Blog

This is part 8 in a series of articles responding to Nick Peter’s objections to naturism. When I began this series of articles, I thought I would have only a dozen articles to respond to. And yet every day, there seems to be a new one on his site talking about this subject. I’ve no idea when I’ll finish, but I’d like to keep my series of responses to roughly a dozen, or at least no more than 15. Moreover, some of Peters’ criticisms get a little repetitive as he repeats straw men, false claims, and irresponsibly interpreted Bible passages more than once. So from here on, I’ll make my best attempt at streamlining things a bit so as to keep repetition of rebuttals to a minimum.

The series of articles is a critique of Aaron Frost’s book “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible”. Although I am not the author of the book, many of Peters’ critiques are generally criticisms of the case for Christian Naturism. Many of the arguments Frost would use are ones I would use as well. And so, it seemed good to me to critique the critique. If you’d like to read earlier entries in this series you can read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 by clicking on the hyperlinks.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 12

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, we read “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Now if the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’ On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.” (NIV)

Textile Christians often use this passage to argue against the practice of nudism. From holy writ, they argue “See? Paul says that some parts of the body are UNPRESENTABLE!” And guess what? This is also what I thought when I came across this passage. As I said in a prior article, I’ve known about Christian Naturists for some time now, and I had a very very surface-level knowledge of their biblical justification for it. However, I didn’t pay them much attention because I thought they were living in sexual sin at worst, or were just a bunch of weird hippies at best. It wasn’t until I read “Be Ye Transformed” on the Aching For Eden blog, and it was presented as a possible therapeutic method for overcoming porn that I was like “Ok, now you’ve got my attention. I’d like to hear you out.” But prior to that, I knew they existed at least, and many of the proof texts that Nick has cited (including this one) are verses I would come across when doing my yearly cover-to-cover reading of The Bible, and I would think “Doesn’t this mitigate against naturism? What do Christian Naturists make of this passage?” Of course, I didn’t care enough to actually look into it to learn what they made of it. It was but a passing curiosity. There is a point in which it annoys me that Christian textiles bring these verses up as though I had never considered them before. Believe me, I have. I thought they worked as anti-nudist proof texts, but they don’t.

Now, Aaron Frost’s explanation of this passage is bad. This is one area in this whole series where I think Nick Peters actually gets something right. You know what they say about broken clocks. There is an interpretation that is better than Frost’s and, in fact, I think it actually supports naturism. It isn’t just compatible with naturism, but actually works in our favor. But first, the problem with Frost’s interpretation.

Frost writes “The argument is made that Paul identifies certain body parts as being ‘less presentable’ ”(NASB) or ‘unpresentable’ (NIV). Both of these modern translations negativity toward certain body parts as being inappropriate or unacceptable in some way, but this negative connotation is not accurately translated from the original Greek. Paul’s wording is literally ‘less beautiful.’ He is speaking of things like warts, scars, and deformities. Regardless, it’s a comment about beauty, not purdah or even modesty. There is a significant difference between calling something ‘less beautiful’ rather than ‘unpresentable’ as if there were something wrong with it, but slanted translations like this have given increased credence to the degraded notion that the honorable bodies God gives us are somehow inappropriate until hidden behind man-made contrivances.” ^[1]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 111-112). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Nick Peters takes issue with this interpretation and quotes biblical scholar Ben Witherington III. ^[2]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus and Ruth”, Deeper Waters —https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/13/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-and-ruth/ While I don’t agree with all of what Witherington says in the quote (as he presupposes an anti-nudity interpretation), Peters is right to criticize Frost’s interpretation when he says “It’s also difficult to see how scars and warts would make sense. Neither of those are essential parts of the body. The genitals and other parts are. I see no basis for less beautiful and again, Frost cites NO biblical scholars on these points.” ^[3]ibid. Indeed.

In one of Mud Walker’s most recent videos, he also criticized Frost’s interpretation. But to be honest, I was a little skeptical of this interpretation when I first read it. This is indeed a point in which Frost doesn’t cite any scholars, and he really should. Chris MudWalker said “I really liked Aaron Frost’s interpretation when I first read it in ‘Christian Body’ and I even started, you know, taking notes in my actual Bible that I that I read for devotion. My wife stopped me and she said ‘hey uh what do you know about this guy’s Greek expertise? Are you sure he’s enough of a Greek expert to just take him at his word on this just from reading his book? Have you have you studied it yourself?’ I said well ‘no’. Well she and happen to know someone with a graduate degree that includes biblical Greek. So, we reached out to this friend of ours and I told her the interpretation, told her the passage, and she said she would read the Greek and get back to me after some study. This friend came back and said that the conventional interpretation of ‘unpresentable’ is actually quite good.” ^[4]Mud Walkers, “Naturism and 1 Corinthians 12”, August 12 2024, — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2–NHJTgNnM Chris Mudwalker goes on to say how disappointed he was, and that he had to face the possibility that this verse could truly disprove naturism. He said he prayed about it for days and did some additional study. Like Peters, MudWalker recognizes the shortcomings of Frost’s book despite thinking it’s relatively good overall (as do I), and expressed how he had more confidence in the opinion of his friend with the Greek graduate degree than in Frost’s. After all, he knows his friend’s credentials, and he doesn’t know much about Frost’s background? Well, what was Chris MudWalker’s conclusion on what this passage really says then? Why, in spite of 1 Corinthians 12, is the Mud Walker still a naturist? Well, if he’s right, and he seems to be, then one can be a naturist because of 1 Corinthians 12, and not in spite of it!

Chris Mudwalker said that context is key and then he goes on to read the entire passage, as I have done above; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. MudWalker then said; “Paul’s overall point here is that we are we are all Christians. We are family, we are all like parts of a body and we should not give into elitism or some kind of classism, some kind of cast system of better and, you know, higher and lower forms of Christian. You know, ‘Oh I listen for the body. Therefore, I’m better than the thumb of the body.’ Well, the thumb of the body lets the body actually do useful things with tools. So, Paul’s overall point is that we should really be treating one another as equals. We should be including everyone. Everyone is valuable. Everyone brings something to the table. So, first of all, let’s understand what Paul means by ‘unpresentable’ in the context of his flow of thought here. Something I didn’t notice for years when I read this passage was that Paul is setting up a dichotomy In this passage. If we understand the point of his dichotomy, we can understand what he means by ‘unpresentable’.

So let’s read it carefully ‘The parts of the body that seem weaker are indispensable and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable, we bestow the greater honor and our unpresentable parts become more presentable which is something that our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it that there may be no division in the body but that the members may have the same care for one another if one member suffers all suffer together.’ etc. etc. So, Paul’s point is that we humans try to subdivide the body into all these different parts with greater honor, less honor, and greater modesty and lesser modesty, but God does not see the body this way, but rather just in the way that God has composed it is built, constructed, and designed the way in just in the way that God has composed the body itself. So also God has already balanced out all the presenta and all the honorableness. So, you see the presentable/unpresentable distinction is part of the human side of the dichotomy. It’s the wrong side of the dichotomy. That’s what we should not be doing; declaring some Christians unpresentable. If you’re going to say that there are presentable and unpresentable parts of the body … then you are flying in the face of Paul’s analogy. Paul’s analogy is there are no unpresentable Christians. We are all presentable. We are all all honorable. There’s no reason to treat different parts of the body with greater or lesser modesty for we are all one in Christ Jesus. We are all members of the same body and partakers of the same Spirit.”” ^[5]Ibid.

Now, in the rest of this article (i.e “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus and Ruth”) Nick Peters doesn’t really say much worth addressing. I already made the case that Ruth would have gleaned Boaz’ fields nude in the previous article, and it would be redundant to reproduce that argumentation here. He mentions the claim that Jesus was naked at his crucifixion and resurrection and says “Actually, the Jewish Virtual Library says that Jews were buried clothed.” Yeah, ok. Sure. Normally, Jews would have been buried clothed. That doesn’t surprise me. But Jesus didn’t die of a heart attack one day or was the victim of some home invasion gone wrong. He was crucified, and crucifixion victims were normally crucified naked. But I’m sure we’ll return to this later.

Some Comments On Nick’s “Conclusion” Article – The Need For Explicit Commandments

Nick Peters’ next article is titled “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Frost’s Conclusion on Biblical Data”. There isn’t much here even worthy of commenting on, but I’ll say a few things about some of the things he’s said. Nick Peters writes “Frost told us at the start also to watch the assumptions we bring to the text and yet he is blind to his, that if something is true, the Bible must explicitly state it.”. While I can’t speak for Frost, for myself, if something is to be deemed sinful, if you’re going to form a strong moral opinion about something I’m doing, then there should be either an explicit command against it or an inference made from a biblical principle. Nick Peters has failed to show either an explicit moral command against social nudity, and he has failed in utterly embarrassing ways to try to do the latter. If there is no explicit command against something, and there is no implicit inference we can make from biblical principles, then it becomes a Romans 14 issue. We should obey our conscience. My conscience is informed by the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), the inner witness of The Holy Spirit (John 16:8, Romans 8:16), and The Moral Law written on my heart (Romans 2:14-15). None of these testify that a naturist lifestyle is wrong, and Nick has utterly failed to demonstrate from the first that it is so.

Some Comments On Nick’s “Conclusion” Article – The Blasphemy Of God-Given Lust

\\“He also says that for some boys and men, the sight of a naked woman or even the thought of one can be immediately sexually arousing even outside of a sexual context. Is this a problem? 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?”\\ —

I actually had to step away from the computer for about 15 minutes, because reading this paragraph infuriated me. This is a satanic lie that I’ve had pounded into my head from all sides for most of my life; NO! God did not create men with an innate tendency to turn into horny lust monsters at the sight of an unclad female. If he did, he would be an evil, cruel being. He would be guilty of entrapment. He would be a pornographer, for he would make womens’ bodies so hot and sexy, but then condemn us men for reacting the way He designed us to. And the cruelest thing of all is that he put the breasts, the number 1 trigger, right there on a woman’s body right beneath her face. I’m sorry, but no. God is not an evil being who sets us up for moral failure. James 1:13 is clear; “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;” The church is wrong to teach that men are wired to be “highly visual”, such that the solution is to cover women up. For one thing, this doesn’t work because I cannot control what other people do! Trust me, I would have gladly put amish looking dresses on every beautiful woman in the world if I could have, but I cannot stop women from coming into my store clad in super short shorts, and a sleeveless tank top that exposes her midriff and cleavage. I can’t. I can avoid beaches and pools, but gosh, I like going swimming. It’s too bad I can’t enjoy those pleasures because of all the women who refuse to wear the tankinis these modesty Christian swimsuit stores offer. Oh, woe is me! If only lust wasn’t an innate part of who I am! I am tempted to shake my fist at God for making me this way! If only I didn’t get hard as a rock at the mere sight of a beautiful woman! Ok, had enough sarcasm yet? Now to their credit, some Christian textiles do not place the blame on God. Before I learned the truth (that I’ll share below), I would have placed the blame on the sinful nature. I would have said things like “Yeah, maybe God meant for us to be naked. That does seem to be what the Adam and Eve narrative implies, but the fall changed everything. Now we have a sinful nature that causes us to get horny at pretty naked women and vice versa. So we must all stay clothed.” This is better as it does not impugn God’s character, but it’s just as horrible theologically for another reason. I’ll let you in on a little secret; there’s this thing that theologians call “sanctification”. It’s this crazy concept that Jesus didn’t just come to free us from the penalty of sin by dying on the cross (John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9) but he actually came to save us from its power as well (e.g Romans 8:29, Galatians 5:22-26)! So if nakedness causes lust because of the sin nature, and The Holy Spirit is in the works of making us perfect (Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12), until we are exactly like Jesus in every aspect of his character (Romans 8:29), then it would seem like heresy to say that The Holy Spirit could not purge us from this problem! Even if we grant the premise that “Nakedness causes us to lust because of the sin nature”, The Holy Spirit’s sanctifying power should eventually get that out of us. Or is lust such a powerful force that even The Holy Spirit is strong enough to overcome it? I dare not utter such blasphemy. Can The Holy Spirit overcome my anger issues, my pride, my selfishness, and any other character flaw in me, but lust isn’t one of them? I dare not tell The Holy Spirit that He is weaker than the flesh! And no Christian would ever explicitly say such a thing, yet such a thing is implicitly taught all the time. It is assumed when we try to fight porn with accountability partners, accountability groups, software like Covenant Eyes, filters, or all of the above. No, The Holy Spirit isn’t strong enough to make us internally clean, so we must do everything in our power to prevent ourselves from carrying out the evil in our hearts. Again, no Christian would ever explicitly utter such blasphemy, but actions speak much louder than words. Yes, Nick, it IS a bug. God did not create us to be voyeurs, damn it!

Now, that said, appreciating a woman’s beauty or even being attracted to a woman is not the same thing as lusting after her. Indeed, even lusting after a woman isn’t even thing as the sin I was committing when I watched Femjoy and Bikini Riot videos. I am not immune to feminine beauty. In fact, just yesterday, a beautiful young blonde woman strolled into my store. She was so gorgeous that it took my breath away. I thought about her for a goo 20 minutes after she left. She looked like a super model! Plenty of clothed women catch my attention every day.

So, why do we get aroused, start lusting, or get the urge to masturbate to the nude human form if it is the case that neither God made us this way nor is it the result of the sin nature? The answer is that we’ve been conditioned to be this way. The fact is, as Aaron Frost states “The plain, unaltered body has been reduced to smut and outlawed from ever being honored appropriately. The human body, as it stands naturally, is now strictly reserved only for pornography and kept that way by Christian influence in government as if that must be how God wanted things to be. Because of this, we become mentally conditioned to respond sexually to the sight of these body parts like Pavlov’s trained dogs, drooling for sexual gratification at the sight of nakedness, blinded to the simple beauty and grace of creation, numbly conditioned to think only of sexual indulgence at the sight of a plain body in its natural condition. Some people assume we are biologically hardwired to respond sexually to nudity, but later generations of Pavlov’s dogs might as easily assume that all dogs are instinctively hard-wired to drool at the sound of a bell even though that would be false. To assume that nudity causes lust, is like assuming that the bells cause drooling.” ^[6]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 38-39). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Pavlov’s Dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, because every time the bell would ring, the dogs would get food. In his video, “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism?” Chris MudWalker invites us to imagine Pavlov’s Dogs being given to homes after the experiment was over. One of these dogs meets another dog at a dog park and they have a conversation. In the middle of the conversation, Pavlov’s former dog said that he heard his master’s cell phone ring (a bell sound) and it just caused him to salivate so badly that he made a mess on the floor, and how he wishes humans would get rid of all types of bells because it’s such a stumbling block. The other dog thinks Pavlov’s dog is weird for reacting that way to the mere sound of a bell. He hears bells ring all the time and it’s no big deal. Pavlov’s Dog accuses the other dog of basically lying to him or lying to himself. ALL dogs salivate at the sound of bells. It’s just the way they are, he argues. Dogs are hardwired to salivate at the sound of bells. The other dog is still confused and wonders what must be wrong with his new friend. Because salivating at bells is not normal. This is how people were raised nudists or who grew up in “naked cultures” react to textiles who think that boobies automatically lead to erections, or for the lady readers, that a bare-chested muscular man will lead to a moist vagina. It’s not normal, it’s not innate, and we were not “born this way”. We are products of our environment. The worst thing about this is that churches everywhere teach otherwise. I think the church needs to undergo a new reformation. And just as we left indulgences and papal infallibility behind during the first reformation, we need to leave modesty culture behind in the second reformation. Interestingly, Phillip Oak made his own “95 Theses”, which can be read by clicking here.

In his video, “Pavlov’s Dogs….and Nudism?” Chris MudWalker said “How many people do you know that wake up on a regular basis and jump on their feet to try to touch the moon? Yeah. Me either. How about people who try to swim from Virginia to Africa? Yeah. I don’t know anybody like that either. What about people you know who wake up on a regular basis and try to fly with their arms? Someone, you know, who’s older than five? No. I don’t know anybody like that either. …Why don’t people like give these things an honest try? Why don’t they try to do these things? Because we already know they’re impossible. As soon as you convince someone that something is impossible, that person stops trying. So, we raise our young men to believe and to experience that whenever they see a little too much of a woman’s skin, it’s impossible for him to resist lust. What? Just how exactly do you expect him to react to that? Do you expect him to resist? You just told him it’s impossible! You raised him his whole life ‘impossible’, ‘impossible’ ‘impossible’ ‘impossible’,The best you can hope for is just to avoid the stimulus in the first place. The problem with that though is that when you avoid a stimulus it only intensifies the reactive behavior on the back end. So what happens if you keep yourself really really really warm, if you turn your thermostat all the way up to 80° Fahrenheit in your house all the time, and then, for the first time in your life, you walk outside and it’s 25° Fahrenheit? Well, guess what? You’re going to freeze your little butt off! Okay? And the people out here, regular people, who have been experiencing winter since they were this big, they’re going to walk out in 25 degree weather, put on a really thick jacket, and they’re going to function, but someone who’s never encountered this before…you’re in for a rude awakening. So, how do you keep yourself from freezing to death on an ordinary winter day? You spend your whole life with some exposure to cold> But if you tell someone ‘if you go outside in below freezing temperatures, you will die!’ that person is not going outside. That person is going to do everything he can to avoid going outside on a cold day. When, actually, if you want to increase your survival in the winter, you should expose yourself to cold on a regular basis to get your body used to that stimulus without overreacting.

So, you’ve done these young men a disservice on two fronts. (1) you’ve taught them not to try by telling them that that is impossible. (2) you’ve exaggerated the response by removing the stimulus in the first place.” ^[7]Chris Mud Walker, “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism?” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swtns62zGM&t=7s Mud Walker went on to say “What does naturism does is it teaches you that there can be a bell and no food. ‘Whoopy dooo. There’s a naked body. yay. Whatever.’ So, if you ask an naturist man ‘How can you be around all these naked people and avoid lust?’ and the naturist response is ‘What lust?’ Like, it’s just it’s not an issue. Tt doesn’t come up. What does a naked body have to do with sex? what does it have to do with lust for that matter? It’s it’s just a person. It’s just a human being.” ^[8]See ibid

Phillip Oak, author of “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame” put it well.

“When it comes to defeating the allure of pornography or lustful thinking, it will be a battle as long as you think it will be a battle! The inverse is also true, you can choose not to go into battle. We are not instructed to have the mind of Christ, we are told that we have it (1 Corinthians 2:16)! We are encouraged and implored to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). Paul said his joy was made complete when Christians have the same mind as the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:1-2). When did Christ buckle under the pressure of impure thoughts? When did He ever objectify another human being? When did He insult the Father by belittling Himself for His form or physical appearance? Answer: never. And we, being made new in Him, under His new life, are to be of the same mind.” ^[9]Oak, Philip. Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration of Lust and Body Shame (pp. 64-65). Kindle Edition.

If there are men reading this who struggle with lust and pornography, if you’ve been fighting this for years and years, decades even, and you think God has abandoned you, don’t give up hope. God has not failed us. Neither has God’s word, The Bible, failed us. The church has failed us. The church has given us countless man-made strategies at managing our behavior. Let me reiterate; 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, us being a whitewashed tombs 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 software, pray really hard for will power, read our Bibles, and hope for the best. The Lord said “BE holy because I am holy!” (Leviticus 11:44). Ought implies can. We can be holy if we step aside, abandon our modern day halakhas ^[10]The Hallakha was a set of man-made rules written and enforced by the religious leaders of the second temple Jewish period. These rules were intended as an aid to help Jewish men better keep … Continue reading and let The Holy Spirit take control!

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.

Nick Peters is perpetuating a lie that will keep men like myself in bondage. “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) Let the Son set you free. Covenant Eyes can’t set you free. Accountability groups won’t set you free. Plucking out your eyes and castrating yourself won’t set you free. The truth from the Son will set you free. And the truth is, God created us naked and unashamed (Genesis 2:25). The truth is God disagrees with the very concept of nudity (see Genesis 3:10-11), the truth is that were it not for sin, clothing either wouldn’t have come into the world, or at least would only be used for practical purposes. God never created us to be hardwired to get instant erections at the sight of a female body. When you read the Adam and Eve account, you get the impression that Adam fell in love, not that he instantly tried to “mount the female” because he’s just a horny man and “Naked woman equals sex unga bunga!” (see Genesis 2:21-24). Let us abandon this Playboy theology once and for all! Send it back to Hell where it came from!

If I sound angry, it’s because I am. I lived with 15 years of guilt and shame because I listened to the so-called wisdom of pastors, theologians, and counselors who gave advice to defeating pornography that indeed had the appearance of wisdom, but had no power in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (see Colossians 2:20-23). I found freedom from listening to the counsel of a marginalized group of Christians scorned by the church as sex perverts at worst and weird hippies at best. ^[11]And I was among those casters of stones, to my shame. The scripture is right when it says “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:27, NIV).

The Issue Of Unclothed Cultures

Let us now respond to Nick Peter’s article “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Unclothed Cultures”. Nick Peters laments at the lack of citation from earlier parts of Frost’s book. But he acknowledges that when it comes to anthropology, Frost cites many sources. I would concur that Frost’s book could have used more citations, and I’d love for him to write another edition some day correcting these flaws that even some of his fellow Christian naturists (like myself and Mud Walker) have criticized him for. That said, Nick cannot deny the nudity in the cultures that Frost talks about at this point. Unlike before, he cannot simply fold his arms and say “Oh, you didn’t cite a source? Then I’m just going to dismiss what you said completely out of hand.” So he concedes the premise, but decides to make the following arguments.

1: Natural Law

First, Nick writes \\“First off, natural law applies to everyone. Everyone has some standards of right and wrong and there are universal moral truths that we all know and can’t not know. Some of us can suppress them and usually we try to redefine reality to fit our moral beliefs. Hence, when it comes to abortion, you’re not aborting a human person say defenders of the practice, you’re aborting a fetus (Supposedly taking that to mean something non-human) or a parasite.”\\ – Natural law. I don’t disagree with natural law theory, but I honestly think it works in our favor. Natural law theory is often used to argue that homosexuality is wrong (apart from scripture) because it goes against nature. Men and women were created with certain compatible parts that go together and, in the act of coitus, result in a baby. Natural Law theory is sometimes carried too far in my opinion, as I don’t think it’s always wrong to use something other than its specifically created purpose (e.g using a tire for a tire swing instead of putting it on your truck). But that’s a debate for another day. The fact is, and especially if you affirm a God-directed evolutionary process, as I do, what could be more natural than humans living without clothes? Our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzees live clothes-free lives and their “societies” seem to be doing just fine. ^[12]I know this argument will have less force if you are not a Theistic Evolutionist, but since I am, I can argue from science as well as scripture. If you are interested in hearing two Christians debate … Continue reading. Gorillas, Orangutans, Baboons, all of our closest genetic relatives run around “naked” all the time. Naked seems to be the most natural state of being. And, moreover, clothing is unnatural. Clothing is man-made. You aren’t going to walk through the woods and find the blue jeans in bloom. “But those are lower animals. They are not spirit-filled rational persons like humans are” Nick might object. Ok, well, let’s turn away from general revelation to special revelation.

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. ^[13]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 the … 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. ^[14]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. 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. Whether from science or scripture, it seems me like the intent of the Natural Law Legislator was to live “naked and unashamed” (Genesis 2:25). If this is the case, then at least in this one area, pagan cultures are closer to the Edenic ideal than pearl clutching churchgoers. Nick never explicitly says that nudism is going against natural law, but if that is not what he meant to say than it’s baffling why he should bring it up in the first place. From the scientific side of things, I for one think a bunch of hairless primates obsessing over putting their own inventions over their bodies is unnatural (and unhealthy). And from the theological side of things, I think humans wanting to cover God’s image (i.e themselves) out of a sense that their bodies are indecent and shameful isn’t merely unnatural, it’s blasphemous. You insult the image (Genesis 1:26-27), you insult the One whom the image represents. Nick and other textile Christians really should tread lightly. ^[15]Some of you might be puzzled at how I can affirm a historical Adam and Eve – I obviously do since I use their nudity as part of my case – and affirm evolution. I highly recommend the … Continue reading

2: Non-Christians Cultures Loved Being Ungodly Anyway

Nick Peters then writes \\“Second, there was a tendency to try to break away from biblical morality at the time. Consider works later on like Coming of Age in Samoa which was found to be massively wrong later on. The goal of many was to show these people didn’t have biblical morality and yet they lived in a paradise and it was much more closer to the idea of free love.”\\ — ^[16]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Unclothed Cultures” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/15/book-plunge-christian-body-unclothed-cultures/ – The burden of proof rests on Nick Peters to show that being naked or mostly naked was a departure from God’s moral ideals. If you read Genesis 2, it would seem to me like it’s the other way around. And yeah, non-Christian cultures were engaged in all kinds of horrible things. Indeed, the non-Christian historian Tom Holland documents how the gospel brought radical moral progress to every society it touched. He talks about this in his book “Dominion: How The Christian Revolution Remade The World” But to say that, for example, the Romans typically left their unwanted children in the woods to be eaten by wolves, and therefore they’re just as wrong to compete in the Olympics fully nude seems to smack of the Guilt By Association fallacy. You know, Hitler brushed his teeth too.

3: All Of Frost’s Sources Are From The 1800s

Nick Peters writes \\“Third, I get suspicious that all of these sources are dated to the late 1800’s. Is there nothing from more recent research that can further back and expound on this? Have these societies now somehow become totally corrupt?”\\ ^[17]From ibid. – I fail to see how this is relevant.

4: All Societies Have SOME Modesty Standard

Nick Peters wrote \\“Fourth, all societies have some kind of modesty standards in what behavior is acceptable for men and women.”\\ — This is by far one of the weakest arguments against modesty in all of existence.

Nick Peters would have us believe that modesty standards are innate, obvious, and BIBLICALLY MANDATED! And yet there isn’t a single culture that has ever agreed on what parts need to be covered and which parts are OK to expose. There are cultures where it’s ok to display genitals just as long as you cover some other arbitrarily chosen part like the the face or the feet. ^[18]“Studies in the Psychology of Sex” vol. 1 “The Evolution of Modesty, the Phenomenon of Sexual Periodicity and Auto-erotisism.” Third Edition. F.A. Davis Company Publishers. 1921 by Havelock … Continue reading ^[19]IBID, p. 19 Quoting from: J.W. Helfer, Reisen in Vorderasian und Indien, vol. ii p.12

If Genesis 3:7 wasn’t enough to show that modesty is a man-made convention, the fact that we can’t seem to agree amongst ourselves on which parts need to be covered should be irrefutable proof. And yet, to our textile brothers and sisters in Christ, it isn’t. Maybe the idea of covering the body for reasons of sexual morality is a man-made convention.

Modesty, traditionally defined is quite compatible with nudity. I would affirm along with Pope John Paul II that it’s a state of mind. Praying and giving to the needy can be “immodest” if done the way Jesus proscribed in Matthew 6:1-8. In my article “The Case For. Christian Naturism”, I quoted Pope John Paul II and then used the thought experiment between a nudist dancing to music on a beach and a stripper dancing in a strip club. Both have the same state of dress and both are doing the same activity, i.e dancing. However, clearly only the latter is being immodest. She is flaunting her nudity for the sake of “arousing concupiscence” For the stripper, her nakedness “plays a negative role with regard to the value [of her] as a person.” ^[20]John Paul II, Love and Responsibility (London: HarperCollins, 1981) quoting from the section “The Metaphysics of Shame,” in order from: 190, 176, 190, 191. Her nakedness has the “aim to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment.” For the nudist girl, she is simply having fun on her nakation. “Modest” is still used correctly sometimes when someone deflects praise and we say “You’re just being modest”. But in this context, I am using it to mean what Frost means by “Purdah”. Modesty is a virtue. Purdah is a man-made social convention and is purely subjective.

One Last Thing Before I Close

Nick ends his article with yet another straw man. He says “If you think clothing leads to a downfall in society, you’re missing the main point. Sin leads to the downfall of a society and the only way to eliminate that problem is not by going nude. It is by turning to the cross and coming to Jesus.” No Christian Naturist, including Aaron Frost, has ever argued that. Clothing isn’t the problem. Clothing Compulsiveness is. The philosophy that nakedness is inherently sexual, will induce you to lust (at least if you’re a healthy red-blooded male), that if anyone sees you naked, you should be ashamed, that if you like being naked, you must be a pervert, and so on, and so on, and so on, THESE are what bring sexual sickness to cultures. This type of thinking, which Peters desperately wishes to maintain for some strange reason, is what sexualizes the nude human body and lays the groundwork for porn addictions to take hold. A clothed society is ok, but clothing-compulsive societies must change. Seeing a naked woman isn’t going to irresistibly pull me into sexually immoral thoughts. Not anymore. I’ve been freed. My chains are gone.

Conclusion

Nick Peters has written yet another terrible article. It is my hope that if Peters isn’t persuaded to change his mind by my arguments, at the very least, he’ll do a deeper study into this topic. Because, as I’ve said before, I think Aaron Frost’s book is pretty good, but it’s not the greatest, most scholarly thing out there, and there are better resources to turn to. I myself would recommend David Hatton’s book “Who Said You Were Naked?: Reflections n Body Accepance” or Phillip Oak’s “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust And Body Shame”. If Nick Peters wants some free resources he can delve into, he should go over to Fig Leaf Forum. All he has to do is e-mail the web owner and ask for a password to the website, and he’ll have an endless library of naturist Christian writings at his disposal. I myself really liked the Apologia compilation of 40 objections to Christian naturism.

Next time, we’ll see what other terrible arguments Peters has in store. At least he affirms the virgin birth which I do affirm.