Nudity in Christian Art
Christian and Philosophical viewpoint on nudity in Christian art. Is all of it okay, part of it okay, or none of it?
I had a thought this morning and I called my best friend Tristan to help me think through it and discuss. I hope that this is the beginning of an online discussion with people that have something to add.
So the thought was this: Is nudity in Christian Art something that honors God, His will, and His desires?
So here’s what Tristan and I came up with:
NO. An all around No. I tried to play devil’s advocate, but came to a conclusion that I could find no reason why having nudity in Christian art is fully okay with God.
I will state my reason as to why my final answer is “no” and then go over why I disagreed and threw out any of my attempts to say that having nudity in Christian art is okay with God.
I do not think that nudity in Christian art is okay because it takes something that is sacred and that is supposed to be found only within a marriage and exposes it to the world and, therefore, distorting something sacred and holy into something that is less than holy and sacred.
I think that the biggest reason that we could come up with in order to back up our claim is seen in Adam and Eve. We believe that they were arguably and possibly the most physically beautiful human beings in the history of humanity. At first, Adam and Eve, “were both naked, and they felt no shame” Genesis 2:25. However, when they sinned, they covered themselves up because they did feel shame (Genesis 3:7). Who were they covering themselves from? There were no other human beings on the planet and they were also married. And, they weren’t covering themselves up from God because God had not yet entered the picture. So, within their marriage, they felt shame for their nakedness.
Another reason to back my claim is that while the body is a beautiful thing, that beauty is supposed to stay and be seen within a marriage only. There is an inner sanctity that the LORD makes within marriage and nakedness that is supposed to be in that marriage only. In the whole Bible I cannot find a passage that talks about nakedness being okay unless it is in the context of being in Heaven or between a wife and spouse or between the LORD and His church/people.
Another reason that I think that naked art is that Paul says that he will not do anything that causes another to stumble even if what he is doing is okay. I am referring to 1 Corinthinas 8 and I feel that I need to place the following verses of chapter 8 here because they are so important to see:
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
Verse 9 states that we must be careful that our freedom does not cause anyone to sin. So, even if was okay to have naked human being in art, which I think is not, we must be careful that it does not cause a weaker brother to sin. And Paul goes on to say in verse 13 that he will never eat meat if it causes other people to sin. So I would apply his reasoning to art and say that Paul would not paint naked people in art if it caused other people to sin. I think that it is a very reasonable assumption to assume that if anyone has art, whether photography or a painting or anything, that has human nakedness, that it would cause a brother or sister that is weaker than us at some level to sin in their minds. This, I think, applies specifically to men that are watching a naked female in a painting or a photograph or other like forms of art that depict a human being naked in a realistic manner.
This brings me to my another: pornography. There is a line that divides “naked pictures that are regarded to as art” from “pornography.” I need to try to define it in context of everything that I have previously written above. If any art that has humans being naked is not okay according to God and any of this art that has naked humans can cause another fellow sister or brother to sin mentally, physically, emotionally or in any other way, then I would say that any and all piece of art that shows nakedness can be regarded to as pornography. I think that there are pictures out there that contain naked people and are placed in an art book and most people would regard that as art. But if that same picture is placed on a web site that is for pornography, then it becomes pornography. Then that leads me to ask: where is that line? Is this picture called pornography because it’s on the pornography web site or because the picture is pornography.
I went to dictionary.com and this is their definition of pornography:
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Then I think of what SEXUALLY EXPLICIT mean and “sexually”is pertaining to sex, while explicit means “clear.” So sexually explicit means that “it’s pretty clear that it’s about sex.” So, another way of writing the dictionary.com definition is to write it like this:
Pictures, writing, or other material that are clearly sexual in nature whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
So I guess maybe art in which the artist did not mean to have it be sexually arousing cannot be called pornography. But, if that same piece or art is placed on a web site that is for pornography, then the piece of art does indeed become pornography since it is being used to sexually arouse someone. This, I feel, confirms my previous statement that any art that has a naked human being can be a tripping rock that causes a fellow Christian to fall.
My last point is this: culture. I think that everything that I have stated is subject to culture. There are very few cultures, mainly in Africa, that walk around without any clothing; let us call this culture “Culture A.” So, if that same culture was to draw a portrait of their own, then I think that it is okay since they are used to seeing each other like that and none of them are caused to sin. I think that this point does not come into conflict with my first point that states that nakedness is supposed to remain only within the marriage only if Culture A has a culture that has an understanding that nakedness is wrong. But, as I stated previously in this paragraph, there are cultures like Culture A that see nakedness and do not see sin or commit sin.
Well, I’ve talked a lot. And I would REALLY appreciate the comments of my friends, colleagues, and others in this subject. Above all, I want to honor God and that is why I am writing this.
Liked it
15 Comments
Pablo, posted this comment on Aug 1st, 2008
Hi Nadine 
Thank you very much for reading my article, I am greatly honored that you would take the time
I like your answers, however, I think that they might be off a bit. When you mention Adam and Even I think it needs to be placed into context. And that context would be exactly what you mentioned when you you said “Adam and Eve where both naked before becoming sinners.” So the key word in your phrase is “before” since, now that we are sinners, the outlook on nakedness is different in that people’s sinful nature gets in the way and can cause someone to sin. But more importantly, Adam and Even were married So that places nakedness being okay within marriage. And, since there were no other human beings around, that nakedness was a very private thing between Adam and Eve. Having nakedness in art would not go along with nakedness being kept between married man and woman.
Also, in response to your second argument that nakedness is holy since nakedness is in heaven, I think that the same sinful nature needs to be taken into context. In heaven there is no sin and there is no marriage. So, nakedness will probably, I assume, be okay since there is no sin to taint the reason for nakedness and since there will be no marriage to keep nakedness between and husband and wife.
Keeping those two things in context, I think, nullifies the arguments placed by Nadine. Any thoughts?
Cristian, posted this comment on Aug 25th, 2008
Hello,
Thank you so much for writing this article. I have been torn between this very question of nudity in art and if it is OK with the Lord.
I truly think that you pose a fantastic argument at saying that, ‘No it’s not ok.’ The greatest piece of proof in your argument is 1 Corinthians 8. I must admit that there has always been this nagging feeling that if I photograph a nude model that someone out there will not appreciate it as art and find it titillating which would defeat my purpose to exalt the Lord by showing the world how beautiful His creation is.
It would be great to challenge society to change it’s views on nudity, but at what cost? If my nude art will cause a weak person to sin, then I have damaged a brother rather than lift him up.
Amy, posted this comment on Oct 12th, 2008
Your post was very clear. I’ve been thinking through the issue and had read several peoples’ opinions on both sides of the issue.
What you’ve clearly articulated here, is in my opinion the safest/most biblical viewpoint. If I ever do a blog post, I plan to link to your article.
Thanks so much.
Amanda, posted this comment on Oct 30th, 2008
I am attending a University and taking an Art Appreciation class. My professor, along with another professor, gave the class a lecture on nudity in art. Since the University I attend is Assembly of God based, most of the students are inclinded to believe that nudity in art is wrong (as their parents have taught them their whole lives) but some students have not formed their own foundation and are therefore easily swayed into believing whatever they are told (especially by two “senior” authority figures that share their faith). I, however, am not convinced that nudity in art is acceptable according to the Word of God and I am currently writing a research paper on this subject which I intend to give to my professor. I appreciate this post, it has helped me to better form my thoughts into words.
Chris, posted this comment on Nov 22nd, 2008
I have a few comments:
First of all, the story of Adam and Eve, as any reputable theological scholar will concur, is allegory. A fiction. That is not to detract from its significant messages, however it’s important to keep this is mind. Second, where does it say that Adam and Eve were married? I can’t seem to find this. If there is no passage stating that they were married, then this point fails as the basis of any argument justifying nudity as “appropriate” in marriage. Furthermore, your statements regarding the “shame” that they feel regarding their nakedness only occurs after they eat from the tree, thus attaining wisdom. This is merely to exemplify their passage from children to adulthood, from innocence to maturity. I don’t believe that sin itself is somehow the impetus for feeling shame at one’s nakedness.
I cannot imagine a world in which God would say “Cover yourselves up because you live in sin and should be ashamed of your bodies…unless you’re married.” Does it really make sense that God would create us “in His own image,” yet be ashamed of ourselves? Should we thus be ashamed of God? The human form is divine beauty incarnate, and should be appreciated as such. I encourage everyone to watch this fantastic YouTube video, which delves into this in greater detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rPjzJUG1l0
Sincerely,
Chris
Roger, posted this comment on Dec 10th, 2008
Assumptive language is a tricky thing. Chris (#6) stated “First of all, the story of Adam and Eve, as any reputable theological scholar will concur, is allegory. A fiction.” Funny about that “fiction” Chris. Jesus references the Genesis account with no mention of it being fiction. The Apostle Paul didn’t think so as he states in Romans 5:12 says that sin “..entered the world through one man.” Also, the claim that “any reputable theological scholar will concur” is always a vapid defense of a position. Evidently those theologians that disagree with your point are not reputable I guess.
Rachel, posted this comment on Jan 21st, 2009
I am currently taking a fine arts class at the undergraduate level. I am at a baptist college. Our professor has clearly made the argument that nudity within art is ok. I deeply struggle with this conclusion for the very same reasons in which you have stated. I feel that my professor believes that since he has warned the class that there will be nudity, that exempts him from the “causing a brother to stumble” phrase. Nudity was pure within its original context in the garden before sin. The beauty of the human body had a wall placed around its accessibility when God clothed Adam and Eve. Many christians, I believe, have bought into the lie that the nude body can still be sacred outside of marriage which is what God intended after sin came about.
Thank you for your post… it was helpful to see someone else who holds the same view and the way in which you presented it.
Stephan, posted this comment on Jan 23rd, 2009
God never intended for mankind to be clothed. If Adam and Eve didn’t disobey, we would all be wearing our birthday suits right now. We are God’s greatest creation made in his own image, and our bodies in and of themselves, and their nakedness, are not sin. There is no verse in the Bible stating that nakedness is sin. It is the lust for another’s body that is sin.
I suppose you’ve never been to Africa or parts of Asia. It is common for children to be nude and women to be breast feeding in public. Are you willing to tell me that these people, even if saved, are all sinning? Should our missionaries stop spreading the word and instead insist that all are clothed first?
As a Christian art student, I can tell you that there is nothing arousing about drawing or studying the nude figure. When studying, you’re more focused on technique, or are just in awe of the beauty of the construction of the human figure. When drawing the human figure from a live model, you don’t even realize there’s someone naked in front of you, but are focused on making a realistic drawing and everything that goes into that.
Here’s an article about ‘Good Nudity’. While I didn’t agree with all of the theology, I found it very enlightening. Please read it all.
http://www.oursunhome.com/Good_Nudity.html
Steve, posted this comment on Jan 28th, 2009
A well toned human form, especially in motion such as swimming or sprinting, leaves one reflecting on the intelligent God who created that form. To see the form in action in photography or painting or in film is awe inspiring.
And then someone removes the clothing from that brilliant form whether in motion or in repose. And you feel embarrased for the person. A similar embarrassment when a persons skirt or pants are ripped and they are briefly exposed. You realize your sin nature creates a form of shame associated with the naked human body.
There are some things that may be permissible in some folks minds but only because they have blinded themselves to the reality of our situation. The reality is that mankind has caused sin to enter the world and much of our thoughts are dark and shameful and creating or displaying nude pictures simply demeans. Unlike sinful man, God let’s us know that there is hope and someday shame will no longer be something we experience.
Have you not read of the visions to the Apostle John of the coming end times where the saints are standing before the thrown clothed in white? Such as Revelation 7:9 and 14. A repentant person will not stand before God in shame, naked or clothed, because that person has been redeemed by their Savior and Lord Jesus Christ and these word pictures of people clothed in white before the throne is an assurance of that fact.
Let’s take God’s lead therefore to encourage folks who are discouraged about sin and shame. Let’s zealously avoid bringing shame into someone’s life by being a party to creating or displaying nude bodies in art. Even when showing someone in a downtrodden fashion (due to war, abuse, hunger, etc.), let’s cloth them to recognize that in God’s eyes they are valuable and deeply loved.
Chris B from Australia, posted this comment on Feb 5th, 2009
I am a Christian artist and teacher and I run a life drawing group. Firstly, for most of Christian history the nude body has been completely acceptable – and I believe acceptable to God – eg, consider such masterpieces as the Sistine chapel, the statue of David, the works of the Dutch masters and many other Christian artists (eg. Durer, who produced the “praying hands” was also the first artist, a Christian, who studied the human body observationally). A big part of this celebration of the human form in art was about upholding the fact that God created our bodies as very good, and as the sacred temple of the Holy Spirit. The reformers in particular wanted to show that our bodies are redeemed from sin by the work of Jesus, and that we no longer need to respond to our bodies with shame, and that grace enables us to remain pure and without sin. Rather we respond to God’s creation with respect, honour and worship. You assume here that nudity and sexuality is to be limited ONLY in marriage – and you say that this is a Biblical position – but rather the Bible gives us many examples of different kinds of committed relationships, where love, trust, committment and responsibility are expected – there are examples of non-marrital nakedness, including Jesus himself, in our Bibles. With respect, God is calling us to a higher standard of respect and morality. Doctors and other professionals often work with the human body, and we trust them. The artist too, acts prophetically to reveal the truth. The Christian artist is called to love and respect. There is no sinful intent, but rather a deeper, more intimate human relationship. I could say a lot more about this so e-mail me if you want to discuss it in detail ecclesia7@bigpond.com
Christine, posted this comment on Feb 8th, 2009
Warning: Disjointed message.
I think you’re all getting hung up on Adam and Eve and their ’sin’. They entered the world as children do. Sex did not exist. They were not told to be fruitful and multiply until after they were thrown out of the garden. Children can run around naked with each other because they don’t understand how or why it is wrong but as they mature they begin to think more sexual thoughts. This is the same concept that Adam and Eve were living under. Once they understood, it then became a sin for them to be unclothed. Adam would have recognized Eve’s beauty at that point. Also. When it says we were made in God’s image it does not specify physically. I believe we were made in his image in that we have a spirit. The body is the body. Yes he created it. A man and his wife should not be ashamed of their nakedness in the martial bed. We do not cover ourselves because our bodies are ugly. Yes, maybe they are beautiful, but that beauty is for the husband or wife only to enjoy. Not the rest of the world.
God made clothing for Adam and Eve after they understood the difference between right and wrong. Those African countries which people refer to would not see nakedness as wrong because it does not cause them to lust after one another. The main question would be: do they have sex whenever they want or is it in the case of the two becoming one flesh (marriage)? I find it hard to believe that in a society of one man to one woman that anyone could get away with being naked. I don’t care what society you grow up in, there will be problems. Men will fight over beauty. Men will lust. Women will want to be pretty. So, my guess is, this is not the case in Africa. They would be committing more than one sin, but not until they understood the difference between right and wrong. Before then, they will be ‘like children’.
what, posted this comment on Apr 23rd, 2009
All of you are insane and need to get out more.
Nudity does not automatically equate to sex, especially in art Come on.
Joel Mosier, posted this comment on Apr 29th, 2009
Interesting article. I would like to point out a couple of things. At the beginning of the article, it was categorically stated that nudity in art is wrong and then the situation of “tribes in Africa” came up and it was okay for them because they were used to it and they are “like children.”
We have to ask ourselves, why is there even a question as to whether nudity in art or any other situation is wrong? The answer usually expresses something about lust. I think we can all agree that lust is wrong. But when I look at the art in the Sistine Chapel, I don’t experience lust so is that art wrong? What was the intent of the artist? Michaelangelo was not trying to incite lust, he was painting a beautiful picture. So if the intent of the author is not lust and the experience most people have is not lustful and we are glorifying God then why would it be wrong.
One comment about that might be that the body is reserved for marriage. That is a valid point except, what should be covered and what shouldn’t? Isn’t that to some degree cultural? If a man saw a woman’s knee in the Victorian era, it was considered erotic. Now women go around in bikinis. Is that alright? How about thongs? They aren’t naked.
Ultimately, it comes down to lust. What incites lust? It isn’t the nude body that is immoral, it is the response some people have to it that is immoral.
David - a nudist, posted this comment on May 25th, 2009
Exactly. In fact, because people wear skimpy articles of clothing…like bikinis at the beach, pool, or lake…it’s those articles of clothing that draw attention to the body parts they’re meant to cover up. In short, clothing is what causes lust in men. I know because I get that feeling (most of the time) whenever barely clothed females are around. In fact, even when they’re wearing long sleeves and pants, the feeling is there (sometimes). Although I am a nudist, I wasn’t born and raised that way. Before then, I was…well, bad. I had to break away from what I was originally taught about nudity to become a nudist. However, if we were all nude without being sexual, I believe the lust factor would be eliminated (or at the very least toned down significantly in people). Let’s face it…we’re all born naked. You’re born naked. Live naked. Die naked. If nudity is considered bad, pornographic, erotic, lustful, etc. even when it’s non-sexual, then we all should be born wearing clothes. In fact, don’t even shower or bathe naked. You might get excited. Heck, to avoid the lust, why not swim in your clothes, even on hot summer days and sweat your brains out? I hope you see the sarcasm (and frustration) in the last few sentences. Nude is not lewd and I agree with some of you regarding this.
nadine, posted this comment on Jun 15th, 2008
hey:)!!!
i was just reading this article and I think nudity is ok in christian art. To begin with Adam and Eve where both naked before becoming sinners which implies that they where pure and innocent. Also, as you have mentioned earlier, “In the whole Bible I cannot find a passage that talks about nakedness being okay unless it is in the context of being in Heaven”, and so if nudity is found in heaven, this means nudity can be, in some context, “holy” or “sacred” since it is found in heaven and isnt heaven a holy place?
Thus I really think it is ok to have nudity in christian art since i believe that nudity here can portray a pure human body.