God Doesn’t Like RED! (the Failure of “Guilty-By-Association”)

Weird post title?

I agree.

No, I don’t really believe that God doesn’t like red. Quite the opposite, actually.

But… if I am careless (and biased) in my approach to biblical interpretation, I can make a pretty strong case from the Bible that God doesn’t like red. He might even hate it!

“Guilty-By-Association”?

Ask a preacher about what God thinks about nakedness, and you’ll almost always hear, “Throughout the Bible, you’ll find nakedness associated with shame. Therefore, nakedness is shameful and wrong.” In other words, Nakedness is Guilty-by-Association.

To start with, it’s worth observing that they will not point you to any Scripture passage which simply and clearly condemns nudity. In fact we can make quite a list of “rules” about nudity that are not found in the bible.

There is…

• No verse that forbids you to see others naked.
• No verse that warns you against allowing anyone to see you naked.

The “exceptions” are missing, too.

• No verse that says you can see your spouse naked.
• No verse that says doctors are permitted to see their patients naked.
• No verse that says how young your child may be and still see you naked.

Why don’t they just point to such a verse that forbids public nudity? Simply because there isn’t one.
So, they have to utilize the next best thing… the Guilty-by-Association argument.

“Guilty-by-Association” on Trial

OK… let me say up front that I don’t believe “guilty by association” is any proof of “guilt” at all. Scripture interpretations based on “Guilty-by-Association” are false. I know of no teaching about moral standards—accepted among biblical Christians as doctrinally sound—which is based solely on the “guilty by association” argument.

Wait… I know of one… the argument against social nudity. That’s the only one.

But if “Guilty-by-Association” is not accepted for any other moral teaching, why is it accepted for this one issue? Is “Guilty-by-Association” actually is a sound interpretational means to discern God’s moral perspective on a matter?

If “Guilty-by-Association” is a valid way to interpret the Bible, then God hates RED. And I can prove it!

==================================================

God Hates RED!

A survey of the Bible shows how the color red is associated with sin or sinfulness.

In the Old Testament:

• Isa. 1:18 - “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.
  • Obviously, God wants us to know that sin is associated with the color red, for He repeats Himself, comparing sin to scarlet AND crimson.
• Numbers 19:1-10 – This law calls for the slaughter of a Red Heifer for the sin of the Israelites. The entire animal was to be burned (no eating any part of it) along with some red cloth.
  • The priest who performed the sacrifice was to be considered unclean. Being unclean is obviously not a good thing.
  • Likewise, the one who gathered up the ashes after it was burned was to be considered unclean.
• Proverbs 23:31 – “Do not look on the wine when it is red…”
  • God’s disdain for the color even extends to what we drink.
• Genesis 25:25  - “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau.”
  • Later in his life, Esau sold his birthright for some “red stuff.” (Genesis 25:30)
  • No wonder God says in Malachi 1:3, “I have hated Esau.”

In the New Testament:

• Matthew 6:13 – Jesus said, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’
  • Bad weather is associated with the color red.
• Rev. 6:4 – “And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.”
  • The Second Horseman of the Apocalypse, sitting on a red horse, bringing war, and death.
• Rev. 12:3 – “Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.”
  • This perhaps the most damning verse of all, for red is the color of the Dragon… Satan himself!

So, in the scriptures, we see a consistent pattern of the color red being associated with sin, sinfulness, Satan, or other bad things. This is how we can know that God hates RED.

It’s Innate!

This is something that God has built into every person, too. Think of these facts about how we respond to the color red in our lives:

• We naturally recoil at the sight of blood, which is red.
• When someone gets very angry, we describe them as “seeing red.”
• If our financial ledgers have a negative balance, we are “in the red.”
• We use red to tell people to STOP!! And no one likes to be told to stop.
• Red is the sign for danger.
• Red is color of destructive fire.
• Women painted with red lipstick are a source of temptation to lust for men.

It’s easy to see why red has a negative meaning in human society; this is directly the result of the fact that God hates RED!

The Christian who wishes to live a life pleasing to God will judiciously eliminate red from his or her life.

=======================================================================

STOP!!

Everything I’ve just written about how God hates the color red is utter poppycock.

Pure rubbish.

Terrible, terrible interpretation.

And it’s because I’ve invoked the “Guilty-by-Association” argument.

“Guilty-By-Association” Fails the Test

Let’s look at how bad it is and why it’s so wrong.

1. I was prooftexting. I searched for and cherry-picked verses that I could somehow twist into supporting my pre-determined conclusion. If it didn’t support my point, I skipped it.
2. And that brings me to my next error… there were many references to red in the Bible that are NOT associated with sin or anything bad. So if red is not always associated with sin or bad things, the color itself cannot be the issue!
3. I lifted the passages completely out of context. I quoted only that portion which I deemed to support my conclusion. Esau was not rejected by God because he had red hair. The red sky at night (as opposed to the morning) indicated good weather to come. There were four horsemen, each on a different color horse.
4. I focused on the color to the exclusion of any other part of each passage, making it sound like the color was THE reason the text indicated anything sinful or bad.
5. I paid no attention at all to the fact that there are multiple words that are translated as “red” in the Bible. They are not all used the same way.
6. I completely ignored the fact that red is a natural color found abundantly in creation… utilized to great beauty in the natural (and very good!) world!
7. Finally, NONE of the passage were in ANY way given to us to communicate God’s attitude towards the color red!

This is how you make a point using the “Guilty-by-Association” argument. And it is all wrong.
God knows how to declare His standards of conduct. His clear words of moral absolutes are found throughout the Bible. When God doesn’t clearly call something sin or forbid it, then we must not presume to “add it in” using a spurious or false argument to support it.

Nakedness is not a new thing among humans. It is simply inconceivable that God would have failed to clearly state his will regarding nakedness if He really did wish to forbid it (see Inconceivable Omission).

Let’s review how those who use “Guilty-by-Association” make the same sort of errors that I made trying to prove that God hates red…

1. They use prooftexting. I have seen many people simply list Scripture references rather than present clear interpretation of those verses based on the context. If they do quote a verse, they never present it in its context. When I respond to such folks, I take the scripture reference they’ve given me and quote it back to them in its full context (with an explanation of what it really means), I simply get no reply back! Prooftexting always fails the test of careful and honest exegesis.
2. There ARE verses in the Bible that present nakedness without any shame or sin associated! Sadly, many of them have been translated out of the English language Bible (See Squeamish Translating) so that the references to nudity that remain in the English translations are mostly negative (Seriously...see Squeamish Translating)! Studying the matter by consulting the original languages reveals this bias against nudity and deals a blow to the “Guilty-by-Association” effort. The fact is, unless all occasions of nudity are equally “shameful,” we cannot conclude that the nakedness is the de facto source of the shame.
3. Passages about nudity are often lifted out of context. Most notably is the teaching against incest in Leviticus 18… which uses the euphemism “uncover the nakedness of…” for incest (since there is no Hebrew word for “incest”). The phrase absolutely and unequivocally refers to having sexual relations with a close (“blood”) relative (reiterated 4 times in the passage… see Lev. 18:6, 12-13, 17) . Yet those who have pre-determined that the Bible forbids social nudity do not hesitate to rip that phrase in Leviticus 18 right out of its context in their attempt to declare social nudity to be immoral (see also The Meaning of Nakedness).
4. Opponents of social nudity regularly quote passages of Scripture that deal with nakedness and shame and they invariably assign the shame to the nakedness rather than the behavior of the “shamed” person. The truth is this… every time there’s shame associated with nakedness, there is ALSO a description of the person’s shameful and sinful behavior! It is indefensible to focus on one aspect of an account and presume that it alone is the source for the shame related in the text.
5. There are a number of words in the Old Testament that refer to a person being without clothes. Here’s another very significant FACT about nakedness in the Bible… of all the Hebrew words that reference nudity, only ONE (ervah) is ever associated with sin and shame! That observation by itself should tell us that simple nudity is not the moral problem Bible people seem to want it to be (see The Meaning of Nakedness).
6. Opponents of social nudity conveniently ignore the fact that God created Adam and Eve (and all of the other creatures in the world) to live naked and unashamed. It was so significant to His “very good” creation that it merited a special mention in Genesis 2:25. This very positive attitude about His naked creation—expressed by the One who cannot change—is completely ignored and/or discounted. God didn’t change His attitude about the naked human form… people did! (see Who Hates Nudity… God or Satan?)
7. Finally, there’s not ONE passage in all the Bible expressly given to us in order to inform us of God’s moral view of nakedness (with the possible exception of Genesis 2:25, which affirms the goodness of nakedness). Therefore, each and every passage cherry-picked to make a guilty-by-association argument against nakedness is a passage that was not given to us for that purpose! Again, if God wanted to tell us what His moral opinion is about simple nudity, He could have, and He would have. But He didn’t.

We Must Not Be Hermeneutically Lazy

Yes, we can all see that there are passages where nakedness and shame are closely associated. But nothing is “Guilty-by-Association” when we study the Bible to determine moral truth. Not even for nakedness. It is simply irresponsible and lazy if someone is willing to accept superficial conclusions about nudity based solely on the Guilty-by-Association argument.

As it turns out, “Guilty-by-Association” is the only argument that’s ever been available for use against social nudity, so it’s the only one that anyone has ever heard. It’s been repeated so frequently that no one ever pays attention to the fact that very foundation of the argument is false. Nor do they bother to examine its conclusions and put them under honest hermeneutical scrutiny.

“Guilty-by-Association” is false. It is always false. And it’s high time that solid and trustworthy teachers of the Bible be honest enough about it to lay it aside… even if it means giving up their opposition to nudity.


— Matthew Neal

A Reader’s “Biggest Scriptural Challenge”–Part 1

Jasen’s “Biggest Scriptural Challenge

In my previous post, I invited readers to submit their “Biggest Biblical Challenge” with reference to the practice of naturism by a Christian who genuinely wants to live a godly life.
One reader named Jasen responded with the following:

My problem is not with the concept of social nudity. I believe the Bible makes it clear God intended for us to be naked, and that culturally within Biblical times there was plenty of public nudity that God could have condemned if He'd wanted to but did not, and all the other things your blog so richly explores.

However... Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority, and Romans 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."

I believe (and I can't put my hand on a nice collection of verses to back it up at the moment) that we are instructed to live at peace within our culture in so far as that culture does not directly contradict God's Word. If I lived in India, I would wear pajamas. If I lived in the Middle East, I would wear a beard. If I lived with a tribe in the Amazon, I'd most likely wear next to nothing (I'd at least give it a try and see how my soft body would handle such exposure).

I currently find myself in the USA. And the USA has a deep cultural aversion to social nudity. The roots of such aversion are incidental; it is the custom of where I live. Therefore I restrict my participation in social nudity, and limit my public advocacy for social nudity. Yes, I believe I have freedom to visit the local nudist resort, or to vacation to a nudity accepting place (like St. Martin or Mallorca or Germany). However, I recognize that if word of my being socially nude got back to people in the USA it would most likely damage my testimony. That is challenging.

Is it worth participating in an activity that I have personal freedom and comfort with Scripturally, knowing that the culture I live in condemns such activity?

A Thoughtful Response to Thoughtful Questions

Well, Jasen, thanks for writing! I suppose it all boils down to that last question, doesn’t it? But to satisfactorily answer that one question, we need sound answers to your other questions.
Let me address your questions just a few at a time.

My problem is not with the concept of social nudity. I believe the Bible makes it clear God intended for us to be naked, and that culturally within Biblical times there was plenty of public nudity that God could have condemned if He'd wanted to but did not, and all the other things your blog so richly explores.

This is a good place to start. Sadly, however, this simple and honest conclusion from an unbiased evaluation of biblical and extra-biblical history is quite rare. Most people approach the entire issue of nudity with such a bias against it that the only conclusion they will even entertain is one that supports their bias. More often than not, they are completely unaware that their bias is the true driver of their conclusion.

However... Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority, and Romans 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."

Yes, we are commanded to obey our civil authorities… and that would extend to those laws with govern nudity in public. And yes, we should not be looking for opportunities to “stir the pot" just for the sake of being cantankerous.

But… there is a caveat… What if the beliefs that undergird the “law” are false? What if there really is a lie to be opposed? We can’t take this passage to mean that we must pursue peace instead of truth. And the reality is that when a lie has a firm foothold in a culture or in a life, opposing that lie will not result in peace. And the “edification” that comes from promoting truth may not be well received if the lie holds sway in someone’s life.

But I have not actually given you an answer here that you can run with regarding the practice of social nudity or “letting people know” that you practice it. The real question is: “Is this lie worth opposing and exposing?” … or… “Is the lie doing damage to the lives of people, so that opposing the lie is actually a compassionate investment in people’s lives that will potentially result in the promotion of true righteousness?”
Keep those questions in mind… I’ll come back to them.

Live at Peace With All Men…

I believe (and I can't put my hand on a nice collection of verses to back it up at the moment) that we are instructed to live at peace within our culture in so far as that culture does not directly contradict God's Word. If I lived in India, I would wear pajamas. If I lived in the Middle East, I would wear a beard. If I lived with a tribe in the Amazon, I'd most likely wear next to nothing (I'd at least give it a try and see how my soft body would handle such exposure).

I think the verse you’re thinking of is from Rom. 12:17-18…

Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. (Rom 12:17-18)

It definitely is a good thing to be sensitive to the norms of a culture when we’re walking among people of that culture. Adopting the clothing styles and eating the same food as the “locals” will always be a good thing because it minimizes differences between people and expresses respect for the people and customs of those around you.

BUT… if I’m visiting among Indian friends, and when they enter their own house, they take off their shoes and then do homage to their house deity, I’m happy to take off my shoes, but I will not bow down to their god… If my refusal to bow to their god results in a disruption of the “peace,” so be it.

So again… is there an identifiable lie that I must not submit to? Can I follow customs without affirming falsehoods? Do I need to find a way to proclaim truth in order to break the power of the lie in someone’s heart? These are the defining questions that have to drive our decision on how to live in light of the truth we understand about the meaning of the human form.

The Symptom, Not the Disease…

I currently find myself in the USA. And the USA has a deep cultural aversion to social nudity. The roots of such aversion are incidental;…

Ok… gotta stop you there… I would argue that the roots of such an aversion is NOT incidental! Maybe you need to research that a bit more. If that aversion is based upon and continues to promote a lie, doesn’t that matter?

… it is the custom of where I live. Therefore I restrict my participation in social nudity, and limit my public advocacy for social nudity. Yes, I believe I have freedom to visit the local nudist resort, or to vacation to a nudity accepting place (like St. Martin or Mallorca or Germany). However, I recognize that if word of my being socially nude got back to people in the USA it would most likely damage my testimony. That is challenging.

Yes, that is challenging. But I think your focus is off just a bit. It might sound weird for me to say this—I do call myself The Biblical Naturist, after all—but I don’t think that promoting the freedom to practice social nudity should be what we are about!

You see, the rejection of social nudity is the symptom, not the disease. The real theological “disease” is the perception of the human form as only sexual. It is the assumption that our one and only “automatic” response to its sight is sexual arousal and desire. The real issue is that we—the people of God—have utterly rejected the Glory of God as revealed by the unadorned human form, made in God’s Image.

Defining the visible human form only in terms of its impact on the libido is an insult to the One whose image is seen there. But it is ONLY by such a redefinition that anyone can reject social nudity! We correctly discern that God commands sexual purity, but then we assume that since the sight of the naked human form is a sexual experience, we must also reject nudity because it “obviously” promotes impurity.

So, at its core, the rejection of social nudity is evidence that someone has rejected the visible image of God and replaced it with what I would call a pornographic view of the body.

The nudity taboo that springs from that pornographic view of the body is therefore, a false rule; it is man-made. And Col. 2:20-23 tells us that such man-made rules for righteousness are of “no value against fleshly indulgence.”

Why I Do This…

I don’t promote “social nudity.” I promote a biblical understanding of the meaning of the human form.
And I do that for two reasons:

• For the glory of God. We must recover the truth of the Imago Dei…
  • God’s self-revelation in the human form has been rejected by the church today. The prevailing sexualized understanding of the human form is an Insult to God.
  • Only by embracing the full meaning of the Imago Dei and rejecting that pornographic understanding of the natural human form can we see the Glory of God revealed in our bodies as He intended.
• For the pursuit of true Purity. We must reject false, man-made rules that have “the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Col. 2:20-23)
  • The man-made “nudity taboo” has been the central teaching of the church regarding the pursuit of moral purity for a long time. By any measure, it isn’t working. The church today is less sexually pure than perhaps any time in its history (the secret addiction to online pornography is epidemic).
  • Only by teaching the correct perception of—and response to—the visible human form can we have any hope of seeing real and lasting moral purity in the people of God.

This is my real purpose. This is my real message.

How Then Should We Live?

But as you may have read in my 3-part series, Naturist by Biblical Conviction, It is not credible to reject the falsehood, but then still submit to it in every aspect of my life. If I am truly going to reject a lie, I must live as if the lie is not true.

And this gets back to your issue… if you really reject the lies that undergird others’ adherence to the nudity taboo, should you never even let on that you live by a different understanding of the human form?

What do I recommend for you or anyone else? I’ll put it this way:

• If you only practice naturism because it’s a freedom you have before the Lord which you personally enjoy, then keep it to yourself.
• If you practice naturism as a conviction about living by the truth and opposing the lie in our culture and within the church, then be prepared to proclaim the truth and to be persecuted for it.
• But don’t promote “naturism”… that will not get you anywhere. Proclaim the truth about what our bodies really mean. That’s the real issue.
• And don’t be stupid about it… pray for, look for, prepare for, and anticipate those opportunities where God is at work in someone’s heart, preparing them to embrace a life-transforming truth.
• I have learned that unless God is doing that work in someone, no amount of logical or persuasive words will break the grip of the lie in their heart. Spouting off your beliefs when there is no readiness to receive truth will usually only result in needless conflict.

What About “My Testimony”?

You mentioned the issue of your “testimony.” This is probably a good spot to talk about that a little bit.
First of all, I think that’s often a euphemism for “reputation” or perhaps “credibility.” Here’s why I mention this… often we make decisions in our life with a view to maintain our “testimony” when what’s really happening is that we are making our decisions based on how they are perceived by others. In other words, we are submitting to the moral judgment of others instead of standing before God alone with regard to what is morally right. This is called “the fear of man” in the Bible, and it is also called “a snare” (Prov. 29:25)… a trap.

What really matters is whether or not we are living in the truth before the Lord… not the “truth” as perceived by others. Many prophets in the Old Testament had an awful “testimony”… if you judge by how poorly they were received by the people around them. So long as you are following God and living faithfully according to the truth, your “testimony” is exactly what it should be. Ultimately, people will see that you live consistently with your beliefs, even if they think you’re wrong.

Truly, our real "testimony" is never enhanced by submitting to lies. In fact, when we refuse to embrace, promote, or abide by rules or beliefs that are NOT biblical and NOT part of the gospel and NOT measures of true righteousness, I submit that our credibility goes UP—not down—especially before unbelievers.
Think about it this way: I proclaim an assortment of "truths" to an unbeliever—either by word or by my life. Those truths include the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But they also include "truths" that are really culturally adopted lies. In that unbeliever's heart, however, the Holy Spirit is working to draw them to the truth. Unfortunately, however, the Spirit can only confirm some of those "truths" that I'm proclaiming. So that person is left wondering why only some of what we've communicated really rings true (confirmed by the Holy Spirit) in their heart. In other words, our real "testimony"—our impact for God—is damaged by our adherence to the cultural falsehoods. It is not damaged by the criticism of other believers.

If You Have to Hide It, It Must Be Wrong… Right?

Let me change gears here and talk about a related issue. It has been very difficult for my wife to accept the practice of naturism “in secret.” For her, just knowing that people would reject us “if they only knew makes the whole thing seem “wrong” to her. It feels like if we have to hide something, then it must be wrong, because why would we need to hide something we’re doing that is right?

But that’s not really the measure of right and wrong, is it? God’s character and His Word are the measures of right and wrong. Standing firm on what God has revealed to you when it seems like every Christian around you thinks you’re wrong, though, now that can be pretty difficult.

A Very Strange Predicament…

So… do you tell them about your beliefs, or do you not? (that question again…)

It is interesting to me that we can find ourselves facing the rather odd reality on this matter… such that greater openness actually promotes falsehood rather than truth. Here’s why…

Right now, people perceive of my wife and me as a godly couple who serve the Lord faithfully and are raising a family to love and serve God. This, I trust, is genuinely true. It is not diminished in the least by the fact that we have visited naturist resorts and have no requirement for clothing in our home.

But if those facts were known, the same people who view us as godly now might begin to perceive of us as perverse and ungodly people who are damaging our own children and leading them astray—ideas which are patently false.

• So by withholding some information, people continue to believe the truth.
• By revealing information they are not prepared to comprehend, people would believe a lie.

I genuinely wish I could tell everyone about my beliefs about the body and my practice of naturism. I don’t think there has been any other decision in my life (besides my faith in Christ and my marriage) that have had a more profoundly positive impact on my life. And while I’m constantly alert to opportunities to invest related truth in others’ lives, I’ve determined that—at this point in time—full disclosure would be more of a hindrance to truth than a help to it.

And So… Your Question Still Remains…

Is it worth participating in an activity that I have personal freedom and comfort with Scripturally, knowing that the culture I live in condemns such activity?

Ultimately, I think everyone has to answer that for themselves…

But before you answer that question, you might consider framing the question this way:

• Is it worth restricting my freedom just to avoid the condemnation of others?

And there’s another even more important way to think about that question:

• Is there a truth to proclaim that’s worth facing unjust criticism and mistreatment for?

For me, the answer to the first of these two questions is “no,” and the answer to the second is “yes.”

But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be indiscriminate in the practice of my beliefs, nor am I going to needlessly subject myself and my family to the attacks of others. So, that’s where I stand at the moment.

Sorry… I Can’t Answer For You.

No, I can’t answer the question for you or for anyone else.

I can only urge you to seek the Lord and follow His leading for your life a faithfully as you can.

But, honestly, I hope that you’ll be one of those that He calls to proclaim and live the truth about the real meaning of the human body. The task before us is great, and we are few…

— Matthew Neal

Part 2 (still to come…)

Your Biggest Scriptural Challenge to Naturism…

I’m a Christian Naturist

If you’ve been following this blog over the years, you know that I’ve not only claimed to be a Christian Naturist, but also a Naturist By Biblical Conviction.

Of course, having been raised like just about every other Christian in the United States, I was taught from childhood that social nudity was forbidden by God and that only in the context of marriage (or the doctor’s office) was it permitted to allow our unclothed bodies to be seen by anyone of the opposite gender.

When I first considered the claims of so-called “Christian Naturists” (which seemed an oxymoron at first), I had to evaluate them in light of the teachings of Scripture. And there were a bunch of Scriptures that I “knew” taught against social nudity.

The Scripture Test

Because I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God, I believe that they are true and authoritative. Consequently, my evaluation of naturism began by seeking to discern what God had revealed about His perspective on nudity. Whatever God revealed about the issue, that’s what I wanted my position to be.

And let me be very clear… My approach to Scripture on this matter was never to defend naturism, but rather to know what the Bible really teaches. And if that ever means my long-held views must be laid aside, then that’s what I’m committed to do.

So… when I began my study, I purposed to look at every passage that mentioned or implied nudity. I especially focused on those passages which had always been put forth to “prove” that God forbade social or casual nudity. I reexamined them to discern if we had been correct in our interpretation of them as it applies to the nudity issue.

I Was Quite Surprised…

To my surprise, not just one or two of the “anti-nudity” Scriptures turned out to be misinterpreted or misapplied, but every last one of them had been!

In other words, when I examined each and every passage that has been used to support a claim that social nudity is wrong, not a single one of them—when correctly and honestly interpreted—could satisfactorily justify a moral absolute that forbids social or casual nudity.

Some Passages Are More Challenging Than Others

As I pursued this study of God’s perspective on nudity, there certainly were some passages that seemed to be more antagonistic towards nudity than others, and as such, they presented more of a challenge to work through and discern if that’s really what they were teaching us.

I suspect that I’m not alone here in this observation… So, I’m asking you as my readers…

What’s been the most troubling or difficult passage of Scripture for you in reference to the practice of naturism by a Christian who wants to live in harmony with God’s Word?

• Maybe you’re an naturist already, but there’s one passage that’s still bugging you… Let me know and I’ll tell you what I have concluded on it.
• Maybe you’re just considering naturism, but you still can’t reconcile the practice with one or two verses in the Bible… Let me know what they are and I’ll share with you my perspective on them.
• Maybe you’re still pretty sure I’m dead wrong on my interpretation of the Scriptures in regards to nudity… tell me which passage or passages you believe most clearly and conclusively prove me wrong, and I’ll show you why I believe they have been misinterpreted and misapplied. If you still disagree, you are then invited to answer back. I always welcome honest dialog!

Everyone Points to a Different Scripture…

One of the interesting things I’ve observed over the past 7 or so years since I became a naturist is that those who oppose it “on Scriptural grounds” never seem to be in agreement on which Scripture most most clearly demonstrates that nudity is wrong. One person will stand immovably on one passage, while the next person is absolutely convinced that some other passage is “all the proof they need.”

To me, this underscores the fact that there simply IS no scripture passage that clearly teaches against social nudity… else everyone would automatically present the same passage. Consider these questions on morality and where we turn to declare God’s mind on the issue:

• Is adultery wrong? Yep. Exodus 20:14
• Is lying wrong? Yep. Exodus 20:16
• Murder? Exodus 20:13
• Theft? Exodus 20:15
• Homosexual sex? Leviticus 20:13
• Incest? Leviticus 18
• Lust? Matthew 5:28
• Social Nudity? … ah…. well… there’s no agreement on which specific scripture forbids it… but everyone knows that the Bible is against it, right?

See what I mean? We’ve been sold on the idea that nudity MUST BE forbidden in the Bible. And Everyone knows it, so we don’t need a specific passage that actually SAYS SO! If you need one to give to someone, just pick the one you like best. One is as good as the next… provided you don’t evaluate it very carefully.

Nonetheless, I welcome anyone who wishes to hear where I stand on the passage they find most difficult for naturists to “dodge.” And I promise… I won’t dodge!

It’s Been a Dry Spell for The Biblical Naturist.

I haven’t written on this blog recently… and it’s pretty much because I’ve addressed all the topics I set out to cover when I began the blog. So, I need some direction from you—the readers—to tell me what you’d like for me to cover next.

I look forward to hearing from you!

— Matthew Neal

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction

You Can’t Do That! it’s Wrong!

At what point must a Biblical Christian modify his own behavior because someone else thinks that what he is doing is wrong?
I’m not talking about the black and white issues where God has clearly spoken… I’m talking about the “gray” areas that the Bible does not directly speak to. Sometimes, committed Christians study the same Bible, but come to completely opposite conclusions about the morality of a particular activity.
When that happens, does the one who doesn’t conclude that an activity is wrong have a moral obligation before God to refrain from that activity because the other believes that it is? There are three different options in response:

1. Refrain completely, at all times.
2. Refrain while that person’s presence.
3. No obligation to refrain at all.

Of course, one may decide to refrain out of deference to someone else, or to avoid conflict, but that is at the sole option of the individual, and not a matter of moral obligation.

Doesn’t the Bible Teach Us to Do That?

Well… that is the question… Does the Bible teach us to refrain from certain behaviors around others whose beliefs about right and wrong differ?
And, like many questions, the answer is, “It depends.” If it truly is a “gray issue,” then the answer to what a Biblically faithful believer must do is dependent upon the context and the people involved.
Interestingly enough, the Bible IS pretty clear about what our response should be, depending on the various people and contexts. Or to put it another way… The Bible is black and white about “gray areas”!
The problem arises when someone tries to enforce their own views about gray areas upon others. Is there any Biblical justification for that? 
That question is my real target for this series of posts. In the process of answering it, I will show what the Bible really teaches on the topic I raised above.

The Passages in Question

I will be addressing three primary Scriptural commands that are frequently used by some to impose their own view of “gray areas” on others:

The “Appearance of Evil”

1 Thes. 5:22 (KJV)

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

The “Weaker Brother” (Causing to Stumble & Giving “Offense”)

Romans 14 (NASB)	“It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.” (v21)
1 Cor. 8 (NASB)	“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (v9)

For “Conscience’ Sake” (Meat offered to Idols)

1 Cor. 10:23-33 (NASB)

“But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;” (v28)

These are the passages that are frequently misinterpreted and misapplied.
If we desire to be truly Biblical Christians, we need to avoid that mistake.
— Matthew Neal
============
In this Series:
You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”

“You Shouldn’t Do That!!”

Those of us who have been Christians for a lot of years have undoubtedly been told that there are certain things that we must not do… not because they are wrong in and of themselves, but because people might see us and think that we are doing something wrong.

“The Bible tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil!” They would say…

And… well, it is right there in 1 Thes. 5:22… in the King James Version at least.

So, we’ve been taught that if “most people” associate an activity with sin, that we should simply abstain from participation… because of the “appearance of evil.”

This is what we were told about rock music… and playing cards… and dancing… and alcohol… and movies…

But Is That Right?

That’s a very important question! If what we were told is correct, then we need to apply that passage to our lives exactly that way. So, let’s take a closer look at the text. Let’s see if this really is about “appearances.”

Here is the passage in multiple versions:

1 Thessalonians 5:22

KJV	“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
NKJV	“Abstain from every form of evil.”
NASB	“Abstain from every form of evil.”
NIV	“Avoid every kind of evil.”
Amp	“Abstain from evil [shrink from it and keep aloof from it] in whatever form or whatever kind it may be.”

The underlined words above are each translated from the Greek word, eidos (G1491). It is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape” or “form, kind.” It actually refers to something visible… in other words, it is something actually appearing.

Is “Appearance” Just About “How Things Appear” (but aren’t really)?

The word "appearance," as we use it in English, has the connotation of something which "appears" to be something when in fact it is not. And that’s exactly how it’s been applied to various issues like those I listed above.

But the only English translation that seems to support that idea is the KJV… all of the others seem to go out of their way to avoid wording that leads to that understanding. It’s as if the translators knew that the KJV’s rendering led to a faulty idea about “appearances” so they translated it in a way that show the actual meaning is to avoid real evil, not just something that might be thought by others to be evil.

I would restate Paul’s words this way:

• “Avoid evil, wherever it appears.”
  or (to use the KJV’s word)
• “…wherever evil makes an appearance, abstain from it.”

Dangerous Application…

But what if someone else really believes an activity is sinful? Are we morally obligated to refrain from an activity that we know to be morally pure (or neutral) because someone else thinks it’s wrong?

Let’s put it in more stark terms… Does the Bible teach that we are obligated to follow the moral standards of other?  

Well, that can’t be what 1 Thes. 5:22 means…  Jesus Himself didn’t practice it!

• Religious people of Jesus’ Day considered it “evil” to work on the Sabbath. They had a long list of things which constituted “work.” Jesus was well aware of their list, but did some of those things which had the “appearance of evil” anyway: He allowed His disciples to pick grain (Mark 2:23-24). He healed people (Luke 14:1-6). He told a man to carry his bedroll on a Sabbath (John 5:5-11). When the Pharisees “reminded” Jesus that it was forbidden (read, “sinful”), He rebuked them and rejected their standard of behavior. And He did the “forbidden” thing anyway!
• Religious people of Jesus’ Day knew that it was “evil” to be associated with “sinners.” Jesus knew of their standards yet He spent time directly with “evil” tax-collectors (Matthew 9:9-13) and adulterous women (Luke 7:36-39).
• Religious people of Jesus’ day would never allow themselves to become defiled by touching anything that was “evil” and “unclean.” Yet Jesus touched the dead (Luke 8:40-42,49-54, Luke 7:11-15). He touched and healed lepers (Luke 5:12-13). And rather than rebuke an unclean (bleeding) woman for mixing with the pressing crowd without announcing her uncleanness, He praised her for her faith expressed through her desire to touch Him (Luke 8:43-48).

Why didn’t Jesus avoid the “appearance of evil”? He knew exactly what the religious leaders of His day thought was right or wrong… Why did he blatantly violate their standards?

The answer, of course, is that Jesus was not obligated to follow other peoples’ ideas about right and wrong.

And neither are we.

Avoiding Real Evil

As all the versions besides the KJV show, we are to avoid real evil. In other words, our measure is not others’ opinions, it is God’s Word alone.

And there are things that are truly wrong…

• Premarital sex is wrong (Excellent Biblical treatment of this issue).
• Adultery is wrong. (Exodus 20:14)
• Homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27).
• Lust is wrong (Exodus 20:17 "covet"="lust", Prov. 6:25, Matt. 5:28).

As biblically faithful Christians, we must not participate in or condone behaviors that are clearly contrary to God’s Word. At the same time, true Christlikeness means that we are willing to be criticized and persecuted for participating in activities that may “appear evil” to other Christians.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)

Are we really allowed to do that??

So, what about the “weaker brother”? What about Paul’s instructions that we should not eat meat offered to idols because it could cause a brother to stumble?

There are several passages that Paul wrote dealing with this issue. We’re going to look at them in two sections, starting with the passages from Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8.

Causing a “weak” brother to “stumble”… giving an “offense.”

In that heading, I’ve captured three of the primary terms used by Paul.

The phrase “weaker brother” comes from Romans 14:1-2, where Paul tells us how to treat “gray” areas when we are with someone who is “weak in faith.”

Twice in Rom. 14, Paul mentions “stumbling”… that is, putting an “obstacle or a stumbling block” in a brother’s way or doing something by which a brother “stumbles” (Rom. 14:13,21)

Finally, there’s a mention about giving “offense” (Rom 14:20).

The parallel passage in 1 Cor. 8 also talks about a brother that is “weak” and causing him to “stumble.”

Define the terms!

If we really want to know what Paul means in order to know how to apply this in our lives, we must know what Paul meant by these terms… and what he didn’t mean.

I’m not going to quote and explain the entire passage here, but I will give the definitions that are easily discernable from the text. I encourage all my readers to study the passages for themselves to see that I’m not just twisting it to my own preferred meaning.

Here are the significant terms:

“Weak”	In Rom. 14:2 and in 1 Cor. 8:7,10, we can see that the “weak” brother is one who believes that something is wrong when in fact it is not (this, too, Paul makes clear – 1 Cor. 8:8). But it’s more than just that; the true symptom of his “weakness” is that he is susceptible to influence from others to violate his own conscience by doing that thing which he still believes is wrong.
“Stumble”	In Rom. 14:14, 22-23 and in 1 Cor. 8:8-9, to “stumble” is a euphemism for participating in an activity in violation of one’s own conscience.
“Stumbling block”	in Rom. 14:13,20-21 and in 1 Cor. 8:9-10, the “stumbling block” is the action of the “stronger” brother who has freedom before God to participate in an activity, but when it is seen by the “weaker” brother, that brother decides to go ahead and participate, violating his conscience.
“Offense”	In Rom. 14:10, we can see that it is an “offense” to cause a weaker brother to stumble. It is literally a sin against him.

What the words DON’T mean!

The definitions above are easily discernable from the passage itself (please check my conclusions). These are the only things that these words mean in these passages, but just to be clear, let’s point out some things that these words don’t mean… although there are a lot of people that seem to think they do:

• “Weak” does not mean that someone simply believes an activity is wrong. The person who strongly renounces you for doing something is not “weak,” he’s actually strong! That individual would steadfastly refuse to participate with you in the activity he’s condemning! As Paul said in Rom. 14:5… he’s “fully convinced in his own mind.”
• “Stumble” does not mean that a person is startled, surprised, bothered, uncomfortable, or affronted by your participation in a “gray” activity. Nor is it a sinful response to what you did (more on that in Part 2)
• “Stumbling block” is not the “drama” that can arise when one person does something that another person thinks is wrong.
• “Offense” is not a person “taking offense” that you would “dare do such a thing.” It is not when a person feels insulted by your actions or words (compare Luke 11:37-54 and Matt 15:11-12).

What Paul Really Means:

When we really understand the definitions of the terms as Paul uses them, it’s easy to see what Paul is trying to communicate. Let me summarize:

If you have freedom to do something but your brother does not, if you can discern that he just might go ahead and participate in the activity if he sees you doing it, defer to your brother and don’t do the activity in his presence so that he won’t be tempted to violate his conscience.

The “weaker” brother will not be the one spouting off about how wrong an activity is. In fact, he may say nothing at all. It will take alertness, discernment, and understanding of that brother’s spiritual maturity to detect when an activity should be avoided.

What Paul DIDN’T Mean:

One time, I had a brother who confronted me about my involvement in a “gray area” activity. At one point, he actually told me that I should refrain from it because I should consider HIM to be the “weaker brother.” In other words, he was attempting to use this passage to place restrictions on my behavior in my own home (he lived in a different state!). This is an egregious abuse of Paul’s teaching. The “weaker brother” can never presume to attempt control of others’ behavior based upon this passage.

It also doesn’t mean that whenever people look at us and condemn our actions because they are “offended” by them, that we must stop. We might choose to stop out of politeness or deference, but that’s very different than someone demanding that we abide by their moral convictions.

Making the “Weak” Strong.

Finally, Paul didn’t intend that the stronger brother should never talk about, defend, promote, or even mention the activity in question.

If Paul describes someone as “weak,” what would be his expectation of the “strong” person?

Well, certainly, he does expect the strong brother to voluntarily restrict his own activities while a weak brother cannot yet participate with a clear conscience.

But at the same time, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the “weak” brother has the “right” to remain weak… that he must never be challenged to become stronger regarding what is truly right or wrong.

The strong brother should be prepared to walk a weak brother through the process of reexamining his convictions to ensure that they are based upon truth rather than impressions, misconceptions, or cultural norms.

As the writer of Hebrews indicates in Heb. 5:14, mature (strong) believers will train their consciences to correctly discern what is truly right and what is truly wrong. As a “weak” brother gains strength and matures, this should be happening in his life.

As Biblical Christians, we must be alert to the spiritual maturity of those who look to us for guidance… careful to avoid moving beyond their readiness, but discontent to leave them weak.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)

Causing a Brother to “Stumble”

As we saw in The Weaker Brother” – Part 1, Paul’s instructions to us in Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 both tell us to be alert to someone who does not have freedom in their spirit to engage in an activity even the we ourselves do have the freedom from God to do.

To “stumble” means that a brother (or sister) decides to do something in violation of his own conscience because he saw someone else (probably another Christian he respects) doing that thing.

That’s all it means.

But that’s not how a lot of people invoke this teaching. In fact, you almost never hear Bible teachers or preachers explain Paul’s words that way… you almost always hear it applied a very different way.

Does “Causing a Sinful Response” equal “Causing a Brother to Stumble”?

The way we usually hear the admonition to “not cause a brother to stumble” is that we are told to avoid doing something because someone else may exhibit a sinful response to seeing us doing it.

Perhaps the most common case has to do with the false standards of “modesty” that are taught in the church today. It goes like this:

• Women are told that they need to “dress ‘modestly’ so you don’t cause a brother to stumble.”

Right away, it is easy to see that this does not fit what what Paul was trying to teach!

• Women are not being told that if they dress immodestly, all those “weak” men will start dressing the same way… in violation of their own consciences!

But that’s the biblical meaning of “causing a brother to stumble”!!

No, what they are trying to say is that if women dress a certain way, and men see them, those men will not be able to control themselves. Instead, they’ll find themselves fighting mental battles against lust in their hearts. They will simply be unable to avoid thinking (and perhaps acting) in impure ways.

But Isn’t That a Valid Biblical Reason to Not Do Something?

One might suggest that since all those men with raging hormones will go bonkers if they see too much female flesh, that asking the ladies to keep covered will help the men control themselves and avoid fits of lust. Wow! How can anyone argue with that?

Well… I can. Here’s why.

• First of all, man-made rules for righteousness are totally useless for restraining sensual indulgence. Paul’s words in Col. 2:20-23 are so powerfully on point that I don’t need to spell it out here. Just read that scripture passage. To even suggest that the modesty rule helps curb lust at all is to fly directly in the face of God’s revealed truth.
• God never established clothing to abate lust in men or women. If He intended that we use clothing for that purpose, He would have said so… and told us exactly which body parts needed to be covered to get the job done (See The Biblical Purpose of Clothing, particularly Part 7).
  • It doesn’t work, anyhow… a man can lust after a fully dressed woman, too.
• God never puts the blame for a man’s lust on a woman’s shoulders! Why do we?
  • Lust, on the man’s part, is ALWAYS his own sinful choice!
  • Male Medical doctors are expected (!!) to treat their female patients with the utmost respect, dignity, and professional decorum. Not a one is ever permitted the excuse of “I saw her naked, so I couldn’t help myself.”
• Nothing outside of us going into us can ever cause a sinful responses. Ever!! (See Mark 7:14-22). So when anyone has a sinful response to someone else… it’s always a revelation of the impurity that’s already in their heart. It is never something that the other person caused.
  • Did any of the hateful mistreatment to which Jesus was subjected cause Him to have a sinful response? Why not? Simply because there was no impurity in Him!
• “Self-control” is a fruit of the Spirit inside us (Gal. 5:22-24), not the fruit of others’ “modesty.”

So, are “hormones” or “sex drive” adequate “excuses” for a man to look lustfully upon a woman? No.

Does the amount of “skin” showing provide an acceptable “excuse” for a man to look lustfully at a woman? No.

Is the woman ever responsible at all for a sinful response in a man? Think for a moment here… Jesus is our measure of righteousness; Could Jesus could look upon her without lust (regardless of what she’s wearing or her motives)? That must the measure of expectation and responsibility that we hold every man to. So… again, the answer is No.

(This is not to excuse a woman for dressing provocatively. That too is wrong, but she can still only reveal the impurity in a man, never cause it.)

Jesus Did Not Live That Rule.

We have so thoroughly (though incorrectly) applied the “stumble” principle to how women dress, that we’ve redefined what “stumble” even means. Satisfied with that application, we have not bothered to look into Jesus’ life to see if He applied the “stumble” principle the same way in His own life.

We have plenty of occasions where Jesus’ actions “caused” sinful responses in those who observed Him.

The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus (most didn’t, anyway). The more they heard Him, the more they hated Him. The more they watched Him, the more angry they became. The more he openly defied them, their authority, and their teaching, the more they wanted to murder Him. Finally, they did.

Didn’t Jesus have it in his power to act differently? Couldn’t he have chosen His words so as not to  anger the Pharisees? What if He had avoiding locations where the Pharisees exerted their own authority and influence? He could have completely avoided causing all those Pharisees to “stumble” into hatred and murder.

But He didn’t.

Was Jesus responsible for the Pharisees’ sinful responses to Him? No, not at all.

All of that pride, envy, and lust for position and power was already in their hearts; Jesus’ words and actions only exposed it. He could have acted in such a way that they wouldn’t have had that response, but the truth is, God wanted it to be exposed!! Jesus was obeying God; Jesus did not base His actions on whether or not someone would respond sinfully to Him.

What This Means for Us

• If someone’s words, actions, or attire incite a sinful response from or in me, I alone are responsible for that sin.
• If my words, actions, or attire incite a sinful response from or in someone else, they alone are responsible for that sin. (Even if what I did was sin, they are responsible for their own sin… I did not cause it).

Here’s the summary:

If I am doing something in righteousness, I have absolutely no obligation to stop doing it simply because someone else observes me and responds sinfully!

It is an abuse of Scripture to use the “stumbling brother” argument to tell anyone that they must stop what they’re doing simply because someone else responds sinfully.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

For Conscience’ Sake??

This phrase comes from 1 Cor. 10:23-30…

It’s similar to the passages about “stumbling,” but in this case, the other person is not a follower of Christ.

Here’s the Context:

Often, animals that had been offered as sacrifices to pagan idols would then be taken and the meat sold in the market. You could very likely wind up purchasing some meat that been “offered to idols” without actually knowing it.

Paul says that’s no problem… just don’t ask (v25)… for conscience’ sake.

The next point Paul makes is that if you’re having dinner at the home of another person, who is not a believer, then here again, don’t ask… just eat what you’re served. BUT… if the guy tells you that it was offered to an idol, then don’t eat it… for conscience’ sake (v28).

But here’s the key point… Paul is not talking about our own consciences here, he’s talking about the other guy’s conscience (v29a)!!

Paul is telling us here that refraining from eating “meat offered to idols” was not a moral absolute, but a contextual decision… and a voluntary one, at that! Act in deference towards others, he seems to be teaching.

A Principle to Grab Hold Of!

And then comes a most surprising yet very relevant statement by Paul… a clear principle that we can apply to a LOT of different situations

…for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? (v29b)

Just in case someone might want to say, “You can’t do that, other people believe that it is wrong,” Paul states it pretty plainly… My freedom before God to to do something is NOT determined by other peoples’ faulty consciences about it.

A Good Place to Close

Whether it’s “The appearance of evil,” “causing to ‘stumble,’” or a matter of “conscience,” acting in deference towards others is a good thing, but allowing other peoples’ moral standards to dictate what we do and do not have freedom before the Lord to do… that is something else.

If anyone attempts to twist Paul’s words in order to make them say, You can’t do that!… we need to respond with Paul’s very clear and un-twisted rhetorical question:

Why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?

Rest assured… it isn’t.

Back to My Opening Question

In the Introduction to this series, I asked this question:

At what point must a Biblical Christian modify his own behavior because someone else thinks that what he is doing is wrong?

I mentioned that there were three different options in response:

1. Refrain completely, at all times.
2. Refrain while that person’s presence.
3. No obligation to refrain at all.

The answer, according to Paul, is actually #3. At the same time, he encourages us to be alert to contexts where deference towards others would be better than simply expressing our freedom, but that only applies to those who are not believers or who are weak in their faith… never the ones who do nothing more than condemn us.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You can’t have it both ways…

Remember the error of “Situational Ethics”?

It was a much hotter topic when I was younger, but Situational Ethics claim that nothing is always wrong, but rather its morality is determined by the situation. By contrast, the biblical understanding is that if something is morally wrong, then it is always wrong. We cannot consider an activity to be intrinsically sinful, but then give it a pass in certain situations.

I know that issues are rarely as cut and dried as we might like them to be, but if something is an offense to God’s nature and contrary to His design for us, then it is sin no matter when or where it happens. If it is not always an offense to God, then the activity cannot be considered sin by itself. We must instead exercise wisdom—in love—and apply biblical principles to know the godly way to assess a given situation.

“Social Nudity is wrong!” – Moral Absolute or not?

So… what about social nudity? The current view of most Bible-believing Christians seems to be that we must never expose our nudity to anyone of the opposite gender except our own spouse. This is considered a “moral absolute” for the very fact that God has only authorized sexual intimacy between husband and wife, and it is quite “automatic” that when a man sees a naked woman (and to perhaps a lesser degree, when a woman sees a naked man), there will always be a sexual response with sexual desire.

For the purpose of this blog post, I’m not going to directly challenge the portions of that position that I believe are in error (it’s certainly not all in error).

Also, for the purpose of this post, I am going to use the term “non-spousal nudity” in reference to any context outside of marriage where one’s nudity is exposed to someone of the opposite gender.The term “Social Nudity” is more associated with mixed-gender recreational nudity, and I believe the issue at hand has to be more comprehensive than that context alone. Clearly it is also “non-spousal,” but social nudity is a subset of the larger issue.

I intend in this blog to investigate whether the claim is consistently applied by those who profess it as a moral absolute. In each of the situations described below, I observe that the supposed “moral absolute” is not applied by those who believe that non-spousal nudity is wrong.

Situation 1a: Family — Children being seen by their parents.

I know of no one who would claim that a child cannot be seen naked by his or her parents. It’s no problem for a woman to change the diaper of her son, nor is it a problem for a man to change the diaper of his daughter.

Some might consider it silly to even mention this situation, but I do so to simply point out that it is a “situation” where the “moral absolute” does not apply in the minds of Christians who believe that non-spousal nudity is otherwise wrong.

Situation 1b: Family — Parents being seen by their young children.

While children are still nursing, of course, the boys will regularly see and touch their mother’s breasts. Beyond that, of course, would any mother really be hesitant to change clothes in front of her baby boys?

The natural response to this observation would probably be, “For crying out loud [uh, no pun intended…], they’re only babies!”

An appropriate response, no doubt, but it also underscores and confirms exactly what I wish to point out… here is another “situation” to which the “moral absolute” does not apply.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that anyone who holds the view that non-spousal nudity is wrong would extend that prohibition to the two contexts that I have spelled out above, but for most, there would come a time in the child’s development that they make an intentional “shift” and begin to invoke the prohibition. That very fact underscores my claim that within a family we apply the “absolute” in some situations, but ignore it in others. Scripture gives no guidance on when (or if) that should happen.

Situation 2: Medical necessity.

It can certainly happen with a female doctor and a male patient, but it’s typically an issue with male doctors and female patients, so that’s how I’ll address it.

When a woman visits a male gynecologist, the exam often includes an examination of her entire body. He may never see her fully nude, but he will specifically uncover and examine the parts of her body that are normally covered by her underwear. Not only will they be exposed to his view, but he will also touch them with his hands.

Of course, his purposes are not sexual in the least (or he could go to jail!), nor is it the woman’s intent to express her sexuality when she disrobes before him. Clearly, the purpose and motivation of both doctor and patient have nothing to do with sexual misconduct, so this activity is not considered immoral by most Christians.

I would agree, of course. But it constitutes another “situation” to which few apply the “moral absolute” forbidding the exposure of the naked body to someone other than one’s own spouse.

Situation 3: Elderly care.

My mother died some years ago of cancer. As her health faded, she eventually could not move from her bed. Any bathing that she needed had to be in the form of a “bed-bath.” My wife once had the opportunity to honor my mother by serving her that way.

One day more recently, I asked my father if he thought it would have been improper if the situation had called for me to perform a bed-bath on my ailing mother. He said that he would not consider that to be forbidden.

Maybe others would disagree, but my father is a conservative pastor who does not agree with me regarding naturism. Yet in this situation, he would not have applied the “moral absolute” which would forbid me to see my mother’s naked body. It amounts to another “situation” exception.

Situation 4: Nudity in Art

Perhaps many Christians would discount the moral neutrality of nudity in art, considering it simply the ancient form of pornography used before our current media forms existed. But the reality is that unless we altogether cast aside the visual arts as a valid discipline, we cannot avoid the presence of nudity in art as a significant facet of cultural and art history.

Serious students of art (and shouldn’t there be some Christians who are?) simply cannot ignore such a prominent area of study spanning the entirety of human and art history. The consensus among art teachers and practitioners is that if you can master the representation of the undraped human form, you can draw/paint/sculpt anything. For this reason, courses in figure studies are a required for art majors in every secular university art program in the world…

But what about Christian college and university art programs? Must they settle for some lesser means of accomplishing the same goal? Should they use a model in a bikini instead? Indeed, some do.

One Christian College has very thoughtfully and purposefully crossed “the line;” they use nude models for their figure studies classes.

A bold move, no doubt – and not one without its critics. I invite you to read their reasoning in the public statement they posted explaining why they took that position. You can find it at Art Policy On Nude Models (Gordon College).

Regardless of what you may think about their reasons, this once again underscores the fact that there exists an inconsistency in the Christian community regarding the “moral absolute” forbidding non-spousal nudity. If we are to reject nudity in art, then we must also reject much of our cultural artistic heritage throughout our history and around the world.

Some Christians are unwilling to do that.

You can’t have it both ways…

God’s true “Moral Absolutes” are exactly that… absolute. They are not subject to “situational” application based upon human wisdom or reasoning. They either apply in all situations, or they are not absolute at all.

So, either the “moral absolute” against non-spousal nudity is false, or we need to apply it to parents, doctors, and artists as well. We cannot say that it’s a moral absolute, but then allow for “situational” exceptions according to our own evaluation of the context. You can’t have it both ways.

To even suggest that doctors and parents should not be permitted to see their patients and children is ludicrous, of course. Consequently, we must conclude that the exposure of our nudity to someone other than our own spouse cannot be intrinsically unethical. Rather, it must be governed situationally by principle rather than moral absolute.

What is the principle?

What is the Scripture principle that we can apply equally to all the situations I’ve listed above… and any others that we may need to consider? What kind of measure could be use that would allow non-spousal nudity in the home and for healthcare, yet forbid it when the nudity is pornographic and sinful?

The primary principle has to be found in the Scriptural instructions that govern sexual conduct. Therefore, the proper assessment of a situation will focus on the attitudes and actions of the people involved, not on the presence or absence of body exposure.

Clearly, for parents and doctors, if there is any sexual motivation or misconduct, we will correctly find those guilty of such things at fault rather than the mere fact that nudity is present.

Likewise, in art, it is not the simple portrayal of an undraped human form which renders an image as inappropriate, but rather the intent of the artist to incite sexual response from the viewer. Or, as is often the case in our culture, it is the sin of the observer if he/she objectifies an innocent portrayal of the human body and responds with sexual lust.

Let me restate it this way:

If a child/patient/artist exposes nudity for the purpose of inciting an illicit sexual response, it is wrong. If a parent/doctor/observer sexually objectifies the innocent nudity that they see, that is also wrong. If neither party treats the nudity as a sexual expression, then there is no sin in the nudity by itself.

This is the principle that needs to be applied to whatever situation arises.

Who gets to determine the “situation”?

But what about naturism (recreational non-spousal “social” nudity)? Can’t we apply the same principle in that situation?

If doctors/parents/artists can be around nudity without sexual misconduct, who is to say that naturists cannot? If patients/children/models can expose their own nudity without any intent to arouse sexual responses in others, why must anyone assume that the motives of naturists are impure?

Are personal/health care and artistry the only valid contexts for the experience of nudity? Are recreation and relaxation summarily disqualified from being pursued free of clothing?

Certainly, in any context it cannot be guaranteed that all who expose their own nudity or observe the nudity of others will do so in a pure manner. However, this fact does not by itself disqualify the context. If it did, then we would have to disqualify male doctors from treating female patients, and fathers from caring for their daughters… it is a sad reality that both of these contexts have been abused.

The principle must be applied fairly and equally to the motivations and actions of the individuals involved, regardless of context. Those that violate the principle of sexual purity are the ones to be faulted, not the context itself.

Chaste Non-Spousal Nudity

Perhaps one of the most surprising things I learned when I first looked into the claims of Christian Naturists was the fact that in the main, naturists (Christian or otherwise) subscribe to and uphold high moral standards in reference to sexual conduct in naturist settings. For example:

• Responsible resort owners actively screen their membership and guests for any history of sexual misconduct and refuse them entrance. They respond swiftly to eject from the resort anyone who violates their sexual conduct policies.
• AANR and TNS clearly promote family-oriented social nudity and refuse association with resorts that cater to prurient interests.
• Naturists themselves are intolerant of those that pursue social nudity with sexual motivation of any sort and they have no interest in putting their own bodies on “display” for voyeurs.

In other words, I have found this to be true:

Naturism can be practiced without violating the biblical principle of sexual purity.

I have observed and experienced this truth first hand. I would not be a naturist if this were not so.

Conclusion

As biblical Christians—naturist or not—we cannot make the mistake of calling anything a “moral absolute” when it is not clearly discernable in God’s Word. When we do find an “absolute” in Scripture, we must treat it as such—without exceptions in its application based on human reasoning. If there is not a relevant absolute, then every situation must be evaluated according to biblical principle. This requires us to do the hard work it takes to fully understand the principle and apply it with wisdom.

Matthew Neal