The Biblical Hurdle vs. the Emotional Hurdle

When I first began to examine the issue of nudity from a biblical perspective, one of the most significant set of articles I read were found on the Reject Shame website (the original site is no longer posted, but its content can be found in its entirety HERE). The site primarily speaks of the roots and consequences of body shame. As a prescription for healing of that shame, it promotes body openness within the home, or Family Nudity. Its recommendations regarding Social Nudity outside the home are encouraged merely an extension of the effort to overcome shame at home.

In response to reading these articles, my wife and I discussed at length the issue of nudity in the home. Our discussion and study centered on this question: Is Family Nudity forbidden by God?
While poring over God’s Word to answer that question honestly before we made any changes to “the rules” of our home, it occurred to me that for us to move from “no nudity” to Family Nudity was in one way a very different proposition than moving from Family Nudity to Social Nudity. And this difference is the topic of today’s post.

Two Different Hurdles

Having been raised in very consistent and “conservative” Christian homes, we were both taught that nudity was not to be shared with anyone besides one’s own spouse. The very idea of social nudity was never directly addressed simply because it was so foreign to our Christian home contexts and the beliefs we had about an “appropriate” sense of shame in reference to our bodies. Consequently, as we contemplated the very idea of laying aside the view and practice we had been raised with, I realized that there were two distinct “hurdles” that we would have to “get over” if we were to do so.

1. The Biblical Hurdle.
   In order to accept and practice any open nudity beyond that experienced between a man and wife, I had to be convinced that—contrary to what I was taught all my life—nudity outside the marriage bedroom was not forbidden in God’s Word. For the Christian who seeks to live his/her life according to God’s revealed truth, such a practice can only be considered if it is not sin before God. Becoming convinced that such nudity is actually not sin is the first and most important hurdle… the Biblical Hurdle.
    
2. The Emotional Hurdle.
   In order to accept and practice any open nudity beyond that experienced between a man and wife, I had to intentionally choose to act contrary to my entire upbringing. I had to lay aside the very notion that “shame” of my body is ever appropriate, or could be considered a “virtue” at all. I had to be “ok” with being seen naked by others.  For most anyone, this can be an emotionally daunting proposition. Becoming willing to actually do so is therefore the second but much more personal hurdle… the Emotional Hurdle.

The Hurdles and Family Nudity

Changing “the rules” in the home so that nudity is no longer forbidden within the family context is a big decision. Both hurdles come into play. But it seems to me that one of them is, in reality, much bigger than the other.

If Christian parents determine that nudity is going to be permitted in their home, they must first address the Biblical issue and come to the conclusion that such nudity is not sinful. For many and perhaps most Christians, this would be a huge decision and may represent a major departure from their previous understanding and/or the teaching of their own faith tradition.

In contrast to that, the prospect of openness to nudity within the home is really not that big of an emotional struggle. This is due to the simple fact that the parents have already seen their own children unclothed, they may have bathed brothers and sisters together while young, and incidental exposure is a very real possibility in all but the most judiciously “modest” homes. But to change “the rules” so that it no longer needs to be a concern is not a huge emotional hurdle. It is “just family,” after all.

So, to embrace Family Nudity—whatever that means to a family—can a huge Biblical Hurdle, but a relatively minor Emotional Hurdle.

The Hurdles and Social Nudity

Once a family has embraced Family Nudity, the question of practicing Social Nudity is the next logical consideration. Here again, both “hurdles” come into play, but in a very different way than before.

The question of whether nudity can be experienced outside the marriage relationship is again on the table, but in all honesty, it has already been Biblically addressed and answered. Just as there is no Biblical prohibition restricting nudity to the spousal relationship in the home, there is also none that restricts it to family context alone. Consequently, if family nudity has been embraced, there is no Biblical basis to conclude that it must not extend outside the home.

On the other hand, being willing to be seen unclothed by your own flesh and blood is one thing. To allow perfect strangers—or worse, personal friends—to see us naked is quite another matter! The fear of being rejected or ridiculed is often very real, and therefore a huge hurdle. For women especially, this hurdle may be the one that they may believe they could never get over.

Consequently, to embrace Social Nudity (after embracing Family Nudity) is a relatively minor Biblical Hurdle, but a potentially huge Emotional Hurdle.

Jumping the Hurdles

Recognizing the reality and nature of the hurdles helped me in my examination of the issue of family or social nudity from a Biblical perspective. I hope it will help others, too.

• For the practicing naturist, it could help you discern the different kinds of “hurdles” non-naturist friends or family may be feeling are simply too high to cross.
• For the seeker who’s considering Family or Social Nudity, it might help you navigate your own “race” so that you can better understand the hurdles you are facing.
• For the non-naturist, hopefully this article will help you see that there are issues beyond the simple Biblical question of morality that impact how you and others respond to the idea of non-spousal nudity.

Matthew Neal
For more thoughts on the morality of “Non-Spousal Nudity,” see You Can’t Have It Both Ways…

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

I would NOT be a naturist if…

Why would a God-fearing, Bible-believing, Christ-following Christian choose to be a naturist?

I suppose all sorts of reasons might pop into someone’s mind if they were of the opinion that biblical Christianity and naturism were incompatible. I also suppose that all of those reasons would amount to—in one way or another—discounting one or all of the descriptions given in the question posed above.

In other words, I suspect that most would assume that if a person chose to be a naturist, they would only do so if they were NOT genuinely God-fearing, Bible-believing, and/or Christ-following!

So, are professing Christians who practice naturism really only deceiving themselves when they claim to still fear God and believe the Bible? Can they be real Christians at all? Are they really harboring evil desires or secret sins that are being expressed outwardly through the acceptance and practice of social nudity?

Well, I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. And—for the record—I do consider myself a God-fearing, Bible-believing Christ-follower. Do I have a hidden and sinful motivation for being a naturist?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Apostle Paul made and interesting statement in Gal. 1:10… “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (NIV)

Some people must have accused Paul of preaching the Gospel in order to gain the accolades of people. Paul responds—in so many words— “You’ve got to be kidding!" If I was looking for applause, I’d do it some other way!” Or as Eugene Peterson phrased it in The Message, “If my goal was popularity, I wouldn't bother being Christ's slave.”

Well, I can relate to that sentiment! I would put it this way:

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I were only trying to gain the approval of people.

Trust me. I’ve endured more criticism, faced more condemnation, and suffered more intentionally personal and hurtful attacks as a result of my becoming a naturist than anything I’ve ever done in my life! If I was motivated by a desire to be popular or make people like me, this is a stupid way to do it. I’m not that dumb. An over-inflated ego is not my motivation.

Of course, that’s not the only motivation that people may have presumed to be in my heart; there are other motivations that I have been accused of as well. I can tell you that in each case, if they had been true of me, they would not have led me to embrace naturism.

 

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I were actually a voyeur, eager only to see more naked flesh.

Voyeurs do not do “their thing” publicly or openly. It is a secret fetish. To be sure, when I was still struggling with pornography, I did lots of voyeuristic things in private or with my computer… never openly, though. The last thing I ever wanted to do was to openly admit that I wanted to look at naked women for the sake of sexual arousal. If that were still my motivation, I still wouldn’t admit it… and I certainly wouldn’t ever ask my wife to accompany me to a naturist resort just so I could ogle the other women there!

Here’s the really interesting thing… when I have been at naturist resorts, the women are indeed pleasant to see, and I do appreciate their God-given beauty, but I can assure you that I’m not fantasizing about them or acting out in any way in response to the sight. I have not had any problem with spontaneous arousal, nor has it given me any sort of adrenaline rush.

Oddly enough, when you realize that you actually do have permission before God to see a naked body, it rather loses its mystique and emotional power in your life. It literally becomes somewhat mundanely and simply “human.” That’s certainly what I experienced!

And another thing… now that I am no longer indulging in pornography, I see a lot less nudity than I did before! Becoming a naturist actually had a role in the death of my interest in porn. To me, that’s a tremendous blessing from God!

 

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I were an exhibitionist.

Wow! What a horrid thought!

First of all, I’m nothing special to look at. Secondly, I take no particular pleasure in being seen… naked or otherwise. I just don’t mind being seen naked. I don’t care what you think of my body. I certainly have nothing to prove with the “size” of my “manhood” (trust me… nothing much could be “proved” by it anyway!). I have no desire to shock anyone with my nudity. I have no desire to offend anyone with my freedom to be nude.

However, I don’t believe for a second that seeing the unclothed human body (mine or anyone else’s) is any sort of danger to anyone. We let our kids play with dogs, don’t we? Sure, dogs are not naked because they have coats of fur, but the coats are conveniently designed to not cover their genitals. The male penis (and scrotum) is in full few. The female vulva (and nipples!) are there for all to see. No harm done to innocent children. For crying out loud, that’s how we look at them and say, “Oh, that’s a boy-dog!” Why should we think any differently about human genitalia?

I don’t need you or anyone else to see me. It certainly won’t hurt you to, though. I don’t make a big deal out of it and I don’t want anyone else to, either.

 

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I were sexually perverse.

I am sexually satisfied with my wife. I do not have an overactive sex drive. I am not looking for “greener pastures.” I have no interest in more exotic “positions” or experiences. I have NO interest in swapping partners (aka “swinging”) with other couples. I have zero sexual interest in men. I’m about as plain and straight as they come. If anything, I could wish that my wife and I “recovered” a little quicker so that we could enjoy our own sexual relationship more frequently! In other words, I’m not looking for anything “new,” I’d be happy to be up for a little bit more “old!”

Naturism is simply not about sexual conquests or titillation. Some may indeed pursue it for that reason, but I have no patience for such people and I count them a threat to the spiritual, emotional, and sexual purity that can be experienced in naturism.

 

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I were a pedophile.

This is without a doubt the accusation that has been the most hurtful… especially when it came from extended family members.

I am not a pedophile. I love and protect my children. I love and protect others’ children. I have absolutely no compassion for those who would abuse children for their own sexual indulgence. I have never in my life experienced even one moment of temptation to think about my own children or any other children that way.

And for sure, if that were my motivation, I would never share my interests in naturism with family members.

That’s enough about that one. I’d better stop before I really lose my cool…

 

I would NOT be a naturist if…

• … I didn’t believe the Bible with all my heart.

That might be surprising, but it’s true. I believe the Bible is our only trustworthy source for moral absolutes. The opinions of men and the mores of society are not reliable. In fact, they reliably lead us away from moral truth.

Consequently, I searched the Scriptures diligently and thoroughly to determine if God had established any sort of moral requirements regarding clothing. I was committed to honestly discover if He ever condemned nudity or commanded that we always keep our bodies covered. I studied the Bible to discern what God’s attitude is towards my body, irrespective of my state of attire.

To my surprise (given my upbringing, I never would have guessed it!), the condemnation of nudity, the requirement of clothing, and divine disapproval of the naked human form were all missing in God’s Word! These are all man-contrived ideas! And as such, they do not deserve my loyalty. Instead, they deserve my active rejection (Col. 2:20-23).

If I didn’t believe the Bible was my only moral guide for life—if I thought that societal (or even religious) norms were to be my guiding standards in life—then I most certainly would not be a naturist.

But I do believe the Bible with all my heart. So… I really can be a naturist… and… a God-fearing, Bible-believing, Christ-following… Christian. 

Matthew Neal

For articles related to the content of this post, I invite you to read the following:

Naturist By Biblical Conviction??? – Part 1
Just What DOES God Think About My Body?
Asking the Right Question – Part 2

Longing for Eden

God made us for Eden.

If we want to know God’s desire and intention for the human race, the truth is to be found in our creation. And that’s found in Gen. 1-2. In those chapters, we find that the first man and woman placed by God in a Garden Paradise called Eden.

Paradise lasts, it turns out, for only two chapters… but there is much to learn there before sin tainted creation. Eden is what God made us for. And that explains the longings that we have to “return” there.

Relationships

Among the other perfect elements of life in Eden, Adam and Eve enjoyed perfect relationships. God Himself exists in the eternal and perfect communion of the Trinity, and our capacity for relationship is one of the ways that we bear His likeness.Therefore, I am focusing our attention on relationships in this post.

There were three essential relationships which the first human beings experienced in Eden. All three were part of God’s intention and design; all three were in evidence before the Fall, and all three were damaged by the Fall.

The three relationships were:

• Their relationship with God.
• Their relationship with their spouse.
• Their relationship with themselves.

By God’s design, all three of these relationships were perfect because they were exactly as God intended them to be.

• Relationship with God: They were created in God’s image and likeness, and they obeyed Him as their Lord. (Gen. 1:26-27, 2:16)

As God’s crowning creation, the man and the woman were especially honored to be made in His image, and they alone were given the opportunity to obey or disobey God. They alone were expected to live with God in perpetual volitional obedience. While they did so, their relationship with Him was perfect and unhindered.

• Relationship with Their Spouse: They experienced true “one-flesh” union with each other. (Gen. 2:24)

Just as each person of the Godhead exists in perfect union and relationship with the other persons of the Godhead, so the man and the woman were designed by God to live in perfect union with one another. Before the Fall, this relationship was mutually giving, loving, and unselfish.

• Relationship with Themselves: They knew no shame. (Gen. 2:25)

Both Adam and Eve were completely at peace with who they were. There was no need to hide either physically (they were naked) or emotionally (without shame). They were exactly as God made them and intended them to be, and it was enough. There was no sense of any kind that they needed to be more, less, or different than what and who they were. Shame is not and never was God’s desire for His highest creation. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were each in perfect relationship with themselves for they were utterly without shame.

Damaged by the Fall

All three relationships listed above were severely damaged by the sin of Adam and Eve. This damage was evident in the actions of Adam and Eve immediately thereafter.

• Relationship with God: When God approached them, Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of God. (Gen. 3:8-9)

Adam and Eve no longer felt free to be in God’s presence; instead, they felt fear. Furthermore, their understanding of God was skewed so that they were now deluded into believing or hoping that if they hid among the trees, He would not know where they were.

• Relationship with Their Spouse: Love and trust were lost. (Gen 2:12-13)

Adam and Eve were no longer unified. When tempted, Eve chose not to believe what her husband had told her and follow his guidance for her. Eve was then party to Adam’s Fall. When confronted about his own sin, Adam chose to blame rather than to fulfill his own responsibility as husband to love and protect his wife.

• Relationship with Themselves: They were ashamed of their bodies. (Gen. 3:7)

Adam and Eve no longer accepted how God had made them. They now considered parts of their own bodies to be less than good, and they felt exposed and vulnerable. In their effort to hide their own sense of inadequacy, they sought protection from external coverings.

The Longing Remains

• Man still longs for the peace with God that he was made for.

Adam’s perfect relationship with God was damaged, but deep in his soul, there was still a yearning to know and walk in peace with his Creator. The fact that perfection was lost does not change the fact that we were made for that relationship. God also desires that we walk with Him. That is why He sent Christ Jesus to take away our sin and restore us to our relationship with the Father.

This side of heaven, we will never know a perfect relationship with the Father like Adam did before the Fall, but we still long for it, and we are called to pursue an ever deepening relationship with Him here and now.

• Man and Wife still long to be united in perfect love with one another.

A man still longs to have the be fully one in body and soul with his wife, and a woman still longs to give herself fully to a man who will love, cherish, and protect her. Neither will see complete fulfillment of that desire in the fallen state, but they can and should pursue the ideal.

We can experience tastes of that unity when we love with God’s love and give ourselves as fully as we are able to our spouses. Even in our fallen state, there is no more fulfilling human relationship that we can experience than the one between husband and wife when each fully gives themselves in unselfish love.

• We all have a deep longing to be completely and transparently accepted exactly as we are.

So much of our lives we spend seeking approval and/or affirmation. We are constantly aware of our own inadequacies and failures. Hiding or covering our imperfections are perpetual motivations. We want to feel good about ourselves, and we want others to accept us as well.

Children – and adults – are most free and “alive” when they know for sure that they are truly “ok” exactly as they are. They shy away from contexts where they are judged, and they blossom and shine in a context of complete acceptance. This kind of acceptance is what we were made for. Indeed, the Bible calls it, “naked and unashamed.”

The Rub…

Notice that I didn’t say that we should pursue “naked and unashamed.” Everyone knows that since we’re fallen, there’s no way we can ever get any taste of “naked and unashamed” in this life, right?

    Says who?

We will never experience the fullness of pre-fall unity with our Heavenly Father in our fallen state… but that sure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue an ever deepening relationship with Him.

We will never experience the fullness of pre-fall unity with our spouses in our fallen state… but that sure doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make any effort to give ourselves fully to the one God has given to us.

We will never experience the fullness of pre-fall innocence and purity in our fallen state… but that sure doesn’t mean that we should never even attempt to live “naked and unashamed.”

Can anyone show me in the Bible where God has forbidden such a pursuit?

God’s pre-fall ideals for humanity are His post-fall ideals for humanity. God never changed His mind about them. He understands that we are dust and that we are fallen; He knows that we won’t fully attain the ideals until after we are fully and ultimately redeemed, but He still wants us to pursue His ideals here and now. His grace is greater than our inability to get all the way there, so we have absolutely no reason to hold back.

Roadblocks to Eden

We were created for Eden. If we are honest with ourselves, we will see that we still long for it on all counts, even though we have built and maintain false roadblocks to getting there:

• We tell ourselves that if we really draw close to God, we will have to lose or give up something. We trade what is to be found in God for what little comfort we can find in the pursuit of our own ways.
• We tell ourselves that if we really open up to another person, we will get hurt by them. We embrace the predictability of emotional and/or physical isolation to protect against the threat of pain.
• We tell ourselves that if we really attempt to be naked, we will only know shame. We choose the safety of hiding behind clothing in a vain attempt to thwart shame.

In all cases, the tradeoff is tragically misguided. All we really do is promote the false notion that our fallen state is unredeemable. We accept being less than truly human. We miss out on what God made us for.

Most everyone will rightly tell us to lay aside the first two roadblocks, but precious few will ever encourage anyone to lay aside the third. Most, it seems, will vehemently forbid any attempt to “return to Eden”… but on that point only! There is no logical or biblical defense for that distinction. To be consistent, we must either forbid all three pursuits, or encourage all three.

Welcome back to Eden!

I invite you to Eden!

Yes, God blocked the entrance to the physical Garden Paradise in Gen. 3:22-24, but His clearly stated purpose for doing so was so that the man and woman would not partake of the Tree of Life and live forever physically! It was not a declaration that their longings for the relationships of Eden could not be pursued!

Instead, God gave the promise of a Savior (Gen. 3:15 the “seed of the woman”), and that Savior became the One by whom we could once again live forever! Even that human desire is still ultimately God’s will for us… just not in our unredeemed state!

Lay aside the roadblocks. All of them.

• Give up anything that keeps you from pursuing your relationship with God.
• Give up emotional and physical isolation from your spouse and others.
• Give up your confidence in clothing and shed your shame.

Welcome to the freedom of being completely human… the way God meant for you to be.

Matthew Neal

Christmas and Naturism

What has naturism in common with Christmas?

Or what significance is there in Christmas to naturism?

My thoughts on this question sprung out of a quotation I read from Pastor David L. Hatton. I quoted it to close my post, Just What DOES God Think about My Body, but now I’ll comment further.

The highest compliment ever paid to the entire physical human body, and the clearest commentary on its decency, dignity and sacred worth, is the bodily manifestation of God's Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, in truly 'human' flesh by His Incarnation, Resurrection, Ascension and predicted Second Coming: a truly “human-friendly faith” (DLH)

The commonality between Christmas and naturism is in the dignity with which naturists view the human body, and the dignity of the body as affirmed by the incarnation.

And Christmas is significant to naturism because it allowed us to see God in human flesh. The human body is not evil, indecent, nor defiling… not to God, not to ourselves, and not to any around us. God literally allowed Himself to be seen in an unclad human body. This was no sin or indignity to God, nor should it be for any of us.

In case you’re thinking that God only allowed that to happen while Christ was a baby, I would challenge you to think again (I did not originate the following statements, but I recognized their truth, so I’ll pass them on here).

Consider this… some of the most significant events in Christ’s life were moments when He was without clothing:

• At His birth, like every other child ever born, our very first glimpse of God in the flesh was that of a naked child. This is biologically undeniable.
• At Christ’s baptism, He was almost certainly baptized according to the Jewish practice of baptism which was (and still is) called the mikveh. For both practical and religious reasons, the mikveh was and is performed while the one being baptized is completely unclothed (even jewelry and braided hair are not permitted). This is historically verifiable.
• At the washing of the disciples’ feet, Jesus laid aside His “clothes.” The Greek term used (himation) is plural and is used in other passages to indicate all of a person’s clothing. While we are told that He “girded” Himself with the towel, this was not the girding “around” (Prefix: peri- meaning “around” – perizōnnymi), but a putting on which required passing “through” (Prefix: dia- meaning “through” – diazōnnymi). The most natural way to carry a towel you intend to use on someone’s feet is over one’s shoulders, not around the waist. Jesus probably just made a loop with the towel through which he passed His head. This is exegetically verifiable and logically sensible.   
• At Christ’s crucifixion, the One who was called “King of the Jews” was hung up for all to see… and the mark of His Jewishness — His circumcised penis — was in plain view. The Romans crucified their convicts without any clothing. Any clothing they had of any value was confiscated and claimed by the soldiers carrying out the execution. The Scriptures tell us clearly that in Christ’s case, they did just that. This is historically and biblically undeniable.
• When Jesus rose from the dead, the Bible tells us clearly that He left the grave clothes behind in the tomb. When Mary Magdalene encountered Him outside the tomb, she mistook Him for a gardener. This mistake can only be adequately explained if we understand that gardeners worked unclothed to avoid soiling their clothing, and Jesus was still unclothed after the resurrection. This is biblically and logically tenable.

These points are not listed here as a “defense” of naturism. They are presented as a reminder that our Savior — while fully God — was fully human. The dignity of deity embodied in human form. This dignity was undiminished while unclothed, and was not augmented while clothed. How better for us to see and know this than for God to allow us such a real and personal experience of His unadorned humanity?

The incarnation was God’s plan from eternity past, and it was fulfilled at His birth. Our God is now with us… EMMANUEL. Visible, tangible, in a very human body. A short 33 years thereafter, that same human body bore our sins. Thanks be to God!

May you rejoice in our Savior’s human birth this season.

Merry Christmas!

Matthew Neal

Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 3]

“There is absolutely no way I could see beautiful women naked and not lust.”

Those were the words of “Shea” in my email conversation regarding Christians and naturism.

For most people, I suspect that the mere thought of mixed gender nudity would conjure up all sorts of sexually charged imaginations. They assume that the willingness to be seen naked by someone is also an invitation to have sexual relations with them, either mentally or in the flesh. Therefore, they conclude, morally upright Christians will only view the nudity of—or be seen nude by—the one with whom they may righteously have sexual relations.

The exception is, of course, if they must be seen naked by someone who is providing medical or parental care.

(Does it bother anyone that neither the “rule” nor the “exception” is found in God’s Word? Hmmm... I smell another blog post there...)

In this series of posts, I’ve been talking about why my naturism is not just a preference, but rather an expression of Biblical Convictions. This is Part 3, so if you have not already read both Part 1, and Part 2, I would urge you to do so before reading this one.

I’ve already presented 4 reasons explaining why I am a Naturist by Biblical Conviction. I have two more in this post.

Before I share them, let me reiterate that in no way do I consider Naturism to be a license to cast away God’s clear teaching that sexual union is for marriage only. Furthermore, I affirm Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:27-28 regarding lust; Naturism is not an excuse to engage in mental adultery.

But if you’re like Shea, whom I quoted above, you’re pretty sure that for any man, just seeing a beautiful woman naked will lead inexorably to lust. Obviously, therefore, the best way to prevent lust is to make sure that we see no nudity except that of our own spouse.

Makes sense, right?

The problem is, it’s dead wrong.

And that leads me to my next reason...

Reason #5 - Avoiding the sight of nudity is of no value at all in restraining lust.

Yes, you read that right.

I know it’s true because God said it is true.

It’s found in Colossians 2:20-23

20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:

21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?

22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Man-made rules lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Since the prohibition against nudity for the sake of controlling lust is a man-made “command,” then we can be absolutely positive that it has no value at all in restraining lust. None!

In case some might say, “Well, doesn’t it make sense that if I struggle with lusting after women’s bodies, I shouldn’t allow myself to see them?” Indeed, that does make sense. It absolutely has the “appearance of wisdom.” But as you can see from God’s clear teaching in this passage, that doesn’t matter. It simply won’t work.

You could put it this way... if avoiding nudity truly helped us to curb lust at all, then God would be a liar.

God is no liar. His words are true. Man-made rules are utterly useless in the control of lust.

It would be easy to point out the many indications of this in our lives and in our culture, but I’ll just make one observation...

It is no mere coincidence that a society with the most pervasive taboos against nudity in the world is also the world’s biggest consumer of pornography.

I’m talking about the United States, of course.

And we pride ourselves on our Christian heritage, to boot. All the pervasive Christianity in our social fabric hasn’t helped a bit. Statistics show that at least 50% of Christian men admit to a struggle with pornography. The real number is likely much higher than that.

I would wager that even among the most “conservative” Christians, the percentages are no better, and likely worse... because they are most committed to—and dependent upon—“the rule.”

There is not nearly enough space here to explain why such a prohibition not only fails to abate lust, but actually makes it worse, but let me give one example.

There is a book that has swept the churches of our nation called Every Man’s Battle. In that book, the author encourages men to practice “bouncing their eyes.” This means that every time a man sees something on TV, print, or in real life which might entice him sexually, he should quickly avert his eyes.

The man committed to this practice will be “bouncing his eyes” for the rest of his life, for he will never be able to escape such images and sights for very long in this world.

Furthermore, he will have to maintain a constant vigilance to always be on the lookout for a potential lust-inducing sight! He must train himself to never allow his potential for lust to be out of his mind. He literally must have a mental focus on lust at all times!

And he will never learn to have anything except a lustful response to what he sees.

Here’s the problem... When a man chooses to avert his eyes from a woman or an image to avoid lust, he is actually reaffirming the place of lust in his own heart. Lustfulness is presumed to be “natural,” so it remains entrenched in the heart while its presence is blamed on external objects, persons, or images.

Jesus Christ was fully human. In truth, He still is. Jesus did not, nor does He now “bounce His eyes” at the sight of a woman’s body.

If you want to be Christ-like, don’t bounce your eyes... control your thoughts instead. “Bouncing the eyes” is not a fruit of the Spirit; self-control is.

I have to point out another Scripture passage here. This time, the words of Jesus, Himself. They’re from Mark 7:14-23.

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’”

This is for all of us in “the crowd.” He really wants us to understand this...

Nothing outside a man can make a man unclean. And “nothing” means... Nothing! Nothing edible, and nothing visible. Either way, it is something outside of us. When it enters us—by mouth or by eye—it cannot make us unclean.

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 ”Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

Jesus’ disciples didn’t get it. We today don’t get it, either. We still think that something outside of us can defile us simply by entering into us.

Note here that Jesus gives both a truth (nothing outside a man can defile), and an application of the truth (food cannot defile you). Jesus did not intend for this to be the only possible application. This is abundantly clear from the list of sins Jesus mentions next that do defile us. They are not a list of sins commonly associated with food.

20 He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21 For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

I have highlighted in red the sins in the list which we could associate with sexual sin or lust. Jesus is teaching that even these sins come from within... not from outside us!

Jesus couldn’t be more clear here. Lustful thoughts and actions do not arise from what we allow ourselves to see. If excluding all nudity from our sight was the key to avoiding sexual sin in our hearts, then Jesus would be a liar.

Jesus is no liar. His words are true. What we see never produces impurity within our hearts.

As one friend of mine put it, when we refrain from lust by controlling what we see, we are only suppressing impurity, we are not conquering it. When we lust after what we see, we are only revealing the impurity that already exists in our hearts.

God’s Word is clear. Any man-made rule for controlling lust is bound to fail, and nothing that I see can cause me to lust.

These are my biblical convictions.

And finally...

Reason #6 -I have no obligation to bow to the opinions of others.

I have been told by people who profess to be committed followers of Christ that what I believe is false and what I practice is sin. They have literally taken actions against me which could have cost me my livelihood because I would not submit to their declaration that I am in sin. These same Christians now look down upon me and have little regard for me, my beliefs, or my Christian walk.

• Should I lay aside my beliefs because many (or even most) Christians condemn my practices as contrary to God’s moral law?
  
• Should I quit my practice of naturism because I could face more mistreatment or ostracization if it were to become known to others in my social/church circles?
  
• Should I reject what I have learned from God’s Word in order to maintain peace and “unity” within my extended family?

In all cases, No.

Why? Because of the teaching of God’s Word in Proverbs 29:25...

Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.

If I make the important decisions in my life on the basis of what other people think about my decisions, it will be a snare for me. I will be voluntarily giving up my freedom in Christ and submitting to bondage.

But if I stand firm in the truth as I believe God has revealed it to me from His Word, I must trust Him for the consequences. He is more than able to keep me safe, no matter what others may say or do against me.

As I write this here today, I can testify that God has been true to His promise. His provisions for me and my family through all the opposition we have faced have been astounding to me. He has kept us safe. He has proved faithful to us, in spite of the opposition of others.

I must never deny what God has revealed to be true because of the opinions or actions of others against me.

This is my biblical conviction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is much more that I could say, but with this I close this series on Naturist by Biblical Conviction.

Once again, let me give the bottom line for me in reference to these last two convictions.

You can see that they are convictions about truth, not about clothing. My convictions have to do with what I believe to be biblically true, not about a desire—or any sort of requirement—that we be unclothed.

Because I hold these things to be biblical truths, I have to ask myself—as we all must in the face of God’s Word—how do I live consistent with these truths?

For me, to profess these things to be true but continue to live in a perpetual state of being clothed would be logically inconsistent.

• The only way I know of to actively reject the idea that avoidance of nudity guards against lust is to embrace the expression of nudity without lust. To claim that what I see cannot cause lust while continuing to carefully avoid nudity to avoid lust is simply double-minded.
  
• The only way I know of to express trust in God rather than the fear of man is to actively choose to live contrary to the opinions of others when my study of God’s Word leads me to do so... no matter the consequences. To be unwilling to stand for truth when threatened by others is to give up my freedom in Christ. Nothing is worth that price.
  

I have biblical convictions about what is true. I have chosen to be a naturist in order to express and live those truths.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Martin Luther was a man who faced mortal threats against his own person because of his beliefs. He was specifically denounced as a heretic by the established church. He was put on trial and commanded to renounce his writings and recant his beliefs. He stood before a host of men who were against him.

In that moment, he spoke one short paragraph—which has since become legendary.

While I am no “Martin Luther” nor have I faced what he faced, his words do resonate in my heart. I close this series with those words, in hopes that in some measure, I can make them my own.

“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” — Martin Luther, April 18, 1521

Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 2]

Most Christians probably believe that being a naturist is a sin against God. Others might only believe it's a lifestyle choice... “to each his own” they might say.

But for me, I am a naturist because I am a follower of Christ, and I believe that truths I have come to know from God’s Word have led me to intentionally practice naturism. I am a Naturist by Biblical Conviction.

And such a claim deserves an explanation.

It is my intention in the post to tell why I am willing to claim that my practice of naturism is the fruit of a biblical conviction. I have several reasons.

In Part 1 of this series of posts, I gave the first two reasons that my biblical convictions have led me to practice naturism (if you have not read it yet, please do, since what I write here is a continuation of what I wrote there).

In the introduction to my previous post, I repudiated the notion that naturism is about sexual titillation. My third reason and conviction speaks further to that issue.

Reason #3 - It is shameful to consider the unclothed human form to be primarily sexual in nature and impact.

This reason is related to the first one, that God created us in His image (Gen 1:26-27). The most significant observation we can make about the nude human form is that it displays a visible likeness of the invisible God! God’s self-portrait is unveiled. Each and every person reveals a unique version of that image, each one personally crafted by the Master Artist.

In the modern cultural mindset, we have completely abandoned that recognition and we have replaced it with the shameful notion that a body’s shape is significant only for its sexual impact! Instead of seeing the Glory of the Eternal Creator on display, we only assess the impact of the sight on our own libido. We literally evaluate God’s image on the basis of how the sight of it stirs up sexual desires!

This is a great and horrific shame!

Mind you, I’m not talking about the pornographers here... I’m talking about Christians!!

I have no reason to expect those who do not know the Creator to treat His creation with honor, but it saddens me deeply that those who profess to know Him harbor the same false mindset as the pornographers.

You see, we as Christians demand that the body be covered for the purpose of preventing sexual lust. This very “rule” assumes that seeing an uncovered human body will have sexual impact... and that this is the only impact it can have!

If it’s not yet clear why I consider this such a shameful perspective, allow me to illustrate with another meaningful emblem.

Like so many of you, I love my country. Therefore the flag which represents my country commands tremendous respect in my heart. The thought of someone burning it irks me. Know the feeling?

Imagine for a moment that someone took the flag that I love and used it as a wash rag to clean their car. I would think (and probably say!) “What’s wrong with you?? Don’t you know what that flag stands for??? Don’t you love the country that flag stands for? How can you use the emblem of our country as if it’s just a rag?”

It’s not that we don’t need rags to wash things, but treating a flag as if it’s just another piece of fabric is an insult to the country that flag stands for.

It’s not that sexual activity is a bad thing (it is wonderful in its place, of course), but treating the naked body as if the sight of it is just a precursor to sexual activity is an insult to the God that body reveals.

The Bible does not teach or endorse such a view.

This is my biblical conviction.

Reason #4 - The prohibition of nudity is a man-made rule which we have no moral obligation to follow.

There is not space under this point to “prove” the truth of this statement. Indeed, demonstrating its truth is the ultimate aim of this entire blog. However, I will address one very commonly used Scripture that many people settle on as “proof” that God intends for us to be clothed.

Gen. 3:21 “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.”

That’s the verse that many people depend upon, including the man from GotQuestions.org with whom I had a discussion concerning his post regarding social nudity (posted here).

What I have quoted above is all the Bible says about the event. Notice the things missing from this passage:

• No stated purpose for the clothing.
• No command that Adam and Eve remain clothed.
• No “exception clause” for man and wife.

If we were to take this passage as a mandate for clothing, then we cannot avoid the conclusion that we must keep clothed with our spouses even when no one else is around, for that is the very context where God gave the “mandate.”

If it were a mandate, then Adam and Eve would have had to:

• Understand that the purpose is to abate sexual lust, even though inappropriate lust was not a reality in their world yet.
  
• Understand that the “mandate” will not really need to be followed until children were born.
• Understand that husband and wife were exempt from the requirement when it was just the two of them.

All of this, they had to understand without the benefit of God explaining it to them. In like manner, we today have to read all of these things into the passage because God “neglected” to include it. By definition, that is what is called eisegesis, and we cannot attempt to interpret Scripture that way.

This is just one passage that is used to declare that it is God’s will that people always be clothed around anyone but their spouse. However, the passage simply cannot bear the weight of the interpretation laid upon it.

Every other passage similarly used also collapses under the weight of the man-made rule it has been put forth to support.

(If anyone knows of a passage they believe supports the notion that social nudity is against God’s moral law, please write us here and I will address it respectfully and in detail.)

So, if the prohibition against nudity is not found in Scripture, then we must conclude that it is a man-made rule. And if a man-made rule, Scripture teaches us that we have no moral obligation to follow it. In fact, Paul’s words in Col 2:20-23 actually encourage us in the opposite direction!

Without any doubt, we must follow God’s moral laws, but we must not submit to man-made rules of righteousness.

We dare not speak falsely about God that He has declared a moral absolute when He actually has not. We cannot presume to know the mind of God on an issue which He could have addressed clearly in Scripture but did not.

No, we have no obligation to follow the false rules of righteousness put forth by men, no matter how they have the “appearance of wisdom” (Col. 2:23).

Indeed, like Paul, we should openly renounce them and encourage others to reject them as well (Col 2:20-23, Gal. 3:1-7, Gal 5:1-8)

This is my biblical conviction.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m still not done, so I’ll write more in Part 3.

Again, however, to close out this post, let me give the bottom line for me in reference to these convictions.

You can see that they are convictions about truth, not about clothing. My convictions have to do with what I believe to be biblically true, not about a desire—or any sort of requirement—that we be unclothed.

Because I hold these things to be biblical truths, I have to ask myself—as we all must in the face of God’s Word—how do I live consistent with these truths?

For me, to profess these things to be true but continue to live in a perpetual state of being clothed would be logically inconsistent.

• The only way I know of to combat the notion that nudity is only a precursor to sexual expression is to experience nudity with others when sex is not part of the social equation. Limiting my nudity to contexts where sexual expression is morally permitted only affirms the shameful view of our bodies.
  
• The only way I know of to truly reject man-made rules is to intentionally live contrary to them. Jesus Himself openly refused to follow the man-made religious rules of His day. To claim to reject the rules, but continue to follow them at all times is not credible.
  

I have biblical convictions about what is true. I have chosen to be a naturist in order to express and live those truths.

More convictions to come in Part 3.

Matthew Neal