Blog

This is part 3 in a series of articles in which I respond to Nick Peters of Deeper Waters Apologetics. Nick Peters is writing a series of articles critiquing Aaron Frost’s book “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible”. Although I am not the author of the book, some of the arguments Frost uses to defend naturism biblically and sociologically are some of the same arguments I would use. His articles can be seen as criticisms of naturism in general. If you would like to reads part 1 and 2 of my response series, click here and here.

In this article, I will be responding to “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14”

Not Just A Romans 14 Issue, But A Romans 13 Issue As Well

Nick Peters writes \\“Many of us know about Romans 14 issues. In the ancient world, it was what kind of food you could eat and what days you could observe. We have our own. It can be what kind of entertainment do you partake in. What should you wear to church? What kind of music should be played in church?

Well, Frost wants us to consider that maybe the question of if we should wear clothes is one of those questions. He says that Paul says that earthly things are neutral. They cannot be spiritually unclean and it only matters how we use them in our hearts. He then says this applies to clothing because we have taken what God has made and said in our hearts it is unclean.” \\ –

This is mostly correct. In light of the positive case that Frost has made for the goodness of bodies, and even the very first humans went about naked until sin came into the world, it would seem that social nudity is acceptable. If someone things hanging out with a group of friends naked is some horrible sin, then they should not do it. Now, Frost does not present the case as simplistically as Nick makes it out to be. Frost, and indeed all Christian Naturists, would agree that there are some circumstances in which it would be wrong to go about unclothed. Indeed, in light of many anti-nudity laws, I would say going nude would be a violation of Romans 13, the previous chapter! Romans 13:1-3 says “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.” (NIV) I wear clothes when I’m out in public because where I live, it is illegal to do otherwise. And because it is illegal, to defy it would not be subjecting myself to the governing authorities. Now, that said, sometimes the government should be disobeyed. If the government were to make owning a Bible, or preaching the gospel a sin, we should break the law and do these things anyway. If the government were to order us to commit a sin, we obey God rather than men (see Daniel 3, Acts 5:29). But I am not convinced that I need to stroll through the local Wal-Mart nude and neither do most naturists. However, I have no problem letting my divine image shine if I went to Carolina Foothills or Serendipity Park or, where I’d really love to go someday, Cypress Cove. Here, it is legal to be nude. And it also won’t offend anyone’s conscience because the very fact that they’re there shows that they are perfectly fine with it.

My Exegesis Of Romans 14 and How It Relates To Naturism

Before I continue with my critique of Peters, I’d like to give my own exposition of Romans 14 and how it relates to naturism.

Romans 14 is really divided into two halves. The Apostle Paul is addressing “the weaker brother” and how he should behave, and the “stronger brother” and how he should behave. Paul’s aim is to create harmony among Christian brothers in the Roman church who have differing moral convictions on things scripture doesn’t give definitive rules on. In verse 1, Paul says “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.” (NIV) There are matters of faith and practice that are disputable. There even theological differences that are disputable. Not every truth is an essential truth that all Christians must affirm lest they be damnable heretics and/or wretched sinners. ^[1]For more on this, see my blog post “Essential Doctrines VS. Non-Essential Doctrines” In this context, Paul is speaking not of brothers quarreling over doctrinal matters (though his reasoning can apply to brothers bickering over the age of the earth), but to moral truths. And he says the Roman brothers ought to get along and not quarrel.

Then he says “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.” (verse 2) So the moral issue here is vegetarianism versus carnivorism. Given a parallel situation in 1 Corinthians 8, it may have even specifically meat sacrificed to idols, and not just meat-eating simpliciter. Also, the fact that Paul calls the vegetarian brother “weak” assumes that he actually agrees with the stronger brother.

Paul goes on to write “The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” (vv. 3-4 NIV) So the one with a faith strong enough to let him eat anything should not “treat with contempt” the Christian with the weaker conscience who won’t allow him to eat just anything. Paul starts off telling the stronger brother not to look down on the weaker brother for having a less informed conscience than he does. These are words I should take to heart, as I tend to think Christians whose consciences are bothered by things like rock music, anime, and video games to be candidates for the looney bin. But to the weaker brother, Paul says not to “judge” the stronger brother. So just as I should probably try to refrain from making fun of Christians who think a rad guitar solo is going to summon a demon, that same brother should not accuse me of living in unrepentant sin for jamming out to Metallica or Skillet. I should not “treat him with contempt” and he should not “judge” me. God is my judge, and He has accepted me. To my own master, I stand or fall. And I will stand for the Lord is able to make me stand.

In verses 5-9, Paul writes “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” (NIV). This is a nice assertion of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Deo Gloria. “If we live, we live for the Lord,an if we die, we die for the Lord.” This is also why I don’t bring up the issue of birthdays and holidays with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their doctrine of God and low Christology are salvation issues. I would much rather that they affirm that Jesus is Lord even if they never celebrate their own their own birthday or Christmas. “One person considers one day sacred than another, another considers every day alike.” If the JW converts to orthodox Christianity and continues to consider every day alike, more power to them.

In verses 10-11, Paul says “You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’” Again, he chastizes the weaker brother for judging the stronger brother for doing something that offends his moral conviction, despite the fact that the stronger brother’s conscience is ok with it. And Paul chastizes the stronger brother for holding the weaker brother in contempt for staying true to his moral convictions (but also likely because the weaker brother tried to enforce his misinformed morals onto him).

Now, this relates to naturism in the following way; If clothes-free living is morally permissible (and I’ve made a strong case that it is in “The Case For Christian Naturism”), then even if Nick would not be ok taking a vacation at Cypress Cove because he believes he will inevitably be drawn into lusting after nudist girls, then I shouldn’t hold him in contempt for not being as strong as I am. But by the same token, he should not judge me for my choices. For I have testified that just watching naturists do chaste activities on camera (e.g Naked Club videos) in conjunction with the theological-anthropological truths I’ve endorsed on this website, my mind has been de-pornified. I am no longer automatically enticed into thinking lewd thoughts upon seeing a naked female. I am not desensitized to female beauty, I just don’t have sexual responses at the sight of female nudity anymore. Lust is gone from my heart. And if that’s the case, and given what Nick conceded in the previous article, assuming he doesn’t think I’m lying about not turning into Sanji at the sight of boobs, then his conclusion should be that I am not sinning. In the previous article, Nick said ”Frost also contends that in our society, we think looking at a naked person, at least of the opposite sex, is sinful. No. That in itself is not sinful. …. If I chase after her to at least ogle her, or perhaps even more, then yes, I have done something wrong. The looking itself is not a sin.” ^[2]Nick Peters, “Book Blunge: Christian Body: Leviticus 18 and 20”, Deeper Waters, https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/02/book-plunge-christian-body-leviticus-18-and-20/ So what’s the problem? Nick, maybe a nude woman causes you to be overcome with lust, but it doesn’t for me. Not anymore. I won’t hold you in contempt for being weaker than me, so please don’t judge me, the stronger brother.

Now, before I continue, let me point out that Paul’s whole “follow your own conscience” teaching is not applicable if what someone is doing is objectively wrong. For example, it wouldn’t matter if your conscience were somehow ok with murder. One of God’s commands is “You must not murder” (Exodus 20:13). It wouldn’t matter if your conscience were somehow at ease in cheating on your wife. One of God’s commandments is “You must not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14). So regardless of what you believe or feel, some things are objectively right and wrong. And in this case, a Christian brother coming to correct you is appropriate (see Matthew 7:1-4, Matthew 18:15-17, James 5:19-20). But if it’s something that you can’t back up with God’s word, (e.g you can’t make a biblical case that eating meat is wrong), then you should just let other Christians enjoy “the thing.” Just don’t do “the thing” yourself. ^[3]The reason I brought this up is that I once saw a TikToker try to use Romans 14 to make a case for moral relativism. I can’t remember who it was, but it was either Inspiring Philosophy or Red … Continue reading

Now we come to the issue of “The Stumbling Block”. This is where modesty proponents try to find their biblical justification for condemning nudism, or even skimpy outfits (forcing women into swimsuits that look like dresses rather than the more comfortable bikini). In Romans 14:13, Paul wrote “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.” (NIV) Well, first, what is this stumbling block that Paul has in mind? Many Christians take Paul to be saying that we shouldn’t do anything that offends a Christian brother or sister. But I don’t think Paul has pearl clutchers in mind when he says this. A stumbling block is something far more severe. “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.” (NIV) The level of distress Paul has in mind here leads to the destruction of the person.

Douglas Moo explains it well “This ‘eating against the conscience’ is what Paul must mean by the ‘distress’ of the weak Christian in v 15. Addressing now an individual strong believer to bring his point home (you in v 15 is singular), Paul reminds him that his eating without concern for its effect on the weaker believers is a violation of the cardinal Christian principle of love (12:9–10; 13:8–10). Moreover, by tacitly encouraging the weaker believer to eat against his or her conscience, the strong believer may destroy one for whom Christ died. The word destroy (apollymi) is a strong one, usually denoting eternal damnation (2:12; 1 Cor. 1:18; 15:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 2 Thes. 2:10). This may be the meaning here, although, if so, Paul may not think of this eventuality literally. Or it may be that ‘destroy’ is used in a weaker sense here: ‘cause spiritual damage to’.” ^[4]Douglas J. Moo, “Romans,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1155.

The way some Christians use the whole stumbling block thing would rob us of all our liberty. I’ve heard it referred to as “The tyranny of the weaker brother” where a weaker brother’s conscience dictates everything I can and can’t do. However, Paul’s message is simply that if your conscience won’t allow you to do something – even if it’s innocent in and of itself – you are sinning if you do that very thing (Romans 14:23). I do not recommend anyone go to nudist settings if they believe it is a sin. I believe that objectively, nude living is not immoral (According to Genesis 2:25, it seems to have been God’s idea). But I will not encourage someone to try this unless I can first convince them that it is morally permissible. That is, in fact, part of the purpose of these articles. So as long as the Christian Naturist doesn’t peer pressure their gymnophobic friend in partaking in social nudity against their conscience, then naturism should be in line with the teachings of Romans 14.

Now, there is a sense in which doing “the thing” in front of the weaker brother may very well cause stumbling in and of itself, even if you’re not actively encouraging the weaker brother to participate. In the context of the discussion of modesty, modesty proponents believe that an unclothed body will cause someone to lust (a violation of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:28). And in most cases, given the cultural conditioning (see MudWalker’s video “Pavlov’s Dogs…And Nudism?”), it typically will. I remember several years ago seeing a Facebook post from a Christian girl lamenting over not being able to go to the beach because she lusted over so many shirtless men. She had a bad visual lust problem. She wished men would cover up more at the beach and pool because she believed their shirtlessness caused her to stumble into sin. I really felt for her, as I also had a lust issue with seeing gorgeous women in bikinis. I was only Facebook friends with this person for a short time in the early 2010s. I didn’t know her in real life, but if I did, I would never go shirtless in her presence. Even if I was working outside in the hot summer, if I knew she was coming over, I would wear at least a modest t-shirt. And should I have a pool party and invite her, I would wear a shirt in the pool. Out of love, this is what I would do because I would know better. Who knows how many women are like her? Should I never enjoy the comfort and freedom of shirtlessness because of the possibility that someone might be inclined to ogle me? Sure, if I know a woman is a Christian, has visual lust issues, and I’ll be in her full view, that’s one thing. But should I keep a shirt on at all times just in case such a person might be nearby? Do you know how uncomfortable it is to swim with a T-shirt on? There is a sense in which we need to use proper discernment, because this is an issue where black and white guidelines won’t work. Yes, you should not have a beer in front of a recovering alcoholic. But what if you don’t know any better? What if the guy sitting next to you never told him that he’s tempted to start drinking if he sees someone else drinking? This is “the tyranny of the weaker brother” we need to guard against. There’s a sense in which we need the wisdom to know when it’s ok and when it’s not ok to exercise our Christian liberty.

So what about being completely naked? Well, in most circumstances it probably will be a Romans 14 violation, if not a Romans 13 violation. Naturist ladies reading this, please don’t undress in front of your textile Christian bothers. Naturist Christian men, stay clothed around your textile sisters. But what if everyone in the group is a naturist and doesn’t see the body in the highly sexualized way that textiles tend to? Well, if it’s not objectively wrong, and it won’t cause anyone to stumble, then it should be fine. I think Paul would be ok if the stronger brother ate his meat if the weaker brother weren’t around.

Attacks On Arguments From Nature

Nick Peters wrote \\”Frost wants us to consider that maybe the question of if we should wear clothes is one of those questions. [a Romans 14 issue] He says that Paul says that earthly things are neutral. They cannot be spiritually unclean and it only matters how we use them in our hearts. He then says this applies to clothing because we have taken what God has made and said in our hearts it is unclean.

Again, Frost seems to always chase after windmills. He never tells us who is saying this. So let’s try some other scenarios of things God created and see how well that works.

Sex is created by God. It’s a good and beautiful gift. He made it to be enjoyed by husband and wife and we should not look at it as shameful. Therefore, you think it’s okay for a husband and wife to publicly have sex in a church service. I don’t. Let’s just agree to disagree.“

God created defecation. He made the body to work in this way. It’s a part of the natural order. You think it’s okay to drop your drawers in the middle of the street and poop on the sidewalk. I don’t. Let’s agree to disagree. (I do understand this is a hot debate in San Francisco right now.)\\ ^[5]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14” Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/05/book-plunge-christian-body-romans-14/

Now here, I think Nick makes a good point….finally. Naturists need to be careful when crafting arguments from nature. Arguments from nature (i.e from what is natural) can be somewhat tricky. Like arguments from silence, they are not always fallacious, but they usually are. Arguments that appeal to nature more often than not result in an informal fallacy called “The Appeal To Nature Fallacy”. ^[6]See the article “The Appeal To Nature Fallacy: Why Natural Isn’t Always Better” – Itamar Shatz PHD, — https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-nature-fallacy/ I take some LGBT activists to task when they point to homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom and then say “It’s ok for us to have gay sex too.” That doesn’t work. There are also species that eat their young, does that mean we should eat our young? So you will never hear me say something like “Being naked is natural, therefore human nakedness is good. So, no one should take issue with people being naked around each other.” As Nick points out, pooping is natural, and yet no one thinks that we ought to just take a dump wherever we happen to be. Sex is natural, yet no one (yes, including nudists) are in favor of intercourse taking place just anywhere and everywhere. The naturalness of something does not logically entail the acceptability of its openness.

However, from my memory of reading Frost’s book, he didn’t make such a fallacious appeal to nature. If he did, his argument was fallacious. For me, my primary argument for the goodness of social nakedness comes from the fact that it appears to be God’s idea from the very beginning. In Genesis 2:25, we read “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” (NIV). The Hebrew word here for naked is “arom” and it denotes simple (and full) nudity. It is the same nakedness Job said he had when he came from his mother’s womb (see Job 1:21). God created humankind, and they were naked, yet not ashamed. Adam and Eve ran around the garden of Eden completely naked! Now, we don’t know how much time passed between the events of Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. The text doesn’t tell us. It could have been a day, two days, a week, a month, or even a year. ^[7]Part of this is because Genesis 1-11 is meant to serve as a prologue to Israel’s and redemptive history. The author is building up to the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12, the person from whom … Continue reading But I am inclined to think it was at least a few days. In any case, Adam and Eve were naked during their time in Eden. And it wasn’t until they disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the Tree Of The Knowlege Of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-17) that they had any notion that they had to cover themselves. The text says that when they ate the fruit, they felt naked and immediately tried to cover themselves with fig leaves (Genesis 3:6-7). In Genesis 3:8-9, we read that the couple heard the footsteps of The Lord God walking in the garden. ^[8]I take this to be a literal humanoid figure, as Yahweh was known to show up in certain places in the Old Testament in human form. In some very interesting cases, there are even two figures in the … Continue reading In Genesis 3:9, God says “Adam, where are you?” And in Genesis 3:10, we read “He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.'” (NIV) What was God’s response to this statement by Adam? In Genesis 3:11, we read “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (NIV)

“Who told you that you were naked?” This doesn’t sound like God is agreeing with Adam’s statement. God doesn’t say “Wow! You’re right! I knew there was something I forgot when I created you. Sorry about that. I made a mental note to create you with built in pants and it just totally slipped my mind.” He doesn’t say “Thank Me you finally covered up your genitals! Do you know how uncomfortable you were making Me and the divine council? Michael and Gabriel wanted to say something, but they were to embarrassed to speak up. I’m glad you finally figured it out.” No. He says “Who told you that you were naked?” Out of curiosity, I decided to peruse my library of commentaries in my Logos library to see what biblical scholars had to say on this passage. To my surprise, none of the commentaries I owned talked about God’s question to Adam at all! They all just glossed over it! Yet I think this question is profound and really reveals God’s attitude towards the human body. When someone says something we find outlandish, even today in our culture, it isn’t uncommon for us to rhetorically ask “Who told you that?” If you have a teenage son who boasts to his friends “My Dad is getting me a Ferarri for my 16th birthday”, you might respond “Who told you that you were getting a Ferarri for your birthday?” You’re not asking how he found out, and really, you’re not hinting at a literal personal being who might have conveyed such information. Rather, you are, in effect, saying “Where’d you get that stupid idea? You are not getting a Ferrari for your birthday.”

So let’s review; God created Adam and Eve. They were naked and unashamed (Genesis 2:25) and they lived like that for some time prior to the serpent’s temptation, be it a couple of days or however long that was. It’s only after they sin that they feel this compulsive need to cover their genitals, and even then, they still feel like it’s not enough covering, so they hide when they hear God. Adam says he’s naked and God asks “Who told you that?” implying The Lord disagreed with the statement. Yet even then, it isn’t until the very last second that God provides them with clothes made of animal skins (Genesis 3:21). And that’s because he was kicking them out of the garden.

If Eden was the way the world was supposed to be, does it make theological sense to suppose that body shame should have a place in our lives for all time? In Matthew 19:7-9, some Pharisees came to ask Jesus about divorce and whether he agreed with Rabbi Hillel that a man could divorce his wife for “any cause” or with Rabbi Shammai who held to a much stricter interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus sided with Shammai’s interpretation, but then went on to say that divorce was not God’s creation ideal. “Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not this way in the beginning.” And he goes on to quote Genesis 2:24. I was on the phone yesterday with Matthew Neal who wrote The Biblical Naturist blog, and we were talking about this passage. Neal brought up an interesting point. He said something to the effect of “Would Jesus endorse Genesis 2:24 as how humanity is supposed to be, but not Genesis 2:25? Post-fall, Jesus appeals to a pre-fall ideal as being continued post-fall.”

Indeed. Although people weren’t neurotic about skin exposure back then, let us suppose someone came to Jesus without questions of modesty. “Teacher, how much clothing should a person wear to prevent others from lusting?” I can imagine Jesus responding “God gave humanity clothing because of the hardness of your hearts, but it was not this way in the beginning. Have you not read ‘the man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame’. Very truly I tell you, it is not the sight of a woman that defiles your heart, but the lust that is already inside it. Clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean too. For very truly I tell you that the kingdom of God is not a matter of physical clothing, but of the clothing of righteousness.”

Eden is either God’s ideal or it isn’t. Why is it that we as Christians believe that everything else the fall took from us or fractures can be reclaimed to some degree or other this side of eternity (e.g a relationship with God, relationships with each other, spousal love) but naked and unashamed living isn’t one of them? If there is a good theologically sound answer textile Christians can give to that question, I would love to hear it. I’m sure we will talk more about Eden later in this series as Nick has an article with Genesis 2 and 3 in the title. For now, I will just say that we don’t have to rely on the naturalness of nakedness to defend a nudist lifestyle. Adam and Eve were literally history’s first nudists. This is the only place in scripture where I would actually even say the biblical figures were nudists, as everyone else, while not being bashful about getting naked for practical reasons, generally stayed clothed most of the time. In light of the Eden account, I just have a hard time believing that God would disapprove of a group of Christians doing things together naked; Bible study, playing board games, skinny dipping, playing tennis, et. al. A group of naked people is not reducible in identity to an orgie. In some alternate timeline, I think most of humanity would have probably remained nude. Clothing may have come into the world at some point as mankind spread out into harsher climates to “subdue” the rest of creation (Genesis 1:28). Carrying out the dominion mandate in arctic climates would be hard without thick clothing. But I highly doubt they would be worn compulsively for sexual morality reasons, and certainly not all the time. Look, as much as I like to be naked, if it’s below 60 degrees in my bedroom, I’m going to at least throw a hoodie on and “Donald Duck” it. ^[9]This is nudist slang for putting on a shirt or some other torso-covering garment but remaining pantsless. Donald Duck doesn’t wear pants.

One more thing I would like to point out; pooping and sex are different from just being naked in the following way; pooping and sex are both actions people take. But a naked human is just a human without man-made fabrics covering him. There are very good and logical reasons why defacation and sexual intercourse should be done in private. Defacation is nasty and what comes out of a person’s rump stinks to high heaven. Who would want to be around such a foul odor. Poop smells bad, and if you smell it, you should get a can of Febreeze. Sexual Intercourse is an intimate expression of erotic love between a man and his wife. It is to be between a man and his beloved alone. It is not to be a spectator sport. To perform for a crowd cheapens the act, and we have a word for that; pornography. But a naked human is just a human without man-made fabrics. If Nick thinks all humans are doing something bad just for hanging out together without man-made fabrics, he is in effect chastizing humans simply for existing! He is inadvertently contradicting his prior affirmation of the body’s sacredness and is treating it as something dirty and shameful, on the level of public sexual activity and defecating. His words are an accidental indictment of how he really feels about the human body! It is my conclusion that comparing social nudity with crapping in the streets and having sex in front of a crowd is comparing apples to oranges.

Nick Peters Contradicts Jesus

Nick Peters wrote \\”He then quotes James 1:14 saying temptation comes from within, and therefore lust is caused by that which comes from sinful desires and nothing that we see.

Yes, everyone out there. If you have ever lusted, it had nothing to do with something that you saw. Nope. It was all you. You just spontaneously started lusting for no reason.”\\ ^[10]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14” – https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/05/book-plunge-christian-body-romans-14/

I have to say, I was shocked when I read this in light of conversations I’ve had with Nick concerning the de-pornification of my brain. With severe sarcasm, he argues that it really IS what we see that causes us to sin. And yet this contradicts the words of the Lord Jesus Christ at multiple points!

I’ve been battling lust for a long, long time. For 15 years since I first gave my life to Christ at age 17. I’ve read about all of the different strategies Christian men use to fight this thing. I either tried them and they didn’t work, or I didn’t try them because I already knew how I would circumvent them, like a chess player plotting his moves several turns in advance. And I only did that because I wanted to make sure that the plan was foolproof.

The cure, which is basically a Matthean theme because it’s repeated so much, is to clean the inside of a person, which has been done in my case. It is not through strategies to restrict me from carrying out the evil that is in my heart. The solution is to get the evil OUT of my heart. It does not have to be “Every Man’s Battle”. As Phillip Oak said, “I say, if a man believes he will be in a perpetual state of battle, he will be in a perpetual state of battle, or he can avoid the battlefield entirely. He does so by the renewing of his mind, just like with any other sin. It’s no different. Why should we treat them differently or think lust is impossible to overcome?” ^[11]Oak, Philip. Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration of Lust and Body Shame (p. 85). Kindle Edition.

Lust does not have to be an inextricable part of who a man is. And as long as it remains, no strategies will ever help. All that will be done is, at best, me being a whitewashed tomb but full of dead men’s bones (Matthew 23:27-28).

Jesus said “First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” – Matthew 23:26 (NIV)

Jesus also said “For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” – Matthew 15:19, (NIV, emphasis mine in bold)

Even in the Sermon On The Mount, Jesus stressed the importance of BEING good, not just regulating your behavior. Murderous rage is a prerequisite to murder (Matthew 5:21-22), and lust leads to adultery (Matthew 5:27-28). If we do not become the kinds of people who have clean hearts, then even if we refrain from doing certain things, we’ll still be the same evil people on the inside. It’s not good enough for God that we merely refrain from murder and adultery. He wants us to be the kind of people who aren’t even attracted by the idea of murdering or committing adultery. This was Jesus’ repeated message and one of the main criticisms he had of the Pharisees. But even Christians today (like Nick) just don’t get this. I didn’t get it for so long. I thought overcoming sin was just a power struggle! You just need more willpower to resist! No, it’s a truth struggle! We’re taught that lust is just who we are. We’re “highly visual.” We can’t help us. We just need to bounce our eyes, get a lot of filters and accountability partners and softwares, pray really hard for will power, read our Bibles, and hope for the best.

Does money need to be covered up if I struggle with greed? Or should I rid my heart of greed so that seeing a huge pile of money doesn’t bother me? Should I never be allowed to see food again if I struggle with Gluttony? Or should I let The Holy Spirit teach me self-control? Should my neighbor’s fancy car have a tarp thrown over it if I struggle with coveting? Or should I let The Holy Spirit teach me not to covet? We can’t fight sin with lies. It’s only the truth that will set us free (John 8:32). And I am convinced that a renewal of the mind (Romans 12:2) is the key to overcoming all sin. Resisting temptation is just a temporary measure until that change comes (1 Corinthians 10:13, James 4:7, 1 Peter 5:8-9). But if a power struggle is ALL we make of it, we will be nothing but dirty Pharisees, thinking we’re doing a good job….until we slip up and we don’t.

At Defend when Jamie Dew was talking about porn, I thought about downloading Covenant Eyes and making Nick my accountability partner. But I saw that as a vain effort. I had practically given up hope. Like I said in “The Case For Christian Naturism”, I thought God would free me in the eschaton, but I really didn’t think He’d do anything this side of the resurrection. If, after all that time and all the failed efforts, if He was going to free me, He would have already done so, I reasoned. I thought asking for forgiveness every time I failed, that being freed from this sin’s penalty was all I could hope for. Well, now I am free from its power! God wasn’t content to let me be a successful pharisee. He wanted to clean my heart. We were going to this His way or not at all.

Jesus: “It is not what goes inside a person that defiles them, but what comes out of a person.” (Matthew 15:11)

Nick: “Cap.”

Frost was right to quote James 1:14 to refute such an idea that evil comes from without, but you could quote Jesus multiple times to support the same idea. Nick isn’t just disagreeing with me or Aaron Frost. He’s disagreeing with Jesus Christ! You know, God Himself (John 1:1-3, 14, John 8:58, John 10:30, Philippians 2:5-8). Not a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion.

I’m Not Saying A Woman’s Nakedness Will Cause You To Lust, I’m Just Saying It Will Cause You To Lust

Nick Peters then wrote \\“Now I am not saying that the sight of a naked woman forces a man to lust. A man needs to control himself, but that doesn’t mean that women also don’t have responsibility.”\\ — Nick, how does this make sense? If a woman’s naked body doesn’t cause me to lust, then why does she have to cover herself. Why is it her responsibility at all for me not to lust? And vice versa. If my shirtlessness doesn’t cause one of my female ladies to lust, then why should I quickly cover my torso if I suspect she’s around? You give lip service to theologically sound answers, but then say something that implies a contradiction of what you just said. I agree, a man needs to control himself. And like one of Pavlov’s Dogs, if he keeps hearing the ringing of the bell and no food (sex) goes along with it, eventually the sound of bell ringing (female bodies) won’t cause him to salivate.

It sounds like Nick is saying “I’m not saying a woman’s nakedness will cause you to lust, I’m just saying it will cause you to lust. So the woman should do her part and cover herself up.”

Nick Peters’ Nudity Fetish

Nick Peters wrote \\”Look. I know it’s only anecdotal, but I can safely say that when I was married, seeing my wife naked never ceased to have an erotic effect for me.“\\ – I’m not surprised. After all, we’ve been conditioned to respond sexually to the mere sight of a naked person of the gender we’re attracted to. Look, I’ve had countless naked women, women in bikinis, and women in crop tops sexually arouse me since I first hit pubery. But is this really normal? Is this how it’s supposed to be? I’m not saying you shouldn’t find your wife beautiful. I still have many (clothed) women turn my head every day when I’m working at the store. South Carolina is home to probably some of the most gorgeous women in the country. But that is no the same as lusting after them, objectifying them, or even being aroused by them. Some day I hope to write an article clarifying the distinctions between (1) Beauty recognition, (2) Sexual Attraction, (3) lust, (4) Sexual objectification. Because they’re not the same thing, although most lay Christians (and even some pastors) treat them all as one, leading to unnecessary guilt and shame, and railing at Jesus for what he said in Matthew 5:28.

Matthew Neal said it well; “To be sure, a woman’s body is visually attractive, but her body is an expression of her person. To define any part of a woman’s body according to its sexual impact upon us is to objectify her body and demean her personhood!

Wouldn’t every woman rather know that it was her real self that attracted and aroused her husband, not just her body parts? Wouldn’t that be more honoring and fulfilling relationally… for husband and wife?

Men, if there is any part of a woman’s body to which you only have a sexual response, then you are objectifying that part of the woman. If you objectify any part of a woman, you objectify the woman, for she is a whole person… spirit, soul, and body.” ^[12]Matthew Neal, “The Objectification Of Women – Part 2”, The Biblical Naturist Blog — https://thebiblicalnaturist.blogspot.com/2010/11/objectification-of-women-part-2.html

Nick Peters Denies That De-Sexualization Of Nudity Is Possible

Nick Peters wrote \\Frost also tells us that clothing causes lust. Remove the clothing and the erotic effect will disappear. Look. I know it’s only anecdotal, but I can safely say that when I was married, seeing my wife naked never ceased to have an erotic effect for me. I contend Frost lives in a delusionary world if he thinks this will happen. He is right that if something is forbidden, it often becomes that which is most longed for, as in some societies, for instance, women’s feet are covered to avoid lust. Society still recognizes some parts of a person’s body need to be treated with special honor.”\\ ^[13]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14” – https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/05/book-plunge-christian-body-romans-14/

I’m afraid that Nick has oversimplified what Frost has said to the point of attacking a straw man. “Frost also tells us that clothing causes lust. Remove the clothing and the erotic effect will disappear.” That makes it sound like that all a woman has to do is just get completely naked in front of you and all of a sudden your lust problems disappear. Not so. If that were the case, looking at Playboy magazines and trips to Femjoy’s website would have cured me ages ago. Rather what needs to happen is that we need to know the truth and then, as David Hatton often puts it, “live as though the truth were true”. In my case, it was first learning a better “theology of the body”. I have people like Phillip Oak and David Hatton to thank for showing me that so much about what I believed concerning the body (especially when naked) just doesn’t make sense biblically, theologically, or just in light of common sense. Much of what I’m saying here in my naturism articles are what I learned from these Christian brothers. But then after the study and research, I had to put it into practice. Is what I was told really true? It seems to be, but I needed to prove it for myself. I did not know of any nude parks or beaches anywhere nearby where I could just go strip down, and start socializing with some naked men and women. So, I decided the next best thing would be to watch videos of naturists doing ordinary activities. It was important to me that I find content specifically made by naturists, and it was crucial that I not try to find videos of chaste nudity on Google. After all, you are bound to find lots of pornography if you do that. And sadly, some pornographers have hijacked nudist terminology in their videos. (e.g “Horny nudists f-ing on the beach”). Thankfully I was led to an organization called “The Naked Club”. Sadly, yes, I was aroused at seeing some of the women in the video at first. This dog of Pavlov’s did not stop drooling right away at the sound of the bell. But I knew that psychological reconditioning wasn’t going to happen overnight. Rather than act on my arousal, I sat and continued to watch the video until the erection abated. I verbally communicated the truths I had learned to myself. The Imago Dei theology, that nudity is not inherently sexual, I told my brain that it was just acting on conditioning, that these girls were made in God’s image, people who Jesus died for, and that the body is not an inherently pornographic thing that should cause me to be turned on, et. al. It didn’t take long before I could watch these films without getting hot and bothered. It got to the point where I had no sexual reaction. And trust me, it’s not because those women didn’t have nice bodies. Some of those women are quite beautiful. But I had no different response to the sight of their bodies than if they were fully clothed. I also perused many of the photographs on the forum www.naturistchristians.org.

It is, in fact, the non-sexual settings of the nudity that is powerful. The brain sees the imagery of nude people doing non-sexual activities, and it eventually learns not to associate a bare bum with sexy time. Just as the brain of Pavlov’s Dogs eventually learn not to associate bell ringing with dinner time. Eventually, you learn that a woman’s naked body (or a man’s if you’re a “highly visual” female) is not him in “Sex Mode”. It’s just their true form. This type of reconditioning is what blogger Jochannan called “Breaking Naked” in a guest article on Aching For Eden. Yes, I got aroused when I first started. But the way I saw it, I could either have sexual reactions to a woman’s body 2-3 more times and then never again, or I could just continue to tingly downstairs every time a woman in a tank top and short shorts came across my path. It’s like overcoming phobias. If you do what you’re afraid of, you will freak out at first. But eventually, your brain will get the message that “This is no big deal.” In this case, I did have a phobia; gymnophobia. I used to be terrified of accidentally coming across photos of women even in skimpy swimsuits across my feed. The female body was so sexualized in my mind that even if she were fully covered, unless it was super baggy and didn’t reveal her form at all, I would lust. It was getting so bad that even the bulge of breasts underneath a t-shirt would make my mind go places. And yet nude imagery is what I would seek out. I wanted to avoid it, but I wanted to pursue it as well. But now I am able to see completely nude females and not think impure thoughts at all! So hopefully you can see that Nick has grossly oversimplified the matter.

Nick pulls out the “Anecdotal Fallacy” card as other textiles have done. When I first read Phillip Oak’s “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame”, I wondered if Oak were just an unusual case. He made a compelling case, but there was still a part of me that wondered “Well, just because it worked for you doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll work for me.” So I continued to do some research. I found more and more naturist Christians who testified to the de-pornifying power of chaste social nudity. Chris from Mud Walkers, Jochannan, Matthew Neal, all of the Pastors at MyChainsAreGone.org, and a few men I won’t name who I talked to on the Naturist Christian forum. I think there comes a point in which you amass so much testimony that what would be an anecdotal fallacy turns into a valid form of reasoning known as inductive reasoning. Consider this; an early hominid who knows nothing of thermodynamics or water molecules puts a pot of water over a fire. He finds that the water starts bubbling and he’s not sure why. The next day, he does it again and gets the same result. He does it again and again and again day after day, and every time he puts the pot over the fire, the water in the pot comes to a boil. He comes to the conclusion that the fire is causing the water to boil. It would be obtuse for some other hominid to come along and say “That doesn’t prove anything. Anecdotal fallacy!” This is even more poignant if the whole village of early humans put pots of water over the stove and they all come to a boil.

Look, it isn’t just former coomer-brained Christians like myself who testify to the therapeutic nature of naturism. Even non-Christian nudists experience this same de-sexualization of the body. And frankly, I find that shameful. I find it shameful that non-Christians without The Holy Spirit can find more freedom from sexual sin than us who have God’s Spirit living in us. We should be on top of conquering all sorts of sins! ^[14]I’m not saying The Holy Spirit didn’t cure my porn addiction. I’m just saying this was an act of ordinary providence. He did not miraculously zap me and make me better like I wanted … Continue reading

Although Christian Naturists are a tiny minority of a minority, if you were to take ALL Naturists into account, we would all say that we don’t struggle with voyeuristic lust like you textiles do. If Nick wants to dismiss all of our testimony as “living in a delusional world”, then might I suggest that he is the one living in a delusional world? He is basically saying that we’re all in on one big conspiracy.

Conclusion

Nick Peters has yet to provide one even slightly forceful argument against the case for Christian Naturism. In the next article, I will be responding to his thoughts on 1 Timothy 2. I would like Nick to focus on the following words from a Catholic Friar who is also a naturist. He contributed an essay to Jim Cunningham’s book “Nudity and Christianity”. He wrote;

“Jesus told us we can judge a tree by its fruit. If I find that my practice of naturism leads me to a more chaste, mature, accepting relationship to God, others, and myself, that’s a good sign that it is good for me. If, however, I find that naturism leads me to sin, I have to drop it like a hot potato. The testimony of devout Christians who find naturism a help in the Christian life should be listened to.” – Friar Pat ^[15]Friar Pat, OFM Cap, from “Nudity and Christianity” by Jim Cunningham, page 247, Authorhouse.