"Going"
TONY BREWER'S "COGITATIONS" PODCAST
The podcast referenced in the title was made available via a link to it (which will be shared with anyone who desires to have it). It was delivered on May 8th. The speaker (unknown to this writer) said this might be the last time he addresses the issue publicly (about 36 minutes in). Since it is available to the public, it is permissible to answer it in the same manner u2014though Tony disagrees.
He urged his listeners: "Don't say anything about me 'til you call me" (36:25). Then he gave his telephone number. However, he also said, "If you only talk to me whenever you disagree with me, then you don't need to talk to me at all because you haven't put in enough time to correct me" (39:40). This writer has not put in time establishing a personal relationship, nor is it necessary. All of us who preach orally or in print are subject to criticism. And this is done without personal contact most of the time. If we make our views known publicly, we should expect public responses.
Agreement
Some may be surprised to hear it, but this writer agrees with a number of statements Brother Brewer made in this podcast. He claimed that it is wrong to misrepresent him or to lie about what he has said. He is absolutely correct in that assessment. No one should be misrepresented. If it was done unintentionally, the matter needs to be corrected. If he was maliciously misrepresented, repentance is in order. No fellow Christian deserves to be treated in that manner. Brewer also claims that some of his broadcasts have been downloaded, chopped up, and re-used inappropriately. If accurate, this too is wrong.
What follows is not intended to be a complete list, but below are a few of his statements that most of us can wholeheartedly support.
"I do not promote pornography in any form u2014written, video, pictorial" (33:15).
"I don't promote pornography" (35:16).
"Just because you slap a label of art on it doesn't mean that it's not sinful to look at" (35:35).
"I'm the guy that says, 'Christians, stay away from the beach. You got no business there'" (19:25).
Disagreement
One wonders, therefore u2014especially in light of the third statement above u2014why Brewer is defending Freed-Hardeman. He sounds like he should be standing with us, but for some reason he is not.
He claims that things are being said and written about Freed-Hardeman that are not true u2014and that he has information about various events that others lack. Has he thought that this is a two-way street?
Whenever brethren become involved in an emotional issue, it is frequently the case that quotes and occurrences get bent out of shape u2014on both sides of the issue. Each time information gets passed along, it undergoes a change or two so that, what started out as two children getting sick and seeing the school nurse turns into an epidemic which might close down the school. The existence of distortions on one side does not prove the other side is in the right u2014especially when they have their own catalogue of fictitious rumors. Sometimes the truth is impossible to discern, but that is not the case in this instance because we have source documents. If Brother Brewer has not viewed these, he should.
This issue began when Kerry Sword's daughter found that one required course (for her degree in Art) not only sported nudity in the art book, but she would also need to draw nudity. The congregation here at South Seminole supported the Sword family in Kiev, Ukraine for 25 years. We not only received extensive reports of the work there during that time, but we visited when they reported to us and their children graduated from a home school program in the Orlando area. One of our members occasionally visited there when his job took him to that part of the world. We have the utmost respect for this family's labors.
The problem with Freed-Hardeman occurred during the last year before the Swords returned to the States. Kerry scheduled a meeting in October of 2016 with three women representing the school u2014a teacher of Art History, the head of the Art Department, and the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. They allowed the meeting to be taped. Both the original tapes and the transcription of that tape are available from Brother Sword. No one needs to speculate or exaggerate what happened or how the controversy arose. The original documents of the controversy are available. Did Brother Brewer read these? They reveal that without question there is a problem at Freed-Hardeman, and brethren did not want to deal with it.
Nor was any of this made public for months. This meeting occurred on October 12, 2016 when Brother Sword was in the United States for his mother's funeral. When they moved back to the States the following year, they decided to live in the house they owned in Henderson, where Freed-Hardeman is located. Kerry met with as many people as he could about this issue but without success. Although he had been assured that the elders of the Henderson Church of Christ would meet with him, they did not. At his wits' end, he asked what he should do. He was considering publishing a book on the subject, but I suggested he obtain a website and put all of the information on it, which he did. Understand that this was not done for more than a year after the initial meeting u2014and only after every other means of effecting change was exhausted.
Brethren needed to have this information available before entrusting their young people to the school. The children of Christians expect the very highest of moral standards from Christian universities, and the practices of the Art Department did not meet those standards. Nor are we now aware of any changes in their program. But here is what the new President of the university said in chapel during lectureship week of 2018 (just in case anyone has forgotten). Certain words are in bold print to emphasize them.
Recently the university and some faculty and staff, alumni, and students have been publicly challenged and at times attacked regarding the study of nude and semi-nude human forms in sculptures, paintings, pictures within the art program. Your confidence in the academic and spiritual integrity of the program is critically important. Your instructors continually assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of curriculum and even use opportunities such as this one to again review your degree program in light of FHU's mission.
Following these recent challenges, faculty, staff, and administration have again concluded that these studies of the human form are necessary and appropriate in a large number of academic disciplines, programs, and courses at this university, including the art program. It is crucial for an Art graduate from a liberal arts university to be able to draw the human and therefore understand the body. It is believed that Michelangelo even autopsied bodies because he wanted to see layers of muscle, veins, and bone structure.
While FHU students do study the human form, FHU art students do not and never will work with nude, live models. Perhaps drawing the human form or studying semi-nude or nude art violates your conscience. If so, you have informal and formal mechanisms available to request modifications to your curriculum. Your request will be evaluated based on its reasonableness and its impact on the academic integrity of your studies.
Is anyone's mind put at ease by this statement? Now what is ironic is that, from what Brewer said, he does not even agree with these statements. Will he affirm that art students must study the nude form, as stated above? Does he really believe they are necessary and appropriate? Should drawing such things only perhaps violate one's conscience? Can the reader imagine drawing male or female anatomy and submitting it to someone for a grade or critique? With all that the Old and New Testaments teach on modesty and holiness, this issue should not even be arguable. Would the past presidents of Freed-Hardeman have allowed what is going on there today to have been done in the '40s, '50s, or '60s? No one would have tried such shenanigans then.
Defense?
One popular tactic to justify something unscriptural is to make an emotional argument, such as, "Am I going to hell if I look at paintings in the Smithsonian?" Some ask: "Am I going to hell for using instrumental music in worship?" One can picture Nadab and Abihu asking, "Am I going to hell for offering strange fire?" That's a decision for God to make. Our question should be: "Do I have authority to view and draw nude "art"? If so, what is the authority? Where is the passage of Scripture that authorizes young men and women to do such a thing? Surely, there is one that says something like, "Be holy, for I am holy u2014unless you are required to draw nudity." No one knows where that passage is.
Brewer discusses an event totally unrelated to what caused this controversy or the president's speech concerning the matter; thus, we will not deal with it. He admits that FHU may not have been "totally pure" in their actions. They may have somehow erred. "But," he adds, "there's not enough for me to take this Bible and damn them all to hell, either" (24:7-12). Has that been someone's goal? Brother Sword's aim to begin with, and the purpose most of us have, is to get FHU to change their policy so that it is consistent with what is taught in the New Testament.
My Own Backyard
The following approach stated by Tony Brewer does not seem realistic.
People ask me all the time, "Well, what about these people that pray to Jesus?" and "What about these people that do this or that?" or "What about these people that teach a renewed earth? Shouldn't we publicly mark them and withdraw from them?" I don't know. I don't have any of 'em in my backyard (28:00).
He added: "I don't have any right, nor do I have the resources to deal with what's going on u2026" elsewhere. Of course, this sounds reasonable and noble, but it could prove fatal. Freed-Hardeman is not in my backyard, but our congregation has had students there, one of which graduated just last year. Further, what their Art Department requires did affect a young lady and her family (the Swords) that we have known for years, and it could affect others who might decide to attend there.
Furthermore, Paul spoke of some who needed to be marked (Rom. 16:17-18). Is that only if they are in your own backyard? Did he only mention Hymenaeus and Philetus because they were nosing around someone's backyard? Was Paul just a brotherhood watchdog? Now granted, there may be some who are stirring up trouble when nothing needs to be said or a situation could be handled privately, but just because a few may be overly zealous does not mean we should all let our guards down. It is not only true that Satan, as a roaring lion, wants to devour us individually (1 Peter 5:8); he also has as his chief goal to destroy churches as well.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: