Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Here is what  a blogger says on this issue. Not saying I necessarily
agree with him but I thought it might be interesting to throw this
into the general discussion. As it is a blog you can comment there as
well as here.

http://www.ronniewrogers.com/2008/07/29/public-nudity-innocent-or-sin/

http://tinyurl.com/bckash

Recently, I was asked what the Bible says about public nudity. As you
well know, many believe that the taboo of public nudity is merely
social, and that apart from societal mores, there is nothing immoral
about public nudity. What does the Bible say?

First let me be clear. I draw a distinction between task nudity and
social or sexual nudity. Task nudity refers to a person being nude for
such things as taking a shower at the gym. Therefore, this article
does not refer to task nudity but rather whether it is moral to be
nude in public, in mixed company other than with one=92s spouse, and/or
for the purpose of being nude, disrobed etc., for either sexual or
social nudity.

Nudity is beautiful prior to the fall: There is nothing inherently
evil about nudity. For example, Genesis 2:25 says concerning man and
woman before the fall, =93And the man and his wife were both naked and
were not ashamed.=93 Further, God declared all that He created to be
=93very good=94 (Genesis 1:31). Consequently, the naked body as created by
God is beautiful; however, this was before the fall of mankind. Before
the fall, the nudity of man and woman did not provoke temptation, but
sin introduced distortion into the created order that did not
previously exist. This distortion can be seen by comparing Genesis
2:25, which says prior to the fall that Adam and Eve were naked and
=93were not ashamed to (Genesis 3:7) whereas immediately after the
introduction of sin into the world Scripture describes their attempt
to hide their nakedness with clothing. More importantly, God clothed
their nakedness: =93The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.=93(Genesis 3:21)

One commentator lucidly notes the change, =93Their bodies were
sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first
with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the
body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and
turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust
of the flesh.=941

Consequently, Christians should be clear: the body was created by God
as =93very good=94 and clothing was not necessary or even suggested in the
Garden prior to the fall. We should be equally clear that immediately
after the fall, God clothed Adam and Eve. God is the one who started
the clothing of the human body; therefore, in our present fallen
state, clothing is not an option, a mere status symbol to be discarded
in one=92s quest for freedom, or a mere social construct, but rather a
blessing and provision of God.

The origin of dress is associated with a changed state brought about
by sin, resulting in nakedness being seductive, provocative, and
potentiating shame and further allurement away from God and His plan
for humans.

Therefore, prior to the fall of man into sin, Adam and Eve were naked
without shame. Immediately after the fall, they were ashamed and
sought to cover themselves, which God did as well. Today those who
express their shamelessness about public nudity fail to realize that
shamelessness in the garden was because of the purity of the creation
whereas after the fall any sense of shamelessness is due to the
hardness of the heart from sin =93=85the unjust knows no shame=94 (Zephania=
h
3:5).

Nudity is beautiful between a husband and wife: Contrary to social
Darwinism, which sees man as an animal, different only from all other
animals in degree rather than kind, man is created in the image of
God, and is therefore categorically different than animals. Thus, the
argument that animals do not wear clothing is no argument or
determiner of what humans should or should not do. Biblically, the
body and marriage are sacred and marriage is the proper context for
sex, and social or sexual nudity.  The beliver=92s body is not only
sacred because it was created by God but also because it is a temple
of the Holy Spirit, (1 Corinthians 3:16). Therefore, public nudity is
wrong because it desacralizes marriage, sex, and the temple of the
Holy Spirit.

Public nudity is sin: Public nudity is sin and should evoke shame.
That some are not ashamed reveals more about their spiritual
deprivation than about whether public nudity is sin or not. Zephaniah
said, =93=85the unjust knows no shame=94 (Zephaniah 3:5). Public nudity is
humanity at the sensual level, and draws us away from God=92s way and
elicits lust, jeopardizes marriage, and potentiates adultery,
fornication=85..

Gen 19:22-25 associates shame with exposure of the nakedness of Noah.
Leviticus 18 prescribed several specifics about regulating nudity and
appears to use nudity as a euphemism for sex as well. We live in a
very sensual culture, and the further we move from being a culture
influenced by biblical principles, the more public nudity and scanty
dressing will become tokens of liberation from so-called cultural
taboos.

Christians do see nudity and sex as beautiful gifts from God, and
they, like every other blessing of life, are to be used according to
God=92s plan. =93Christians hold that worldly gifts are subordinate to the
gifts of grace and that the new spirit of divine life consecrates
these goods from selfish to pious uses=85early Christians conformed
their dress to a modest and sober taste, giving no indulgence to a
vain spirit.=942

The Scriptures remind us, =93For those who are according to the flesh
set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit=93(Romans 8:5).
Therefore, we are commanded, =93Set your mind on the things above, not
on the things that are on earth=93(Colossians 3:2) and this command is
in light of the warning =93Whose end is destruction, whose god is their
appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
earthly things=93(Philippians 3:19).

Nudity and sex have no real connection: In one way or another, those
who promote public nudity as =93innocent=94 or =93social and not sexual=94
seek to distinguish and disassociate sex from nudity. Those who
support the notion and like to frequent nudist clubs, etc. say that
walking around nude with other families, children, and those of the
opposite sex has nothing to do with sex. In other words, there is no
organic relationship between nudity and sex or nudity and sin.

First, as already shown, non-task nudity outside the confines of
marriage is sin in this fallen world. Second, while nudity is not
sufficient for sex, it is necessary. Their attempt to totally
disassociate sex from nudity is laughable. First, the Scripture makes
the clear connection between sex and nudity with all of the
regulations regarding nudity, as well as using nudity as a euphemism
for sex. Also, it seems that the pornographers understand the
connection since they make millions by either selling nude photos or
photos that cause lust that can only be satiated by sex.

It seems that men understand the connection since they are by every
known rational mind to be visual. Lastly, it seems that if honesty
prevails, both men and women understand there is an inextricable
connection between nudity and sex, or else the move toward more
intimacy by men and women would be to put on another layer of clothing
with each flirtatious encounter and the most sensual dress would be
multilayer thick burlap.

Christians should show forth the glory of God by covering what He
intended to be covered recognizing the insatiable appetite of fallen
man to desacralize everything, including himself, and live at the
basest level of human existence; thereby allowing sensory pleasure to
reign supreme with no shame.