The last post on this issue was getting a bit too big to read easily. Here is an attempt to bring some perspective into the debate. No harm in trying!
There are some advantages of being older. One is that you have seen what comes around again.
On the arguments for and against nudity the same arguments and same texts have been paraded on the forum that have been debated for the 40 years I have been aware of this issue amongst Christians. Here are some hoary reflections.
1. The most consistent exegesis of the Genesis story in accordance with the most respected principles of biblical interpretation is that the provision of clothing is God related, not man centred. It is the beginning of the great themes of sin and redemption that run throughout Scripture. To argue that God was primarily concerned about Adams ands Eve s shame at their nakedness before each other as the main theme of that part of the story is the most insignificant of the two possible interpretations.
2. Thus, the interpretation of nakedness elsewhere in Scripture should not be interpreted within a belief that justifies as normal or healthy a sense of shame at being naked. In some contexts that clearly is what is meant, but the context clearly limits any assessment of the shame as a universally justified emotion for any public nudity.
3. Cultural factors cannot be ignored. How many Christians opposing pubic nudity on the grounds that it promotes sexual excitement (lust) are aware that I cannot take a devout Muslim of Hindu to an average church service because that would be far too erotic for them - Sunday mornings the equivalent of a peep show? I can recall that nylon stockings, trousers for women, lipstick, one piece swimwear, and single dating have all been condemned on those grounds by the Christian community. Female ankles, long hair, knees and cleavage have all been deemed erotic (sinful) in the past. Are we all part of a backsliding church?
4. The undefined use of the word lust is a hindrance to honest debate. It can often refer to sexual arousal, most obviously evidenced by the male erection. That this occurs readily in response to images of the female body is universally acknowledged. Therefore, the argument goes, men will be aroused by a naked females body. True. Thus, public nakedness will result in widespread sexual stimulation and lustful thoughts. We need to ask why this must be so? Is this as it should be? On this matter it is essential to take into account the actual experiences of christians who also claim to be nudists. They claim that open public nudity is not erotic, and does not automatically lead to breaking of Christian moral standards. They are either testifying to a valid experience, or they are being utterly untruthful. If the claim of christian nudists is an experiential reality, all Christians must accept what they say and evaluate it more honestly than what they have done so far. In the 70s I attended (clothed) one of the popular counterculture festivals popular at that time, as part of a christian group wanting to evangelise attendees. Clothed Christians were seen witnessing to naked youths almost everyone was partly or completely naked. I did not see christians reduced to ineffectiveness due to constant sexual arousal. The entire atmosphere at the festival was virtually free of eroticism much less so than at the average family beach or public swimming pool is today.
5. A trawl through the forum will show that sexual topics are the most popular by a very big margin. There is intense interest in sexual matters within the Christian community. Contradictions abound. Many christians oppose public nudity, yet many are getting their clothes off in one-on-one situations. Many christians oppose lust and anything lust arousing, yet wear form revealing clothes to church, bikinis at the beach, and use the internet for sexual material.
6. The real issue is not about some peoples preference for dispensing with clothes is suitable social situations. That is but a subset of the far wider issue of christians and sexuality. For me the real questions are:
Are christians comfortable with giving their children good sexual instruction?
Why are Christians as concerned about body image as non christians?
Why is there such a huge gap between church leadership and the younger generations on many aspects of sexuality and sexual morality?
How do we evaluate the fact that clothed christians today dress and behave in ways that would scandalise devout Christians of two or three generations ago? Where do you draw the line when the line changes quite acceptably every few years?
John
NZ
There are some advantages of being older. One is that you have seen what comes around again.
On the arguments for and against nudity the same arguments and same texts have been paraded on the forum that have been debated for the 40 years I have been aware of this issue amongst Christians. Here are some hoary reflections.
1. The most consistent exegesis of the Genesis story in accordance with the most respected principles of biblical interpretation is that the provision of clothing is God related, not man centred. It is the beginning of the great themes of sin and redemption that run throughout Scripture. To argue that God was primarily concerned about Adams ands Eve s shame at their nakedness before each other as the main theme of that part of the story is the most insignificant of the two possible interpretations.
2. Thus, the interpretation of nakedness elsewhere in Scripture should not be interpreted within a belief that justifies as normal or healthy a sense of shame at being naked. In some contexts that clearly is what is meant, but the context clearly limits any assessment of the shame as a universally justified emotion for any public nudity.
3. Cultural factors cannot be ignored. How many Christians opposing pubic nudity on the grounds that it promotes sexual excitement (lust) are aware that I cannot take a devout Muslim of Hindu to an average church service because that would be far too erotic for them - Sunday mornings the equivalent of a peep show? I can recall that nylon stockings, trousers for women, lipstick, one piece swimwear, and single dating have all been condemned on those grounds by the Christian community. Female ankles, long hair, knees and cleavage have all been deemed erotic (sinful) in the past. Are we all part of a backsliding church?
4. The undefined use of the word lust is a hindrance to honest debate. It can often refer to sexual arousal, most obviously evidenced by the male erection. That this occurs readily in response to images of the female body is universally acknowledged. Therefore, the argument goes, men will be aroused by a naked females body. True. Thus, public nakedness will result in widespread sexual stimulation and lustful thoughts. We need to ask why this must be so? Is this as it should be? On this matter it is essential to take into account the actual experiences of christians who also claim to be nudists. They claim that open public nudity is not erotic, and does not automatically lead to breaking of Christian moral standards. They are either testifying to a valid experience, or they are being utterly untruthful. If the claim of christian nudists is an experiential reality, all Christians must accept what they say and evaluate it more honestly than what they have done so far. In the 70s I attended (clothed) one of the popular counterculture festivals popular at that time, as part of a christian group wanting to evangelise attendees. Clothed Christians were seen witnessing to naked youths almost everyone was partly or completely naked. I did not see christians reduced to ineffectiveness due to constant sexual arousal. The entire atmosphere at the festival was virtually free of eroticism much less so than at the average family beach or public swimming pool is today.
5. A trawl through the forum will show that sexual topics are the most popular by a very big margin. There is intense interest in sexual matters within the Christian community. Contradictions abound. Many christians oppose public nudity, yet many are getting their clothes off in one-on-one situations. Many christians oppose lust and anything lust arousing, yet wear form revealing clothes to church, bikinis at the beach, and use the internet for sexual material.
6. The real issue is not about some peoples preference for dispensing with clothes is suitable social situations. That is but a subset of the far wider issue of christians and sexuality. For me the real questions are:
Are christians comfortable with giving their children good sexual instruction?
Why are Christians as concerned about body image as non christians?
Why is there such a huge gap between church leadership and the younger generations on many aspects of sexuality and sexual morality?
How do we evaluate the fact that clothed christians today dress and behave in ways that would scandalise devout Christians of two or three generations ago? Where do you draw the line when the line changes quite acceptably every few years?
John
NZ
