Is It Wrong to Display a Picture of Robert E. Lee?
— Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 —
Below is the latest “Questions and Ethics” query. Help me answer this question by telling me your thoughts in the comments. I’ll weigh in later. And remember to send me your real-life ethical dilemma to questions@russellmoore.com.
Dear Dr. Moore,
I’m a young minister in Texas, and a faithful reader of your stuff. Here’s my problem. In my home, I have on the wall a painting of General Robert E. Lee. Underneath is his quote on the definition of a gentleman. A close Christian brother and I have been in a kind of an intense debate about it.
My friend agrees with me that General Lee actually personally condemned slavery. But he thinks history’s representation of Lee (fighting for the Confederacy with all the accompanying issues of human slavery) could make my display of this painting a stumbling block to the cross, citing Paul’s letters to the Corinthians.
What do you think?
Not a Neo-Confederate
first, if your conscience is not preventing you from displaying it in YOUR home, then you should display it. Someone’s percieved impressions should not dictate what you do or say or show; only the bible should. If it does not violate God’s word then it provides opportunity for open and honest discussion which can and should lead people to the cross.
When people say that something is a ’stumbling block’ to the cross they often speak of it as if the cross magically vanishes from that person’s walk or path b/c they momentarily looked away, whether for good or bad reasons. Stumbling blocks are those things that purposefully distract one from the cross. A picture of R.E.Lee is not a stumbling block but rather an opportunity to express the truths of history in the context of the attrocities of history. History is interpretation, but interpretation needs truthful discussion and presentation. So, leave it up, explain the truth of history, and lead him to the cross through your love and words.
Dr. Moore,
I think it is entirely appropriate to display a picture of Robert E. Lee in certain settings (i.e. one where the one displaying it would be able to explain the rationale behind their decision). Robert E. Lee was a Christian gentlemen par excellence. When one studies his life, he or she cannot help but see how Lee was driven by a desire to glorify King Jesus in all that he did. That said, Lee’s life and example also tragically remind us that all of our earthly heroes fall short of God’s glory in many respects. In spite of the moral excellence of Lee and his determination to advance the Kingdom of God in Christ, he still found himself a leader on the wrong side of a war that was fought to defend the institution of slavery.
As a good Southern Gentlemen, I was taught by my history teachers to use phrases such as “War Between the States” (there was nothing civil about the war) and the “War of Northern Aggression.”) I can defend the Civil War as a battle for states rights with the best of them. The fact remains, however, that the state right the Confederacy fought for most was the right to own slaves, a moral abomination. It is that very fact that presents “Not a neo-Confederate” with his conundrum. Was Lee a hero and fine example we should look to emulate? Yes, in some respects. Did Lee find himself in the unfortunate position of fighting for a cause that was morally indefensible, siding with those who would deny African-Americans basic human rights and perpetuate the institution of slavery? Yes.
So what should we do with a picture of Robert E. Lee? Should we trash it or display it? My answer is to display the picture if led to do so, but with certain caveats. If the daily glimpse of Lee’s face, coupled with a helpful quote, inspires one to greater Christ likeness, by all means display it. Never forget, however, that Lee falls tragically short of God’s standard of perfection (Matt 5:48). In that respect, he is like all of our heroes, with the exception of one, Jesus Christ our King. Were I to display the picture of Lee, I would strive to make sure those who saw it in my office or home, were aware that I was aware of his faults, knew that I admired his beneficent qualities only, and looked first and foremost to my ultimate hero and hope, Jesus of Nazareth.
I think a little grace is essential here. As Chris Bonts excellently noted, Lee, like all humans, falls short of God’s standards. Did Robert E Lee fight on behalf of a government condoning the institution of slavery? Indeed. But you’d be hard-pressed to find any historical characters without significant moral red flags. Human beings are sin-ridden without exception. In fact, Biblical characters themselves often have the most questionable character! Sure, David was a man after God’s own heart, but he was also an adulterer and conspirator to murder. Paul was a passionate evangelist, but does that make up for his earlier life murdering believers? (Answer: no, but the cross does, by God’s grace.)
If it is wrong to have a picture of Robert E. Lee on your wall at home, it would also be wrong to have a college that bears the name of James P. Boyce, founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who unlike General Lee, owned slaves. However, to make such a suggestion, in my opinion would be ridiculous. These men were products of their time and culture. However, they should be remembered and respected not only for their strong roles in history, but for the Christian character they displayed among a culture that at many times failed to do so. Lee did not want the war to begin with and did not agree with the institution of slavery, yet answered the call to defend his home state of Virginia. Boyce while owning slaves is remembered in his memoirs for being kind and generous to those he owned, taking very seriously Ephesians 6:5-9. Keep in mind also, Martin Luther, would get drunk and write anti-semitic writings. Should you take all his writings off your book shelf?
History is messy, and when dig deep enough and study, you’ll find that all of man is fallen. But that shouldn’t come as any surprise to a Christian. By the grace of God, however, we can see redemptive qualities in individuals as well. These are good stories, and good history. Don’t throw it all away because some modern day, politically correct revisionist can’t handle it. Covering up the truth is never a stumbling block.
By the way, Memorial Day, that holiday we just celebrated was originally called Decoration Day. It started to actually remember soldiers in the Confederate and Union army. I don’t want to forget or take for granted the price that was severely paid by both sides.
I think in keeping with Luther’s admonition that a Theologian of the Cross (has anyone else read Forde’s book by that title) is one who “calls a thing what it is,” then there is really is no harm here, IF the brother has a clear understanding of the nuances of Southern history without glossing over slavery.
No.
@Rick,
I agree with Rick. Thank you.
I suspect that this means that the writer is/was a member of the Kappa Alpha fraternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_Alpha_Order
I see nothing wrong with the painting in his personal residence.
I think he should keep it AND put up a picture of a civil rights hero too. That would really confuse people. :)
The study of history is interesting because the historians are always jaded by the risk of being beheaded (Either figuratively or literally) if they go too far against the prevailing politically correct opinion of their own day.
Everything must be taken with a grain of salt, and nothing should be trusted at face value.
The truth is the truth, and suppressing the truth to build the patriotic consensual lie is still suppressing the truth..
We do indeed have the problem of Philemon. Do we tear it out of our bible? The consensus, I am afraid is Yes. We need a reasoned approach to the whole issue, whether it is popular or not.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. That said, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. So the questions is, does this draw me and others closer to God or further away?
-Marshall Jones Jr.
@bondChristian,
Well said, this is the true test. As in the words of Andy Stanley: The Gospel is offensive, but we must not be. If anything in my house would draw any man away from the cross then to hold on to that thing would be selfish pride at the least, and possibly idolatry.
@bondChristian, I agree with your response. I personally admire RELee greatly and Stonewall Jackson to boot. I think the responses to this question have been very well stated.
I don’t necessarily think it’s “wrong” to display it privately, but does that mean if I had a black friend over to my house I should leave it up? I don’t think so in that situation.
That’s not PC, that’s just plain consideration of others. There’s a difference, and there is currently a dearth of the former and scant evidence of the latter.
I would not recommend it. Although General Lee may represent Christianity and being a gentleman in your mind, he has also become a symbol of racism in the minds of other people as they see him as a leader of the Confederacy. If you want to have friends of other races in your home, you may not want to hang something on your wall that would be a barrier.
Much has been made of whether Lee was a “Christian Gentleman.” I expect the collective opinion of those who have looked into it is that the General does indeed fit that description. However, no one has spoken to the point of a picture. Reference has been made to the apostle Paul. We have his books. But books (letters) do not communicate the same way an image does. The same can be said for Martin Luther. As I look at the pictures on my wall a pattern seems to develop. We put pictures up to help us remember something fondly or to color our attitude in that particular space. Since I am responsible for what I communicate in my space, even unknowingly, it is incumbent upon me to consider how something might in fact adversely affect someone else. I may say that it does not matter in the end, but I had better know that if I choose to “color” my living area a certain way, and invite people to share it, I am responsible for what that space, and its decorations communicate.
The fact that this pastor’s friend brought up the existence of the Lee portrait is an indication of legalism. The painting is in his home! What one puts in one’s office where one is going to meet with potential non-believers is different - those icons/artifacts are deliberately conveying a message and I do think one should be selective.
Think of the opportunity this pastor could have for a discussion if non-believing neighbors came over for supper and asked about it? He could extol the general’s christian virtues and point out the sin of slavery and make a great point about Christians being saved sinners.
I would find a Union general who is worthy to admire and place his picture next to Lee. That way you are honoring history and pointing out good character. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain would be my choice.
Just when I thought I hears it all! While I don’t think you need to go out of your way to be offensive, I also think you don’t need to question every little thing you do to see if it might be offensive to anyone. I can guarentee that no matter what you do, someone will be offended. Becoming a ’stumbling block’ has become a buzzword for ‘don’t do anything I might think is a bad witness’. When I was growing up, this includes playing cards, dancing, or reading magazines that had women in swimsuits in them. I present the Gospel, God convicts them of sin and a need to repent. If they are looking for the ‘perfect man’, they will not find it in me. They will find Him in Jesus.
Unless I am wrong, Paul’s admonition against becoming a stumbling block concerned eating meat sacrificed to idols and the possibility of causing a weak Christian to go back to idol worship. It had nothing to do with someone’s initial conversion, of which I am only the messanger. God is the Author.
The boron line is that I would see nothing wrong with having a picture of Robert E. Lee hanging in my home.
It is absolutely wrong to display a picture of Robert E. Lee in one’s home! He fought for the Confederacy over states rights issues! That may not be a big thing to some people, but it could be a real stumbling block to others. We also need to make sure that we do not put up pictures of other sinners either. King David was a murderous adulterer and we do not want people thinking that we condone either of those heinous activities. The apostle Paul that people keep referencing was a murderer of jews as well! Do you people want to be seen as being supportive of a narrow-minded, extremist zealot even though he later became a Christian? And while we’re at it Scripture itself is EXTREMELY divisive. I’ve even heard that when presenting it that it was an aroma of death, do we want something like that making people uncomfortable?
Grace and Peace,
Jeff
he is not the only minister in Texas representing the Southern ideals!
My comment really concerns the display of the confederate battle flag, not the display of General Lee. Moreover the proper conduct of a gospel minister has higher standards in the New Testament too.
I had a clergy friend that displayed both, and more, in his home. I am from the rural South and I personally don’t mind these symbols. That may be because I understand their true referent. I think one can educate and demonstrate the values behind those symbols to any guest in your home. My problem was not with the display but with the preeminence.
My clergy friend, and the minister in Texas, both put down earthly allegiances to fly another banner. I personally hope that guests in my home remember my devotion to the Sovereign of Creation and not another, albeit noble, government.
Perhaps my friend and the questioner of this post should find a more appropriate setting for his devotion…
Lift High the Cross
@Sarcastic Brother: hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
If it’s wrong to hang that picture up, it’s wrong to have a picture of Luther because he was anti-semitic.
I have enjoyed most of the comments and I think that these discussions can be helpful as we strive to live out the gospel in every area of our lives. I’m a friend of the minister in Texas with the painting AND the other minister who originally questioned the painting. I want to give some context to the question to see if it changes anybody’s perspective on what it means to be a ’stumbling block’. The minister who questioned the painting is black and he is from a town where non-blacks would hang the confederate flag and pics of Robert E. Lee while performing and saying extremly racist things. His point in questioning the painting was that if he were to bring blacks (specifically referring to his un-saved brother) from his hometown into this minister’s home, they immediately would spot the picture and associate it with racism thus hindering this minster from sharing the gospel. For him, though this minister has a ‘right’ to hang the picture, he should forego any rights that hinder the gospel.
@JWill,
I’ll stick by everything I said earlier even given this newfound information and would politely argue the same thing regardless of color or experience. Are there crosses to be found around either of these ministers churches? If so, would you take them down because the Ku Klux Klan uses them? Of course not. They misrepresent what the cross stands for and the racists in this particular gentleman’s hometown gave a misrepresentation of Lee. The black minister knows this, and evidently knows better of his friend who is the white minister. And if the black minister were to be invited into the author of the original letters home, along with his friends from the same town, they would probably experience a welcome from him that they did not receive from some ignorant hater with white skin who misrepresented a fine, Southern Christian Gentleman.
Thanks for the context JWill.
If it would possibly hinder my ability to share the gospel it would be gone in a heartbeat.
As someone who has had a life long interest in history, and who is also a minister, this question interested me. I taught history for a few years after college, and could see myself in the future having pictures related to the American Civil War in my office.
With that said, however, being from the South, I also understand the strong feelings that images of Confederate leaders could invoke strong feelings, regardless of race.
For that reason my advice would be very similar to Brent’s. I enjoy Civil War history. I also enjoy some of the particulars of Confederate history. In the way I present that interest, however, I do not want to be misunderstood as having a singular passion for the Confederacy or its leaders…who far the most part all supported slavery or at least the theory of slavery to some degree. If I were to place an image of such a person, it would need (in my mind) to be balanced with images of a Civil War battle, or of a Christian Union leader. In doing so, the emphasis is placed on the history portrayed and not the parficular view of the Confederacy only.
@Cade Campbell, I recognize a few grammar mistakes in my above post. Oh well.
Dr. Moore- In light of the previous question on displaying a picture of Robert E. Lee-there was a similar situation in my previous church. There was a pencil sketched picture which has been in the church for decades. It displayed a progressive panorama of the appearance of the church building since it’s founding (over 160 years ago). The history of the church and facilities is a big deal to many in the congregation. The church was established prior to the Civil War and has in one of the depictions of the church building, a small but unmistakable drawing of the Confederate Flag. - The rendering was displayed in the foyer/vestibule before one would enter the Sanctuary. Now the question/s is: should the history of the church be ignored or a depiction of it’s facility progression be be removed simply because some may find the rendering offensive? If the rendering is removed are we once again-bowing down to one of the main god’s of our age ‘Political Correctness’? Does Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians apply to this one situation as well? And if so -How? Thank You
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. After Gettysburg, the confederate Army was weakened and retreated back south. There were tens of thousands of wounded Confederate soldiers defenseless and unable to fight. The Potomac River was high because of rain and they were unable to ford. President Lincoln knew the ConfederateArmy was in dire straights. He ordered his Commanding General to attack and destroy these wounded Confederates, however, the General refused to obey the oder. Lincoln was furious. History has been kind to Lincoln, but he too was not the perfect hero history leads us to believe. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Everyone is in need of salvation which comes only through Christ.
Your brother disagreeing with you is not the same as him being a weaker brother or stumbling because of it. But your concern is a good, and is one that we should ask about every lawful activity. We do not want any of our liberties or preferences to be a hinderance to the gospel. If you were to have some black neighbors over to share the message of Jesus with them (which you should!), this painting might be a stumbling block. According to I Corinthians 10 one of the most important ways we glorify God in all that we do- even “eating and drinking” -is to please others. That is not relativism, that is self denial for the glory of God. It is what Robert E. Lee did, and it is at the heart of being a true gentleman.
Great care and consideration must be given regarding giving offense to our brothers. Of that much, we can be sure.
It is possible that the “offense” can be based upon a misperception, in which case the removal of the misperception may be much as effective, or even more so, than the removal of the offending item. Here are some reasons, in no particular order, that I think this might be the best way to handle this question.
Any image of a person without a fault of some kind would be a prohibited image, as it would be a violation of the 2nd commandment. The only sin-less, faultless person would be a member of the God-head, of whom images of any type are prohibited. The mere fact that a picture of Jesus would not usually give such offense to a church-man, but one of a historical person offends, shows how we often neglect to consider these things within scriptural parameters.
I do not mean, by that, to justify the use of images of notoriously wicked men, so part of the question still remains. To answer it, we should again look to scripture. The issue with Mr. Lee, it seems, has to do with the issue of slavery. I will admit that there were components of Southern slavery that were radically unscriptural– but we must make a distinction between the evils attendant with Southern slavery and slavery itself. Would Mr. Lee have been ex-communicated from the Apostolic church for his support of slavery, as an institution, or were slave-holders permitted to be members in good standing in these N.T. assemblies? Answering that question will, I believe, answer the question as to whether Mr. Lee shoud be condemned on his support of slavery alone.
But what about the other evils that were associated with Southern slavery? One of these was “man-stealing,”- a practice clearly condemned in scripture. Kidnapping of people was strongly condemned, and Southern slavery grew out of the practice of kidnapping Africans (and others) to be sold into permanent slavery. Tens of thosands of these slaves came over on Nothern ships flying the American flag. Southern ships were not used for this purpose– in fact the slave trade was largely out-lawed in the South before the world. Could not one just as justly claim offense at the sight of the American flag — the flag that flew above the vessels which carried on the immoral and wicked trade? We could also include here images of Northern officials, as well as the flags of the States of Ohio, Illinois and Indiana– states which enacted very immoral laws making the peaceful residence of a black person within their borders an impossibility in the years leading up to the war. Then there’s the most condemnable words of Mr. Lincoln himself–”"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” My point here is not to claim that the Northern sin was greater than Southern sin, but to suggest that someone needs to reason with the offended brother as to how far he wants to take this thing.
I love the South and I love my Southern heritage. I do recognize it’s sin and I am aware that my love for the South my take a place lower than my love for my Lord, His Church and my bother. The War was a bloody mess, but were I called upon to take my place in it, I would choose to take my stand alongside my Southern comrades in defense of my Homeland– which is what I believe Mr. Lee did. I would also oppose slavery, in the form that it existed– and I see no contradiction here.
I’m from Texas originally, and I would say that if a painting of Robert E. Lee could be a stumbling block to the cross–in Texas of all places–then the world has become a strange place indeed.
I wonder, Not a Neo-Confederate, if your friend has the same objections to paintings of George Washington, who was a slave owner himself. Or the great theologian Jonathan Edwards, who was also a slave owner. Even Abraham Lincoln, though he opposed slavery, held views on racial inequality that are repugnant to modern people (he didn’t want blacks to hold public office or be able to intermarry with whites, etc.).
I think there are two main points here:
(1) We moderns cannot simply assume that we are superior to previous generations because we see things our way and they didn’t see things our way. I’m not advocating moral relativism here, but I think sensitivity to the historical context in which people before us lived is imperative for us to receive the riches of the heritage they have left to us. Sure, we can see some things more clearly than they did, but we should also be much more open to the possibility of the converse and approach them with great respect and humility. I find it very difficult to fault Lee for his loyalty to Virginia. In fact, the lack of such loyalty could have been a moral failing on his part. Although we moderns tend to paint it as a simple black-and-white issue, the Civil War is not so simple to evaluate morally. There are plenty of virtues and vices on both sides of that conflict.
(2) Ultimately, the kingdom of God is not about paintings or food or drink or observance of special days, etc. Give up your rights willingly for the sake of the gospel. Take down the painting if it is going to be a stumbling block to others (or move it to a room where no one else ever goes but you). But first determine if your friend’s concerns have any real plausibility. Do people (especially Texans!) really get offended at a painting of Robert E. Lee? Most of the people I know from Texas would have greater respect for you if they saw it on your wall.
Dear Not a Confederate,
You’re good. Leave it up.
I am confused about this problem. The initial objection was that the picture would be a stumbling block. However, for something to be a stumbling block for someone to the Cross of Christ and the Gospel would not that person need to be outside of the body, unrepentant, a nonbeliever? Is the person who objects to the picture of Gen. R. E. Lee fit this criteria? Not according to the initial description of him, “Christian brother.” So, then, it seems to me that the dispute at hand between these two individuals has less to do with advancing the Gospel and more to do with maintaining fellowship between two Christians.
Although the question was one that asked us of the rightness of displaying the image in question, the question that should be answered is different. The more appropriate question to be asked is this - what’s more important, the exercise of someone’s rights; or, the exercise of love, grace, and wisdom? It is not wrong for this man to have a picture of this brilliant military tactitian on his wall. But, what is the loving, gracious, and wise thing to do? Which act would strengthen the bond between these two brothers; and which act would weaken the bond between these two brothers?
Friend, if this picture is truly causing your brother to become emotional and distant with you and you want to keep it, place it in a place in your home that will prevent him from seeing it. However, the wisest and most loving thing that you could do is to put it away. Don’t make the mistake of holding too tightly to your rights on this issue. Too often in the church in America we make this mistake.
I am from the south and have lived from Texas to Georgia. I went to a school that the mascot was the Rebels! Our flag was confederate. I had a bumper sticker on my four-wheel drive that said “Rebel Pride”. And I had, for the most part, only white friends.
It wasn’t until later that I came to an understanding of how these things are related. Yes, it is sure that Lee, along with many other “southern gentlemen”, fought as their duty to the south in a war they did not necessarily believe in for a cause they believed was immoral.
Two questions: (1) Would it be more likely that most people would be aware of this, or simply be ignorant to these facts and therefore offended by a picture of Lee because of his connectedness to the side of a was that condoned slavery and its continuance?
I would go with the former and err on the side of safety.
(2) How does having a picture of Lee (reread my second paragraph) point others to Christ?
Sure there are lots of things we have that are not for the sole purpose of soul winning, but I choose to remove the things that might be a stumbling block.
Am I to understand that you are citing other historical expressions of sin as justification for promoting General Lee’s picture? That logic does not follow biblically. Also, the charge of legalism is unhelpful to the conversation. Clearly, no one here is attempting to earn status before Christ based upon adherence to a legalistic code. Rather, the question is how do we best proclaim the excellences of him who called us out of darkness into his own marvelous light; (1 Peter 2:9-10 ) so that, when Gentles “speak against you as evildoers, they may see our good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12). And indeed the “gentiles” speak against “us” as evil doers. That is, the liberation theologian charges us with a disregard for social issues. Their argument is that while we preach about the doctrine of justification, we give no credence to how that justification is best received within a transformed corporate community of believers. Thus, we disregard how Christ’s death transforms cultural and social injustices. Their arguments bring up some helpful critiques. True theology is not something by way of philosophical or theoretical proposition. Theology is first and foremost what we do and believe. Two implications then: First, I cannot simply accept General Lee in proposition without also assessing his actions. He found himself on the wrong side of a war that, in part, threatened the very fabric of true theology, “in the beginning God created man” (Gen. 1). Two) True theology finds its place in the ministry of the saints. The reoccurring question I have to answer from dark skinned unbelievers & believers is how can they, being Christian, endorse a man who fought for slavery. They’re unwilling to separate orthopraxy from orthodoxy no matter the context. Are we only to be concerned with cultural context with regards to the validity of the Gospel on the mission field? No, the goal is simply that they may see our good deeds and glorify God. It requires that in everything I do I’m attempting to paint the Gospel. I forgive, because I’ve been forgiven. I love, because I’ve been loved. Within our cultural context General Lee’s picture is being used as a symbol of segregation. Hence, true theology is being willing to contend with social issues for the advancement of the Gospel. Some might then conclude, well hang up the picture. But, the problem is that for many the picture will immediately take away your ability to share the Gospel. Imagine being spit at, maligned, cans thrown at your head, racial slurs, being marginalized, etc etc etc etc etc. Hard to imagine? Not for me, it’s what I’ve experienced as a result of having more of a chemical in my skin than yours. All of those occasions were marked by a picture or flag, not by my choosing, but by those who have chosen to disregard the image of God in me. Unfortunately, General Lee and the rebel flag have become a symbol that will never be neutral no matter my education on their origins. If it were not for the Gospel your ability to share the Gospel with me would be severely severed. And that’s exactly the point. It seems that the mis-education is not on who General Lee was, but rather, on who I am as a darker skinned Christian. I’ve lost friends, family, and status because I believe all men to be made in the image of God. But, that’s the demands of the Gospel.
While as a history-buff I understand and appricate the complexity of a man like Lee, and the complexity of the war he has come to represent, I hesitate to so quickly write off your friend’s concerns. While indeed we could pick and prod to find “dirt” on almost any historical figure, Lee has come, even if unjustifiably, to be the figurehead of a movement. While the intracasies of this can explored in deep conversation, it seems here the problem is that of apearences.
When paul deals with the issue of meat sacrificed to idols in I Corinthians 10 he says “But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake, the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. The meat might have been a wonderful conversation starter, just as some of my brother’s have implied Lee to be here. But it seems to me that Paul is more concerned with the clean conscience of a brother than a good conversation starter. Many who might be offended, might not ask.
It seems best to me to avoid the stumbling block if there is not a great reason to keep it present. It isn’t an open and closed case to be sure, but perhaps this is a peice better suited for the bedroom than the sittingroom.
humbly yours
Jamin
I would hang it. I myself am a black man that knows that Lee was far from a racist and in fact had a higher esteem of blacks than did Lincoln. If anyone would question it I would explain that Lee was against slavery. Sadly, history classes don’t tell the whole story. I was raised believing that the Civil War was about slavery, which it wasn’t. Lincoln would have kept slavery if he could have.
Does this commitment to exploring the lesser known historical “truths” behind seemingly sinful actions and events extend to every issue? Or is it only used to rationalize a regional pride? If it turned out that the partial-birth abortionist who was recently shot in his church foyer, was in fact a devout believer, would it be allright to hang his picture in my house? If I admire Hitler’s military and political genius, can I put his picture in my office?
Keep the quote and source, lose the picture? I have a copy of the Ten Commandments on my wall but it does not include a picture of Moses.
I believe it is selfish not selfless to assert person rights that would offend others. I believe hanging the picture is fine as long as you don’t want any people of color in your church.
I used to have all kinds of Civil War paintings and memorabilia in my church office. People would bring it to me, knowing I was a Civil War buff–much of it with spiritual connections–though I don’t think the Ulysses S. Grant whiskey decanter qualified for that. :)
One day, one of our African-American members came into my study and saw the painting behind me of Lee reading his Bible, and the aforementioned decanter, and said, “I see you got one or yours (referring to Lee) and there’s one of mine (referring to Grant).”
That bothered me. I wondered what others may have thought, but left unsaid. For me (and I stress this is according to the dictates of my conscience) I removed those items to my home where I display them all–North and South–in my study at my house. I just didn’t want anything in my church office which might be a stumblingblock or source of contention that could be avoided.
For what it’s worth.
I am looking for a picture of a Christian Barbarian rather than a gentleman.
While I appreciate Robert E. Lee as a “Christian gentleman” and while I realize that we all have things about us that could be offensive, Lee symboliizes to many the fight to keep slavery. Certainly we can display any picture we want in our own homes, but I personally would be concerned that one of my black friends would be hurt or offended by my lack of sensitivity.
…random thoughts after reading the post and comments.
I am a descendent of Robert E. Lee on my mother’s side and a Ukranian Jew from my father’s (he was born in a German Workcamp after the family was taken from Kiev by the Nazi’s). I live in the PacNW and President Lincoln is one of my hero’s.
I have the stories of how Robert E Lee treated my “great great” grandma as a child and what she remembered of the treatment of those enslaved on their property.
I find many of past leaders beliefs and practices, tasteless and antithetical with Christian world views. If we dug, would we find any tyrannical evidence in Martin Luther Kings life? How about Malcolm X? As it pertains to Christians, am I offended by a Christian brother or sister having the picture of any of the many transformational figures hanging in their den? No! Luther was an alcoholic. Do I assume they lack christian integrity because of their admiration for men of valor and weakness? No.
~adam
As a Mississippian whose grandfather was named R. L. (Bobby Lee) I find a more pressing question. Is it wrong NOT to display a picture of Robert E. Lee in my living room? :)
I found this article via a link on Facebook, and felt I must reply. I am a Jewish-American, born and raised in the North. However, since my teen years I have had a deep and abiding love of the Confederacy and the South. It stemmed from incorrect information taught to me by a black, white-hating high school history teacher. His bias led me to research the history of the War Between the States on my own, and after I did, I became a confirmed Southern nationalist.
Having said all that, speaking strictly from a spiritual point of view, I have read much of what General Lee has written, and what has been written about him, by both friends and foes. And I can say that I have never before met a person whom I would consider a truer representative of Jesus and the Christian faith than General Robert Edward Lee.
Not only do I have his picture framed and hanging in my living room, I also have an afghan displaying his image, along with that of his beloved horse, Traveller, on my bed.
So for those who wonder whether displaying his picture causes non-Christians to stumble, know that this non-Christian Jew admires him so much that I have been led to investigate the claims of the Christian Faith because of him.
Every American patriot should have a photo of Robert E. Lee hanging on their wall.
Perhaps our ancestors believed slavery was right because while there were no verses criticizing slavery there were numerous verses that seemed to endorse slavery as acceptable because proper treatment and responsibilities of slaves (servants) was specified. I will not participate in technical arguments of biblical interpretations but wish to point out that many of our ancestors, rightly or wrongly from current interpretation, sincerely believed the bible condoned slavery. Perhaps modern day interpretations would not so indicate this but one must take the interpretations in the context of 150+ years ago.
Consider these versus, among others. ( I hope I got the following correctly listed)
Deu 15:12-15
Eph 6:9
Col 4:1 3:22
Ex 21:2, 7, 20-21
Lev 22:11 25:44-46
1 Tim 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Eisenhower letter regarding Robert E. Lee
President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott’s letter reads:
“Dear Mr. President:
“At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
“I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
“The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.
“Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours,
“Leon W. Scott”
Eisenhower’s response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dr. Moore:
Your correspondent writes, “my friend agrees with me that General Lee actually personally condemned slavery.” That’s not true. One often hears a very short quote from a long letter to his wife where Lee describes slavery as an “evil,” but that mischaracterizes the whole passage, which is much more complex and ambivalent. In the larger text, Lee argues that the institution of slavery is beneficial to the enslaved, and is part of God’s larger, unknowable plan. While Lee looks forward to eventual emancipation, he’s entirely passive about it, and suggests that “we must leave the progress [of the enslaved] as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day.” In the larger passage, Lee argues against the work of abolitionists, saying that “if [the abolitionist] means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master.” Lee found slavery distasteful, and distanced himself personally from the day-to-day workings of it as much as he could, but he did not by any means “condemn” it, or feel so strongly opposed to it that he refused to personally benefit from it. Although the documentary record of Lee’s personal ownership of slaves is fragmentary, he was served by slaves (either his or others’) right up to the surrender at Appomattox.
I would encourage you and your correspondent to look into Elizabeth Brown Pryer’s Reading the Man as an essential biography, drawn from Lee’s own records, that gives a more-fully-rounded picture of Lee’s complicated and ambivalent relationship with the “peculiar institution.”
More here.
There is a story I have read about Robert E. Lee. After the war Lee had stopped at the home of some folks. The lady of the house was telling him how terrible the yankee soldiers had behaved when they came on her property. She pointed out a tree that the troops had damaged. The lady told Lee that whenever she looked at the tree it reminded her of what those troops had done and she could never forgive them. Lee told her to cut down the tree. I don’t know if the story is true or not; but it kind of makes me wonder what advice Lee would have given you about the painting.