"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.  Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you" (Ephesians 4.29-32, NIV throughout unless otherwise noted).

It seems the American Family Association has recently discovered Christian nudism. For those who aren't familiar with this organization, the AFA is a Christian "ministry" that "stands for traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media -- including pornography -- on our society." Here's what recently appeared in an article published on their Web site:

"Well, we've finally gone and done it! For years AFA has been offending the homosexual community, the pornographers, the movie and television industry.  To that list we now add the 'Christian naturists!'

"Thanks to our vocal opposition to the 7UP 'nudist colony' commercial which first aired during the Superbowl, we have been inundated with e-mails from so-called Christians who espouse and practice nudism. Excuse me, naturism.

"Can you believe it? These people actually quote scripture saying nudity is OK with God. After all, they say, weren't Adam and Eve 'naked and unashamed?' In fact they were...before the fall! Before the glory of God which surrounded them was stripped away by the welcomed intrusion of the sin nature into their lives. What some people won't do to rationalize their perversion. Amazing!

"Thanks at least in part to the aforementioned groups, nudity has become chic. Certainly, Hollywood has done its part. The appearance of scantily dressed Jennifer Lopez during last year's Grammy awards may have contributed to it. The lone survivor of CBS's initial 'Survivor' series, Richard Hatch, may share the blame as he helped popularize nudity through his own in-the-buff romps down the beach. Maybe this disgusting trend made its move into mainstream media (and prime time) thanks to NYPD Blue star Dennis Franz's exposure of his derriere in a shower scene a few years ago.

"Near nudity has been shown on television for years in ads for the likes of Victoria's Secret and Calvin Klein. Of course, we all know sex has been used to sell everything from bath soap to automobiles to...well, just about everything.

"Whatever the catalysts may have been that led us to this point, we now have nudity du jour on television programs and commercials across the dial, the latest of which is the 7UP ad referenced earlier. However, other companies such as Aflac Insurance and Kraft Foods have also tried their hand at advertising au natural.

"Perhaps American advertising agencies are following a trend that has been popular in Europe for sometime. It is not unusual to see full-frontal nudity featured in some of their TV commercials. Of course, so-called recreational nudism has been popular there for years as well.

"A recent USA Today article says that nudity is 'taking off' (pun intended) and that the growth in membership in nude recreation clubs is soaring.  In addition, traffic to nude websites is growing. Never mind that many of these sites charge fees ranging upwards of $40 and $50 just to access them.  (Can you say, "child pornography?")

"If nudists 'Christian' or otherwise want to, in the words of one person who e-mailed us, get an 'all-over tan' in some private camp or colony, that is their business. However, don't broadcast it on national TV during prime-time when my kids might be watching! In fact, don't broadcast it at all, prime-time or anytime!

"Frankly, haven't you had enough!?! Aren't you fed up by now? Hasn't Hollywood and Madison Avenue's 'frog in the kettle' desensitization of our society to all things sexual gone on long enough? If you agree, I dare you...no I 'double-dawg' dare you to not only boycott every product offered in these titillating commercials, refuse to watch any television program that features nudity even once, but to call, write and otherwise harangue these companies, corporations and networks into ruing the day they ever even thought about showing some man or woman's behind on a national television. Naked natives on National Geographic is one thing.  This is quite something else!

"Maybe I'm naive. (I wish that were the case.) Perhaps I'm deluded in my thinking (That may very well be the case), but I still believe Christians care enough to be salt and light in the world, and to pursue a lifestyle of godliness and holiness. Doing so means we not only change our viewing habits, it also means we stand face to face with those who profane biblical, traditional morality and say enough is enough!

"You can be assured AFA will continue to offend homosexuals, pornographers, Hollywood media moguls, Madison Avenue ad execs, and yes, the 'Christian naturists' through its vocal opposition to those things which are injurious to the health of the family. If we don't, who knows when the day will come -- and it won't be long -- that television producers will remove the masks that block the private parts and let you see what has up until now been left to the imagination. When that day comes you can rest assured, the 'Christian' nudists will love it!"
[http://www.afa.net/culture/pc022601.asp, March 14, 2001]

It's maddening, isn't it, to be labeled "so-called Christians," to be accused of "perversions," and to be lumped together with the homosexual community and child pornographers? This attack is unjust, too, because most Christian nudists uphold the same core family values and repudiate the same social scourges as the AFA, and that includes the exploitation of nakedness.

Being attacked is never pleasant. We don't like being attacked by critics, and I'm sure critics don't like being attacked by us. Yes, Christian nudists attack, too!

Shortly after I learned of the AFA article, I received an e-mail message from someone who had just read last year's "Great Debate" about social nudism (available on Fig Leaf Forum's Web site and published in Issue 55/56). This person wrote, "Please find attached a letter that I sent to Mark Roberts. It is a somewhat aggressively toned response to his equally and unfairly aggressive style that he hit you with. I know that this is not the best way to go about these things, but after a while I get so fatigued with this arrogant ignorance that I just have to vent." And aggressively "vent" he did! Here's just a tiny, fairly restrained excerpt from his nearly two-thousand word tirade:

"Quit being a legalistic Pharisee!... You choke on a gnat but swallow a camel! You blind guide! You lack common sense and follow the corrupt teachings handed down to you by ignorant, fearful people, and then you wonder why the world hates Christianity. We look like idiots, with our fear of the body and our harsh treatment against anything sensual or physical like drinking, dancing, exercising, laughing or the pursuit of knowledge.  You just want us to take this wonderful mind that God gave us and throw it in the trash. "Listen to what I say, and forget what you know!" That is the mind numbing experience that most Churches pound into us week after week, and they never get into the real meat of the Gospel. You are content with spiritual milk, and hence your growth is stunted!"

While I can certainly understand this gentleman's frustration, I'm disappointed that he chose to vent -- or more correctly, attack -- in the way that he did. He was more right than he knew when he wrote, "I know that this is not the best way to go about these things." I have received similar diatribes from many who support Mr. Roberts' side in the nudist debate, and I can testify that such denunciations do little to change minds. What this kind of rhetoric most often does instead is raise defenses and inflame emotions. If you want proof of that, just reflect a moment on how you felt as you read the AFA article!

I think most of us feel the need to vent from time to time. It's understandable, considering the kind of scurrilous criticism we're often faced with. Some may argue that Jesus occasionally needed to vent, too.  Consider Matthew 23 and Luke 11, and the many rebukes from our Lord that each began with, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"  While these severe scoldings may have been instructive for the disciples and others who were present, they clearly did nothing to change the minds of the men at whom they were directed. In fact, if Luke 11.53-54 is any indication, quite the opposite was true: "When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say." Now, contrast the way Jesus appeared to vent in Matthew 23 and Luke 11 with this from John 8:

"And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, they said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?' And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.  But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'  And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. And straightening up, Jesus said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?'  And she said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more'" (John 8.3-11, NASB).

Jesus could easily have started again with more "woe unto you's." Most of us would probably contend that these scribes and Pharisees deserved no less a rebuke than the others. Yet that's not what our Lord chose to do.  Instead, He spoke the naked truth, free from harsh language this time, and it served to convict the woman's accusers of their sin. These religious leaders may well have walked away forever changed as a result.

Why the different approaches? Scripture teaches that Jesus knew the hearts and minds of men: "Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, 'Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?'" (Matthew 9.4; see also 12.25, Mark 2.8, Luke 5.22, 6.8, 11.17). Is it perhaps possible that our Savior knew that the hearts and minds of the scribes and Pharisees He harangued with His "woe unto you's" were utterly closed and hardened beyond change?  And might He also have known that the hearts and minds of the scribes and Pharisees who brought the woman caught in adultery were still open to conviction and repentance? I think so.

No matter what may be said of how our Lord used His ability to peer into the hearts and minds of men, this much is certain: neither you, nor I, nor the authors of the article and letter above share that ability. None of us can know with certainty who is hopelessly closed and hardened against the truth, and who is not. That's why I believe we should follow the example of John 8 and not Matthew 23 or Luke 11 when challenging those with whom we strongly disagree, or when confronting those who we believe are in sin.

While the two writers above may well have had good intentions, I believe their choice of words and the way they used them was anything but good.  As I see it, to use words that condemn, insult, humiliate, intimidate, coerce, malign or otherwise "bully" in the name of Christ is to "fight" as the world fights. We must never forget that "though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world" (2 Corinthians 10.3-4). What are to be our weapons in the "war" against ignorance, prejudice and sin? The belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the Gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit "which is the word of God" (see Ephesians 6.14-17). The "weapons of the world" seem tawdry and impotent by comparison! "Put on the full armor of God," says Ephesians 6.11, "so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes."

Scripture teaches us, "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil" (Romans 14.16). Many of us feel led to answer the likes of Mark Roberts or the American Family Association, and so we should. But please be careful. "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" with your words (Romans 12.17). Harsh or derisive rhetoric invariably acts to diminish the power and persuasiveness of the naked truth, our first and best "weapon." By all means, let us answer our critics with the truth as we understand it.  Let us speak our truth forcefully and boldly, but let it be truth unadorned that we proclaim. And if it must be adorned, let our naked truth be "clothed" only with the love we are commanded to show, one for another (John 13.34), and not with spite, or with pettiness, or with unnecessary words that inflame emotions and harden hearts. That, surely, is the better way to confront our "scribes and Pharisees." Once again:

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.  Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

The above article appears here courtesy of Fig Leaf Forum, an E-mail and print text only newsletter offering fellowship, edification, and encouragement to Bible believing Christian nudists.  This is a great resource for Christian Nudist's, extremely well worth subscribing to.  The FLF site has several sample articles from the newsletter as well as a debate entitled, "Is Social Nudism Condemned By The Bible As Sinful?"  Click on the Fig Leaf Forum logo (at right) to go to the web site.