what’s important for this post is simply this: When Rich Mullins talked about fundamentalists, I’m pretty sure he was talking precisely about people like me. Rich Mullins would not have liked me. Much of what he used to say in his concerts was carefully calculated to make me, if I were in the audience, angry.
And I imagine that the feeling would be reciprocal. My taste for Rich Mullins was developed at a distance. I’ve recently watched “Ragamuffin” (things are new to you when they come out in the theater; they’re new to me when they come out on Netflix, because I’m cheap), and that movie makes it clear that Rich Mullins was not an easy man to know personally—was not easy to love at close range. The points of our conflict would be so numerous:
- I’m a teetotaler, and Mullins had an alcohol problem.
- Mullins apparently felt comfortable lashing out with language that I don’t use and don’t like to hear.
- I’m a preacher, and Mullins had only a few of those whom he tolerated.
- I’m a convinced Southern Baptist, and Mullins was a lot less denominational than I am.
- I’m married, settled, and living in a relatively affluent patch of almost-suburbia; Mullins preferred living on a Navajo reservation.
- I’m pretty happy, and Mullins apparently rarely was and got along better with misery than with joy.
At least, those are the impressions of him that I have after having read about him, owning most of his music, having taken in some of his concerts, and having seen the film.
And yet, I love Rich Mullins. My iPhone is full to the brim with Rich Mullins songs. Some of them, though I’ve heard them a thousand times, still move me to tears. My walk with the Lord is richer because of Rich. I quote his lyrics in sermons. I sing his songs in the shower. I’m comfortable with long drives across the plains playing nothing but his albums for hours on end. Of all of the Christian music that I have consumed in all my years of consuming Christian music, few artists’ contributions have worn so well for so long in my soul as have the works of Rich Mullins.
Why is this?
It’s because when I encounter the works of Rich Mullins, I encounter something far different from the kind of “Progressive Christianity” that we find on blogs these days. My Twitter feed is full of preening, self-styled savants whose “discoveries” are only thinly veiled rationalizations for sin. They dethrone God and dethrone His Word in order to replace them with the zeitgeist. The tell-tale tipoff is that they carp about inconsistencies in the way that fundamentalists like me interpret the Bible NEVER TO ENCOURAGE US TO HOLD TIGHTER TO THE THINGS WE’VE LET GO, but always to provoke us to let go of the biblical truth that we’re still holding: “You don’t follow the Bible regarding divorce, so you should cave in on same-sex marriage, too.” As if Christians should, if they would find difficult a year of consistently living biblically, pledge instead to consistency in living unbiblically.
Parenthetical: I think discipleship is impossible without indulging in at least some measure in something that could be called hypocrisy. Thinking, “If I can’t grow immediately in everything, I’m not going to grow gradually in anything,” is a recipe for perpetual immaturity. God seems to me to be far more concerned with your holiness and your progress in sanctification than in your consistency at every point along the way.
Anyway, I never find that kind of kowtow-to-the-culture carping in Rich Mullins. He didn’t fit in with the culture any more than he fit in with the Evangelical world. Mullins’s complaints about fundamentalism are often right on-target. We indeed ought to care more about the poor if Jesus really is our Lord. We do have a problem with materialism. There are parts of the Bible that are more confusing or more difficult or more troubling to our established patterns of living than we are often willing to let on. We do indeed struggle with a tendency toward elevating our own invented rules over the plain teaching of what God has revealed in scripture. But Mullins had a way of enjoining us to consider those failures that always prompted me to want to be MORE faithful, not to give up on the whole enterprise and sell out to the culture.
When you listen to Rich Mullins’s music, you walk away with the idea that God is enormous and we are minuscule, but that God loves minuscule little me with an enormous love. That, more than anything else, is what I love about Rich Mullins. He wrote Big God music. The enormity of God in the work of Rich Mullins is not merely the enormity of His love; it is also the enormity of His holiness and even His wrath. The great paradox: Rich Mullins, the anti-fundamentalist, is one of the most profound and influential songwriters of our day in the treatment of God’s wrath (a category with so few entrants that it is not difficult to achieve top billing, admittedly). Rich Mullins was willing to sing about “judgment and wrath He poured out on Sodom” (lyrics unlikely to appear in the next Ray Boltz album).
Mullins wrote Big Theology music. He was no atheologue. About the ancient creeds Mullins sang, “I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am. I did not make it; no, it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man.” And yet Mullins said, “I think you can profess the Apostles’ Creed until Jesus returns, but if you don’t love somebody you never were a Christian.” That’s a pretty healthy view of confessionalism, I think.
Mullins wrote Big Sin music. “When my body lies in the ruins of the lies that nearly ruined me…” is not a statement arising out of a liberal anthropology.
Mullins wrote Big Bible music. Mullins had a lot of questions about the Bible, but his questions always seemed more along the lines of mystery and confusion about whether we were putting it all together correctly than questions about whether it really all belonged. I never sang a Mullins song or heard a Mullins quote that rang forth with the kind of superiority over the Bible that is pretty much the sine qua non of “Progressive Christianity.” Rather, Mullins seemed to be intimidated and overwhelmed by the Bible and distrustful of people who thought they had the Bible domesticated, whether the purported lion-tamers be liberals or fundamentalists.
He wrote Little Human music. Even about worship, the enterprise of his life, he was not entirely a humanist. He was able to pen songs like “The Color Green” and “Calling Out Your Name” that made us mere partners in the vocation of worshipping God alongside the other elements of the Cosmos.
I need that in regular doses. Rich Mullins’s music is good food for my soul. His songs make me trust in God, question myself, care about the things that matter, and rest in peace that God will make it all OK in the end. The fact that he could hardly have imagined such a thing as a Ragamuffin Fundamentalist matters to me not at all.
Great article Bart.
Also, I don’t believe that the word fundamentalism is unhelpful because of its broadness, I believe that it has been redefined and used as a word of ridicule by people who didn’t know what it means.
I agree. But if people do that broadly enough and frequently enough, then you’ve no way to know what you’re communicating when you use the word. At that point a word ceases to become useful.
Main topic: I too appreciate Rich mullins, having grown up in the 80’s and 90’s hearing his music at camps and on cassettes.
Side Topic: I completely agree that the term fundamentalist today has no helpful meaning anymore. If defined as it was 100 years ago (Holding to the fundamentals of the faith), then I am a fundamentalist. However, it seems to now simply mean “someone who irrationally holds more conservative ideas and practices than I do.” Secularists today would call any Bible-believing Christian a fundamentalist, even if that Christian had blue hair, pierced nose, thought the KJV was unintelligible, Listened to hard rock, and drank an occasional glass of wine.
Agreed. “Fundamentalist” has entered the same category as “speed demon” (anyone driving 1 mph faster than I am) and “Sunday driver” (anyone driving 1 mph slower than I am).
The word “fundamental” is now more of a political word than theological. It describes where people of faith stand on the issues more than their theology.
Bart,
What a great tribute to this talented and free-spirited Christian poet. His songs fill my iPhone as well. Almost every time I hear them, though, my train of thought breaks from the music for just a second, and all I can think is: “Buckle up.”
Isn’t that the truth!?
Bart,
I too love the music of Rich Mullins. I agree with you wholeheartedly that he makes you think and challenges his listeners while staying true to the core of the Gospel. Music like Rich made is in incredibly short supply these days no matter the genre. His closest heir-apparent- Derek Webb- has many of the same struggles as Rich but explores many of the same themes and ideas.
I find similar themes in pretty much every U2 album and I think you can find similar ideas explored- but from a very different perspective- in the music of Mumford and Sons- though they would largely deny currently being a part of the Christian tribe.
I don’t know if hip hop is in your sphere of musical taste- but the music coming from Reach Records (LeCrae, Trip Lee) and HumbleBeast (Propaganda, Beautiful Eulogy) also fits in this mold.
Great article.
Yes, I sometimes rap along with Lecrae.
No, you will never witness this.
I would pay money for that video.
You don’t HAVE enough money. The combined resources of every reader and contributor on this blog isn’t enough.
I might have enough to bribe one of your kids.
I now have this mental picture of Bart, suit and tie, Macbook Pro in tow, with a sideways Flat Brim Cap and Bling around his neck ‘rapping’ to Trip Lee….Underneath his shirt is a Tee with the words “Jesuz Boyz” – not a healthy image at all
No image of me is a healthy image.
Although, I ate a healthy lunch: Grilled salmon, green beans, and roasted potatoes with water to drink.
I was so proud of myself that thirty minutes later I celebrated with a 22oz mint chocolate chip milkshake from Braum’s.
Back in my younger and much thinner days, I went to a Burger King. Ordered a Whopper, large fries, large chocolate shake and a diet coke.
The guy behind the counter looked at me and said, “Diet Coke?”
Maybe that explains a lot.
I’ve never introduced Bart as a fundamentalist. I introduce him as THE fundamentalist.
I’ve often thought of Bart as The FUNdamentalist…while others are more of a dull-damentalist.
I rarely comment on blogs but I’m just overwhelmed and nauseated by some of the statements made here about a brother in Christ.
To judge Rich’s life when you never walked in his shoes, nor even personally knew him is dangerous ground. I’m glad the music of Rich Mullins speaks to you as it does to many.
Had you said something like, “Rich appeared to have issues and struggles like us all but his music is where he found a voice to proclaim the Gospel and God’s glory known,” I’d have taken a whole different view upon your writing.
Your article came across to me as Rich Mullins was really messed up in His life because he drank, didn’t get married, didn’t have a congregation, (you failed to mention he made disciples), took a vow of poverty, vow of chastity, used his wealth to help the poor and dedicated the last chapter of his life to helping the navajo Indians. Then you describe yourself to us as if you’ve got it all together because you’re the pastor, who’s got a church, doesn’t drink, got married, lives in an affluent suburb somewhere and your Southern Baptist. I don’t know you but I’m sure you went to an accredited, sanctioned SBC seminary too. Probably should’ve mentioned that so nobody would question your pastoral worthiness.
I’ve read, watched, listened and seen just about everything out there on Rich Mullins too. When it comes to life I don’t think Rich was unhappy because of his relationship with God. Recall the lyrics to “If I Stand”–
“If I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.”
Rich found great joy in following God and was so not in love with this earthly world. Rich probably longed to go to heaven more than anyone that I’ve ever known. For Rich Mullins this world was not his home.
I’ll just stop here. The reason I don’t comment on blogs is it usually turns into a battle of sharp stabs at each other when confronted. So I apologize if I’ve offended but this struck a nerve in me today.
So, let us all pull the plank out of our own eye before plucking the speck out of our brothers. That being said I’m about to open up the Word and get in front of the mirror.
Grace & peace to you my brother and fellow pastor.
Eric
I would suggest you might want to re-read the post. It did not come across to me like that at all. I am not all that familiar with Mullin’s music nor his lifestyle, so perhaps that influenced my thinking.
Well, I’ve certainly failed as a writer if I came across as someone judgmental toward Rich Mullins. The many who have called this a tribute to Mullins more successfully understood my meaning. Whether the miscue with you has more to do with my failures as a writer or what you brought to the piece as a reader, I’m content to leave for others to decide.
Thanks for reaching out personally to me today. So glad we could discuss our positions and see God glorified as a result. Truly enjoyed our conversation and was humbled by your graciousness and concern for me. A sincere thanks to you brother.
I enjoyed our conversation. Come comment here any time.
Frankly, it was pretty awesome for me to speak with someone who knew Rich Mullins.
“””I’ll just stop here. The reason I don’t comment on blogs is it usually turns into a battle of sharp stabs at each other when confronted.”””
Don’t just “hit and run.” That’s the easy way out. If you really believe you have it all right as your post suggests, stay and converse with the others.
In my opinion, not know Bart personally, I would say you have greatly mischaracterized both him and all the other “pastors who went to SBC seminaries.” If someone didn’t know you they would think that statement is just sour grapes. I don’t know you so I am not suggesting you actually feel that way.
I’ve known many really messed up ragamuffin believers that sincerely loved the Lord–even more so it seemed than the ones that sit in many pews and put on an air of sophistication and total control.
I don’t think that disqualifies all the good that Rich Mullins did through his life and music. He was a ragamuffin. I thought Bart was very clear in his tone about how much he appreciated Rich Mullins’ as a man and a musician.
I think labels are really unhelpful these days, mostly because every person thinks it’s perfectly fine to pour their own definition into them. I believe the Bible is inerrant, and there’s a whole ton of baggage that term has today which I 100% reject, but it is what it is. I believe in taking the Bible literally… see “inerrancy” luggage issue. I am a conservative (adhering to a standard, i.e. the Bible) yet I’m expected to hold certain litmus theology I just can’t find in the Bible, so when I say “no, I’m too conservative affirm believe ‘X’ dogmatically” people look at me cross-eyed. You can’t be “conservative” and a “traditionalist” at the same time, either the Book or your Experience comes first. It’s one reason I really don’t like Theology, too many terms, too many categorizations, and that’s not the bad part, it’s that every term means whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Drives me bonkers. Boil down the essentials, what does the Bible clearly express, work up from there. Argue from first principles, not by analogy. If something isn’t directly taught in Scripture, that’s called an issue of conscience and we need to treat it as such… THAT’S a Fundamentalist position. Attempting to excommunicate someone who believes in your boutique theology is not.
Ugg… typo’s stink… but you get the idea of what I’m trying to say…
I love theology because the worst violations of “…every term means whatever the speaker wants…” seem to me to come from armchair non-theologians, don’t you think? The people who taught me theology (I’m thinking particularly of my Systematic prof, James Leo Garrett)—the serious theologians—were actually pretty careful and charitable when it came to defining terms. I love theology because time spent with such men made me better able to see through the abuses that you have mentioned.
On the other hand, occasionally I find myself irritated by those who always treat every word as though it has a single, narrow, technical meaning. Language, even biblical language, doesn’t necessarily work that way.
Other times, it seems like the desire to do theology can get in the way of actually hearing what the Word says. E.g., recently I went looking on the web for what others have said about Phil 2:5-7. I found an awful lot of theological niggling about what it implied about the Trinity. As important as the doctrine of the Trinity is, that’s not what the passage is about – the Trinity is essentially background to what Paul is saying. The passage is about attitude – the attitude that Jesus had which we are also supposed to have. Some, it seems, in their desire to delve into “important theology”, actually end up missing what the passage is all about (I found some who essentially dismissed the whole attitude message, because “We can’t be God” – no, but what does this imply about our attitude towards what positions of authority and privilege we *do* have?). I came away from that search session thinking “You can delve into the minutest details of word meanings, but you can’t READ!”.
I’ll agree that theology is important, but when one’s attitude towards theology gets in the way of actually listening to what the word says, something’s wrong.
Without a doubt, there are SOME theologians who have been little help to me at all.
Dr. Bart
Very true. However it seems to me that is all a part of doing theology. One must see bad theology in order to recognize good theology
D.L., that’s a great (and accurate) way of putting it.
Ben
You just did theology 🙂
Yeah, but with a slightly different hermaneutic, perhaps. I’ve long maintained that a prerequisite to theology classes should be a class on learning to listen (listen in the sense that what one hears actually has a chance of resembling what the speaker intended to communicate, rather than just plugging the speaker’s words into one’s own perspective, as though the speaker couldn’t possibly have a different perspective than I do). Theology should be more about listening than thinking (though thinking is involved in listening well). I suspect a lot of people get that backwards.
Ben
I think you are on to something here.
If you consider Norm Geisler and Al Mohler armchair theologians… see “inerrancy” ;^)
I’m sure we could amass enough evidence to convict any of us in court. But my point is simply that you wouldn’t even know how to critique theology if nobody had ever taught you theology.
And I admit that I agree, as far as I understand what they are saying, with what Geisler and Mohler are saying about inerrancy. Perhaps that’s why we come at this differently. But then again, all of us have theologians with whom we agree and theologians with whom we disagree, right?
Geisler & Mohler don’t allow for Apocyliptic literature in their view of inerrancy. BB Wardield would not be an inerrantist by their parameters (more Geisler), the man, BTW, who defined the modern term. It’s Hermeneutics, not Theology. Theology should be the result of Biblical Studies, most of the time today, it is not.
Here’s what Garrett taught me (side note: I often fail to apply this…I often regret it later):
You are only prepared to debate someone else’s position after you have stated that person’s position so accurately that the person himself would say, “Yes, that’s precisely what I believe.” Then, having achieved understanding, you are prepared to debate.
I wonder, would Geisler and Mohler agree that their view of inerrancy does not allow for apocalyptic literature? I doubt that very much. Unless they have excised the final book from the New Testament, their views of inerrancy must very much allow for apocalyptic literature, right?
He probably uses different terms than I do, but this sounds like someone who agrees with my position on listening (or, perhaps more appropriately, I agree with him).
Yes, Ben. James Leo Garrett is the smartest Southern Baptist living. He agrees with no one. People agree with him.
I would loved to have studied under Garrett
Dr. Bart
Yes, that has been my experience. Dr. Boyd Hunt (SWBTS—Syst. Theo.) gave me a desire to search the scripture. More than that he taught me to be careful to avoid those pitfalls John talks about.
Let us not forget to thank God for our teachers!
Yes—God placed several goodly knowledgable professors in my path
Good article. You articulated many of the same feelings that I could not. I’ve never been able to put to words the “internal contradiction” i felt between what I heard in his music, and what what I heard from his mouth. Good job, and thanks.
You are most welcome.
“There’s bound to come some trouble to your life”…. Listened to that about 5 times in a row the other day driving to Memphis. Rich obviously thought about how life applied in his lyrics. That is a rare occasion in the popular religious music of late. I think you are right… God was more than a piece of jewelry to be worn by Rich Mullins,… God was huge! That comes through in his lyrics.
Now, I’m going to be humming RM songs all day long……
“Now, I’m going to be humming RM songs all day long…”
SUCCESS!
Great Article Bart! Rich Mullins has always held a special place in my heart since the day I met him briefly in Jackson, MO as a young boy. He was wearing jeans with holes in them and he was barefoot. He had a heart full of humility and was very gracious towards the young 8 year old boy sitting in the front pew that night to hear his music. His songs, especially Hold me Jesus, bring me to tears every time I hear them. He continues to minster to many people even though he is know in the presence of the Lord.
“Hold Me Jesus” is an exceptional song.
Great article, Bart. I find myself in the same conundrum you’re in at times with Mullins, especially on the alcohol issue. Thanks for sharing; I get a lot out of all of your articles.
Thanks, Tim! It’s a great side-benefit to watch as others are being blessed by an article like this. “Side-benefit” because these are the sorts of articles that I really write for myself.
I too love Rich Mullins. I grew up around the areas in Kansas he frequented and almost when to Tabor college in Hillsboro after I graduated from HS. I worked in Wichita and am very familiar with Friends University. I did not know about Rich Mullins nor hear him until the late 1980’s early 90’s unfortunately, but came to love the words to his music along with Keith Green, both lives and music brought me to Christ.
The message I came away after recently seeing “Ragamuffin” was although Rich Mullins smoked, had a drinking problem, and deep insecurities, he never let go of God. He never abandoned God, he never blamed God. He just kept seeking God. Rich Mullins was in the process of being sanctified and we were privileged to see that process. The family didn’t hid his flaws and neither did Rich Mullins himself. I think that is the important message. Christ never left him and he never left Christ despite his flaws.
The other message I came away with, was despite sin, Christ meets us where we are. He loves us where we are, he saves us where we are. Not where we should be. That is the message of God’s grace. You don’t have to clean up before you come to Christ.
Debbie
Amen! How glad am I that it is that way.
“He just kept seeking God.”
Amen!
He seemed deftly to avoid two dastardly traps: The fall into pretense and the fall into rationalization and justification of our sinfulness. Individual sin never stopped being a tragedy for Mullins (and that’s a huge difference between him and the left wing of Christianity these days), but the gospel never stopped being a greater triumph than the tragedy of sin.
Exactly Bart. That is what I came away with.
Debbie, that is a good observation. I’ve known so many people whose lives were a train wreck, yet they talked about God frequently, as Someone they loved and Someone they felt they had disappointed greatly–but they talked of Him often.
My little brother was one such person. He died at the age of 42 from complications of alcoholism. It was an ugly way to go let me assure you.
I cannot count on my fingers the number of times he would call me in the middle of the night from some of the ugliest places and tell me how much he wished God would deliver him from his demon.
My brother was a ragamuffin believer to be sure. Perhaps we all are more than we like to think.
Jack: Yeah.
My foray into Rich Mullins music has been limited, but I feel as you spoke about Keith Green. I never knew him, but I sure do miss him. I’m sure we would have some areas of disagreement, but a passionate love for Jesus was evident in all they did.
The music of artists sticks with you not because of it’s amazing music like Mozart or the like, but because of the heart that they played it with. And the words they wrote with draw us back into Christ and into the Bible.
Amen Luke.
I think there are a lot of similarities between Green and Mullins. Thanks for pointing that out.
Keith Green is my all time favorite, Christian singing artist. His music blessed me, and continually lit a fresh fire in my heart all thru college…and, continues to this day.
David
I’ve always been a big fan of Don Francisco.
I like Don Francisco, too. Also, Wayne Watson is good. I always liked Michael Card, too.
But do you know Don Francisco’s link to Southern Baptist History?
All one has to do is to google Don Francisco, and one will find that he was the son of Dr. Clyde Francisco, professor of O.T. at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Francisco was a personal friend of my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell. I had the privilege of meeting him in the home of Dr. Campbell and hearing him preach in the ’60s. I heard many of the professors back in those early years and met some of them. One that I always wanted to meet was Dr. Curtis Vaughan. My brother-in-law, DL, had the privilege of having Dr. Vaughan for a study of Ephesians while at SWBTS. Envy, Envy.
Dr. Francisco played a role in the Broadman Commentary controversy in the 1970s.
Bart,
I believe his Dad taught at Southern Seminary. Correct?
David
Oh, I answered before I read the other comments.
David
My dad and Curtis Vaughan were close friends.
Dr Bart
I remember well the issue with the commentary. I have the original Genesis volume. What roll did Dr. Francisco play in that debate.
I like Don Francisco, but I’ve always been partial to 2nd Chapter of Acts, and the followup solo careers of Annie Herring and Matthew Ward.
D.L.,
Francisco authored the revised Genesis volume, replacing G. Henton Davies’s volume.
Dr. Bart
thanks much
I’d have taken you for a Steve Camp fan.
I do like Steve Camp’s music. I also like his son, Jeremy’s music, too.
Yes I had Dr. Vaughn in seminary. 8 other guys and I read Ephesians with him in Greek. It was a 2 hour class and without a doubt the finest class I have ever had. He taught me a love for exegesis. He was a scholar and more that than dedicated Christian gentlemen.
I just re-read the opening line of my post and thought to myself…
“Sometimes my life just don’t make sense at all…”
Thanks Bart. I am probably a little older but Rich is also in my music library, work van flash drive, and Blackberry. (Don’t laugh, I’ve tried the newer smartphones but they don’t come with a trackpad.)
Rich Mullins’ God is an awesome God, with thunder in His footsteps and lightning in His fists. He is my Deliverer and will never break His promise!
Thank God for the gifts He gives to His church.
Nice article, Bart.
Personally, I would fall under the fundamental umbrella, I think. I love “fun” and have been accused of being “mental” more than once.
Jack,
I once heard a person derisively say that fundamentalists are just “D##n mentalists”.
You fit that bill? 😉
Tarheel
The story goes that Madelyn Murray O’Hair told W.A. Criswell that he was a “funny dxxn mentalist”. I heard Criswell tell that at the Evangelism Conference in Oklahoma back in the 70’s.
Great article, Bart!
I have not read all the comments so forgive me if someone already touched on this…but I love your parenthetical statement!
“Parenthetical: I think discipleship is impossible without indulging in at least some measure in something that could be called hypocrisy. Thinking, “If I can’t grow immediately in everything, I’m not going to grow gradually in anything,” is a recipe for perpetual immaturity. God seems to me to be far more concerned with your holiness and your progress in sanctification than in your consistency at every point along the way.”
That is just pure gold right there, Bart. I have been having discussions today with people and have made a similar point but with no where near the eloquence! I hope its OK if I borrow parts of this statement going forward. 😉
Steal it all if you like. I publish stuff on the Internet for free—I’d be foolish to be protective of it after doing that. 🙂
Agreed.
Although some people do just that!
Back off, Tarheel. I’ve already stolen this quote and am posting it on my blog on Saturday under the title “More Barberisms.” (And don’t you steal that, either!)
Just kidding. Actually posted to agree with you that this is a very astute observation. (And I do already have permission from Bart to steal his stuff! although he didn’t vet the title “Barberisms”.)
Are those who quote Bart called Barberians?
Well…..we’re certianly a bit “barberistic”.
Sounds Barberic to me.
Bart, I suppose I’m too old to know or care who Rich Mullins is, but I enjoyed your post nevertheless. There is far too much low theology, little God and BIG MAN music in the Christian world. Anyone who is producing songs that counter that trend is moving in the right direction. So to that extent I say hurrah for Rich Mullins. Further, I don’t think the low bar set for Christian music is a recent phenomenon. Probably to some degree it has always been up and down, but in some sense in America it has been on a long slide since the late 1800s. (I say this despite the fact that I love a lot of Christian songs that have been written since then, and have even tried to write a few myself.)
Not to rehash something that may have been settled — seems you and Eric Myers had a conversation about your post — but I just wanted to state how it came across to me, or how I thought you intended it. I took you to be establishing a contrast between you and Mullins for the purpose of showing how unlikely it might seem that you would like his music, yet do so very much. I find myself doing that sometimes even with a secular singer who hits on some truth or feeling that touches my mind, heart and soul.
Rich Mullins is further along than you, Bro. Vaughn. He died in 1997 in an automobile accident.
I suggest that you go on YouTube and look at…
1. “Creed”
2. “The Color Green”
Those two will give you a pretty good indication of why I love him and his music.
Thanks, Brother. Looked him up, which explains a few points I otherwise missed in your post. I recognized one song by him that I know (and like) — “Awesome God.” May not others, but didn’t recognize any of the titles.
By the way, to connect with a conversation you’re having in another thread, Mullins’s music was very rural.
Guess I have heard Rich Mullins’ “Awesome God” and probably a few others. Seems that he is like me, in this respect, something of a rebel against the standing order. Since next to nothing about the dear brother, I will make no further remarks about him or his theology. However, I can say that my theology started off in response to the first claims of Sovereign Grace, encountered in my first year of college (even though I had heard it preached as a child – I did not remember me). I wrestled with it from 1958 until 1963. When Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, my ordaining pastor, asked me, “Jim, What do you believe about original sin?”, I answered, “Which answer do you want? There are six of them (I think I said six).” The number was derived from outlining A.H. Strong’s Systematic Theology along with Thiessen, and two others, plus having studied W.T. Conner’s book on Christian Doctrine in college under Dr. W.L. Muncey, Jr. Dr. Campbell said, “Don’t be a smart alec, Jim.” And every one laughed, including Dr. Muncey who was in the audience. A year later I would come to a belief in that doctrine due to an old Puritan, David Clarkson. In that same year I began a six year research project on Baptist History which would make a powerful impact on my theological views, especially as time passed after I finished the research and had done some deep thinking about it. At first I was a pretty rigid Fundamentalist, Calvinist, and Landmarker, but as time passed and more information and thought came into my life and mind I began to realize the depths of the truths that had been revealed by our Lord. I still hold to verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, but that does not mean that I am inspired like the writers of Holy Writ or inerrant like them or infallible. I don’t think I ever thought that, but I am sure I came across like I was. As to the other theological views, Landmarkism, though I believe the church goes back to the first century and that J.R. Graves wrote a bit of exegesis that K. Schmidt needed in order to make his article on ekklesia truly worthwhile, fell by the way side due to the two-sided doctrine of the church (e.g., spiritual, invisible, universal as well as local, visible, congregational). My views on what some are pleased to call Calvinism (an egregious error which I, too, have made) have come to a different turn, namely, that all five points of TULIP truths along with Predestination and Reprobation are invitations to be saved, that they are the source for evangelism and missions. Even Calvin, as much as I do not care for the man who violated what I consider essential to the Gospel, a free acceptance thereof, promoted missions and evangelism. However, Edwards and Whitefield are the folks who left no doubt, and the former provided the tract, Humble Attempt, which inspired Carey and others to pray and then to go to India. Now I am not writing this to promote the doctrine and make cold, dead doctrinalists, but, rather, my aim is to get folks to think about the two-sidedness of the doctrines, the paradoxical nature of them, and how they can make one balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic.
I am more concerned about an intellectual understanding of our biblical theology, because the Book was and is inspired by Omniscience, the all wise, all-knowing God. The aim is to produce winsomeness, not judgment, learning to have acceptance for the person, even if one disagrees with the others understanding. After all, truth can stand on its own legs and produce converts more readily than we can. Like my friend, Gene Spurgeon, who nearly 50 years ago won a lady to Christ. He was astounded to learn, when he asked her why she responded so readily, that she said, “O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” I asked him what he thought about that, and he said he was thinking about it. And 40 years later he changed his mind to a view more consistent with C.H.’s understanding, one of his distant relatives. Life is funny folks. Some folks won by Calvinists become Arminians, and vice versa. I suspect God has so willed it in order to keep us from thinking that we know it all and understand everything He has said.
I am always amazed at how often God will take some one and use that person in His service. Like the preacher who baptized me said, “God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.” How true! And I am a crooked stick for all of my theological correctness. Striving for consistency makes one consistent with himself or herself and therefore consistent with a fool. Being consistent with God might make one look utterly inconsistent. The main thing is who gets the glory, and my prayer is that to Him All Majesty be ascribed, all glory given, a reality we can all live with, regardless of our theological views, and it seems Mr. Mullins’ Awesome God hit the right note on that issue, whatever his theology.
I never knew all of that stuff about Rich Mullins, but I always loved his music. The verse that comes to mind when I think about his struggles is Proverbs 24:16 “for though a righteous man falls seven times, he will rise again, but the wicked stumble into calamity.”
If memory serves, Rich Mullins was in the process of joining a Catholic church at the time of his death.
Actually, his biography says that he considered the idea but did not convert because the doctrinal divide was too great.
Trevin is right. The only one claiming otherwise is an optimistic priest who was hoping to give first communion to Mullins.
I also enjoyed Keith Green very much. Though he started off as quite a member of “the establishment”. Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6Vi2PUx08
I have always enjoyed West King’s music.
Sorry – Wes not West.