The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 21 -- Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting journey. My effort was to apply conservative methods to a subject that the 'conservative' tradition proclaims to have already figured out. Using one of the most conservative and methodical Bible study methods, I began to take apart the issue of nakedness and the Bible.

I began by observing what the Bible actually says about the subject. My initial inquiries were to get a definition of nakedness and to see if the there was a difference in what the Bible considers nakedness and what Christian culture considers nakedness. I had one particular issue in mind because of current cultural debate -- are women's breasts considered naked by the Bible. Going from the beginning to the end of Scripture I looked at every time I could find and think of where nakedness, breasts, women, etc. were mentioned to see if those passages would shed some light on the subject.

The interpretations and conclusions I was forced to draw based on what I was seeing were definitely different. I had to conclude that the Bible's definition of nakedness was far different and deeper than what contemporary conservative tradition has. Nakedness is the spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that is caused by sin and a human being is made of aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God. Conservative tradition focuses on the externals of nakedness, but the Biblical definition doesn't to focus on this at all but on the spiritual loss of innocence due to sin. The fact was that on the issue of physical nakedness the bible is back and forth. Adam and Eve are covered by God but Isaiah is told by God to strip naked and David dances naked before the ark and both are vindicated because of obedience. Physical nakedness is only shameful if accompanied by spiritual nakedness due to sin. When it came to the specific issue of women's breasts -- I could find no verse of Scripture that directly connected exposing them to being naked. If anything I found many verses singing their praises.

Applying this to real life became a challenge in the light of traditional conservative thinking. But one verse, a quote from Christ, kept going through my head. "Do not judge after the outward appearance, but judge righteous judgment." When it comes to this issue the church as a whole has the issue backwards. The average Christian is constantly making judgments about people's spirituality based on outward appearance when it comes to exposure of physical skin, but Biblically, in more ways than one, this is unsupportable. No one that I can see is judging things based on spiritual state. Nakedness of spirit is rarely dealt with effectively. I have seen many who were lost in sin fully clothed in body they were naked before God but the church ignores such people in favor of what going after what they can see. This changed my perspective on many issues including art, porn, public nudity, spiritual life and ministry in this world when nakedness is more and more common. I also had to conclude that the public perspective that a women exposing her breasts is nakedness is cultural not Biblical. It is no more nakedness for a woman than exposing her legs or face, but culturally this seems to be a last frontier of a culture war.

To contextualize all this became issues of living faith, liberty and the nature of sin and temptation for the believer. In the end i had to conclude that change the definition from physical to spiritual changes a lot mostly though it is about where the battle is really fought with lust -- in our hearts. It ultimately means that physical nakedness has no power unless the believer because of their own sin allows it to do so through spiritual nakedness. What makes a painting of a naked figure art or porn may greatly depend on the perspective. Is it viewed through the eyes of sin or innocence.

My largest final thought is how a person with a Biblical perspective is going to deal in our world and culture. This issue is both about the church culture as well as the world's

The great irony is that the greater difficulty is going to come from the church culture. Those of us focused on spiritual nakedness are going to look like we are not truly 'conservative' in our outlook. In truth, we are facing an issue of Christian liberty verses not making our weaker brother or sister stumble. We are going to have to think about how to walk a line between effective ministry where the strategy is about being in the world and not of it; and the other side where the strategy that is traditionally employed is legal action and isolation. This second strategy is going to ultimately fail and we must begin to exercise influence to a more Biblical way of doing things -- applying grace and truth to the true nakedness of this world -- the shame and exposure of sin.

To the world, we simply have to suspend our self-righteous opinions and oddly enough I think most people in the world would consider this a breath of fresh air compared to what we normally do. To actually rub shoulders with people who may be unacceptable to Christian culture but then effectively minister the grace and truth of Christ is the ultimate goal. To be able to go to places and be in situations where nudity is present but unaffected by it; to be able to look past the fashion and clothing issues to see real nakedness of spirit would be a more effective strategy than what is currently employed. It would also reflect more fully the ministry that Paul did in his world in the book of Acts.

I only have a couple of negative thoughts on these possibilities 1) nakedness being spiritual is going to be more nebulous -- it is much easier for people to define things by sight even though this is not truly accurate. 2) The church at present very likely lacks the spiritual maturity to reexamine themselves in the light of these Biblical understandings. I just think that the church culture is easier to accept than true Biblical definition. The later actually requires us to think.

For myself, I simply wait , pray and change my own attitude -- it is all I really can do. One thing is for sure though -- the nature of nakedness is changed in my mind and as much as possible, given those around me, I will walk in the liberty and truth of it.

Finis

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 20 -- Other Things to Consiider -- Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith

Now I want people to understand that I am not picking on Islamic people here. The issue is religion vs. faith in the context of nakedness and you can find dress codes all over the place for am multitude of reasons. Substitute any faith for 'Islamic' and you have the idea.

There is nothing more worthy of contempt that a person whose faith is only outward and has no living nature to it. Religiousness does this.

Jesus had no love for religious practice without heart. The Pharisees often were his favorite target. Why? Because to everyone else they were both righteous and religious, to Jesus they were whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. They controlled people's outward behavior -- what they ate, what they did on the Sabbath, what they wore, etc. They had no living relationship with God.

When I look at how the church views nakedness, I see more and more how this issue has become about the control of behavior. There are those in the church who want to define modest and nakedness for others and then tell them how to dress. They may be well meaning but in the end they tell other people what nakedness is (whether it is Biblical or not is not the issue) and then condemn those who do not live to their code. Probably the most heinous example of this is how men in the church tell women what to wear so they will not be tempted to lust. I love it when men, or women put up to it by men, start telling Christian women that if they do not dress a certain way they are acting like prostitutes or being sensual. They are inciting men to lust by how they dress. The real aim is control. I am going to also level the accusation that such men are actually guilty of lust and by trying to control women's dress they are admitting their weakness to it. I wonder why none of them looking the mirror and say -- 'I have to change'? Because they have a self righteous belief in the rightness of their opinion. "My lust is not my problem it is all these women running around 'naked' that are the problem".

Living Faith differs from this in that a person is dedicated to a relationship with God. it is not about religious codes or following rules as it is about love. Love toward God; love toward neighbor. Physical nakedness should not affect a person acting in in living faith and love. When a man sees a woman, regardless of dress, he will either choose to love who she is or treat her like an object. When religious people look at a woman and say "Did you see how she was immodestly dressed' they are not acting in love. They are simply bringing someone else down to justify themselves.

Living faith understands that their is a genuine difference between admiration of a person' body and lusting after a person's body.

One example in Scripture is Esther 2:7 where Esther is declared to be by the writer to be 'lovely of both form and features'. In short she had a great figure and a beautiful face. This is sincere admiration and does not diminish Esther's personhood one bit. The writer is not lusting his is simply pointing out that Esther was beautiful.

Another case of someone respecting the personhood of a woman is Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Because she was caught in the 'very act' of adultery, one thing can be surmised -she was probably dragged naked to Jesus. Sorry, they did not give her time to dress -- their whole purpose is to humiliate both her and Jesus. As she is dragged naked through the streets, her exposure and shame (true nakedness) would have been more pronounced. Honestly, I don't think the mystery of what Jesus wrote on the ground is as fascinating as how Jesus acts. He looks down to write -- respecting her nakedness. He only faces her to forgive her, once no one condemns her and he does not either. Her exposure and shame evaporates and she heads home with neither, even though the physical state of her dress has not changed. Of course someone probalby covered that up as well, but only after she has already been forgiven.

My point is that living faith based on love is not conscious of a persons physical nakedness but the spiritual nakedness of others. Then it seeks to cover that nakedness with the grace of Christ. Some of the most spiritually naked people I have met have been wearing the most modest of dress. While others I have seen are spiritually covered by god but were wearing little in the way of clothes.

Next: The Final Word on the the Bible and Nakedness.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 19 -- Other Things to Consiider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation.

Aah. Vintage Bomber nose Art from World War 2. The 'Modest Maiden" and compared to some of this art she is 'modest'. Got into nose art after I found out my grandfather was a WWII B-17 pilot. Never have found out what his plane's name was. In case anyone is out there who knows his name was Captain Edward William Raby.

OK. Liberty aside what can these new understandings do to help us in our understanding of the nature of sin and temptation.

First of all, we need to understand that sensuality and lust are spiritual forces. Can the visual be used by Satan to tempt us -- of course but how does it have this power. Certainly not, the nudity in and of itself. The power of lust comes from a lustful heart. Jesus was very clear about this -- that which comes out of a man corrupts us. What come from outside into us does not corrupt us.

Secondly, I would have to conclude that the notion that we can stop lust from happening by everyone covering up is nonsense. Whether a woman is nude or not a man could lust after her. Remember Jesus spoke into a Jewish Ancient Middle Eastern where women were cover up more than today. Still he warned that lusting after a woman was adultery. He also said something else which is the third point.

Thirdly, both Jesus and James point that the target we should take for action is ourselves. James gives us the fact we are tempted from our own lusts and Jesus gives us the notion that we should cut off hands and eyes to avoid it. Metaphorically, take extreme measures to correct yourself in the face of sin.

Add to these understandings that nakedness in spiritual and not necessarily physical and you get in my opinion a very different course of action in dealing with temptation to lust. The target dramatically changes from the outside world to yourself -- in particularly your own heart.

Perhaps an example is in order. Let's say I am walking down the streets of New York City on a hot day. Never been there but maybe someday. Two women approach me and because of the laws they are topless/topfree and it is OK because several men have their shirts off as well. To add to the crisis of temptation they are both highly attractive. To top it all off, I am street witnessing. They head right for me, curious as to what I am doing. The come right up to me and ask we what I am talking about.

Now if I was a conventional conservative Christian with traditional views on sexual temptation and nudity the proper response is to beat feet out of there and leave the women standing with their mouths open. We might send up a prayer that someone else will talk to them about Christ when they are 'properly attired".

Or I could show some Christian maturity and armed with my understandings about nakedness and what Biblically constitutes nudity, I might say a prayer for myself that lust will stay dormant in my heart and then witness to them myself. By so doing I also treat them as humans and not as problems. If they accept Christ, then things might change or maybe not. Might be an interesting testimony from them how they accepted Christ as Lord while strolling around topless on a hot day in New York City. Imaging that, God still loved them anyway.

Maybe the imperative of this understanding would hit you if I further tell you that two minutes later they are both hit by a car and killed. Which option does the will of the Father then?

Isn't it amazing how we pick and choose who is worthy of the message of the gospel simply because of outward appearances and our own religious prejudices as if sinners hold to our moral views.

For myself, I never won a single victory over lust by getting rid of every image or nudity from my presence. I did this once upon a time and I can tell you the human imagination is far more vivid than a photograph and more likely to produce lust. It wasn't until I changed my understandings of things and sought a Biblical understanding of nakedness and nudity that I began to realize that I was taught very badly on this issue by the church. The 'don't look' approach does not work. What did work is when I began to appreciate the human body for what it is -- a beautiful creation of God and learned to treat women as human beings regardless of how they are dressed (including those in photographs and artwork) that I began to win battles against my own heart. When I began to truly understand what nakedness is, that is when I began to win the battle against my own shame and exposure. When you can stand naked in front of God and feel no shame, then you are walking in victory in Christ and have returned to 'naked and unashamed'. Unlike the 'Modest Maiden' above, you can be exposed and understand it is about openness and intimacy, not shame as God originally intended.

Next: Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 18 -- Other Things to Consider -- Christian Liberty

Ancient Corinth above, Paul moved in these streets that were dotted with brothels, temple prostitutes and nude images.

Contextualization is the process by which you take what you have studied (observed/interpreted/applied) and put it into large stew pot of all previous knowledge and see if their are new understandings or changes to previous understandings you already have in your beliefs and theology. It is a lifelong and constant process.

The first question: What areas of understanding would this affect? I can think of three:

1. Christian Liberty

2. The Nature of Sin and Temptation

3. External Religion vs. Living Faith

I had originally thought to handle all of this in one post but I am going to take three. Let's Start with the issue of Christian Liberty

The issue of Christian Liberty is most properly presented by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 where Paul reminds us to take care with our liberty so as not to be a stumbling block to those that are weak. Paul also address the issue of immorality in chapter 5 of the same book so it was on his mind when he talked about liberty. The church of Corinth was given over to idolatry and immorality as mentioned before so it also puts things right in our context. Despite this, Paul champions liberty for the Christian but with this condition -- don't let your liberty become a stumbling block to the faith of another. The strong in there personal liberty should make sure their liberty does not become something the weak in liberty might use as an excuse to sin. Paul was so strong in this view that he was committed to not eating meat at all to make sure the weak did not stumble.

In the issue of nudity and nakedness, we need to define who is weak and who is strong. Based on chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians, we are never to condone immorality in fact strong action may be required to discipline those who act in immorality, but there is a great deal of difference between sexual intercourse and nudity for public display. One requires relationship (no matter how brief or poorly motivated) and the other simply is there for public view by anyone who looks.

The strong would be people who understand that Biblically 'nakedness' is a spiritual state of vulnerability and shame because of sin and not an outward state of undress. Paul was one of the strong here -- he was able to minister in places where nudity was both prevalent and common and did not succumb to temptation. The weak would be those who could not do this because nudity leads them to sin -- lust in particular. Those of us who understand the true definition of 'nakedness' need to be mindful that not everyone understands this and are not at liberty to act in this freedom. We cannot use our freedom as a stumbling block for others. It may be that some could join a Christian nudist colony and be free in it, but others would be drawn back to their sin. The very fact someone may discover its existence might be a stumbling block in and of itself. Liberty used as licence in this area may be out. That said I find to many weak people not willing to become stronger in their understanding. One could spend all their time trying not to offend the weak but that also is wrong -- liberty s their to make us free.

What the strong need to do is think of ways to walk in their liberty and not offend others. To be free but understanding of others. Probably the bast way is those who are strong can use this to help them in their fight against temptation and sin.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 17 -- The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction

Now as a general observation -- traditions die hard. Even if the truth of a situation can be shown -- the tradition will be maintained because it is...well tradition. That means even if you show the truth that a tradition is wrong it will be maintained. People do not like change and they do not like to admit they were wrong.

Now in the case of traditional Christianity and Nudity the issue is that Biblically there is little support for traditional understandings of what constitutes nudity and nakedness. However, I doubt they will change their definition. Simply put, they have invested a lot of time and energy maintaining and they are not going to consider it a waste. There are political and religious forces that will hold them in place as well.

In order to affect change, a younger generation that is willing to reexamine their understandings of Scripture. In short, there is a need for a reformation of Biblical thought and theology. You can see it already beginning in many ways but the most significant is the amount of young people leaving the church but returning but with their own ideas. The emergent church also has had an effect with people have their own Christianity on their own terms. I think an interesting transition is about to take place in the American church where a new generation is going to throw off the old ideas and rediscover a new Christianity that will be different. It will also have its problems but hopefully one thing that will be present is a desire to reexamine viewpoints in the context of what Scripture actually says. I hope the issues of sexuality and nakedness will be among them.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- An Initial Attempt to Contextualize.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 16 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World

Here in North America one thing is becoming clear -- skin is becoming more and more common. Christians still have to live and minister in this world, but it is becoming more clear that as we do we are going to see more public nudity and it is going to become more prevalent. The questions are course of action ones. We have one state that already has topless laws that allow women to be topless in the same places men can be and several others that have laws that allow these things in certain situations. I predict it is only the beginning.

The traditional 'conservative' position is one of isolation and an attempt at stopping the skin from showing as much as possible through political action. With the prevailing wind being that the church is supposed to stand for 'traditional morality' including women and men keeping their clothes on, it becomes difficult to kind of stand against that wind but here I go.

1) To be blunt, there is no Biblical support to the idea that nakedness, in and of itself is evil or sinful, and if we are going to maintain credibility we need to acknowledge this. The fact is our views on nudity, toplessness and other related issues reflect more of a holiness movement cultural mentality than an honest Biblical assessment.

2) I see this issue being used more as another reason to isolate ourselves from people who need the gospel. The nude beach sign above is humorous in its own way but there are real ones in certain states that warn of areas where nude sunbathers might be. On the streets and everywhere else in New York State, in any place a man can go without a shirt so can a woman. In many places, people are not a squeamish about showing their bodies to public consumption. The church's reaction has been one of hiding and avoiding or trying to reverse political decisions on enact moral legislation.

Looking at the book of Acts, I do not see the apostles doing this. As Paul ministered in Corinth he would have been greeted with sexual perversion on a grand scale. Nudity was in abundance in Corinth. I find it telling that Paul does not start a petition with the government to get it stopped. He does not stay away from areas where the temple prostitutes are showing themselves and their services. He does not lead a moral crusade against the nude temple statues and mosaics depicting nudity. He does none of that -- he ministers right in the middle of it all. He simply preaches the gospel and disciples those who believe. Even when the church is established his focus is the ethics and morality of the church -- not those outside of it. It is almost as if he expects sinners to sin -- imagine that.

I think the American church's failure in this country continues to be compounded because we act as America's moral police rather than engaging the message of Christ. When we do pop out of our holes we seem to call down curses from our ivory towers and then disappear back into our holes. So much for compassion for the lost -- we continue to want to meet the sinner on our terms instead of his or hers. To do this may require us to walk down the streets of cities where women are walking around topless, go to nude beaches and visit places where nudity in both reality and art are present. Why? Because it may be our only opportunity to minister to some people.

3) The current 'conservative' position fails to understand the nature of the lust problem in this country is not the prevalence of nude images. Nude images are the result of an already existing lust in people. The fact is there is a current philosophy among many church folks that in order to stop sin is to eliminate external temptation but this does not take James 1:13-15 into account. Temptation comes from our own flesh. It does not come from externals it comes from our heart. Why then do we think we will rid the world of evil by getting rid of externals -- eliminating pornography and making women cover up will no more get rid of lust than standing on your head.

Next: The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 15 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity

I debated long and hard about whether or not to use this picture, but it illustrates the current modern debate about public nudity so well ... I couldn't resist using to make a point.

The issues questions on this one are very current. Particularly the issue of women going topless or topfree (depending on who you talk to) in public. When I did my study I paid considerable attention to the issue of women's breasts and how the Bible views them and if in any way are they connected to nudity. Part 7 of this series I focused on it in particular along with scattered references in each of parts 1 to 12. The issue of physical nakedness I looked at also. Observation over. Interpretation I gave in Part 13 -- The Biblical Definition of Nakedness. Now to the second area of application -- public nudity.

The Questions for the Christian concerning public nudity:
1. If a woman were to show her breasts in public would it be considered a sin by the Bible?
2. At what point does the Bible consider a person naked physically and thus publicly unacceptable?

Before I begin answering these questions back to conservative ideals vs. conservative tradition:
The traditional 'conservative' position I grew up with and which many still hold today in many Christian circles is that a person who displays their body's skin of inappropriate places was inciting sin and sinning themselves. The problem is the definition of 'inappropriate places' has changed over the years. During the Victorian Era any man or woman who showed in public more than their face or hands was considered 'loose'. I remember during my childhood it is why I always wore pants (no jeans) to church with dress shirts (short sleeved was OK for boys but not for girls). My teen years saw a few changes -- jeans were OK but they better not be tight ones. Girls broke the mold of always having to wear dresses and jeans and slacks appeared in church among the girls. Now to be considered loose in my generation meant you wore tight jeans or a girl showed *gasp* a little cleavage. As time has gone on, I can faithfully observe that women have shown more and more in the church setting as the years have gone by. Just this last summer a woman visiting my church wore a sun dress that was well above her knees and showed more than a little cleavage and was sleeveless as an example.

Despite all these changes a couple things have remained constant. 1) Showing of anything involving the bathing suit (trunks for guys and a bikini for girls) area of the body has been forbidden and 2) For a girl or woman to show too much of her breasts, in particular, to show her nipples in any context would be considered inappropriate. I did hear of a story of one pastor that allowed women to breastfeed without blankets in his church, but lets be honest this is not an activity that would be accepted in most Christian churches.

Question #1: If a woman were to show her breasts in public would be considered a sin by the Bible?
Short answer -- No. The problem Biblically with this notion is that there is absolutely no verse of Scripture that says this. By you say: what about the modesty passages? My position on them is posted here. Read it an come back so I don't have to repeat myself. Simply put these passages do not deal with this question at all but an entirely different problem. In addition there is no verse that connects women's breasts with nakedness or nudity. In fact the majority of verses that talk about women's breasts are either neutral about them to illustrate a point or praise them for their appearance or function a symbols of nurturing and motherhood. The few that do place women's breasts in sexual connotations do not connect them with nudity, nor are do they indicate that a women bearing her breasts would be a sinner. There is simply no way to BIBLICALLY support the idea. In fact it might be said the Bible supports the goodness of female breasts and says nothing of how they are bad. If someone were to ask me to build a case from the Bible to prove that woman should always wear tops in public, I would be at a loss as to how to do it.

Question #2: At what point is a person considered physically naked according to the Bible and thus publicly unacceptable? Honestly there is only a few verses that deal with this and the definition would be probably anything covered by a swimsuit bottom. Buttocks included. The issue here is that this definition arrived at by observing a few passages not because the Bible explicitly says so. The way Adam and Eve cover themselves and a few verses from the Old testament Prophets lead us to this definition. The problem is there are also verses where prophets are ordered by God to be naked and in public and where David dances naked before God. We may know what physically the Bible constitutes as nakedness but the Bible makes interpretation difficult when determining, if it is always a sin. In the case of Adam and Eve it is a result not the sin itself and in the case of the prophet and David it is actually symbolic of obedience and worship of God. Once again is what real nakedness in light of the whole Bible's teaching spiritual rather than physical? Very likely.

In short, the Biblical definition of nakedness being spiritual evil as a result of sin, but good is in the context of being sinless makes the issue of public nudity cloudy. It is once again dependent on the consciences of the persons involved. It is more likely to be an issue of culture than a Biblical one and that is something the current 'conservative' tradition cannot accept.

Just a note here even though my positrons on this fall very much outside the positions of 'conservative' traditions, the reality is that I am more conservative than they are because I have followed the conservative idea of the Bible as authority and in looking at it found a position that stands firmly on those ideals. The truth is the 'conservative' tradition on this issue has not a single bit of God's Word to stand on for its authority, but remains purely traditional understandings to uphold a certain religious culture. I am not going to say at this time that its position is wrong or not beneficial, but I am going to say for a group of people who claims to hold no position without Biblical support, they have very little here here.

Next: The Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 14 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

OK. Given some of the comments I have received -- mostly from my own son -- I have decided to use this post along with the remainder of the posts in this series as an illustration conservative ideals vs. 'conservative' tradition. (Yes, there is a difference). In light of this, a few notes about methodology on how I approach issues like this.

1. I start with a few presuppositions a) The Bible is the INFALLIBLE Word of God -- All 66 books of it. b) There are rules to interpreting the Word of God the biggest being --Don't read into Scripture (technically called --eisegesis) but let the Scripture speak for itself (exegesis). c) When the infallible word of God is properly understood according to the rules of interpretation it constitutes authority over life, faith and behavior.
2. The rules of interpretation are: a) Don't read into scripture; Let it speak to you -- it says what it says b) The Context (textual and cultural) of a passage is important. c) As much as possible -- Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
3.There is an orderly method to make sure the above happens: a) observe -- ask: what does it say? b) interpretation -- ask: what does it mean? c) apply -- ask: what is it asking me to do or understand? d) Contextualize -- Ask: How do these new understandings change my overall understanding of Scripture?
4. When dealing with issues the best thing to do is consider every verse on the subject before drawing any conclusions.

This to me constitutes the conservative method of looking a Scripture and the conservative ideal of submitting to its authority.

Now with this in mind lets consider the issue of nakedness in relationship to the art verses pornography debate.

The traditional 'conservative' understanding is that all nakedness of flesh constitutes nakedness. When a man or woman is physically naked and shows themselves to people, they are engaged in sin. An image or depiction of men or women naked is wrong because it could lead to causing lust in a person therefore all such images are pornography. God does not like nakedness.

When I was growing up this play out in the early days like this -- I remember one time I went to a museum and there was an art section. Guess what section we didn't go to -- the art section. When I asked why? "They have pictures and statues of naked women." was the reply. What the field trip people wanted to avoid was religious types having a fit taking sixth graders through such a thing and corrupting their brains with nakedness. One piece I heard mentioned was the 'Venus de Milo' probably of a replica of it not the real one pictured above but it was present and we couldn't have young men corrupted by that. Some of you older folks who read my blog holler if you hear me!

So is the Venus de Milo art or porn? More importantly what makes porn, well porn? Who defines it? Of utmost importance, is such a definition Biblical?

Now back to a conservative approach to Scripture. The questions I am asking are many but the real issue comes down to what does the Bible say is nakedness and is it wrong in and of itself?
The first 12 posts in this series have been the observation phase of this method -- What does the Bible say about nakedness? That finished I went to phase two -- interpretation and drew a conclusion in part 13 by providing (as best as possible) a defintion of nakedness based on what the Bible actually says. Nakedness is not a state of physical undress -- Adam and Eve were naked both before and after their disobedience. The difference was the change in their spiritual status before God -- what was good (their nakedness) was turned to shame because of their sin. Sin is the change and the shame and vulnerability it caused. This became reflective in how they viewed their physical nakedness. There is a difference between sinless nakedness and sinful nakedness. In sinless nakedness it represents openness and intimacy; in the sinful nakedness it represents shame and exposure.

Now application: this understanding of nakedness applied to the art vs. porn debate. What does the Venus de Milo represent --art or porn? I will tell you --art. It is a depiction of the beauty of the female body. It is not about sex or lust or shameful nakedness -- it is nakedness for the purpose of illustrating beauty and openness to that beauty -- sorry it is art, but then again that is my understanding. Another man, might look at the same statue and think -- 'man what I would do with that, if it was a real woman'. Then it is porn. Confusing, huh?

Hate to say it but whether something is porn or art greatly depends on the spirit, mind and heart of the beholder. Now I am not talking about stuff that is deliberately designed to bring arousal or in the depictions shows sinful acts; I am talking simple nakedness. Take woman model posing in the same pose as a the Venus de Milo and take a picture -- what do you have now? Art or porn? Not so easy to answer is it? I had one conversation with a minister who said that when you really look at it, it really comes down to you and your ability to control your own lust--To him the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue could be considered art. Poor in taste and tacky but art just the same -- it depended on how you looked at it

The fact is that the definitions of what constitute porn in 'conservative' circles are largely the construction of religious opinion and not an honest considerations of the texts dealing with the subject of nakedness. Ask ten of these people to give a Biblical definition of pornography and then back it with Scriptural references and I doubt 1 in 10 could do it adequately. Ask them to regurgitate what someone else taught them and it is 10 for 10. Definitions as to what constitute soft porn, hard porn, hardcore porn, etc. etc. are almost entirely based on the upholding what current 'conservative' Christian public opinion is, not what the Bible defines as nakedness.

In this issue, a Biblical definition of nakedness leaves us to our own conscience as to whether a presented piece is art or porn. I know, this makes it clear as mud but then again why do people try to define this anyway -- religious people do it to define behavior. It is about religious control -- we can't have people thinking for themselves after all. A biblical definition of nakedness depends on what is steeped in sin not in the state of physical dress and that means each situation, each viewing and each depiction can be art or porn depending on whether or not LUST is present.

This will become clearer when I engage the next issue: Public Nudity

By the way, the next time I am in a museum I am going to walk through the art section and additionally I find the Venus de Milo one of the best depictions of female body ever -- it is art to me. I also consider this a conservative interpretation because I am actually stay dead on with conservative ideals of biblical interpretation concerning nakedness. I have done my homework. Traditional 'conservative' ideas on this issue are not really 'conservative' at all - -they just label themselves as such.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 13 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness

Back to the Garden of Eden. After rereading all my posts on this subject and considering all of what Scripture has to say on the subject I have to conclude that our definition of nakedness -- that is 'without clothes' is completely wrong. Nakedness, Biblically, actually has very little to do with clothes; it is a question of spiritual condition. Is it reflected in a person's felling about being with out clothes -- Yes, but at the same time the source of the feelings of nakedness are spiritual not physical.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed, after it they are naked and ashamed. Their nakedness did not change, what changed was their perception because of the change in their spirits due to sin. They were just as naked after as before. They had become spiritually vulnerable and exposed and thus their physical vulnerability and exposure began to reflect this in feelings and fears.

As I have examined this topic there were a couple things that I had problems with reasoning out -- 1) Why would a husband and wife who were not ignorant of each others nakedness suddenly be ashamed of each other's nakedness. Why would they make clothes for themselves; exactly who were they trying to cover up from? I had to conclude that both the making of clothes and hiding in the bushes from God were part of the same problem -- shame and exposure for disobedience -- not some inherent problem with the human naked body. There problem was not with each other's nakedness but their own nakedness before a holy God. It was a God-mankind problem not a male-female problem. The fact is that in a few verses of leaving the garden man 'knows' his wife and she conceives -- did they do that in the dark? No -- the issue is the shame, exposure and vulnerability that their sin has caused before God and it is this spiritual state that is reflected in a change in their understanding of physical nakedness. They cover their flesh in hopes of covering up their spiritual vulnerability and shame before God. Nakedness is both spiritual and physical but it is the spiritual that determines the understanding of the physical. The physical feelings of nakedness are caused by spiritual nakedness.

2) Romans 8:35 -- that the love of God cannot be stopped by our nakedness. This is not possible if nakedness in and of itself is a sin. Nakedness is a result not and action; a state not a act of disobedience. This means you can stand naked in the shower and still be loved by God. You can also be sin free and be naked before God.

These two factors along with the Old Testament prophets constantly referring to nakedness as exposure, shame and vulnerability lead me to formulate the following definition from the Bible concerning nakedness.

A Biblical Definition of Nakedness: The spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that caused by sin and a human is made aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God.

It is often reflected physically but not necessarily so. A person can still be exposed by their sin before God even when fully clothed. Likewise, a person who is devoid of clothing may still be covered by the righteousness of Christ and thus naked and not ashamed. Physicality is only a reflection and consequence not the state itself which is spiritual.

This definition is constantly repeated as God speaks to his people -- The idea of His punishments being exposing His sinful bride Israel to the world in naked shame is repeated over and over again.

There are several implications that now can be made when looking at nakedness of the physical and spiritual sort in our world when compared to this definition. My next three posts will reflect on these issues:

1. Art vs. Pornography

2. Public Nudity and the Christian

3. Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 12 -- The Rest of the New Testament

This statue is from Corinth where Paul ministered

Now once we leave the Gospels and Acts it only takes till Romans 8:35 to get to a reference on nakedness -- it is a reference that nothing can separate us from the love of God -- not even nakedness. Now I am going to tell you this is one of the most significant verses I have seen on the subject of nakedness but I am going to tell you why in a later post -- just know this that if you are standing in the shower naked, the love of God is still there.

The next reference to nakedness is 2 Corinthians 5:3 which is in the context of taking off this mortal body so that we may put on the eternal one -- so we will not be found naked anymore. Does that mean part of new body will be clothed -- I doubt it -- but with the same of sin gone so will the shame of nakedness be gone. While we wear our white robes in 'heaven' we will doubtless not be ashamed; but also, if we were to take them off we would not be ashamed either -- sin is gone.

You have to get to James 2:15 where it makes reference to a brother or sister being without clothing and that faith would be demonstrated in giving them clothes to cover them.

In Revelation there are actually several stops -- 3:17-18 both mention nakedness -- in verse 17 it is about the reality of the state of the church of Laodicia -- they were naked -- exposed, vulnerable and shameful. Verse 18 tells them the cure -- buy clothing from God.

Revelation 16:15 has a parenthetical blessing to those who keep their clothes so that god will not see their shame -- now in this case I think the clothing is symbolic of righteousness which has been mentioned before in the book of revelation.

Finally in Revelation 17:16 there is a promise by God to the Whore of Babylon -- that He will strip her naked and leave her desolate. Another symbolic use of naked that she will have nothing left.

Well that is all i could find in reference to the Bible but I want to continue this series to by making a few observations and drawing a painful conclusion.

Next: Biblically -- What is Nakedness?

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 11 -- The Gospels and Acts

On to the New Testament, the first real reference to nakedness in the New Testament is in Matthew 25 where Jesus is blessing the sheep and cursing the goats. In all cases, though the thought is on naked as vulnerable and destitute. A naked person in he ancient world meant either very poor or a slave. Jesus reminds us to cloth the naked and protect them from this vulnerability.

There is one case of nakedness in all three of the first gospels but it is indirect -- the Man possessed with legion is said Mark to be 'clothed' although no reference is made (at least in the NASB) to him being naked it is assumed because of the reference to him being clothed. In this case nakedness is indicative of how nothing was shameful to the demon possessed man. Once healed he gets clothes on to show he is back to being normal.

The second reference is in Mark 14:51-52 -- where John-Mark (it is believed) covers himself with a sheet to go to the garden with Jesus and as they arrest Mark he lets go of the sheet they grab and flees into the night naked. I am going to tell you this sound like someone who was used to sleeping naked who is roused from sleep and asked if he wants to come the Garden of Gethsemane -- he agrees but does not even dress -- he simply wraps the blanket around himself. There is nor moral statement of whether this was right or wrong -- simply a statement of the facts.

Luke makes two references to women's breasts -- Luke 11:27-28 in which a woman speaks of the blessedness of Jesus' mother's breasts and womb and Luke 23:28-30 where Jesus blesses the breasts that never nursed. In both cases the issue is the nurturing power of women's breasts through nursing. No sexual reference is indicated at all. Jesus also does not seem embarrassed in either case to make references to this part of a woman's body or to hear it referenced.

John makes no reference to either

Acts has only one reference to nakedness and it is Acts 19:16 where the seven sons of Sceva flee stripped naked -- They are totally humiliated and dishonored.

What all this shows us is that nakedness is about being shamed, humiliated, being vulnerable or destitute.

Next: Nakedness and the Rest of the New Testament

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 10 -- Nakedness and the Rest of the Prophets

The next of the prophets to talk of nakedness is Hosea. Poor Hosea, God uses his life and marriage to illustrate the nature of God's relationship to Israel -- God tells him to marry a harlot who herself is the product of harlotry. Telling isn't it.

The early part of chapter 2 also speaks of both nakedness and breasts in a sexual connotation -- Israel need to stop playing the harlot after other gods. God uses the image of breast to convey sex -- remove her adulteries from between her breasts. Sorry i get the image of a foreign god laying on top of her. Because of this god says he will strip Israel naked and expose her to shame. Hosea 9:14 is a threat by God to dry up women's breasts -- in short remove their power to nurture their infants in response to Israel's sin.

Amos 2 -- God promises doom to Moab and as a part of that pronouncement he promises ultimate shame by saying that their warriors will be turned away naked -- exposed to both ultimate disgrace and vulnerability.

Micah 1 -- Micah talks about lamenting over Jerusalem and Samaria by walking naked and barefoot in chapter 1, symbolic of how both countries have been made naked and vulnerable.

Nahum 3 -- God promises to disgrace to Nineveh and uses nakedness as a way of illustrating how much He is going to expose them.

Habakkuk 2:15-16 -- Avery telling story of lust for other peoples nakedness by God pronouncing judgement to those who willfully expose others to nakedness through debauchery. god promises that those that do such thing will themselves be exposed to nakedness.

Next: The Gospels and Acts

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 9 -- Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

Jeremiah does not really get into the whole nakedness thing in his big book by his name but in Lamentations he mentions nakedness a couple of times in which the reference is to shame and desolation. In one place the breasts of jackals is mentioned where it is said that even jackals offer their breasts to their young but the daughters of Zion were more cruel and wouldn't. Mostly another reference to women's breasts as something that has the power to nurture life.

Ezekiel by contrast uses nakedness as a constant metaphor in his prophecies particularly concerning Israel, Judah and Jerusalem.

Chapter 16 is particularly graphic in its description of how God found Israel like a a baby left to die on the side of a road and God saved her and blessed her as she grew up. Chapter 16:7 mentions how that when she had no breasts and was naked God took care of her (by the way this is the only verse I could find where the word breasts and naked both appear and it is not about sexuality but vulnerability and youth). God states than no one but Him cared for them when they were naked and swimming in their own blood. I said it was graphic. The rest of the chapter is about how Israel has been treacherous because even though God has loved her so, she has decided to play the harlot and expose herself to other gods. Ezekiel will play on the image of the unfaithful wife for the rest of the book.

Chapter 18 remarks about how the people have left the poor naked and vulnerable and thus they will be judge for it. The same is true for 22:10.

Chapter 23 is another graphic description of God's relationship with Israel (Samaria) and Judah who he calls harlots and uses the images of nakedness and breasts in a sexual way. The idea of foreplay comes to mind as you read verse 3. In all cases the issue is how God has always loved his wives Israel and Judah but they have been unfaithful to Him but playing the harlot with other gods. Because of this God promises he will give them both into the hands of their lovers and they will be striped naked and be made ashamed. Particularly telling is how Ezekiel uses the image of nakedness to convey shame and lewdness. The problem is the metaphorical usage which does not really help us with our issue other than to say that sometimes to be naked is to be ashamed or to be exposed and vulnerable but it never really defines nakedness. Nakedness is understood in these passages by the readers and hearers, so Ezekiel never defines it.

Nakedness = shame, vulnerability, exposure

Next: Nakedness and the Rest of the Prophets

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 8 -- Job and Isaiah Naked

Job says several things about being naked but one is the most classic line about coming fro the womb naked and in nakedness we return to the dust. (Job 1:21). In using nakedness this way Job shows symbolically that we come into the world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Solomon does the same thing in Ecclesiastes 5:15 -- it is almost a quote of Job. In any case nakedness is sue to make a point and a good one.

The Bible does use nakedness to symbolize things that sometimes involves shame, sometimes vulnerability.

Isaiah 20 is an example of this: Isaiah is TOLD by god to strip naked and walk around naked for three YEARS. It is symbolic of how God is going to shame Egypt and Cush through the Assyrians and in this way God uses the prophet's actions to pronounce judgment on Egypt and Cush. Much the same thing happens in Isaiah 47 about Babylon as far as judgment although there is no record of Isaiah walked around naked. In short God is saying -- I am going to expose you for what you really are -- powerless against me. Other verses about nakedness in Isaiah demonstrate need and the neediness of people that are oppressed. There is also one verse about the comfort of a mother's breasts in 66:11 (see previous post)

I wonder what the modern proponents that all nakedness is sinful do with this passage: Here is someone who walks around naked for three years AT GOD"S DIRECTION! I don't know I am beginning to wonder if the same of nakedness is so much about physical nakedness or a state of spirit. Isaiah is naked but I doubt he himself has any shame about it -- He is being obedient to God so why would he be ashamed of his nakedness? Creates a problem doesn't it when God asks you to be naked before him?

Next: Jeremiah and Ezekiel say a few words.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 7 -- Women's Breasts

I suppose that one might argue that I seem to have a fascination with this topic and maybe an obsession. I could argue -- "Yeah, I am a guy. Get over it, guys are fascinated with the subject." What I don't think most Christian men and women understand about this issue is that it is a current issue. One State of the United States, New York already has a law about this subject -- anywhere a man can appear without a top so can a woman. Similar laws exist in in about 7 other states in certain situations (beaches and other areas). In Europe, there are many places where a woman can appear topless -- the fact is Europeans don't have as many hang ups about nudity in general as we do in the US. Many local cities, towns, etc. have their own laws because most states leave the issue to local government to deal with on their own. For instance Columbus, OH has a very similar law to the one in New York state. The point is in certain places a Christian can be walking down the street and see a woman topless (or topfree if you prefer) and they really can't call the cops -- in fact calling the cops in New York can get you and the cops sued. So what do you do? You can't avoid everything.

I all states and places though the problem is that a woman is only considered indecent if she shows her nipples. That still leaves a lot of room on a woman's breast.

At this point in going through Bible I am looking for how the Bible refers to nakedness. In the issue of women's breasts at this point I would have to say the Bible is silent other than a few references to nursing. Now as we get past David and begin to look at the rest of the Bible -- nothing till the book of Job. The fact is the poetic literature of the Bible has a lot to say about the subject of women's breasts. Job makes mention of them, Song of Solomon as well (9 separate verses). Job makes mention of the motherly aspects of women's breasts. No sexual connotation at all. Song of Solomon is a different story.

In the context of Song of Solomon, the subject is the desire the couple has for each other. In chapters 1-7 the mention of breasts is one of admiration. That is the man is admiring his future bride's breasts and commenting on them. In short, he is saying his bride has a nice pair. 8:1 mentions the motherly aspects of women's breasts again much like Job. In Chapter 8 verses 8 and 10 the woman in the story mentions her own breasts as a symbol of her virtue -- she has kept her virginity to her wedding night referring to her breast as acting like towers. In this case they are symbolic of her virtue but it is not mentioned how that is so other than to say she was not a women who just put out for anyone. Probably no one has touched them. Seen them? Well it does not say.

What can be said at this point when dealing with the subject of the Bible and women's breasts:

1. When women's breasts are mentioned, the most common reference is to nursing or the motherly aspect of the breasts or women. It is about nurturing.

2. In Song of Solomon we have an unmarried couple and the man makes continued reference to how much he admires -- not only his future wife's body but her breasts in particular. Wonder how he knew what all this looked like in a middle eastern culture? So is admiration a sin? Not with these verses -- they got into the Bible and no sin is mentioned.

3. In all cases, it is never stated that a woman showing her breasts is sinful or shameful. if anything the virtues of women's breasts are set forward and they are not presented in a negative light.

Next: Job and Isaiah Naked.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 6 -- Bathsheba's Bath.

This is Biblical illustration of what I have been talking about. Bathsheba is taking a bath -- back then this is usually accomplished by doing in the courtyard of the house -- from street level totally secluded. or on the roof that also had walls so it was secluded fro the street but open air to the sky. In short, Bathsheba was bathing and not suspecting that anyone would see her. Maybe she glanced up at the palace -- the one place she could be observed -- but then again in this culture and according to the law you need to bathe so you bathe. What I am saying is that she was not trying to look sensual or seduce the king.

David sees her bathing. now if we were to do the normal thing people do --"she should know better" or "what was she thinking bathing without clothes on" or something similarly stupid. But even the Bible places the blame where it belongs -- not on Bathsheba for taking a bath but on David for committing adultery, lying and murder. David's lust was the problem, not Bathsheba's nakedness.

Next: Women's Breasts.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 5 -- Saul and David: Naked in Public

Just  a reminder, one of the most famous naked statues in the world is of King David by Michelangelo. Today this subject gets fun because of two interesting cases -- Saul and David get naked in public and in both cases God is involved.

1 Samuel 19:23-24 Chronicles Saul trying to find David but as he gets near his destination he get filled withe Spirit of God -- it has two effects: He prophesies and he strips off his clothes and lays naked all day -- notice this is what the Spirit of God causes him to do.

2 Samuel 6:12-23: This incident is a little more controversial but based on what Micah said -- in dancing before the Lord David uncovered himself. That is he showed himself. I would also note that David wore only the ephod so it is completely possible. Many modern interpreters say that in twirling around David showed his undergarments but that would not explain Micah's anger. What is puzzling is the fact that God sides with David. Micah is the one who pays by being barren the rest of her life for her outburst.

Both incidents are men naked in public -- one because of God and the other in praise to God. In the first we have God causing someone to be naked -- if getting naked in front of others nakedness is a sin in and of itself, then God just caused someone to sin. Clearly in nakedness and shame there is something else going on here. in the second, a person is exposing themselves to God and others but bears no shame.

Both actually represent something positive, the nakedness is symbolic of openness and vulnerability before God. In both cases God approved. There is some food for thought.

Next: Bathsheba's Bath

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 4 -- Uncovering the Nakedness of Others.

Now the next significant verses in the Bible that deal with the subject of nakedness are found I Leviticus 18. This entire chapter is dedicated to who you are not supposed to uncover the nakedness of. The list is long and their are other commandments involving sexual practice. The interesting thing is this expression: 'Uncover the nakedness'. The interpretive problem is that this cannot mean strip off clothes or look on a naked body because in Leviticus 20:11 we get a definition:' If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

This makes it pretty clear that this expression is referring to sexual intercourse and who you can and cannot have it with. This also puts limits on who you can and cannot marry.

I am going to tell you this does not help the discussion of what constitutes nudity or nakedness from the Bible's point of view. In short, that is not what these passages are talking about but they are dealing with proper sexual relationships for the People of God Israel. Much of what follows in the rest of the Law of Moses is the same thing repeated over and over.

What gets interesting is when the Spirit of God causes a couple kings to be naked for different reasons.

Next: Saul and David: Naked in Public

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 3 -- Sundry Verses on Breasts and Priests

A few things first before I begin. I want to address two issues: 1) Why I talk about this -- my personal motivation and 2) some things I have seen regarding Noah (last week's post on this topic) that I think are bad interpretations.

Why? Well I can tell you what it is not -- I am not trying to find justification for myself because I have some habit that I am trying to justify. I know my limits because I have been down that road before and know its pitfalls. Nor am I seeking to justify those who do such things as well. What I am doing is looking at our world and realizing that some day in the very near future it may be impossible not to look at other people's 'nakedness'. I simply want to know what that constitutes nakedness Biblically so i know when to truly turn my head and avoid sin. I also am a weightlifter following a bodybuilding style and I like feedback. To this end I have started posting pictures of myself at Bodybuilding.com and I don't want to be a stumbling block to others, but i am, beginning to see that most Christians' problem with nakedness and nudity involves a bad definition of what nakedness is.

Regarding Noah. One thing I saw was an interpretation that it is a sin to see some one's nakedness because of what happened to Ham. I submit to you Ham seeing his Fathers nakedness was not a sin but what he did about it afterwards that was a sin -- he exposed his father's nakedness.

For instance, if I walk into a bathroom in some one's home not thinking anyone is there and upon opening the door I see my neighbor's wife standing there naked because she has just got out of the shower and forgot to lock the door, have I sinned? No. It was an accident. I sin if I lust after her because of it or expose my neighbor's wife to shame by my reporting it to others. The godly things to do is quickly shut the door and apologize to her through it and then not mention it to anyone and cover her. Ham does not do this toward his father. His father is laying there naked and if he had looked away and then did what his brothers did and covered his father's nakedness he would be remembered as one of the righteous and blessed by his father. The looking on some one's nakedness in and of itself is not a sin. It is the lust and/or desire to expose that nakedness to others that is sin. Sorry to be so technical but I have had a few things happen to me where I have seen other women naked in part or in whole with no intention of doing so -- it just happened. I don't think this is sin. It is lust and slander that are the sin here.

That said as we continue on through the Bible we hit our issue in a multitude of quick things in various verses

Genesis 49:25 talks about the blessing of the womb and breasts. It is Jacob blessing his son Joseph and it is about blessing the tow aspects of motherhood -- the womb and the breasts. It actually does support the notion that when it comes to female breasts that the Bible seems to link them with motherhood and not sexuality of the female. It does not talk about the breasts in a negative way.

Exodus 20:26 talks about the fact that God wants no steps to his altar because he does not want his priests to expose themselves walking up them. This is a clear case of defining nakedness as the lower half of a man -- probably his genitalia. Exodus 28:42 talks about covering the bare flesh of Aaron and his sons as they minister before the Lord. The problem with both of these is that they are very specific in their context -- the priests in ministry before the Lord in the tabernacle. This may provide a principle for being dressed in church but then again it does not help us in the discussion of nakedness in society otherwise.

Next: Uncovering the Nakedness of Others

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 2 -- Noah: Drunk and Naked

Genesis 9:20-27"Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."
This is an odd story. 1) Noah gets drunk and God does not think it ill and 2) God honors his curses and blessings of his sons.
The first I think is explained in the fact that the world Noah now lives in has changed. Before the Flood there is no rain or seasons, but after it there is. This indicates a change in the climate and nature of the world. The flood has removed whatever preserving power of life the world had in its makeup. Evidenced by the fact that the ages of people drop off very fast afterwards and seasons mean there is now weather and natural disaster because of it. I think Noah has no idea that the wine he would make would be alcoholic. He may not have even knew what it was.
The second weirdness has to do with Noah's nakedness. Drunk as he was an perhaps an unwilling participant in this drunkenness. He uncovers himself. I think this refers to full nakedness as when working on the ark the men probably stripped down for work -- Like Peter does in John 21. It is not that these men have not seen most of each other when working and so it is probably the case that Noah is completely naked exposing himself.
The issue here is not so much nakedness as respect. By seeing the nakedness of His father and then telling others he diminished family respect for the leader of that family -- Noah. Shem and Japheth show more respect for their fathers nakedness and cover him without looking. Had Ham done so and then no one but he would have even know he would have covered the shame of his Father's nakedness and shown love to his father. The issue is not the nakedness in and of itself it is how it is reacted too that is the issue. Ham does not show his father respect but exposes him, the other two sons do the opposite. In any case this does little to help us consider the issue of nakedness and modern issues involving it because this is family and these are all men involved.
I don't think there is any evidence that Ham's reaction was homosexual it was one of shock and exposing his father to ridicule -- something that should not have been done.
Next: Sundry Verses about Breasts and Priests