The Ranting Of A Radical
It is unfortunate when a teacher, preacher or editor becomes so radical that sober-minded people feel inclined to discount anything he says on any subject or ignore it altogether. I think most people in their right minds will feel that Brother James L. Lovell's answer to a sister's question about "war" is pretty raw. He says to her in a late issue of the West Coast Christian:
"Sister, I could be wrong too, but if I could get my religion working before I grabbed a gun, I would rather see my wife and child raped and killed; myself burned at the stake my home destroyed, my nation captured, than to take the life of another. Loved or hated, I propose to die this way, yet some of my dearest brethren, members of my immediate family, feel quite differently about it, and there should be no barrier set up or hard feelings about the matter. It is a very difficult problem."
I believe that is about the most terrible thing I have seen in print. It is difficult for me to see how a brother could bring himself to thus present his wife and daughter to the gaze of a reading public, even if he felt that way about it. It is my judgment that were his wife inclined to do so, she could present that paragraph to the judge of a court and get a divorce on the evidence it contains. Of course I know, and think nearly everybody else does, that Jimmie is talking too much with his mouth, as he has the habit of doing, and must not be taken too seriously. I don't think he can charge this brain-storm up to "my religion working." If he can, he might well ponder this passage. "If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain." He seems to think, or thinks that God thinks, the life of a criminal is more precious than the virtue of his wife and daughter, his life and home, and the life and liberty of his whole nation. I think more of my women folks and my nation than that and I believe that God does. Jimmie would just look on and do nothing about it, even if he could, unless the extremity of his wife and daughter made him forget that he had religion! Jimmie used to be sheriff of a county, I understand, and carried a gun. I do not know how much "religion" he had then, but I'm inclined to think, judging from the way he writes, that he had more sense then than he has now. He must feel mighty holy talking like he does! If he knew how many people are ashamed of him, he might pipe down. By the way, Brother Goodpasture, Jimmie has changed too. What do you think of it? I suppose he is also hearkening to God rather than men and "is willing to suffer whatever consequences this course may bring." Personally, I do not think God told Jimmie to write a fool thing like that. Wonder if he would lock his door to keep an intruder out? He seems to be a complete washout as far as affording any protection to his wife and daughter is concerned in the most heart-breaking extremity that could come to them. They have my sympathy and I do hope that if they ever face any such danger, that some friendly sinner will be on hand to do them a good turn their husband and father's "religion" will not allow him to afford them. As for the nation there are not enough people in it with Jimmie's sort of "religion" to endanger it. I'm not worried about him being "burned at the stake." He is too green to burn.
That brings up something else. I learn from Brother Goodpasture, or whoever wrote that three-page fit of temper in the Gospel Advocate, that we wickedly distorted facts when we stated something to the effect that David Lipscomb College enjoyed the protection of "an armed officer" or something like, during the administration of Brother Boles. Brother Boles has finally denied it, or at least denied that he had anything to do with it. If we were misinformed about it, or even lied about it, that does not eliminate the temptation to make some further observations and ask some more questions. There seems to be a question of veracity involved in this that we will leave for others to settle among themselves. Some say they did, Brother Boles says they didn't. So what? I suppose we are justified in concluding from Brother Boles' late denial that it would be against his principles to have an armed guard to protect lives and property at David Lipscomb College, even if he were needed. There is a dormitory out there full of girls. It would be wrong to have an armed watchman at night empowered to prevent by force, if necessary, an intruder entering the dormitories where girls slept or prevent burglars from plying their trade in the buildings. If this is still the condition out at the college and it is generally known, some criminal or pervert might conclude that he could have easy picking out that-away. One result might be that some father in Arkansas or Kentucky might conclude that he had better send his daughter to a school where it was considered right for her to have some protection. She could need more than Brother Boles' prayers. He has a definite connection with the Gospel Advocate organization. Its office is in the building of the McQuiddy Printing Company. If I am not sadly misinformed, lied to in fact, a watchman is employed to make regular rounds to see that nobody enters there who has no business there. It is my understanding that Brother McQuiddy owns a controlling interest in the Gospel Advocate and Brother Goodpasture has some stock in the company. If they can enjoy such protection, why would it be so terrible for the young women in a David Lipscomb dormitory to enjoy it? Or has Brother Goodpasture or Brother Boles persuaded Brother McQuiddy to dismiss the watchman? "After all, if we may judge the future by the past," I suggest that before another graceless thing like that goes in the Gospel Advocate, somebody ought to have Brother McQuiddy to "pass on it."