Response To RBC Ministries

Web site location: http://www.rbc.org

Article location: http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45804&Topic=674

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

As is evident in the title, the nudity addressed in this article is wide-ranging. Interestingly — and perhaps significantly — the nakedness of social nudism is not mentioned.

I believe the very first sentence ("Sexuality and individuality are sacred gifts") sets the tone for the rest of the article by making an immediate attempt to link sexuality with nakedness.

RBC: "Although nudity is necessary under certain special circumstances, as when a person is examined by a physician or taking a shower in a locker room, indiscriminate nudity is degrading."

That much of the nudity in magazines, in the movies and even on some beaches is degrading is beyond question. That almost all other nudity must therefore be equally degrading is leaping to a conclusion not sustained by either the arguments presented in this article or by the evidence of real life.

It should be carefully noted that there is nothing "indiscriminate" about the nudity of organized social nudism. It occurs voluntarily within controlled circumstances and under long-standing rules that are well-known by all participants.

It should also be noted that just as context can determine whether nudity is seen as indiscriminate/degrading or discretionary/beneficial, so too can circumstances determine whether nudity is sexual or non-sexual. Nudists (along with the aforementioned doctors and locker room users) will attest from experience that simple voluntary nakedness is neither inherently sexual nor inherently degrading.

RBC: "Humans were created as image-bearers of God."

No disagreement here, though I do sense in this article an almost schizophrenic divide in the alternating praise directed toward the nature of God's human creation and the dire warnings about the supposed dangers faced by society from exposure to the mere appearance of that very same creation.

RBC: "While it's true that prolonged exposure to nudity tends to make a culture less sensitive to it, no culture could ever be completely desensitized.

Nudists, of course, represent a very small and unique sub-culture within a much larger society — a larger society that makes little effort to desensitize themselves to nudity or sexuality. Quite the opposite is true, I would say.

RBC: "Indiscriminate nudity is a misguided attempt to recapture an innocence that, since the Fall (Genesis 3.6-11 and Genesis 3.23-24), is no longer available."

This assertion seems utterly out of place within a discussion that primarily focuses on media nudity which abounds with intentional sexual overtones that are the polar opposite of innocence. I see nothing innocent in most of the magazine covers on display at the supermarket, for instance, and I strongly suspect there is nothing "innocent" in the pornographer's wares.

RBC: "It would be wonderful if lust and wrongful sexual attention weren't a problem, but realistically, in our imperfect world, there is a tendency to look upon others merely as objects for personal sexual gratification or control (Matthew 5.28)."

I would not argue with the claim that society at large often demonstrates "a tendency to look upon others merely as objects for personal sexual gratification or control." That's something all people of moral character must constantly guard against. It's important to note that Matthew 5.28 does not address nakedness but instead the much larger issue of lust in the heart. Lust would not exist if mere clothing was the "serum" by which society could be inoculated against this sin. We all know better.

RBC: "Westerners also place an inappropriately high value on physical attractiveness, as well as setting unrealistic standards for it. To idolize a temporary, culturally defined standard for beauty is destructive."

Interestingly, while most media nakedness does indeed set "unrealistic standards [for] physical attractiveness," social nudism has long claimed that its unique and more healthy form of nakedness serves well to counteract that very thing!

RBC: "The Bible doesn't dictate the norms for the type of clothing to be worn in every society, but it requires modesty. 1 Peter 3.3-6, for example, exhorts women to seek the beauty that comes from within ('the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit')."

I'm intrigued by the fact that the author supports his assertion that the Bible requires physical modesty by talking about "the beauty that comes from within." In truth, modesty is a complex subject that cannot simply be defined by the amount of cloth covering skin. Nakedness during examinations by physicians and while showering in locker rooms was mentioned earlier, yet I doubt that he would label it immodest under those circumstances. The nakedness in these examples occurs within controlled environments in which rules for decorum and "modesty" exist — as does an expectation of conformity to those rules. This describes well the environment in which the practice of legitimate organized social nudism takes place.

RBC: "'Flee from sexual immorality....' (1 Corinthians 6.19-21)."

Here once again is a strong inference that sexuality and the subject of this article — nudity — are inextricably linked. This is simply not the case. It is not so in the widely accepted situations already mentioned by the author in his article (doctor's exams and locker room showers), and it is not so within the confines of legitimate family-oriented social nudism.

RBC: "Exposed skin isn't the only issue — otherwise we would be in agreement with the strict Muslim view that modesty requires a woman to cover as much of her body as possible."

That "exposed skin isn't the only issue" is well stated. It is regrettable, then, that the covering of that exposed skin nevertheless remains the broad and — dare I say — indiscriminate counsel of this article.

RBC: "It isn't that the sight of the nude body is 'dirty' but that it is holy — too precious to be shared with strangers."

The imprudence of "casting pearls before swine" is well known. Reverence — a quality absent in virtually all mass media nudity — is a critical part of social nudism. Non-Christian participants might call it by a different name if asked, but my experience has been that the idea of it is sensed and understood well by most sincere nudists.

RBC: "Indiscriminate nudity deprives husbands and wives of the joy of reserving the visual part of physical intimacy for each other alone."

The assertions above concerning "indiscriminate nudity" may well be valid. I would reiterate, however, that legitimate social nudism is not indiscriminate in nature. It is intentional, structured and inherently non-sexual. This inherent "non-sexualness" is the very thing ensuring that the "visual part of physical intimacy" is reserved for married nudists.

RBC: "Working through our culture, our enemy strives to degrade our perception of sexuality to mere expression of animal instinct and pleasure. Christians need to be on guard against anything that degrades the God-ordained dignity of human sexuality — including indiscriminate nudity."

Agreed. Social nudism and the ideals that underpin it are very far removed from sexual expression and the "mere expression of animal instinct and pleasure," however, and social nudism's nakedness is surely not "indiscriminate."

From this article's footnotes:

RBC: "Most people realize that besides wearing clothing to protect ourselves from the elements, we clothe ourselves to enhance our appearance and enable modesty. The testimony of thousands of generations of people in nearly every culture is that the world would be a less attractive place if everyone went around naked. Even the most beautiful people know that clothing enhances their attractiveness."

This seems an incongruous admission from someone who earlier heaped high praise upon the pinnacle of God's creation, rightly calling human bodies "image bearers of God," "holy" and "temples of the Holy Spirit." Are such sacred creations really so "unattractive" as to require human enhancements in order to attain Christian acceptance?

RBC: "But even more important, appropriate attire serves as a shield against voyeurism at the same time it protects others from an uncomfortable sense of being subtly (or not so subtly) manipulated."

It should be self-evident that "appropriate attire" is determined by the context in which it's found. A modest swimsuit is appropriate at the beach but quite inappropriate in a business situation like a bank, for instance. A hard-hat and sturdy overalls are appropriate for the construction site but generally inappropriate during a typical Sunday morning worship service. In exactly the same way, clothing itself may be inappropriate attire in a context where the simple sight of one's "birthday suit" is common and expected like at a nudist resort.

RBC: "The Jews were modest people. Jesus' disciples probably shed their outer garments when working as fishermen, but they, along with other God-fearing Jews, would have been scandalized by public nakedness that was part and parcel (as in the Hellenistic gymnasium) of a Hellenistic culture whose degeneracy easily surpassed the seediest 'tenderloin district' of a modern metropolis."

That there were Jewish sensitivities to nakedness in Bible times is fairly well-documented. That laborers such as Jesus’ disciples would have shed only their outer garments in such situations rather than setting aside all their clothing remains a matter of some dispute.

The notion that modern Christian behavior is somehow to be guided by ancient Biblical sensibilities and customs is troubling. If this is in fact the case concerning nakedness, why not then concerning other issues from the very items of clothing we wear (do we wear robes and sandals as they did?) to the way we greet each other (do we greet each other with a holy kiss as they did?) to the way we interact with others (do we hold slaves as they did?).

Most nudists would eagerly join RBC and others in criticizing nakedness that's in any way associated with degeneracy. It must be understood, however, that not all nakedness is "created equal," to borrow a phrase. The morality or appropriateness of nakedness is very much context-dependant. RBC's article, for example, is careful to differentiate between "the work of great artists who treat nudity with dignity" and "the pornographic industry," and rightly so. I maintain that it's just as appropriate to strongly differentiate today's family-oriented social nudism from whatever degeneracy may have accompanied nakedness within ancient Greek culture, or that may now accompany nakedness in modern culture.

RBC: "Strict Islamic culture requires women to wear long gowns and veils in public. Such cultural requirements place an unfair burden on women, requiring them to be the primary guardians of sexual dignity while depriving them of the opportunity to become fully developed persons and full partners with men."

Though dismissed by the author, this nevertheless remains the natural extension of the "clothing as a protection against lust" paradigm. If some clothing provides some protection against lust, why not more clothing for more protection, and why not Islamic burkas for the ultimate in protection?

In reality, "modest" dress is culturally determined, as is "modest" undress. It has always been thus. A resident of Jerusalem in Jesus' day would no doubt be startled and appalled by the "conservative" dress found in a typical North American evangelical church on any given Sunday. Would such a first-century perspective thus render the entire congregation immodest?

It has been said that there are at least two sides to every story. The RBC Ministries Web site has presented one view of nudity as they perceive it. Fig Leaf Forum has presented another. It will ultimately be the responsibility of each reader to determine which "truth" about such nudity 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.