Blog

We finally come to an end to a long series of response articles to Nick Peters of Deeper Waters. In case you didn’t know, Nick Peters has written a copious amount of articles criticizing Aaron Frost’s book “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible”, and I’ve been critiquing the critique. Although I am not Aaron Frost and his criticisms are not aimed directly at me, much of what Peters has said in his series are critiques of general arguments for naturism. Much of what Frost would use to defend naturism biblically and historically are some of the same arguments that I would use. Now, I don’t agree with every claim Frost makes in the book (e.g his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12) and I do think he could have cited far more sources for his claims than he could have. Part of me laments that this is the first book ^[1]At least I hope it’s the first of many! on Christian Naturism that Peters chose to read. I think books like “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame” by Phillip Oak and “Who Said You Were Naked?: Reflections On Body Acceptance” by David Hatton are far superior defenses of naturism. Nevertheless, I think Frost’s book is generally good and has more good qualities than flaws. It’s just not the first book I would recommend. It’s good either as a primer or as supplemental material.

With all that said, there are two more articles Nick Peters has written, and it is my aim to address both of them in this one article of mine.

Frost Bite

Nick Peters includes the following quote from Aaron Frost; “Even as a religious hoax, purdah is so deeply entrenched that many people will patently refuse to reconsider their views regardless of any facts. For such people it makes absolutely no difference whether I can establish a perfectly waterproof case from the Bible or demonstrate documented historical and cultural examples from around the world. For them, the evangelical standards of conservative modesty are a vital source of legalistic pride, so the evidence doesn’t matter. Their sense of holiness and self-worth is so deeply invested in this pet interpretation of modesty that no amount of research, Scripture, or sound reason will have any influence on what they are already determined to believe no matter what. They will continue to behave, believe, and belittle others without change regardless of anything they might learn to contradict their entrenched positions. Even if they are logically forced to admit that they have been wrong, they will continue to live without repentance, much less changing their standards or standing up resolutely for a truth that is unpopular, inconvenient or uncomfortable. They are so terrified of change that they would rather persist in a something familiar they know to be a lie, so long as it continues to provide anesthetic comfort and a false sense of security and an external show of piety.” ^[2]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 200-203). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Commenting on this exerpt, Nick Peters writes \\“Well, there’s no holding back here.

So first off, calling the idea of wearing clothing to protect modesty and uphold morality is a stretch. Frost seems to always think in extremes. It leaves me wondering if something else is really going on.“\\ — Honestly, the level of obtuseness Peters continues to show is astounding. Did Nick Peters not say himself that “Now as a man, I don’t care if the woman is completely naked or if she’s wearing completely covering armor over her, if I lust, I am the one to blame for my lust. Yes, she could be doing something that makes it easier for me to lust, but I bear responsibility for my own sin.” (emphasis mine in bold) ^[3]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Moral Effect Of Clothing” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/16/book-plunge-christian-body-the-moral-effect-of-clothing/ You don’t have to look very far to see that the argument for modesty, which Nick himself has made in various places, that people should wear clothing because naked bodies of the gender we’re attracted to cause us to lust. Lust is bad (see Matthew 5:28), and some will say that because we men are just created by God to be this way, there’s just no helping it. So women need to cover up to protect us from men from reacting. In fact, Nick Peters himself implied that God hard wired us to respond sexually when he wrote “Could it be that God made the human female form to be alluring to the male and the human male form to the female? What if this is a feature and not a bug? What if women were made to be beautiful and some of that beauty was saved only for their husbands and vice-versa for men?” ^[4]Nick Peters, ““Book Plunge: Christian Body: Frost’s Conclusion on Biblical Data”, Deeper Waters, — … Continue reading The onus is mostly put on women when this subject has been talked about, but in a previous article in this series, I recalled reading a Facebook status from a Christian girl who also struggled with visual arousal and lust issues when men would go shirtless. Since giving her life to Christ, she hadn’t been to the beach in years. My reluctance of going shirtless (far before getting a dad bod) was partly due to this reason. I didn’t want to be “immodest” and cause heterosexual women to stumble. I gave up a wonderful freedom because I felt responsible for others’ sins. ^[5]As much as I love being completely naked, I really like being shirtless. I hate Donald Ducking. I would rather be shirtless with pants, than pantless with a shirt. Just freaking Google around. You will find no shortage of Christian sites making this kind of argument! This is what Frost means when he says clothing are need to “protect morality”. Yes, I think it’s a stretch because I disagree with that premise entirely. I didn’t used to, but I do now.

Nick Peters wrote \\“To be fair, many people will refuse to reconsider their views. This is true for almost everyone. None of us really like the idea of being wrong. This is why I always try to be reading at least one book that I disagree with. Frost needs to realize he can be prey to this as well.”\\ ^[6]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Why Be Modest?” Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/21/book-plunge-christian-body-why-be-modest/ Well, that’s all good and well, Nick. But you actually have to understand more than 1% of what you’re reading. You’ve failed to demonstrate decent reading comprehension when going through Frost’s book. You’ve attacked a whole army of straw men, proof texted (i.e eisegesis), made false claims, made the personal incredulity fallacy, and many other blunders. On this subject, I would recommend reading more. Read Oak’s and Hatton’s book, and this time, really focus and give a good charitable attempt at trying to understand what they’re saying. And as I said in a prior article, the Fig Leaf Forum archive has scores of material for you to read for free. You just need to e-mail the web master and ask for a pass code.

\\”Moving on, had Frost presented a waterproof case, I would have accepted it.“\\ ^[7]ibid. – Forgive me, but I have my doubts about that.

\\”Instead, I found speculation upon speculation with NO biblical scholars cited. Frost spent more time documenting other cultures than that of the Bible. What other cultures may or may not do could be interesting, but if we want to study if a view lines up with the Bible, that is the culture we should focus on.”\\ — Just wait until he reads John Walton’s “Lost World” series where Professor Walton spends equal time in The Bible and in Ancient Near Eastern literature! Honestly, he shows a lack of understanding of why Frost documented other cultures’ views of nudity and modesty. It was to show the utter subjectivity of it. If you have a culture that is fine with a woman exposing her breasts and vagina, but takes issue with her showing her feet or face, and we in the modern west have it the other way around, that mitigates against the idea that modesty is divinely mandated. If we needed to cover our bodies at all, or at least certain parts, to prevent others from lusting, one would think that either The Holy Spirit would have included a list of parts to be covered somewhere in scripture (The Torah, Proverbs, Jesus’ teachings, Paul’s epistles, somewhere!) ^[8]By the way, check out Mud Walker’s videos “A Modesty Diagram?” and “Modesty Diagram Response 1”. I invite my textile brothers and sisters to take up his challenge and … Continue reading or he could have written it on the moral law of our hearts (see Romans 2:14-15). The disagreements over what is modest or immodest show the utter subjectivity of the whole thing. If Genesis 3:7 wasn’t enough to show that modesty (or purdah) is a man-made convention, this should be irrefutable proof of it. While in America, we may disagree mildly on modesty (e.g one piece swimsuits are ok, bikinis are out), some cultures’ modesty standards wildly! We’ve seen this in previous articles. If you want the examples and the sources, go look at my prior articles.

\\“After this, he points to pride as the reason. This is just poisoning the well. As a man, I would have enjoyed a good case that I could get to see naked women easily, but I don’t think it’s here.”\\ — Maybe he is poisoning the well, but I get the feeling that Frost is just venting his frustration when he’s presented this case to other Christians.

As for wanting a good case and not thinking it’s there, it would help if you understood more than a tiny fraction of what you’ve read, Nick.

\\“Would that Frost had spent some time studying biblical scholars. I do not consider that belittling because he did not cite ANY of them. If your case can withstand scholarly scrutiny, show it. Frost has not.”\\ — Well, what about my case, Nick?

What Causes Lust?

In this section, I will give my thoughts on Nick Peters’ article “Book Plunge: Christian Body: What Causes Lust?” In this section, Peters says that we cannot control our immediate emotional and/or biological reactions to something, but only what we do with it. True enough. When I started watching Naked Club videos to recondition my mind to separate nudity from sex, some of the pretty girls in the video gave me an erection. I couldn’t help that. But what did I do? I did not masturbate. Instead, I watched group of college-aged men and women doing their chaste activities and verbally preached to myself the truths that the human body is the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), that women are persons made in his image and are not objects to be used for sexual gratification, and that there was nothing sexual going on in the videos so that I should not be having the reaction (“Brain, calm down. It’s just a bell. You are not going to be given food. These bells aren’t even remotely related to food). I also prayed to God while I watched them. I petitioned him to help me renew my mind (Romans 12:2) and I eventually started praising him for his craftsmanship. It didn’t take too long before what my brain interpreted as visual sexual stimuli to innocent Edenic socialization. I remember at one point being nearly moved to tears because it looked like I was seeing a snap shot of Eden, a snap shot of “What was and what could have been.” But I praised God that what we lost will some day be fully restored (see my article “A Treatise On The Christian’s Eternal Home”). There was a time when my brain would have interpreted all filmed nudity as pornography, and I would have immediately have responded sexually. Now I don’t, and now my mind sees the difference between artistic nudity and smut.

I also agree that if you get turned on by naked women in certain circumstances, such as the scene in Shindler’s List, there is something wrong with you. Thankfully, as sexualized of a view of the female body as I once had, when I watched Shindler’s List, I was not turned on. Part of it was that it was non-sexual nudity (like naturist media), but another factor was the darkness of the setting. Jewish Women being treated like cattle would only turned only the most depraved mind on.

Nick Peters wrote \\“I am a man who has never struggled with pornography, but at the same time, I don’t put myself in dangerous situations either. I have a strong plan to never have a woman over to my apartment when it is just me and her and vice-versa with going to see a woman. (Family excepted of course.) I follow the Graham Rule because I know how easy it is to have your reputation damaged. How many men in ministry have fallen into sexual sin?”\\ (Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: What Causes Lust?” Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/22/book-plunge-christian-body-what-causes-lust/))

There was a part of me that was a little disappointed to read this section. Nick has never struggled with pornography? In one sense, I’m happy for him. I wouldn’t wish those chains on anyone, especially not a brother in Christ. But at the same time, this means that he is likely incapable of empathizing with those of us who have. He has never known the “Resist, Fail, Resist Fail” cycle. He has never begged and pleaded (and bargained) with God to set him free from those shackles, only to fail again and wonder whether God is failing him or if the problem is on his end. He has never known the crushing guilt and shame of knowing you’re displeasing God, but feeling utterly incapable of doing anything about it. He has never spent hours upon hours on his knees begging and pleading God for freedom “Give me enough willpower to resist! PLEASE!” “God, if you would just take away my desire for it!” “God, I’ll do anything you want if you just set me free! Tell me what to do and I’ll do it!” “F*** YOU, GOD! WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING ME FEEL GUILTY ABOUT THIS BUT REFUSE TO LIFT A FINGER TO HELP ME!?” He has never spent hours Googling strategies to keep himself away from pornography, finding one strategy after another, and trying them all only to have each one be an utter failure because they can all be easily circumvented. He’s never binged horrific material after a long season of “being clean” that made him so sick in a “post-nut realization” that he wanted to vomit. He’s never been so desperate that castrating himself has crossed his mind. He has no idea what it feels like to give up all hope, to think that all that can be done is to just as God to forgive him for the rest of his life, that he can be freed from this sin’s penalty by Jesus’ death on the cross, but that he cannot be freed from its power. Not on this side of the resurrection anyway. He has no idea what it feels like to give up hope so completely that after a session, he turns to God and says “I give up. If You hate this as much as You say You do, then you need to get off your divine butt and do something. I give up. I will continue to commit this offense against you until the day I die unless you give me my miracle. The ball is in your court. Whether I stay in bondage or am freed is up to You.” ^[9]By the way, it was very quickly after praying this that I found “Be Ye Transformed” on the Aching For Eden blog. It’s almost if complete surrender was what God wanted. Maybe that … Continue reading

He says he abides by The Billy Graham rule. The Billy Graham rule is often impractical. And one author mentions other problems with it, most of it being insulting to women in different ways. It is one form of objectification, for example, which is the sin I’ve repented of. ^[10]See “The Problem With The Billy Graham Rule” by Jonathan Trotter, Relevant Magazine, — https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/problem-billy-graham-rule/

Nick Peters writes \\”One sure sign I think you are about to fall into a sin is if you think you cannot fall into that sin. While Frost thinks nudity is the way to overcome pornography, I contend the way to overcome it is to have a healthy respect for women while at the same time honoring their bodies. A woman’s body is to be viewed as a treasure saved for the man she loves.”\\ – Nick, I don’t think that follows. While that may be true some of the time, is it true all of the time? Is it true that because I’m absolutely sure I will never commit the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) that I will some day have sex with a man? Is it true that because I think there’s a non-existent likelihood that I’ll rape children, that I some day will? Clealry not! The sin nature does not manifest itself in the same ways in all people. Some people struggle with jealousy. I don’t. And usually it’s because I’m grateful for what I have, and I realize that everyone’s got problems of some kind or another. They may be prospering in an area where I’m not, but they also may be suffering in ways that I’m not. Knowing this truth causes me to be free from jealousy’s hold. It causes me to have the type of mind that is not prone to envy (see John 8:32, Romans 12:2). Now, sometimes I do feel a little jealousy start to rise up on rare occasions, but when it does, I remind myself of the truth that sets free and it immediately goes away. What if lust and sexual objectification could likewise be done away with by “knowing the truth and then living as though the truth were true”? ^[11]A phrase David Martin said in “Battling Pornography: What Does Not Work”, My Chains Are Gone — https://mychainsaregone.org/articles/what-does-work/

Yes, we should develop a healthy respect for women and at the same time, honor their bodies. Naturism has helped me to do that. Now, whether clothed or naked, I don’t see a sexy conglomeration of parts, I see a person made in God’s image, whom God loved so much that he took on flesh and was brutally killed to atone for her sins (Genesis 1:26-17, John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 John 2:2), and that body I would have once ogled is the potential (or actual) temple of the third person of The Trinity (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Maybe some men are so psychologically damaged by the sexualization of the naked female body that they need something like chaste social nudity to therapeutically re-orient their minds so that they can see women as God sees them. As someone who has recommended therapy to me on more than one occasion for other emotional issues, I should think Nick would be all on board with God using a means of therapy as a secondary cause in sanctifying one of His sons. Unfortunately, this method bucks against everything church culture ever taught him on the subject of nudity and its relation to sex. ^[12]Notice how I didn’t say “what The Bible taught him” – because, you know, Genesis 2:25, Genesis 3:10-11, Isaiah 20:1-4, et. al..

Liberated Christianity?

I am not sure why Nick goes on to call this “Liberated Christianity” or what he means by that. But I certainly feel liberated! My chains are gone! I’ve been set free! After 15 years of guilt, shame, and unanswered prayers, God has done the impossible. He has shattered chains that were indestructible! He has defeated an undefeatable enemy!

Pastor David Martin spoke the truth when he said “It will not be a power struggle in your heart. It will not be a strengthening of will power. You will simply be free. Like the first man in the story, The Chain, you will find it startlingly easy to walk away from the sin without any desire to return to it.

You will realize for the first time in your life that real freedom is not a matter of keeping away from your sin for a longer time than ever before, but to actually remove the chain that keeps you forever so close to the pit of filth.” ^[13]David Martin, “Battling Pornography: What Does Not Work”, My Chains Are Gone — https://mychainsaregone.org/articles/what-does-work/

I have not stayed away from pornography for 5 months because I have a ridiculous amount of will power. My electronics are not locked down to the point where they barely function. I don’t have software that will alert an accountability partner if I’m watching something lewd. I am just not the kind of person who privately uses women (or at least their images) as objects for sexual gratification anymore. I don’t want it. As I said in a previous article, if you show me porn videos, it will make me sick to my stomach. Hmm….perhaps I should keep this in mind in case I ever accidentally drink poison. A visual syrup of ipecac. I jest, but I love the kind of person God has made me. I now truly believe in The Holy Spirit’s power to transform me and conform me to the likeness of Jesus (Romans 8:29).

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32 (NIV)

“Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” – John 8:34-36 (NIV)

I once was a slave, but the Son has set me free. He has set me free by telling me the truth through a marginalized minority of believers, and then, as David Martin put it, once I believed the truth, I lived as though the truth were true, and freedom was the result. I thank God for that remnant of Christians who know the truth about our bodies and have not bought into modesty culture’s lies.

Conclusion

I am not persuaded by Nick Peters’ critique of the case for naturism. Nick has repeatedly shown at multiple points that he fails to even understand what Aaron Frost was even trying to argue. He attacked numerous straw men, he eisegeted scripture, proof texted, resulted to personal incredulity if Frost failed to cite a source (and in one case concerning Jason Stern of ReNude Life, it was embarrassing, as two minutes of searching my Logos library brought half a dozen biblical scholars backing up his claim that the priestly underwear was to avoid looking like the sex cults of the surrounding pagans). Reading Nick’s articles, I am not coming away with the impression that he went into this with an open mind. His critiques bear all the ear marks of someone who was just eager to refute something that contradicted he pre-conceived ideas. Refuting Nick Peters’ couldn’t have been easier if I had tried, but to some extent, it was an unfair exchange. I had spent months studying this. I read multiple resources arguing for Christian Naturism, and I had read textile Christians arguing against naturism. I did an in-depth study of this. Nick did not. As a result, he produced sloppy work.