Christian Naturism - Criticism

Criticism

By far, the most frequent biblical argument against Christian naturism is that if God approved of people being nude, he would not have clothed Adam and Eve after they sinned, thus making it a reminder to man that we had, in fact, sinned. The counter-argument is Adam and Eve had already clothed themselves upon sinning, and God merely replaced the fig leaves with animal skins. In other words, granting them free will, but demonstrating sin requires a blood sacrifice.

Due to cultural tendencies to equate nudity with sex, many Christian denominations and groups are not supportive of naturism and nudism. Such groups may feel that the temptation of lust is too difficult. Christian naturists counter that the notion of Christians being unable to avoid lust where non-sexualized nudity is present has no scriptural basis whatsoever. Furthermore, they believe Christ has given mankind the power to avoid sin.

Christian naturists have been criticized for being nude around non-Christians (in the sense that some contact between Christians and non-believers takes place), given that they might have no inhibitions against lust and other carnal sin. The best way to avoid such lust, naturists believe, is to live nude and be accustomed to bodies of various shapes, ages, and ethnicities in a non-sexualized setting. Furthermore, virtually all sexual abuse of minors, and rape among adults is initiated while both offender and victim are dressed. Other believers contend that nowhere does Scripture state the need to practice nudism to prevent lust. Naturists counter Scripture never speaks of both lust and the need for clothing in proximity to one another, either.

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul speaks of the need for women to wear a head covering. However, it only applies to prayer and prophecy, and says nothing about covering the rest of the human body. Conversely, according to the passage, men must not have their heads covered. This due to man being the image and glory of God, and should not cover his head, as that would be figuratively covering the glory of God. The woman covers her head as she is the glory of man, and the glory of man ought to be covered when in the presence of God. Today, many Western churches which are non-naturist do not require women to cover their heads in church.

In the Book of 1 Timothy, Paul urged the women in the Christian church to dress modestly, with "decency and propriety". Critics contend it is in contrast to the beliefs of Christian naturism that the apostle urges them to dress at all. Christian Naturists counter that Paul was disallowing outlandish and/or expensive clothing (which is prohibited in Christian Naturism as well), and not referring to those who choose not to dress.

Other criticism, while it may not oppose naturism per se, is concerned that it will hinder witnessing, divide spouses, promote secrecy to prevent embarrassment, excommunication, etc. As a result, some Christian naturists are isolated from other Christians and their churches. In their effort to find fellowship, many have formed local fellowships, while others are still accepted by their own church groups even though they are known as naturists.

• In May 2002, a pastor in southern California was terminated due to his Christian Naturism beliefs. The church was affiliated with the Grace Gospel Fellowship and Grace Bible College.

• A written debate titled Is Social Nudism Condemned By The Bible As Sinful? with Mark Roberts of the Westside Church of Christ, Irving, Texas in the affirmative, and John Kundert of the Fig Leaf forum, Winnipeg, Manitoba in the negative is available online. See the external links below.

Several well-known organizations which specialize in new religious movements, including the Watchman Fellowship, Bob Larson Ministries, and the (John) Ankerberg Theological Research Institute have, to date, taken no official position on the beliefs of Christian naturism.