Thursday, August 18, 2005

Clothing Not Optional

Though his family didn't follow his wishes, a nudist who died recently went into the ground fully clothed. Why would a pastor care about a nudist's wish to be buried naked? It's not because I don't like the human body or think nakedness is wrong in the right context.

The human body is to be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage in private. There and only there is nakedness permissible. As much as before the Fall God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, He also said through His actions in clothing Adam and Eve in more than bikini style clothing (see Gen. 3:21), that it was not good for fallen man and woman to be naked in public.

What the nudist refuses in his or her rebellion against God is that man is fallen and thus public nakedness is wrong. But there is something hidden in the rebellion. It is the sense that men and women are made for complete openness - including physical openeness - and union. However, that openness and union first come with God through Christ and then only, among humans, in marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

So in a matter of speaking the nudist gets the concept right but the context wrong. Yes we are made to be naked and unashamed. But without Christ we are naked and ashamed before God. With anyone but our marriage partner we ought to be dressed and if we aren't we should be ashamed. Clothing is not optional in a fallen world, it's required.

1 Comments:

At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How much is covered?
Should we totally cover ourselves as the Taliban wanted their women covered? My grandfather once told me a pretty ankle was revealing when he was a boy about 100 years ago. Are we to say to a culture that is different than ours, such as some primitive cultures in Africa that women's breasts should be covered? Certain limits on legs, arms, etc?
I agree that too much is revealed by both men and women today. Even cloth can cover but if pulled tight reveals too much.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home