Tag: clothing

Book Plunge: Christian Body – The Source of Desire

Where does desire come from? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost begins this section again with the statement that we find XYZ desirable because we were conditioned to. Once again, I have to ask is this really the case? Could it be the female body was designed to be desirable by men by God and vice-versa? We might like different things at different times, but desire is always there.

Even in the West, while the sexual organs have been noticed quite often, there are other aspects of a woman found attractive, such as her legs, her smile, her hair, her eyes, etc. We can’t even explain often why it is that feature X on a woman is attractive. We men just know that it is. Not only that, Scripture when it speaks about the female body in places like Proverbs 5:18-19, Song of Songs 4, and Song of Songs 7 seems to say the same thing.

Let’s also be clear on something. Believe it or not, not every man struggles with lust. There are few of us to be sure, but not everyone of us is going to our computers at night and saying “God help me avoid any pornography sites today.” I remember when I worked at a retail store after my divorce, my female co-workers were stunned when they found out I didn’t watch porn. It’s a shame that that’s the case.

Frost does say rules will not bring about freedom. It only comes about from the grace of God. There is some truth here, but every society has rules for behavior and even the church has rules for behavior. Paul also spoke often about how we were to observe rules not just in our individual lives, but also in the day-to-day with other people.

If we lived in these cultures that Frost spoke about that don’t have as much clothing, it wouldn’t be an issue, but those cultures are not ours and those cultures are also vastly different from ours. In our culture, the Christian influence is dying out, though I do suspect a resurgence could be just around the corner, and we are much more individualistic. Not only that, but we are highly ignorant of sexual matters.

That might sound odd to think about in a culture that is all about sex constantly, but as Peter Kreeft has said, it’s when everyone’s pipes are leaking that people buy books on plumbing. When we live in a world where people don’t know what a woman is, how many sexes there are, why it is that same-sex erotic relationships are not good for society, and why it is that we think we can redefine marriage, then we see where this has gone.

That’s why naturism could be a noble dream perhaps some time off in the future when we’ve recovered from the sexual revolution and our culture has been thoroughly Christianized and reformed, but now, no. We would be causing too much stumbling for our fellow man. “But what about the privacy of our own homes?” For those, do what you want (Though you might want to make sure the windows are closed) and enjoy it. I have spoken about the private/public distinction here and it still applies.

Note my position then. It is not that nudity is sinful. It isn’t, or else we wouldn’t be here. It’s that in our culture, it should be reserved for private situations due to the overly sexualizing of our culture and the ignorance of too many.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Dealing With Lust

How do you deal with lust? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost in this section is talking about the problem of lust and lack of sexual control. Frost tells us that usually the antidote given to lust is more rules meant to contain it. I agree that this in itself is not the answer. However, it can be part of the answer. An alcoholic could need to take an alternate route home from work instead of one that goes by the neighborhood bar. An obese person might need to have someone else do the grocery shopping.

What we can all agree on is that this is a heart issue and the problem lies in the heart. This is a worldview problem. You can take steps to deal with the problem externally, but you also need to deal with the problem internally. This is why some people talking about weight loss will actually say diets don’t work. Diets are temporary. You need a whole change in view.

It could also be some struggles you will always have. Sam Allberry comes regularly and speaks at our Defend conferences here in New Orleans and as far as I know, he still struggles with same-sex attraction, but chooses a celibate lifestyle. I went to Celebrate Recovery in the past and there were several alcoholics there. They still made it a point to avoid alcohol. One glass of it after years of sobriety can ruin someone.

Now I know a couple of people who have said naturism helped them overcome their porn addiction and while I will not question the experience, I wonder how that really healed the heart. It often seems that there is a disjunction going on, and something I plan to talk with the counseling department about here at my seminary in doing research on this. I am not a psychologist after all so I cannot understand as well what is going on in the mind.

The problem with porn is that it sees the opposite sex as only sexual beings. They are there merely for your sexual pleasure. The opposite end is to deny that they are sexual beings at all. It is to deny that the body is sexual. It is. That is the reason it can perform sexually all things being equal. There are aspects of both sexes meant to be sexually appealing to the other. For us in the West, it is normally the sexual organs, at least when talking about what is seen as attractive in women.

Frost goes on to say that because our culture has put up a bunch of rules such as clothing instead of going with grace, we have become more perverted.

Sorry, but this is just an unbelievably false statement to make.

Christian cultures have had clothing for thousands of years. Did we see this going on rampantly in the Middle Ages like we do today? Did we see this going on in the early church? Did we see this going on in Puritan culture? Could it be that what really changed our culture was the sexual revolution, the rise of feminism, and a false view of sex?

This is the problem in that we don’t have a worldview that explains how sex fits in. This is why so many people look at same-sex relationships and say “I don’t see the problem here.” Many Christians don’t have a reason for being opposed other than “Well, the Bible says so.” This leads the world to think they’re crazy. It’s as if God is being arbitrary here. Sexuality has been reduced to just a form of pleasure and marriage means little.

Frost concludes this saying many cultures that were prudish (though not explaining in what way) exploded with promiscuity after Christians came bearing clothes. We are not told who these cultures are. The data is absent. I am not surprised at this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Hypersexuality

What do we do in a sex-crazed society? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So at the start, Frost immediately begins with this:

For the many Christians who struggle with sexual control, we have hastily presumed that the first line of defense against such carnality is the strict application of increasingly restrictive coverage that treats the creation of God as if it were to blame. Disabused of our cultural narrow-mindedness, we can clearly see that the placebo of clothing only masks the symptoms but drastically intensifies the real root problems. As a result, our culture is well-known for extremes of sex-scandals, rape, molestation, and promiscuity that is far worse than the many unclothed cultures which often maintain marital fidelity and have little concept of immoral lust or pornography as we know it in our supposedly “Christian” culture.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 253). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Okay. The problem is if you’re going to say the problem is clothing, then you need to show the hard data. We can go back a few centuries and find that our country wasn’t like this. If anything changed our world, it was the sexual revolution. The idea of having sex without consequences and the destruction of the family unit caused the most damage.

Now could there be societies with very little clothing where fidelity and the body are honored? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean that those societies are one-to-one parallels with ours. You have to look at what is the same and what is different. Those societies could be highly community-focused and thus there are rules and understanding set in that keep people from stepping out of line.

Consider the world some of us heard our parents and grandparents grew up in if we live in America. If you went out away from your parents house and you were misbehaving, your parents knew it by the time you got home. The neighbors would call and let them know what you had done. Your doom awaited when you got home.

If we live in a culture that doesn’t honor marriage and family and is very individualistic and everyone just minds their own business, then no, nudism will not work here.

Meanwhile, there could be societies where there is no or little clothing and there is chaos of some kind over sexual matters. Perhaps there might be fidelity, but one person who has power will murder another to get a woman for his own. Perhaps these societies have some form of polygamy as well. Would these societies be changed by bringing them clothing? No. In both cases, this is a heart issue.

Frost will say that God’s creation cannot be to blame, but this is a problematic statement. After all, Eve fell in the garden because of the fruit and the serpent both, both of which were God’s creation, but also because of her own free-will. God’s creation is good, but evil uses good things to bring about evil. It has to. There are no things that are purely evil. That’s an impossibility. Temptation takes something good and seeks to use it in an evil way.

Can a woman also knowingly tempt a man with her body for something evil? Yes. Happens regularly. That is the good creation of God being used in a wrong way. Frost has this strange idea that if something is the creation of God, then it’s automatically exempt.It’s not. All we see is a creation of God and yet we live in a world of sin still.

Frost would need to list these cultures and show what makes them different from us and what makes them the same. We need hard data. I have not seen it yet.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Why Wear Clothing?

Why does Frost think we wear clothes? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Frost is going to say why he thinks we wear clothes. At the start, he says it is a result of our inner sin nature rebelling against God’s beautiful creation. Well, that’s a lovely start. That means everyone you know who is wearing clothing regularly is apparently living in sin.

It’s statements like these that are so extreme that it’s hard to take Frost seriously.

But at any rate, let’s look at his big three.

The first one he says is a legalistic ego trip. This might be for some people, but it’s not that they wear clothes and others don’t. It’s more like they think they dress better than others do and they want to wear the latest fashion and trends just to wear them. This is not to say everyone who dresses nice is trying to do this, but no doubt, some are. We know that there can be a pecking order in some social areas that if you don’t wear the right clothes, you are out.

This is not to say there are not times one should avoid dressing their best. If you are on a date or a job interview, you will naturally want to have a good appearance. I won’t claim to know someone’s heart, but too often, it looks like Frost thinks he does.

The second reason Frost gives is to avoid responsibility. Frost does rightly say that it’s easy to blame someone else for our lusts, and this is so, but there is some truth in that some people do dress in order to tempt. That doesn’t justify what someone does with the temptation, but we should be aware of how our behavior does affect other people.

For instance, Paul warns about this with eating meat offered to idols. He wants to enjoy his freedom, but if it means he could entice his brother to sin, then he won’t eat the meat. The weaker brother is ultimately responsible, but Paul doesn’t want to be a contributing factor.

So if a guy sees a beautiful girl and goes home and watches porn as a result, he can’t blame the girl for that. It was his own choice. At the same time, all of us who are Christians should watch what we do and say around others in case we meet people who are susceptible. If I know someone has a history of being an alcoholic, I would not meet them in a bar, for instance.

The final reason is insecurity about our own bodies. Now this is true that we can all have insecurities, and while I know I have some, I also know when I was married, I never struggled with that insecurity around my ex-wife. If anything, our Instagram age has been particularly unkind to women in this area.

Frost never mentions positive reasons though. I wear clothing because for one thing, I am cold-natured and I like to stay warm. I also wear clothing because I don’t want to get arrested out in public. I often wear clothing that tends to reveal something about who I am and my interests. Many people at the seminary Post Office I work at notice my T-shirts about being sarcastic and it’s a good icebreaker when I wear my Smallville T-shirt. On Saturdays, I wear an NOBTS T-shirt in the hopes of meeting a lady who might want a seminary student for a husband.

It would be easier to be kind to Frost’s case if he didn’t go to such extremes in his argumentation. Unfortunately, he does. I hope he has just as much passion for reaching the lost as he does for getting people to not wear clothing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus and Ruth

How was Ruth gleaning? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Today, we are going to look at some various passages. The first two are related and are from the Pentateuch. In Exodus 22:26-27 we read:

26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, 27 because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

and in Deuteronomy 24:13 we read:

Return their cloak by sunset so that your neighbor may sleep in it. Then they will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the Lord your God.

In both of these cases, a person has their cloak taken from them as a pledge that they will do X for the person they are giving it to and the borrower is told to make sure they can at least sleep in it at night. What can we get from this? If we go and say this person had nothing else, then this is a poor person and all they have is a garment.

This would mean that if anything, a poor person would at least have clothing as his last possession, hardly what we would expect from a heavily nudist Israelite culture. Second, this is not at all saying that this is ideal. Frost is still on a hangup that Christians would consider this immoral. No. If you don’t have a garment and you are poor and in need, that is not immoral. Now if you do have a garment and yet you go gallivanting down the street, especially in the sight of children, that is something different.

Then we get to Ruth. Frost tells us that in Ruth 3:3, the word for best describing clothes is not there. Many translations do have it. I don’t have Hebrew qualifications and I don’t think Frost does either as he gives me no reason to think he’s an authority and has cited no biblical scholars. If many translators are putting the word best in there and Frost thinks they shouldn’t, it is up to him to make the case why they shouldn’t. That being said, in verse 15, he asks her to bring him the shawl she is wearing and it is a different Hebrew word.

He also says that Ruth would have been gleaning in the nude as was the norm. The problem is that nowhere does Frost demonstrate this. He just says it. There aren’t any Bible scholars cited or any archeologists cited. No evidence is given. Also, if Frost wants to convince us that these nudist societies were safe places in the past, then why did the men need to be instructed to not touch Ruth?

So Frost says this and then says the translators shoehorn the word best into the text in 3:3 because of our sensibilities. Really? Since when did Frost gain the ability of mindreading? He could be right, naturally, but he needs to show that. Could it be that maybe Hebrew translators know something he doesn’t?

What about in 1 Cor. 12 where Paul talks about our unpresentable parts? Frost says this refers to things like scars and warts and means “Less beautiful.” However, Ben Witherington says:

Verses 21ff. stress that no particular body member can devalue another or declare it to be of no worth. This then applies to people with gifts differing from one’s own. In vv. 22–24 Paul speaks of the weaker, less honorable, and even indecent body parts, referring at least in the latter case to the genitals, while the weaker organs may be the tender inner organs. His point in v. 23 is that these seemingly less honorable parts get more attention, being protected with more clothing. The “presentable” parts by contrast would be those that are not clothed. God composed the body by giving the parts that were lacking in appearance even more honor, bestowing on them the most crucial of functions, that is, reproduction. With this Paul is alluding to weaker and perhaps less apparently gifted Christians. His point in any case in v. 25 is that differences or divisions (schisma again) in the body are avoided by making the body of multiple interdependent parts.

Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 259.

It’s also difficult to see how scars and warts would make sense. Neither of those are essential parts of the body. The genitals and other parts are. I see no basis for less beautiful and again, Frost cites NO biblical scholars on these points.

Frost also says that in Luke 17, the servant coming in is told to clothe himself. The word there is actually the word gird. It could indeed mean as many translators seem to say, to dress properly. It would be saying to get out of your work clothes and be fitting for the table. Frost says that the workers worked in the nude, but again, no citations. He starts off with his assumption and then goes from there.

He also says that in John 20 at the resurrection, Jesus would have been naked seeing as the linen cloths were still in the tomb. Actually, the Jewish Virtual Library says that Jews were buried clothed. The linen cloths were burial cloth and not clothing. Clothing would be used to preserve purity, even of a corpse.

He also says that in John 13, Jesus went naked to wash the feet of His disciples. Okay. And? He also immediately when done put his clothes back on before rejoining them. Why didn’t He just stay that way if this was the ideal? What was seen as worthy of emulation in Jesus was not nudity, but servanthood. It is even questionable if the word means He was completely naked or just removed outer garments, but I am going with the worst-case scenario for my side. For some reason, the early church never seemed to embrace nudity as normative.

Next time, we’ll look at how Frost concludes this part of his book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14

Is clothing a Romans 14 issue? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of us know about Romans 14 issues. In the ancient world, it was what kind of food you could eat and what days you could observe. We have our own. It can be what kind of entertainment do you partake in. What should you wear to church? What kind of music should be played in church?

Well, Frost wants us to consider that maybe the question of if we should wear clothes is one of those questions. He says that Paul says that earthly things are neutral. They cannot be spiritually unclean and it only matters how we use them in our hearts. He then says this applies to clothing because we have taken what God has made and said in our hearts it is unclean.

Again, Frost seems to always chase after windmills. He never tells us who is saying this.

So let’s try some other scenarios of things God created and see how well that works.

Sex is created by God. It’s a good and beautiful gift. He made it to be enjoyed by husband and wife and we should not look at it as shameful. Therefore, you think it’s okay for a husband and wife to publicly have sex in a church service. I don’t. Let’s just agree to disagree.

God created defecation. He made the body to work in this way. It’s a part of the natural order. You think it’s okay to drop your drawers in the middle of the street and poop on the sidewalk. I don’t. Let’s agree to disagree. (I do understand this is a hot debate in San Francisco right now.)

He then quotes James 1:14 saying temptation comes from within, and therefore lust is caused by that which comes from sinful desires and nothing that we see.

Yes, everyone out there. If you have ever lusted, it had nothing to do with something that you saw. Nope. It was all you. You just spontaneously started lusting for no reason.

Now I am not saying that the sight of a naked woman forces a man to lust. A man needs to control himself, but that doesn’t mean that women also don’t have responsibility. Achan needed to control his own greed, but seeing the riches in the ruins of Jericho were enough to inspire greed.

Frost also tells us that clothing causes lust. Remove the clothing and the erotic effect will disappear.

Look. I know it’s only anecdotal, but I can safely say that when I was married, seeing my wife naked never ceased to have an erotic effect for me. I contend Frost lives in a delusionary world if he thinks this will happen. He is right that if something is forbidden, it often becomes that which is most longed for, as in some societies, for instance, women’s feet are covered to avoid lust. Society still recognizes some parts of a person’s body need to be treated with special honor.

Ultimately, Frost has taken his personal issue and acted like suddenly it’s a Romans 14 issue because of disagreement. We’ll be looking at 1 Timothy 2 next time, but I find Frost’s case highly unconvincing. He would need to show me why he thinks it would be wrong for a husband and wife to have sex in church publicly. After all, God created that good thing and it’s not shameful or sinful either.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)