Verse of the Week -- Isaiah 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together, Says the Lord, Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red as crimson, they will be like wool."

First snow of the year that looks like it is going to stay around. I used to love snow but as I get older I dislike the problems associated with it. Namely, the cold, wet and driving in the stuff. One thing though that newly fallen snow does illustrate is when God says -- 'i will make your sins whiter than snow" It is a great image.

Blessings as you know the forgiveness of God and how he has cleansed your sins whiter than snow.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 16 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World

Here in North America one thing is becoming clear -- skin is becoming more and more common. Christians still have to live and minister in this world, but it is becoming more clear that as we do we are going to see more public nudity and it is going to become more prevalent. The questions are course of action ones. We have one state that already has topless laws that allow women to be topless in the same places men can be and several others that have laws that allow these things in certain situations. I predict it is only the beginning.

The traditional 'conservative' position is one of isolation and an attempt at stopping the skin from showing as much as possible through political action. With the prevailing wind being that the church is supposed to stand for 'traditional morality' including women and men keeping their clothes on, it becomes difficult to kind of stand against that wind but here I go.

1) To be blunt, there is no Biblical support to the idea that nakedness, in and of itself is evil or sinful, and if we are going to maintain credibility we need to acknowledge this. The fact is our views on nudity, toplessness and other related issues reflect more of a holiness movement cultural mentality than an honest Biblical assessment.

2) I see this issue being used more as another reason to isolate ourselves from people who need the gospel. The nude beach sign above is humorous in its own way but there are real ones in certain states that warn of areas where nude sunbathers might be. On the streets and everywhere else in New York State, in any place a man can go without a shirt so can a woman. In many places, people are not a squeamish about showing their bodies to public consumption. The church's reaction has been one of hiding and avoiding or trying to reverse political decisions on enact moral legislation.

Looking at the book of Acts, I do not see the apostles doing this. As Paul ministered in Corinth he would have been greeted with sexual perversion on a grand scale. Nudity was in abundance in Corinth. I find it telling that Paul does not start a petition with the government to get it stopped. He does not stay away from areas where the temple prostitutes are showing themselves and their services. He does not lead a moral crusade against the nude temple statues and mosaics depicting nudity. He does none of that -- he ministers right in the middle of it all. He simply preaches the gospel and disciples those who believe. Even when the church is established his focus is the ethics and morality of the church -- not those outside of it. It is almost as if he expects sinners to sin -- imagine that.

I think the American church's failure in this country continues to be compounded because we act as America's moral police rather than engaging the message of Christ. When we do pop out of our holes we seem to call down curses from our ivory towers and then disappear back into our holes. So much for compassion for the lost -- we continue to want to meet the sinner on our terms instead of his or hers. To do this may require us to walk down the streets of cities where women are walking around topless, go to nude beaches and visit places where nudity in both reality and art are present. Why? Because it may be our only opportunity to minister to some people.

3) The current 'conservative' position fails to understand the nature of the lust problem in this country is not the prevalence of nude images. Nude images are the result of an already existing lust in people. The fact is there is a current philosophy among many church folks that in order to stop sin is to eliminate external temptation but this does not take James 1:13-15 into account. Temptation comes from our own flesh. It does not come from externals it comes from our heart. Why then do we think we will rid the world of evil by getting rid of externals -- eliminating pornography and making women cover up will no more get rid of lust than standing on your head.

Next: The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 15 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity

I debated long and hard about whether or not to use this picture, but it illustrates the current modern debate about public nudity so well ... I couldn't resist using to make a point.

The issues questions on this one are very current. Particularly the issue of women going topless or topfree (depending on who you talk to) in public. When I did my study I paid considerable attention to the issue of women's breasts and how the Bible views them and if in any way are they connected to nudity. Part 7 of this series I focused on it in particular along with scattered references in each of parts 1 to 12. The issue of physical nakedness I looked at also. Observation over. Interpretation I gave in Part 13 -- The Biblical Definition of Nakedness. Now to the second area of application -- public nudity.

The Questions for the Christian concerning public nudity:
1. If a woman were to show her breasts in public would it be considered a sin by the Bible?
2. At what point does the Bible consider a person naked physically and thus publicly unacceptable?

Before I begin answering these questions back to conservative ideals vs. conservative tradition:
The traditional 'conservative' position I grew up with and which many still hold today in many Christian circles is that a person who displays their body's skin of inappropriate places was inciting sin and sinning themselves. The problem is the definition of 'inappropriate places' has changed over the years. During the Victorian Era any man or woman who showed in public more than their face or hands was considered 'loose'. I remember during my childhood it is why I always wore pants (no jeans) to church with dress shirts (short sleeved was OK for boys but not for girls). My teen years saw a few changes -- jeans were OK but they better not be tight ones. Girls broke the mold of always having to wear dresses and jeans and slacks appeared in church among the girls. Now to be considered loose in my generation meant you wore tight jeans or a girl showed *gasp* a little cleavage. As time has gone on, I can faithfully observe that women have shown more and more in the church setting as the years have gone by. Just this last summer a woman visiting my church wore a sun dress that was well above her knees and showed more than a little cleavage and was sleeveless as an example.

Despite all these changes a couple things have remained constant. 1) Showing of anything involving the bathing suit (trunks for guys and a bikini for girls) area of the body has been forbidden and 2) For a girl or woman to show too much of her breasts, in particular, to show her nipples in any context would be considered inappropriate. I did hear of a story of one pastor that allowed women to breastfeed without blankets in his church, but lets be honest this is not an activity that would be accepted in most Christian churches.

Question #1: If a woman were to show her breasts in public would be considered a sin by the Bible?
Short answer -- No. The problem Biblically with this notion is that there is absolutely no verse of Scripture that says this. By you say: what about the modesty passages? My position on them is posted here. Read it an come back so I don't have to repeat myself. Simply put these passages do not deal with this question at all but an entirely different problem. In addition there is no verse that connects women's breasts with nakedness or nudity. In fact the majority of verses that talk about women's breasts are either neutral about them to illustrate a point or praise them for their appearance or function a symbols of nurturing and motherhood. The few that do place women's breasts in sexual connotations do not connect them with nudity, nor are do they indicate that a women bearing her breasts would be a sinner. There is simply no way to BIBLICALLY support the idea. In fact it might be said the Bible supports the goodness of female breasts and says nothing of how they are bad. If someone were to ask me to build a case from the Bible to prove that woman should always wear tops in public, I would be at a loss as to how to do it.

Question #2: At what point is a person considered physically naked according to the Bible and thus publicly unacceptable? Honestly there is only a few verses that deal with this and the definition would be probably anything covered by a swimsuit bottom. Buttocks included. The issue here is that this definition arrived at by observing a few passages not because the Bible explicitly says so. The way Adam and Eve cover themselves and a few verses from the Old testament Prophets lead us to this definition. The problem is there are also verses where prophets are ordered by God to be naked and in public and where David dances naked before God. We may know what physically the Bible constitutes as nakedness but the Bible makes interpretation difficult when determining, if it is always a sin. In the case of Adam and Eve it is a result not the sin itself and in the case of the prophet and David it is actually symbolic of obedience and worship of God. Once again is what real nakedness in light of the whole Bible's teaching spiritual rather than physical? Very likely.

In short, the Biblical definition of nakedness being spiritual evil as a result of sin, but good is in the context of being sinless makes the issue of public nudity cloudy. It is once again dependent on the consciences of the persons involved. It is more likely to be an issue of culture than a Biblical one and that is something the current 'conservative' tradition cannot accept.

Just a note here even though my positrons on this fall very much outside the positions of 'conservative' traditions, the reality is that I am more conservative than they are because I have followed the conservative idea of the Bible as authority and in looking at it found a position that stands firmly on those ideals. The truth is the 'conservative' tradition on this issue has not a single bit of God's Word to stand on for its authority, but remains purely traditional understandings to uphold a certain religious culture. I am not going to say at this time that its position is wrong or not beneficial, but I am going to say for a group of people who claims to hold no position without Biblical support, they have very little here here.

Next: The Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 14 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

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.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 13 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness

Back to the Garden of Eden. After rereading all my posts on this subject and considering all of what Scripture has to say on the subject I have to conclude that our definition of nakedness -- that is 'without clothes' is completely wrong. Nakedness, Biblically, actually has very little to do with clothes; it is a question of spiritual condition. Is it reflected in a person's felling about being with out clothes -- Yes, but at the same time the source of the feelings of nakedness are spiritual not physical.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed, after it they are naked and ashamed. Their nakedness did not change, what changed was their perception because of the change in their spirits due to sin. They were just as naked after as before. They had become spiritually vulnerable and exposed and thus their physical vulnerability and exposure began to reflect this in feelings and fears.

As I have examined this topic there were a couple things that I had problems with reasoning out -- 1) Why would a husband and wife who were not ignorant of each others nakedness suddenly be ashamed of each other's nakedness. Why would they make clothes for themselves; exactly who were they trying to cover up from? I had to conclude that both the making of clothes and hiding in the bushes from God were part of the same problem -- shame and exposure for disobedience -- not some inherent problem with the human naked body. There problem was not with each other's nakedness but their own nakedness before a holy God. It was a God-mankind problem not a male-female problem. The fact is that in a few verses of leaving the garden man 'knows' his wife and she conceives -- did they do that in the dark? No -- the issue is the shame, exposure and vulnerability that their sin has caused before God and it is this spiritual state that is reflected in a change in their understanding of physical nakedness. They cover their flesh in hopes of covering up their spiritual vulnerability and shame before God. Nakedness is both spiritual and physical but it is the spiritual that determines the understanding of the physical. The physical feelings of nakedness are caused by spiritual nakedness.

2) Romans 8:35 -- that the love of God cannot be stopped by our nakedness. This is not possible if nakedness in and of itself is a sin. Nakedness is a result not and action; a state not a act of disobedience. This means you can stand naked in the shower and still be loved by God. You can also be sin free and be naked before God.

These two factors along with the Old Testament prophets constantly referring to nakedness as exposure, shame and vulnerability lead me to formulate the following definition from the Bible concerning nakedness.

A Biblical Definition of Nakedness: The spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that caused by sin and a human is made aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God.

It is often reflected physically but not necessarily so. A person can still be exposed by their sin before God even when fully clothed. Likewise, a person who is devoid of clothing may still be covered by the righteousness of Christ and thus naked and not ashamed. Physicality is only a reflection and consequence not the state itself which is spiritual.

This definition is constantly repeated as God speaks to his people -- The idea of His punishments being exposing His sinful bride Israel to the world in naked shame is repeated over and over again.

There are several implications that now can be made when looking at nakedness of the physical and spiritual sort in our world when compared to this definition. My next three posts will reflect on these issues:

1. Art vs. Pornography

2. Public Nudity and the Christian

3. Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

Sorry for the Delay on Some Series....

But I am thinking hard on both of them. 'Is Hell Justified?" and the 'The Bible and Nakedness' to be particular. The problem is I have always had a very conservative viewpoint on most issues and on this own the texts of Scripture do not take me there but somewhere else and I am still trying to come to grips with exactly where I am.

"The Book of Revelation"I have put on hold till I get these other two done.

Blessings and something should be done after I have my workout tonight -- good time to think when your 45 min on a stationary bike.

Verse of the Week -- John 1:14

John 1:14 -- "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt amoung us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"

And who says John does not have a Christmas story?

Blessings as we head into December and the holiday season.