The last time I read something like that I was studying the Fourth Crusade.
This church exists in a nudist colony in Virgina and is known as the only nudist church in the state. I've personally never understood nudist colonies, but I've had friends who thought it would be marvelous to wander around unrestricted by clothes. I made sure to inform these people that their time had not yet come. But I digress.
According to the pastor:
Pastor Allen says the congregation is a family-oriented one and is very involved in helping others.
"On second thought, don't pass the offering plate - just hold on to it." (This is a picture from the Whitetail Nudist Colony's website; I probably shouldn't have included it. On the other hand, it's funny to think about teenagers searching for images from nudist colonies and finding this. Ha ha ha, kids, take that!)
Despite the oddness of the nudist colony, this place seems legit. No, I'm not going there, but American nudist colonies are known for being respectable places. I can't think of anything wrong with people being naked just for the heck of it in a good environment. (Like it matters, I bet you're still trying to adjust the page so that you don't have to look at that picture; I know I am.)
There's a video at the link - but I was afraid to watch it.
17 comments:
They're wearing shoes.
Posers.
that is soooo not me.
In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve hide from the Lord because they realize they are naked after eating from the tree.
"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
- Genesis 3:6-7
There would seem to be a link between modesty and sin. I think that, as long as we are in our fallen bodies, we will have a desire and need for clothing as it subconsciously represents our fallen imperfection and the need for covering of sin.
In Genesis 9:23, we see two of Noah's sons covering him in a moment of drunkenness induced nakedness. They treat his exposure in this way as shameful. And the son who went outside and told his brothers about it is even cursed for what he saw.
In Revelation 3, nakedness is directly equated to shamefulness as well.
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul talks about how we long to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling.
It would seem to me that the bible continually and consistently treats nakedness as something shameful. (I would assume this leans towards public nakedness and not nakedness between husband and wife, for the record.) Ever since the fall, it would seem that man has been destined to be clothed. For a church preaching Christ to say otherwise would be almost certainly an error (probably a fairly extreme one, although probably not damning) in theology on the part of the pastor and congregation.
Personally, I am really glad to NOT be a part of a church like that.
Associating nudity with shame is not the same as an edict that says, "Thou shalt not go naked."
I'm not saying there's an "edict" saying, "Thou shalt not go naked".
However, we do see that the bible suggests that being naked in this world is undesirable. Why we should we then seek it out? God made clothes for Adam and Eve. I think he would not have done that if he did not desire for us to go about this world in clothes. While that does not make nakedness a sin, it does seem improper for a church to be endorsing it in this way.
The Bible associates shame with nakedness because we feel shame when we are naked. There's no reason we must interpret this as a way of saying that nudity is wrong. If it we were wrong, God would have given Adam and Eve clothes before the fall.
If shame of our naked bodies is a result of our comprehension of sin and the fall of man (as Genesis 3 states), then it could be said that denial of that shame is like saying that there is no such thing as original sin to begin with.
While this church might not see this as their message, this is what they symbolically suggest in extolling the virtues of communal and public nudity. And in denying the fall of man, they would be removing the necessity for Christ from the story.
I don't want to pull out the H-stick on them, but I'm concerned that they could be projecting a message (intentionally or perhaps unintentionally, consciously or perhaps unconsciously) that would require it.
It *could* be seen that way. It could also be seen another way. We're operating on thin convictions, here.
Or it may be suggesting that they have been redeemed from their shame through Jesus Christ our Lord, and there is therefore now no condemnation to be attached to them.
Of course, being the stronger brothers, they don't just show up in the weaker brothers' church naked, but instead have their own nudist church.
But I think they still feel shame because they're wearing shoes.
Posers.
and.... there goes my lunch... thanks Adam! ha
How do you say we're operating on *thin* convictions here?
I don't see anywhere in scripture where we are encouraged to go around naked except when we are born and when we die. Do you? Conversely, I do see where we are encouraged to go around clothed and to clothe others as well.
It's thin because there aren't any scriptures that deal with this issue directly. We are trying to infer things about nudity. When you say that it "could be read" a certain way you are saying that it's not set in stone like a more solid teaching would be. I don't see any reason to clamp down on nudity and no Biblical reason to be opposed to it.
Also, I hate that Blogspot is making me log in every time I comment.
When one continues reading the scriptures quoted, it seems that when Adam and Eve told God why they were ashamed, He asked ... Who told you that you were naked? God gave us free will, Adam and Eve chose to eat of the tree of knowledge and THAT was the original sin. They disobeyed God.
They were naked before and God did not have a problem with it. God did not teach them shame, they learned shame by their disobedience of God.
As for God making them clothes... he was kicking them out of paradise, into the cold, cruel world, where clothing is appropriate and necessary at times for comfort and survival. Even then he did not tell them to always be clothed.
What was Noah’s response when he found out his sons had sneaked into his tent to cover his naked body? He was not happy.
I believe when I read Revelations 3, Jesus is chastising them, he is saying (in my humble opinion) that if you believe you need clothes, then go get them. He also said to buy him gold :) Do you really think he was being serious or instead seriously teaching them a lesson about envy and vanity?
2 Corinthians 5 I believe is saying exactly what the Ivor church is saying, in heaven we need only be clothed by the goodness and purity of heaven, it is not (again in my humble opinion) saying you will be wearing clothes in heaven. Remember, we will not be in our earthly bodies when we enter the kingdom of heaven, so what pray tell would we be clothing??
Please understand, I'm not suggesting that you change your opinion, you have free will and can (and should) believe as you feel most comfortable. However, I believe we can live in perfect harmony with or without clothing, less weather conditions, social customs or the law merit the wearing. (That is why the clothing option / nudist associations say "nude where appropriate".)
I am a bit upset, however, by the caption below the picture which is sexual in nature, assumes that our children are unclean of mind and makes the leap that the bodies shown are unsightly. SHAME on you. Each of those bodies were created by our Lord, and while we should sometimes take better care of them, they are NOT shameful or dirty. And if anyone finds those bodies in the photo as disgusting, then I suggest you get on your knees and ask for forgiveness, for you are a bigot. As Forest Gump once said "And that's all I've got to say about that."
I can not find it possible to believe that I should be ashamed of my body, when I was created by God.
I'm not ashamed of MY body - but I'll bet you don't want to look at it.
Good (if a bit heated for this particular topic) discussion so far.
The question raised so far is whether to embrace the pre-Fallen purity of nudity or to accept our lot as Fallen beings in need of a physical symbol of protection.
My two cents: I don’t believe that nudity is inherently sinful – in fact Genesis would suggest that nudity is seen symbolically as pure. The Fig leaves symbolically function as a covering for our shame, to act as a physical protection from our fallen spiritual state; a barrier between the gaze of God and ourselves. (I think that some aspects of Puritan thought have lead us to heap too much shame on the nude figure.)
I don’t believe that clothes are inherently sinful – white robes are the garment of choice when describing the saints and martyrs, also a symbol of purity. They can be seen as a physical extension of our spirit just as our physical bodies are. (It does bring up the question as to whether or not we will wear clothes when we get our resurrected bodies.)
Where either one becomes sinful is when they cause us to turn away from God. Nudity can elicit lust and clothing can elicit a false sense of spiritual contentment. They both can encourage elitism and can be rooted in power struggles or materialism. The Christian call is to use either state to turn us to God and serve our fellow man.
In our Bible studies we have been discussing making right decisions in a world gone wrong. Our main line of discussion is with the gray areas of life. The black and white issues are easy because the Bible clearly states these as right and wrong. Like murdering someone we know to be wrong because of the ten comandments, this is a black and white issue. But regarding the grey areas of life like, entertainment, smoking, drinking, and being 'naked' have to be weighed out from a spiritual stand point and lined up with the Word of God.
I agree with Adam's comment about thin convictions. I would use some principles to line up this issue with scripture before determining it to be sinful. The Bible doesn't say we shouldn't "Yes or No" "Black or White" do this or not do this. There might be some types and shadows leading to the right or wrong of this issue.
I see that the Word tells me not to take on the appearance of evil. I also see this wouldn't lead to my edification. Could this whole running around naked thing lead to sin? Sure, if it leads to coveting anothers wife or husband, or sexual immorality. Think about what this is saying to others around you. The Word tells us not to do things that would lead others to stumble. Another good question would be. Does this glorify God in any way. Will this lead to any kind of enslavement or bondage in my life.
I could keep going on and on. For me, I would say without a shadow of a doubt that for me, it would be sin or would lead to sin so I would stay away. I do not have the freedom in Christ to run around naked or go to God's house naked. I would save that for behind closed doors with my wife only. Perhaps some have that freedom in Christ to do that. But I feel many people justify their sin with excuses. It will all be exposed for the truth soon at the coming of the Lord.
Does it really matter if we have a direct word from Scripture? Some things Christians believe are stated in Scripture, but indirectly. I don't have time to develop the argument from Scripture, yet I am fully confident that such a thing is the immorality of public nudity (and, of course, the morality of private nudity in the marriage bed and the shower).
Another region of concern is our approach to Christian ethics. Not every principle of Christian ethics is stated directly in Scripture; and not every principle of Christian ethics is unique to Christianity. Christian ethics is not pagan ethics, but it does include and perfect some correct ethical principles that are found in pagan ethics.
For example, C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity devotes a chapter to the cardinal virtues of the pagan philosophers. Going further back: Aquinas uses some principles from Aristotle, Augustine uses some from Plato, and Boethius uses some from Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics. Still further back: the Church Father Minucius Felix defends Christianity to paganism on the basis of the good morals of the Christians, because pagans could recognize the Christian way of life as more virtuous. I think Felix was only following the advice of Peter, who advised Christians to live righteously so that pagans would recognize that we are righteous.
Post a Comment