A Response To Mark Roberts' Rejoinder By John Kundert
Knowing as I do how much rules
and rule keeping mean to Mr. Roberts, I find myself totally bewildered
by his additional "Rejoinder." He opens by freely admitting that we both
agreed that no additions would be made to the debate, and then proceeds
to add to the debate! It was he, in fact, who introduced
and insisted upon this particular rule during the negotiation of our debate
guidelines. "No additional material may be appended to the debate, though
other thoughts about the debate may appear elsewhere on the Web site,"
he wrote. "Other thoughts" are one thing, Mr. Roberts. An unabashed continuation
of the debate is quite another! Why is it that those who most love to make
the rules, and who are most insistent that everyone keep the rules, are
themselves so often the first to break the rules?
In the spirit of our agreed
upon guidelines, I had originally intended to follow our "official" articles
by offering some broad comments about this debate and debating in general,
and so I shall in "A
Debate 'Post-Mortem'." However, since Mr. Roberts has now chosen to
actually continue the debate with his "Rejoinder," I feel it incumbent
on me to first offer a rebuttal.
About Michael Satlow's Jewish
Constructions Of Nakedness In Late Antiquity, Mr. Roberts wrote, "I
used it to rebut [Mr. Kundert's] repeated assertions that nudity was widely
practiced in Israel.... The authorities that I quoted show, at least, that
such is certainly not the understanding major historians have of Israel's
attitude toward nakedness." Once again he ignores the startlingly obvious
fact that this article focuses on rabbinical attitudes towards nakedness
of
late antiquity, dating from 70-500 A.D., not those held by Israelites
during the period of the Exodus of 1500 years earlier, the era I was discussing.
Would Mr. Roberts concede that attitudes toward nakedness held by modern
Jews (who are, by the way, well represented among the ranks of social nudism)
are identical to the attitudes of Rabbis 1500 years ago? I doubt it. So
why, then, would he believe that the rabbinical attitudes of 70-500 A.D.
are identical to those held by the Israelites who lived 1500 years earlier?
Please note that Mr. Roberts
is entirely unapologetic about introducing Mr. Satlow's historical article
into this debate, even though by the rules he himself set forth in his
first article, "We are not discussing what history says," "History is not
our standard," and "All that is of interest in this debate is 'What does
the Bible say?'" Why is it that those who most love to make the rules,
and who are most insistent that everyone keep the rules, are themselves
so often the first to break the rules?
Mr. Roberts continued, "He
never
gave any proof [that nakedness was widely practiced in Israel], but merely
assumed it." Does Biblical interpretation require Christians to park their
intellect and God-given common sense at the door before opening Scripture?
In my second article I wrote, "If one seriously considers the Israelite's
wilderness journey...it simply defies credibility to suggest that
more than a million people could travel for years through a barren desert
— living together in tents with no access to private bathrooms and with
no bathing 'facilities' other than rivers, lakes and small oasis pools
— without ever seeing nakedness or without ever being together naked in
a non-sexual context like bathing." That's what I believe and I stand by
it.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Kundert
repeatedly ignored the truth that the Bible uses nakedness often as a sign
of shame and embarrassment." "Often" is not
synonymous with "always."
Scripture interpretation is not a matter of "majority rule." Even though
a word may mean the same thing in six out of ten verses, context may give
it an entirely different meaning in the other four. Whether discussing
nakedness or other subjects mentioned in the Bible, context matters
and must always be considered. To the bitter end Mr. Roberts will not accept
this essential aspect of Biblical interpretation.
He wrote, "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?" I, in turn, remind readers (and Mr. Roberts) that the proposition
of this debate was not, "Social nudism is commended by the Bible,"
but rather, "Social nudism is condemned
by the Bible as sinful."
The onus has always been upon him to prove that the Bible condemns social
nudism, and upon me to show that it doesn't. To suggest that I must go
beyond the proposition to show the Bible actually
commending social
nudism is just one more clever debater's trick employed by Mr. Roberts
to shift the focus away from his failed attempts in proving the affirmative.
Mr. Roberts next talks about
"Kundert's ridiculous claims that the Bible supports public bathing." Just
in case anyone else missed what he's clearly missed, a careful reading
of this debate will show that I've never asserted that the Bible "supports,"
"commends" or "promotes" public bathing or public nakedness. I simply assert
that public bathing and other types of voluntary non-sexual public nakedness
are discussed in Scripture, and that Scripture does not prohibit or condemn
such behavior.
Mr. Roberts wrote that Exodus
2.5 "speaks of the daughter of Pharaoh bathing privately with her maidens
— no men are anywhere to be found in the passage." I never claimed that
men were present in this passage. I simply pointed out that the bathing
of Pharoah's daughter, along with that of Naaman and Bathsheba, was all
done in the open where it could have been observed by others. That's
all. If Mr. Roberts wishes to characterize bathing in wide-open rivers
like the Nile or Jordan (or at home in open view from other people's houses)
as somehow "private," that's his business. I simply don't agree with him.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "2 Kings
5 speaks of Namaan [sic] dipping in the Jordan river to cleanse his leprosy.
That is public bathing? What a stretch!" Here's the passage: "Elisha sent
a messenger to say to [Naaman], 'Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan,
and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed'.... So he went
down and dipped (immersed NRSV) himself in the Jordan seven times, as the
man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like
that of a young boy" (2 Kings 5.10, 14, NIV). As if it were really necessary,
Strong's
Hebrew/Greek Dictionary confirms that the word translated "wash" means
lave, bathe or wash, and "dipped" means to dip or plunge.
Mr. Roberts' unusual ideas about what does and does not constitute bathing
are followed by a still more bewildering statement: "There is no indication
in this text that Namaan [sic] removed his clothes to do this." Words simply
fail me! All I can do is quote Mr. Roberts right back to himself: "What
a stretch!"
He wrote, "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)." If Mr. Roberts
could prove that every time the word "naked" is used in Scripture it in
fact means "partially unclothed," perhaps this debate would have ended
more to his liking. He cannot do this, however. In the absence of physical
evidence to the contrary, we must always depend upon Scripture to interpret
Scripture. If Scripture says "naked" and does not qualify that statement
like it does in Genesis 3.7 or 10-11, then who is Mr. Roberts or anyone
else to tell Christians seeking the truth that naked somehow doesn't mean
total nakedness in the Bible?
"Yet those very examples
prove that nakedness was not common," he wrote, "else how would Isaiah
have attracted any attention to himself and his message if everyone was
doing it?" While "everyone" may have been "doing it" (though I made no
such claim), Scripture does not teach that everyone was doing it
"everywhere."
I concede that I should have made that point more clear. While Scripture
and historical evidence both show that voluntary non-sexual public nakedness
was commonplace at bathing sites and where laborers such as fieldworkers
or fishermen plied their trade, I have seen nothing in Scripture that says
such nakedness was equally commonplace or expected in other public places.
1 Samuel 19.23-24, Isaiah 20 and such passages as Luke 8.27-35 would tend
to support this idea.
"All of this lame discussion
by Kundert," he continued, "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?" In other words,
"Why didn't Mr. Kundert break my own rules like I did and
introduce non-Biblical historical evidence like I did, even
though I insisted at the outset that
neither of us
should pay attention to such material!" With Mr. Roberts I'm damned if
I do, but I'm also damned if I don't!
As to my "historical evidence,"
since we've now moved beyond the confines of our formal debate I can now
present a small sampling, here dealing with Christians and the Roman baths
of classical antiquity:
Bathing in the ancient world, especially in the world of the Romans, went far beyond the functional and hygienic necessities of washing. It was a personal regeneration and a deeply rooted social and cultural habit — in the full sense of the word, an institution. For the average Roman a visit to the public baths in the afternoon was an irreplaceable part of the day's routine (Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity by Fikret Yegül, New York, NY: The Architectural History Foundation, 1992).In 177 CE Christians in Lugdunum and Vienna in Gaul were persecuted, and some were martyred. The survivors sent a letter by lrenaeus to the churches in Asia and Phrygia describing what happened. Among other things, they complained that they were excluded from the baths..... Later in his Adversus haereses (ca. 190 CE) Irenaeus referred to a story he claimed stemmed from Polycarp of Smyrna, who died ca. 156 CE, about John the disciple going to the public baths...in Ephesus where he saw Cerinthus. Tertullian of Carthage in his Apologeticum (197 CE) claimed that the Christians were no different from other people: they went to the forum, the food market, and the baths.... These three passages, among the earliest references to Roman baths by Christians, suggest no ethical reservations about going to the baths ("Women in Roman Baths," Roy Bowen Ward, Harvard Theological Review 85:2, 1992).
It is clear from Clement that in Alexandria at the end of the second century — contemporaneous with Irenaeus and Tertullian — mixed bathing by all classes was not only customary but also a popular activity in which Christian men and women engaged ("Women in Roman Baths").
Peter Brown [as quoted in A History of Private Life] comments on the "indifference to nudity in Roman public life," citing the public baths as one locus for nudity. It appears the earliest Christian authors may have been equally indifferent ("Women in Roman Baths").
It would have been unrealistic to expect the Church to take a consistent stance against an institution [that is, bathing in the Roman baths] that had become a deeply ingrained part of daily life (Baths and Bathing).
I would add before moving on
that even though historians have shown that Roman baths existed in nearly
every major city that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James and Peter
might have visited during their lifetimes, Scripture reveals that neither
they nor Jesus Himself had anything to say about the practice of
nude mixed-sex public bathing. Surely this would not have been the case
if they had believed that such bathing was a serious sin and, as such,
something that Christians must avoid.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "Readers
will have noticed that repeatedly Kundert announced that I was ignorant
about social nudism but he just as repeatedly refused to educate me." Anyone
familiar with serious formal debating knows that opponents succeed or fail
on the basis of the quality and depth of their own research. But
here we have Mr. Roberts complaining that he
knows so little
about social nudism because I haven't furnished
him
with the kind of facts he was supposed to learn during his
own research!
Judging by all the "facts"
supplied to this debate by Mr. Roberts, I seriously doubt that he's ever
read a single legitimate nudist book or magazine cover to cover. Though
available to him, he's never asked for Fig Leaf Forum back issues so I
know he hasn't studied them. Unlike the Associated Press reporter who did
many interviews for the newspaper article that was the basis for Rusty
Miller's "Does God Approve Of My Sin?" and thus the catalyst which led
to this debate, I question whether Mr. Roberts has ever personally met
and talked with any social nudists or nudist park operators. And unlike
the AP reporter, it's almost an absolute certainty that he's never visited
a nudist park. Yet it's from this vast reservoir of "expertise and experience"
that he proclaims, "I suspect strongly that deep forms of perversion are
behind social nudism." How can any thinking person take seriously
an unsubstantiated claim like this — from an "expert" like this?
Mr. Roberts wrote, "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!" There is no secret knowledge about social nudism. If he had really
researched social nudism in preparation for this debate it would have been
impossible for him to have not discovered in legitimate nudist books and
magazines the consistent testimony of nudists (both past and present) regarding
the non-arousing, non-lust-provoking nature of social nudism. The only
way to dismiss such a vast testimony would be to accuse everyone
involved
— literally tens of thousands of people — of lying. Are you prepared to
do that and then prove it, Mr. Roberts?
As to "The rest of the world
struggles with lust but nudists have the problem licked," no one who understands
the nature of sin would ever make such a foolish assertion. No man or woman
is invincible to sin, and that includes Mark Roberts and John Kundert.
Nudists simply believe that whatever problem with lust there may be in
the world, it is certainly no more prevalent (and is, we believe, actually
less prevalent) within nudist environments than in the "textile" world.
That is our honest testimony. That Mr. Roberts and others like him cannot
(or will not) personally accept this consistent, sincere testimony — a
testimony spanning some seventy years of organized social nudism in North
America — makes it no less valid.
Mr. Roberts wrote, "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." You know, I spent a good deal
of time doing just that in my first article. That Mr. Roberts summarily
dismissed or refused to believe what I wrote there doesn't negate the fact
that I did make a sincere effort to distinguish responsible social nudism
from David's reprehensible behavior.
I believe an important point
needs to be restated in this debate, and this is as good a place as any
to do it. The onus on both debaters here has always been to prove or disprove
the proposition that "Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful."
While the subjects of lust, damaged Christian influence and stumbling blocks
are certainly important and worthy topics for discussion, the condemnation
of social nudism simply does not hinge on these things. What God says about
social nudism itself is what really matters. For Mr. Roberts'
benefit I'm going to intentionally belabor this point in order to drive
it home:
Delicious food is discussed
in the Bible, as is the sin of gluttony. Because delicious food has the
potential to tempt people into gluttony, and because delicious food can
actually be abused by gluttons, is it therefore correct to say that the
Bible condemns delicious food as sinful for those reasons? No. God condemns
the abuse of delicious food in the Bible, but not the food itself.
Money and personal possessions
are discussed in the Bible, as are the sins of covetousness and thievery.
Because money and personal possessions have the potential to tempt people
to covet and steal, and because money and personal possessions can actually
be abused by the covetous and the thief, is it therefore correct to say
that the Bible condemns money and personal possessions as sinful for those
reasons? No. God condemns the abuse of money and personal possessions in
the Bible, but not money and personal possessions themselves.
Marriage is discussed in
the Bible, as is the sin of adultery. Because those who are married face
the potential of being tempted by adultery, and because marriage can actually
be abused by adulterers, is it therefore correct to say that the Bible
condemns marriage as sinful for those reasons? No. God condemns the abuse
of marriage in the Bible, but not marriage itself.
Government is discussed in
the Bible, as is the abuse of power by those who govern. Because government
could potentially tempt someone to abuse power, and because government
can actually be abused by those who wrongfully use power, is it therefore
correct to say that the Bible condemns government as sinful for those reasons?
No. God condemns the abuse of government in the Bible, but not government
itself.
And so we come to social
nudism. Mr. Roberts has stated that behavior which "dramatically parallels,"
"exactly parallels" and "mirrors [social nudism] perfectly" is discussed
in the Bible, as is the sin of lust (characterized by him as "the core
problem with social nudism"). Because social nudism could potentially tempt
someone to lust, and because social nudism can actually be abused by the
lustful, is it therefore correct to say that the Bible condemns social
nudism for those reasons? No. My contention has been and continues to be
that God condemns the abuse of social nudism in the Bible, but not social
nudism itself.
In his early correspondence
with me Mr. Roberts wrote:
He's right. This isn't rocket
science. If there were nothing in the Bible that resembled social nudism,
then things would be much more complicated for both of us, but Mr. Roberts
has conceded that the Bible speaks about conduct that he himself claims
"dramatically parallels," "exactly parallels" and "mirrors [social nudism]
perfectly." All he has ever had to do is show me and all the readers of
this debate where in the Bible God condemns this behavior. It's that
simple!
Yes, social nudism can tempt.
Yes, social nudism can be abused. But in truth,
everything in
this life can tempt! In truth, everything in this life can be abused.
Yet God does not condemn everything on the basis of its potential
for temptation or abuse, does He Mr. Roberts? If you show us the condemnation
of social nudism itself in the Bible, then there's no need to discuss lust,
damaged Christian influence or stumbling blocks because Christians (myself
included) simply have no business doing anything condemned in the Bible
as sinful. If you can't show us where God condemns social nudism itself
in the Bible, then admit it. That will allow us to establish a new forum
in which to discuss these other important issues.
In Scripture, God condemns
what He condemns and allows what He allows. It's all there in black and
white. Surely — surely — the "key issue" in this debate for Mr. Roberts
has always been to locate and proclaim the Biblical condemnation of social
nudism. He has not done that. In fact, he cannot do that, simply because
the Bible does not condemn social nudism itself or anything
like it as sinful.
In respect to resolving the
issue of lust, Mr. Roberts makes the charge that this is "something Kundert
couldn’t do and finally just said he wouldn’t do." That is a false
accusation. As stated above, I believe the subjects of lust, damaged
Christian influence and stumbling blocks are important and worthy topics
for discussion, but I've also made it very clear why I don't believe the
condemnation of social nudism hinges on these things. Mr. Roberts and I
obviously disagree on whether these subjects belong within the scope of
the present debate proposition. That disagreement, however, must in no
way be construed as a refusal on my part to "resolve" the issue of lust.
In my final negative I indicated my willingness to publicly debate lust,
damaged Christian influence and/or stumbling blocks within a separate forum,
and that offer still stands.
I'll conclude my response
to Mr. Roberts' "Rejoinder" by addressing these words written by him about
me:
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 wants to be naked in front of others. Why? What does he gain from that? We don't 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?... 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.
You know, early on in my communication
with Mr. Roberts — my third message to him, in fact — I wrote:
On my Web page entitled "About Fig Leaf Forum" (now at http://www.figleafforum.com/about.html), I state the following:
Fig Leaf Forum encourages and promotes nudist conduct of the highest moral character. Four ideals are regularly advanced as the minimal basis for Christian nudist behavior: reverence, first for God and then for the human body, the pinnacle of God's creation; chastity, first in motivation and then in deed; responsibility, first to our Lord and then to our fellow man; and consideration for the sensibilities of those who do not share our views about modest nakedness.
On my Web page entitled "The Bible, Nakedness, And The Christian Nudist" (now at http://www.figleafforum.com/articles_bible_nakedness.html), I state:
Christians who choose to be naked in the presence of others must do so appropriately.1. Their motives must be pure (1 Chronicles 28.9, Proverbs 16.2, 21.2, Hebrews 4.12-13).
2. Their activities must be honorable and glorifying to God (1 Corinthians 6.19-20, 10.31, 1 Thessalonians 4.3-7); loving and respectful of others (Romans 14.12-15.1, 1 Corinthians 8.9); and legal (Romans 13.1-7, 1 Peter 2.11-16).
I do not — and will not — endorse, promote or practice social nudism that does not meet these standards.
Mr. Roberts was aware of these
publicly avowed values before he wrote what he did about me. I believe
in these values; I promote these values; I live by these values. And Mr.
Roberts has no evidence to the contrary.
NONE.
What Mr. Roberts is probably
not aware of (because he failed to review Fig Leaf Forum back issues
as part of his pre-debate research) is that under my editorship Fig Leaf
Forum has also affirmed the ideals of traditional Christian marriage (that
is, one woman and one man for one lifetime) and traditional Christian sexual
morality (that is, sex only between husband and wife within marriage, which
excludes homosexual, premarital or extramarital sexual relationships).
Furthermore, Fig Leaf Forum has always taken an unequivocal stand
against pornography.
As to my motives for being
a social nudist, lust has never been among them. My motivation
for becoming a nudist is openly discussed on my Web site in Issue
One of Fig Leaf Forum. The newsletter's vision statement (to
see nakedness
reverenced as a God-created reflection of His image
and likeness, and to see nakedness
redeemed from disparagement,
abuse and exploitation) reflects later additions to my own motivations.
Mr. Roberts was aware of these publicly stated motivations
before
he wrote what he did, and he has no evidence that my motives are in any
way contrary to what I have declared. NONE.
In light of these facts,
for Mr. Roberts to write what he did — in the way that he did — amounts
to nothing less than willful, slanderous character assassination. And this
after declaring in his "Rejoinder" that he's only willing to correspond
"with people who are ready to conduct themselves in a kind and considerate
fashion," and who are "genuine and sincere." What hypocrisy! Shame on you,
Mark Roberts. Shame on you for treating a brother in Christ in such a disgraceful
way. In one of your first messages to me you wrote, "I assure you we intend
to press our points forcefully and firmly, but we will not depart from
the spirit of Christ." May God help you and the congregation you preach
to if your behavior here represents "the spirit of Christ" in your life.
An early version of this article was published in Issue 55/56 (May
/June, 2000) of Fig Leaf Forum.
This Web site is printer-friendly.
