Perhaps the most ridiculous comment the pastor uttered during the interview was that some of the biggest moments of Jesus' life happened when he was naked. How deeply profound.
Posting this video reminds me that I need to add a new label/category to some blog posts-- "stupid."
HT: Richard Hall
Posting this video reminds me that I need to add a new label/category to some blog posts-- "stupid."
HT: Richard Hall
26 comments:
Oh Allan, you're such an frumpy old prude!
I agree that I don't know what to say. At the same time I don't really know what would be wrong with this. As they point out, it's not sexual.
Not my comfort level but hey...
I guess they don't have to worry about what to wear.
Brother, that's just wrong on A LOT of levels. It's going to take something supernatural to get that out of my mind. Be careful little eyes what you see. Yikes!
How does one view the physical body? That is the question for most provincialists.
Those that don't see the body as perdominantly sexual or evil, will not have a problem with nudity, in general. (Remember the Reformers were the ones who destroyed works of art during the Reformation, while the Renaissance flourished in new art expressions)...
It is a free country that values diversity. I wouldn't want to attend, otherwise I would belong to a nudist colony.
My question is what is innately wrong with this, if one doesn't take to extraneous views about the body?
Chuck, I think what is wrong with it is that I doubt St. Paul would be OK with it. One of the great idolatries of our culture is that we are taught to believe that our bodies are ours to do with as we please. Paul tells the Corinthians otherwise. Granted the issue Paul is specifically dealing with is sexuality, but I am struggling to reconcile this one with the NT.
DB Mom, you are correct, but I think I would rather see fashion violations on Sunday morning than the violations I witnessed in that video.
Dale, you are absolutely right... and sorry about the visuals. It is rather scary.
Angie, freedom has nothing to do with this. Of course, it is a free country and if people want to gather together in the buff and sing hymns, they are free to do so, as long as they don't expose (pun intended) the rest of us to their naked nonsense. As a Christian, I object to this group using the faith to justify what they are doing. By the way, nudity in classical art is a very different thing from actually having it in front of you.
Also, where do you stand that you get to label my view or anyone else's provincial? Your presuppositions do not determine the framework of the discussion nor the defining of terminology.
I was going to joke about your blog title "And *I* don't know where to look!"
On a serious note, I'm not convinced that nudism - which is the context here - is inherently immoral or unethical. But I admit I'd have to give it more thought. I don't personally find naked bodies particularly sexual. I agree that their justifications seem silly. But on the other hand, you are objecting (unless I have you wrong) on the basis of theology, so I think that invites some theological reflection on other positions.
I labelled the social norm as a provincial one. Christians in our country usually set the social norms. Isn't that provincialism? (I did not mean the term in derogatory way.)I didn't even watch the video, as I am not interested in what nudists do, as I would not adhere to it personally.
I don't know what their rationale is for worshipping in such a way. My point is that this is really none of our business, if they are not violating a city ordinance, or disturbing the rights of others.
These people seem to be under the impression that we can get back to the Garden of Eden simply by being naked and unashamed.
Angie and Pam,
Sorry not to respond sooner, but I wanted to get the Weekly Roundup posted.
Angie, I apologize for misunderstanding your comments. I do not like the word "provincial" because it smacks of modernism in which secularism is somehow neutral and religion is biased.
As a Christian who is listening to nude Christians justify their practice biblically, I object and I do think that it is my business, since I am a Christian too. Having said that, I do believe that they have every right to do what they want. I am not suggesting that we should somehow outlaw their pratice. As a Christian, however, I think it is difficult to justify.
Pam,I think I agree that nudity is not necessary sexual in implication (I have to think through that a little bit), but I just cannot imagine Jesus and Paul giving a pass on this one. Paul tells the Corinthians that there are members of our bodies that we cover in order to give them greater honor. I see what these folks are doing as a complete contradiction of Paul.
Moreover, in our hyper-sexualized culture, I think the last thing we need is a group of Christians worshiping naked on Sunday morning.
A few thoughts off the top of my head... I am interested in your response.
Paul,
An interesting comment. How does the self-centeredness of Adam and Eve's realization (rabbinic interpretation) apply here?
I don't know whether you were adressing Pam or both of us in responding to you. But, I will respond anyway, for what it's worth.
The Bible is written with a bias, a religious one. But, the Bible's standards and norms have and do change, as far as modernity goes..(and even post-modernity)...
One has to assess whether they want to submit to the 'Standards" as written, modify those standards and one what basis do they justify doing so, OR understand that this was ancient material for the time written that may give us insights into the ancient world and its culture.
No one can be unbiased, so I suppose I would rather live my life in a liberal democracy, ruled by laws that protect liberty of conscience, than a tribal or authoriatarian society.
Angie, the problem with your argument is that you assume that liberal democracy is not tribal nor authoritarian.
Many would disagree.
Yes, and I agree with them, too.
As long as leaders are representative, and virtuous (a person of conviction) then we have nothing to worry about. But, once they think that they have power over others without accountability, are above the law, or adhere to the checks and balances that are in our form of government, then there is alwasy a chance for abuse of power. We see this vividly in the past number of years.
But, politics still pushes one's convictions about how society should approach government. Those that have a bias toward liberalism will tend toward society's needs, at the individual's expense, while the conservatives leans toward an individual bias. And the conservative also believes that the individual has a right to own property and earn his own wages. He is more self-governing, while the liberal believes that society is responsible for the needs of the impoverished.Scripture can be used to affirm either side.
I know you know this, but I am saying it to affirm that there are pros and cons to every ideological stance. One must ascertain for themselves what they are gong to be committed to as to their own personal convictions and then garner political power by gathering with others with like minds.
Pam,I think I agree that nudity is not necessary sexual in implication (I have to think through that a little bit), but I just cannot imagine Jesus and Paul giving a pass on this one. Paul tells the Corinthians that there are members of our bodies that we cover in order to give them greater honor. I see what these folks are doing as a complete contradiction of Paul.
I've not really ever thought through "a Christian viewpoint on nudism", which I think is the point here. I'll address this comment of yours first and then continue. You said:
Moreover, in our hyper-sexualized culture, I think the last thing we need is a group of Christians worshiping naked on Sunday morning.
I have much less of a problem with a worshiping community inside a nudist camp - which is what I understood this to be - than with a church where everyone comes and strips off. The latter thing, to me, is just gratuitous and I'd agree with your above point. If I object to the former thing, then I'm saying that Christians who seek to be true disciples of Jesus should not be nudists. That's the bit I'd need to think about.
As to Paul, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to take his comments - this one was, I believe an analogy - and universalize them for all contexts in every age. Which is maybe a separate point from "a theology of worshiping communities in a nudist camp".
Perhaps, on thinking more about what you and Pam have said...
Am I to care whether someone thinks worshipping God nude is okay? or should I care whether there even is a nudist colony that worships God. And why should I care?
Those that have a literalistic view of heaven and hell will tend to be more strict in the understanding of what is required. The problem is, as Pam has pointed out, everyone interprets from thier own values anyway.
I just haven't cleaned up where my responsibility for others, and nosiness begins...where true concern for valid reason or wanting to control everybody's business because I think that I know everyting that should or should not be done in worshipping God, etc...And am I to judge someone who worships God differently than I do...etc..
Angie, I'm not sure it's actually about judging people who do this. I think that, for me, the issue is more about discerning[1] whether a practice like nudity is good, indifferent or unhelpful to a person's growth as a Christian disciple.
[1] I like the word "discerning" rather than "judging" because "judging" for me has the connotation of "judging in order to condemn" (that was very much part of my childhood religion). I don't personally believe that "there is no such thing as right and wrong" and that's where "discerning" comes in for me.
However, does the practice of nudism fall into a clear-cut category of a moral or ethical good or bad? I'm not sure. I can think of individuals for whom it might very helpful. And I can think of individuals for whom it might not be helpful in the least.
Pam,
Another interesting question for me (and may be beside the point) is what is it about some folk that they do not mind and even enjoy standing naked in front of other people?
Strange, I think, to say the least.
And since our country does not condemn such behavior, don't you think we should be extremely careful about such matters? That is, unless you go to "THE Bible" as understood by your own personal framework...which gets back to epistomology, how do we know? Only by faith. And without faith it is impossible to please God, so why am I assuming that my opinon about how to worship is the appropriate or right one? AND how can I be so presumptuious to say that this activity is not healthy. I just don't care, one way or another what another does to "culturally" express their worhsip to God or whether they worship God or not. That is THEIR business. And I think that our country has it correct on separating the private and public, in that if there are people that really care and know a person, and accept them, then THEY are the ones that should express their concern. BUT NOT UNDER ANY DISCIPLESHIP PROGRAM BUT out of concern for the person as their friend! Not because "THEY HAVE THE ANSWER" but because they have a knowledgable relationship to that person to want the best.
There are MANY MANY things that can be wrong in an individual's life, but when and where to express those things is a matter of discretion, and great wisdom and care. THAT show whether the people that "know" really TRUely care! And don't want to just "prove their love and conern" by getting involved with things they shouldn't!
Angie,
You have confused law with morality here. Just because someone can behave within the confines of the law doesn't mean that behavior is moral, nor does the suggestion that certain behavior is immoral mean that it should be outlawed. I agree with Pam. We simply cannot reduce morality to nothing more than personal preferences, meaning that ultimately there is no right or wrong. Both of us proceed from a different perspective and what we are trying to work through is whether a nude church gathering is OK or not in the context of the two of us who are believing and practicing Christians. We may not entirely agree with one another, but our belief that there is a right and a wrong within our Christian narrative makes the discussion important.
I completely disagree with your modern desire to remove religion to the realm of the private, but we have been down this road before, so we are simply not going to agree.
As far as discipleship goes-- I believe in making disciples of Jesus Christ precisely because I care for others. You may think that's coercive, but again we have been down this road before. There is no sense in continuing to hash it out.
Let's try this one more time-- I believe that if people want to gather to worship naked, they have a right to do so, but I do not have to approve of it, and I can say so.
And by the way-- there is nothing more coercive than your view of religion and privacy that insists that I keep my religious views to myself out of the public realm. In so doing you want to insist that Christianity is only important for private edification. My belief that Jesus is Lord insists otherwise.
Sometimes there is a difference between morality and ethics, when it limits universiality. But, what is the universal?
You say Jesus (is Lord). But, others would not be so presumptuous to assume this to be so, as they would understand all religious traditions as humans grasping the "ultimate". Others would say that law would be absolute, and others would say, nation-states, and others would say individual conscience.
And still others would say the "human". But what is "the human"? Is "human" universal or individually defined? That is of uptmost importance, because without personability the individual is dissolved into an objectification that is inhumane. This is what "Statism" (whether atheistic or religious) does to the human, although the human sciences have added to our knowledge of "the human", we have a long way to go".
Our country was founded on the priciple of liberty of conscience, because it was foremostly a "protestant" country. And "faith" which the Protestants believed "justified" them, cannot be defined apart from limiting conscience.
Whenever anyone presumes that they speak for God, they must be careful they are not projecting their own opinion, because we cannot be so sure. Nominalism is the result, which radicals hate, because they want others to be disciples of their "Jesus", imposing their view, for fear a retributive God that will judge others, and them if they do not "act, believe, or think" "right" (according to their or "jesus" definition). This creates an atmosphere of fear, coercive and/or self-righteousness that hinders one from being reasonable or acting with rationale. So, I do believe "radical faith" in politics is dangerous (Nazism, or Fascism).
This leaves individual denominations or religions to resolve how they will define faith. And that is fine as I do believe in religious freedom. And it is also fine for faith commitments to be expressed within the public realm because I believe in the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.But, the religious must understand that they are only credable when they give rational accounts to their personal convictions or commitments.
But, I also believe a non-faith stance has a right to be heard in the public marketplace. That is the right in a liberal democracy and representative Republic.
The philosophers were the ones who understood best that truth is "wisdom", not scripture, in handling the problems set to be solved and that comes to be political philosophy. So, one must not make probems for others when there really are no problems, such as these worshipping nudists.
Someone might disagee with them, but then, "Get a Life". That means stop pointing fingers toward the nudists and know what you believe and why.
That is my project, these days. And that the realm of values clarification...(and don't paint some "pie in the sky" kingdom of God" to come scenario. That is not reasonable.)
Another interesting question for me (and may be beside the point) is what is it about some folk that they do not mind and even enjoy standing naked in front of other people?
Allen, while I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to be a nudist, I can see something in it. The first and deepest spiritual lesson I learned was that I am ontologically bad, awful and unacceptable and only saved through the legal trick of Jesus’ death which doesn’t change my ontology, but covers up my awfulness so that God doesn’t need to look at me. And then let’s not even worry about adding all the cultural baggage that tells females that their “spiritual” goodness is somehow tied up with their physical attractiveness. I could see where it would be incredibly freeing to be accepted in a totally matter of fact way as a middle aged woman with droopy skin and stretch marks and all the other battle scars of life. “We see you as we are, and we accept you.”
The philosophers were the ones who understood best that truth is "wisdom", not scripture, in handling the problems set to be solved and that comes to be political philosophy. So, one must not make probems for others when there really are no problems, such as these worshipping nudists.
I don't understand how Allan is making trouble for nudists by saying that he doesn't think this is a Christian way to live? I also don't understand how he's making any kind of political point; I don't recall him saying that he thinks Christians should campaign to make nudism illegal. He just seems to be saying that this is sub-Christian behavior. (I still don't think I agree with him, but I don't see what's wrong in him expressing his opinion.)
Pam,
Thanks for that different perspective that I hadn't considered. One of the things I love about discussions like this is that we have to the opportunity to see these kinds of things through the eye of others.
I still don't like it, however... :-)
Angie,
You write, "But, I also believe a non-faith stance has a right to be heard in the public marketplace. That is the right in a liberal democracy and representative Republic."
I completely agree with that, just as every "faith-stance" whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim, or... you name it... also has a right to be heard and taken seriously. We fail to do that when we put forth a view of religion that insists the faithful should leave their faith at the door to speak publicly. I cannot do that and I do not expect the practitioners of other religions to do that, even when I disagree with them.
Wow, Angie, we agree on something! I knew if we had at it long enough, it would happen!
I still don't like it, however... :-)
I never for a minute thought you would. ;-)
Maybe I just failed to see it, but in all of this I don't recall reading even a reference to scripture.
1 Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
The Bible says Peter was fishing naked (more likely than not, in his swimming trunks so to speak), but when he saw the Lord he girded his fishers coat.
The Old Testament priest was to wear linen breeches so no one could see his nakedness as he ascended the altar.
Not only are we not to lust, but nor are we to put a stumbling block in our brothers way. The fact that you may claim not to have a problem with lust, or you may be so unatractive that no one would ever lust over you, really doesn't have anything to do with it.
No matter how you slice it, this is horribly unGodly, and shouldn't even be laugh about.
Bob
Post a Comment