Rubel Shelly Meets Chris Dawson

Chris Dawson is a former student at Tennessee Bible College and is 25 years old. Brother Chris is one of the best students we have had to attend TBC. He is a total student of TBC having studied under the entire faculty. It was my pleasure to have him in several classes and I know first hand that he is humble, kind, mentally capable, studious, respectful, and very courageous for the truth. Chris is doing what we taught him to do at Tennessee Bible College—fill his head with Bible facts, reason logically, and tie into error no matter whom it may involve. Read his report that he sent to us about his encounter with Rubel Shelly. Brother Chris did not know we would publish his material.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Rochester College Promotes Women's Leadership in the Church and Home
Chris Dawson

On April 7, 2007, Rochester College (formerly Michigan Christian College) held its second annual Diversity Dialogue and Luncheon in the Richardson Theater on the college campus. The theme of the seminar was "Bridging the Gender Divide." The Dialogue began at 9 a.m. and ended at noon with lunch following. The keynote speakers were Candace Cain (Vice President of Student Services/Dean of Students) and Glenda Thomas (member of the Rochester Hills Church of Christ; her husband J. C. Thomas, Jr. is the Director of Diversity at Rochester College). The last portion of the dialogue was a panel discussion which included Rubel Shelly (Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Rochester College), Jimmy Hurd (minister of Oakland Church of Christ in Southfield, MI, and moderator of discussion), Carol Van Hooser (Assistant Professor of Biology at Rochester College), a minister from the Apostolic Church, and the two female keynote speakers.

This was my first time visiting the campus, which is about 65 miles from my home. I attended the meeting with a fellow gospel preacher in this area. We arrived too late to hear the Keynote speeches, but we were right on time for the panel discussion. The two issues of focus that morning were the woman's role in the home and the woman's role in the church. Some of the women on the panel related bits of their experiences in breaking down gender barriers in their own congregations, and were encouraging others to be bold in doing the same. Reading Scripture in the public assembly, leading at the Lord's table, leading prayer in mixed groups, and even women teaching and preaching to the church was being promoted during this discussion. There was much feeling and emotion in the statements that were made, and very little Bible acknowledged.

It was eye opening to hear some of the things that were being said that morning. But first of all, what we saw there wasn't all bad. For one thing there were very few in attendance that day. I counted approximately 25 individuals, including the speakers. Also, some on the panel discussion said that there was fear in the hearts of the elders, preachers, and members concerning the promotion of women leadership. Some of the women on the panel told how they received rebuke by some of the sisters in their congregations for engaging in leadership activities in the assembly. There are folks out there on the fence, but not wholly given over to this idea yet. There are preachers who want to push their liberating agendas but are a little leery because of opposition. Brethren who have spoken out and continue to speak out against liberalism can take courage in the fact that their voices are doing something in the church. But then there was much to weep over as well.

If the leaders in this Diversity Dialogue represent the "scholars" in the brotherhood we are in a heap of trouble. First of all, if those panel members who are supposed to be members of the Lord's church don't know any better than to invite a preacher from the Apostolic Church to work with them, then we can see already that they have serious problems. The Apostolic Church is known for their belief in speaking in tongues and miraculous works for today, among other things.

Second, Carol Van Hooser, the biology professor from Rochester, admitted that she taught evolution in her classes, stating that students need to understand the theory. She also said that it didn't really matter if a student in her class believed that God created the universe in six literal days, or if He took eons of time to create it. She asked the question, what would be the big deal? This is just a small sample of the type of faith destroying work that is going on at Rochester College, and we haven't even gotten to their position on the role of women.

Dr. Shelly (as he was addressed) actually made some Bible observations about the matter. First of all, during the panel discussion Shelly said that the church's understanding of leadership in the home was all wrong. He said that the church has been observing Bible texts through "dirty lenses." He made reference to Genesis 3:16 where God said to Eve, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." His commentary on this passage was that this is a "descriptive" statement rather than a "prescriptive." His idea was that after the sin was committed in the garden, women would be subjected by their husbands to the will of the husband throughout the history of degenerated societies. But he also stated that Christ would come and restore the woman to her honorable role when the New Testament era was ushered in.

After the session was ended, I took the opportunity to ask brother Shelly some questions about his comments. I asked, if Genesis 3:16 is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if Christ restored the women's original role in His kingdom, why does the New Testament also teach the headship of the husband in the home (Eph. 5:22-25; I Pet. 3:1-6; I Cor. 11:3)? What he said indicated that he believed the husband didn't have any authority over his home at all. He pointed out to me that the context of Ephesians 5 shows a comparison of Christ and His church to the husband and his wife. And he said that the passage indicates that the authority the husband has is to give his life in place of his wife's. He said the husband is not given the right to be a "boss." I mentioned to Rubel that Christ was the one who gave commandments to the church and he said, "Yes, but not very many." How ridiculous! Does the church have the right to tell Christ what He will do and what He will not do? Regardless of the how-few or how-many commandments Christ gave the church, He is the one who has the authority over the church, and the husband in like manner has authority over the wife (Eph. 5:23).

We also discussed the leadership of women in the church. Shelly told me that he had no problem with women leading prayer, preaching, or teaching. First Corinthians 14:34-35 are verses that don't mean a thing to these brethren. Neither does I Timothy 2:11-15. Rubel said that women teach in mixed Bible classes from the pews by the comments and questions they raise, therefore we shouldn't have a problem with a woman standing up before the class to teach. I suppose that if an infidel came into Rubel's class and made a good point about working for a living, or loving your neighbor, that the infidel would be asked to lead the class. Why can't we recognize a difference between making a comment from the pew and standing in front of the class to teach? Is this where our "great scholars" are in the church?

Phoebe was brought into the mix in order to prove that women could be deaconesses. Romans 16:1 says, "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea." The word "servant" is the Greek word diakonos, which according to Thayer means, "one who executes the commands of another." This could refer to one in an official church office, the office of a deacon (I Tim. 3:13). But this is not the exclusive meaning or even the general meaning of the word. Jesus was also called a diakonos (Rom. 15:8). But I don't think He was serving in the office of a deacon in the church. I Timothy 3:12 says the deacons are to be husbands of one wife, period. It is funny how liberals can use some passages in order to prove a point, but mock faithful brethren for "proof texting."

Shelly did mention that he doesn't agree with the idea of women elders. It seemed sort of odd that he would allow women to perform all of the other acts and positions of leadership but not an appointment to the eldership. Instantly I figured that he would say this because I Timothy 3:2 says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, eliminating the option of women. He said that this was not the reason, and that I had a naïve interpretation of the passage. Although the passage says that a bishop "MUST" be these things, I Timothy 3:1-7 is not a list of requirements according to Rubel. He cited the fact that brethren will appoint a man to the eldership when he has only one child, not "children" as the text says. How misguided! If someone were to ask me if I have children I would say yes, though I only have one daughter. Sarah said that she had "children" after giving birth to only one child, Isaac (Gen. 21:7). I never did understand his reason for disallowing women into elderships.

There was in this meeting an overall tone of arrogance and irreverence toward the authority of the word of God. There is a phony intellectual atmosphere among these folk. People in this assembly laughed at the idea that someone might be offended at a women leading prayer in public service. These are the "Christ-like" leaders at Rochester College, and this is just a sample of what is going on in our brotherhood schools. Should we not be moved by the thought that future leaders in the church are coming out of institutions like this! It reminds us of Isaiah 3:12, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

Faithful brethren need not grow weary at this time. These false brethren are not going to give up easily. In fact, it seems that these preachers and professors are not coming back, but the next generation may still be reached. We need to continue to be fervent in our work and prayers to God that the liberal movement can be diverted as much as possible. The Diversity Dialogue meeting at Rochester College was closed with a prayer led by a woman, and the Director of Diversity told all of us that the same Dialogue would be conducted next year saying, "We will continue to champion this."

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

According to church history the early Christians were "slain with the sword; some burned with fire; some scourged with whips; some stabbed with forks of iron; some fastened to the cross or gibbet; some drowned in the sea; some had their skins plucked off; some were stoned to death; some killed with cold; some starved with hunger; some with their hands cut off or otherwise disabled, were left naked, to the open shame of the world. Yet, notwithstanding the sharpness of their torments, such was the constancy of those who suffered—or rather, such was the power of the Lord in his saints—that they generally remained faithful to the end" Foxe's Christian Martyrs of the World, p. 11).

When we read about the trials and tribulations of those early Christians, it should make all of us tremble. We are going to stand in judgment with them (Matt. 11:20-24). We have brethren today that are afraid of their shadows. They can be moved in any direction by their friends and popularity. Serving as the president of Tennessee Bible College I have been amazed at brethren who have a flax-string-sized backbone. They are moved in a hurry from a righteous cause if it is going to have an impact on their appearance on programs and friendship. God still lives and will deal with such cowardice in a providential way as well as in the judgment day (Rev. 21:8). Many have dictated to me who should be on the lectureship programs at Tennessee Bible College to which I have paid attention but such has never caused me to do the wrong thing and go in the wrong direction. We welcome all advice but in the final analysis we will make the decisions and shoulder the responsibility.

If you wonder why the church of Christ is in the state it is in, you would not wonder if you knew some preachers and elders as we know them. Many elders do not know their left hands from their right when it comes to Bible knowledge and they are often intimidated by preachers that do not know much more than they do. We have listened to preachers who did not know a Greek letter from a turkey track but they would have you know they did and they have sold the elders where they labor on the idea that they know Greek and Hebrew. Some of us do not know English very well much less Greek and Hebrew and some have let the preacher brow beat them into the quiet corner. Some are afraid to exert their power as elders because they are afraid of the preacher. How sad, how sad!

Our age is an age when preachers in general refuse to debate their cause. We have never seen as much cowardice in the pulpit as there is today. The Bible teaches God's preachers to stand up and debate their cause (Prov. 25:9). God commands His servants to contend for the faith (Jude 3). The soldiers of Christ are to put on the whole armour and stand for truth (Eph. 6:10-17). Little pot shots are taken from all directions these days but it is impossible to get those who are guilty of such into honorable discussions. What is wrong? Why is it so? It is so because men are afraid and they know they cannot stand a good inspection.

As President of Tennessee Bible College I am ready to meet any college president in our brotherhood and defend any and every practice of Tennessee Bible College. Is there one out there that will accept my invitation? Let them not act like this is beneath their dignity when they are guilty of stealing the colleges and universities from the faithful of earth and have led them into denominationalism. If we are going to talk about dignity let us talk about such things. The men who lead these universities and schools of higher learning do not need the faithful Christians any more because they are riding in wagons they did not build and eating at tables that were made possible by many sacrificing brethren faithful to God and His Word. We have never appreciated dishonesty in any form or fashion. When the liberal-minded brethren who are in the lead of digression in our Christian colleges and universities talk and act like they have a high degree of dignity about them, such makes us think of the "dog returning to his vomit" (II Pet. 2:20-22). There is not a speck of dignity in this. It is not dignity that keeps these leading apostates from standing up and defending their actions. They have enough sense to know that they cannot defend what they are doing when it comes to examining the Bible. They are in reality moral cowards.

What does the future hold for the church of the living God? It holds sweet victory. God is still in control and all is well. The book of Revelation is a book about the providence of God. God speaks in that book to all Christians of every age and says don't give up because I am in control and will be with you providentially unto and until the end (Rev. 2:10).

The Golden Calf Syndrome
David Hill

The brotherhood of our Lord is being attacked on every hand. It has always been that way, and I suppose until the Lord returns and the earth is destroyed it will continue. I believe most understand this fact—at least conceptually. I'm not sure that any of us either realize fully the real danger of the devil or the power of his charms and tricks in distracting the servants of God. Throughout the Old Testament time and time again God's people were turned to idolatry. Upon the exodus of the children of Israel and the receiving of the ten commandments, God's people quickly turned to the making of a golden calf for worship. After they had seen the living God deliver them through the Red Sea on dry land, they could, with a few days' absence of Moses, turn to Aaron for a golden calf. On one hand it seems unbelievable, on the other we see similar departures today. One may quickly respond, "I know of no such incidence of the use of a golden calf in churches today." Well, there are certainly icons, statues, etc., that are used in the denominational world, but that is not the point of this study. There are things that will certainly get in the way of pure service to the King of kings and the Lord of lords that almost resemble the golden calf digression of old. We may refer to it as the golden calf syndrome.

We often speak of idolatry and that an idol is anything that comes between us and our service to God. The syndrome that we note is related in that the people of old said to Aaron, "make us gods, which shall go before us," (Exod. 32:1). Some of our brethren have let the god of materialism lead them away from service to God Almighty. I think this is the number one problem we face in the church today. It is the reason that mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and even grandparents come to the worship services of our Lord so tired. They look bored out of their minds and some even sleep! Why? Because they were out until all hours the night before at a ballgame, car show, boating, some even partying. The pursuit of the world and its pleasures has taken them over and in some cases they aren't even aware of it. Materialism is truly a golden calf to many today. Jesus said if these things come before serving him we're not worthy of him (Matt. 10:38-39; Mark 10:29-30).

Let's go a little farther, because the golden calf syndrome I'm referencing differs from the above-mentioned idolatry. This syndrome is seen when some of our brethren in the church set up a school, or a paper (journal) so high that it divides the fellowship of the saints. Please pardon the personal reference, but I've asked several of my brethren if we were in fellowship and they have refused to answer. Why? Because they could not decide and/or they knew that the directors of their pet journal did not "like" the institution where I work. Any sin noted? No, they just don't like us! And though some might answer in the affirmative that we are in fellowship, there is not one thing that anyone could observe that would suggest fellowship. They speak against us every chance they get. They distribute false information against us every time they can get their hands on it (happy to distribute someone else's information; afraid to write their own), and so on. You see this is an example of the golden calf syndrome.

Some members of the Lord's church will let a school come between them and the service of the Lord by lining up completely with a school. I work for a college so I'm not opposed to Christian schools, but I dare not let the college come between the Lord and my service to Him.

I've had people ask me initially upon meeting them, "What do you think about XYZ school?" They will answer questions of faith and doctrine based on what the director of XYZ said with little or no regard or even knowledge of what the Bible says. Sounds something like the church at Corinth in the first century (I Cor. 1:11-13). That's a golden calf and the golden calf syndrome. "Make us a school and a director which will go before us." Others form a gang around a special project. Do you support the Relief to the World Project [RTTWP] (my creation)? If no, then you're out! No more fellowship with you. So, they say, "make us a special project (RTTWP) which will go before us." That's the golden calf syndrome.

The Proverb still declares one of the things God hates is, "he that soweth discord among the brethren," (Prov. 6:19). When one questions the actions or stance of another in the church, is that sowing discord? Is that withdrawing fellowship? John says it's not only appropriate but encouraged (I John 4:1). Yet, when preachers, elders, school directors, and special project managers are questioned, the implied response is "who are you that you should question me?" And the dutiful followers of these individuals get mad and say are you aware that brother MJ questioned AR?—as if that in itself makes MJ a false brother. I appeal to all, beginning with the writer, let's love the Lord and love His kingdom. Get rid of the golden calves and the golden calf syndrome that divides us and let's give God perfected praise. That's what we must do to be accepted by Him.

Neo-Anti-ism
Ronald D. Gilbert

Anti-ism has plagued the Lord's church from its beginning. In Acts 15 the Judaizers taught that all males must be circumcised and that all must in addition to Christianity keep the law of Moses. The early Christians fought against anti-ism and exposed it for all to see (Acts 15:1-24; Gal. 5:1-7). Sometimes good people are caught up in anti-ism. On the surface some do not see the implications of a position. Those advocating anti positions trying to be consistent with their position moved into ridiculous positions. For example in a debate Charles Holt said that a church can take money from its treasury to:

1. Provide air-conditioning
2. Provide a water fountain
3. Paiint the preacher's house
4. Kill termites at the preacher's house
5. Buy fertilizer for the grass

Then Holt said a church cannot take money from its treasury to:

1. Help an orphan child
2. Help a deserving needy person who is not a Christian

To those brethren expediency authorized fertilizer to make the grass grow but not milk for a hungry child.

The proposition for the Highers-Bingham debate was, "The Bible teaches it is a sin for the church to take money from its treasury to buy food for hungry, destitute children, and those who do so will go to hell." Brother Highers was wise in the wording of this proposition. Hours could have been spent discussing what the church could and could not do with their funds. However, Highers brought the discussion where all could see the anti position: if a church helps out of its treasury a hungry child who is not a Christian, then it sins in so doing and if they do not repent, they will burn in hell. This gets things down where all can see the fallacies of anti-ism.

Anti-ism seems to have always been very controlling, telling all that things must be done this way and this way only. Whether it is caring for orphans or doing mission work, or preaching the gospel by radio or television, they have always had the exclusive way of doing these works.

Concerning church funds one brother said, "No passages authorize the use of church resources or funds to provide for the social and recreational wants or needs of the members, neither do any passages authorize their use in providing for the physical needs of non-saints." Then later the same man said, "These passages (he had cited Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35; 6:1-4; 11:28-30; Rom. 15:25-27; II Cor. 8:4, 14) emphasize the fact that two conditions always prevailed before any person was assisted from the church treasury—(1) the recipients were always Christians; (2) the recipients were always needy Christians." What about Galatians 6:10? Most antis want to limit "all men" to Christians. Some antis say Galatians 6:10 is to the individual and not the church. Notice their inconsistency in applying Galatians 6:6 (paying the preacher) to the church but Galatians 6:10 to the individual. A failure to understand how the Bible authorizes has led some brethren to demand an example or command for some actions but in other areas allow many things to be authorized by expediency.

Over the years anti-ism has shifted and taken new approaches to certain ideas. For example during the early 1940s one issue that was discussed often was whether churches could from their church treasuries support Christian colleges such as Freed-Hardeman or David Lipscomb. Then the anti position was that the individual Christian must do this work and not the church.

In his book Contending for the Faith which was published by Gospel Advocate in 1941, G. C. Brewer said,

"Let us grant, however, that the schools are individual enterprises. Will any thoughtful man contend that a church cannot contribute to an individual effort? Cannot a church help to support a good work that is being done by an individual or by individuals? Cannot a church help parents clothe and feed and rear their children if there is need for such help? If a preacher on his own responsibility should buy and equip a tent or buy a house and begin preaching the gospel in some destitute field, and then if some church or some half dozen churches should learn of his work, duly investigate, and find both the man and his work in every sense worthy and begin to contribute to him, would that make these churches the owners of the tent or house? Would that constitute these churches a missionary society or organization? Would that take away the preacher's right of individual judgment about the management of his work and put him under the direction and control of the churches? Would not the preacher still be free to work and preach as he pleases as an individual and an independent laborer, and would not the churches, all or any one of them, be free to cease to contribute to him whenever for any reason they should decide to do so? Surely all informed men will answer these questions in the affirmative" (p. 228).

Brother Brewer might be surprised if he were alive today to see somewhat of a new anti twist concerning these matters. Where then the emphasis was on the individual and not the church, today with some the emphasis is on the church and not the individual.

We are hearing more and more today from some that any work that is not under an eldership is a missionary society. Some need to go back and study missionary societies. Are they saying the only thing wrong with the society was that it was not under an eldership? If someone brought it back today and put it under an eldership would you support it? If you could not support it under an eldership then they are saying more was wrong with it than it not being under an eldership.

Some today fail to see the rights of an individual Christian to do good. Another point that should be considered is just because a thing can be abused does not mean that thing is wrong in and of itself. For example, can a man above and beyond his weekly contribution to the local church give something extra to a good cause? Yes, he can. However, this does not prove that he does not ever need to put anything in the collection at his local congregation and do as he pleases with his money. Can a man in his own home have a period of Bible study and worship on Tuesday night? Yes, he can, but that does not mean that he is never obligated to meet with a local church. There are some out there who feel that doing good as an individual usurps the authority of the local church. They teach that any work that is the "work of the church" must be done under the eldership or local congregation only or else those involved sin in so doing.

If all good works are to be done under an eldership or local church, then the individual Christian has no right to do good as an individual, and further when he does these good works which are the "works of the church," he usurps the authority of the local church and thus sins. If the above is correct, that some of the new antis are teaching, consider the following situations and judge in light of the Scripture if they are right or wrong.

First, could one individual Christian, acting alone, decide to personally, out of his pocket, in addition to his weekly contribution at the local congregation, preach on a local radio station 30 minutes each week? Could two individuals split the cost of this radio program and both speak taking turns? Could one other individual upon hearing of this good work send money to help with the cost of this program? Could one or two congregations in the area also send money to help preach the gospel on the radio? At what point does it become sinful, when more than one individual helps or when another congregation where the speaker or speakers are not members send money? Or, is it the case that the individual acting alone sins because his program is not under an eldership? Does an individual Christian not have the right to do good? Some today are saying no.

Second, if you were a counselor and you had a practice charging for your counseling sessions, as an individual Christian, could you decide that you will go one day per week into a very poor area and offer free counseling sessions to the poor and use part of your counseling time to teach the gospel and give out religious materials? Could one other Christian upon hearing about your good work send you money each month to help purchase printed materials? Could one congregation hear of this good work and also send money to help? Does the number of individuals or churches make a work wrong? There are some dangers when a work gets very large. That work may have a huge impact on the brotherhood. Must your counseling sessions be under an eldership in order to be scriptural?

Third, could a Christian doctor go to a poor area one day a month and give free medical care and teach the gospel at his clinic, giving out tracts, Bibles, and other religious materials? Could one church in the area upon hearing of this doctor's work also send money? In order for this doctor's work to be scriptural must it be under an eldership? Would the elders be over his doctor practice or just his distributing religious materials and his teaching? How many supporters would it take to constitute a missionary society? Would you say the doctor sins in this work because it is not under an eldership?

Fourth, what if a handyman went to a poor area and offered to fix up things for people at no cost if they would listen to him teach the Bible? Could individuals and churches give money to purchase building materials under the heading of benevolence? Would some of our new antis say the building materials could be purchased if they were saints but not the Bible materials with church funds, or would they say neither, since this handyman is not under an eldership and this work cannot be scripturally done?

Fifth, could churches or individuals pay me to teach the Bible each week at a state university? Would my teaching the Bible at a university need to be under an eldership in order to be scriptural? Am I not authorized to do good works as an individual?

Sixth, could David Hill and I, as individual Christians, go to Florida after a tornado and take $200 of food and water we purchased at Wal-Mart to help the needy? Could you, upon hearing of our trip, send $100 of your money with us to purchase now $300 of food? Would you lose your autonomy as a Christian by not going yourself? Could one church upon hearing of our trip send $1,000 by us to get more food and water? At what point does this illustration become sinful? Give the number of individuals that could help and it still be scriptural. Or perhaps you take the position that since David and I were not operating under an eldership then we as individuals sin by taking $200 to Florida to help the needy.

Remember, many are saying unless a work is under an eldership it is not scriptural. If David and I felt we did a lot of good with one trip, could we decide to make two trips? Suppose we saw the need to take off from our jobs receiving no pay for two weeks and make several trips delivering needed supplies. Could individuals and churches not only help with the items sent but give David and me some help with our personal bills since we were receiving no salary for two weeks? At what point does this work become sinful? Name the number of weeks! Do David and I sin as individuals because our first trip was not under an eldership, or must we go more than one time for it to be sinful?

Anti-ism is a terrible thing, crippling many good works and condemning things that ought not to be condemned. Anti-ism not only makes laws where God has not, but they have their own way that things must be done and their way is the only way a thing can be done.

Notice the shift from 1941 to the present day. Then, brethren were arguing with antis concerning Christian colleges and the antis were saying this work must not be done by the churches but by the individuals. Today, the neo-anti is arguing that good works must not be done by the individual but only by the churches.

In order for these neo-antis to be consistent, would they not be forced to the position that an individual Christian operating on his own and not under an eldership has no right to do the work of the church and that an individual Christian in so doing sins when he attempts to do these good works acting alone and not under an eldership? If that is not the position they would be forced to take, why not? Let's not overlook the rights of individual Christians to do good! What about a brotherhood paper? Must it be under and eldership? It is teaching and edifying. Is this not the work of the church?

One man wrote in a brotherhood paper that any work that is the work of the church in order to be scriptural must be under an eldership. Is teaching and edifying the work of the church? Yes—then if a paper teaches or edifies it must be under an eldership. Anti-ism then or today has never been consistent.

Think about these things. Are you ready to say that a good work is sinful or that it is a missionary society just because it is not under an eldership?

Moral Influence of Pictures

From the Millennial Harbinger, April 1853, Volume 3, No. 4

As we read materials of old we are held and compelled to the richness of the materials at hand. Please read this article on the influence of pictures and consider its contents over against what we are faced with today. The pictures we see today are in living color and alive on the screen. The pictures of yesteryear are not in the ballpark with what we see today. My, how the world has changed.    —(M. Hill)

I have, for sometime past, been thinking of writing a short article for the Harbinger on the moral influence of pictures, and have lately been reminded of it by some excellent remarks on the subject, which I would here quote, but have not at hand the article in which I saw them. By pictures, I mean paintings, drawings, and engravings of every kind, representing persons, scenes, characters, etc.

I am frequently perfectly astonished at seeing the kind of pictures I meet with in the houses of our brethren and "professors" of religion. They certainly don't consider the moral influence they are calculated to exert, or they would not suffer them to hang upon the walls of their houses and in their parlors, or the books and periodicals containing them to lie on their shelves or upon their centre-tables. For instance, nothing is more common than to meet with battle scenes, in which are depicted, in the most vivid colors, and with all the skill of the drawer and engraver, scenes of war, carnage, and murderous death, in all their horrors, and with the fierce passions of men at work! Now, what is the influence that such things are calculated to have on the mind, particularly when always hanging in sight, to influence it? Is it not to keep alive and fan the military spirit, already too rife in the bosoms of the American people? When we have war, parents are often greatly grieved and distressed at their sons, for leaving them and entering into the army, and that, frequently, before they are out of their minority, when they are greatly to blame themselves, in a way they perhaps do not think of or are not aware, by thus rendering such scenes familiar to them! It is particularly upon the minds of children, that pictures exert the greatest influence—that they make the deepest, most indelible, and most lasting moral impressions. We know this, not only from the great interest and delight that children take in looking at pictures, to the neglect of the printed page, and how they are absorbed by them, but we well know it from observation and our own experience when we were children. Nor is it only to these "battle-scenes" to which we refer. There are many other pictures equally as objectionable, on other scores. Most improper amatory, and other scenes, are sometimes presented in them. For instance, I have seen hanging up in the houses of brethren, scenes of a gentleman and lady kissing, the gentleman with his arm around the lady's waist, etc.! Now, what is the effect of these "courting scenes," but to arouse and cherish some of the most improper and immoral passions! I once saw in the house of a brother and sister, a dancing scene on the chimney screen, or screen for the fire-place! On it was a quite old looking man, with a fiddle in his hand, and dancing, and a couple of small children, a little boy and girl, dancing! What must be the effect of such pictorial examples on the minds of children, but to excite in them a love for dancing! And there are on these scenes, no doubt, other things to be found as objectionable. Let me now say in conclusion, brethren, to be extremely careful what kinds of pictures you suffer to be about your houses, particularly to hang upon their walls. As you value the present and eternal welfare of your children, and are solicitous about what shall be their character and conduct in this world, suffer not to be about you pictures that are calculated to have a bad or immoral tendency in any way.
—John R. Howard