First Debate Negative By John Kundert
Introduction.
Before beginning my reply to Mr. Roberts, I feel it necessary to inform
readers that he refused to enter into this debate without strict word limitations
in place. It should be obvious after reading his first article that he
has posed more questions and raised more complex issues than any opponent
could ever adequately address using an equal number of words. My preference
would have been to offer a meticulous line by line, point by point
reply. However, space will permit only a general response to the four main
"charges against nudism" with which he concluded his article. Should Mr.
Roberts boast in his next rejoinder, "See how Mr. Kundert avoided answering
this question" or "See how he failed to address that issue," readers should
understand that it was his own space limitations that made a complete reply
impossible. Any reader who would like a more thorough response to any matters
not addressed below can receive it by contacting me directly.
Important Admissions.
In a pre-debate letter Mr. Roberts admitted to me "that generally I accept
that nakedness is not immoral in and of itself." I'm glad he did. If he
had not, he would be admitting that something God created was inherently
immoral, a completely unbiblical proposition.
The definition of social
nudism accepted by Mr. Roberts for the purpose of this debate is: "Men
and women (both married and unmarried) and their children being together
completely naked for non-sexual social and recreational purposes." He therefore
admits that social nudism involves nakedness within a non-sexual context.
Mr. Roberts' next important
admission was revealed when he wrote, "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.'" [1]
This is a half-truth, but an extremely important one. While David's behavior
in no way represents that of modern nudists, public bathing (that is, bathing
where one can be seen by others) does indeed offer a close Biblical parallel
to social nudism.
Mr. Roberts must understand
how commonplace public bathing was in Bible times. Private indoor bathing
facilities like we take for granted today simply didn't exist! Even Egyptian
royalty had to use the river to bathe (Exodus 2.5)! In 2 Kings 5.10-14
we find Naaman comparing the bathing quality of the Jordan River with that
of the rivers of Damascus. Bathing was not required only for personal hygiene,
either. Leviticus 14-17 and 22 along with Numbers 19 offer more than
twenty commands from God to bathe, and this when the Israelites were
still living in tents!
The last admission of note
came from Mr. Roberts shortly after he wrote that "The Bible designates
clothing as one step that a person takes to combat the problem of lust."
Just a few paragraphs later he reluctantly admitted that it was "certainly
true" that "people lust after people who are fully clothed." [2]
What he really thinks, then, is that the Bible designates clothes as a
control for lust (untrue) even though they are quite ineffective when used
for that purpose (true). Mr. Roberts might well consider the principles
enunciated in Colossians 2.20-23 in order to get a clearer view of what
the Bible really says regarding the value of externals in "restraining
sensual indulgence." Externals can no more produce real purity and
real
holiness than externals can produce real salvation.
To summarize, according to
Mr. Roberts' own admissions we're dealing with nakedness that's not
inherently immoral, nakedness that's not sexually immoral, and
nakedness within a context that "dramatically parallels" a practice commonly
witnessed throughout Bible times, a practice partly necessitated by the
command of God yet never once condemned by Him as sinful in any
way. Also reluctantly admitted by Mr. Roberts is the ineffectiveness
of clothing for controlling lust.
Lust And Temptation.
Mr. Roberts thinks that "Despite all the attention in Scripture to the
problem of lust nudists simply choose to ignore the Bible's warnings."
Absolutely
untrue. If he had bothered to examine what's been written in Fig
Leaf Forum over the years, for instance, he would know that rather
than ignoring "the problem of lust," Christian nudists address it head
on. We don't, however, view lust as a wild, all-encompassing threat like
he does. Rather, we have examined any problems that might be posed by lust
within context and in perspective, using the Bible as our guide.
Mr. Roberts challenged me
"to explain to the readers of the debate how a person is to avoid the temptation
to lust in the presence of nudity." The explanation lies in the context
where nakedness is found. Mr. Roberts would have readers believe that 'All
nakedness is created equal' (to borrow a phrase from a well-known document).
Even though he admits the nakedness of social nudism is non-sexual, he
nevertheless references a verse about the allures of a prostitute (Proverbs
6.25) and a verse about fleeing sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6.18)
to support his claim that "Social nudism is wrong because it can provoke
lust." Later in his article he suggests that it's possible to view my wife's
chaste nakedness at a nudist park in the same way as "a naked woman in
a pornographic magazine," and my chaste nakedness in the same way as "a
naked man on a 'pin-up' calendar." This further proves that he thinks all
nakedness is equally lust-provoking.
I contend that just as Scripture
must be interpreted within context, so too must nakedness. To illustrate,
I'll ask Mr. Roberts the following questions: Does he believe the nakedness
of classic nude paintings and statues in art museums throughout the world
is as lust-provoking as that of pornographic magazines? Does he believe
the nakedness in National Geographic magazine or an anatomy textbook
is as lust-provoking as that of pin-up calendars? Does he believe the nakedness
witnessed by doctors and nurses in a hospital is as lust-provoking as that
witnessed at a strip club? It seems absurd to even have to ask such questions
to make a point which ought to be so obvious. The truth about social nudism
is that the
non-sexual, non-arousing nature of its nakedness simply
does
not provoke lust or temptation in the way Mr. Roberts thinks
it does.
Mr. Roberts thinks that "The
Bible portrays nudity as a non-normal state that is associated with shame
and embarrassment." Such a blanket statement is simply not supported by
Scripture. There are many examples of nakedness in the Bible which prove
this assertion incorrect. I offer three here. I have already shown that
public bathing was common in Bible times, yet nowhere is its nakedness
associated with "shame and embarrassment." 1 Samuel 19.24 has Saul prophesying
naked for a day and a night without shame or embarrassment. Finally, John
21.7 has Peter fishing naked near the shore of Galilee, again with no shame
or embarrassment experienced and no condemnation received. I challenge
Mr. Roberts and skeptical readers to search your Bibles, find every instance
where physical nakedness is discussed, and then carefully examine the context
in which it exists. Never is physical nakedness itself a matter of shame,
embarrassment or condemnation. It's always the conditions or actions surrounding
nakedness — the context — that result in these negative connotations. Nakedness
is God's creation and cannot, in and of itself, rightly produce
shame, embarrassment or condemnation. Neither can God-created nakedness,
in
and of itself, tempt anyone to evil (James 1.13-14).
Stumbling Blocks.
Mr. Roberts mentions Romans 14 several times in his article. Here Paul
teaches about Christian liberty [3]
and right relations between the strong and weak in faith. The weak were
those who believed eating meat sacrificed to idols was sin, even though
Paul taught that God didn't regard it so. If the weak were threatened by
the actions of the strong, the strong were advised by Paul to curtail those
actions in their presence [4].
When the principles of Romans 14 are applied to the subject of this debate,
I believe the weak comprise two groups: 1) those who believe the non-sexual
nakedness of social nudism is sin, even though nothing in Scripture indicates
that God regards it so, and 2) those uncommon few who, like David, have
an overpowering problem with lust, even when exposed to chaste nakedness.
Paul's teaching in Romans
14 would have been entirely meaningless if it weren't possible for strong
believers to in some way discern who among them was weak. Mr. Roberts would
have readers believe that it's impossible for nudists to recognize the
'Davids' among them. He pointed out that no one can "read the minds of
others," and that no one can "know others' hearts." In an absolute sense,
both statements are true. However, the Bible says clearly that "When lust
has conceived, it gives birth to sin" (James 1.15). Jesus taught that,
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit....
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."
(Luke 6.43, 45). Since these Scriptures are true, observant and discerning
Christian nudists can expect to learn much about those around them on the
basis of their expressed motivations, visible priorities, speech and behavior.
Such discernment aids us in acting properly towards others, not placing
stumbling blocks or temptation in the way of those who are weak, yet
maintaining our ability to enjoy Christian liberty with people who
are strong.
But what of those who have
yet to experience nudism? Mr. Roberts correctly stated that I "encourage
others to try Christian nudism through Fig Leaf Forum." What Mr.
Roberts failed to mention is that such encouragement never takes place
without concurrently informing interested parties about the responsible
behavior that must accompany the practice of social nudism. Each issue
of Fig Leaf Forum begins and ends with unmistakable statements regarding
proper social nudist behavior. In addition to reverence, chastity, responsibility
and consideration, each newsletter calls for nudist conduct that is
purely
motivated, honorable and glorifying to God, loving and respectful of others,
and legal.
Additionally, first-time
visitors to almost all nudist parks are given an introduction to social
nudism, either by way of oral explanation or through written literature
explaining what is expected regarding proper behavior, nudist etiquette,
etc. In a nutshell, virtually no one enters social nudism blindly or unprepared.
Fig
Leaf Forum, operators of nudist parks and social nudists themselves
all play a role in properly educating prospective nudists about what to
expect from social nudism and about what responsibilities come with its
practice.
Christian Life.
Mr. Roberts rightly stated that "A Christian's life is to be above reproach...."
The only valid reproach, however, is an honest and true reproach. Rebuking
a Christian nudist on the basis of misinformation or prejudice is
invalid and dishonest. Remember the Pharisees' reproach of Jesus? "The
Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners"'" (Matthew 11.19).
What did Jesus say in response? "Wisdom is proved right by her actions."
I stand by my chaste and moral actions, as do thousands of other Christian
nudists. We strive to lead a life beyond legitimate reproach. If Mr. Roberts
has credible and substantive evidence to the contrary,
let him present
it.
Mr. Roberts stated that "Romans
12.17 commands us to 'Respect what is right in the sight of all men." Does
he believe Paul meant that Christians are to respect what is right in the
sight of "all" men, even those who reject what is right in the sight
of God? I don't think so, and that's why I refuse to allow the Biblically
ill-informed and/or culturally prejudiced to govern my behavior as one
ultimately accountable to God (Romans 14.4).
Mr. Roberts wrote that "Paul
says Christians are to 'Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming
the time.'" I'm convinced that the majority of Christian nudists do exactly
that, both inside and outside of social nudism. I believe God wants Christians
to bring "salt and light" (Matthew 5.13-16) to every legitimate human
endeavor, whether recreational, cultural, commercial or something other.
Mr. Roberts wrote that "Consistently
the Bible urges chaste behavior so that the sin of lust will not occur"
and "The Christian is called to a life of purity, holiness and chaste behavior."
Both statements are absolutely true and rightly emphasize the importance
of right conduct over mere appearance. I'm certain that Mr. Roberts
would regard the term "modest nakedness" to be the most outrageous oxymoron
he's ever heard, yet it precisely describes the behavior I've consistently
witnessed during my years as a social nudist. In truth, "purity, holiness
and chaste behavior" are themselves the nudist's prime safeguards against
provoking lust in others.
Conclusion.
I believe Mr. Roberts has failed to prove the proposition of this debate.
I've shown that his attempts at using the Bible to directly and indirectly
condemn social nudism are completely without merit. Though in his introductory
remarks Mr. Roberts cautioned against "talking about what we think or feel,"
the majority of what he has offered to support the proposition of this
debate represents little more than just that: what he "thinks or feels"
about social nudism. His article clearly reflects the influence of traditional
and contemporary cultural presumptions about nakedness. It also displays
an abysmal lack of understanding about the true nature of social nudism [5].
I have countered with expert, eye-witness testimony regarding observable
facts about social nudism that can easily be verified by anyone who actually
visits a nudist park.
Proverbs 18.13 says that
"He who answers before listening — that is his folly and his shame." Mr.
Roberts has attempted to "answer" with authority concerning social nudism
but has, in fact, made little or no effort to really "listen" (learn) about
nudism first. Based upon my actual experience as a nudist, I submit that
most of what Mr. Roberts thinks or feels about the "perils" of social nudism
is simply false.
Mr. Roberts has not proven
that "Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful." What I believe
he has proven instead in this debate is his willingness to legislate
where the Bible does not legislate and condemn what the Bible does
not condemn. Though I have no doubt that his intentions are completely
honorable, he is nevertheless attempting to bind his own
personal scruples
and unfounded fears about nakedness onto all Christians everywhere.
For the sake of truth, and for the sake of Christian liberty, such actions
must be exposed for what they are and resolutely resisted.
NOTES
[1]
While the Bible makes God's displeasure with David's actions abundantly
clear, never does it criticize or condemn Bathsheba for engaging in the
common practice of public bathing. Bathsheba is later blessed by God with
the birth of Solomon. Compare Bathsheba's blessing with what happened to
another of David's wives who criticized some nakedness of his own (2 Samuel
6.14-23).
[2]
Mr. Roberts failed to offer any credible Scriptural support for his assertion
that clothing combats lust. He thinks "The priests wore clothes so that
lust would not occur" (Exodus 28.42). Incorrect. According to verse 43,
priests wore their sacred garments so they would not "incur guilt and die."
Mr. Roberts thinks "Paul
urges women not to use clothing, either too much or too little, to draw
attention to their bodies." A half-truth. Mr. Roberts followed this claim
by admitting that "primarily Paul is speaking here to the problem of overdressing."
Not "primarily," sir — exclusively.
Note that nowhere in either
Exodus 28 or 1 Timothy 2 is lust even mentioned!
About Matthew 5.28 Mr. Roberts
thinks "Jesus warns about lusting." Another half-truth. To be precise,
Jesus warned about 'looking lustfully.' Note carefully that Jesus didn't
say, "anyone who looks at a woman has already committed adultery with her
in his heart." He pointedly said, "anyone who looks lustfully." Jesus made
no distinction between clothed or unclothed women in this teaching.
Mr. Roberts would have the reader believe it's impossible to look upon
any nakedness without lusting. That's patently false. Nudists by
the thousands (along with doctors and nurses by the hundreds of thousands)
prove everyday that people can indeed look upon chaste nakedness without
lusting.
[3]
Briefly, Christian liberty is here defined as the freedom enjoyed by believers
to rightly use all things good or morally neutral.
[4]
Note that while Paul taught believers to be considerate toward the weak
in faith, he never commanded permanent cessation of Christian liberty
for their sake. Never in Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8 did he teach all
believers everywhere to permanently become vegetarians because a few somewhere
might have a problem with eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols.
Neither would Christian nudists be required to permanently forgo their
right use of nakedness because a few people somewhere might have difficulties
with it.
[5]
Mr. Roberts offered two unidentified quotes from an Internet newsgroup
called alt.christnet.nudism. Mr. Roberts knows that anyone can post
to this newsgroup, whether they be Christian or not, nudist or not. I was
able to use Deja.com to locate the first quote ("get his eyeful of attractive
young bodies"). According to Deja.com's message archive, during the last
three years this man posted
only four messages to alt.christnet.nudism,
all
on the same day! In none of these messages does he claim to
be a Christian or a nudist. I also discovered that Mr. Roberts quoted him
out of context. I wasn't able to locate the source of the second quote
("we get used to nudity, so we don't lust any more"). Readers may legitimately
wonder why Mr. Roberts isn't disclosing his sources. If he truly wants
to research Christian involvement in nudism, my advice to him would be
to seek a variety of sources, seek credible sources, and attribute references
so others can verify author and context.
This Web site is printer-friendly.
