"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
  Gen 2:25 KJV

Well the debate between what is art and what is pornographic is not a new one. What is accepted by one culture or person is often condemned by another. And certainly many Christians believe that nakedness of any type is sinful, whether one claims to call it "art" or not.

So for what I would consider acceptable in what I could permit myself to photograph - and especially to publicly post - I sought out a working, scriptural definition of nudity. I wanted to know exactly what God has said about the topic in the Bible. Whether nudity was acceptable to a person or a culture (Christian or not) was not the issue - I wanted to know what God says about it, and to reflect His standards in my work.

I had it stuck in my head that there were Biblical verses which prohibited "looking upon another's nakedness." I'd planned to start this article with such a verse in fact, to set the standard, and apply it from there. Then I planned to ask whether Christians thought that Muslims were right, by covering a woman's entire body when in public ; whether Puritans were right, in basically allowing only the face and hands to be exposed ; whether Pentecostals were right, in permitting long dresses only ; or whether modern "cultural norms" of bare arms and legs, plunging necklines, lingerie and bikini wear (or less) are allowable for Christian wear - or especially for artistic purposes, photography, casual viewing, etc. Again, my goal was to find out how the Bible DEFINED nudity, exactly what prohibitions there may be against it, and to only photograph and post that which God deems appropriate.

"And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness;
from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach..." Exodus 28:42

Based upon the story of Adam and Eve, and verses like the above, I was pretty certain that scripture certainly prohibited either the display or the "looking upon" of the pubic areas (and maybe butt), so to date had "drawn my line" there, and refrained from such photography since becoming a Christian. But based upon verses in Song of Solomon and church artwork throughout the ages, I was also pretty certain that depictions of a woman's breasts were scripturally okay in fact. This article would have been much different if I had written from these assumptions, but instead I decided to conduct a more exhaustive study of scripture before wring this. And much to my own surprise...

Neither nudity as a social practice, nor looking upon it, is ever prohibited by scripture!

That statement alone is probably more shocking to most Christians that even the public display of a nude body.

But it is a Biblical statement. A BLB search of the word "nakedness" reveals that the Biblical prohibitions (in Leviticus) that I thought existed against looking upon another's nakedness had mostly to do with family members, and prohibiting coupling amongst family, as well as prohibiting sex outside of marriage, in general. After looking through other verses, conducting multiple word searches, and then finally examining articles from other Christian sources (some quoted or linked below), surprisingly I found that nudity in and of itself is never spoken against in the Bible.

Notably, even Adam & Eve's original loincloths designed to cover their "differences" were a false religious work - i.e., their fallen idea. They were married for Pete's sake, so what could possibly be the big deal in seeing each other's bodies? Covering their nakedness was never the command of God, just their lame attempt at false humility. God's actions involved blood sacrifice, and a more complete garment to cover their sin of rebellion to His (spoken) Word. They were of course alone at the time, but after humanity multiplies on the earth, where in Genesis (or in the whole Bible) does God command that nakedness in general must be covered? Nowhere. Even the passage cited above from Exodus 28 refers specifically to Aaron's priestly lineage (not all mankind), given for their "honor and beauty," and relates solely to what they were to wear when ministering in the temple - but not so much to what they had to wear elsewhere.

Noah's son was of course cursed for looking upon his father's nakedness, but a) this involved a family member, and b) probably an inclination towards pondering the sin of incestuous homosexuality (more on that at the article linked below). Later in scripture, public nakedness indeed often symbolizes public shame (individual or corporate), but as it relates to the absence of God's covenant blessings (such as in a war-torn or desolate area, where sin results in a lack of food and clothing), but not because the Bible ever specifically condemns nudity. Both hunger and nakedness can be a curse from God (Duet 28:48) or an affliction of Satan, but nakedness itself is not depicted as sin, any more than hunger is. Paul expressed godly content in having "food and raiment" (clothing) but himself admitted that his service to God sometimes led to times of hunger, thirst and even nakedness (2 Cor 11:27) - was he in sin?

Interestingly, the articles below will show that early Christians were often COMMANDED by the church to be baptized completely naked for around five centuries A.D. - of course on public display before other Christians - including children! Could this practice have continued - and could church artwork depict Eve's (and others') breasts and often genetalia (like Michelangelo's "finger of God" touching a nude Adam, or the David & Venus statues) - if pre-American / European Christian societies believed the Bible prohibited nudity in all instances? I'm talking "church fathers" and revered "holy men" here, not influenced by the blur of 18-21st Century society's confusion of social and artistic nudity with illicit sex. (Moral - or allegedly "Christian" - prohibitions against nudity really only took hold in recent centuries.) See below, but would God have commanded certain prophets to go naked in public, if such were prohibited by scripture? That would be like telling prophets or televangelists to commit adultery in His name, if so! Clearly there is an ages-old distinction between nudity and immorality that today's church (and society) simply fails to make. And this current confusion is the result of (probably well-meaning, but) overly legalistic Christians making rules and regulations where God has not - a practice specifically condemned by Christ (Matt 15:6; Mark 7:13). I'm as surprised as you to find all this out by the way. Honestly, my intent was to seek God's Word for boundaries, not to "license licentiousness" for myself or anyone!

Of course sex outside of marriage and "uncovering nakedness" for that purpose is prohibited in scripture. Movies and imagery depicting sex amongst unmarried people are of course sinful. "Artistic" or not, pornography viewed for the sake of sexual gratification certainly has the effect of destroying men's minds and marriages. But the Bible does not condemn nudity in itself; nudity only becomes an issue if sexual immorality accompanies it (see also the below article quote for a discussion of "modesty"). But lust can be provoked whether nudity is involved or not. To an impure person, a diaper commercial depicting a baby's bottom can be an object of lust, as can an animal, or a fully clothed 80-year-old.

"Unto the pure all things [are] pure:
but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure;
but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
Titus 1:15

So how does this information affect my work? Between my ministry in the realms of UFO Research and my years spent as a Christian Bartender I'm just used to God's grace being upon me in areas that most Christians shun - to "boldly go" you might say, where God leads, and where His grace is sufficient to keep me from falling. By His grace, I have maintained an abstinent lifestyle for longer than is most people's business. I can be around hookers, porn stars, and semi-to-fully-nude people without it leading me to sin in a Biblical sense (opposed to what some Christians will think is sinful... such as "being around hookers and porn stars..."). Plus I'm older now : quite simply, my drives are different than when I was 20. Now by "older," I don't mean I'm dead! - just more in control of myself, both as a result of aging, and as a fruit of the Spirit. And my current leading is that I can retain my virtue as a photographer in questionable situations, and perhaps even be a loving light to someone in need, who may have no Christians in his or her circle of friends. I am truly "agenda-less" in that regard, but hopefully always open to the Holy Spirit's promptings.

But for my purposes here (photography), starting at my homepage you'll see that I like to capture images that are aesthetically pleasing - or just plain striking - in general not just when a woman's body is involved. That essence of course applies when I photograph people too, as I'm looking to record images that are pleasing to the eye (whether it's considered "cute," "hot," "sexy" or whatnot... Personally, I consider intelligence and a quick wit at least as sexy as I do physical appearances - arousing me to lust even! - but these features are incredibly difficult to photograph... and for the church to ban ;). For my purposes however, I can see and do draw a distinction between aesthetic beauty, certain types of artistic nudity, and pornography. If, because of societal conditioning or lack of control over "youthful lusts" YOU cannot, it is best that you avoid certain portions of my website (which are usually clearly marked so as not to cause others to so easily stumble into something they cannot handle).

I simply ask that you not judge me according to your weaknesses or standards, as these lines are always very different for everybody: some Christians don't drink alcohol while others do. Some Christians don't own television sets while others pay over $100 per month to pipe it into their homes. Some Christians don't go to movies ever, while some simply don't see Rated "R" movies - unless Mel Gibson is involved, of course. Even my own "Christian society imposed" prohibitions against semi-nude or nude photography are being rethought now, thanks to applying myself to what the scriptures actually say, versus what Christians today commonly believe. I realize this idea somehow just won't "feel right" to many Christians; it goes against what many will say is common sense. But our "common sense" and "feelings" about right and wrong are highly influenced today by centuries of legalistic Puritanical influence - NOT on scripture itself in this case, and not on church belief and practice for about 1600 of our 2000 years. (For that matter, the idea that a man rose from the dead defies common sense... but all things truly scriptural usually do.)

I'm not saying that I will now actively pursue either a nude lifestyle or a career as a nude photographer,   only that one could, because scripture does not ever prohibit nudity in itself, or nude art, sculpture and/or photography. The Erotic Museum which sparked this posting may be the most risqué pics I ever post here. Then again, they may not. My own conscience tells me that "pubic shots" are outside my bounds for now however, but I see that I cannot make a doctrinal position of this (for either myself or others). Instead of a blanket or legalistic "yes" or "no," I really have to ask the Holy Spirit about individual situations, as they arise. Darn it! Legalism is SO much easier! Perhaps such work is just outside of my grace area at present. To me blatant depiction of genetalia seems tacky, and good mostly for the purpose of invoking sexual arousal, and my conscience tells me to avoid such because it would likely lead me into sin. But that's just me, speaking from a weakness of flesh that I feel I am susceptible to. Others may not have such hang-ups, and be able to enjoy freedoms in the area of fully nude art and photography that I cannot. Apparently God makes no clear prohibition of such in His Word either, so the line between art and pornography remains subjective still, with The Bible falling more on the side of the artistic nudists than I'd previously imagined possible. As to defining that "subjective line" between art and porn however, allow me this stab : Pornography is a product intended only for sexual gratification outside of marriage, and created almost only for resale, and therefore (Biblically) more akin to prostitution than to art. Art is often sold, but artists will typically lose money to create, often without regard to resale potential. If you are a model, photographer, or "artist" involved in nude work, perhaps you can ask yourself : Would a heterosexual female (assuming she's an art fan) be likely to frame your work and place it in her home, or office? Or would it be more likely that a heterosexual male might purchase your work and place it only under his mattress, or buy software to erase your work from his computer - so that his family wouldn't realize what a big art fan he is? It is possible that "intended audience" and "probable use" are valid criteria for determining the difference between art and pornography, but this example is merely my subjective thinking at the moment, which as a photographer perhaps I can use to challenge myself in my future work. It may or may not be useful to you. Scripture leaves judging one's heart's intent to God, and so will I.
 

...finally, a quick aside on a passage that ALWAYS comes up in relation to this topic however - Matthew 5:28.

"...But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart..."

Two things: a) Isn't it possible to "looketh on a woman" (live or via a photograph) but not to "lust after her?" I.E., to simply aesthetically enjoy and/or admire her? Attractive women are very pleasing to look at even for heterosexual women! How much more so for men, and is it really sinful to gaze at a woman and think "Wow... she's pretty / hot / attractive / sexy / desirable" without truly "undressing her" or having sex with her in one's mind? Guess what girls? ...it happens.

Even if you're not buying that... b) Can I suggest the *possibility* that THE KEY WORD in that passage is actually NOT "lust" as the church typically teaches, but "adultery"? A man can fornicate with a single woman, but he can't commit adultery with her (unless he's married of course). Jesus - here at least, or anywhere else that I'm aware of - did not speak against committing "fornication with her in his heart..." just adultery. You're adding to the Word of God to read fornication into that prohibitive passage about looking and lusting. It's possible that the issue Jesus is addressing here is NOT normal sexual desire (against which there is no law, just clear instruction to not let it lead to fornication), but covetousness - lusting after a woman that "belongs" to another man because of marriage (the 6th & 10th Commandments - much more worthy of Jesus' time don't you think?). Do a word study on the word "woman" in fact - it can mean both "a woman of any age - a virgin, wife, or widow" OR it's meaning can be restricted to just "a wife." Context is King, and the word "adultery" in the sentence seems to have just that effect - warning men that lusting after another man's wife is adultery in the heart. An honest reading of the passage simply does not address lust in general however.

Just some food for thought... I know that informing folks that nudity is not frowned upon by scripture is enough of a pill already, but to suggest that to lustfully look upon or desire a woman that does not "belong" to someone else via the marriage covenant, may not be frowned upon scripturally EITHER?!? Well, that's probably just too much for one day. (But that is what it says - once again, scripture defies logic and our Puritanical "common sense.")

Careful fella... this might lead to dancing.

I'll leave you with these quotes from online articles, and allow you to pray or research this on your own, as you are led. If you find nudity shocking or offensive, I have no desire to push it upon you, and I hope you will not feel the need to push your version of what is not permissible upon me.  "Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Romans 14:22

But whatever your views on this or any topic, I sincerely hope you allow scripture and what the Holy Spirit is calling you to, today, to be your guide, rather than cultural norms - even Christian culture - as these are transient and dependant upon man's wisdom, rather than God's. The body in itself is not evil (that's just the Gnostic influence on true Christianity still rearing its ugly head), nor is its depiction condemned by scripture. And "where there is no law, there is no sin." Christians truly have no Biblical ground to stand on to oppose to nudity, other than imposing a matter of personal conscience upon others as if it were law. Such a practice is not only condemned by Jesus and Paul, but it makes God look bad : To quote Martin Zender, "No man ever looked at woman's naked body and thought to himself "God is an idiot!" People only think God is an idiot when listening to Christians go all hyper and over-react to things that don't matter.

What happens when nudity is expressed indeed has sinful potential, but the work of the Holy Spirit is the crucifixion of fleshly lusts, not the religious banning of the object itself (Col 2:20-23). Unfortunately false religion bans things and ideas routinely. The Holy Spirit, however, repeatedly expresses a principal in the scriptures that religion never seems to get : All things are permissible, just not necessarily beneficial. No food is unclean of itself, if received with thanksgiving to God. It is what comes out of man that makes him unclean, not what goes in. And to the pure, all things are pure.

No Name Here   11/14/05

The most in-depth study on the topic of nudity from a Biblical perspective I found is here, which contains - among other things - sound theological reasoning that Adam & Eve's shame had nothing to do with their nudity, and that Shem's sin had nothing to do with simply "seeing" Noah naked... According to the Hebrew it involved "looking, with ...." Well, you can read it on your own of you want.

    Interesting quotes from other articles include:

"Also, Christians are told to be 'modest'. The word 'modest' does not mean 'prudish'. It means "neat, orderly, and appropriate". It comes from the Greek work 'cosmos', which means 'the order of things'. Something orderly. We get our word 'cosmetic' from that word. Complete nudity at a social nudist gathering is entirely appropriate. A bikini would be inappropriate for church and a tuxedo would be inappropriate for a beach, wouldn't it? Our religious upbringing will tell us that 'modest' means 'prudish'. But to keep oneself morally pure does not make a person a prude!"
(Full article pasted below)                                
 

    and

"God commanded Isaiah to go out and preach publicly naked for three years...

"The Bible does not place any restriction on being nude. The Greeks and Romans customarily exercised nude.  God commanded Isaiah to go out and preach publicly naked for three solid years (Isaiah 20)! The prophets were commonly naked, as a sign. So much so, that when Saul stripped off his clothes and prophesied nude before the masses, the people figured he was under the command of God and was a prophet (1 Samuel 19:24). King David danced nude in the City of David to celebrate the return of the Ark of the Covenant. When his wife criticized him for doing this, she was soundly rebuked and ended up childless until her death (II Samuel 6:20-23). Baptisms in the Christian church were customarily conducted in the nude up until the fifth century. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.400) said, "Adam was naked at the beginning, and unashamed. This is why your clothing must be taken off as baptism restores right relation to God." 

These church fathers maintained the holy minded practice for five centuries, slowly, new concepts of modesty developed, and the body was no longer revered as beautiful and as the temple of God, but rather as something vile, filthy and naturally unclean!  Several Popes required that the paintings of nude forms and statues by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel be hidden and fabrics painted to look like flowing linens, were pasted over the “offensive” parts of the masterpieces.  Only recently has the painting of Michelangelo been fully restored to its original, uncovered, totally nude appearance...

"God says through Ezekiel: "I made you grow like a plant of the field, naked and bare. You grew up and became tall, and arrived at full maiden-hood, the ORNAMENT OF ORNAMENTS; your breasts were fully formed and your (pubic) hair had grown." (Ezekiel 16:7).   God clearly cherishes the beauty of our bodies, even the genitalia, of which our society seems so strangely fearful and ashamed."  So says the naturist website anyway...

  (Below I paste an article from a site that has apparently disappeared - I found it only in Google's cached page.)
   Wholesome Nudity : Its a Cultural Thing   (no author listed)

Why do we react so bad to nudity and have such a problem with nudity here in "Christian" America? Is it because we are truly immoral? Why is it that people here in the 'most Christian nation in the world' that we have the highest rate of violent sex crimes and the men here have such a problem with sexual temptation?

The slightest exposure of the female breast causes American men's hearts to race, and American wives' angers to flare. Is this righteous indignation or simply a cultural knee-jerk reaction?

The problems originate with our religious heritage. The Pilgrims and the Puritans are where we get our cultural thinking. Like a pendulum, attitudes go from one extreme to the other. During some periods of Church history, people are fairly free, then things change and get legalistic again.

The Pilgrims (who were Puritans) left their homes in Europe to maintain religious freedom. Their religions consisted of stringent rules that made an attempt to prevent sins. Yes, this was a reaction to loose morals during the time, but their rigid rules were not the answer to Christian living. Yet their rules became the law of this (USA) land. And the rules, perhaps more extreme in America than when they were in Europe.

During the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the queen and the Church of England, created the current phase of legalism so extreme that piano legs were considered obscene and were covered by "pants". Those ideas came to America. In the early 1900's in America, men were required to swim with tops on, and those rules lasted until the late 1930's. In 1936, men were finally free to not wear tops at the beach. This Victorian phase is the one that we are still recovering from. If you ask a person who grew up in this time period, they will tell you that men running down the street in a pair of jogging shorts would have been arrested for indecent exposure during that time.

In the early 1970's, co-education institutions became more popular. That, along with a rise in the incidence of child molestations, sexually-related crimes, and lawsuits from parents (if something were to happen on the school ground) made educators separate guys from the girls. Occasional nudity (skinny-dipping in swim classes, requirement of showering after gym class) started fading out of schools. This in turn conditioned the thinking of today's parents against social nudity. This and other cultural factors has turned attention to perceived 'dangers' of occasional nudity.

In the book of Galatians in the Bible, the Galatian Christians were becoming 'born again' of the Spirit of God, then keeping rules and regulations to keep being saved. Paul told them that the Law (the Old Covenant regulations) were set aside since Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. This was not to give the Galatian Christians a license to sin, but to free them from the legal laws of the Old Covenant to life in the HOLY Spirit.

A really objective study of the Bible shows that God does not condemn social nudism, but does condemn lust and immorality. And they wouldn't be the severe problems that they are if it were not for our cultural thinking.

Cultural values are often mistaken for religious values and they are hard to tell apart. That is why the only people who would fight social nudism are people with strong religious values. The hard part of cultural values is that no one ever takes a close look at them to see if they are right or not. That is why no one seriously studies the Bible to see if social nudism is in line with God's Word unless they are wanting to participate in it.

Jesus said, (Matthew 5:27, KJV) "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart".

These are strong words. Women cannot be avoided and all men notice pretty women. And a second glance at a woman is not automatically sin. But to daydream about having sex with that woman, or manipulating circumstances to have sex with that woman IS committing adultery in your heart. More than the physical act of adultery is the planning that goes into it. If you find yourself gawking without control, get help! If you have a problem being faithful to your spouse, get help! If you have a problem with pornography, click here..

Also, Christians are told to be 'modest'. The word 'modest' does not mean 'prudish'. It means "neat, orderly, and appropriate". It comes from the Greek work 'cosmos', which means 'the order of things'. Something orderly. We get our word 'cosmetic' from that word. Complete nudity at a social nudist gathering is entirely appropriate. A bikini would be inappropriate for church and a tuxedo would be inappropriate for a beach, wouldn't it? Our religious upbringing will tell us that 'modest' means 'prudish'. To keep oneself morally pure does not make a person a prude!

If we in the USA are so prone to sexual sins, could it be that we are creating the very trap that we are in? Could our rules be so much more stringent than God's that it would be impossible to keep? If we trained ourselves not to be sexually oriented when confronted with nudity, would we not be able to push on to other areas of Christian maturity? Wouldn't more people feel 'worthy' to serve God if they didn't have to fight themselves?

Let's be honest. Do rules really stop sinful tendencies? Of course not. But we as Americans react to bad things by passing more laws. We don't do anything to fix the spiritual condition of the people. For example, after the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, what subject comes up in legislatures? Passing more laws about gun control. More metal detectors, more police.

Nudist resorts? Pass more laws! Don't study the subject. Shut up and pass another law!

Our culture is mostly rules-based. This is a natural setting for rejecting something not of the same culture.

The most complete essay dealing with this subject may be found here.