Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part Three -- Where Lust Lives.

I am really not going to give anything new here as James 1:13-15 kind of says it plain:
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

No Brainer. Lust Lives in the person. In particular it lives in the heart of you and me. Taking Jesus word on defilement in Matthew 15:17-20 -- "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." And we begin to understand that it is the heart of man where lust dwells and defiles a person.

Lust knows no discrimination -- male, female, old, young, red, yellow, black and white. It exists in the hearts of all. Men and women differ in how lust manifests but the result is the same -- as desire to own or possess another persons sexuality for the purpose of control or gratification of self. The lust of men starts as visual attraction and then a desire to control or own the woman desired for ones self. Women lust too. I think in their case it is about comfort and vanity. A woman wants to be desired thinking that will lead to a man loving her. Men deal with 'love' to get sex, sex being a goal worthy in and of itself to most men. Women deal with sex to get 'love'; they hope sex will lead them to love. It rarely happens. In both cases, people are not people to the person with lust. They are objects to gain something for ones self. Lust is the poorest way to start a relationship, but in our sin sick world it is, more often than not, where it starts.

Lust differs from admiration in that admiration respects the person hood of the person being admired. A man can admire the beauty of a woman without lusting after her. Lust is a decision of the heart and will. A switch is flipped where the man stops thinking about the woman as a person who is beautiful and makes her into an object to be used.

That established, I want to make this series of posts to be about application. I live in the real world and a lot of this discussion has been me coming to terms with my own lust and how to deal with it. At an early age, I got involved with porn and all that goes with it. As a Christian I struggled with it unsuccessfully by the use of willpower. Doesn't work -- "taste not, touch not, handle not" is religious nonsense, as Paul rightly calls 'will worship', that does not deal with the real issue -- retraining or disciplining the heart to walk in righteousness and not in lust.

In this culture of ours, USA, Men and women are bombarded with images all day long about men and women involving sex and romance that are unrealistic and plastic. But the problem is not this -- the world is going to do what it does and, baring a real revival, it is going to get worse. I can see the nude beaches and public nudity of Europe coming here in a very short time. The issues of porn vs. art; public nudity and skin, sensuality, etc. will become more pronounced in the coming years. How is the church and the individual going to handle it? Changing culture is long time consuming process and in the meantime, what is a Christian man or woman to do to fight the temptations? There are some things that you cannot avoid because we are in the world. Jesus wants us to be in the world -- but not of it. How do we do this in regard to nudity, modesty an culture as men and women. That is the subject of the next two posts.

Next: Practical Advice to Men.
Previous: Does God Hate Nakedness?

Why I Am A Pentecostal

Pentecostal -- of, relating to, or constituting any of various Christian religious bodies that emphasize individual experiences of grace, spiritual gifts (as glossolalia and faith healing), expressive worship, and evangelism --Webster

I guess this is the hardest one for me these days, but I still hold to it. I grew up in the Assemblies of God and became ordained in them as well. The difficulty I have now is the fact that I no longer believe in the restrictive nature of Pentecostal theology.

What I mean is that once Pentecostals formulated doctrinal statement, true creative thought about the Holy Spirit and how HE works was lost. The Holy Spirit in my opinion became boxed up and unable to do anything except by the Pentecostal script of how HE works.

1. The Holy Spirit only baptizes people in a certain way and only with certain signs.

2. The Gifts of the Spirit work only this way and not any others.

Then there is the opposite extreme of letting anything go without thought to the Bible.

3."I don't care what the Bible says I know what the Spirit is saying to me"

4. The massive violation of good sense in interpretation of Scripture.


I am a Pentecostal in the sense of what it was like in the early days before Pentecostal denominations.

1. Freethinking about the Holy Spirit with a heavy dose common sense Biblical interpretation.

2. Open to the possibilities but closed to anything outside of Scripture.

This is where I like to be and what Pentecostalism lost when it lost sense and reality. I can only do my part and believe as a Pentecostal believes without losing my way in the mucky muck of twofold nonsense -- strict and closed doctrinal understanding and experiential theology with no Biblical backing.

Why, because I believe in the power of God to do the impossible and to act today in the world. I believe that God has promised healing and power for the believe to minister in this world. I believe in joyful and expressive worship. That's why I am a Pentecostal.

Next: Why I Am a Creationist
Previous: Why I Am an Evangelical

Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part Two -- Does God Hate Nakedness?

I had a professor in Bible College that had an expression when dealing with dress issues -- "God does not like nakedness!" I agreed with him a lot as a fellow Wesleyan, but on this issue I just couldn't get true Biblical support for the idea that God hates nakedness in general and always has. If that were so, why on earth did he create Adam and Eve naked? It lead me to ponder the question of nakedness and whether or not God hates nakedness.

I think the problem with nakedness is not nakedness in itself. The problem is sin and the resulting loss of innocence that causes shame from nakedness.

The first reference to nakedness in the Bible is Genesis 2:25 -- And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. I think this expresses the nature of innocence and purity on the part of Adam and Eve. They could see each other as wonderful creations of God and with no knowledge of good or evil, that is all they could see. They each had beautiful bodies and that is what they marvelled in. God declared all things 'very good' after their creation and that included 'naked and unashamed'. They walked before God and each other naked and without shame of any kind.

Sin changes this forever. Suddenly they are aware of their nakedness where before they had been blissfully ignorant. This shame could not have been about each other in truth though being husband and wife. I know we find it had to imagine but Adam and Eve Being husband and wife they must have consummated their marriage on the grass of the garden of Eden and so covering their shame of nakedness could not have had much to do with concealment from each other. It had to do with God. Now they were naked and vulnerable to God. Fear comes in, fear of God and being truly helpless before him -- naked before him. The couple covers their loins with aprons of leaves -- waist to mid thigh. There is no mention of any other area being covered on either one. In fact when nakedness is mentioned by the prophets this is the focus that Israel would be shamed with nakedness having their buttocks exposed. The focus of shame seems to be the buttocks and genital regions

One fact that needs to be mentioned is that female breasts and nakedness are never really equated except in Ezekiel 16:7 where God is speaking to Israel about how she used to be like a teenage girl who's breasts were formed but she was still naked until God clothed her. In all other references to female breasts there is some other thing at issue not nakedness. There is an exhortation to men to let themselves be satisfied with the breasts of their wife in very frank language at times in the Song of Solomon and Proverbs. The other way female breasts are addressed is in reference to nursing children. Even Jesus was addressed this way buy a woman in Luke 11:27. Jesus is not embarrassed by the statement and in fact refers to women's breasts in the same way in Luke 23:29. What this all indicates to me is shame associated with women's breasts being bare in a culture may be just that -- cultural. That why here in the USA ,where part of our cultural has been shaped by both puritanical and holiness roots with their emphasis on 'modest' apparel, exposed breasts have some shame to them but this is not the shame of sin so much as the same of elements of culture say it is wrong. Go to another culture and you see women topless and the men think no more or less of it than any other part of a woman's body. Something to be admired, but not necessarily immediately arousing.

Shift south of the border, so to speak, and the Biblical idea of shame of nakedness comes in full force. This is where shame comes in from Genesis, The Law, through the Old Testament prophets and even the Revelation this is presented. Noah's nakedness is exposed by his son, but not by the other two sons -- they cover him. I find it hard to believe that four hard working men building an ark didn't strip down for work like Peter did when he fished. The nakedness of Noah had more to do with exposing his 'apron area'. The term nakedness is also used to refer to sexual relations in the Law -- this is where incestuous relationships are condemned -- see Leviticus 18. The prophets refer to this area as well for shame of being sold into slavery as exposed because of the failure of Israel to follow God. Mark runs away naked to escape in the garden when Jesus is arrested. Revelation also talks about nakedness in reference to the shame of Laodicea and the whore of Babylon. In all of these, sin is the main culprit not nakedness in and of itself. The real question is the nature of sin and how it made and makes something good and beautiful into something shameful. It is the lust of mankind that is at issue.

I don't think God hates nakedness -- he made us that way to illustrate true intimacy and openness -- what I think he hates is what sin has done to our innocence about nakedness. The positive about nakedness is that it illustrates how we ultimately have to come to God and be naked before him and let him cloth us and raise us up. It is lust through sin that has caused a wonderful creation of God to be fouled up.

Next: Where Lust Lives.
Previous: Defining Modest

Why I Am An Evangelical.

Evangelical -- "Emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual"

One could probably throw in the drive to fulfill the Great commission with this as well.

I have been an evangelical all my life, but that is not why I have remained one all this time. It is a question of passion. I am an evangelical because I firmly believe that the gospel is the cure to mankind's sin, not just a a cover up or just helping people cope with the sin they have, but THE cure.

The basic thing about evangelicalism is passion to present this cure to whoever will listen because it fulfills the Great Commission.

Now a lot of things a have been added to the idea of being an evangelical that might be about being right politically or having a certain morality, but at its heart it is about preaching the gospel and that is Biblical and more needed than ever given the state of our society.

The problem I have with most so called evangelicals is it seems to be more about being an evangelical in morality and politics. I often wonder if evangelicals would spend more time preaching the gospel and less time in political an moral action we might not NEED to spend as much time in political and moral action because then we would be affecting the cure to sin rather than just covering up the symptoms.

I am not against Christian's being involved politically -- I am, but when that takes precedence over being concern over people's eternity I think the focus is wrong.

Next: Why I Am a Pentecostal
Previous: Why I Am a Conservative Christian

Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part One -- Defining Modest

One of my mentors once told me to remember that modesty is culturally defined. He said if I didn't believe him that I should go to the Bible and find a definition of modesty. I think I did find a definition, but there is no way to be clothesline preacher with it.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

I want to note something here Paul never defines what proper clothing is. What modest means is also left undefined -- discretion is a matter of not being flashy or boisterous in the way one dresses.

Peter my shed some light on this as well.

1 Peter 3:1-4: In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

What this passage causes me to ask is whether modestly is about clothes so much as it is attitude of heart. Jesus asks us to judge not on outward appearance (John 7:24), but then we look at these passages and use them as a licence to judge a woman's modesty on how she dresses when that is not what Paul or Peter are advocating at all. It is simply a misapplication of the passages to use them this way. The real issue is the heart of a woman -- whether it is quiet and gentle is the issue.

One thing should be noted that neither of these passages addresses nudity. I can say that, because the culture of day included massive slavery and slaves often were naked as it was a symbol of their station. It's a point we often miss in this ancient Greek-Roman world culture. If either Paul or Peter excluded people from Christianity simply because of nakedness their would be lot of people forced by the culture out of the faith. The fact remains that Christianity spread through the slave cast very quickly; a group where nudity was common because of who they were in relation to their culture.

Paul and Peter are actually addressing free women who are rich -- that they should not allow their upward station to cause themselves to be snobs, think more of themselves than they should or be unsubmissive to their husbands. The two apostles are not addressing nudity or skin, but actually the opulent display of wealth and status in clothes before those who do not have wealth or status.

In missions the nudity/modesty question has always dogged us as Christians. In Africa where the heat causes clothing to be not much more than a scrap of cloth around the waist and the women were and are topless, many missionaries made the mistake of addressing the outward dress (or lack there of) instead of addressing the gospel. In South America one tribe was discovered whose definition of naked was 'beltless'. To us they would be considered naked all the time but they consider themselves naked only if they take off their work belt -- the only thing they wear.

Here at home in the USA, the issue is muddied because we have two cultures. The traditional culture which sees any sign of skin and cleavage as immodest and a more open culture which does not see this as so but would like to see women walk around topless just like men can. There are of course two million different views in between these extremes.

As people argue this from the Christian side the great problem is there is no Biblical definition of what constitutes proper clothing. Paul tells women to wear proper clothing but never defines what he means. The issue of how Christian men in or sex crazed culture are supposed to deal with more and more skin being shown by women is still a problem. Looking down at the ground all the time or sticking one's head in the sand does not work as you will eventually run into something hard and hurt yourself. The real question might be how does God see nakedness.

Next: Does God Hate Nakedness?

Why I Am A Conservative Christian

I am starting a series of posts based on my profile and the list :"conservative,evangelical, pentecostal, creationist, open theist, God-loving Christian". It seems that some of these things should be very clearly defined so everyone understand where I am coming from..

Webster isn't really helpful in this as they define conservative in it's original form of --"traditional, following the established view". I am not sure conservative Christians define themselves this way anymore as in the USA --conservative Christianity is not the norm. If you were to say one that follows historical beliefs then maybe your getting closer. Traditional views are not really at stake but traditional morality. For me conservatism goes deeper than even this.

1. A conservative Christian believes the whole Bible is the revelation of God to man. It is complete, totally accurate and should not be subject to change simply because culture does not like what it says or its popularity drops.

2. The Bible describes God as a Trinity of three persons who are all God -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A traditional view here but it's supported by Scripture.

3. Salvation is accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ's work on the cross and the empty tomb. This is acquired by faith. The elements of faith are repentance, believing the resurrection of Christ and submission Christ's Lordship.

4. Christ will return to judge the earth and his saints in how they have applied or rejected his word. Therefore we should fear God and obey him. Each person is personally responsible before God.

Let's contrast this with liberalism:

Liberals treat the Bible as flexible in part or not to be believed in other parts. Miracles are explained away. If a revelation of God in scripture does not agree with their idea of God they have in their heads, they explain it away.

Liberals also conceive of God as something they like and want and often it resembles themselves. As a conservative I fight very hard not to do this but let God stand as he reveals himself.

Liberals view salvation as universal in many cases with no conditions -- God is love after all and He wouldn't condemn anyone. Always nice to reassure oneself that your on the way to heaven when based on the Bible it may not be so.

Liberals are social activists -- believing through their efforts they can bring about a human utopia. In 6000 years of recorded history there is no evidence this has been achieved, but they go on believing it anyway. Personally, I think it is going to take God to clean up this mess ultimately and no amount of human striving is going to change that. There is often a cheap grace in liberalism so God is our buddy and not the One to fear or obey. Obedience becomes optional. The church becomes a vehicle for social activism rather than a place of discipleship and empowerment to reach the world with the gospel.

In the current political climate in the USA being a conservative Christian now means you are an enemy of the state because of its stand on personal responsibility -- no Big Brother government is needed to bail you out. It's stand on God being in authority over Government is also a no no as there is definitely a desire to be a law unto one's self in the current administration, God would just get in the way. There is also that sin thing -- saying abortion, homosexuality, adultery, etc. is sin is just hate speak to them. Sin should be defined by man not by God to liberals.

I remain a conservative Christian because I feel maintaining truth is more important than just bowing to government or culture. To me this is the definition of what it means to be a conservative Christian.

Next: Why I Am an Evangelical

The Citizen of Zion

Psalm 15 – A Psalm of David.

1O LORD, who may abide in Your tent?
Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
2 He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.
3 He does not slander with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a reprobate is despised,
But who honors those who fear the LORD;
He swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He does not put out his money at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent
He who does these things will never be shaken.

I have often reflected on this Psalm and I have in recent days begun to break it down for a possible set of sermons if I ever get the chance to preach again. It is a lot more work than people would like to indicate to be a citizen of God’s kingdom. People like to make it easy to ‘get saved’. Accepting Christ is not a magic formula with a free pass to heaven for simply praying prayer and crying a few tears of sorrow over sins. Salvation involves a change of citizenship. Citizenship implies civil responsibilities of the citizen to his new country.

Unfortunately, too many view salvation as a single event and not a lifestyle of citizenship in a new country. They trust the event and not the new relationship formed with the Father through Christ and the Holy Spirit. They place their faith in their prayer of salvation rather than the giver of salvation. Citizenship in the Kingdom of God is rarely the issue in such cases. It also does not help that many Christian leaders seem to promote the idea of event based salvation and have turned away from the idea that a person is a transformed new creature in Christ.

In a recent conversation with a fellow believer, he highlighted a problem that we teach our children to behave according to the rules of the Bible and then they become frustrated that they cannot uphold the standard we teach and that they fail to see others live this standard. I submitted to him that the problem is that we do not teach our children that the main issue is not their behavior, but their transformation into disciples or Christ and citizens of God’s kingdom. We focus to much on the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ and spend very little time teaching our children what it means to be ‘born again’ and a new creature in Christ. We create the impression that it is merely a question of their own will to do the right thing. Nothing could be further from the truth because if this were so then Romans 3 could not be true. The law is insufficient when written on tables of stone; only the law of love written on a person’s heart can change a person sufficiently enough for them to be obedient to God. Only by being born again can a person be changed enough for genuine love to guide them and only by emphasizing that this is life transformation not religious ritual

No citizen of any country will behave properly if they do not share the ideals of that country. Ideals are not shaped by simply saying I am a citizen and signing a card; a person’s heart, the very seat of their passions, be must be changed and then behavior follows. A person who loves their country will act accordingly. The person who truly loves God will obey him out of personal transformation not outward obligation. But if salvation is reduced to a few ‘repeat after me’ sentences and a membership card it makes me wonder if a person has had a genuine chance to be reborn in Christ.

It is only when genuine transformation takes place that a person can live the life a citizen of Zion is called to live. A life that reflects Psalm 15.