Nudity and Art
Western culture has determined that nudity in art is permissible. But does man/culture determine what is acceptable or unacceptable to God? Following a societal principle is permitted by the Lord, but only if it is for the purpose of saving souls (1 Cor. 9:22) and does not violate God or established precepts (Acts 5:29).
Is the naked body to be viewed as evil? The first man and woman were guiltless in their nakedness, but when they sinned by eating fruit from the forbidden tree, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings" (Gen. 3:7). Sin created guilt and shame in the hearts and minds of Adam and Eve which also caused fear at the thought of appearing before God unclothed (Gen. 3:10). In attempting to cover their shame they instinctively tried to cover their bodies. God took away their inadequate covering and replaced it with animal skin coats (Gen. 3:21). Thus, God deemed clothing as necessary in a world where sin now existed. It should be understood that at that time God established the guidelines of modesty; a time when there was just one man/husband and one woman/wife on the earth.
The human body is a beautiful part of God or creof God. But God has determined when, where, and how the revealing of nakedness is pure and holy. The only Scriptures in which nudity is free of shame are those that deal with marital relations (Heb. 13:4; Prov. 5:18-19; Song of Solomon 4). All other passages present nakedness as shameful (Gen. 9:21; Ex. 20:26; 32:25; 2 Chron. 28:19; Isa. 47:3; Ez. 16:35-36; Lk. 8:27; Rev. 3:17; 16:15; 17:16).
But what about nudity in art? Some have argued that viewing nudity in an art class is no different than someone who studies the human body in training for a health profession. Really? The individuals studying to become part of the medical field are preparing themselves to help heal the sick and save lives. Jesus gave His approval of the medical profession. He said those who are sick need to see a physician (Mk. 2:17). The work of a doctor, that involves the revealing of nakedness, is not put on display in a gallery for the gazing pleasure of the general public. For what reason does the art student need to study nudity if it is not for the purpose of drawing nudity and displaying this for others to view? And by what Christian precept can this be shown to be right and acceptable before God?
Lust is a sin (Matt. 5:28; 1 John 2:16). When someone lusts at a picture, it does not matter what the intent of the picture is. Sin has occurred. Christians have the responsibility to guard their own hearts against lust (James 1:14-15). But we also have the responsibility of not putting a stumbling block before others (Mk. 9:42), which also includes dressing modestly and not revealing nakedness (1 Tim. 2:9).
Some have argued, "But Michelangelo studied the human body! He even involved himself in autopsies in order to draw that which lies beneath the skin." Michelangelo also studied human nakedness for the purpose of displaying nakedness in the name of art. I find it interesting that man finds it tasteful to gaze upon Michelangelo's nude David, and yet his nude depiction of Christ on display in Rome has a covering over the private body parts. Michelangelo, no matter how brilliant and talented, is not our authority.
Sadly, I have learned that some Christian schools are including nudity in their curriculum for art majors. Why should "Christian art" be permitted to be held to a lower standard than the Christian himself (Phil. 4:8)? Does the Christian school you support include nudity in its classes? My Alma-mater (Freed-Hardeman University) did not permit this during the time in which I attended school. Why? Because this would have been a violation of Christian precepts. Sadly, those precepts have been abandoned under the school's present leadership. The current curriculum includes the portrayal of nude women embracing. Captions such as "erotic," "sensual," "female pleasure," "seductive female nudes," and "lascivious undertones" are included to describe the "art." The curriculum under discussion has been publicly embraced by the current administration. This breaks my heart. What has changed? Not God's Word!
In order to be a university (government funded), a school is expected to follow a curriculum as dictated by the government. Since a school is not the church, what choice do they have? What are individual Christians to do when they are told, in their workplace, that they must do something contrary to the Word of God? They must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). The school is not the church, but the school is under the care and guidance of those who are part of the church. They should obey God rather than men and suffer whatever consequences come from putting the kingdom of God first.
Nudity in art is sinful. This does not correspond with the thinking of the world. But we should not be surprised to find the world at odds with Biblical principles. I am not encouraging a withdrawal from the art world. Our society is in need of Christian artists. But those creating the art should never uncover what God has covered.
"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand" (Eph. 6:10-13).
[Editor's note: Tim Kidwell preached for the South Seminole Church in the year 2000. One of the reasons for his short tenure was that he believed then, as now, in modesty. The current leadership here also believes that the human body is not intended for display in either art classes or at public beaches.]