Nakedness in the early Christian church

[tgg]

Hi,

I don't know if this topic has been given much scope, but there are some Christians who believe that nakedness was the standard procedure for baptisms in the early Christian church, and that Christ was also crucified completely starkers. Do you believe this to be true?

I've noticed that the threads on naturism in the philosophy and morality section have garnered the most heated debate. I think this largely comes down to such negative reactions about the human form and sexuality which I largely blame our modern Christian culture for.

Do you think that the church should bring back a return to such traditions, or leave them as they are?


tgg

 

[Philip]

I don't know if this topic has been given much scope, but there are some Christians who believe that nakedness was the standard procedure for baptisms in the early Christian church,

The Didache, which contains the oldest known extra-Biblical instructions, says this:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
​

No mention of clothes on or off. Perhaps someone familiar with Jewish practices could comment.

and that Christ was also crucified completely starkers.

Certainly possible.

Do you think that the church should bring back a return to such traditions, or leave them as they are?

For what reason?

 

[Tertiumquid]

I recall reading about "naked" baptism in an issue of Church History magazine. I'd have to go look for it to verify.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Airdude]

I don't know if this topic has been given much scope, but there are some Christians who believe that nakedness was the standard procedure for baptisms in the early Christian church, and that Christ was also crucified completely starkers. Do you believe this to be true?

Yikes!!! Cover yer eyes Mabel!

 

[depthdeception]

,
Do you think that the church should bring back a return to such traditions, or leave them as they are?

If the practice of naked baptism could be infused with some meaningful content, I would say yes. However, it seems that in our present culture (which you have correctly noted has a negative view of sexuality thanks to "Christian" culture), such an enterprise would only cause more problems than the potential good it might do.

 

[AngCath]

Early Baptisms (not all, especially temperature permitting) took place in a manner where after the prayers the person being baptized would take off their clothes, walk into the water, meet the priest and get baptized in the water, and walk to the other side where their community was waiting to give the person their new baptismal clothes (white). all of this was to symbolize new birth.

 

[Tertiumquid]

I recall reading about "naked" baptism in an issue of Church History magazine. I'd have to go look for it to verify.

Regards,
James Swan

I went and checked the source. Christian History magazine (Issue 37 vol. XII, no.1) did an issue on "Worship in the Early Church". In the article, "Did You Know?: Little-known or remarkable facts about worship in the early church," a painting of an early baptism ceremony contains this caption:

"More Than Water: By the early 200's, baptism often included renouncing Satan and all his works, making a statement of faith, being baptized (naked) in water, being clothed in a white robe, receiving anointing with oil, and immediately celebrating the Lord's Supper." (page 2)

No further information is given, though on page 41 in an article recapping a description of the baptism ceremony by Hippolytus (a.d. 215), the editors quote Hippolytus as saying,

"First he or she turned toward the west to renounce Satan, then toward the east to confess Christ. There were repeated anointings with oil, the symbol of strength. Once at least the naked candidate was anointed from head to toe. Then, oiled as if for bathing, the candidate entered the font, climbing in...or stepping down until knee-deep while a deacon poured water over the head, or pressed the candidate's head down into the pool.

There was another anointing perhaps- rituals differed- before the candidate dressed in new clothes. all this took place in the half-light, to the sound of hymns, in a state of high exaltation."

One wonders if this is part of the infallible oral tradtion that my Roman Catholics friends believe in.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[ps139]

At a charismatic Catholic meeting I sometimes attend, someone once drew a diagram of early baptisms, how there were steps down to a pool, where the person was baptised, then they walk up the steps on the other side. My guess is that this originated in a river or stream, with the steps being like the banks. But that is pure speculation on my part.
When you say infallible oral tradition... I'm not sure what you mean. We do not consider any single church father to be infallible, just because he wrote something. This particular document has historical merit and therefore is a trustworthy account of ancient baptisms. But it is not a matter of faith or morals, which are the only things infallibility applies to.

 

[Tertiumquid]

When you say infallible oral tradition... I'm not sure what you mean. We do not consider any single church father to be infallible, just because he wrote something. This particular document has historical merit and therefore is a trustworthy account of ancient baptisms. But it is not a matter of faith or morals, which are the only things infallibility applies to.

To my knowledge, Roman Catholics hold to two sources of infallible truth: the sacred scriptures, and "unwritten" tradition passed on by Jesus and the apostles.

My question/comment is, how do you know naked baptism was not an unwritten command passed on orally from Jesus or an apostle? Secondarily, how do you determine what an oral tradition is?

Regards,
James Swan

 

[bigg35]

I don't know... I can't help but think that we are confusing cultures. In the original Jewish culture I can't image an acceptance of naked baptisms.

Further, if you consider Jesus' statement about lusting after a women and committing adultery in the heart ... I can't imagine the early church performing naked baptisms. (Though the term 'naked' can at times refer to no outer garments ... but still having on undergarments).

Furthermore the article mentioned above in the Church History magazine talks about the years in the early 200's. At that time (from my limited understanding) we are talking about a time in which Greek/hellinistic culture permiated the church ... and considering that this culture included naked athletes in the Olympic (and other such) games, the import of that culture in the church does not mean that it is right - or the norm when the church started.

Perhaps some more knowledgable Church History people could give their say on my comments.

 

[ps139]

My question/comment is, how do you know naked baptism was not an unwritten command passed on orally from Jesus or an apostle? Secondarily, how do you determine what an oral tradition is?

Maybe you can ask in OBOB James? I do not really want to sidetrack this thread.

 

[ps139]

how do you know naked baptism was not an unwritten command

But the short answer, is that no one in the Church said baptism MUST be done this way, or it would be invalid. If a lot of the Fathers said that the apostles taught them that, then perhaps it would be part of apostolic tradition. But it is not.

 

[ps139]

I don't know... I can't help but think that we are confusing cultures. In the original Jewish culture I can't image an acceptance of naked baptisms.

I agree. Maybe though, to the Gentiles it was no big deal. Some of these converts came from the rites of Bacchus, which were pure sin. Naked baptism would be no big deal for them, in terms of one's modesty. Obviously it was a huge deal in growing closer to God.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Maybe you can ask in OBOB James? I do not really want to sidetrack this thread.

Sorry-didn't mean to sidetrack this thread- I only clarified my statement for you.

Unfortunately, I was chastised and warned once for "debating" on OBOB (when in actuality, I was simply presenting accurate information about Martin Luther). I consider OBOB perhaps the silliest moderated board i've ever been on. I swore I would never go back there.

On other forums, when I come across Roman Catholics who disagree with me, and resort to ad hominem attacks, I provide a link to OBOB and let them know that they can make any sort of mis-informed statement they would like to, without fear of a well informed counter response.

Obviously, i'm a little bitter about my treatment the one time I went on OBOB.

But, regardless, we can let this discussion end here, rather than sidetrack it.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[joyfulthanks]

I don't know... I can't help but think that we are confusing cultures. In the original Jewish culture I can't image an acceptance of naked baptisms.

Further, if you consider Jesus' statement about lusting after a women and committing adultery in the heart ... I can't imagine the early church performing naked baptisms. (Though the term 'naked' can at times refer to no outer garments ... but still having on undergarments).

Actually, the historical reading I have done indicates that this was one of the duties of female deaconesses. They would do the baptizing of the women. And yes, it seems that it was done naked - at least for a period of time in church history. The baptisms were not done in the presence of the congregation (for obvious reasons), but the person being baptized was baptized, clothed with a white robe, and then led out to the waiting congregation.

With love in Christ,
Grace