The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Conclusion

So, what is the conclusion of this study? What are the biblically valid purposes for clothing, and which of those purposes best explains why God clothed Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:21?

Let me review.

Fear and Shame? No.

At the outset, we observed that Adam and Eve’s purpose for clothing themselves—to address the fear and shame—met with God’s reprimand rather than His approval. This established a baseline understanding that such a purpose for clothing was not biblically valid, and therefore, could not have been God’s purpose for clothing them 10 verses later. [For further discussion of this point, see the Epilogue]

Clothing as Currency? Yes, but No.

We next observed that clothing was actually used as currency in the Bible. But this would not explain God’s clothing of Adam and Eve.

Sign of Position? Yes, but No.

Clothing in the Bible sometimes was worn to signify that the wearer held a position of great honor. Once again, this does not fit God’s clothing Adam and Eve at all.

Communicate About a Person? Yes, but Not Likely.

Sometimes clothing was used to communicate the role, mental state, or status of a person. Could this explain why God clothed the first couple… to declare them to be sinners in need of covering? That might make some sense, but there is no corroboration in the text for that idea, nor is it stated anywhere else in the Bible. Consequently, it is highly suspect and uncertain. [For further discussion of this point, see the Epilogue]

Gender Distinction? I Doubt it, but No.

The biblical support for the notion that clothing is for gender distinction is very weak, However, even if it is a valid purpose for clothing, it does not explain why God would clothe Adam and Eve.

Warmth and Protection? Yes, and Very Fitting!

It is very easy to discern in the Bible that warmth and protection are fundamental purposes for clothing. Also, upon examination of the account of the Fall and the Curse, we can discern from the immediate context offers evidence that warmth and protection would likely be needed for life outside of the Garden of Eden.

Controlling Lust? No.

Despite the fact that this purpose for clothing is almost universally assumed to be valid, there is no credible evidence for it in the Bible… Not in Genesis 3, and not anywhere else. Since it is not a biblically valid purpose for clothing, it cannot explain God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve.

Any Others?

Have I missed any other purpose for clothing that might be found in the Bible? I welcome any feedback that would offer evidence that I have. I would be happy to add to this series of articles to include any oversight.

The Most Reasonable Answer…

Of all the purposes for clothing found in the Bible, only one fits the context of God’s provision of clothing for Adam and Eve. Without any doubt, Warmth and Protection provide the most reasonable explanation of God’s purpose for the coats of skin. Consequently, we can conclude with a good measure of confidence that God graciously clothed the first couple to protect their bodies from cold, thorns, and other potentially harmful factors that would have been reality outside of the Garden of Eden.

Of course, the Word of God does not give us a direct answer to our question of why God clothed Adam and Eve, so we cannot build doctrines or moral standards upon our conclusion, no matter how firm we believe it to be. However, it is very important that if we are going to offer any suggestion as to what God’s purpose was, we must offer an explanation that is both both biblical and reasonable.

Sadly, the most common view of why God gave Adam and Eve clothing—to control lust—is neither biblical nor reasonable. Despite that fact, entire systems of moral standards have been based upon its faulty logic. This view and its false standards must be rejected.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Epilogue

During the course of this study, we’ve looked at all of the biblical purposes for clothing in order to attempt to discern why God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall. In the end, it was concluded that the best explanation was that God provided clothing for warmth and protection.
Along the way, we looked at other potential reasons for the clothing, but rejected them for a variety of reasons. I suspect, however, that two of those reasons that I rejected may still be held as viable by some. Specifically…

• Some believe that we really do need clothing to address our sense of shame.
• Others may still maintain that God did give clothing as a sign that mankind needs a covering for his sin.

Yet both of these positions overlook a very important implication of holding to such a view. I want to address those implications here in the Epilogue.

What if Clothing IS Supposed to Address Our Fear and Shame?

I’ve heard people talk of Adam and Eve’s scramble for fig leaves as if it were the most natural and normal thing in the world… they were NAKED, after all! And we all know how ashamed we would feel to be seen naked. We would just die if someone saw us without our clothes! Adam and Eve were just doing what any of us would do, right? We’re supposed to feel shame like that… isn’t that why they got dressed?
And (it is believed)… God “agreed” with their solution to fear and shame, so He provided them coverings that would last longer and cover them better than the leaves ever could. Now that they were fallen, God knew that shame would simply be a human reality, so he provides clothing to deal with that shame and the fear of being seen naked.
As I said in Part 1 of this series, Gen. 3:11 cannot at all be understood as anything other than a reprimand. It is not reasonable to just ignore that fact and conclude that God later affirmed that which He had just rebuked.
But for the sake of discussion… let’s assume for a moment that God did give Adam and Eve clothing because He knew they needed a covering for their bodies to address their fear and shame.
What then?
Well, what impact does the work of Christ have on that purpose for clothing?
The Bible teaches that when a person is in Christ, old things are passed away and all things are made new (2 Cor 5:17). It tells us that God has not given us a spirit of fear (2 Tim. 1:7). We know that perfect love—God’s love for us—casts out fear (1 John 4:18). We know that Jesus took our guilt and our shame (1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 12:2). We no longer have any reason to fear or be ashamed!!
If God provided clothing for Adam and Eve to address their fear and shame, Christians should be the first to shed their clothes! In fact, continuing to wear clothes would amount to telling a lie about the power of Christ’s love in my heart. Let’s live the truth without fear… we do not need clothes to cover our shame… shame has no place in the heart of a redeemed child of God! As the worship song says, “I know He rescued my soul, His blood has covered my sins,… My shame He’s taken away, My pain is healed in His name, I believe! My Redeemer lives!!” (My Redeemer Lives - © 1999 Hillsong)

What if Clothing IS Supposed to Remind Us That We’re Sinners?

In Part 4 of this series of articles, we saw that sometimes clothing was used to communicate something about a person… perhaps their state of mind (sackcloth = mourning), their social status (distinguishing the rich from the poor), or to symbolize their righteousness (white linen garments).
This suggests the possibility that God may have intended that the coats of skin with which He clothed Adam and Eve were to be perpetual reminders that they were now sinners in need of covering for their sin. This meaning, or course, is never stated in the Bible, but many Bible teachers have offered this idea as the true meaning of the clothing.
But there’s a very important implication that those who promote the idea evidently overlook or simply ignore…
Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true—that clothing is intended to be a “sign” that people are sinful and in need of salvation.
What then?
Well, what impact does the work of Christ have on that purpose for clothing?
The Bible teaches that when a person is in Christ, old things are passed away and all things are made new (2 Cor. 5:17). It tells us that Jesus took our sin away from us… as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12). Because Jesus became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), we know that God will not remember our sins (Isaiah 43:25)!! And the Bible never ever refers to a follower of Christ as a “sinner” once they’ve chosen to enter into Christ’s work on the Cross… instead, they are called “saints”(Eph. 2:19)!
So, if I am in Christ and my sin is taken away, do I still need to wear clothes that shout, “sinner”? No! Instead of wearing clothes to remind myself and everyone else that I am a sinner in need of redemption, shouldn’t I go without clothes to remind myself and everyone else that I am redeemed? Jesus has cleansed me from every sin (1 John 1:9); though my sins were like crimson, now I am as white as snow (Isaiah 1:18)! While the unredeemed continue to cower under clothing that ever condemns them, I walk free of all such condemnation, for I am in Christ (Rom. 8:1).
If God clothed Adam and Eve to proclaim that they were sinners, then Christians should be the first to shed their clothes! In fact, continuing to wear clothes would amount to telling a lie about the efficacy of the work of Christ. Let’s tell the truth about our redemption… we do not need clothes for that purpose any more! As the hymn says, “Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.” (The Solid Rock – PD)

But, That’s Not What They Mean…

In both cases above, the ideas are not really being presented to teach credible and biblical purposes for clothing. Rather, they are put forth in the attempt to create a requirement for clothing where the Bible simply does not give one. They are presented and taught as evidence that clothing is required for us today.
But the reasons given for clothing are fully and completely addressed by the work of Christ! Naturally, If the reason for the clothing has been otherwise addressed in a person’s life, then the need for the clothing is gone. To continue requiring clothing for these reasons is to deny the the power of the cross.
In other words, these reasons actually argue for the abandonment of clothing rather than the requirement of clothing…
… but that’s not what they mean.

Why is it So Hard to Accept?

The idea that God clothed Adam and Eve to protect them from the post-Fall environment outside of the garden makes good sense. It has biblical corroboration as a valid purpose for clothing, and there were harmful factors (thorns) mentioned right in the same Scriptural context (Genesis 3:18). Furthermore, the explanation actually reveals the loving character of God, who expresses grace and mercy, even as He issues judgment.
So… why would anyone object to such a simple and fitting explanation for God’s actions?
I can think of only one reason why the explanation of “warmth and protection” would be rejected: because it does not support the idea that clothing is a moral requirement.
As I mentioned in the introduction to this series, I’ve had a Bible teacher tell me, “if it was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me!” There’s no other passage in the Bible that is quoted more frequently as “proof” that God wants us to be clothed.
But if God’s purpose really was only to protect Adam and Eve from thorns and from the cold, is there any moral requirement to wear clothes at all times “around other people”? Of course not. When the weather is warm and the thorns have been cleared away, there is literally no need for clothing.
But that notion is utterly untenable to the modern Christian’s mind. Their belief before even examining the Scriptures is that clothing must be required by God. And since God’s clothing of Adam and Eve is the best proof-text available for that belief, explaining God’s purpose for the coats of skin some other way—one that would not mandate clothing today—is unacceptable.
From my point of view, that path to arriving at moral truth is what is “unacceptable.” We should all be more interested in being biblically accurate and intellectually honest than protecting a culturally contrived moral standard.
— Matthew Neal
This article Series:
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

Starting Points for Discussion

Starting with “End-Points”??

Several weeks ago, I posted my refutation of Ted Slater’s article regarding nudity. Thereafter, I personally contacted him with the hope of entering into dialog with him about it.

At one point in our discussion, he challenged me with some “end-points”… evidently with the intent of demonstrating that what I believed just couldn’t translate into real life. He challenged me to go to church nude the next Sunday. No one would ever worship nude… or so he must have thought.

Of course he had no way of knowing that the previous weekend, I had gone “to church” and worshiped with other believers at the CNC-Texas. And yes, almost everyone in attendance was nude; I led worship unclothed and the preacher preached without a stitch. And it really was no problem at all. In other words, the “end-point” that Ted thought would prove my beliefs false had actually been experienced by me and others a few days before… and proven them true! He didn’t even comment when I told him that.

Better to Start with “Starting-Points”!

Instead of chasing “end-points,” I wrote to Ted and asked him to affirm some “starting points.” If we are going to enter into a discussion on Biblical morality—no matter what the issue—we need to know our foundational assumptions, else we will never have any chance of coming to a consensus.

Agreeing on initial assumptions is critically important… consider what a discussion would be like where one person considered the Bible authoritative, but another considered the Bible to be nothing more than fairy tales. Clearly, there would be no chance of agreement on moral issues.

By the same token, if two people agree that the Bible is true, but their method's of interpretation to discerning that truth are different, there will still be no consensus reached on biblical morality.

But… if two biblically conservative Christians hold the same view of Scripture and hold to the same presuppositions about how to approach a moral issue, then it should be a constructive dialog where agreement can be reached!

My “Starting-Points” with Mr. Slater

So, I gave Mr. Slater a list of seven assumptions which I believe should undergird any investigation of biblical morality.

Let me say it another way… no matter what issue you want to examine from a biblical perspective, these seven points must be the starting point before we can have confidence that we will arrive at a trustworthy conviction of moral truth!

I did not invent these points myself… I learned them from my father (a lifelong pastor), my Bible College professors, and many other Bible teachers that I respect.

These assumptions have nothing at all to do with nudity, but they are indeed worthy of our trust to help us discern God’s perspective on nudity as He has expressed it through the Scriptures.

So… here they are… see if you agree with them.

1. God is sovereign over all the affairs of men, and He alone is the measure and source for all morality.
   
2. Moral absolutes (based as the are on the character and person of the unchanging God) are for all men for all times.
   
3. The Bible is God's inerrant Word and it alone is our authority for knowing the mind of God on moral matters.
   
4. The traditions and cultures of men are NOT authoritative in matters of morality (Isaiah 55:8-9).
   
5. Only Biblically specified exceptions to moral absolutes are valid... "exceptions" based on the reasoning of man are false.
   
6. The Bible must be interpreted according to what the original author meant when writing to the original audience in the original language (Grammatical-Historical).
   
7. Translations of the Scriptures are only authoritative to the degree that they accurately convey the original meaning of the original language text.

I believe that any Bible-believing Christian should be able to affirm every one of those points.

If you’re wondering what I mean by #7, let me add some clarifying comments about it as I did with Mr. Slater:

Point #7 is not an attempt to undermine the authority of English translations. It is simply the acknowledgment that: a) the very process of language translation is never exact; b) translators themselves are human and therefore subject to making mistakes; and c) we must be careful not to base our understanding for significant moral issues and interpretations on the English translation alone. To the best of our ability, we must examine the original language text to ensure that the understanding we have reached is not contrary to what we find in the original languages of the Scriptures (a process which is also not "error-free," but which is, thankfully, much easier now with the online resources available to us). Where original language study leads to a different understanding than English translation study, the original language understanding must be preferred.

He Didn’t Affirm These Starting-Points.

To my great disappointment, Mr. Slater did not bother offering any comment at all about these points. Instead, he only cast aspersions at my character. I requested three times that he address these seven points, but instead, he checked out of the dialog with an air and presumption of “rightness.”

I have experienced this before… one time I was being confronted about my naturism by another brother in Christ and a pastor friend that he brought into the email dialog in his effort to “correct” me. I sent that pastor a list of foundational principles of hermeneutics so that we could agree on a common starting point for our discussion of the Scriptures. Rather than affirm them, this pastor made this astounding statement:

I often teach, as you likely do as well, that many can read the same Scripture and come to different conclusions. You read a passage, consider its greater context, and come to a conclusion. I read the same passage, and its greater context, and come to a different conclusion. Using all of our "tools" for exegesis, form criticism, contextualization etc. we will likely still continue to come to different conclusions.

The whole point of agreeing on the “Starting-Points” is to avoid all sorts of subjectivism and the disagreement that it brings! Yet instead of agreeing to an interpretational approach I’m sure he would normally teach and promote, he shut down the dialog! This pastor used the very fact that I was trying to reach an agreement on “Starting-Points” as an indication that we would not come to agreement!

Perhaps He Was Correct!

I doubt that anyone would ever admit why they (as normally honest interpreters of the Scripture) would refuse to agree to “Starting-Points” that they would normally agree to in a heartbeat. The only reason I can think of is that they know deep down that on the issue of nudity, their beliefs would NOT be affirmed if they applied those principles to its Scriptural investigation!

I don’t think they can afford to agree to the seven points above because all of the “biblical” support for their beliefs about nudity would crumble away, and they would be forced to lay them aside… and the views about nudity that they were presumed to buttress.

Why do I think that? Because that’s exactly what happened for me! When I applied those same assumptions about how to study God’s Word to the issue of nudity, I could no longer hold to the “Nudity-Taboo” I had always assumed the Bible taught!

And that’s exactly why I present them to people when discussing nudity from a biblical perspective… affirming these principles and basing our study of Scripture upon them will not confirm a perspective that nudity is wrong or offensive to God!

We Have a Choice…

When it comes to the issue of studying nudity in the Bible, we have to make a decision…

• Will we hold on to our tried and true principles of Scriptural interpretation, trusting them to guide us to a correct understanding of God’s mind on nudity, even if it means we must lay aside our belief in the “Nudity-Taboo”?
  
  or…
  
• Will we hold on to our belief that the the Nudity-Taboo really expresses God’s mind on nudity, even if it means we must lay aside our tried and true principles of Scriptural interpretation?

For me, the choice is clear.

It seems equally clear what choice has been made by Mr. Slater and the other pastor I mentioned.

On the Side of Truth

I am reminded of a quotation by Richard Whately that seems to be apt at this moment…

Every one wishes to have truth on his side,

but not everyone sincerely wishes

to be on the side of truth.

So I issue a challenge to anyone who considers themselves an honest student of God’s Word…

What is your choice?

— Matthew Neal

-------   Related Posts   -------

Obviously… (a discussion about assumptions)

Quotes and Comments #5

When is Nudity OK for a Christian? (the precursor to the dialog from which this post was drawn)

The Unchallenged Belief

Does the Bible Ever Condone Social Nudity?

A Surprising Admission

-------   Related External Articles   -------

An Initial Foray Into Hermeneutics

Eight Rules of Interpretation

Obviously…

This post is not specifically about naturism… although it certainly applies to its discussion.

Every issue has more than one “side” or viewpoint, and every viewpoint is supported by assumptions which form the foundation for the conclusions that are ultimately reached by the proponents of each viewpoint.

Obviously… there is no “god”…

For example, In the discussion about the origins of the universe and mankind, evolutionary scientists assume that there is no agent outside of the observable universe which could have ever had any impact on what we see today.

By contrast, creation scientists assume that it is possible for an outside agent to exist which may have been a causative agent in our universe’s birth.

Looking at the very same physical evidence, the creation scientist finds multiple evidences for intelligent design in our universe, for no amount of time and chance could produce the exquisite order than we see… from the structure of atoms to the celestial interaction between galaxies.

The evolutionary scientist on the other hand is forced to accept the conclusion—despite the astronomical odds against it—that chance and natural processes produced everything we see in the universe. He concludes this because… obviously… there can be no such thing as a “god.” He is literally forced to accept an impossible explanation because his assumption precludes any other.

Any and every evidence contrary to his assumption is summarily rejected and/or explained away.

Alas, though, I fear that we all are guilty of that error… it’s rather human…

Assumptions aren’t bad… unless they are false assumptions!

There will always be concepts which—while they cannot be proven—do impact the conclusion of an investigation. Sound assumptions lead to sound conclusions; faulty assumptions result in faulty conclusions.

Consequently, when people examine an issue with the very same data set but reach vastly different conclusions, the problem is not generally with the data, but with the assumptions that each side brings to the data to start with!

When such is the case, endless discussion about the evidence will never accomplish anything, because the data being discussed is not really at issue… it is the underlying assumptions that are not being discussed where the true differences between the opposing parties lie.

Differing Assumptions

This problem is manifest many times within the Christian community, and especially between those who hold the Bible to be absolutely authoritative, and those who do not.

Just recently, I was talking to a Christian brother who does not consider homosexuality to be wrong, but rather just the way some people are born. I expressed the opinion that no one was “born gay”—in fact, in God’s eyes, there is no such thing as “gay”—because gender is not determined by subjective ideas like “preference” or “orientation;” it is determined objectively by physical attributes. A male body is designed by God to unite sexually with a female body. Clearly, we were not in agreement with one another.

However, in the course of the conversation, he told me that he did not believe that Bible was truly authoritative in everything it taught.

And herein was our true disagreement… For me, the Bible is the authority upon which any conclusion may be safely reached. For him, it is not. Therefore, our differing assumptions about the authority of Scripture led to different conclusions. And until that difference is resolved, no agreement will likely be reached.

Obviously… God wants people clothed…

People hold the same such assumptions when it comes to the issue of human nudity. They hold a belief system that assumes that nakedness is shameful and against God’s moral law. Consequently, when they read the Scriptures, every piece of “physical evidence” is interpreted in light of that assumption.

Obviously, nakedness is wrong.

Obviously, nakedness is shameful.

Obviously, nakedness is sexual.

Obviously, God wants us to be clothed. Why else would He clothe Adam and Eve??

Everybody knows these things!!

But when someone says, “Obviously,” it usually indicates that they hold an assumption that they don’t really have any real evidence to support.

Again… that’s no problem, provided the assumption is correct. But when it comes to morality and knowing the mind of God, we dare not makes such an assumption when there is no concrete biblical evidence to support it. And of course, if there were sufficient biblical evidence, then we wouldn’t call it an “assumption” at all!

“My thoughts are not your thoughts” – Isa. 55:8-9

God tells us plainly by the prophet Isaiah that we have no business assuming what His thoughts are on a subject.

When considering moral issues, we must not bring assumptions about God’s moral standards to the Scriptures, else we may be found guilty of telling lies about God, for we may declare that God is offended by something when in truth He is not.

Obviously… we need to reexamine our assumptions!

When we (or anyone) make statements that are (or could be) prefaced with the word, “Obviously,” we should stop and reexamine the nature of the assumptions behind the statement… regardless of the issue being discussed. We just might find an argument built on a false foundation.

On the issue of nudity, only those who are courageous enough to question the “Obvious” assumptions mentioned above will ever see anything different in God’s Word. If they do not have that courage, they will instead hold tenaciously to the prevailing sentiment in the church today that sees only shame and indecency in the simple and chaste exposure of God’s image as found in human embodiment.

— Matthew Neal (…Obviously!)

See also:

The Unchallenged Belief

Quotes and Comments #5

Quotes and Comments #5

He that is not open to conviction,

is not qualified for discussion.

— Richard Whately —

In other words…
If anyone is unwilling to be convinced by clear evidence to affirm a position contrary to the one they start with, they will never be honest enough with truth to engage in productive dialog.

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

I recently posted an extensive rebuttal to Ted Slater’s blog post about nudity. Mr. Slater had made an attempt to use the Bible to assign shame or sin to all public nudity, with the assumption (or presumption) that such was the perspective of God Himself.

I made a point to contact Mr. Slater personally in order to see if he had had occasion to revise his view, and if not, to allow him a chance to interact with me directly in reference to my rebuttal.

At first, I hoped for a very congenial and open discussion. However, I’m sad to report that while the discussion was friendly enough, he was (in my opinion) never truly open to allowing his view to be honestly challenged. He simply assumed that his position was correct and mine was in error.

He was NOT open to “conviction.”

Three different times in the course of our email dialog, I stated or reaffirmed that I was ready and willing to change my perspective on social nudity if I was shown solid biblical evidence that I was mistaken. At least once, I asked him if he held that same readiness to change his own position if it was shown to be wrong. He never once gave even the slightest hint that he was willing to do so.

I also laid out a series of seven conservative principles of hermeneutics (“hermeneutics” prescribes an objective and consistent approach to Scripture interpretation) as “starting points” for our discussion. These principles had nothing to do specifically with nudity, only with how we approach our study of the Scriptures for any moral issue (Posted HERE).

I asked Mr. Slater to affirm those hermeneutical principles as valid and trustworthy guides to discerning Scriptural truth, but he simply ignored them. I asked him again, and then finally a third time. Each time, he resorted to making comments that had no real bearing on the topic at hand, ultimately only casting aspersions upon my character.

… So he was not qualified for discussion

Finally, he refused to continue the discussion, citing me as the one unwilling to be convinced by the biblical evidence… despite the fact that I had carefully answered every question he had asked me, and responded fully to every objection he raised to my position.

Meanwhile, he did not answer one question that I posed to him, and my entire rebuttal was never given any substantial response. So, in a sense, he disqualified himself from the discussion, for he never truly entered into it.

Bonus Quote:

The truth is not always the same as the majority decision.

— Pope John Paul II —

Those who hold the “majority” view often feel no need to honestly reexamine their position. Rather than address real challenges to their beliefs, they feel that they only need to reject the opposing viewpoint as self-evidently incorrect.

They may also feel justified in making disparaging remarks about the character of the person bringing the challenge. Another tactic that is invoked is falsely aligning the opposing belief with obviously incorrect doctrines or ideas… instead of addressing the real issue head on with a cogent argument.

Perhaps when the evidence doesn’t actually support the majority opinion, such strategies are the only ones left available to its adherents.

The truth is never afraid of a challenge. But those who cling to the “nudity-taboo” sure appear to be.

Honoring my promise…

Everything that I’ve described here is accurate; this is how Mr. Slater responded to my efforts to discuss this issue with him. I have compiled the entire email dialog into a document which demonstrates that fact. However, Mr. Slater seemed to object when I told him that I intended to make it available to my readers, so I promised him that I would not publish it without his permission.

I did ask for his permission to publish the dialog, but he has not returned my emails even to give me a “yes” or a “no.” I suspect that he is now blocking my email address.

Mr. Slater, if you’re reading this and you feel that I have misrepresented your part in our dialog, please let me know and I’ll post the compilation so my readers may decide for themselves. Or if you prefer, give your own version on your own blog; I’d be happy to link to it from here.

Reminded… again…

Once again… I am reminded that only the Lord’s work in someone’s heart can expose the lies that our culture and the church have embraced regarding the true nature of our bodies; only He can reveal the falseness of the sexualized view of human nudity which empowers pornography and sexual bondage. No amount of discussion, argument, or careful biblical exegesis alone will ever break the bondage.

Once again, I am reminded that I am not smart enough, logical enough, or persuasive enough to convince anyone of the truth in these matters. I think it was an error for me to contact Mr. Slater… if I am really honest about my proud heart, I thought that this time… I might be able to convince someone by reason alone.

Nope. Ain’t gonna happen. Not this time. Not ever.

This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer… (Mark 9:28-29)

So… let us pray.

Lord Jesus, it is Your glory that is at stake, for the image that the church rejects is Your own. It is the beauty of Your Bride that is at stake, for the rejection of Your image in our bodies has led untold numbers of Your followers into all manner of sexual impurity. Please, Lord, shatter the lies that enslaves your people; set them free by truth. May Satan’s first insult of Your image in human flesh be forever rejected by those who confess Your Name. — Amen.

— Matthew Neal

See also: Starting Points for Discussion

Quotes and Comments #4

Father, forgive them;

for they know not what they do.

— Spoken by a naked man being persecuted by clothed religious people —

NOTE: This post is not in any way a defense of naturism… it is simply an encouragement to those who are naturists and are being criticized or persecuted for their practice and beliefs.

Jesus’ words above (Luke 23:34 - KJV) are an appropriate model to keep in mind for those of us who live by and speak out for a different view of human nudity than is typically taught in the church today.

Yes, I know “nudity” is not what this this verse is in the Bible to teach us… but the application of its real meaning in our lives still fits. We will face persecution from those who believe that we are a threat to the consensus of religious belief. That part shouldn’t surprise us, however… Jesus and Paul both ensured us that it would happen when we follow the truth.

(But don’t make the mistake of assuming that the experience of persecution is “proof” of “right-ness”… stupidity can bring persecution, too!)

People who hold a pornographic view of the body (the view which regards the sexual impact of the body as the driver for our decisions about clothing) are quick to oppose and/or attack anyone who does not uphold that false view.

As a result, we can expect to experience a great deal of pain and rejection—sadly—even (or especially) from those who profess to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not question their salvation or their motivations; I know that they mean well. However, we still have to endure the persecution.

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” (Rom. 12:14)

If that’s happening to you, be generous with your forgiveness… As difficult as it may be, it is the way of Christ.

— Matthew Neal

See also: Quotes and Comments — #1

A Thoughtful Response to Mr. Piper – Part 3

This is Part 3 of my response to John Piper’s article on nakedness which I quoted in full in The “Traditional” Christian View of Nakedness). A reader asked me to respond to it. My first action was to highlight in red the portions of the article I considered to be biblically indefensible and in error.

I was busy posting my responses to this reader’s questions about Mr. Piper’s article when I got sidetracked and posted some other things. I had finished Part 1 and Part 2, but haven’t gotten around to the third and final part until now. My apologies for the delay.

Once again, the reader’s questions pertaining to those “red” sections from Mr. Piper’s article are in green below. My responses follow.

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

Apart from the text I have some basic broad questions as well. The main ones are 1.) How can post-Fall man (or woman) attain a sense of purity and godliness while being naked? If the original reaction to nudity was shame, why should ours be any different?

By that same logic, I could ask this: “If the original reaction to the opportunity to sin was to go ahead and sin, why should ours be any different?” As you can see, “original reaction” (particularly after sin arrived on the scene) is not a sufficient basis for prescribing God will for our reaction to be today.

However, to be perfectly accurate... the “original reaction” to nudity was “shame-free” (Genesis 2:25). And the pre-fall reality really should continue to be our post-fall ideal (more on that in a moment)!

You would be amazed how easy it is to be naked with a sense of purity and godliness in God’s presence—it was God’s original design, after all! Let me pose some thought questions to you:

• Is there any part of your body that you need to hide from God’s sight?
• Does clothing commend us to God at all??
• Are you somehow too “impure” when you’re taking a shower to sing songs of praise and worship? Stated another way, will God not accept worship from a naked person?
• Is God somehow offended if you have a chat with him while you’re exposed and “on the throne” in the bathroom?

You see, it is WE who make the naked state “incompatible” with godliness and an offense to the Almighty… not God! In truth, your question is actually reflective of what Adam thought when he felt that he must hide from God… that his nudity was no longer acceptable in God’s presence!

Think about the three facets of relationships we all live with and what they were like in the Garden:

1. Before the fall, man lived in right relationship with God. It was broken at the fall.
2. Before the fall, the man lived in a right relationship with his wife. It was broken at the fall.
3. Before the fall, the man lived in right relationship to himself (no shame!). It was broken at the fall.

Christ died and rose again to redeem us from ALL the brokenness of the fall. He didn’t go “2 for 3,” overcoming the first two points but coming up short on the third. No, our redemption truly includes all three points. It had to be that way, because the pre-fall reality is and always has been the post-fall ideal. Dare we claim anything different?

1. We may struggle to live in right relationship to God, but we should continue to pursue Him passionately.
2. We may struggle to live in right relationship with our spouses, but we should continue to pursue them with all our hearts.
3. We may struggle to live free from shame of any kind, so we should just give in to it and convince ourselves that we can never get there so don’t even try. Everyone since Adam has been ashamed of their nakedness, so there’s no use trying to live differently.

Does that fatalistic resignation sound right to you? Nope. Not to me, either. But that’s what our formal theological position essentially tells us is the truth. Can you find it anywhere in the Bible? Does Gen. 3 tell us that?

The irony is that of the three broken relationships, the easiest one to experientially restore is the the third one… at least as it pertains to body-shame (other types of shame have other sources). If we simply stop relying on our clothing to protect us from that shame, we will find that in shedding the clothes, we shed our body-shame along with them! To those still bound by body-shame, no words could sound more idiotic. But for those released from that shame, these words ring astoundingly true! There really are some things that can only be comprehended by experience!

In case you’re wondering about the “pre-fall reality” being the “post-fall ideal,” read Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus basically says that for marriage, the pre-fall reality is still the post-fall ideal. He quotes Gen 2:24 to make His point. Is there any Scriptural basis to think that Jesus would affirm verse 24 in a post-fall world, but reject verse 25?

~~~~~~~~~~

2.) How does Naturism integrate the biblical principles of modesty?

The “biblical principles of modesty” that you reference is—at very best—a moving target. If the Bible really is clear on the matter, why is there so much disagreement in Christendom about how to define it?

Scripturally, if you’re thinking about 1 Tim. 2:9-10, are you sure that the “modesty” that’s preached today to “make sure ‘this and that’ are adequately covered” is what Paul had in mind? “Modesty” has more than one meaning even in English. I can address this particular passage more if you want, but I’ll say this… the kind of “modesty” talked about in the American church today is not taught in the Scriptures (for a detailed treatment of 1 Tim. 2:9-10, read this paper).

To help you see just how indefinable “modesty” really is, consider these questions:

• Exactly what body parts should a woman keep covered (or a man, for that matter)?
  • Where is that found in the Scriptures?
• Why should the beauty of the face be “permitted” but the beauty of the breasts (created to feed babies!!) be immoral to view?
• If seeing more skin incites lust, why not cover it all? (It would seem that some expressions of Islam have embraced that logic! see The Objectification of Women – Part 1 / Part 2)

Here’s another point to explore… do some research about the history and practice of baptism in the early church. It was done nude. Don’t take my word for it… research it yourself! How does that historical reality (practiced when 1 Tim 2 was written) square with today’s ideas about the “biblical principles of modesty”? (see Nude Baptism in the Early Church? You Decide.)

One last perspective to consider… C. S. Lewis addressed the topic of modesty in his book, Mere Christianity (Book 3, Chapter 5 – Sexual Morality). Mr. Lewis demonstrates how “modesty” is really only a social construct, when the true moral issue regarding sexual behavior is “chastity.” One particularly significant quote is this: “I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it…” I encourage all my readers to read his words in context so that you can see that I have not taken them out of his intended context.

To get back to your question of how Naturism integrates the “Biblical principle of modesty,” I would first summarize 1 Tim. 2:9-10 to say that Paul does not want us (women specifically) to use clothing or jewelry or hairstyles (or our bodies, I would suggest) to draw attention to ourselves. But in an environment where everyone is nude, “how much skin showing” is not an issue. No one is using clothing or their bodies to attract attention to themselves (or shouldn’t be, for that would be immodest!). No one is teasingly showing “a little bit more".” Everyone is simply who they really are. Everyone is “dressed” the same. In all honesty, I believe that kind of context exemplifies true biblical modesty more than just about any clothed gathering can!

Our society really does know the truth about how clothing can be used to distinguish people from one another and to allow one person to attract attention to themselves… that’s why some secondary schools have decided to require uniforms rather than allowing the kids to wear whatever they want! It puts all the students on an equal plane in reference to clothing. Well, so does social nudity.

~~~~~~~~~~

3.) If you truly and wholly embrace Naturism, why not be naked all the time? Not that I think you should or that it would be appropriate, but if you think it’s best how do you decide when to do it or not to do it. (I realize that you are a Christian first, and this is more of a devil’s advocate question, but it definitely comes up in the general conversation).

Being a naturist does not equate to being stupid! If my body needs protection from cold or power tools, I’ll put some clothes on!

There are also laws that we have an obligation to obey. Then there is the issue of deference; I have no desire to needlessly offend those around me.

But the real heart issue is this... Am I ashamed of God’s image being seen in my body? Well, I’m not any more! I don’t care who sees me… at least for my own sake… I care who sees me only for their sakes, so that I will not be forcing them to see me if they would rather not.

There might be a place and time to “educate” people, but right now, it’s probably not the best strategy for changing people’s attitudes about God’s image in all of our bodies.

~~~~~~~~~~

The other thing I wanted to address was something you mentioned in your opening paragraphs to the whole email. For one thing, I was wondering why 300 years was the number you mentioned. Is there a rich heritage of Naturists in Christian History that I’ve never heard of before?

As an offshoot of this I can’t help but go to the hermeneutical principle of looking at the history of interpretation of other godly men and women. Not that humans are infallible, but if we are going to say that the generally accepted position that wearing clothes is a good thing is mistaken, there should be a pretty good reason, and preferably not an argument from the Bible’s silence.

I’m all for questioning and seeking to be in accordance with God but there should be a point where we align with historical Christianity or recognize that the topic in question is a matter of Christian liberty.

That’s a very good point. It should counsel us to be very careful and reticent to simply lay aside theological understandings that have been accepted for a long time. I affirm that.

However, in the scope of all church history, the last 300 years is only a very small part (15%!). The fact of the matter is that our modern obsession with clothing was not even possible until the industrial revolution when the weaving of cloth became mechanized.

The idea that someone should never be seen naked wasn’t even “the rule” for Western societies until colonization found so-called “inferior” races that lived entirely without clothing and we “civilized” people were certainly “not like those ‘naked savages’!!” (I have heard but not been able to confirm this claim historically, yet I strongly suspect it is true). Unless I’m mistaken on this point, it means that our insistence on avoiding nudity really has its roots in a cultural—perhaps even racial—pride.

Nudity in sacred art was no problem at all until the last 300 years or so (check out a book at the public library called, The Old Testament Through 100 masterworks of Art... you’ll be surprised how much nudity was used!). Imagine a Christian artist today being commissioned to paint a biblical theme that included nudity!

Bathing suits as we know them today didn’t even exist several hundred years ago. But should we assume that no one ever swam? Or isn’t it more likely that they swam the same way they bathed... in public, at the river... with no concern for who might see them?

And as I mentioned above, the fact that the early Church originally practiced nude baptism should also inform our understanding of the Church’s “historical” view of nudity.

Yes, we should consider historical understanding when we consider theological issues, but not just the last 300 years! The fact is that the nudity taboo written into the theological moral code of the church today is relatively recent. It is not founded in the Scriptures, and it is not founded on reason. It is founded only on relatively recent tradition and a very false view of the meaning of our bodies!

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

This concludes Part 3 of my response to Mr. Piper’s article regarding the questions raised by the brother who brought it to my attention. I’ll continue with the questions and my answers in my next post. (See also Part 1 and Part 2).

There may be other portions of Mr. Piper’s article that another reader may feel that I have not adequately addressed. If so, I welcome comments to this post with those questions and I’ll be happy to address them either as additional comments to this post, or, if warranted, a “Part 4” for this series.

— Matthew Neal