Whatever Is Pure: Cedarville Requires Professors to Apply Philippians 4:8

There are 71 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

....is that it's not just movies falling under the axe, but also literature.  Since a great portion of the classics--Lysistrata, Oedipus Rex, etc.,--are fairly earthy, this more or less puts serious shackles on the classics there.  Not to mention, say, frank discussion of the 22nd book of the Old Testament, or for that matter any number of other earthy passages from the Prophets and elsewhere where Israel's infidelity to God is compared to adultery and fornication.  

I understand the urge to "bowdlerize" to avoid needless offense, and I'm no defender of gratuitous violence and sexuality, but I would hope that Cedarville will come to a position where their policies are more sophisticated than just using movie ratings, and that they would realize that when we are talking about being "pure", that would correspond to the Bible's definition, not our culture's. 

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in "Schindler's List" and "Halloween", I've got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having.  Never mind the question of how a strict "purity"/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

TylerR's picture

All morning, I thought this was a Babylon Bee article!

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

WallyMorris's picture

Strange that a Christian college is trying to apply a well-known Biblical text to the confusing mix we call "culture" and all it gets from other Christians is criticism. Perhaps people should understand the policy thoroughly before criticizing.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

TylerR's picture

I thought it was satire because, honestly, isn't this a policy a Christian university should already be implementing, in some form?

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Bert Perry's picture

First, what Tyler says--though to be fair, the headline probably belongs to the writer more than it does to Cedarville.  

Regarding my criticism, all I'm getting at is that the policy would seem to prevent not only the teaching of a lot of great literature and film, but if strictly applied would also prevent the teaching of the Song of Solomon and various passages which speak of body parts in no uncertain terms. 

Or, again, put another way, I'm all for thinking on that which is pure, but we've got to do so in a Biblical way, not just one that derives from our culture.  Trying to be "Holier than the Pope" usually backfires.

T Howard's picture

Being a "classic" doesn't mean it's good (or profitable) literature to read. There are many "classic" (i.e. Greek and Roman literature) works that aren't worth reading. That being said, there are reasons we should study the "classics." Being exposed to their sexual proclivities shouldn't be one of them. Of all the classic literature available, why would a Christian literature prof purposely assign lude or sexually explicit works?

Larry Nelson's picture

 

In my high school's (Fourth Baptist Christian School in Minnesota, as some on SI know) American Literature class, one of our assigned readings was Shirley Jackson's famous short story, The Lottery.  This story, seemingly bucolic throughout its majority, abruptly ends with a sinister, chilling twist.  The annual lottery in question is a precursor to a ritual killing: https://sites.middlebury.edu/individualandthesociety/files/2010/09/jackson_lottery.pdf

I recall that it generated some fervent discussion in the classroom.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, it generated some fervent discussions (albeit of a different nature) outside of the classroom as well.  Some parents, and some others within the church, were appalled that the school would assign this story to its students (regardless of the fact that said students were 17 or 18 years of age at the time).  Our BJU-graduate teacher found herself needing to explain & defend the story's educational value within a Christian school context.

WallyMorris's picture

How much of the culture we expose ourselves to has always been a difficult area. We have had to deal with this ever since Genesis 3. And since Christ said that He wasn't taking us out of this world but was leaving us here to be the "salt and light", every generation of Christians has to figure out how to live in the world but not be part of the world. Many years ago, BJU put in print its philosophy about this (see Andy's post above), an excellent statement. The CT article was basically a hit piece, biased against conservative Christianity (not surprising considering the magazine). Kudos to Cedarville for putting in print its policy. At least it is attempting to confront a difficult issue. Always easier to criticize than create.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Wayne Wilson's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in "Schindler's List" and "Halloween", I've got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having.  Never mind the question of how a strict "purity"/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the "pure" standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context.  Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for "art" they are gone forever. 

Bert Perry's picture

Wayne Wilson wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in "Schindler's List" and "Halloween", I've got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having.  Never mind the question of how a strict "purity"/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

 

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the "pure" standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context.  Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for "art" they are gone forever. 

First of all, if we say "I think most godly Christians....would regard", what we've done is first of all set ourselves up as the standard, not Scripture, and we've also committed the basic logical fallacy of appeal to popularity--bandwagon effect.  To draw a picture, it is also simultaneously true that most "godly" Christians (and Jews) through the ages have decided that the Song of Solomon could not possibly be what its words portray it as.  Does that mean we ought to have a policy of "two Bibles" (to borrow a concept from Teachout and Brumbelow) where things that "we" consider "objectionable" are spiritualized, but other things are not?  

Before you do, remember that this will not be the only place where this kind of hermeneutic will be applied--it is a fast ride away from the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura, to put it very mildly.

Others have asked what could possibly be the reason for featuring literature like "Schindler's List" or many of the ancient Greeks, and there are two answers to that.  First of all, if it's not far worse than what we see in Scripture--that would include the rape of Tamar, the wedding songs of Song of Solomon, and graphic descriptions of the genitalia of the pagans--I don't know that we can consider it out of bounds on that alone.  Second, the reason to suffer through some of the perversity of the ancient Greeks is because western European culture since Roman days has been based on these writings--if you don't understand them to some degree, you don't understand your own culture.

One final note; if anyone seriously thinks that the Holocaust was the occasion that allowed nudity and sexuality into movies, even respectable ones, that would, again, be why they need to read some of the ancient Greeks.  The occasion for nudity in theater, besides opportunity and sin, really started the same place that nudity in art in western Europe began--with the Greeks, especially with renditions of Aphrodite/Venus and the consorts of Zeus, along with the cult of the eromenos among men.

 

Larry Nelson's picture

Wayne Wilson wrote:

Once barriers are down for "art" they are gone forever. 

Exactly what I was thinking on my visit to the BJU Museum & Gallery, with the (arguably indecent) artwork I saw on display.

(Larry dives for cover...........)

Wayne Wilson's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Wayne Wilson wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

Put a different way, if an institution cannot differentiate between the violence and nudity in "Schindler's List" and "Halloween", I've got to question whether a literature/English/etc., degree from that institution would be worth having.  Never mind the question of how a strict "purity"/bowdleresque standard might impact seminary education.

 

I think most godly Christians through the ages would regard watching people stripped naked and engaging in simulated sexual intercourse as violating the "pure" standard of Philippians 4:8, regardless of context.  Remember, the holocaust was used in the sixties to shatter all cinematic codes of moral decency in the movies. Once barriers are down for "art" they are gone forever. 

 

 

First of all, if we say "I think most godly Christians....would regard", what we've done is first of all set ourselves up as the standard, not Scripture, and we've also committed the basic logical fallacy of appeal to popularity--bandwagon effect.  To draw a picture, it is also simultaneously true that most "godly" Christians (and Jews) through the ages have decided that the Song of Solomon could not possibly be what its words portray it as.  Does that mean we ought to have a policy of "two Bibles" (to borrow a concept from Teachout and Brumbelow) where things that "we" consider "objectionable" are spiritualized, but other things are not?  

Before you do, remember that this will not be the only place where this kind of hermeneutic will be applied--it is a fast ride away from the first fundamental and Sola Scriptura, to put it very mildly.

Others have asked what could possibly be the reason for featuring literature like "Schindler's List" or many of the ancient Greeks, and there are two answers to that.  First of all, if it's not far worse than what we see in Scripture--that would include the rape of Tamar, the wedding songs of Song of Solomon, and graphic descriptions of the genitalia of the pagans--I don't know that we can consider it out of bounds on that alone.  Second, the reason to suffer through some of the perversity of the ancient Greeks is because western European culture since Roman days has been based on these writings--if you don't understand them to some degree, you don't understand your own culture.

One final note; if anyone seriously thinks that the Holocaust was the occasion that allowed nudity and sexuality into movies, even respectable ones, that would, again, be why they need to read some of the ancient Greeks.  The occasion for nudity in theater, besides opportunity and sin, really started the same place that nudity in art in western Europe began--with the Greeks, especially with renditions of Aphrodite/Venus and the consorts of Zeus, along with the cult of the eromenos among men.

So let's see, if we want to learn why nudity was allowed in the 1960s into movies, when it had been banned for decades, and banned for centuries in western theater, we need to read the ancient Greeks. It's probably more enlightening to read a history of film.  They have nothing to do with each other, except sex sells then and now. Here's a question Bert: If your wife or daughter or sister were an actress and required for art's sake be stripped nude and made to ride a naked man for the world to see... would you approve? Why or why not? It's a serious question.

And the universal testimony of the church regarding indecent theater, based upon many Scriptures, naturally (lust and shame, you can look them up), is to be discarded because that's an appeal to popularity?  So away with all moral consensus and all creeds. Mere popularity.  Every man should do what he wants with his own eyes. 

One more thought, most people realize there is a vast difference between reading that Tamar got raped, and hiring some starlet to act it out for our entertainment and enlightenment.  What effect do you think that has on the person?  Oh, yes, movies are made with persons!

TylerR's picture

This is a wise and sensible policy. It seems more like a framework within which the university can make appropriate curriculum decisions. I'm surprised it hadn't been implemented before. I have no problems with this new policy.

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Bert Perry's picture

Wayne, yes, I'll come out and say it; "universal testimony" of the church means nothing if it is contradicted by Scripture.  Ironically, Protestants universally used to believe that.  :^)  It's a logical fallacy and it contradicts the first Fundamental and Sola Scriptura, and it's worth noting that the church "universally" used to hold to works salvation, veneration of the saints, and a host of other doctrines we now abhor.  Thank God for Sola Scriptura!

So once again, if we are going to place restrictions on secular literature that we wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, place on the reading of Scripture, we are in clear sin.   

Not that we need to look at every mosaic from Pompeii to figure things out, or read every pornographic writing of the Greeks, but inasmuch as their culture defines ours, it's good to know about some of it.  And if we can tolerate the Prophets, certainly this will not irrevocably harm us.

Regarding the question of how actors are treated, absolutely, and it really all depends on the context of what people are trying to do.  If one tells me "I'm casting for a slasher movie and I need some eye candy", well, that's the "sex sells" thing.  On the flip side, let's imagine someone is casting for a movie that will remind another generation--a generation rapidly forgetting Shoah--that the Holocaust was real.  

Now I think the directors did those scenes wrongly--real residents of KZs and ghettoes would have been far leaner--but if I were, say, a cancer patient who actually looked the part, I might be willing to sign up for it.   The world seeing my tuckus vs. a greater possibility of a repeat of the Holocaust?   After all, David danced before the Lord, and Isaiah showed himself when God was displeased, no?

Same basic thing for the violence in Glory or Saving Private Ryan.  OK, at least as long they were only using dummy bullets and such!  Which really illustrates the problems with any mechanistic rule going by motion picture ratings, IMO.  

Wayne Wilson's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding the question of how actors are treated, absolutely, and it really all depends on the context of what people are trying to do.  If one tells me "I'm casting for a slasher movie and I need some eye candy", well, that's the "sex sells" thing.  On the flip side, let's imagine someone is casting for a movie that will remind another generation--a generation rapidly forgetting Shoah--that the Holocaust was real.  

Now I think the directors did those scenes wrongly--real residents of KZs and ghettoes would have been far leaner--but if I were, say, a cancer patient who actually looked the part, I might be willing to sign up for it.   The world seeing my tuckus vs. a greater possibility of a repeat of the Holocaust?   After all, David danced before the Lord, and Isaiah showed himself when God was displeased, no?

Same basic thing for the violence in Glory or Saving Private Ryan.  OK, at least as long they were only using dummy bullets and such!  Which really illustrates the problems with any mechanistic rule going by motion picture ratings, IMO.  

I didn't think you would answer my question. How could you and hold your position?  Now I don't even think you saw the movie.

Regarding Scripture, nudity after the fall is always, always a shameful condition in Scripture, except in the confines of marriage. No, David did not dance naked in public, nor is it at all clear Isaiah walked around stark naked. Even if you want to say Isaiah is disputable, can you think of a woman in Scripture that was honored for public nudity?

 

Jim's picture

The play I would like to see performed by a Christian drama group (HS or college): The famous Harvey: Harvey is a 1944 play by the American playwright Mary Chase. Chase received the Pulitzer Prize for Drama for the work in 1945. It has been adapted for film and television several times, most notably in a 1950 film starring James Stewart.

My part = Harvey

TylerR's picture

It would take a truly great actor to play Harvey the Rabbit. Are you sure you're equal to the task?

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Bert Perry's picture

Wayne, OK, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of Schindler's List, though I'm not quite sure how you're going to justify that knowledge, given your position.  My take is still that anyone who found the nudity in that movie "sexy" has problems entirely unrelated to seeing the movie, but that the producers missed the point of the showers by casting actresses who were a bit too well fed for the story.  

That said, the clear implication of 2 Samuel 6:20 and Isaiah 20:1-3 is that Michal and Isaiah both viewed whatever degree of nakedness David and Isaiah underwent as a shame, but it was from God.  It was, like that of the movies today, unacceptable degree of nudity for the culture at that time.  Same thing with Christ on the Cross.  Some of these things depend on the goal to be achieved, and the plausibility of achieving these goals, versus the individual harm suffered.

 

Richard Brunt's picture

I am in complete agreement with Wally, Wayne, Tyler, and T Howard. Also I read The Lottery in public school and still don't understand the "educational value".  And to Jim, I liked Harvey too and vote for you to play the lead role. 

Richard E Brunt

Wayne Wilson's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Wayne, OK, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of Schindler's List, though I'm not quite sure how you're going to justify that knowledge, given your position.  My take is still that anyone who found the nudity in that movie "sexy" has problems entirely unrelated to seeing the movie, but that the producers missed the point of the showers by casting actresses who were a bit too well fed for the story.  

That said, the clear implication of 2 Samuel 6:20 and Isaiah 20:1-3 is that Michal and Isaiah both viewed whatever degree of nakedness David and Isaiah underwent as a shame, but it was from God.  It was, like that of the movies today, unacceptable degree of nudity for the culture at that time.  Same thing with Christ on the Cross.  Some of these things depend on the goal to be achieved, and the plausibility of achieving these goals, versus the individual harm suffered.

Again you missed the point, and avoided the question I asked. And the last question I asked.  I'll let that fact stand on its own.  

And yes, I saw Schindler's List when writing a book on Christian entertainment choices because, as with you, it is the default movie everyone who sees your basic Hollywood faire uses to justify explicit sexuality, abundant nudity in the name of art, or history, or humor, or whatever emotion they desire to experience. "How can you condemn it if you haven't seen it?"  I heard that over and over again, always about Schindler's List and occasionally about Braveheart.  So i saw it, so I could respond with exact knowledge for people, like you, Bert, who pretend it only has nudity related to the shame of the holocaust. David Gushee gave a lecture I attended to Christians in Hollywood where he said Schindler's List simply had to be acceptable, because, well, it made his students cry.  This was some years before he started teaching homosexuality was acceptable for believers. Phil 4:8 still applies. When applied to art, it has something to do with good taste, which many holocaust movies have managed to achieve (The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, The Hiding PlaceJudgment at Nuremberg, e.g.) 

As I said,  Holocaust movies opened the door. Now anything goes, creating a moral holocaust all its own, if we regard souls as important as lives. 

 

TylerR's picture

This movie has a fairly explicit sex scene between Schindler and his mistress, apart from nudity in the camp scenes. There are ways to educate without involving immorality. There was no reason to show Schindler engaging in sexual acts with his mistress, or to display that mistresses . . . assets. Irrelevant to the picture. Likewise, the camp scenes didn't have to show complete nudity, but I can at least appreciate the argument for that inclusion, even while I completely disagree.

There was a time when difficult topics were put on film without nudity, immorality or profanity. Think Twelve O'Clock High. Think Anatomy of a Murder. Think Saving Private Ryan (which could have been better without the profanity). My son could have read To Kill a Mockingbird for literature this coming year, but my wife and I decided to choose something else. Yes, there is a tale to be told through this bit of literature. But, there is also some inappropriate stuff we don't want our 13-yr old to read. We may watch the movie, instead.

The real discussion, it seems to me, is the larger one of whether Christian college students should be treated like the adults they actually are, and simply be warned in advance, "Hey, this course has literature with this stuff in it." I've always struggled with this tension. I was running my own shift in a military police detachment when I was 19. But, at this Christian college, 18-22 yr-olds are being sheltered from film and literature when, honestly, many of them are streaming far worse on Netflix. People can and will grow up if they're treated like adults - I've seen it in the military. Of course, some don't ever grow up, either . . . Smile

I understand this policy and support it. I just struggle to understand how far a university should go in protecting it's students. They are adults, after all.

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

TylerR's picture

I know.

I vote for Neil Gorsch to play Jimmy Stewart's character. I read a news story where a frustrated Democrat explained that Gorsch would be almost impossible to defeat in confirmation hearings, because "he has the mind and ideology of Scalia, but the personality of Jimmy Stewart." After watching some clips from the hearings, I agree!

Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist

Jim's picture

TylerR wrote:

I know.

I vote for Neil Gorsch to play Jimmy Stewart's character. I read a news story where a frustrated Democrat explained that Gorsch would be almost impossible to defeat in confirmation hearings, because "he has the mind and ideology of Scalia, but the personality of Jimmy Stewart." After watching some clips from the hearings, I agree!

That was me. Received little recognition 

 

Bert Perry's picture

For reference,  Saving Private Ryan and The Pianist are also rated R and would therefore be banned by the new policy, and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is borderline at PG-13.  So the movies Tyler and Wayne commend here are pretty much gone from Cedarville's theater department.  Moreover, The Pianist was directed by convicted child rapist Roman Polanski.  (I can at least give Wayne props for avoiding guilt by association, but the guy does get royalties, folks!)

It is also worth noting that these movies got their rating by extreme violence.  Is that OK, but nudity is not?  As I recall, both adultery and murder are mentioned in the Decalogue, no?  Someone I knew joked, after The Passion of the Christ came out, that he wondered "does a movie contain enough graphic violence for discerning Christian viewers?"

Really, it's telling that the outrage on some peoples' part regarding Schindler's List is not people getting their brains blown out and standing in the shower terrified of the Zyklon B they knew could come out of those shower heads, but rather that some of them were naked.  Seriously?   Sometimes the fundamental preoccupation with immodesty and nudity makes me wonder how we ever go shopping.  

That said, again, the subject matter that is permissible is determined by Scripture, not us.  So while I appreciate it when violence and sexuality is veiled, our decision there is made not primarily by the reality of either, but by whether it has, as the Supreme Court noted, "redeeming social value."  I think reminding people of the sacrifices of Omaha Beach and William Wallace qualify, and so does the Holocaust.  The question is whether it's representative and whether it's effective.

And as I've noted before, I'd say the violence in Schindler's List makes a point, and so does some of the nudity.  

Jim's picture

My take on  Schindler's List, Titanic, & Saving Private Ryan: Best not viewed in Christian College setting

However I consider all worthwhile viewing for the overall message:

  • Schindler's List: We viewed as a family when it was broadcast. An important anti-Nazi, holocaust (the reality of) film
  • Titanic: I took my family to the theater. Important message about the brevity of life & mans' hubris w regard to technology. I personally found the nudity (albeit brief) unnecessary / gratuitous
  • Saving Private Ryan: I took my boys. So many positive messages about sacrifice & patriotism. One of my 2 boys later served 6 years in the USMC (Iraq war) and now is in the MN National Guard (Lieutenant) and is an Afghanistan vet. 
Joel Shaffer's picture

TylerR wrote:

. My son could have read To Kill a Mockingbird for literature this coming year, but my wife and I decided to choose something else. Yes, there is a tale to be told through this bit of literature. But, there is also some inappropriate stuff we don't want our 13-yr old to read. We may watch the movie, instead.

I read To Kill a Mockingbird either in 9th or 10th grade as did my oldest two kids.  But I think I'd have a problem with my 13 year old reading it.   

Wayne Wilson's picture

It is also worth noting that these movies got their rating by extreme violence.  Is that OK, but nudity is not? 

Bert, I know you don't answer questions, but I'll ask one for the sake of other readers. It's something I simply want an opinion on.  In casting notices for actors and actresses, there is always a notation "nudity required" as a heads up for what they are going to be reading (or stripping) for.  These notices never say, "Getting shot required." Or "Blown up required". Why do you think they have the notices on nudity but not violence?  What does the experience of the industry itself tell you?

Sometimes the fundamental preoccupation with immodesty and nudity makes me wonder how we ever go shopping.  

We go shopping to purchase things. We do not, I assume, pay money for people to dress immodestly for us or show their flesh while we are out doing it. We don't film it, carefully edit it, add lush or hot music to it, and stick it in front of our children's faces. if we do, we are in sin.  We live in a fallen, sinful world. There is a difference between enduring it, as righteous Lot's soul was tormented, and delighting in it, and financially supporting it.

So while I appreciate it when violence and sexuality is veiled, our decision there is made not primarily by the reality of either, but by whether it has, as the Supreme Court noted, "redeeming social value." 

This statement just knocked me down. Earlier in this thread, you said that appealing to the universal testimony of godly men in all ages regarding entertainment standards is committing "the basic logical fallacy of appeal to popularity--bandwagon effect."  In short, it should have no bearing on our thinking.  Fine, if you believe you are wiser than they were. But then you replace the witness of the saints by the standard of the Supreme Court of the United States, that something must have "redeeming social value"? That's where you get your standards?  

That was the decision that essentially legalized pornography in communities all over America!  The pornographers simply added stories or a brief lecture about marital bliss to their porn. That is the oldest trick in the Hollywood playbook as well --- salacious material woven into Bible stories (DeMille before the production code) or throwing in the "moral lesson" after a sea of sleaze.   That is a pathetic and horrific standard.  You are literally giving Hollywood permission to tease, corrupt and exploit anyone and everyone if they have something redeeming tossed in.  They know that game very well indeed, and the thank you for your support. 

This is how Hollywood still operates. As Natalie Portman said about her Academy Award winning film Black Swan,  "Everyone was so worried about who was going to want to see this movie. I remember them being like, ‘How do you get guys to a ballet movie? How do you get girls to a thriller? The answer is a lesbian scene. Everyone wants to see that."  You say it's art when that's done. They know better.

I look to these words spoken by Someone, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!"

 

 

 

 

Larry Nelson's picture

Jim wrote:

The play I would like to see performed by a Christian drama group (HS or college): The famous Harvey: Harvey is a 1944 play by the American playwright Mary Chase. Chase received the Pulitzer Prize for Drama for the work in 1945. It has been adapted for film and television several times, most notably in a 1950 film starring James Stewart.

My part = Harvey

Fourth Baptist Christian School did Harvey  in the late '70's---I couldn't give the exact year without looking through yearbooks.  The school also did Arsenic and Old Lace  around that same time.

Pages