Although some seem to think this is a nudist blog, it isn’t, so I’ve closed the post for further comments.
Brian Coldin is a nudist – a Christian nudist, apparently. I’m not sure what part Christianity plays in his nudist exploits, but I imagine he could easily find an Anglican church willing to offer a generous pastoral response affirming him in his chilly calling.
He is about to assert his constitutional right to public nudity in the courts. This should dispel any lingering illusion that Canadian judges and lawyers engaged on constitutional issues are busy doing much of anything that is other than frivolous; particularly if Coldin makes his court appearance in his preferred state – as he should since he is obviously serious about his vocation.
From here:
Prominent defence lawyer Clayton Ruby was expected to argue current laws in Canada prohibiting nudity in public places, or on private property exposed to public view, are overly broad — thus they should be struck down and the laws under the Criminal Code updated.
According to the Federation of Canadian Nudists, these laws are archaic because they define nudity as generally “indecent” and intended to cause “harm” to those who witness it.
The challenge is being launched on behalf of Ruby’s client, Brian Coldin, a nudist resort operator in Bracebridge, Ont., a small cottage country town about two hours north of Toronto. Coldin, who has been arrested numerous times over the years for public nudity, was charged last year with five counts related to incidents between April 2008 and May 2009 near his resort and at drive-thus at both Tim Horton’s and A&W restaurants.
The criminal trial, which began last fall, heard testimony from one of the workers at the fast-food burger restaurant who cried on the stand when she described how Coldin and two others drove up to the pickup window completely nude. She testified Coldin and the driver of the vehicle both pretended to reach for their imaginary wallets to pay for their orders, causing their genitals to sway back and forth.
What further evidence of causing harm to others could possibly be required: fast food is hard enough to digest without being subjected to the uninvited spectacle of spontaneously swaying genitals.
Neither Brian Coldin, nor the courts would care, but C. S. Lewis, in The Four Loves, makes the interesting point that nudity is not the natural state of man:
“Are we not our true selves when naked? In a sense, no. The word naked was originally a past participle; the naked man was the man who had undergone a process of naking, that is, of stripping or peeling (you used the verb of nuts and fruit). Time out of mind the naked man has seemed to our ancestors not the natural but the abnormal man; not the man who has abstained from dressing but the man who has been for some reason undressed. And it is a simple fact-anyone can observe it at a men’s bathing place-that nudity emphasises common humanity and soft-pedals what is individual. In that way we are “more ourselves” when clothed. By nudity the lovers cease to be solely John and Mary; the universal He and She are emphasised. You could almost say they put on nakedness as a ceremonial robe-or as the costume for a charade.
Pingback: A few good links | eChurch Christian Blog
I think that your C.S.Lewis quote emphasizes one of the key reasons that people are drawn to naturism: it makes us all equal. It does indeed emphasize “common humanity and soft-pedals what is individual”.
That is also probably why there are so many devout Christians within naturism. There is nothing more humble (and ironically more modest) than being in our basic state – as God created us.
How did it come to be that we are so embarrassed, ashamed and offended by our own image that we treat it as a criminal act?
Being “equal” in the sense you are using the word is to make us all the same, to level humanity to the lowest common denominator, something nudism is good at.
From a Christian point of view, God loves and values us all equally; but he has not made us all the same.
You may find this surprising: none of the devout Christians I know are nudists.
The answer can be found at the beginning of the Bible – Genesis 3:7 to be specific.
I’m waving the BS flag on this one.
You can accuse me but you have no facts to back that up. I am clearly in a better position to testify to the people that I know in naturism.
Here are a few websites to show you that there are indeed Christian naturists:
http://www.naturist-christians.org/
http://www.figleafforum.com/
http://www.cnvillage.org/
http://www.christiannc.com/
Not buying it. I’ve stumbled across some of these websites in past years and the people involved don’t come remotely close to my definition of a “devout Christian”. There are broad swaths of Scripture they conveniently ignore or creatively “interpret” (in a way that is wholly unorthodox).
I’d like to make a brief comment to Warren’s assertion that Christian naturists creatively “interpret” Scripture in a “wholly unorthodox” manner. Since he doesn’t quote any of the “broad swaths of Scripture” he mentions, I won’t attempt to either.
Arguing orthodoxy is like two boys arguing over whose big brother can beat up the other’s—you can stand on your orthodoxy and I can stand on mine until the cows come home. In my experience as a Christian naturist (humility prevents me from bragging that I’m a devout one), I’ve found that the bulk of arguments against social nudity come from cultural and inferred interpretation of Scripture. Nakedness isn’t the issue—behavior is. Nakedness is simply a state of being and Scripture doesn’t directly address nakedness, unless as an example, as in the Isaiah, chapter twenty verses. In no case is nakedness condemned, unless linked to improper conduct—a small point to some, but an important one.
[I’m making my comments at the request of a Canadian friend (I’m American).]
Brian Coldin is a Christian naturist (a term I prefer and one more ubiquitous in Canada), just as surely as he would be a Christian husband, father, automobile driver, or Christian moviegoer—his Christianity informs his daily walk in every aspect of his life—his worldview differs from a Hindu’s, a Buddhist’s, a Muslim’s, or perhaps even the average Anglican’s.
If he and his friends were in a car when they ordered from that fast food window, I assume they were sitting—at least that’s the position I’m in when I order. Therefore, how could their genitals sway? Even if they rose from the seat to check for their “invisible wallets,” unless they performed rude and/or obscene gestures, where’s the harm? As to the fast food being “hard to digest” reference, the person at the window would have been serving the food, not eating it. (During our time at naturist venues, I have never seen anyone who’s appetite flagged in the least over the sight of naked, swaying genitals, even next to the food—quite the opposite.)
I’m the last to second-guess C. S. Lewis, whom I consider the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th Century, but the quote David uses from Lewis’s The Four Loves is far from damning Christian naturists—he makes no negative judgment, just an observation. It goes to show, however, just how entrenched clothing has become, not only in Christian circles, but the world at large. Had Adam and Eve not broken fellowship with God, we’d all go naked today, living in a climate perfectly suited to our lack of garments.
People, Christians or otherwise, have become so hung up over clothing, that the sight of a naked human body upsets them no end. Yet, the same people don’t cringe over the swaying genitals of the dogs people walk (on those pets not neutered). Why is that? Do they fear that, seeing human genitals swaying reduces us to the level of animals? Perhaps, yet God seemed content to give all mammals more or less the same genitalia.
Christians wax eloquent over the assumed apparent “sinfulness” of human nakedness and go on about the harm it does to children (ever a good dart to throw to try to bolster a weak argument) and how it fosters concupiscence and bad behavior, as if these things only occur when people are naked. What they fail to realize, when standing on the Scriptures, is that they have no platform. They won’t find a shred of support in Scripture, simply because it doesn’t deal with social nudity—everything they argue is from cultural bias and inference. When did the presence of clothing have any bearing on good behavior? I’ve seen nudists behave modestly and appropriately and I’ve seen clothed people behave abominably. Clothes aren’t the issue—behavior is.
Quite simply, human nakedness, or nudity—however you want to describe it—isn’t the harmful bugaboo people (and Christians) make of it. Nudity is simply a state of being—it has no moral component. Morality is a separate issue entirely and people, with or without clothing, rise and fall over it.
Your equality comment is a typical “straw man” argument. If I were to line up fifty nudists in front of you (oh, the humanity!), you’d find differences in all of them. Yes, God made us similar, but he didn’t create us as clones. Nudity erases the distinctions of clothing, which is exactly the point of naturism. Clothing is that it ranks us according to wealth, rank, etc., whereas social nudity “equalizes” us as all as human, without regard for artificial rank or privilege based on social status, or money. For some, like me, that is true egalitarianism. For others, it is a perceived disadvantage. I prefer the former status of equality, for I have no desire to lord my social status over anyone, nor do I wish others to wave theirs obnoxiously in my face.
With close to seven billion people on the planet, who, when naked, look pretty much the same; it’s time we got over what we look like without the clothes God never intended us to wear.
P. S. Your comment about devout Christians you know not being nudists doesn’t surprise me, but it’s akin to saying your devout, meat-eating friends are not vegetarians. As a naturist, however, I know many devout Christian naturists—we just don’t circulate in the same circles.
My intent in posting the article wasn’t to condemn nudism from a Christian perspective – although, were I to get into that, I think your activities would be hard to square with verses like 1 Tim 2:9 – but to illustrate the intrinsic comedy of the human condition.
I admit I didn’t do as thorough a job as you in your response, though.
Thanks for your candor, David. If you inferred that I accused you of condemning Christian nudism, I apologize—I certainly didn’t indend that—I found your tongue-in-cheek approach a refreshing alternative to the usual finger-wagging. Your Timothy reference is interesting, in that I could argue that nudity removes the negatives Paul refers to. In my view, modesty is more a state of mind than a state of dress. I’ve seen nude women behave modestly and clothed women behave abominably.
Scripture used to be used to back up slavery too, but now most of culture is against it. The fact is, is that when God was thinking of “perfect,” nudity wasn’t an issue. It also wasn’t God who made the first clothes for man, it was man. Imo, God got skins for Adam and Eve to resemble the covering of blood that Christ would give them later, to cover them “properly.” The Bible doesn’t give any direct command in connection with the Genesis, so people can’t say “Clothes are mandatory.” If that were the case, then where did God give permission to take them off? Or are we just creating more and more rules to try to make our own ideas and beliefs fit into the Bible so that we can call them “holy.”
As for the 1 Tim. 2:9 passage, it doesn’t mention anything about sexual temptation issues linked to clothing choices. What it does mention is a lot of expensive items- gold, pearls, expensive clothes. Looks to me like “modest,” in the sense of the passage, is talking about not being over-indulgent.
And if you look at the passage that is it’s sibling, 1 Peter 3:3, it says “3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.” (NIV) But even in this kind of translation of the passage, it significantly differs from the original Greek. A better translation would be: “Your beauty should not come from the outside
world- [things] like braided hair, wearing gold, or what clothes you wear.” This is because the word “expensive” isn’t in 1 Peter 3:3 before clothing/dressing.
Paul and Peter were dealing with women who were dressing extravagantly, and they were admonishing them to focus their efforts to try to be spiritually beautiful instead of physically beautiful (which is of little value in the Kingdom).
Also, don’t forget Isaiah 20. God commanded Isaiah to be nude for 3 years straight, even among the public. Since God can’t and won’t command sin, public nudity could not have been sin.
Regarding modesty, as is often mentioned with reference to the Timothy passage, I read something from C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” not long ago which spoke to the nature of “modesty.” This is the opening of his chapter on “Sexual Morality.”
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes.
A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).
…I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing.
If “modesty” is culturally derived, how can it be a Biblical standard?
Up above Tom Pine said:
Since you’re attempting to promulgate a miniscule minority position within Christianity, I would suggest the burden of proof lies with you. Can you produce even one author who is recognized and respected broadly over a long period of time within any of the three main streams of Christianity (i.e., EO, RCC or Protestantism) who supports your position?
You appear to claim that, since naturism is not expressly forbidden in Scripture, it should be accepted. That line of argumentation could take one all kinds of “interesting” places – including places I’m sure would make you very uncomfortable.
Ah, now we’re getting to where you live. You stand on orthodoxy to the point that, unless a position, idea, or line of thought is supported by “author[s] who [are] recognized and respected broadly over a long period of time within any of the three main streams of Christianity,” it must be invalid. You put no burden upon yourself to articulate your position in Scripture, but wish to force others in a minority position to do all the heavy lifting. Sorry, but I won’t rise to that bait.
To me, this sounds similar to another argument that took place within the dominant religious structure in Jerusalem over that curious sect started by a rebellious rabbi named Jeshua. Gamaliel, a respected and recognized theologian of his time, said it best: Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, “Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5: 34-39 KJV). Though I don’t’ put Christian naturists on the same plane as the Apostles, Peter and John, I think my point is evident to all but the most intransigent.
Those who stood in judgment over early Christian adherents like Peter and John, Phillip, Stephen and Paul—namely the Pharisees and Sadducees—felt the same way. Those stalwarts of the Catholic Church who stood adamantly opposed to the thinking of Galileo and Copernicus, eschewed their thinking as unorthodox, until they recanted and reinstated them (albeit much belatedly) when scientific discovery proved the latter correct.
Outside the religious arena, the medical establishment ridiculed Semmelweis, Lister and Pasteur, hugging their orthodoxy (and libraries of esteemed authors), until proved wrong. Or, how about the two bicycle mechanics from Ohio, who found the esteemed works of authors in the Smithsonian, like Langley, incorrect to the point they had to start from scratch to discover the fundamentals of heavier-than-air flight and launch the first Wright Flier.
I cannot give you the list of esteemed theologians you require, who argue the case for naturism, for I doubt any of them ever wrestled with the subject, but I can offer these works:
Nudity & Christianity, edited by Jim C. Cunningham
Nakedness and the Bible, by Paul M. Bowman
The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation, by Edward Yarnold, S. J. (which describes the practice of mixed-sex nudity in baptism from the fist through fourth centuries)
Naturism and Christianity: Are They Compatible? by Karen Gorham and Dave Leal (both Anglicans)
I don’t consider myself necessarily promulgating social nudity (though I do) as much as pleading for tolerance. I’m not asking you to walk naked down Main Street, or drive naked to the nearest takeout window, but I’d like to be able to do that if I so desire. As to your assertion that I feel something not forbidden in Scripture should be accepted, I stand guilty as charged. What other authority should I hew to? The Church’s? Society in general? Yours?
If Mr. Coldin wins his case and the laws against simple nudity are struck down, then and only then can the greater society begin to address the mores of social interaction between the clothed and the naked without the artificial strictures of phony morality. Then, perhaps, it will be less uncomfortable for people like myself to be naked in those “interesting” places you mention.
Having written the above, I’m done. I find such arguments frustrating and futile. I can reason with David, the original author of this blog, but, sadly, I cannot with you. You will hew to your orthodoxy, while I will have to rely on those, more open minds who can see something unorthodox for what it is and not through the lens of censure alone.
My bad for taking the bait and stepping onto the field.
My point exactly.
Obviously they’re smarther than me.
I’m glad you can reason with an open-minded person like David – he knows well from my previous comments that I’m just a closed-minded ultra conservative. 😯
How will God ever get through to you, Warren, when He wants to take you somewhere spiritually where you have never been before? Being a “closed-minded ultra conservative” is not a badge of honor – it’s like the religious leaders that totally missed the fact that God in the flesh was in their very midst!! Better to be like the Bereans, in my mind, who listened to the messenger, and then searched the scriptures to evaluate whether the message was true. Otherwise, how can God ever shift our present paradigms, which are probably an immature shadow of what He has for us?
I cannot comfortably view the websites noted above by Stephanie because my children are around. In fact, they are border-line soft porn. I have no problem with nudism in private (in your home, cottage even your backyard to long as you are discrete). But my wife and I would have a big problem walking around in the buff in the presence of our three children.
I could not imagine going to a nudist resort with teenagers. Quite frankly this is bad judgement despite any argument that we a simply in our “natural” state. In a hypersexualized environment, with their hormones raging, this is a recipe for trouble. I think modesty is in everyone’s interest.
As for the bible, one of my first observations about nudity comes from the creation story where Adam and Eve are aware of their nakedness and are embarrased? So what do they do? They mend fig leafs together to cover themselves up.
What constitutes pornography is in the intent of the author and the eye of the beholder. For people with a foot fetish, photographs of feet would be their pornography. It may seem hard to believe, but to a naturist, nudity doesn’t even qualify as soft porn. But I will certainly admit that there many people out there who peddle pornography but hide under the naturist moniker in order to cloak themselves in legitimacy.
There is an extensive body of scholarly research on the topic of children and nudity going back many decades. There is no evidence that children are harmed by non-sexualized social nudity, and there is good reason to believe they benefit from it.
But rather than go through it all here, I’ll simply provide a couple of links that summarize the information.
http://www.fcn.ca/children_2.htm
http://www.bareoaks.ca/index.php/en/about-naturism/children.html
Well put, Stephane! I might add that the links are suitable for children to view, unless one considers simple nudity porn.
Fig Leaf Forum is a text-only site – no graphics of nudity and no pictures, so I assume that probably does not fit your definition of “soft porn”?
Is he concerned about public nudity in general or being nude in a courtroom? Maybe he needs this lawyer:
Peter Ritchie is a Canadian lawyer. He is well-known as the defense counsel for accused serial killer Robert Pickton. He is also known for representing Doukhobors who stripped naked in court to defend their religious freedom as well as Gillian Guess, who was charged with obstruction of justice for having an affair with an accused in a criminal trial while serving on the jury.
It certainly opens up new approaches for defending our religious freedom in the courts.
I’ll consider this option when the Diocese of Niagara hauls us back into court to steal our building.
Note that this is about Criminal Code of Canada section 174 which criminalizes simple nudity, separate from either “indecent acts” or “indecent exhibition”. This is known in some places as the “Doukhobor clause” – anyone got a primary source for the admission of the federal government that this law was specifically to make it easy to bust Doukhobor demonstrations?
Um, Adrian, have you read Genesis??
Job 10:11 “You have clothed me with skin and flesh and have knit me with bone and sinew.” (the word “clothed” is the same in Hebrew here and in Gen 3:21 – as is the word “skin”)
Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it would seem like you are attempting to claim that an animal was killed and He clothed them with animal skin, animal meat and then stuck animal bones and tendons on them.
I have heard many claim that this was the very first blood sacrifice mentioned in Scripture. And clearly Moses and the Prophets all pointed back to this sacrifice as being the model for all future sacrifices. Likewise, the Apostles all wrote of how this sacrifice typified the sacrifice of Jesus. You can find that by looking at these passages: _____ Oh…. ummm…. wait…. Scripture makes NO SUCH claim about this being an animal skin!
The word for “skin” used here is the very same one used to describe how the skin of Moses’ face glowed when He spoke The Word to the people! Was that supposed to be an animal skin as well over the face of Moses?
When we say that an animal has a coat of fur are we presuming that it is wearing the skin of another animal? So why, when we read that Adam and Eve had a coat of skin do we presume that it is not the same coat of skin that we wash in the shower today?
Get out your black highlighter for the Bible and make it read “animal skin” if it will make you feel better. Clearly you have already added to Scripture in your mind.
Obviously things are different today than they were back in Biblical times. For example, lets say that the Prophet Isaiah were alive today and received that same command to walk stark naked in public for three years (Is 20:3ff). What would would be the reaction of the vast majority of the Christian community?
I suspect that the voice of the Christians would be nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Isaiah’s acts and that he would not make it anywhere NEAR that 3 year mark commanded by God of walking naked. They would condemn him as being a false prophet. Nothing new, Isaiah was considered to be a false prophet back then by those in charge as well.
Or let’s say that we had news that Peter was caught naked in a boat along with some other preachers (John 21:7 KJV – many other translations hide the Greek use of GYMNOS and attempt to put clothing back on him.) Today, I think it would be fairly clear to all Christians that these guys were not the righteous public religious folks that they claimed to be. The news media would be awash in how yet another Christian leader had been caught in a compromising homosexual act of some kind, sermons would be preached condemning him, etc.
Likewise, when the Holy Spirit fell upon King Saul and he laid down naked with the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 19:24) and the people saw him naked and therefore asked “Is Saul also a prophet?” clearly from today’s perspective we can tell that such activity is wrong, that the people had no clue that they should be rejecting Samuel as a prophet, let alone accepting Saul as their king.
Yes, with our modern traditions of men and our 20/20 hindsight we now know that there are many parts of the Bible which should be removed. Isaiah clearly was not hearing from God about walking naked, therefore he is a false prophet and books referring to Samuel or Isaiah as anything other than a false prophet need to be removed from the Bible. Likewise, Peter and the disciples need to have their works removed because of their shameless nudity.
Oh, and one other guy….. When Jesus arose from the tomb as “the Last Adam” and went out into the Garden leaving His clothing behind and neatly folded, buried in the tomb? How can the Bible suggest such things? Go look at any good Christian artwork of the resurrection and you can clearly see that the Bible is wrong to suggest such a thing! This Biblical imagery of the Adamic figure of Jesus coming forth from the earth stark naked again must be rejected by any good Christian!
It should be clear to any right thinking Christian that the Holy Spirit was not at work in the Scriptures if it caused people to walk around naked! We know better today!
A careful study will show that nudity is connected with humiliation and shame! For a person to strip off their clothing and walk around in that state of humility is just wrong! Humility is a BAD thing! Pride is what we are looking for in our preachers! Expensive Aramni suits! Those who are of more modest means, 3rd world tribal areas where they can only afford to have a modest amount of clothing to fashion into a loinclothe or something – why is is obvious just from the fact that God isn’t blessing them with riches that they are not REAL Christians!
Can I get an Amen?
At first I did not realize how deeply your tongue was planted in your cheek, but now I am afraid that you poked a hole out through it. 🙂
My cheeks are large and can hold a great deal.
dby
Enough of this tripe. Thread closed.