Has anyone seen a website called themarriagebed? It is a pretty open-minded site giving good advice about marital sexual issues. However, they give very negative advice about Christian Naturism. Any comments
Could you place your rebuttal here, or tell us where it is. I checked out this webite out a couple of months or so ago and for the most part enjoyed the whole site. I saw this artical and it upset me. Most of it I disagreed with, and I hate anonymous writers. The one thing I agree with is that many of us secretly keep our recreation, lifestyle, or whatever secret from our Christian brothers and sisters of our church family. I am only an occasional home nudist, and with warm weather coming I have wanted to be naked outdoors, but society doesn't accept that. I would love to share with some members our beliefs, but not sure how they would handle it. Some in my Disciple class may have an idea. I often tell them that I have a European mentality. We should be able to tell our brethren with no problem. I guess it is that Puritan society that we live in. We know that there will probaly be problems. I guess we have to do like Boyd and many other website say, "Pray Your Naturist Friends to Christ and your Christian Friends to Naturism".
I was thinking about the article that was written by the disgruntled Christian.
What I read about his Christian life disturbed me more than the naturists problems. If he would look around, he would find that Christianity has had the same problems for years. In fact, Christianity was illegal in the first four century's and they had to go "under-ground" and give signs as they come to the door. Where do you think the sign of the cross (using fingers across your chest) came from? Families were broken up, people were not just picked on or made fun of or "kicked out", they were tortured, fed to the lions, publicly burned and excuted. You think WE have problems??
Think about China today. China currently is the FASTEST growing Christian community in the world and Christianity is illegal there and they too are being arrested and killed, just like in the old Roman days!! They may not be publically feeding them to the lions, but persecution and death is still the same old song! And that causes more growth than the stagnant growth we have here in the US because we are so complacent.
We are afraid of someone teasing us, disfellowshipping, (like that is so horrible). If our friends in church are so unforgiving, pastors are so little as to say "Even there is no law against it, we will still prosecute and not forgive" is a very scary situation for that congregation. Legalism, fear, unforgiveness, they are living in the Old Testament!
If we have to lie, to hide in fear, then we are IN THE WRONG CHURCH!!! (Church meaning congregation or local fellowship, not Christianity or even denomination as a whole)
There are even different attitudes from one congregation to another within the same denomination! I think when God calls you to a work, to a revelation, it is up to you to follow it and use it to His Glory! "Glorify God with your whole body". "Don't use any part of your body for sin" which implies to me that none of my body, including parts should be considered as a sinful part. If my sexual organs are a sinful part of my body, then I am using my body as a vessel of sin. If I am NOT saying a part of my body is sinful, then there is no sin associated with ANY part of my body, therefore, I am not sinning.
I think if that man has a problem, I think he needs to look to himself. He cannot blame an idea just because others abuse it. He should blame the abuser. Which in this case, is himself. If he went to a resort without his wifes consent, it's his fault, not the resort or naturism. If he lies to his fellow members of his church where he was last weekend, then that is HIS fault, not naturism. If he cannot tell the truth to his fellow members of fear of retribution, then I think he needs to study his bible in prayer and ask God for true revelation, not use other weak minded people to make his excuses for him. His fellow members should also study the bible and understand forgiveness, love, mercy, friendship. Willing to listen, pray with him, encourage him. Not accuse (leave that for the accuser of the bretheren), not condemn (Leave that to a merciful God) but love.
Pastors who say "I know it's not directly mentioned, but it is implied" need to realize that God does not "imply"! God is not vague.
When Jesus said to forgive "seventy times seven" (if the man said "eight" Jesus would probably have said "eighty times eight") I'm sure he was giving us an example of unlimited forgiveness. He was not "implying" here. He meant to forgive so much you lose count! Chances are, you will never be offended that much by the same person without that person changing their attitude towards you because of your forgiveness.
This man needs help. He needs friends who he can count on. And for this author of this website mention to actually publish this stuff as accurate information is weak on his part! He did no real study on the subject, just used some mans weak letter as fact.
Yes it is true we have a low number of women in naturism, but the "reluctant spouse syndrome" can also be men. just because there are more men in naturism than women (an assumption, not fact due to home naturists not counted in) does not make naturism bad. It's just that men are hard-wired differently than women. We think differently, (not necessarily bad, just differently) we have different attitudes towards our bodies and social life. Women are more comfortable chatting with each other in the restrooms (so I understand) than men are. Why? I don't know! Who cares?
But as for us Christians, we had better be willing to "walk the walk and talk the talk" and be truthful about it. If confronted about our naturism, as I have said before, we have better had done our homework and "be ready to give an answer to the faith that lies (not lying) within us".
Here is a million dollar question: If you were given open invitation to stand before your congregation to teach them about naturism and it's work in Christianity, would you do it? (Assuming you are comfortable with public speaking) And if so, could you do it naked?(*)
Boyd "Walk the walk, naked" Allen
(*)(My answer: "Absolutely Yes" first part, and and maybe, but not a definate "No" second part. Probably a two part lesson: First part clothed, second part nude)
Boyd Allens Question "Here is a million dollar question: If you were given open invitation to stand before your congregation to teach them about naturism and it's work in Christianity, would you do it? (Assuming you are comfortable with public speaking) And if so, could you do it naked?(*) "
Yes and yes. I "could" do it naked, however I believe that if we walked out naked we would have to give smelling salts out to the ones who pass out due to shock. And when the hysteria is over I am not sure how many would be left in the pews. We may have to start out clothed.
In the past two years at our local theatre there have been two incidents of nudity during performances. The first in "Wit" where a woman dying from breast cancer disrobes and walks to the light of heaven. It was a very touching moment. The other was in a comedy this past month in "Enchanted April" that drew a roar of laughs when a English gentleman showed his bum as his towel dropped. Why is this public nudity in front of hundreds of people OK and laughed at but I can't do any sunbathing in the back yard where I might be seen by a handful of people?
Very well said Boyd. You pretty much wrapped up the mind-set and prevailing attitude at the church I had so many problems with.
As for the web-site discussion, I have mixed thoughts about the site. I agree with most, if not all, of what they said about sexuality and how Christians should be as a couple. The site is surpisingly open and positive about some kinds of sexual activity that most over 35 Christians would cringe at.
That said, I was highly disappointed by their view on nakedness outside of a husband and wife situation. They seem to have several of the same misconceptions as everybody else. Disappointing that someone can be so biblical on one controvercial (sp?) subject and so scripturally ignorant on another. The ex-nudist's letter isn't the only mention of nudists either. It is also mentioned in the "what's okay and what's not" section.
Anyway, enough of that...
Given a chance to discuss nakedness and naturism in front of my church, would I? Most definately. I would jump, and high at that, to be given the opportunity. I'm used to teaching, and have no problem speaking in front of a crowd.
Could I do it naked? Again, most definately.
Would I? Maybe.
I wouldn't have a problem being the only naked person in the whole building, but not very many of the OTHER people in the building would be comfortable with it. Like others have said, if I did it at all I would probably start out clothed, and then once I had made a few points about proper biblical views on nakedness, then I would feel that I could undress. I'd certainly have to check with the ones in charge of the meeting first, though, and there's no realistic chance that I would be allowed to go naked anyway, so it's really a moot point.
As for myself, I would have to start out clothed and end clothed for a first session, let them think about it, then do it nude for those who are willing to hear (see?) more. First week, "tell", second week, "show and tell"
I have seen bible ignorance from members of the church for the simple reason that we just don't read the bible enough. Me included. Those who say pork is OK to eat (and I am not arguing otherwise) have no support that it is actually OK to eat in the bible. There is MORE support for nudity than eating pork! there is MORE evidence of biblical commands to not eat pork than there is not going nude! there is MORE evidence of people going nude in the bible and getting by with it yet won't touch pork with a ten foot pole!
But we are the opposite. We literally go "Whole Hog" as if we are making up for lost time! We don't even eat the whole cow the way many eat the whole hog! But don't go there when it comes to nudity and christianity! Bible ignorance. In the middle ages, bibles were practically non-existant to the general public, even if you did know how to read, you had no access to a bible of your own! You had to depend on the clergy for the Word and interpretation of the bible (assuming what they read was really there).
We got into a bad habit of letting the clergy do the studying and reading for us. It's as if we say (and some has said this in the twenty first century) "They are paid to do...[whatever]" Let the pastor do that, he/she is paid to do that. In other words, they are paid to be a Christian for us.
I would not go so far as to say "More Support" for nudity than eating pork.
It is pretty explicit during Peters vision in Acts 10:9-23 that all animals, clean or unclean, were now permitted food, this would include Pork.
Now, I realize the same implications can be made about nudity, however...
I recently heard a Tony Campolo talk that he and his wife did about the gays (they disagree about the "lifestyle" being a sin). This is not meant to spark a debate about that issue, I am just citing my source for this.
I will use the same sort of argument here that was mentioned when talking about the church and its attitudes.
... There is more said about marriage and divorce in the bible than nudity. The church (at least most non-catholic) has had no problem accepting people who are divorced back into the congregation and into leadership roles....
You would think, then, that nudity would be much less a volitle issue.
A link to the passage is below. http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-23;&version=49;
=======================================
Just so cite sources, http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm has a transcript of the speach that the Campolos did. Just substute "nudist", "naturist" and "naturism" for "gay", "lesbian" and "homosexuality" and you will catch my logic, I think the argument holds. Strangely, Campolo is silent when it comes to nudity.
The actual quote is:
..."Let me just remind you of one thing in closing. We do have a tendency to play the ball game two ways. We say we've got to be faithful to the Bible. Well I want to ask you, how many of you belong to churches - I won't ask for a raise of hands - how many of you belong to churches that allow people who are divorced and remarried into membership. I want to - don't, don't put up your hands. I don't want to - I don't want to know about your evil.
How many of you belong to churches which say if you're divorced and - well, you know, they're got a problem and we're going to accept them into the fellowship. Well, let me just remind you of something. When it comes to homosexuality, Jesus never mentioned it. I mean, it wasn't on his big hit list. He never mentioned it. But he did talk about divorce and remarriage and he said people who are divorced and remarried are in sexual sin. Did he not? Now the question. If the church is so gracious in accepting people who are divorced and remarried, i.e., accepting people who according to Jesus are living in a sexual sin that he specifically condemns, then why can't they be at least that gracious to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters? "
You wrote:
"It is pretty explicit during Peters vision in Acts 10:9-23 that all animals, clean or unclean, were now permitted food, this would include Pork."
Nope. Peter never came to that conclusion, repeated the story to his Christian friends after giving the account to the gentiles he visited and both times the conclusion was that gentiles (representing all those not Jewish) were no longer considered by God as "unclean", ceremonially speaking.
No where did Peter or the other apostles conclude or even mentioned the idea of eating all animals as clean.
HOWEVER: I may conclude that because of the laws of clean and unclean meats is a part of the Old Covenant, and we are no longer under that law, then the laws do not apply to us any more than any other laws of the Old Covenant. So if any laws were given on nudity in the old covenant as part of the Mosaic law, then again, just like any other, they do not apply.
But there were laws against eating pork (representing all "unclean" meats) and many examples of the unclean meats issue coming up to make sure we understand it fully, whereas no law or example of nudity being a sin anywhere.
Since Peters vision was about the animals on the sheet at the time of the vision to show Peter that what God cleansed was clean. The vision was shown three times, and immediately after, three "unclean" gentiles showed up at the door, and God told him it was OK. I think that vision conclusion was far more important for Peter than just worrying about whether they could eat pork or not.
Of course, I have to admit, Peter was still stuck in the old mindset telling God that he never eaten unclean animals. So he was still stuck under the old covenant mindset. But that story got straightened out later after he realized that gentiles were a part of the fellowship now. Later, Paul had to rebuke Peter for getting up from the tables of the gentiles when Jewish leaders came around.
You know, I had never noticed the lack of conclusion there. I think the conclusions the both of us have made about that passage are correct and as you said validated by Paul when he approached Peter about his trying to turn all Christians "jewish".
God has been challenging me with a series on Grace. What that really has pointed out is how eager we as Christians are to "shoot first and ask questions later". That seems to be more of a Peter characteristic than a Christ characteristic.
