A Rejoinder By Mark Roberts
When Mr. Kundert and I agreed
to a written debate we both agreed to publish the debate on our respective
websites without addition or alteration. Hence, this rejoinder cannot be
added to the material that formally makes up the debate. However, the nature
of what Mr. Kundert said in his final negative demands some comment so
that readers can better understand how wrong nudism really is.
First, Kundert attacked my
use of an article revealing rabbinical traditions about nakedness in Israel.
Yet if he had read closely he would see that I did not cite such tradition
as authority for or against nudity. I used it to rebut his repeated assertions
that nudity was widely practiced in Israel. He never gave any proof
for this, but merely assumed it. The authorities that I quoted show, at
least, that such is certainly not the understanding major historians have
of Israel’s attitude toward nakedness. If Mr. Kundert has proof of his
wild claims of Israel going naked in the wilderness, biblical or otherwise,
then he should have provided it to the reader.
Second, Kundert repeatedly
ignored the truth that the Bible uses nakedness often as a sign of shame
and embarrassment. He even asks about sackcloth, but by doing so just makes
my point. If someone were to start wearing sackcloth and ashes and claim
it was a sign of happiness would we not do well to cite biblical precedence
that they are incorrect about what sackcloth signifies? Likewise, Kundert
wants to go naked but ignore what the Bible says such nakedness may well
represent, claiming that it actually represents deeper spirituality and
a better relationship with God! That is simply amazing, and does not accurately
reflect the biblical picture of public nudity. I am confident that the
readers noted that Mr. Kundert steadfastly refused to give a single passage
of scripture that commended nudism as he practices it. Isn't that interesting?
Third, Kundert continues
to use the Bible in an abysmally ignorant fashion. Peter warns of
those who “twist the scriptures to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16)
and such certainly fits Kundert’s ridiculous claims that the Bible supports
public bathing. He gave three citations: Exodus 2:5; 2 Kings 5:10-14 and
2 Samuel 11:2. If you will read these you will find the first speaks of
the daughter of Pharaoh bathing privately with her maidens — no men are
anywhere to be found in the passage. 2 Kings 5 speaks of Namaan dipping
in the Jordan river to cleanse his leprosy. That is public bathing? What
a stretch! There is no indication in this text that Namaan removed his
clothes to do this, or that any women were present if he did. Again, Kundert
sees what he wants in the Bible wherever he wants. The third verse is the
passage that speaks of Bathsheba bathing and David’s lust that resulted.
That is the passage I've been asking about since this debate began! Kundert
cites a few rare examples of people being partially unclothed in the Bible
(a correct use of the term “naked,” note that Adam and Eve are said to
be naked though partially clothed in Genesis 3:7,10-11). Yet those very
examples prove that nakedness was not common, else how would Isaiah have
attracted any attention to himself and his message if everyone was doing
it? All of this lame discussion by Kundert is closed with his statement
that non-sexual public nakedness was common and accepted and that there
is “historical evidence available to anyone who will search for it.”
Indeed! Then why didn't Mr. Kundert supply that evidence in our debate?
Kundert concludes by stating
that he has not avoided the topics in this debate. I suppose that if a
person wants to label whatever the affirmative sets forth as being off
topic then he is right. However, the readers know that my questions about
lust, and how it is avoided are right on target here. The readers will
have noticed that repeatedly Kundert announced that I was ignorant about
social nudism but he just as repeatedly refused to educate me and the readers
as to how such can be conducted righteously. Apparently there is some secret
knowledge about how to avoid lust that Kundert has that he won't tell us!
The rest of the world struggles with lust but nudists have the problem
licked — they just won't let the rest of us in on the secret!
If we are debating whether
social nudism is sinful (and we are) and I point out that such behavior
can lead to sin and in fact has led to sin (as in the case of Bathsheba
and David, 2 Samuel 11) then he is obligated to show that his practice
is somehow different or has safeguards in place so sin won't happen or
my point stands. Incredibly, Kundert admitted that there are some people
who, like King David, have a problem with lust. That admission alone destroys
him, yet he never would tell us how he keeps the “Davids” out of the nudist
camps or how he knows he isn't presenting himself before such a person
when he is there. He could be causing a “David” to lust and never know
it, but such would be sinful and wrong — and he knows that too! All of
this just shows how wrong nudism is. Again, for the fourth time now, Mr.
Kundert can't guarantee that he won't lust and he can't guarantee that
he won't cause lust. As such he must leave nudism off.
When Kundert goes naked he
might lust, he might cause others to lust, he destroys his influence as
a Christian, and he might cause a weak Christian to join in and lust. Mr.
Kundert should have told the readers of the debate from the outset how
he avoids these problems. Since he cannot (as he cannot know others’ hearts)
he must leave nudism off. Interestingly, Kundert never did answer my question
about his lusting at a nudist camp. That certainly leaves cause to wonder
what exactly goes on in his heart when he goes naked, doesn't it?
Such wondering is only natural,
since Kundert refuses all such questions about lust, and further would
never reveal why he wants to go naked or what he gets out of such. He could
be naked privately at home. No, that's not good enough. He wants to be
naked in front of others. Why? What does he gain from that? We donut know,
because he would never say. He commends this as a great thing but won't
tell why it is so great. Isn't that interesting?
Now, after writing three
affirmative articles that he continually ignored, choosing to make wild
assertions, mis-use scripture and say mean things about my ignorance of
social nudism, Kundert ends by saying the ball is in my court and challenging
me to another debate. Wow! That is incredible stuff, isn't it? The truth
is the ball is squarely in Kundert’s court, and has been since my first
affirmative. All his dodges and his deciding my questions are “oranges”
and so aren't worthy of answer just show that he has not yet begun to debate
this proposition. Perhaps before we sign up for another debate Mr. Kundert
would like to finish this one! When he does (by telling us how he
avoids lust, how he avoids causing others to lust, how he keeps from wrecking
his influence, and how he keeps from encouraging weak brethren to sin)
then we might start a new debate. However, I am (understandably) reluctant
to debate someone who won't debate!
I expect other social nudists
may read this material and want to email me. That is fine, and I'm
always glad to study the Bible carefully with people who are ready to conduct
themselves in a kind and considerate fashion. One fellow emailed me recently
with a hateful diatribe in which he asserted that all the world's dictators
pass clothe laws first as a means of enslaving the sexes! I'm not up for
that kind of nonsense, but am willing to talk with anyone who is genuine
and sincere. However, any social nudist who emails must start by discussing
the four items Kundert never would answer. Specifically, how do you avoid
lusting at nudist camps? Remember, asserting that lust could happen anywhere,
clothed or otherwise, doesn't answer the question. Yes, lust can happen
anywhere, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it make it right to
just go any place where there could be even more temptation to lust. So
how do nudists avoid the temptation to lust? Second, how do nudists know
they are not causing others to lust? That must be answered specifically
and straightforwardly. How do you know what others are thinking in their
heart?
I have received several emails
besides Kundert’s about Rusty’s article on nudism. Regrettably, none of
them show any inclination to take lust seriously. Most, like Kundert,
treat it as some old-fashioned “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” kind of thing,
dismissing it cavalierly with a “no problem for us high and mighty nudists.”
Frankly, I've had enough of that kind of arrogance. I suspect strongly
that deep forms of perversion are behind social nudism and Kundert’s unwillingness
to discus the “brass tacks” of how nudism prevents lust and his refusal
to tell us if he lusts do little to mitigate those suspicions. In all honesty,
I have more respect for the hedonistic folks I've read about who go to
nudists camp for sensual purposes and make no bones about it than Kundert
who wants to pretend such outrageous behavior can actually commend one
to God. I expect that if Kundert would tell the truth he would have to
admit he goes to nudist camps because he does lust and he likes lusting
and doesn't plan to stop lusting.
So if you want to email begin
here by dealing with the issue of lust. Once we get that resolved (something
Kundert couldn't do and finally just said he wouldn't do) we'll go forward
from there to the issues of influence and encouraging weak brethren to
sin. All of that is a pretty tall order that I can't seem to find any nudists
willing to fulfill!
I hope this material will
help some people who might be tempted to experiment with the ungodliness
that is social nudism. Lust is real and real Christians will guard against
it: "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.
And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the
will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:16-17).
Editor's Note: The article above is as it appeared on May 19,
2000 on the Just
Christians Web site. It has since been removed from that site.
