Things I love about Harding University (#4) — Freedom of Speech

Published on July 9, 2008
by Jimmy Shaw

My friend David Underwood posted these quotes yesterday:

“There is a great need to stress the importance of maintaining freedom of speech in the kingdom of God. Intolerance is dangerous to the future growth of the church. Most of us have an aversion to anything except what we ourselves believe and teach, and as a consequence, we are intolerant of the teaching of anything that antagonizes our doctrine. All progress of truth - all truth - has always depended on free speech and progressive teachers who were not afraid to teach their honest convictions, even though it cost life….It takes no courage to teach the things one’s audience already believes.”

“It takes no courage to teach the things one’s audience already believes”

“I am well aware of the fact that free speech has its dangers and that progressive and fearless teachers have given the world untold trouble. But are we ready to surrender free speech and to deny ourselves teachers who are not afraid? Even our deliverance from such a possibility must come through free speech and courageous teachers. If our great-great-grandchildren enjoy the truth we hold dear, it will be due to free speech and courageous teachers.”

These thoughts are brought to you by the first president of Harding University, J.N. Armstrong, who is described as one who “fought … for freedom of conscience, freedom to learn and to teach, and for Christian forbearances over differences of view.”

And I have to say, I like ‘em!

Men who did not fear to write

Harding has a history with controversy. Some good, some less good, I guess. But mostly, I think about those members of the Harding faculty who have been men of strong and often public opinion.

J.D. Bales was a prolific writer who published very strong, often unpopular, views using the most advanced technology available to him in order to disseminate those views as widely as possible. No stranger to controversy, nor to the immense power and enduring value of truly free speech. Bales’ views shifted over time, beginning as a pacifist then later slamming Martin Luther King as “pink pacifist” in his virulently polemical screed, The Martin Luther King Story: a study in apostasy, agitation, and anarchy.

This is to say nothing of Harding’s president, George S. Benson who served as Bales’ colleague, ally, and patron in the anti-communist political free speech which emanated from Harding in the 1950s and 1960s. Both these men spoke publicly and aggressively in defense of political ideas throughout their academic careers, the beneficiaries of the very freedom suggested by president Armstrong above.

It’s important to remember that this was long before Reagan and Rush, before Rove and Bush, before Falwell and Dobson and Fox News. This was the 1960s when political tensions ran high, when many Christians were conflicted about the proper response to the problems of the day, and when diversity often split families, not to mention faculties. A time when the ideas espoused by these men were not wholly popular, even as many of those ideas look deeply unflattering now in the bright sunlight of history.

It was also a time when the Harding faculty included …

Men who did not fear to speak … or to associate

if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine…

As a student I was personally influenced by the rantings and sermonizing of my friend and Harding Bible professor, Jimmy Allen. As a preacher who wrote extensively, traveled widely, and spoke wherever a crowd could be gathered, Allen was never shy about speaking his mind. He was a pacifist and said so, shaping my own view of violence in the process. (Oh, those impressionable, naive young college students!)

And as I recall, I believe he was also quite vigorous in his refutation of the segregationist attitudes of Christians in the south, aggressively challenged the division among churches by race, and freely associated with brothers of all races, even in the deep south.

I suspect he was very untroubled by the trouble that this might cause him with the churches, or his preaching colleagues, or the faculty or administration of Harding.

He simply spoke “the Truth” as best he understood it.

He gave a public defense of his ideas. He published, even when his opinions or judgments were unpopular or a challenge to the prevailing views within the Harding and Church of Christ communities. And while most of his teachings were of a religious rather than political nature (like actively rethinking his understanding of baptism or the extent of God’s grace) he was simply unabashed in giving them a full-throated expression in any and every context.

He felt that such an expression was not merely a privilege but a duty, a calling!

If we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine…

We may disagree with these men on any number of things. Indeed, it is our duty to do so … and to say so. They were men of their moment and their understandings were bound to the context of that moment.

But we cannot deny that they were free and bold and public men of ideas.

As members of the Harding community — as those who love this school — we should remember that we are heirs of a heritage of free speech, of an academic and intellectual tradition (sometimes suppressed and forgotten) of bold, intentional, vigorous, (and yes, sometimes provocative) public speech.

Men like J.N. Armstrong have bequeathed to us this birthright and responsibility.

And we should be thankful for those men and women who today take up the mantle of that responsibility. Who speak “the Truth” as best they understand it. Who are not shy or timid, while being friendly and gracious.

I’m proud to count some of these men and women as my friends.

This heritage should also be a reminder to us.

For those of us with long histories in the Churches of Christ it’s a reminder that our communities — both academic and religious — have rarely been a monolith of either political or religious ideas.

Ideological uniformity has not been our creed, nor has the cloak of conformity been our public bona fides. Vigorous debate has not always been the bane of our existence, but frequently a blessing and a benefit.

It’s also a reminder that our forebears were men (and women!) for whom Expedience would never supersede Integrity, Faithfulness, and Intellectual Honesty. Those from whom we are descended were persons imbued with a kind of fearless integrity — whether public or private, personal or institutional, academic or religious — an inner consistency and constancy of ideas.

We will not be driven by fear

And it is a reminder that we bear a certain responsibility to speak … with integrity and faithfulness, grace and goodwill, boldness and fearlessness.

“We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular.” — Edward R. Murrow

Read more

Thanks for Reading. I hope you'll...

Please leave your comment so we know what you think about this article. You can also read the comments others have left. If you liked this article, you might want to read similar posts on these topics: Politics, Harding University, Religion

Click here to Share This Article by email, bookmarking sites, etc. And if you write or blog about it please use the Permalink to this Article.