First Debate Affirmative By Mark Roberts
Is social nudism wrong? In extensive
correspondence with John Kundert I have assured him I can demonstrate from
scripture that it is wrong. It is my task in this debate to show clearly,
from the Bible, that God does not approve of nor endorse nudism as Mr.
Kundert practices it. What they are doing is sinful and wrong. Let's learn
why.
To do so, we begin by studying
our proposition. I am affirming that "Social nudism is condemned by the
Bible as sinful." Just what is social nudism? That is defined in the debate
agreement as "Men and women (both married and unmarried) and their children
being together completely naked for non-sexual social and recreational
purposes."
Now we know what we are talking
about. Notice that we are discussing social nudism, men and women
who are not married to each other being together naked. Thus this debate
is not concerned about nakedness in the privacy of one's home, with one's
own spouse, with one's doctor, etc. Further, it is important that everyone
realize we are discussing what the Bible condemns as sinful. Thus, we are
not discussing what history says Christians hundreds of years ago did regarding
clothing. History is not our standard. We are also not talking about what
we think or feel. We are discussing what the Bible says is right and wrong.
All that is of interest in this debate is "What does the Bible say?" I
believe that when we examine the Bible we find that it teaches social nudism
is wrong.
Social nudism is wrong
because it can provoke lust. Lust is the core problem with social
nudism. The Bible frankly and honestly speaks about the allures the human
body can have upon a person. Proverbs discusses the harlot and says "Do
not lust after her beauty in your heart" (Prov. 6:25). Jesus
warns about lusting: "But I say to you that whoever looks
at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his
heart" (Matt. 5:28). John also warns "For all that is in the world; the
lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of
life; is not of the Father but is of the world" (1 John 2:16). This is
just a sampling of the varied material throughout scripture cautioning
that men and women of God need to be careful with their eyes.
The Bible designates clothing
as one step that a person takes to combat the problem of lust. The priests
wore clothes so that lust would not occur (Exo. 28:42). Paul urges women
not to use clothing, either too much or too little, to draw attention to
their bodies: "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold
or pearls or costly clothing" (1 Tim. 2:9). While it is acknowledged that
primarily Paul is speaking here to the problem of over dressing note that
the passage urges "decency and propriety" (NIV) or "modestly and discreetly"
(NASB). How does nudism possibly fit into this passage? Consistently the
Bible urges chaste behavior so that the sin of lust will not occur.
However, despite all the
attention in scripture to the problem of lust nudists simply choose to
ignore the Bible's warnings. They willingly go where there is complete
nudity, apparently hoping that in the midst of so much temptation they
will not sin. Mr. Kundert needs to explain to the readers of the debate
how a person is to avoid the temptation to lust in the presence of nudity?
While scripture commands Christians to flee lust (1 Cor. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:22)
and to pray for a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13) social nudists embrace temptation.
They abandon propriety, modesty and any other safeguard against lust, choosing
to exhibit themselves absolutely nude with others who are also nude. Where
is the concern for "the lust of the eye?" Where is the determination to
avoid "adultery in the heart?"
Lest one ignore the dangers
of lust the Bible contains a powerful story of how overcoming lust can
become. In 2 Samuel 11:2 we read that David saw Bathsheba bathing. Note
carefully that this event dramatically parallels what Mr. Kundert calls
"social nudism." Bathsheba was naked, but she was not naked for sexual
purposes. What she did was not done to entice anyone. She was merely bathing.
Yet the sight of her naked body led to lust and a tragic series of terrible
sins by David. Who can read this story and then say "It's no big deal if
men and women are together naked?" David's story shows how even the spiritually
strongest person can lust.
Let us make the point clear.
Repeatedly, the Bible warns against lust. The Bible demonstrates the terrible
dangers of lust. Given this clear pattern what thinking Christian would
ever wish to go any place where he could be subject to such temptation?
After reading the Bible what person says "social nudism is blessed by God?"
Mr. Kundert may choose to
deny that he has ever lusted after anyone at a nudist camp, but he cannot
deny that it could happen. Why does he flirt with disaster? Can
Mr. Kundert guarantee that tomorrow his Bathsheba won't come to
the nudist camp, leading him to adultery and the destruction of his marriage
and soul? Who would say they are stronger spiritually than David? So don't
say it can't happen, Mr. Kundert. It happened to David, and that means
it could happen to anyone — anyone who chooses to see people naked!
Social nudism is wrong
because it can cause others to lust. Even if Mr. Kundert can guarantee
that he will never lust (which he can't), what effect does the display
of his naked body have on others? He cannot know what will happen for he
cannot read the minds of others. He may be causing someone to lust and
be ignorant of it — but surely he is then an accessory and party to their
sin. He has put a stumbling block before others by his unwillingness to
clothe himself to prevent lust. This is sinful (Romans 14:13). Mr. Kundert
must trust men, seeing his naked wife, to look upon her without lust, to
see her differently than they would a naked woman in a pornographic magazine.
He must trust women to see him differently than they would a naked man
on a "pin-up" calendar. How can he be certain others are doing that? If
they cannot he has contributed to sin!
Amazingly, Mr. Kundert reveals
that he knows this is a problem with social nudism. In the Fig Leaf Forum
he shares the following: "Eleanor (Kundert's wife — MR) does have a concern
that our lifestyle might be a spiritual stumbling block to some individuals
(Romans 14). I share her concern but believe that if we call ourselves
Christian
nudists then we must be very sensitive to the moral and spiritual
sensibilities of those around us...we must take care that nothing we do
in the presence of others be allowed to compromise their faith or cause
temptation to sin." All of that is fine and good, yet Mr. Kundert does
not explain how he is going to keep from being a stumbling block to another
while he is completely naked! Such is impossible.
To my further amazement,
reading the material on the Fig Leaf Forum makes it clear that Mr. Kundert
and his wife frequent nudist camps of all sorts, not just so-called "Christian
nudist camps." This means that he is naked in the presence of those who
do not make any pretense or attempt to subscribe to his supposed "high
moral values." For all he knows he is among people who have come together
to be naked for the express purpose of lusting and carnal pleasure. He
cannot deny this, because he does not know others' hearts. Someone may
come to such a camp intent on causing lust by displaying his/her naked
body, or may come there intent on lusting after others. What an atmosphere
for a Christian to be in! Despite this Mr. Kundert still displays himself
in the nude, exposing himself to the temptation to lust as well as quite
possibly causing others to sin.
Lust is the issue here, and
it is the problem of "lust of the eye" that Mr. Kundert must grapple with.
Watch carefully in his reply and see if Mr. Kundert will tell us what "lust
of the eye" is, and how he avoids becoming involved in it or causing it
when he is practicing his social nudism. See if he will answer these two
vital questions: Can he guarantee that he will not be led to lust when
he practices social nudism? Can he guarantee that he is not causing others
to lust?
Social nudism is wrong
because of its influence. Mr. Kundert and other nudists raise great
complaints in their writings about how misunderstood they are, how everyone
thinks they are perverts, etc. This alone indicts them. A Christian's life
is to be above reproach. Jesus tells us that we are "lights unto the world"
(Matt. 5:14ff). If this behavior is obscuring our light why would we want
to be part of it? Paul says Christians are to "Walk in wisdom toward those
who are outside, redeeming the time" (Col. 4:5). Romans 12:17 commands
us to "Respect what is right in the sight of all men." Our influence matters.
When Mr. Kundert tells non-Christians that he is a nudist what is their
reaction? Do they immediately think "Here is a spiritually minded person
from whom I can get answers about Christianity?" No they do not. Nudism
is associated with sensuality. It is not viewed by the majority of people,
Christian or otherwise, as righteous. Mr. Kundert as much as admits this
when, in the lead editorial for the Fig Leaf Forum, he promises
anonymity for anyone who would send letters in about practicing nudism.
Mr. Kundert writes "Regretfully, the history of social nudism has always
required anonymity for some of those involved." Why is this, Mr. Kundert?
Isn't it because so many interpret social nudism as a sin, and associate
it (correctly) with lust and sensuality? How can one be "salt and light"
when he associates himself with what so many clearly see as sinful? Yet
Mr. Kundert willingly impairs and compromises his influence by his determination
to practice social nudism. This is simply wrong.
Social nudism is also
wrong because it could lead others to sin. Mr. Kundert wishes his
social nudism to be designated as a matter of Christian liberty. But even
if it were (it clearly is not) he still should not practice it. Paul carefully
details that one must not practice a matter of liberty if it could cause
another brother to stumble (Romans 14; 1 Cor. 8:9, 13). So Mr. Kundert
believes he can go to nudist camps without sinning. He encourages others
to do the same in his Fig Leaf Forum. Now a new Christian reads
his material and decides "I'll try it." But this new Christian does lust
at the nudist camp. Who placed a stumbling block before him? That is right.
Mr. Kundert led him into sin!
Christian nudism is simply
sinful. It is wrong to go where lust could so easily and obviously occur.
It is wrong to go and be a potential temptation to others to lust. It is
wrong to compromise one's influence. It is wrong to promote something that
could lead others to sin. Nudism is wrong and there is nothing right about
it.
Certainly, we expect that
nudists reading this material will attempt to excuse their behavior. Some
may say "No one lusts at these nudist camps." How can one know that? No
one knows what others are thinking! Yet in a post to the alt.christnet.nudism
message board one wrote that at a nudist camp swimming pool he could "get
his eyeful of attractive young bodies." This from a so-called Christian
nudist! So we see that lust is going on among these nudists whether they
want to admit it or not (and this fellow admitted it!). And again — even
if Mr. Kundert never lusts he cannot be certain that he isn't causing
others to lust.
"But," one may protest, "people
lust after people who are fully clothed." This is certainly true, yet how
does this exonerate the nudist? Does a true disciple of Christ not bear
some responsibility to "walk in a manner worthy of your calling" (Eph.
4:1ff), which would certainly include trying to help people keep from lusting
rather than causing lust? The Christian is called to a life of purity,
holiness and chaste behavior (1 Peter 1:16; 3:2). How does throwing caution
to the wind and presenting oneself as a target for lust fit with such admonitions?
To argue that since some cannot control their thoughts if we are fully
clothed we may then take off all our clothes is ludicrous. Yet Mr. Kundert
and other social nudists brazenly expose themselves to non-Christians,
tempting them to lust. Incredibly, they revel in their practice, and seem
completely unwilling to accept responsibility for the sin they may be causing.
Others have offered that
"we get used to nudity, so we don't lust any more." This is certainly a
fascinating defense. Note that it admits that lust did occur for some time,
but now they are "used to it." Apparently this person just lusted long
enough until finally their conscience was seared (1 Tim. 4:2). That hardly
constitutes much of a defense for anything! "We'll just sin and sin and
sin until finally we can get this sort of under control and not sin so
much."
Finally, I would like Mr.
Kundert to tell us what public nudity does for him. If he wishes to be
naked he may certainly do so in the privacy of his home. He and his wife
can be naked all they wish there without causing lust or other sin. If
he wishes to be naked outdoors let him secure a private place outdoors.
But
why does he want to be naked with others? There is simply nothing
in scripture of any kind that would indicate that being naked with others
will enhance one's spirituality or make one a better Christian. In fact,
the Bible portrays nudity as a non-normal state that is associated with
shame and embarrassment (Isa. 47:3; Ezek. 16:7-8; Hosea 2:3; Matt. 25:36;
Rev. 3:17). If God has such a positive view of nudism why is it consistently
used as an image for humiliation and shame? How then can one decide public
nakedness is good, normal or to be desired? The Bible details the spiritual
disciplines, like prayer and Bible study, that draw us closer to the Lord.
Where is any hint that social nudism will help one be a better Christian?
In closing, this article
conclusively demonstrates that there is no defense for social nudism. It
is sinful. Those involved in it must repent and stop such practices.
In Mr. Kundert's response
we will watch closely to see that he:
1. Give specific attention
to answering my questions about "lust of the eyes" and how nudists prevent
such sin.
2. Responds point by point
to my four charges against nudism. Mr. Kundert must tell the reader how
nudism does not lead to lust by the nudist, does not cause lust in others
viewing the nudist, why a social nudist can destroy his influence for good
by practicing nudism, and how he keeps from leading others into sin by
promoting the social nudist lifestyle.
3. Shows us the scriptures
that tell us that nakedness is desirable and helps one serve God.
He has his work cut out for
him!
