And to Keep Oneself Unstained by the World

I used to teach creative writing to 8th grade students. Before writing short stories, I had the class read three classic examples of short stories in three different genres. We read "Soldier's Home" by Ernest Hemingway as our drama piece. The comedy story was something from Mark Twain. Finally, we'd read a horror story, Edgar Allan Poe's "The Black Cat." This was an effective bit of pedagogy each year, but turned into a controversy when one student was deeply disturbed by "The Black Cat" to the point that he literally cried in the classroom. I had to field a call from his Father, a missionary for a decade or so, and recently moved home to America to become a marriage counselor.

In our phone conversation, he proceeded to explain to me why this was entirely inappropriate and why I should remove Poe from my curriculum in the future. I explained to him one of the foundational ideologies of our particular Christian school was not to isolate our students from the world, but rather to train them to confront the world and its ideas Christianly. We don't eliminate "Lord of the Flies" from our curriculum; we analyze "Lord of the Flies" from a Christian viewpoint. When we looked at "The Black Cat," we looked at it in two ways. First, why was it so effective? Why did it cause distress in his son? What was Poe up to? In short, a literary analysis to make us better writers. Second, what does this story tell us about the sin nature? The narrator gouges a cat's eye out and then after it heals he hangs the cat; the cat may or may not come back to orchestrate the narrator's death. The narrator speaks:

"One morning, in cool blood, I slipped a noose about its neck and hung it to the limb of a tree; - hung it with the tears streaming from my eyes, and with the bitterest remorse at my heart; - hung it because I knew that it had loved me, and because I felt it had given me no reason of offence; - hung it because I knew that in so doing I was committing a sin - a deadly sin that would so jeopardize my immortal soul as to place it - if such a thing were possible - even beyond the reach of the infinite mercy of the Most Merciful and Most Terrible God."

I posited we can learn a lot of what not do to by studying such things. Reading stories and reports of sin is not sin itself. Conceding Poe's brilliance, this child's Father felt that Poe's story was evil, and that anyone whose mind could conceive such a tale must have had demonic influence. His point was brilliance wasn't the issue: it only made Satan's work that much more effective. I'll concede that Poe was a disturbed individual, beyond that I shall not go. Further, he felt that a Christian school should know better and not have such curriculum. Even further, he declared my actions to be sinful in choosing to subject my students, and his son, to that story; I, in his view, was in error.

I am absolutely fine with differences of opinion, but condescension I do not take kindly to. When he told me he'd like to read something from the Bible to me, I fought to hold my tongue. He read to me vast passages from Paul, specifically Philippians 4:8, which states, "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things" (NASB). This told me two things. First, he wasn't simply wanting to be heard; he wanted to teach me something, to convict me. Second, he had prepared for our conversation. He felt "The Black Cat" did not pass the Phil. 4:8 test, and therefore was not God-honoring, and therefore should not be taught in a Christian school.

I let him give his spiel, then I made sure he was aware that I only taught the one English class to help scheduling and that my primary job is the Bible teacher. I let him know I have a Masters of Divinity from Beeson Divinity School, am an ordained Baptist minister, and that I'd like to refer him to a passage of Scripture.

I reminded him of the closing chapters of Judges, where we have recorded an atrocious story. A Levite concubine is gang-raped to death by a group of Benjaminites. When her husband finds her the next morning, he cuts her into twelve pieces and sends them to the heads of the twelve tribes so that the truth will be known. The Hebrews were so rightly enraged that civil war broke out, all the tribes against Benjamin. Benjamin was nearly obliterated. It is here in 17:6 and 25:2 we read one of the saddest statements in the Bible, the bookends of the entire pericope: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." This section bridges the time of Judges to the last judge, Samuel, who anoints the first king, Saul. This report, equating unrestrained sin with the lack of a restraining king, is the justification for getting a king.

In short, it's the reporting of atrocious sin. Why? So that we can be disturbed? So that we can "go and do likewise?" No, it's so we can learn. The Bible is the most frank ancient book. It does not gloss over evil; it reports it while not condoning it. I asked him how he handles such a passage as a minister or as Father. Does he avoid it? Choose not to teach it? Ignore it? Does he have a "canon within the canon?" Is reading about gang-rape and murder covered in "whatever is lovely...?" Maybe not. Is it given us by the Spirit and therefore edifying? Absolutely.

I don't have children so I didn't presume to tell him how to raise his, but I'm not a fool. If you, in an attempt to preserve your child's innocence, do not let him encounter the world and try to think critically, your child is naive and unprepared. This Father was, in my opinion, overly sheltering his children. His two junior high students were two of the most "sensitive" students I ever taught. They were two of the most respectful and most well behaved (I wish more were like them) but they couldn't critically engage tough material outside the Bible.

I think there are two ways to think about these issues. One is to "keep the world at bay" by prohibiting participation in certain activities. I would consider this legalistic. The other is to "be in the world but not of it" and engage the world in a dialog, even though this exposes one to much sin. He'd probably consider this antinomian.

Call it presumption, but I believe Jesus would side with me. Recently, I went with two friends to the Juke Joint Festival in Clarksdale, MS, a blues festival. There was poverty, beer, barbecue, and blues. I liked the barbecue and blues. I was surrounded by many people half-drunk or better. Did this make me unholy or sinful for being there in that environment? I say no; he'd probably say yes. I can't help but think that in the many places Jesus went, and with as many prostitutes and sinners He was around, He probably saw some harsh things. Was Jesus sinful or tarnished in any way?

The Christian cannot be in this world and not experience it's villainy. The question is whether we hide or engage. I say engage. The challenge is engaging the world and remaining unstained by the world, for this is true religion.