OK. Given some of the comments I have received -- mostly from my own son -- I have decided to use this post along with the remainder of the posts in this series as an illustration conservative ideals vs. 'conservative' tradition. (Yes, there is a difference). In light of this, a few notes about methodology on how I approach issues like this.1. I start with a few presuppositions a) The Bible is the INFALLIBLE Word of God -- All 66 books of it. b) There are rules to interpreting the Word of God the biggest being --Don't read into Scripture (technically called --eisegesis) but let the Scripture speak for itself (exegesis). c) When the infallible word of God is properly understood according to the rules of interpretation it constitutes authority over life, faith and behavior.
2. The rules of interpretation are: a) Don't read into scripture; Let it speak to you -- it says what it says b) The Context (textual and cultural) of a passage is important. c) As much as possible -- Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
3.There is an orderly method to make sure the above happens: a) observe -- ask: what does it say? b) interpretation -- ask: what does it mean? c) apply -- ask: what is it asking me to do or understand? d) Contextualize -- Ask: How do these new understandings change my overall understanding of Scripture?
4. When dealing with issues the best thing to do is consider every verse on the subject before drawing any conclusions.
This to me constitutes the conservative method of looking a Scripture and the conservative ideal of submitting to its authority.
Now with this in mind lets consider the issue of nakedness in relationship to the art verses pornography debate.
The traditional 'conservative' understanding is that all nakedness of flesh constitutes nakedness. When a man or woman is physically naked and shows themselves to people, they are engaged in sin. An image or depiction of men or women naked is wrong because it could lead to causing lust in a person therefore all such images are pornography. God does not like nakedness.
When I was growing up this play out in the early days like this -- I remember one time I went to a museum and there was an art section. Guess what section we didn't go to -- the art section. When I asked why? "They have pictures and statues of naked women." was the reply. What the field trip people wanted to avoid was religious types having a fit taking sixth graders through such a thing and corrupting their brains with nakedness. One piece I heard mentioned was the 'Venus de Milo' probably of a replica of it not the real one pictured above but it was present and we couldn't have young men corrupted by that. Some of you older folks who read my blog holler if you hear me!
So is the Venus de Milo art or porn? More importantly what makes porn, well porn? Who defines it? Of utmost importance, is such a definition Biblical?
Now back to a conservative approach to Scripture. The questions I am asking are many but the real issue comes down to what does the Bible say is nakedness and is it wrong in and of itself?
The first 12 posts in this series have been the observation phase of this method -- What does the Bible say about nakedness? That finished I went to phase two -- interpretation and drew a conclusion in part 13 by providing (as best as possible) a defintion of nakedness based on what the Bible actually says. Nakedness is not a state of physical undress -- Adam and Eve were naked both before and after their disobedience. The difference was the change in their spiritual status before God -- what was good (their nakedness) was turned to shame because of their sin. Sin is the change and the shame and vulnerability it caused. This became reflective in how they viewed their physical nakedness. There is a difference between sinless nakedness and sinful nakedness. In sinless nakedness it represents openness and intimacy; in the sinful nakedness it represents shame and exposure.
Now application: this understanding of nakedness applied to the art vs. porn debate. What does the Venus de Milo represent --art or porn? I will tell you --art. It is a depiction of the beauty of the female body. It is not about sex or lust or shameful nakedness -- it is nakedness for the purpose of illustrating beauty and openness to that beauty -- sorry it is art, but then again that is my understanding. Another man, might look at the same statue and think -- 'man what I would do with that, if it was a real woman'. Then it is porn. Confusing, huh?
Hate to say it but whether something is porn or art greatly depends on the spirit, mind and heart of the beholder. Now I am not talking about stuff that is deliberately designed to bring arousal or in the depictions shows sinful acts; I am talking simple nakedness. Take woman model posing in the same pose as a the Venus de Milo and take a picture -- what do you have now? Art or porn? Not so easy to answer is it? I had one conversation with a minister who said that when you really look at it, it really comes down to you and your ability to control your own lust--To him the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue could be considered art. Poor in taste and tacky but art just the same -- it depended on how you looked at it
The fact is that the definitions of what constitute porn in 'conservative' circles are largely the construction of religious opinion and not an honest considerations of the texts dealing with the subject of nakedness. Ask ten of these people to give a Biblical definition of pornography and then back it with Scriptural references and I doubt 1 in 10 could do it adequately. Ask them to regurgitate what someone else taught them and it is 10 for 10. Definitions as to what constitute soft porn, hard porn, hardcore porn, etc. etc. are almost entirely based on the upholding what current 'conservative' Christian public opinion is, not what the Bible defines as nakedness.
In this issue, a Biblical definition of nakedness leaves us to our own conscience as to whether a presented piece is art or porn. I know, this makes it clear as mud but then again why do people try to define this anyway -- religious people do it to define behavior. It is about religious control -- we can't have people thinking for themselves after all. A biblical definition of nakedness depends on what is steeped in sin not in the state of physical dress and that means each situation, each viewing and each depiction can be art or porn depending on whether or not LUST is present.
This will become clearer when I engage the next issue: Public Nudity
By the way, the next time I am in a museum I am going to walk through the art section and additionally I find the Venus de Milo one of the best depictions of female body ever -- it is art to me. I also consider this a conservative interpretation because I am actually stay dead on with conservative ideals of biblical interpretation concerning nakedness. I have done my homework. Traditional 'conservative' ideas on this issue are not really 'conservative' at all - -they just label themselves as such.
Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity.
No comments:
Post a Comment