Irony, the Bible, and the Gospel Advocate

Billy R. Smith wrote an excellent article for the February issue of the Gospel Advocate. Its title is, "In the World, But Not of the World." He calls to attention several verses that relate to his subject, such as Paul saying that Christians should not "be conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). James says that a friend of the world "makes himself an enemy of God" (4:4). The apostle John also speaks to this theme, saying that "if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15) (18-19).

He goes on to say that Christians should not be "intimidated by the world" (19), which is certainly true. One of his final points is that Christians should be "crucified to the world" (20). All are encouraged to read the entire article, as well as the other fine articles in that issue. There is just one little, teeny, tiny problem.

The author of those excellent words, Billy R. Smith, is the dean of the College of Biblical Studies at Freed-Hardeman University and preaches for the Henderson Church of Christ in Henderson, Tennessee. This is the same university that just attempted (unsuccessfully) to justify nudity in art. Does anyone else think it is ironic to talk about not being of the world when accepting nudity in art is precisely that?

In fact, how about just reconsidering some of the points of that article? We should not be conformed to this world, but is it all right to be conformed to the art world? Does being a friend of the art world (which means embracing the nudity that is part of it), Brother Smith, make one an enemy of God? If anyone loves the art world so much that he casts God's Word on modesty behind his back, is the love of the Father in him? Is a Bible faculty right to allow themselves to be intimidated by the art world? Are we supposed to crucify ourselves to all aspects of the world except the art world and its acceptance of nudity? Brother Smith, how can the Bible faculty stand in agreement with the Art and Photography Departments at FHU? Don't you feel a little tainted?

Perhaps the defense of nudity in art by David Shannon should be repeated for the sake of clarity as to where Freed Hardeman stands. Just days before this year's annual lectureship, the newly appointed president addressed the issue. The transcript of the entire presentation was recorded in Spiritual Perspectives (February 11, 2018).

Shannon said that FHU had been "attacked regarding the study of nude and semi-nude human forms in sculptures, paintings, pictures within the art program." To be absolutely accurate, Kerry Sword who did mission work for 25 years in Kiev, Ukraine, challenged the inclusion of nudity in these programs, meeting with or speaking to art teachers, department heads, Billy Smith, and David Shannon in an effort to change the nudity aspects of these programs. Only after being told repeatedly that nothing would change has FHU been attacked. And the reason is that they are to be blamed (cf. Gal. 2:11)!

Shannon said that the "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." In fact, Shannon implies that art students cannot get a quality education at FHU unless they study nudity. He stated: "We realize the responsibility and privilege we have of empowering you with an education that integrates Christian faith, scholarship, and service." Brother Shannon, will art students not be "empowered" if they do not study nude human forms?

Further irony is that David Shannon was interviewed by the Gospel Advocate for the same February issue (which was published before the statement made in chapel). He says, as the new president, he wants to be certain that FHU offers a Christian education (32). Really? Is that one in which studying nude human forms empowers graduates? He also states that FHU wants to "stand with God" (32). Brother Shannon, is that what you think you are doing with the Art and Photography Departments? Are those the "core values" you speak of? Do you actually think God is going to say, "Well done," to you when you have made such an outrageous and anti-Biblical statement (33)?

You speak of being "God's servant" (33). Would Elijah have approved your art program? How about Jeremiah? Would Jesus share the viewpoint you and the faculty, staff, and administration have articulated? How can you not see that your policy violates numerous Scriptures dealing with modesty? We are all waiting for your Scriptural defense. Will you or any of your Bible faculty debate this issue? If you are not ashamed of your stance, you should be freely willing to do so.

Anyone who has not yet done so should read the article posted by Brad Harrub at https://www.focuspress.org/2018/02/12/open-letter-fhu-board-regarding-nudity-art. Consider just this one paragraph.

So what about naked images? Research has shown repeatedly that any time a nude image is viewed, the brain INVOLUNTARILY releases two neurochemicals: dopamine and norepinephrine…. These chemicals are released whether the individual is looking at material that is deemed art or pornography. From an aesthetics perspective at the neuronal level there is no distinction in the brain.

In other words, the quibble over whether something is art or pornography is irrelevant. The nude form produces the same effect. Harrub's article is well researched and well-presented. Since David Shannon is so sought-after as a speaker and has so many friends, perhaps a few of them would do him a favor and point out the anti-Biblical stance he has taken. FHU's policy on this subject needs to be reversed.