By Paul Bowman,

(Legal Symposium Speech)

Reprinted with permission of B.E.A.C.H.E.S.

CLICK HERE to view a printable (PDF) version

Twenty years ago, I heard about a natural hot spring in northern Idaho, called Jerry Johnson Hot Springs, that had been used by the local Indians for centuries. It sounded like an idyllic place to visit on a summer weekend, so my wife and I decided to try it. After we were set up at a nearby campground, I took my two-year-old daughter and started on the mile hike up to the hot springs.

To my surprise, when I arrived at the clearing in the forest, there were about forty-five to fifty people scattered over the hillside in small groups at the several hot pools – and almost all were naked! I decided to walk across the hillside to the top of the clearing to peruse this unexpected sight. As I carried my daughter by one of the pools, a college-age girl looked up at us and simply said, “Hi.” I guess I mumbled something appropriate, all the while thinking of the old saying, “What do you say to a naked lady?” One feature of the scene I observed was that it looked much more like the Garden of Eden to me than the Den of Hedonistic Iniquity I had always been taught that open nakedness would bring. I could not see anything untoward; everybody was behaving just as they would if they had all been clothed at a church camp. Clearly, this challenged my Christian education related to nudity.

Being a long-time Evangelical Christian, I did not wish to do anything contrary to Scripture. On the other hand, I am 100% Swedish and I could recall, as a child, envying my cousins back in Sweden because they did not have to wear a cold, clammy bathing suit when they went to the lake or beach. I didn’t think my cousins were hedonistic sexual sinners (and indeed, at least my Swedish relatives aren’t) so, clearly, I needed to study the Church doctrines regarding nakedness a bit more.

That weekend, we did not join the naturist because I needed to be absolutely sure, Biblically, that it was not inconsistent with Christian Scripture. When I got home to my personal library (now approaching 5,000 volumes), my initial study quickly showed that most of the Biblical arguments against nakedness are based on passages that did not directly mention nakedness. This seemed strange, since I believed that it made more sense, in determining a Biblical doctrine, to use first the verses that directly address the matter in question. I knew there were many such passages.

For example, one of the frequently used arguments against nudity is the comment that Jesus made that “Whoever looks upon a woman to lust commits adultery.” The arguement they make is that since seeing a naked woman causes lust, and that’s as good as breaking the seventh Commandment, it is a sin to view a naked person of the opposite sex. This is often combined with St. Paul’s remark that a Christian should do nothing to cause a brother to stumble (from the faith). Since nakedness arouses lust, merely being naked (especially women) is a sin because it is likely to cause a brother to stray from the faith. All of these seemed to me to be based on assumptions that, as a practical matter, were not true. The naked tribes of the South American jungles manage to maintain their society and culture in spite of their nakedness. They did not burn uncontrollably with lust or hedonism, although they may be more openly sexual than Americans. I knew that my Swedish cousins also managed to live reasonably moral lives. Therefore, I decided to begin my Biblical study of nakedness only with Scripture that directly addressed the question of nakedness.

The first mention of nakedness in the Bible comes in the second chapter of Genesis, where it is reported that when God finished creating Man and Woman “the man and his wife were naked and not ashamed.” For a would-be naturist, that’s a pretty good start! One should note, also, that in this passage, “ashamed” is not synonymous with “embarrassed.” The Hebrew word translated as “ashamed” implies more than an internal emotion; it suggests that the feeling should be strong enough to prevent an action.

Finally, God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, clothed them, and then sent them out from the Garden of Eden. However, right on the heels of creation we have the third chapter of Genesis. This is the chapter that relates what is generally known as The Fall of Man, or, simply, The Fall. We all know the story where the serpent comes and tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree; that by doing so she will be like God, knowing good from evil. Soon, Adam ate of the fruit as well, and when they did, “the eyes of both of the were opened and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” Later, in the cool of the day, when they heard God moving in the Garden, they hid so He called to them, “Where are you?”

Adam replied, “I heard the sound of Thee in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked.” Finally, God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, clothed them, and then sent them out from the Garden of Eden. It is often argued, not only in Judeo-Christian theology, but also in Muslim theology, that this shows that Man is obliged by God to wear clothes. There are a few problems with this interpretation, however.

First, the passage says plainly that God came to Adam and Eve in the “cool of the day.” This suggests that, once they left the paradise of the Garden, they would feel the chill if their bodies were naked. By making warm skin garments, God was probably showing His love for them because He knew they would need the garments for warmth. Even more important, God did not simply kick Adam and Eve out into the cold world to fend for themselves. For their sin, He declared several consequences. He told the woman that because of their sin, He would “multiply your pain in childbirth,” yet her sexual “desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” For Adam, God mandated that “In toil you shall eat of your life – thorns and thistles shall grow” in his fields and it would be “by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread.” Finally, they would die. These are the only consequences of their sin that God proclaimed. It seems reasonable that if God deemed clothes to be used as punishment or as a moral necessity, He would have stated that as well.

The shame Adam and Eve felt was not specifically for their nakedness; it was that once they ate of the fruit, their perfect spiritual relationship with God was broken. Sin of any kind always interferes with Man’s spiritual relationship with God. It was because their sin broke their spiritual relationship with God, therefore, that they were ashamed. When that spiritual perfection was broken, Adam and Eve then became aware of their physical dimension and how it conflicted with their spiritual natures. In their failed attempt to conceal the breach in their spiritual relationship with God, they tried to hide their physical dimension. Indeed, one could argue that to insist that people cover their bodies, they are continuing to try to hide an enduring breach of Man’s spiritual relationship with God!

Before continuing, I should comment a little bit on the relationship of shame to nakedness. We have just seen that when Adam and Eve sinned, they became ashamed by their nakedness.

Many times in Scripture, nakedness is associated with shame, and this seems to have caused a lot of confusion among Christian and Jewish theologians. Modern theologians seize on the shame aspect to link it to nakedness to bolster their notion that nakedness is shameful.

What they fail to notice – or at least to emphasize – is that in every Biblical incidence where shame is associated with nakedness, a sin against God has already been committed. The shame is for their sin, not their nakedness. It seems to be human nature, starting with Adam and Eve, to try to cover one’s body to hide the “evidence” of sin. Therefore, God says that He will expose later people’s nakedness to expose the shame of their sin; they cannot hide their bodies to hide their sin any more than Adam and Eve could.

After Adam and Eve, probably the most commonly used Biblical argument to condemn nakedness is the story of Noah . In this story, Noah planted a vineyard and eventually he got drunk. While he was drunk in his tent, he was undressed. Ham, one of Noah’s sons saw him and told his two brothers. The brothers took a garment and, walking backwards into Noah’s tent, they covered their father. The Bible plainly says that they did not see their father’s nakedness.

The simplistic explanation of this situation is that this shows we are not to be naked nor look upon another’s nakedness. Our example is Shem and Japeth, Noah’s sons, because they refused to look at their father’s naked body. If one takes the time to look at the whole story, this makes no sense at all!

In the first place, Noah was naked inside his tent. If one is to take this story as a condemnation of nakedness, they would have to argue that it is even a wrongdoing to be naked within the walls of one’s own home! Some might try to argue that, at least, children should not see their parents naked by following this example. This, too, would be a misinterpretation.

To understand this narration of Noah, his sons and his grandson, Canaan, one must take a close look at the original Hebrew meanings of the word we translate as “naked.” If either the words “arom” or “erom” were used, a case could be made that mere nakedness should not be seen, at least by a person’s children. Arom is the Hebrew word used to describe Adam and Eve’s innocent nakedness while in the Garden of Eden. Erom is the Hebrew word the prophet Ezekiel used in an allegory centuries later to describe the adolescent nakedness portrayed as God’s chosen people.

In the passage describing Noah’s nakedness, however, the Hebrew word used is “ervah.” This word carries the connotation of nakedness connected with indecency or something shameful. Clearly, by the author’s choice of the word ervah, more than simple, innocent nakedness is portrayed in this story of Noah. Let me take a few moments here to make a few observations on the relationship of drunkenness to nakedness. Centuries after Noah, the prophet Habakkuk proclaimed:

Woe to you who make your neighbors drunk,

Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk

So as to look on their nakedness!

You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor

Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness . . .

and utter disgrace will come upon your glory.

In this passage, the word translated as nakedness comes from the Hebrew word “maor”, which refers to the pudendum, or the visible sexual organs. This would suggest that getting someone drunk to get them to remove their clothes is shameful. Jeremiah, in his Lamentation , also connected being bare in relation to drunkenness is something shameful. Therefore, one could argue that Noah’s drunkenness in relationship to his being naked was something reprehensible. When Noah sobered up, and realized what his youngest son had done to him, he cursed Ham’s son, Canaan. It’s possible that Noah cursed Canaan for getting him drunk and exposing his nakedness, but a lifetime, generational curse for such a transgression seems overly harsh. Even more important, the Hebrew word, ervah, used to describe Noah’s nakedness is the same word used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament to describe sexual intercourse or sexual activity.

Of course, the story says Noah was so drunk that he must have fallen asleep – “he awoke from his wine.” This makes it unlikely that he was engaging in sexual intercourse when his two sons walked backwards into his tent to cover him. Still, the words clearly suggest that there was some sexual component to Noah’s nakedness. One Rabbi comments that the word applied in this situation was “used for ‘to take to wife’ in alliances that can never be regarded as ‘marriage’.” However, no woman is mentioned in the account, so it is doubtful that the sexual conduct was heterosexual.

Whatever actually happened to Noah has long been forgotten today. It does seem reasonable to infer, however, that whatever it was happened between Noah and his grandson, Canaan. Perhaps, Noah’s youngest son (Canaan’s father) saw what was happening and reported it to his older brothers. Two possibilities have been suggested to have happened to cause Noah to curse Canaan. They may be sodomy and castration. Both, of course, were soundly condemned in later Israelite Law. At any rate, it should be clear that whatever occurred in this story of Noah, it was strongly tinged with a sexual component. It, clearly, was not innocent, non-erotic nakedness. Therefore, it cannot be used to condemn nakedness per se. One of my favorite Biblical passages that I like to “spring” on so-called Scriptural opponents of nakedness is the story of Isaiah. When a Fundamentalist tries to convince me that God condemns nakedness, I like to set them up for a little surprise. I first ask them if their God ever asks or instructs His people to sin. Of course, they always emphatically say He doesn’t.

If that is true, I inquire of them, why did God command Isaiah to sin? After the King of Assyria had captured a place called Ashdod, God told Isaiah to “go naked and barefoot” for three years! This was to be a sign that even those who fled to Egypt would be led away captive, naked and barefoot, by the Assyrian king.

Therefore, as a faithful servant of God, Isaiah went naked and barefoot a full three years. When it is no longer possible to deny that God said Isaiah...in every Biblical incidence where shame is associated with nakedness, a sin against God has already been committed. The shame is for their sin, not their nakedness. should go naked, the fundamentalists typically seize on the last part that says “the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. . .” This, they say, shows that nakedness is shameful. Again, we find two different Hebrew words used in this short passage. Yes, the word translated as shame is ervah – the Hebrew word that depicts a shameful or sexual nakedness. All the references to merely being naked come from the word arom. This, we have already seen, describes the nakedness of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Thus, both Isaiah and the captive’s nakedness are equated with the nakedness Adam and Eve experienced when they were not ashamed.

The most that could be argued from this passage is that it is shameful to be forcibly stripped naked and led away as captives. However, that has nothing to do with the nakedness within families or as naturists. Also, even if we accept the premise that it is shameful to be forcibly stripped naked, it does not follow that it is also shameful to voluntarily strip naked.

One of the most common arguments against social nakedness is that it is somehow offensive to others who do not wish to see someone else naked. While naturists, as well as anyone else, should always be considerate of other people’s sensibilities, the story of Isaiah shows that there is no Scriptural basis to argue that such consideration is paramount. God certainly would have known that many people would encounter the naked Isaiah; he was to not even wear shoes! Since he was to be naked for three years, surely scores of people would have been faced with his nudity. God would have to be a strange and imperfect deity to order His servant to expose his naked body if it was somehow sinful or immoral. Neither did God offer any provision for those who would somehow be offended.

I’m reminded of a situation I once observed in Vancouver, Canada when I was driving down Marine Drive, one of the main streets in Vancouver. There was a man doing his lunch-hour jog on the sidewalk – totally naked (except, I believe, he did wear running shoes). I don’t know if this was a daily jog or not, but the people along the way merely glanced at him as he ran along. If there was any reaction from the observers, it was an embarrassed smile. The total scene reminded me of Isaiah going naked in his land many centuries ago.

The very fact that God ordered Isaiah to go naked, and that he obeyed God by walking about naked in public for three years should convince even the most anti-nakedness Bible student that public nudity is neither shameful nor offensive. It certainly should convince them at it is not a sin or any kind of immorality. To deny that Isaiah’s nakedness was innocent is to declare that God himself can and will command His servants to sin. Such a notion is preposterous!

Anyone who tries to argue that Isaiah was an exception, and therefore cannot be used to accept public nakedness, needs to be reminded of the other prophets. It was, apparently, somewhat common for God’s prophets to go naked. Saul was the first King of Israel and he temporarily took on the “mantle” of prophet in the first book of Samuel.

Saul was traveling to Naioth in Rama when the Spirit of God came upon him. So, as a prophet, he stripped off his clothes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He was naked all that day and night. When the people saw him, they wondered if King Saul was also one of the prophets.

I probably should point out that the Hebrew word used to describe King Saul’s nakedness is the word arom, the word for innocent, shameless nakedness. It is often argued that after the Fall of Man, the connotation of nakedness changed from one of innocence to one of indecency. If so, the author of this story must have not gotten the message because they used the word for King Saul’s nakedness that refers to innocence, not the other Hebrew words available to depict indecency. It seems from the passage that King Saul was not the only one in that scene who was naked. The text says that King Saul “also” stripped off his clothes, suggesting that there were other prophets present. Since the nakedness of the group of prophets did not seem to be a problem to the spectators, one would suppose that nakedness in that time was rather common. At least, the people paid more attention to the fact that the king was a prophesier than to the fact that he had no clothes!

Next, we have a story of King David dancing naked in the “town square. ” In this situation, the Ark of the Covenant had been held by one of Israel’s enemies and now was being returned to Jerusalem. David was so happy that he met the caravan carrying the ark and as it entered the city, Michael, David’s wife looked out of the palace window to see her husband dancing before the Lord wearing only a linen ephod.

Michael, like many wives today, was scandalized by the sight so when David returned to the palace, she lit into him. “How the King of Israel distinguished himself today! He uncovered himself in the eyes of his servant’s maids as one of the foolish ones shamelessly uncovers himself!” David rebuked her, saying he would be more lightly esteemed and humble in his own eyes, but that with the maidens of whom Michael spoke he would be distinguished.

There can be no mistake in this passage because the Hebrew word translated as “uncovered” is “galah.” This word specifically refers to a genital uncovering. [Often it has a sexual connotation, as well. However, we can assume that David wasn’t having sex since it says he was dancing, although there may have been an erotic overtone to his dance.] The text says he was wearing a linen ephod, one of the priests garments that probably could best be described as the bib or top part of a jumper (without the skirt attached).

Again, from this passage we see that no Scriptural credence is given to those who may be offended by one’s nakedness. Michael’s offense was sternly rebuked. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that if nakedness in a public situation – especially the town square – was against Biblical values that David would have been rebuked, not his wife who claimed to be offended? If we are to take the Bible as our example, it is not the naked one but the one who protested who is going contrary to Scripture. The last verse in this passage also raises an interesting question. It says that Michal had no child to the day of her death. This suggests to me that this verse is inferring that those who cannot cope with nakedness have some kind of sexual hang-up that often prevents pregnancy.

It is no secret that to older children and young adolescents the Sunday sermon is often very boring. Not a few schoolboys – and girls – have taken that opportunity to spice up that time by reading passages from the Song of Solomon! At least, I know that is how it was with my friends – we could look to the congregation like we were following the sermon’s references while being titillated right from the Bible. You can read the wonderful description of the female body given in The Song of Solomon and of the human male body in the same book. These texts include such female descriptions as “your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a Gazelle” and “your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts like its clusters (of fruit).” The male is equally well treated: “his abdomen is carved ivory inlaid with sapphires. . .” I cannot add anything to these descriptions that would be more positive of the naked human body.

In the Old Testament references to nakedness there are several mandates where clothes must be worn.

One such passage relating to the body being covered is in the book of Ezekiel. This text says, “Then you grew up, became tall, and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your (pubic) hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare. Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold you were at the time for love; so I spread my skirt over you and covered your nakedness.”

For an allegory to be effective as a social example, the basic elements must be familiar to the listeners; at least, they must not be so unfamiliar that the lesson loses its effectiveness because of the circumstances described. In this situation, it is clear that the young girl described was naked and bare. Even as an adolescent, the subject of this allegory was naked. Child, and even adolescent, nakedness could not have been too uncommon at that time, then, because if it had been the nakedness of the heroine would have distracted from the lesson of the parable.

This is probably the best Biblical indication that childhood and early adolescent nakedness is not the shocking, dangerous condition we make of it in our society. [I might add that I have written a small book on this subject. What it attempts to do is show how our American obsession with keeping children from being naked or exposed to other's nakedness may be the etiology of all manner of adult sexual perversions and compulsions. Cases can certainly be made that such sexual anomalies as promiscuity, voyeurism, pedophilia and others may be an outgrowth of our society's hysterical fear of childhood nakedness.] In Ezekiel, the nakedness of the growing maiden is translated from the Hebrew erom which means simply “without clothes.”

There is no sexual or negative connotation.

However, when the maiden reaches “the time for love” we find the word describing that nakedness comes from the Hebrew word ervah. This, we have seen, is a Hebrew word for nakedness with a sexual connotation. For that nakedness, the maiden is covered with a blanket or skirt.

The lesson related to nakedness from Ezekiel is clear. The innocent, non-erotic nakedness of a young child or maiden is of no concern from a Biblical point of view. However, when one is ready for love, the sexual nakedness should be covered. I doubt this means that only sex under blankets is morally acceptable; it probably means that sexual activity should be private, behind closed doors.

It may be appropriate to note here that I have also written an extensive history of nakedness in the West. [I've additionally written a complete study of nakedness in other cultures before much exposure to Western values.] Probably the single biggest factor in any society outlawing public or social nakedness is that it tends to degenerate into public sex acts. This was true from the German public baths during the Middle Ages to the English “living statue” exhibitions late in the Nineteenth Century and in many other instances.

This is one area where naturists probably should be able to join forces with our society's Evangelical religious elements. It may not be that many Christian fundamentalist are not afraid of innocent nakedness per se; I would submit that what they really fear is that it will lead to lasciviousness and sexual immorality. From historical experience, they have good reason for their fear. Naturists, it seems, would do well to make it absolutely clear in the public mind that naturism is social nakedness and not erotic nakedness. They should make it categorically clear that they want laws prohibiting, and serious enforcement prosecuting public sex acts. Live erotica, such as nude barroom dancing, which is clearly intended to sexually arouse the viewers probably could be discouraged since it is much more likely to lead to sexual activity than, say, nudists playing volley ball on the beach.

It seems reasonable for one to conclude from this allegory that sexual activity should be covered. Reading further in this passage, we see how God adorned His partner with fine silks, linens, jewelry and a crown. This enhanced her beauty and increased her status to that of royalty. From this, we can deduce that clothes are Biblically legitimate to enhance one's beauty and to indicate social status. Recalling the story of Adam and Eve, where God gave them skins to cover themselves when He cast them out of the Garden into the cool of the evening, we know that clothes are legitimate for protection from the weather as well.

While we can infer from Ezekial that clothes should cover sexual activity, there is no question about the Israelite priests. In the book of Exodus, God commands that the priests must wear certain vestments. Included in these priestly instructions is the specific statement that “you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh; they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs. And they shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter the tent of meeting, or when they approach the alter to minister in the Holy Place. . .”

This is the only case in Biblical Scripture where clothes are commanded to be worn. Let me repeat: there is only one place in the Holy Bible where clothes of any sort are required to be worn. This was specifically for the priests, and then only when they were in the meeting place or temple or when they approached the altar. There is nothing that prevents them – or anybody else – from nakedness in other non-erotic situations or elsewhere.

In a very real way, this helps to complete the Biblical perspective on nakedness. By giving many, many instances of nakedness throughout the whole Bible, it is clear that there is no wholesale Biblical prohibition of nakedness. By giving some instances where the body is to be covered, limits to nakedness are set by God. From this, we can know the parameters of where the Bible's God stands on the issue; we are not left to create our own theology.

From several references in the Bible, death may also have been a time for nakedness. Job, noted for his many tribulations, said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there.” Everyone, of course, is born naked. This verse suggests that it may have been a common practice to be stripped naked in preparation for impending death. The book of Ecclesiastes, which is traditionally ascribed to Solomon, agrees. We have seen that the Bible seems to accept childhood nakedness – that is, before the age of sexual reproduction, children were probably permitted to go naked. From my studies of the ethnography of nakedness, it is certain that many cultures also sanctioned nakedness in people too old for sexual reproduction. It is likely that this practice occurred in ancient cultures, as well. If so, it is possible that Biblical Israel condoned the same practice for elderly people. We certainly know that it is common practice in many cultures to tear one's clothes in mourning the death of a relative. This also was a custom in ancient Israel. Frequently, throughout the Bible, people in great stress tore their clothes. Indeed, for the ancient Israelites, more than tearing of the clothes was needed. Micah said, speaking about a judgment about to fall on his nation, “Because of this I must lament and wail, I must go barefoot and naked; I must make a lament like the jackals and a mourning like the ostriches.”

Notice that Micah said he must go naked and barefoot. It would seem that it was socially expected to go naked during times of great stress or mourning. At any rate, there is no biblical condemnation for nakedness in these situations. There is one last Biblical passage that may touch on nakedness. God told Abraham, “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.” It would seem curious that the very sign of the acceptance of God's covenant with His people would be expected to be fastidiously covered. It is possible that circumcision was to be a concealed sign to oneself, but there is no Biblical indication that it was and no reason to expect so.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

While there are many references to nakedness in the Old Testament, there are only three specific circumstances in the New Testament. There are also a few instances when nakedness is suggested but not directly stated. Finally, there is indication that keeping the body covered is not as high a priority in the Biblical Christian's life as one would expect from today's theology.

“Who is so barbarous as not to understand

That the foot of a man is nobler than his shoe,

And his skin nobler than that of the sheep

With which he is clothed?”

– Michelangelo

The first reference to nakedness is found in the Book of Mark. “And a certain young man was following Him [Jesus], wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked.” Another mention of nakedness comes in the Acts of the Apostles, where some Jewish exorcists were trying to cast out a demon and “the evil spirit leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them so they fled out of the house naked and wounded.” The final example of nakedness is found in the book of John where some of the disciples had been out fishing and Jesus showed up on shore. “. . .And so when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea [to swim to shore].”

One needs to look at all three of these references together to discern an accurate picture of New Testament nakedness. In the first two instances, the nakedness was unexpected. The three people were caught by surprise and fled naked. It should be obvious to the readers that it must not have been the custom to wear an undergarment under their outer robes. Even today, in many Middle Eastern countries, it is often the custom to not wear a second garment under the outer robes.

That they did not customarily wear underclothes does not condone nakedness, of course. The fact that they were surprised and their clothes were removed, leaving them naked, has no bearing on the validity of nakedness in public or in a social situation. We are left, then, with the story of Peter fishing to try to determine the New Testament position on nakedness. Some theologians have argued that Peter was wearing a loin cloth when he removed his garment for fishing. However, if we have two random incidences of his contemporaries having lost their outer robes to be left naked, it is reasonable that this was the custom. Peter, being a part of his culture, undoubtedly did the same. Therefore, when the Bible says that he removed his robe, it is very likely that he was naked. As further evidence, contemporary pictures of Egyptian fisherman show them in complete nakedness as they fished.

Even more important are the words used. The New Testament was translated into English from ancient Greek. The word translated as Peter being “stripped” for work comes from the Greek word “gymnos.” This is exactly the same Greek word translated as naked in the previous two examples. Thus, when one goes back to the original, there is compelling evidence that Peter was completely naked when he fished.

I might add that those who try to argue that he was modestly wearing a loin cloth don't make sense for another reason. The loin cloth would get wet while he was fishing and then he would have had to put on his dry robe over the wet loin cloth. Also, what would be the point of keeping his body covered on a fishing boat with only other men on board?

Because there are no more instances of nakedness in the New Testament, we have to depart from considering direct references to other texts. To continue with Peter, some would wonder why he grabbed his clothes and put them on when he swam to meet Jesus. If he wanted his clothes on shore, which would seem reasonable, it would be a lot easier to swim with them on his body rather than carrying them in one arm. It also could be that Peter, who probably perceived Jesus as divine, would feel that he needed his clothes to approach Jesus, just as the priests needed to be properly covered when they approached God in the holy places of the Temple.

Some light may be shed on this event by another instance during the Last Supper. In this case, “[Jesus] rose from the supper, laid aside his garments; and taking a towel, girded Himself about.” The word translated here as “girded” comes from the Greek word “diazonnumi.” This is the same word used to describe Peter as he put on his garment when he was ready to swim to meet Jesus. The word actually means to tie something around oneself like a belt or a girdle. Therefore, it is likely that both Peter while fishing and Jesus during part of the Last supper were both naked except for a garment or towel tied around their waists.

In neither case does it seem to cause any concern that they were naked except for something tied around their waist. Certainly neither Jesus nor Peter were embarrassed or self conscious since they put themselves in that situation willingly. Also, it seems that it did not arouse any concern among other people who were present in those situations – at lease nothing is mentioned of it.

The New Testament mentions several instance where people removed their clothes, but it doesn't specifically say they were naked. This may mean, however, that nudity was simply understood just as if, today, one wrote that a person removed their undershorts or panties it would be assumed that they would be naked. To discern if this may have been true, we need to take a few moments to consider the clothes worn by New Testament figures.

There are several garments mentioned in the New Testament, but there are only two main items. One is an “outer garment” which is translation from the Greek word “himation” and the other is an “inner garment,” usually translated as coat or tunic, which comes from the Greek “chiton.” The himation is mentioned six times more often in the New Testament than the chiton, suggesting that the himation was much more important.

The chiton was not even owned by everyone. Jesus said, “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none.” Also, it was the less important garment worn by those who did have one. We can see this because Jesus told his disciples not to own two of them. Even those who did own one did not wear it most of the year in that desert-like Mediterranean land. Jesus gave a hint of His attitude toward the necessity of clothing to cover the naked body when he said, “if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.” In this version, “shirt” is translated from chiton and “coat” is translated from himation. Obviously, if a person in Jesus time gave away both his chiton and his himation (that is, both his shirt and coat), he would have been left naked.

I should point out that this passage is really concerned with how people deal with each other, not with nakedness. By saying that it is better to be left without one's clothes than to treat someone unfairly, Jesus certainly placed human relations far above the need to cover they body. In other words, righteousness is more important than covering the naked body.

We can take a look at a few more Biblical reports of people removing their clothes. Probably the best known was when a young man named Saul, who later became known as St. Paul, witnessed the stoning death of the apostle Stephen. Those who stoned Stephen “laid aside their robes (himation) at the feet” of Saul.

Another instance was when a blind beggar, Bartimaeus, was healed by Jesus. He, “casting aside his cloak (himation).” jumped up and came to the Lord to be healed. If the himation was the only garment worn by most people at that time, it is very likely that when they removed their cloaks they were left naked. That being true, it is interesting that their nakedness was not mentioned. It must have been fairly common. The Biblical account of what we now call Palm Sunday presents another interesting sight. It left a pastor-friend at a church I used to attend scratching his head and sighing, “This is not how I ever envisioned Jesus' entry into Jerusalem!” The disciples, when they secured a donkey for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem, placed their garments on the back of the donkey as a sort of saddle.

Then, when Jesus rode through the city, most of the people spread their garments on the road before Him. In both cases, the garments are translated from the word himation. Since many of the people did not own an undergarment (the chiton), and those who did wouldn't wear them unless it was cold, it is very likely that most of the people watching Jesus ride through the city were naked. It should be noted, also, that the people then viewed Jesus as a sort of king entering the city; they may have specifically removed their clothes to show their subservience to Him.

There are several other incidents we could cover. Jesus told his disciples to not be worried about having enough food or clothes. St. Paul asked if nakedness, among other things, could remove the believer from the love of Christ. He also “boasted” about his suffering and nakedness for Christ's sake. In a third incidence, St. Paul described the Church as a human body, saying that one part (even the unseemly parts) was no more honorable than any other – all are needed to make up a complete human or Church body.

What can we conclude, then? When a careful study of actual, or even allegorically illustrated, nakedness in the Holy Bible is completed, the notion that the state of being naked in a public situation is unscriptural is simply unfounded. It may be argued that such nakedness is unchristian (at least, as Christianity is defined today), but such an argument can be made only to the extent that objective Biblical accounts of nakedness are either ignored or distorted. If nakedness is unchristian, it is only because the Church has developed a theology apart from the Bible truthfully teaches.

NAKED BEFORE GOD: CHRISTIAN NATURISTS HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE

Many consider nudist resorts the anti-church and, of course, orgy central: hotbeds of lust where loose women, exhibitionists, hedonists, perverts, child predators and the like assemble to roll around in a big stinky pile of sin and vulgarity. And they can’t see how good Christians could fit in—or why they’d even want to try.

On this weekend, more than 20 members of the Christian Nudist Convocation (CNC) gather at Cherokee Lodge nudist park near Crossville, Tennessee. The CNC crowd has gathered to take notes, talk scripture, and to prep fortified biblical explanations for naysayers who think that God would never sanction social nudity. They do, in fact, believe God led them here—to their own Garden of Eden. For the most part, the morning’s conversation is typical church talk: they were created in God’s image, and what he made was very good. Jesus died for their sins, and so on.

Then they get into this summer’s Christian nudist theme, the stuff that they’ve been reading in the stream-of-consciousness posts that CNC organizer Boyd Allen has plastered on his website. “But of course we cannot possibly continue in this life perfectly without sin,” one post reads. “Then what do we do? We grab the nearest bush and hide from God, right? No, no, no.... That was what Adam and Eve did, remember? We don’t want to do that again!”

Allen continues, “We run to God as we are and ask him to forgive us and not just cover our sins but to wash them away and we will be clean spiritually. Jesus [the] Christ washed away our sins.... We have been restored to our original state to where we can come to God in the garden, walk and talk with him ‘just as I am.’ Then why do we still insist that our bodies are shameful?”

But wasn’t it God who clothed Adam and Eve? If the eye rolling and the groans are any indication, the CNC’s Saturday morning congregation has heard plenty of that before.

As Allen puts it, all God says to a fig-leaf-laden Adam and Eve in Genesis is: who told you that you were naked, and have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? “Whoa here,” Allen writes. “That sounds more like he was displeased with their discovery. Now we all know that God did indeed clothe them, but was that to cover their naked bodies in shame, or was it to protect them in their new environment?”

The CNCers adhere to the latter. Nudity is righteous, but at certain temperatures, cavorting without your pants on becomes a little silly. Today, as the session drones on in the sticky heat, even Kevin leads worship totally nude, baring an upper body shaved to appear near prepubescent.

It’s apparent that if the CNCers lack anything, it’s body shame. They adjust themselves in plastic patio chairs that leave horizontal marks between their shoulder blades. Some are squished so tightly into the dirty seats that their flesh presses into the armrests and spills over the sides.

Kevin’s gone through the Bible and marked every reference to nakedness, give or take a few. He talks about how God spoke to Isaiah and told him to walk barefoot and unclothed. How Peter fished naked near the shores of Galilee. And how Jesus was nude when he washed the feet of his disciples. “But there’s nothing in there that says nudity is inherently wrong,” he says. For much of the weekend, their dialogue centers on such nude biblical references. If anything, the group would be hard-pressed to understand why an outsider might find it offensive. With his freckled face and eyebrows so blond they’re near invisible, Boyd Allen looks a little like an overgrown Opie. It’s fitting for a country boy who grew up on a 40-acre farm in Florida.

When Boyd was 13, he gave into a simple, compelling urge that burned inside him: he needed to be naked. He would undress and sneak off into the woods to run and explore. It wasn’t what a good Christian boy living in a strict household was supposed to do. So he didn’t tell anyone.

Nearly a quarter of a century later, he picked up a book about family naturism in a bookstore. “It was what I was thinking, what I was feeling, and I thought, ‘This is beautiful,’ ” he says. He marched over to the magazine section and flipped through an issue of Nude & Natural. He came back a month later for the new issue, where he found some biblical talk about nudism. “I bought the magazine and started looking up the scriptures. I started writing my thoughts down because it was beginning to flood my head. I just kept writing on and on.”

It’s that zeal that helped him become the CNC’s new leader. He was elected to take the helm when the convocation last convened a couple of years ago at White Tail Resort in Virginia. CNC creator and nudist humor author Allen Parker started the CNC in 2003 to unite a handful of Christian nudist resort chapels with the hope that they’d confederate and start churches in nudist resorts across the country. Instead, he says the CNC morphed into what it is today—more of a social outing, a place for meeting, greeting and fellowship time.

Today, Allen’s 4-year-old daughter darts from tent to tent at the CNC campsite, just as happy as she can be. Allen’s wife, Gwin, grills hamburgers and hot dogs for the group cookout. This is the family life of Boyd’s dreams—a wife who disrobed before he did at their first visit to a nudist resort outside of Greensboro, N.C., and a daughter who can run free and nude, without the shame and secrecy that marred his childhood jaunts. But the family’s nudist life hasn’t been all that easy. Boyd doesn’t talk much about their struggle to stay nude and happy. But Gwin does.

She sits at the picnic table, her cookout duties complete, and talks about how Boyd would move the family to Cherokee tomorrow if he could. It would certainly make nudity easier, but Gwin isn’t prepared to isolate her family from friends and relatives who’d never step foot in such a place.

It’s not that they live in secret. Most of their neighbors know.

It’s difficult to convince people that subjecting a child to so much nudity doesn’t make you a pervert. Just ask Cameron Bennett. This is his first CNC, and he’s brought his wife and two kids along for the ride. After all the hell they’ve been through with their home church, they’re considering joining the Little Church in the Wildwood. They attended the Church of Antioch until Cameron got candid about their lifestyle. He told his Bible study group that he attended worship service at a nudist park, and things quickly began to change. He tried to volunteer in the church’s nursery but was turned away. “I was urged during the business meetings, ‘Don’t volunteer anymore. The ladies are nervous—they don’t want you in there,’ ” he says. “They were afraid that I was going to molest a child. He withdrew his membership from the church and asked God to lead the way. He found the CNC. “Maybe this is where I return to the Lord...,” he says.

Soul Man Boyd Allen, the group’s fearless leader, takes to the pulpit at the Little Church in the Wildwood.

Cameron and others believe children are natural nudists. They think that kids, much like Adam and Eve, should be free to run nude through the garden, to live their lives without knowing shame—that it would take Satan, or a prudish parent, to plant the idea of shame into their hearts and minds.

A pack of CNC kids run around the resort, fighting over Thomas the Tank Engine and playing with flashlights. Except for the occasional pair of pull-up training pants, they’re nude. They scribble with pink sidewalk chalk that smears across their rears and bellies. No one cares if the kids get dirty. They’ll get hosed off later.

And they appear to be very, very happy. They don’t seem to notice anyone’s nakedness—especially their own. CNC parents think these kids will be better-adjusted adults for it. They subscribe to the mantra that nudism demystifies the body, satiates curiosity about the opposite sex, curbs premarital sex and combats poor body image in children. Many of the CNC women wish they’d had such a childhood. They huddle together in a corner of the pavilion for a women’s-only session and gab about everything from their own bouts with bad body image to uncomfortable bras and The Tyra Banks Show. Most were lured into the nudist lifestyle by their husbands. Myra Moore, who is married to Kevin, says her husband’s desire to explore the nudist community floored her.

It took six months to get Myra to a resort, but Kevin didn’t push. He knew it was delicate. Myra was molested at age 6, and had lingering issues with her body. “He was caring enough and he was Christian enough to think about me and what I’d been through,” she says. “He waited until I was ready, and he showed me how to trust him, trust in God and go to a resort.” Another woman chimes in. She was molested from age 3 to 11 and dreaded being nude around her husband. When she agreed to dabble in social nudity on her delayed honeymoon, she was terrified. “When I got there, I saw that the people weren’t looking at me as a piece of meat; they treated me just like if I was wearing clothes—in fact, better than that. They just accepted you for you. It’s really actually helped me in many, many ways.... I can be around my house nude, around my husband nude and it doesn’t bother me. It’s done a lot of healing.”

All of the CNC women nod. The nudity-as-a-healer theme is a common one. The CNC women agree that the nudist resort is one of the few places where they aren’t judged by the size of their breasts or the style of their clothes.

They consider themselves to be a modest bunch. It’s the other women, the clothed ones with cascading cleavage and push-up bras—the ones with the lustful “look at me” intentions—who are immodest, they say. They know that many a Christian would find the nudist idea of modesty laughable. And all of those claims about nudity for the sake of body acceptance? They know some would say they’re twisting the scripture to justify their desire to let their goodies out for all to see.

But at Cherokee, no one seems to be looking. The CNCers give good eye contact because it’s considered poor form to look down. When Kevin asks the congregation where lustful thoughts come from, several of the women say Satan. “The Book of James says it comes from within our own heart. You’re making it someone else’s problem if you’re saying you can’t be naked because it’s going to generate lustful thoughts in me. You’re putting your own weaknesses on them.” They believe that not all nudity is created equal. It’s a notion that’s difficult for most in our sex-soaked society to comprehend, they say. If the only time we’re exposed to nudity is in a sexual context, then we’ll think that bare bodies at a nudist resort must be sexual.

The CNCers don’t see clothes as lust deterrents. Even Gwin confessed to the women’s group that she has “always found that clothing, if it drapes on a man just right, is more provocative than 100 naked men.” See, they think of their lifestyle as “chaste nakedness.” They’ve got Jesus in their hearts. When Lonnie Kimble, a CNC newbie, straps on his acoustic guitar (and nothing else), it’s an image ripe for the cover of a romance novel. He plays “Jesus Loves Me” at the morning sermon, probably without an ounce of lust in his heart. He’s got the toned, beach body of a surfer, with tousled, sun-bleached waves that tease his broad shoulders. He looks like Jesus with a tan and access to modern grooming.

The place is virtually sexless. And the folks at Cherokee Lodge want it that way. The rule sheets disbursed at check-in offer these warnings: no dirty dancing, lap dancing, lingerie or overt sexual behavior. There’s even a surveillance camera in the hot tub.

This is no swingers club either. If it were, Rick, CNC’s resident disco-dancing bachelor, wouldn’t have it. He does admit that, during a prior Cherokee visit, one woman started talking dirty in the hot tub. He reported her to management and she was banned from the resort. “There are singles clubs. But if you want something like that, go to Nashville or Knoxville, OK?” he says. “But it’s not here at Cherokee.... That’s not what nudists are here for.”

Even without the hot sex (and with all that self-policing), the Jacuzzi is still nudist Mecca. To an outsider, the thought of steeping in a tub where swimsuits are strictly disallowed with a whole slew of sweaty strangers is unappetizing. But to the CNCers, it’s just another tool in their master plan to proselytize the nudies.

“To most Christians, this resort would be the end of the world.... To me, it’s Jerusalem. It’s our own backyard,” Kevin says. He calls nudists modern-day lepers who “most Christians don’t want to touch with a 10-foot pole.” Enter the hot tub. The Bible describes God’s voice as quiet, Kevin tells the congregation. When nudists aren’t at the resort, they’re at home with the kids, the TV and all that noise. “You can’t hear God as easily. Here, you can hear a little more.” And in the Jacuzzi, they’re relaxed and easier to approach.

When Kevin burns through his long list of biblical references to nudity, some of the CNCers take notes. Sure, they’re here to get closer to God. But, at the heart of it, they know they have lots of explaining to do. “We have a calling to teach the average Christian that naked does not equal bad,” he says. But they all know that’s a tough row to hoe. For now, they’d rather gather an arsenal of explanations they can use to tell nudists why God sanctions social nudity. That night, God put that atheist in the hot tub, and the crew channeled Kevin—and all that scripture—and gave it their best. There’s no telling if it worked. Come Sunday morning, the CNCers can’t even remember the man’s name.

The nude bodies filter into the chapel. They arrange their towels on the pews and settle in for service. Kimble has just slipped his guitar strap off his shoulder after leading the fellowship in singing “Amazing Grace” and “Awesome God.” The baritone voices rocked the rough pews into vibration, and everyone’s in the mood for some more soul shaking.

Pete starts his sermon so hard and loud, it’s frightening. Soon he’s howling, “You don’t have to be afraid of God anymore!” And you’re afraid. He rants in dramatized near-delirium about “Jeee-zus!” and his “guh-lory.” Before long, you’re begging him to breathe, and he does sporadically, with the deep grasping breaths of a swimmer emerging from the water.

It rings true for Pete. When God drew him to the nudist ministry, the former heathen head banger was ready. “I really feel that God laid this on my heart, that this is a ministry that he wanted me to do,” he says. “You know, of all the missionary-type endeavors to do—some people get sent to Africa, some people get sent to South America—and the Lord was like, ‘I want you to go to nudist resorts.’ And I’m like, ‘Wow, what an assignment.’ Aren’t I the lucky one, you know?” “God especially wanted me to tell you this morning to remember that you were created in his image,” Pete tells the churchgoers as he gets into the same we’re-not-ashamed-of-what-God-created spiel the group has been pushing all weekend. They end the service in prayer, asking God to claim the nameless, hot tub atheist for the kingdom. To extend Cherokee’s borders and to increase the Little Church’s anointed. And then they pray for their nude brothers and sisters who will be continuing the Lord’s work the next weekend as the convocation moves on to Show Me Acres nudist resort, a little slice of heaven about two hours outside of Kansas City, Mo.

Some CNCers begin to dress outside of the open doors to their modest cars—one marked with the license plate “NKD B4GD”—as a few fat, stray raindrops find their way to the group’s naked skin. Many of the men dress in the same pair of clothes they arrived in. In fact, it’s all that most of the men packed. That and a towel. The women climb into the passenger seats, reluncantly clothed but without a bra if they can help it. And they’ll ride that way, all the way home—where they’ll quickly disrobe and once again feel free.

NUDE AWAKENING:

The Religious Right's Plot Against Nudism in America

By David Scott, April 23, 2005

SCNA welcomes our members to submit their opinions on the news of the day. The opinions expressed here are those of Mr. Scott and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other club members or of its Board of Directors. Persons with a different point of view are welcome to submit their own commentary for publication and public discussion. Reprinted with permission.

Some of you may be thinking, “well duh.” Everybody knows that, right? Remarkable as it may seem, more naturists than you might realize believe that it is the “liberals” who occupy Congress and state legislatures who are the enemies of individual freedom, and believe that the politically conservative “New Right” is the champion of liberty: the embodiment of everything good, free, and American.

Conservative politics and conservative federal judges, they say, are the road to “less government” and “individual freedom.”

Appealing words to a naturist, especially when these people claim to be guardians of the Constitution. In my younger, politically naive years, I even fell for them myself.

But they are wholly and entirely false.

The purpose of this article is twofold. For those misled by talk radio and the like, this report is intended to dispel that belief, decisively, in the words of “conservative” and “pro-family” groups themselves. And for those who already know the truth, this report can serve as practical documentation and substantiating evidence.

The sad truth is that, unlike most Americans, most Religious Right and ultraconservative groups have not learned one single thing about body acceptance in the last fifty years. To them, the human body is still “obscene,” “indecent,” or “immoral.” To them, “pluralism” is just as dirty a word. And it is the state’s job to oppress it. Unbelievable, archaic, but true.

MEDIEVAL "MORALITY" IS ALIVE AND WELL

Take these words from the Citizens For Community Values which is based, not surprisingly, in Cincinnati, Ohio:

“Soft-Core" pornography is "mere nudity" which is protected by the First Amendment. "Soft-Core" pornography is not prosecuted by law enforcement even though it is more harmful than hard-core pornography.”

(Citizens for Community Values, Pornography)

There you have it. Mere nudity is, to them, “more harmful” than hardcore pornography.

Disagreeing about the application of the First Amendment, interestingly, is the Christian Coalition of New Mexico, which stated at its Web site (that no longer exists at time of writing):

“Although difficult if not impossible to prohibit pornography on a national basis ..., individual communities should be provided the legal right to set limits based on majority consensus on its definition. There is no reason to presume that nudity is protected by the Constitution.” (Christian Coalition of New Mexico, Pornography)

Focus on the Family magazine writer Tom Neven wrote:

“And while you can still find a lot of windmills and such, the moral fortitude that distinguished the Dutch The Religious Right's Plan Against Nudism in America Resistance is sadly lacking in 21st century Holland. Consider that full nudity is common on Dutch television after 9 p.m....”

( Tom Neven, The Low Country Sinks Lower)

And last and probably worst, read the American Family Association’s infamous direct attack on naturists, particularly Christian naturists, on February 26, 2001:

“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.”

(Paul Chaney, American Family Association, AFA Offends “Christian” Nudists)

This is quite indicative, in my opinion, of an uncharitable and disrespectful attitude toward Christians with theological differences — a selfrighteousness that can never be trusted at the

DEEPLY RESENTFUL OF PERSONAL FREEDOM

It isn’t just the human body that they fear. A seething resentment of individual choice, i.e., autonomy, runs pervasively through most. Indeed, Theonomists (examined further below) often contrast the term “theonomy” against “autonomy” as being its opposite and its only real alternative.

Family Research Council, the political organization closely tied to Focus on the Family, published this in the June 1995 issue of Family Policy:

“The most stunning part of the [Beijing Women’s Conference] Platform is its pronouncement that women have a 'human right' to control their own reproduction.”

(Ellen Lukas, Family Policy, “Beijing’s Aftermath”, Family Research Council, June 1995 )

Yes, shamefully, this was written by a woman. And in case you’re curious, the above is not referring to abortion.

James Dobson writes the following, again in his July 1996 letter to supporters:

“Tragically, the words written by Supreme Court Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in the Casey decision stand in stark contrast to that historic acknowledgment of God. They said, ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”

Liberty of conscience is a “tragedy”? Telling...

MEDIEVAL POLITICS ALSO ALIVE AND WELL

Just when most Americans have come to take their Constitutional freedoms for granted, and to rest assured that the religious persecutions by despotic sectarian governments are part of America’s fading colonial past, the truth is quite the opposite: The Dark Ages are very much alive, very healthy indeed, and are already disturbingly influential in American politics, including Congress and state legislatures.

Take the following January 1997 article from the Christian Coalition of Brevard County, Florida: “A Christian nation is based on the principle that civil government ought to be founded on the moral laws found in the Bible....This is the true path to building a Christian nation. We should not advocate an ecclesiocracy - a nation run by the Church, but a theocracy - a nation ruled by God and God's laws.”

(Jay Rogers, Christian Coalition of Brevard County)

And in July 1996, Focus on the Family president James Dobson wrote in his letter to supporters: “In effect, the scriptural principles which our founding fathers incorporated must again be brought to bear on every aspect of life, including education, government and law.” The Conservative Caucus asks this in a questionnaire to Virginia gubernatorial candidates: “LAWS SHOULD REFLECT BIBLICAL REALITY"

Q3. Do you fully support your state's statutes criminalizing homosexual conduct?”

In their own words, spokespersons of some pretty high profile political organizations have explicitly stated that “Biblical law” should be civil laws as well, to be imposed upon everyone. So, what would “Biblical law” look like in civil government? Opinions differ, but they differ more in the means of punishment than in the criteria for what to criminalize or oppress.

AT THE IDEOLOGICAL CORE: THE MOST EXTREME p> The best place to establish proof that most Religious Right groups are extremely hostile to individual freedom is to start with the ideology of their most extreme faction: the Christian Reconstructionists. Other terms that they use to identify themselves are “Theonomists,” or less frequently, “Puritans.” Yes, there are self-styled Puritans today, every bit as regressive as the Puritans whose intolerance for theological differences among themselves splintered them throughout colonial America during the 17th century.

DEFINING THE "THEONOMISTS"

The Theonomists are the full-scale Taliban wing of the Religious Right. In the words of Jay Rogers, now quoted for the second time, “We are not looking for a "voice a the table" nor are we seeking "equal time" with the godless promoters of pornography, abortion, safe-sodomy subsidies, socialism, etc. We want them silenced and punished according to God's Law-Word....“We want civil government to punish evil doers according to biblical sanctions. We want all moral laws of the Old Testament to be enforced according to biblical standards... . “Capital crimes against the family include rebellion to parents, homosexuality and adultery. “ (Jay Rogers, Theonomy FAQ)

An important key phrase is “God’s Law-Word.” This unusual term is seldom used by anyone other than Theonomists. Remember it as you read this report. Other unusual key terms usually used mainly by Theonomists, as well as non-Theonomist proponents of a somewhat less extreme religious regime, are the “dominion mandate” and “cultural mandate.” Based on a strained interpretation of Genesis 1:28 in the Bible, it basically means “seek to control the world.”

The leading Reconstructionist think tank is California’s Chalcedon Foundation (www.chalcedon.edu). Founded by the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon is, in its own words, “an educational institution. It supports the efforts of Christians and Christian organizations to implement the vision of Christian civilization.”

The foundation’s journal, the Chalcedon Report, is comprehensive and lists among its contributing authors some disturbingly familiar names: Larry Pratt, who heads Gun Owners of America; Howard Phillips, heading the Conservative Caucus and the inaccurately named political party “the Constitution Party”; and Gary North, originator of many of the societal collapse scenarios that some feared would accompany Y2K.

Not surprisingly, Chalcedon leaders tend to have little sympathy for naturists. Contributor Rev. William Einwechter wrote this simultaneous slam at naturists and pluralism in October 1998:

“For Monsma, true liberty requires the state to be religiously neutral and to enforce a pluralistic order that allows for "mosques as well as churches, nudist camps as well as Bible camps, hateful, racist literature as well as the writings of a C. S. Lewis or a Martin Luther King, Jr."

(William Einwechter, Chalcedon Report)

BIZARRE BELIEFS EMBRACED BY MANY

Human beings are totally unable to desire God; they instead “hate God with every fiber of their being.” Only God, if and when he chooses, can regenerate one from this state of “total depravity.” Some argue that infants are born already hating God. God has chosen since the beginning of time whom he will save and regenerate; they are referred to as the “Elect.” The remainder are condemned to Hell, unable to even want to follow God.

People who are not “Christian” (as they define it) are utterly incapable of understanding anything spiritual or theological (1 Corinthians 2:14, misinterpreted). In other words, they need not listen to anyone outside their circles. Even this highly critical article was written by a “nobody” whose ideas matter nothing to them.

Many, perhaps most believe that God deliberately arranged for Adam and Eve to sin, a doctrine called “supralapsarianism.” God planned it, indeed forced it, even though Adam and Eve must nevertheless suffer the punishment for it.

Needless to say, these are not your ordinary churchgoing people. Neither do they fit the stereotype of the uneducated backwater hick. One such person, astoundingly and scarily enough, is a real nuclear physicist. Many are physicians. Some are philosophy professors in accredited universities. Extremely theologically learned, their devotion to Biblical study is unparalleled in fervor. Failing to see the forest because of the trees, this intense scrutiny has led to has led to some shocking interpretations like those listed above. Indeed, such views are very controversial within Christendom itself and are often vehemently criticized by other Christian sects. The fact that these are not ordinary Christian ideas suggests that these people are unlikely to be your ordinary political leaders as well. Bizarre beliefs tend to lead to bizarre government, especially when they feel they don’t have to listen to anyone else.

THREE ROADS TO DOMINION

To be fair to the Reconstructionists, they are by no means unanimous behind any plan to unleash a religious dictatorship from a mighty central government. While some Religious Right organizations do favor using the heavy hand of federal government when the opportunity beckons, two other methods are more prominent.

Many seek to grant unrestricted power to state and/or local governments; far-right legal scholars envision a plan that would allow states and localities to disregard the entire Bill of Rights. Touted as “state sovereignty,” what they mean by “limited government” is a federal government stripped of its power to rectify state-perpetrated injustices. This state-nation tactic has wide appeal among non-Reconstructionist political oppressors (and some misguided Libertarians) as well. More on that later.

Others, somewhat surprisingly, are political Libertarians. Enchanted with Libertarian goals such as dismantling public education, Libertarian Reconstructionists believe that their worldview will eventually prevail once public schools that aid and abet “evil, antinomian” ideas like respect and tolerance are eliminated. In it for the long haul, these Reconstructionists envision achieving a Theonomic society only when a majority of our citizens learn to want one — an ethical if undesirable strategy.

TRACING THE INFLUENCE

As we proceed to identify Theonomy’s organizational bases, we can trace the influence of Reconstructionism to some surprisingly high and influential places in United States politics. It is important to remember, however, that not every individual or organization with Reconstructionist ties agrees with full implementation of Old Testament moral law. But that disclaimer does not likely make them any less dangerous to individual freedom.

INFLUENCE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Forget the “stealth tactics” of the early 1990s; Republican Party machinery in the 21st century is falling into the increasingly firm grip of 11th century ideology. Here are just a few facts:

Another Chalcedon contributing author, John Stoos, is a Republican political strategist, forrmer vicepresident of the now-theocratic California Republican Assembly (CRA), contributor to CRA’s California Republican newspaper, and served as Chief Consultant for Republican state senator Tom McClintock (R-CA).

The California Republican Assembly’s statement of beliefs is explicitly sectarian and hints at theocracy:

(CA Republican Assembly, What We Believe)

Conspicuously absent from its “Inalienable Rights” paragraph, however, is another right that the Declaration of Independence says is given by our Creator: the right to “pursuit of happiness.”

The National Federation of Republican Assembles (www.nf-ra.org) follows a similar religious platform. Another Reconstructionist organization, the National Reform Association (www.natreformassn.org) is long-standing and is currently staffed by many of the same people found in other Reconstructionist groups.

Republican Congressman Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and state representative Samuel Rohrer (R-Berks, PA) cancelled November 16 speaking engagements at a National Reform Association conference, after receiving negative media attention, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Then there is the Center for the Advancement of Paleo-Orthodoxy (http://capo.org), based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Listing several Reconstructionists among its fellows, one Senior Fellow listed is none other than Marvin Olasky, currently popular author and former advisor to President Bush. Finally, it’s hard not to notice that Religious Right groups almost unanimously support Republican political candidates.

IN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

If you are looking for a who’s who among Religious Right activists, look no farther than Coalition on Revival (http://reformation.net). COR’s home page promotes (here’s that term again) the “cultural mandate.”

Only slightly less explicit in its Theonomic intent, COR document The Christian World View of Law states in paragraph 26, “We affirm that principles expressed in the Old Testament, whether or not repeated in the New Testament, apply to civil law today unless those principles are limited by their immediate context or by other scriptures to circumstances not existing today, or unless those principles are abrogated by subsequent scripture”

Signers of the 1986 Manifesto for the Christian Church include leaders of such Religious Right organizations as Jerry Rieger (President, Family Research Council, 1986), Donald Wildmon (President, American Family Association), D. Jame Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries), Colonel Doner (Christian Action Network); well-known creationscience leaders Richard Bliss (Institute for Creation Research) and Duane Gish (Institute for Creation Research and public debater), and Reconstructionist leaders such as the late Rousas J. Rushdoony (Chalcedon Foundation), and Gary DeMar (American Vision).

Other noteworthy facts: American Family Association of Ohio’s home page (www.afaohio.org) links directly to Coalition on Revival website materials, and the co-chair of COR’s Law Committee is none other than Michael Farris, President of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

TO PACK A KANGAROO COURT

If Religious Right groups are indeed extremely hostile to personal freedom (and I hope I have demonstrated this indisputably), then one logical tactic toward curtailing it would be to disable or corrupt the American people’s last line of lawful defense against despotic goverment: the Constitution and the federal courts.

The truth is yes, indeed, Religious Right groups, every one of them, have made it a top priority to pack the federal courts with “bad cops” disdainful of individual freedom and the Constitution of the United States.

Go to any Religious Right organization’s Web site, and it’s on front page after front page: “Bush’s judicial nominations,” “judges,” “judges,” and more judges. This is nothing short of a full scale drive to sabotage our last legal recourse against government injustice.

And, they appear to have a cooperative White House. On November 20th, Tim Goeglein, from the White House Office of Public Liaison, told the Free Congress Foundation (an organization that advocates giving immense power to government) that one of the President’s “three main goals” is appointing “good judges” (sic) to the bench.

HERE COMES THE JUDGE

President Bush has promised to appoint “strict constructionists” to the federal courts. He has pointed to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a model for strict constructionists.

But to anyone who understands Constitutional law, their “strict constructionism” is selective, convenient and self-serving rather than consistent and principled. Antonin Scalia himself opines in the Supreme Court’s Erie v. Pap decision: "The traditional power of government to foster good morals ( bonos mores ), and the acceptability of the traditional judgment (if Erie wishes to endorse it) that nude public dancing itself is immoral, have not been repealed by the First Amendment. "

There it is, in his own words: unconstitutionally vague and sometimes subjective ideas such as “good morals” should be good enough “cause” for government to override our Constitutional rights. A consistent strict constructionist would fantasize no such poorly-defined exception to the First Amendment.

It may be confusing at first to hear far-right advocates speak approvingly of “freedom” and “liberty,” when it seems that all of their energy is directed against freedom and liberty.

The explanation is that they have most peculiar (and self-contradictory and incoherent) definition of “freedom.” Religious Right idol justice Robert Bork writes in Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law (sound familiar?):

“The liberty to make laws is what constitutes a free people. The makers of our Constitution... provided wide powers to representative assemblies and ruled only a few subjects off limits by the Constitution.”

Peculiar idea of “freedom,” indeed, one that no sane person’s common sense would suspect. This means, in effect, “the liberty to take away people’s freedoms is what constitutes a free people.” Clearly selfcontradictory.

Perhaps this confusion might explain the seemingly impossible yet unexpectedly common phenomenon of “Libertarians for Bork” — which makes about as much sense as “Anarchists for Stalin.”

Or perhaps more likely, their extreme aversion to central government has lured them into welcoming the Trojan horse of dual federalism and “state sovereignty” — apparently believing that state government is much more trustworthy than the federal government.

And a deadly Trojan horse it is. In the words of two of state sovereignty’s proponents:

“If in fact the framers of the [14th] Amendment intended to apply the Bill of Rights against the states, why didn’t any of them say so?..."It is not clear precisely what would follow from Amar’s effort to revivify the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Here is a question to ponder: If, as Professor Amar insists, that clause incorporated the Bill of Rights and gave us the modern conception of individual liberty...”

(Michael Uhlmann, First Things, “Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction,”)

“The incorporation doctrine, a fantasy in any case, reaches its height of absurdity and impropriety when applied to the religion clauses."

For readers who are not Constitutional scholars, “incorporation doctrine” above refers to the enforcement of the Bill of Rights against state-level violations of it.

WHAT’S IN A NAME? SOMETIMES, PLENTY

I was already suspicious when President Bush abolished the role of the American Bar Association in reviewing possible judicial nominations, a move that looks strangely like abolishing the American Medical Association’s role in the medical profession.

But the group that President Bush has de facto chosen to replace the ABA’s role ought to come as no surprise at all if you have been digesting this article:

The Federalist Society. Its members range from honest conservative legal theorists who make some valid points, to unscrupulous agenda-driven extremists, and everything in between. However, the co-chairmen of its Board of Visitors are the aforementioned Robert Bork as well as Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. Among its other board members are Edwin Meese, whom Ronald Reagan appointed to head up the Meese Commission’s kangaroo “study” of pornography that culminated in 1986. Befitting frenetic bodyphobia, Meese once supported a bill that would have made it a federal crime to sell a minor a magazine that showed an uncovered female breast.

(As I was saying, these people have not learned one single thing about human body acceptance.) Skewed thinking tends to produce skewed “studies.”

But prudery of some of its leaders aside, one overarching philosophy of the Society is, to varying extents, insulate state governments from federal “interference.” In fairness, not all Society members advocate excusing states from honoring the Bill of Rights, but the idea is definitely kicked around. Richard Willard writes in the Society’s Criminal Law newsletter:

“There are also many ways in which federal law intrudes on the criminal justice system at the state level, including: the incorporation doctrine, which makes the Bill of Rights apply to state courts... I believe that all of these laws should be reformed in order to allow greater authority to the states.”

FACING THE FACTS

The facts are there. The pieces fit. The musty motive makes sense. And it has been documented above. Fact: Religious Right political groups are as intensely bodyphobic today as fifty years ago. Incredible as it sounds, to them the human body is still “obscene” and “immoral.”

Fact: Religious Right groups likewise tend to be intensely resentful of individual freedom. To varying degrees, they still believe that their version of their religion should take the form of civil law.

Fact: A true “American Taliban” indeed exists. Theonomic Christian Reconstructionism boasts a comprehensive theological framework and exerts disproportionate influence in both the Republican Party and in Religious Right groups.

Fact: One obstacle that stands between personal freedom and theocratic government microregulation of our personal lives is the United States Constitution.

Fact: Like any law or laws, the Constitution is only as good as the judges who rule upon it and enforce it. To cripple the Constitution without openly abolishing it, one must pack the courts with agenda-driven judges who have little to no regard for Constitutional rights and individual liberties.

Fact: Religious Right groups, every Religious Right group, have made it a top, foremost, paramount priority to see to it that the federal courts are indeed packed with such Constitutional scofflaws.

Fact: There exists today a cooperative White House that has discarded the advice of the American Bar Association regarding judicial nominations in favor of that of a cabal of legal theorists who tend to be much more sympathetic to state government power than to individual rights.

These are the facts, no if, ands, or butts.. But if you don’t believe me, or think my Taliban comparison is too trite or too propagandish, perhaps, you will believe columnist Tony Snow, himself an archconservative Republican:

“The Taliban Republicans take a darker view of human nature... They look upon government as the ultimate street cleaner and see nothing untoward in declaring the moral equivalent of martial law: Jail the sinners, elevate the saints, establish the rule of the righteous, and do it all before the next sunrise.”

David Scott is a journalist who grew up in the evangelical movement and now reports on its politically-connected leaders in the United States.