| By John Kundert
"Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful." That's our debate
proposition. I'm disappointed that in his concluding article Mr. Roberts
mostly affirmed that "Lust is condemned by the Bible as sinful" and mostly
ignored his own stipulation that we limit our discussion to "what the Bible
says is right and wrong." I hope it won't be lost on readers of this debate
that his last thousand-word article contained only two Scripture references!
In his final affirmative, Mr. Roberts quoted Michael Satlow to rebut
my remarks about public bathing during the Exodus. Unmentioned was the
fact that Mr. Satlow's article focused on Jewish attitudes towards nakedness
based upon
rabbinical law and traditions (yes, the very kinds of
rules and traditions of men criticized by Jesus in Matthew 15.2-9 and Mark
7.6-13) dating from 70-500 A.D., some
fifteen centuries after the
era I was discussing. That Mr. Roberts would even quote from such an article
surprised me since he himself stipulated that in this debate, "History
is not our standard.... We are discussing what the Bible says is right
and
wrong."
Interestingly, Mr. Satlow also spoke about "context-dependent understandings
of nakedness" in his article. "Who is naked and in what context
he or she is naked convey different meanings: Is he or she naked in a locker
room, at a strip-show, or at an academic conference?" Sound familiar? It
should. That's precisely the point I made in my first article, a point
Mr. Roberts summarily dismissed as "nonsense"!
Mr. Roberts wrote, "If nakedness is such a great thing, why does the
Bible use it as a mark of shame and sin?" I might just as easily ask, "If
clothing is such a great thing, why does the Bible use it as a mark of
mourning and repentance?" Of course, not all clothing represents mourning
and repentance in Scripture (only sackcloth, as in Genesis 37.34 and Matthew
11.21), just as not all nakedness represents shame and sin. For Mr. Roberts
to continually ignore context when interpreting nakedness is inexcusable.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Kundert also chose to assert that since God made
the body if the body causes lust God created lust." That I rejected such
ideas by writing
"May it never be said" apparently escaped his attention.
He further wrote, "Yes, God made the body (and sex). In the right context
these are pure and not inherently indecent.... What Kundert (and
free love advocates) don't want to recognize is that God's creation is
also subject to God's law." While his preposterous comparison of "free
love" with the topic of this debate clearly betrays Mr. Roberts' ignorance
about social nudism, his observation that both sex and nakedness are "subject
to God's law" is absolutely correct. Just as the Bible clearly differentiates
between prohibited and permitted sex, it also differentiates between prohibited
and permitted nakedness. Nakedness "in the right context" can indeed be
"pure and not inherently indecent." That many of these "right contexts"
in Scripture are non-sexual and public is something Mr. Roberts
has been trying to ignore throughout this entire debate.
Does Mr. Roberts know more about non-sexual public nakedness than God?
God certainly knew how to make it clear when and for whom such nakedness
was prohibited (Exodus 20.25-26, Exodus 28.41-43). Did God appoint Mr.
Roberts to pencil prohibitions and condemnations into the Bible that were
mistakenly omitted? Mr. Roberts says non-sexual public nakedness causes
others to lust. If this is true, why didn't God prohibit or condemn public
bathing (Exodus 2.5; 2 Kings 5.10-14; 2 Samuel 11.2)? Mr. Roberts says
non-sexual public nakedness leads others to sin. If this is true, why didn't
Jesus prohibit or condemn the public nakedness of field workers and fishermen
(Matthew 24.18, KJV; John 21.7)? Mr. Roberts says non-sexual public nakedness
destroys one's influence. If this is true, why did God order His own prophet
Isaiah to walk naked among his people (Isaiah 20)? Why didn't He prohibit
or condemn nakedness among His other prophets (1 Samuel 19.23-24)? Why
didn't God condemn King David for his exposure while worshipping Him (2
Samuel 6.14-23)?
These passages (supported by historical evidence available to anyone
willing to search for it) demonstrate how common and accepted voluntary
non-sexual public nakedness was for most in Bible times. God didn't prohibit
or condemn this nakedness because He rightly knew what modern social nudists
have simply rediscovered. He knew that non-sexual nakedness simply doesn't
provoke lust or sin in the way folks like Mr. Roberts imagine.
Mr. Roberts has every right to condemn what God condemns, including
abuses
of voluntary non-sexual public nakedness (of which 2 Samuel 11 is the only
example in all of Scripture). However, Mr. Roberts has no right — NO RIGHT
— to prohibit or condemn what God chose not to prohibit or condemn as sinful
in His Word, and that includes conduct that he himself claims "dramatically
parallels," "exactly parallels" and "mirrors...perfectly" social nudism
— responsible, voluntary, non-sexual public nakedness.
Social nudism is NOT CONDEMNED by the Bible as sinful, and the Scriptural
evidence I have provided in this debate proves it.
A final note. Mr. Roberts has attempted repeatedly to leave readers
with the impression that I'm trying to avoid issues like lust, "damaged
Christian influence," etc. He's wrong in doing that. When we were establishing
debate guidelines he wrote, "I am not interested in someone cluttering
the debate with endless talk off topic about everything except the key
issues being debated." I believe "off topic" describes far too much of
Mr. Roberts' performance in this debate. For my part, I'll make no apologies
for not addressing "oranges" when the topic of debate is "apples"!
Mr. Roberts, if you really want to debate these other topics, then let's
establish a new proposition, refine our guidelines and begin again. Contrary
to your false accusations, I'm more than willing to publicly state and
defend my position on such issues when it's done in the proper forum. The
ball, as they say, is in your court. |