Response To The Marriage Bed

Web site location: http://www.themarriagebed.com

Article location: http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/
naturism.shtml

Visitors are invited to read the entire Marriage Bed article before examining the response below. This response was based on the article text as it appeared in August, 2005.

I find it revealing that the owners of The Marriage Bed (TMB) Web site "think" that the Bible is clear about nudity being for marriage only, but then candidly admit how difficult it is to "prove" it. That should immediately tell readers something. Rather than presenting a defensible case in support of their assumptions based upon their own thorough and objective research into both social nudism and Biblical nudity, they instead opted to offer up a one-sided testimonial from a nameless individual who purportedly has "been there" and "done that." Careful research, I believe, would have equipped them to quickly recognize that this flawed article falls far short of "a strong case against nudism for Christians." While this author's words may well summarize some of his personal experiences as a nudist, they most assuredly do not represent the whole story of social nudism. I've "been there" and "done that" too, and I've had very different experiences and arrived at very different conclusions than those presented in this article.

It should also be pointed out that despite his extremely negative review of social nudism, the author of this article spent two whole years in the lifestyle. That, too, should tell readers something. I wouldn't have spent even two weeks as a nudist if social nudism was really as bad as he says it is, which leaves me wondering why he remained so long. Might it be that social nudism has a positive and beneficial side that he has chosen not to share in his critique?

The author of this article begins well by stating what is quite obvious to anyone who has seriously and objectively studied Christian participation in social nudism: "The Bible really doesn't condemn it." He also admits that it's true that "the problem is not with what [nudists] are doing, but with the way society reacts to it."

TMB: "First off, it really is not about sex (for most). There are some men who get interested for the wrong reasons, but they are soon disappointed. Where single men are welcome they outnumber the women at least 3 to 1, often more (10 to 1). And the women there are part of a couple."

Legitimate social nudism is most certainly not about sex, and I'm pleased to see this fact included in the article. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the author's numbers concerning single men, but I am aware that men do typically outnumber women. The claim that all women at nudist venues "are part of a couple," however, is patently false.

TMB: "This leads to the first big, big problem with social nudism in general: It becomes a wedge that drives spouses apart.... Those involved are so 'into' it that they will deny this point."

It's absolutely true that "the reluctant spouse syndrome" exists within social nudism, and I most certainly will not "deny this point." I have no evidence or experience with which to corroborate the various claims made by the author about obsession and divorce. That some of these extreme and unfortunate situations exist is probably true. After all, they exist in conjunction with many other, more typical marital situations. Why not nudism? That these sorry situations exist in larger-than-average numbers within social nudism is unproven and not very likely in my opinion.

My general response to "the reluctant spouse syndrome" is that it must be viewed in perspective. For example, consider the husband who feels a strong call to the mission field. As it happens, his wife feels no similar calling and does not wish such a life for herself. Consider the husband who is offered a significant and long-sought-after promotion that unexpectedly requires a move to another city. His wife, however, does not wish to relocate. Consider the camping enthusiast nearing retirement who wishes to fulfill a lifelong dream of buying a motorhome and traveling the United States full-time. His wife, on the other hand, has no desire for this kind of life on the road. Most of us would have no difficulty recalling similar situations that we've learned about in our day-to-day interaction with friends and family. I suggest that the three women in the examples above are no less reluctant spouses than those whose husbands happen to be interested in pursuing social nudism.

Yes, reluctant spouses exist within nudism, but we must be fair by acknowledging that they exist in almost every other area of life, too. No one would propose that missions, promotions and motorhomes be condemned and banned merely because they have the potential to cause serious friction within some marriages. Neither, I would suggest, should such a simplistic "solution" be applied to nudism. Whatever counseling or remedies might reasonably benefit the conflicted couples in the three examples above would be just as appropriate for those dealing with nudism. And let me be clear in stating that under no circumstances should anything be allowed to become "a wedge that drives spouses apart," and that includes social nudism.

Not to be overlooked before moving on is the fact that there are thousands of couples and families who are actively and quite happily engaged in social nudism. My wife and I have probably seen hundreds of them with our own eyes over the years. This reality, in my opinion, soundly dismisses the exaggerated claim that "Almost universally it is the man who becomes interested in this, and almost universally the woman is opposed."

TMB: "The second big problem is the effect on your Christian witness and ministry. There are two kinds of Christian naturists. Those who 'keep the big secret,' and those who don't."

I find it very interesting that the article's author extensively details the reasons for secrecy among nudists — that they fear being wrongly judged and wrongly condemned by those who often have an incorrect view of the body, and who rarely understand that the Bible has nothing bad to say about behavior like that practiced by legitimate social nudists — and then candidly admits in the very next paragraph that "they are correct" to be thus concerned. So what does this say about who's really at fault in this strange predicament? And what's the proposed solution? Acquiescence and resignation, according to the author. It's an acquiescence intended to maintain the status-quo and preserve unity at all costs — even when it can be legitimately argued that the majority are uninformed and incorrect in persecuting the minority. One might easily question whether such capitulation acts to edify and strengthen the body of Christ, or whether it in fact accomplishes just the opposite.

TMB: "Those who are open about their nudism find they are judged at their church."

I wish to make two points regarding the stories offered by the author about the penalties that are often imposed on nudists by some churches. First, openness and standing upon one's convictions can indeed have tangible and sometimes severe consequences (a fate not reserved for nudists alone, of course). I have heard many similar stories of church sanctions over the years. In the worst of these cases I was told that church leadership rejected all sincere and heartfelt pleas to examine Scripture together in hopes of bringing about some understanding regarding what the nudists believed and how they behaved. I find this utterly appalling. Is it any wonder that nudists are driven away from church fellowship when leadership behaves like this, apparently placing a higher value on maintaining appearances and traditions than on maintaining fidelity to God, Scripture and truth? This state of affairs speaks much more negatively about these churches and their leaders than about legitimate social nudism, in my opinion.

Second, along with cases of persecution, I have also heard many stories of acceptance and integration. Many have related how they told their church leadership and fellow parishioners about their nudism and remained welcome within their fellowship. Such reassuring acceptance does happen, and the failure to acknowledge this reality points once again to the one-sidedness and overall lack of balance in this article.

TMB: "Jesus prayed for unity in the body. I have seen nudism cause disunity in Christian fellowship and trouble in Christian marriages."

Regarding the matter of Christian unity, I will again repeat my request for perspective. Most of us could name any number of common beliefs or common practices that can and do "cause disunity in Christian fellowship and trouble in Christian marriages" (often because they are wrongly understood or selfishly abused), yet few would call for them to be banned or condemned merely because such potential exists.

I dare say that operating a Christian "sex and intimacy" Web site available to visitors of all ages would probably be viewed no more favorably than being a Christian nudist by many conservative congregations in the United States, and such a site could well cause sufficient "disunity in Christian fellowship" to earn similar sanctions from church leadership. And though intended for good, it's not hard to imagine how certain information and advice offered on this Web site could cause "trouble in [some] Christian marriages." Should the owners be required to "lay aside" the "weight or hindrance" of their Web site because of this?

Given the way that it's so often misunderstood, I do agree that social nudism can create hindrances for some, but it can also create wonderful blessings for others! That's a truth not presented in this unbalanced article. Such blessings have been well-documented in Fig Leaf Forum and on many of the Web sites devoted to Christian nudism.

TMB: "I have heard several Christians tell me how nudism ended their involvement in ministry."

While it may be true that nudism has ended some ministries, it is also true that it has started others. I have corresponded with many Christians, for example, who feel a genuine burden for the largely ignored nudist community, and who have taken it upon themselves to do what they can to reach the willing in this "people group" with the Gospel.

TMB: "You are viewed as a crack pot and nothing you say about faith will be listened to."

That has not been my general experience. Most who have treated me thus (and they are a tiny few) are what I would call "high profile" Christians in leadership or public positions. By contrast, I have had the chance to discuss my views about social nudism with many "average" Christians, and none of them has reacted in this way. While it's true that not all have been convinced by what I had to say about nudism, they have nevertheless listened respectfully and none have held the fact that I was a nudist against me. My interest in social nudism has never cost me a friend, has never alienated a family member, and has not affected my witness.

TMB: "I could tell you other stories also.... The breaking up of family ties is not good fruit."

Stories of nudism straining or breaking family ties are indeed tragic, but what of stories concerning couples and families who claim to have had such bonds strengthened through their practice of social nudism? These accounts exist in the nudist media and are there for anyone willing to look for them. They cannot easily be dismissed, and their lack of mention is just another example of the very one-sided view of social nudism presented by this author.

TMB: "About 40% of nudists are swingers."

I have never heard this statistic before and consider it very suspicious. I find it curious that the author chose not to include the title and date of the "nudist publication" from which this number is supposedly drawn. Where did it actually come from? Was the source legitimate and credible? Were the methods used to gather this data reliable and consistent with accepted survey practices? Did the Web site owners verify this information before publishing it?

TMB: "You will get invited to swing if you are part of a couple and frequent different resorts."

This is completely contrary to my more than twenty years of experience as a nudist. My wife and I are members of our local nudist club and spend lots of time on the grounds every summer. In the past we have traveled to several different nudist resorts and we have spent months at a time at one of the largest and busiest in North America. We have never once been approached or propositioned by swingers. This fact serves to reinforce my doubts regarding the "40%" statistic offered by this author.

Are there swingers among the ranks of social nudists? I have read in various publications that some are in the lifestyle and accept that this is true. I suspect, however, that swingers can also be found in a wide variety of much more common social settings if one knew where and how to look for them, and this causes me to once again ask that such things be viewed in perspective. Shall we condemn and abandon any and every social venue that gets infiltrated and abused by the likes of swingers? Most rational people would immediately dismiss such a drastic remedy.

I have never subscribed to the "throw the baby out with the bath water" method of solving social problems. I am unconvinced that the problem of swingers within nudism is any more widespread than in the rest of society. I simply do not believe that the utter abandonment of otherwise beneficial institutions and lifestyles (including nudism) is the appropriate way to deal with a minority who makes wrongful use of them.

TMB: "There is no Bible verse forbidding nudism. But the actual fruits of it tend to be contrary to Biblical teaching."

The author correctly concludes that "There is no Bible verse forbidding nudism," but my personal experience as a social nudist leaves me no choice but to contest his assertion that "the actual fruits of it tend to be contrary to Biblical teaching." Social nudism is not for everyone, and I would never make the case that it is. For a variety of reasons the "fruits" of nudism may indeed be bad for some, but for many more the fruit has proven to be sweet indeed, and I include myself in that number.

TMB: "Nudism offered me 'freedom' (bound to secrets), but I have found truth to be a better freedom."

I find myself left wondering about the nature of any freedom that exists solely as the result of cowering before church authorities and fellow believers uninterested in seeking truth and/or unwilling to foster any sort of understanding between themselves and others holding different views. Can such freedom even rightly be called by that name?

Even though the author correctly states that "The Bible really doesn't condemn [nudism]," the message of his article is that we should live as if it did. And even though the author correctly concludes that "There is no Bible verse forbidding nudism," the message of his article is that we should live as if there was. This is the kind of Biblical "truth" upon which his "better freedom" is based. The author finds this "better freedom" so liberating, in fact, that he chooses not to have his name associated with it. I frankly find nothing convincing about such truth, and nothing attractive about such freedom.

It has been said that there are at least two sides to every story. The Marriage Bed Web site has presented one view of social nudism as they perceive it. Fig Leaf Forum has presented another. It will ultimately be the responsibility of each reader to determine which "truth" about social nudism will be their truth, for in the end we will all stand before God as individuals to answer for what we each have chosen to believe and do in this life.

This response was written by the editor of Fig Leaf Forum. An earlier version appeared in Issue 88.