Winford Claiborne and Freed-Hardeman University
On the front page of the February 4th issue of Spiritual Perspectives appeared an article about Winford Claiborne who, during his lifetime, showed himself to be one of the most knowledgeable and fearless preachers we have ever known. At that time we said that we would not put words in his mouth about the Art Department at Freed-Hardeman University, where he once taught and frequently appeared on their lectureships. However, he did speak and write on certain subjects relative to nudity and modesty which might be of interest to the current staff and faculty. All can judge for themselves whether or not he would agree with the now-official policy that it is important "that these studies of the human form are necessary and appropriate…."
Yes, no less than the president of the university had the temerity to say, "Perhaps drawing the human form or studying semi-nude or nude art violates your conscience." Perhaps? Perhaps?? It ought to violate any Christian's conscience—including his. But those of Freed-Hardeman's faculty, staff, and administration apparently see no reason why it should.
At any rate, the International Gospel Hour published two volumes of radio sermons delivered by Winford Claiborne. Volume 2 was published in 2010, and the eleventh chapter was titled, "Human Skin." Brother Claiborne wrote: "I am making a plea for television to show less skin on various programs" (122). He protests the amount of skin that the female volleyball players expose (123) and asks of the women who star in music videos, on television, and in the movies: "Are the actresses trying to create lustful thoughts in the hearts of the viewers?" (123). He answers the question in the affirmative and then adds:
Thousands of our young men are confused about the relation of the sexes. If they see almost naked women on television, might they be convinced that women are just waiting for some man to demand sexual favors (123)?
One wonders if young men might not get that same message when asked to draw nearly nude and nude women for "art" class at Freed-Hardeman. Moving on to a discussion of the lust of the flesh, Brother Claiborne observed that "King David lusted in his flesh for Bathsheba" and that "lust for her led to adultery and ultimately to murder" (124). He then added the following observation:
When an almost unclothed woman appears—either in person or on the screen—we cannot avoid seeing her. I heard one preacher say: "It is not the first look that is sinful, but the second." When we dwell on that person and lust after her, then sin enters the picture. The devil entices men by using immoral women to tempt them and using immoral men to tempt women (125).
If we call it art, does that eliminate temptation? If nearly-nude human bodies provoke lust, isn't totally nude art even worse? So perhaps it arouses lusts and offends someone? Can those defending Freed-Hardeman be taken seriously? Brother Claiborne is not quite finished with this subject. He implies that "the young women who expose their bodies on television, on the movie screens, on the beaches and elsewhere" are wearing "the attire of a harlot" (126). Consider carefully these next words.
Do not the young women who expose most of their skin know that godly people perceive them as being immoral? … Satan uses them to create lust in the hearts of men and boys. To deny that fact is to be ignorant of the scriptures and of human nature (126-27).
Is the faculty, staff, and administration ignorant of the Scriptures and of human nature? Perhaps. The seriousness of nude art goes a step further when Claiborne relates this issue to causing a brother to stumble. Our application to what he says would be to say, "Does the Art department at Freed-Hardeman or any other 'Christian' college not know that drawing semi-nude and nude forms of the human body might cause some of the students to sin—in their hearts, at least, if not in actuality?" Claiborne asks: "Dear friend, if you cause a brother or sister to stumble, would that bother you?" (127).
After citing 1 Timothy 2:1-10, Claiborne quotes on page 128 from Robert R. Taylor, Jr's booklet, Studies in First and Second Timothy:
The Christian woman should not be like the worldly woman who spends all her time and all her money in seeking to dress up the outward person. Quite the contrary the Christian woman does not wish to wear anything that is improper in clothing or in her daily decorum…. That is why shorts, halters, tight fitting garments, see-through clothes and modern swimming attire are not proper for God's woman when she is before the public eye (p. 37).
Brother Claiborne taught classes on marriage and family at Freed-Hardeman University. What would he say about what their current Art Department is doing? We can only look at what he wrote.
Tragically, some fathers and mothers seem not to care about the way their children dress. Do they not realize the thoughts that arise in the hearts of some people when they witness too much skin? Is there a mother on earth who does not know what turns men on sexually? Do they want their girls to dress in such a way as to create lust in the hearts of men? (129).
One might ask if Art Departments do not know the same thing. Brother Claiborne wrote another chapter in this same book, called, "Satan's Seat." The title is taken from Revelation 2:13 and concerns the statement of the Lord, who told the brethren at Pergamos that they were living where "Satan's seat" was. Claiborne affirms that one of those seats today is certainly located in Hollywood. The chapter is well worth reading; it touches on a variety of subjects and contains quotations from many in the Hollywood community. The following words address the same topic that was covered in the previous chapter we examined.
When the handsome guys and beautiful girls lie around a swimming pool, they are about as naked as they can be without being arrested for indecent exposure. One preacher upset some people in a congregation when he said some of our young women do not have on enough clothes to wad a shotgun. The church members accused the preacher of exaggerating. Maybe he was exaggerating if he were speaking of a .410 gauge shotgun, but not if he had in mind a 12-gauge shotgun. Of this we can be absolutely certain: the young men and women could never be accused of being modest (260-61).
Alcohol
All of these quotes have been from Silence Can Be Sinful: Volume 2. Together, the two volumes contain 65 chapters, and they deal with a variety of moral issues. One of the other subjects addressed frequently in these two volumes is that of alcohol and drinking. Brother Claiborne's comments are now of particular interest in light of what Earl Edwards taught at the Freed-Hardeman lectures this year. John Chowning has called to the attention of brethren these quotes in an article that appeared in the April, 2018 Defender. Actually, Brother Chowning has two articles. The first, "What a Sad Day," highlights the FHU policy on nude and semi-nude art (1, 3). The second one, "Another Sad Day," recounts what Earl Edwards taught in Auditorium D on February 7, 2018.
"Wishing to be perfectly candid, I would not tell a Christian who decides to go against my advice and drink small amounts of alcohol, maybe in his home, that he has sinned with the first drink, though I would tell him he runs a greater risk of sinning" (4).
This is astounding. Surely, Brother Edwards has read Proverbs 23:31, which admonishes the reader not even to look upon the wine, let alone consume it. And how is that small amount of alcohol going to get in a Christian's home? Is there a way to purchase it that does not involve buying it in public? The second quote is from the Freed-Hardeman lectureship book, in which Edwards is citing someone else, who said,
"rather than defend total abstinence by a false and forced exegesis, it were better to admit the principle is not formally laid down in the New Testament, while maintaining that there are broad principles enunciated, which in view of modern conditions should lead to voluntary abstinence from all intoxicants" (154).
Forced exegesis? What's "forced" about Proverbs 23:31? Brother Winford Claiborne addressed the subject of alcohol several times in his two volumes. This first quote comes from a chapter titled, "The Pleasures of Sin" from Volume 1. After describing the situation in which a 38-year-old woman ran over and killed a youngster and was given a twelve year prison sentence, he asked the following questions?
When that young woman started her life devoted to strong drink, do you think she ever intended to become a drunk? Is there any doubt in your mind that she enjoyed drinking—either because she liked the taste of alcohol or because she liked the effects? Do you believe she ever intended to run over a little 9-year-old and snatch him from his parents' loving arms? (195-96).
In response to those who might argue that she did not intend to harm anyone, even though her blood alcohol was .16, Claiborne cites Aristotle, the philosopher, who offered the following rationale for penalizing those who commit crimes while intoxicated: "The man who sins when drunk should be punished twice over, once for sinning, once for being drunk" (196). These comments do not appear to agree with those of Earl Edwards. From a later chapter, "How Important Is Character?", come even more explicit comments from Brother Claiborne:
Millions of Americans have formed the habit of drinking alcoholic beverages. When they started drinking, they almost certainly never said, "I intend to keep on drinking until I become addicted to alcohol." But alcohol has very strong addictive qualities (214).
Claiborne points out that alcohol has enslaved about 20,000,000 Americans; he adds: "The damage alcohol does to individuals' bodies, to their homes and to our society can never be measured in this life" (214). Claiborne's opposition to the drinking of alcoholic beverages is deep-seated; he has much more in Volume 1 to say, as well as in Volume 2.
The point here is not to set up Winford Claiborne as the standard—even though we agree with all the positions set forth that we have cited. The critical question is, "Is Freed-Hardeman maintaining and teaching the same ideas today as it was when Claiborne taught there?" The answer appears to be, "No." This writer began attending lectures there in 1973 and never heard any of the speakers on the program say anything akin to what Earl Edwards has now said about alcohol. Certainly no one defended studying nude and semi-nude forms. Times are changing, and it is difficult, nay, impossible, to support a school moving away from holiness.