- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA Prayer for the Struggle
- Next Post »I Am. I Am Not.
A La Carte (1/30)
- 01/31/11
- 35
Last week I went to the eye doctor and then bought a new pair of glasses. Suddenly I can see things. And now I’m asking myself why exactly it was that I allowed myself to see poorly for the last 2 years. Or as comedian Brian Regan puts it, “How can instantly improved vision NOT be at the top of your to-do list?”
Art, Nakedness and Redemption - This is a very good article written by William VanDoodewaard and taking issue with Christians who feel that nudity in art is permissible and/or praiseworthy.
The Last Temptation of Ted - GQ has a long story about Ted Haggard. It’s a sad story of a man who just refuses to acknolwedge that he is unsuited for ministry and who is sliding further into the mess he has created. Note: the story gets a little bit graphic at times.
Egypt Explodes - Gene Veith asks a few useful questions about the current situation in Egypt.
Lincoln’s Other Mother - "Stepmother" can be a fraught phrase in the telling of childhood stories -- one thinks of Cinderella and the well-named Brothers Grimm -- yet it was a very good day for Lincoln when she came into his life. (HT:TW)
The Sexualization of Youth - This article from the Telegraph has some very insightful things to say about the increased sexualization of children. “So far the debate over the sexualisation of children has centred primarily on quantitative questions. Are our young people being exposed to too much sex? Does this exposure happen at too young of an age? … What I find interesting, however, is that by framing the debate solely in terms of the above questions, the discussion has excluded crucial qualitative distinctions we need to be making.”
Mass Defection - This seems like an inevitable outcome of the Church of England’s moral decline: “Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported.”
Deepak Chopra Gets Owned - One little comment exposes his folly.
I have never yet known the Spirit of God to work where the Lord’s people were divided. —D.L. Moody
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (35)
Great article on art and nakedness, couldn’t agree more.
Sad article on Ted Haggard, but who knows, God may yet grant him repentance.
The article on Egypt…what was with the one comment about hoping they find Jesus without getting tangled up with the church?
Whatever one might think of Ted Haggard, if he was truly molested as a child by a male, it is hardly surprising that he has troubles. Such things WERE buried back then, never discussed. I can’t imagine that burden, even as a Christian. I’ve talked to too many men, gay or straight, who were crushed by such an experience and have never truly recovered from it, largely because the stigma within most churches prevented its exposure and subsequent healing.
I also am ashamed of what we evangelicals often do to ministry failures. I know of personally or have read the stories of fallen leaders of every denominational slant who were given the left foot of fellowship rather than the help they needed. In one case, a youth pastor I knew fell back into drugs when his marriage started crumbling, and rather than help, his denomination had him blackballed so that he could never work in that denomination again. Sad, really, because the guy truly helped kids.
Obviously, people are burned when a beloved ministry leader goes to pieces. But honestly, that’s pride and arrogance. Because the fact is that any of us can end up wrecked. No one is immune. That should make us humble, but in some people it goes awry and makes them anything but.
Based on the article on nudity, I guess no Christians can ever be artists, as you can’t go to art school and not take figure study classes. Being a physician would be out as well. Gang showers would have to go away at Christian camps.
Is it impossible to look at the naked human body and NOT lust?
There is something very different calling for an end to pornography in art and calling for an end to all nudity in art. The article just conflates the two. It ends up suggesting that there is no difference between the two. We all know there is a difference between pornography and nudity. Are there some that lust at the slightest bit of flesh, sure. But many lust at fully clothed people as well. The issue is the lust.
What ends up happening when we reject nudity without a careful eye, is that we reject beauty. I am not saying everyone needs to look at nudity to understand beauty. But to say no one can look at nudity and see beauty instead of pornography is to become Pharisaical. This the same problem as saying all alcohol is bad because uncle Joe is an alcoholic. Because some have an issue with it may mean that we choose not the participate out of deference. But that does not mean that we should condemn all that do not make the same decision as we do.
@ Adam - I follow your argument, and I tend to agree (though your illustration using alcohol is doesn’t work, as the Bible expressly permits drinking wine, Ps. 104:13-15, but doesn’t say the same about casual nudity, unless you want to stretch the interpretation of David’s dancing in 2 Sam. 6).
What about this though: Your 21-year-old Christian daughter informs you she is making good money as an artist’s model, disrobing for art classes.
If it’s permissible to view nudity as an art student, the same logic would follow that it would be permissible to pose as the model.
“Or as comedian Brian Regan puts it, “How can instantly improved vision NOT be at the top of your to-do list?”“
Spoken like a man still to young to have endured the week of vertigo that accompanies his first pair of progressive/bifocal lenses. ;-)
DLE, that is a rubber hits the road question. I honestly would not approve of my daughter posing nude for a class. But I don’t think it would be inappropriate for everyone.
But I don’t think that really is the question here. I think the question is all forms of nudity in art wrong? That is the way the article approached it. And I don’t think that I would term nudity in art as “casual”. It is purposeful.
Chopra?? I don’t get it.
“We all know there is a difference between pornography and nudity.”
I disagree, strongly. And I wouldn’t believe anyone whose ever been a 16 year old boy, who said that that kid sees a difference.
Where in Scripture is nudity ever treated as anything other than shameful, when it doesn’t involve a spouse? When?
And the argument that it’s OK for someone to pose as a nude model but “not my 21 year old daughter”…seriously? Double standard there maybe?
I would refer you to the Garden of Eden for a positive treatment of nudity. Clearly once sin is involved things get messed up. That is true of virtually everything that is positive. But if nudity was the default before sin, then I don’t think it can be seen as inherently sinful after the fall. I am not advocating for nudist colonies or pervasive use of nudity in art. All I am saying is that pornography does not equal nudity and we need to have a thicker view of what art is.
About the daughter thing. I would prefer my daughter not be a lot of things. But not because I think those things are inherently sinful. I would prefer she not work as a bar tender, but I don’t think that all bar tenders are evil or all drinking is evil. Preference is not a definition of sin.
Huge difference, Adam, being that once sin entered the world thereby grotesquely twisting God’s created beauty, God protected the vulnerability of human nudity from being exploited in the public arena by covering Adam and Eve and creating marriage as a safe haven to enjoy nudity.
The naked human body OUTSIDE of the boundary of marriage can never be enjoyed fully or without vulnerability because, last I checked, we still live in a world tainted and marred by sin. I thank God He has given Christians a proper and loving outlet to enjoy even this aspect of His creation in a loving and safe and secure manner through marriage.
Seems John knows that what is seen by one’s eyes can create a problem: “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.” 1 John 2:16.
And James warns in James 1:13-15 “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”
Why submit yourself to that possible temptation when there is so much more beautiful art which does not include nudity?
Jenni,
Well said.
And, I would add that any man who imagines that he can look on a nude woman without being severely tempted to sin, is fooling himself.
Adam,
If nudity in art isn’t a problem, then why not have it be pervasive?
The point of art isn’t to make it pervasive. It is to make it art. Anything that is pervasive becomes commercial and then is not art.
It is clear that I am not going to make my point. But there are many cultures throughout the world that have different perspectives about nudity. My main point is that this article made a definitive statement that nudity in art is pornography. I disagree. I would not call David pornography. I would not call the Sistine Chapel pornography. If those two examples are not pornography, then the argument is about the difference between pornography and nudity. I think that is a legitimate discussion, one that different people and cultures will disagree on.
My issue is that when we make pronouncements like all nudity is pornography we are cutting ourselves off from a cultural conversation that is useful not only to us in the church but the world. I think we have have positive art that includes some limited and appropriate nudity and reclaims nudity as beauty and raises it above pornography.
Adam,
I guess that’s our disconnect then.
You’re coming at this from the point of view (I think) that says how can we avoid cutting ourselves off from the culture around us.I’m (trying) to come at it from the question of what does the Bible tell us about nudity (post-fall, since we don’t live pre-fall).
It seems to me that as soon as we get too concerned about cutting ourselves off from culture, we lose sight of the fact that all culture is fallen and depraved.
You mentioned reclaiming nudity as beauty. Where, apart from the husband and wife relationship, does Scripture talk about nudity as beauty to be enjoyed, and not something to be kept hidden, where showing it is shameful?
Adam,
If I may, this statement:
“The point of art isn’t to make it pervasive. It is to make it art. Anything that is pervasive becomes commercial and then is not art. ”
Says artistic snobbery to me. I’m sure that’s not your intent, but that’s how a statement like that comes off. As though art is for the elite, and once it get’s past the elite, then it’s no longer art.Does that make classical music no longer art, since Looney Tunes has used it for background music for years?
It may sound extremely harsh to modern ears, but after reading the Ted Haggard article in G.Q. I cannot help but remember the what Paul told the Corinthians in his first letter, specifically chapter 5. To summarize, Paul at the end of chapter four is telling the believers in Corinth that he is coming to see them (the Lord willing) and asks them should I come with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness? Chapter 5 begins with Paul telling the church at Corinth that he has heard of a person in the church who “has his father’s wife.” Paul goes on to admonish the church for allowing such a person to be in fellowship with them. He states they should end fellowship with this man, so that through his ordeal he yet may be saved on the day of the Lord. He goes on in support of that decision explaining the right to judge those who call themselves believers by the standards of God. Paul describes the harm of allowing unrepentant sinners to fellowship in the church (that’s the yeast analogy.)Ted Haggard, if this article is a true report of his beliefs towards his sin, I believe, is still very much like the man in 1 Cor. chapter 5. What New Life did may seem harsh to modern ears, but appears biblically correct. It does not appear (from the article) that Ted Haggard has come to full repentance. God may yet bring him there. Still, I don’t think Ted Haggard should be in a position of leadership within the Christian church based upon 1 Cor. chapter 5.This does lead to a question though that is not answered (at least in 1 Cor.:5) when is it permissible (if at all) for a former leader in the church to return to a leadership role after repentance? Because the scriptures say church leaders are held to a higher standard than the regular congregation should a leader who sins even consider returning to leadership within the church? It seems to me that it could have positive and negative effects. At this point, I am not sure what the answer to that question is, but it is something to think about.
If beholding nudity is not allowed in any case outside of the marriage bed, and Scripture is used for that blanket justification, then the problems we create are legion.
Again, no Christian could then train as an artist, doctor, nurse, physical therapist, massage therapist, censor, childcare worker, or anything that would ever involved viewing another person naked. Nor could a Christian be involved in most team sports or any type of activity that involves a lockerroom. Forget the military too. Of course, there’s always the problem of the missionaries who land where the natives go au naturel; should they just skip that place and take the Gospel someplace where the people bundle up in parkas?
And the list would go on and on.
The “rules” either apply or they don’t. Creating a blanket and adding exceptions here and there does not make for a satisfying understanding of grace.
I see this conversation descending into “we should split up the sexes in our youth groups” in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
DLE,
If you can’t tell the difference between viewing nudity out of necessity (doctors) and personal enjoyment (art/porn), then you’ve got bigger problems.
But I think you do know the difference.
If we use culture and other fallen things to explain why we may view nudity for entertainment, then the legion problems you refer to are far greater, and more serious.
But I think you know that too.
Many people are gravitating to the Old Testament for their views on nudity. That was the Old Covenant. What does the New Covenant say?
We could not eat pork in the Old Covenant. We do eat it now. Those who touched the dead were unclean then, but today we don’t make morticians sequester themselves.
What changed?
Is it also possible that not everyone is affected in the same way and under the same circumstances by nudity? Can beholding a naked person be a sin for one person but not another? What if the only difference is the age of the nude person beheld? Or their perceived attractiveness?
God made wine to make men glad. He also warns that drinking too much wine is wrong. A gradation exists, obviously.
God made many things for us to eat. He calls gluttony a sin. A gradation exists.
God created our bodies and called them good. Those bodies are still a blessing, even post-Fall. Could it be that some gradation exists with nudity?
Just throwing out some thoughts for the conversation.
Daryl I think part of the problem is that you want to conflate art and entertainment.
Art is not simply entertainment. Art is an expression of beauty and truth. When we reduce all art to entertainment then we reduce the value of artistic truth to consumption.
And I think that your difference between necessity and enjoyment is not so simple. Is it necessity or enjoyment for an art student to learn how to draw an human body? I would guess you would say enjoyment, but most artists that deal with any humans in their art would say it is necessity to understand how the body works.
And on the necessity side, we did not always disrobe for exams. Women described pain before male doctors for years. Your suggestion that all nudity causes lust would have to apply even in cases of necessity. But I have friends that are doctors and they say that not all nudity causes lust. (I don’t believe any would be willing to say nudity never causes lust. But I think that makes the case even stronger because if lust sometimes can occur in necessity and sometime not, then why couldn’t the same also be true in art?
Daryl,
You’re attempting to have it both ways. If God says not to behold the nakedness of another outside of a marriage relationship, then you are adding qualifiers, saying that medical reasons are fine, but artistic reasons are not.
If you say doctors are an exception, but artists are not, then you need to provide the Scriptures that say so. You need to tell us what the other exceptions are as well, because certainly, there would be others.
Adam,
Are you saying that art is a necessity in the same vein as medicine?
Art is or enjoyment, so is entertainment. I think the difference is (perhaps) one of degree, but even if not, to compare a doctor needing to see my privates in order to help me medically, with an artist needing to see a nude model in order to understand something…that’s pretty far off the rails I think.
DLE,
Assuming that since some things are about gradations means that all things are make no sense.As for the doctor qualifier, I direct you to Moses command that even though work was forbidden in the OT sabbath, leaving a donkey in a pit, or failing to feed it, on the sabbath, was equally forbidden , as a qualifier to the original command.Where does God talk about “too much nudity” as he talks about too much wine?
And, incidentally, why the push for nudity in art? For beauty?Would you put a painting in your home, or, in order not to offend others, in your private office, of a well painted 16 year old nude model?
Scripturally, why not?
@DLE: as for Christians being restricted in the medical field, well, I guess I can’t resist:
http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/gynecologists.html
All in good fun, bro:-)
Daryl,
Art is not simply entertainment. If you believe that, I’m sorry, but you don’t understand art. Ask God why He wanted the items in His temple to have a certain artistic look. Just entertainment?
All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. There’s a matter of degrees here, which goes back to the original argument concerning pornography and art. God, by His Spirit, has placed a limit inside me as to what I can appreciate in art before it passes into the realm of solely creating desire. If desire transcends beauty, then the line is crossed. This is similar to the very familiar warning of Susanna Wesley to her sons regarding some things being a sin and some not, depending on whether they obscure your view of God or not.
I own a painting of a nearly naked Jesus cradled in Mary’s arms after His removal from the cross. I’ve never had one person say anything negative about that painting, despite it being very large and in the most prominent spot in our home. If someone was offended by the image, then perhaps it has made its point.
DLE and Adam,
Neither of you ask the real question, which is “can a man look at a nude woman without lusting?”
If he’s lusting, he’s sinning.
Also, nudity in art is focused on the nude body of the person and occurs any time. Nudity in medicine is focused on the health of the person, and only occurs when necessary.
And DLE, regarding Ted Haggard, the key is repentance. The bible clearly teaches that if a person repents, then he should stay in fellowship with his church body. If he/she does not, then they should leave by church discipline. If the person is a pastor/elder, they should step down because they no longer meet the requirements in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. If a long period of time occurs where they show their faithfulness to one woman, they could be reconsidered for eldership.
On both of the above issues, the Bible is clear and we need not based our arguments on our opinions.
Michael, I think we did address lust several times. People keep asserting that it is not possible to look on a naked body without lust. That is true for some but not all. Let me give you an example. Can you look at your naked spouce and appriciate beauty without sinful lust? How about a naked infant who’s diaper you are changing?
The issue is the lust, not the nudity. Requiring lust with nudity is no more true than requiring coveting when you see your neighbor’s house. Some people are attracted to differen sins. But because one area is a temptation does not mean that all should eliminate it.
Adam, it may pay to note that since sinful lust is adultery of the heart, it is impossible for the act of looking upon your spouse with lust to be sinful (as adultery presupposes someone other than your spouse).
Another thing that nakedness in art does is desensitize you toward the unclothed beauty of your spouse - in a similar manner to pornography. The reason that I do not want to look at porn, to see nakedness in art or film (which in my opinion may as well be softcore pornography), or even look at an immodestly dressed woman is because I want to remain pure for my future wife (God willing), and ultimately pure before the Lord.
Often times, in trying to redeem culture we buy a lie and fool ourselves into lowering our standards of holiness. Paul says to “flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” (2 Tim 2:22). He also says: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me-practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.” (Php 4:8-9)
Aside from nudity failing the test in v8, I cannot imagine Paul, from all my readings of his letters, ever teaching the Philippians such a thing so that the God of Peace would be with them. Naked tribes people and partially nude patients have a nobler goal - the spread of the Gospel and saving lives. True beauty cannot be captured in art - why do you think it is a sin to make an image of God?
Interesting words from the Holy Spirit about Egypt in Isaiah 19 (my daily reading for today).
The idea that we as humans cannot create beauty is just as sinful as any other discussed today. God gave us the ability to create. Creation is potentially the most important and distinctive sign that we are given to show that we are created in God’s own image. The idea that humans cannot create beauty is ridiculous.
I am not an artist. But this discussion today show me much about why some of my artist friends are so reluctant to share their work with the church.
People are gifted. And while not everything that everyone creates is appropriate or beautiful. The rejection of whole categories of creation that are not explicitly rejected in scripture seems to be more than just arbitrary. it is a sign that the church has turned its back on part of the body that God intended to enrich the rest of the body.
I am out of this discussion.
@Michael: “Nudity in medicine is focused on the health of the person, and only occurs when necessary.”
It is not necessary, however, for Christians to become doctors, or nurses, or any of the other professions DLE mentions that frequently require viewing opposite-sex nudity. If your position is that no person can resist the temptation to lust when exposed to opposite-sex nudity, and lust is obviously sin, then should the “flee from sin” principle preclude believing health care workers from treating members of the opposite sex?
Does a Christian male obstetrician necessarily sin by continuing in his profession? Does a Christian female urologist necessarily sin by continuing in hers?
It seems to me that exposing one’s self is primarily wrong when the intent is to create lust in others, or when one realizes lust is highly likely to be the result but does it anyway. Viewing nudity is not wrong at all, per se, but lust is, and so one should flee from nudity if one recognizes it is highly likely to result in lust.
@ Michael #25,
You said: “Neither of you ask the real question, which is “can a man look at a nude woman without lusting?”
Actually, I asked that question all the way back in #3. No one answered from what I can tell.
As to the question of disciplining Haggard. Well, there’s solid church discipline that may even involve disfellowshipping, and then there’s what Haggard’s church did to him, which you have to admit, seems a bit over the top.
Adam, your response just makes me chuckle. You’ve made a straw man out of what I’ve said - ignoring the body of a point and focusing in on the single line that was perhaps not clear enough.
Even still, I’ll stick with the Puritans and the Fathers on this one.
I agree with Adam’s point.
The article seems to say that because it may cause people to sin, the human form should not be revealed for any reason let alone celebrated. This is the exact “reasoning” followed to its logical end in the hijab and many forms of sinful repression of women.
This is the sin of legalism- and it seems to me it is even a step beyond that, as there is no such injunction in scripture. This is idol-making in the sense that we are stepping into God’s shoes and creating a list of rules that will keep us more sanctified. Hogwash. Locked in a white-washed room all day with a Bible and no input from the world, we would each sin repeatedly and we know it. Doesn’t pretending otherwise lead us away from the redemptive work of Christ and the sanctification available through the Holy Spirit?
I would also like to speak to the nude model comments. I believe it’s entirely possible that there exist men (and women) who have no business engaging in these situations because they cannot avoid sin. This in no way leads to justification of a rule restricting all Christians.
This is human thinking gone far astray from the cross. It has more to do with sin than a desire for sanctification, which is in truth available from one source alone.
Re: Larry Gieger, “Chopra, I dont’ get it?”
The video doesn’t give us much context to the panel discussion, but clearly Deepak Chopra made a statement to the effect that “belief is a cover-up for insecurity”. The man asked Chopra if he believes that. Chopra answered “yes”, which implies that his own belief in his own statement shows the absurdity of making such a claim. IOW, Chopra was showed the irrationality and contradiction of his own statement. If he believes that belief is a cover-up for insecurity, then his belief in that worldview must be a cover-up for his insecurities. It’s a worldview that can’t be lived out b/c it is irrational.
I’m sure others can explain and clarify it much better, but I think that’s the gist of the video clip.
In Chopra’s defense, he may have meant that dogmatic or absolute belief is a cover-up for insecurity. When asked if he believed that statement absolutely or dogmatically, then, he could have answered “no” and not implicated himself.