"Flesh does have positive meanings in Christian thought, notably as the temple of God. Indeed, the Incarnation of Jesus only makes theological sense if human embodiment is seen as worthy and meaningful". Ruth Barcan - Nudity: A Cultural Anatomy.
"God couldn't be God-with-us if he weren't flesh. The flesh of the baby is father to the flesh of the man. In his (Christ's) flesh, the spit of God mixed with the dirt of Galilee to make a healing paste. The naked baby must be flesh so that God can be stripped and seen again, trading his 'dusty garments' of distance for the immediacy of the splinters of the cross". Mary Ellen Ashcroft - Gift-wrapping God.
It's tellingly easy to ill-define ourselves. No where do we see this more than we when we come to the nude.
Definition, of course, plays a key part. One popular theological concordance defines 'nude' as almost entirely negative - to be uncovered, devoid of grace, heinously sinful, destitute, and so on.
There are clear reasons, in relation to the human condition, why these statements are made,
but the concordance also speaks of another truth as well regarding being nude - "a state in which things are discovered, known and truly revealed". It's this aspect of nudity that faith, and in a smaller fashion, art allows us to encounter and embrace for some essential reasons regarding both the nature of God and ourselves.
So, let's consider our own definitions for a moment.
C S Lewis, in his study 'The Four Loves', provided some useful pegging points on various views of the body.
These might be titled:
·The ascetic pagan or christian who deprecates the body to a mere tomb (used and discarded at death).
·The ‘neo pagan/nudist’ who
view the (present) body as presently glorious (but, again, of no eternal purpose or value).
It's pretty clear that our own culture has a fairly splintered and often unproductive approach to the body - it's either idolized or hated, with very little tolerance for anything in-between. That's because, like the Greeks, we tend to 'deify' the immediate (what pleases or satisfies us now) and discard any thoughts of transcendence within the material, dislocating the spiritual and placing it in an entirely different orbit to the here and now. The trouble is we know there's a problem here, because it's actually amidst the material world that we all encounter startling moments of truth, wonder and astonishment that make us tellingly aware of the spiritual within the material. Whether we are talking about finding out something deeper about ourselves or the nature of reality, it's these moments that truly impact upon us and transform us, so there clearly is something more going on here than merely a satisfying of the immediate - we yearn for something more, and the world, through numerous means, but often by faith and art, 'speaks' to that deep need.
The futility which often marks our lives steers us to look at beauty in general and the body in particular as ultimately, an uncomfortable irrelevance to our prevailing pain and strife - it's all pointless or temporary, so we eschew any notion of permanence and wallow in the ugly despair so tellingly present, or just enjoy the moment whilst we can, for there isn't anything, at least in the material sense, to really look forward to. The problem, of course, is reality is deeper than this.
Whilst we cannot deny the reality of the ugly side of life, there's clearly more going on here, and looking through the 'window' of an acknowledgment of this allows us to begin to engage with a far wider and more challenging understanding of both ourselves and the nature of our world.
As I've already noted, it's easy for religion to be deemed negative about the matter of nudity. Like the Greeks of old (which is actually where a lot of the trouble started), Christianity has often taught a 'general uptake of Aristotelian biology and ideas', thereby deeming the body to be inherently 'bad' in an of itself and the nude, especially the female nude, to be something which quickly 'communicates sin, sex and evil' (Barcan, page 108), but again, reality is far more troubling and enriching.
During the recovery of the Biblical world-view in the 1500's, artists transformed by this, such as Lucas Cranach, were free once again to genuinely paint and convey the beauty of the female form. This was because the very nature of God's validation of the material, both in it's creation and in it's recovery through the Incarnation, become restored as an essential aspect of Christianity and then culture, showing us that there was a right 'uncovering' of both truth and ourselves that had to take place, and that is still true today. It's so very easy to let our thinking and approach to life to be eschewed by the temporary and immediate, but it is often when we look closer and deeper into the very nature of these things that we will be struck with what we might term an impinging grace that can change and transform, even amidst the mundane. Art, beauty and the enticing richness of seeing God in Christ lead us to this better realm - where life can properly be uncovered.
Images: Magenta in Cornwall by Howard Nowlan.
Images: Magenta in Cornwall by Howard Nowlan.
To say that the flesh, even naked flesh, is evil or shameful is to go directly against Genesis 1:31: "And God saw every thing that he had made [including naked humans], and, behold, it was very good." Christian nudists often say that, because Jesus' blood covers all sin for those who believe in Him, going naked is a statement that our innocence is recovered.
ReplyDeleteI have also found that when I'm naked with other naked people, there is a much greater, more immediate ease of conversation; the process of "getting acquainted" is greatly speeded, almost to non-existence as if we were already brothers and sisters--as we are. You'd think God meant for us to be this way! :)
What Genesis 1 declares about the good and beautiful state of our first parents is marvelous, but we live in a world which often seeks to define the 'bath water' (nakedness is fine, period) as the 'baby' (the unspoiled innocence of Eden). Enjoying natural things naturally (swimming and the like without clothes) may be fine, but when nakedness is seen as good per se, without examining the context, then we have a problem. Naturism itself, as Lewis notes in his essay on Equality can easily fall into this plight by advocating or ascribing to a blindness in its attitude with regards to the actual state of people - fallen creatures, who may well be 'visualizing' a form of utopia without any substantive change (either to themselves or the world).
ReplyDeleteThe day will come when paradise is indeed regained, and, as Lewis notes, there are certainly moments now when "we want the naked body to be truly alive" - to be able to encounter the world in some manner wrapped in its goodness - but we live in a world where, sadly, this wonderful gift is often demeaned, and then, nakedness becomes a burden in the same manner that any gift of God would be if similarly miss-used.
Hmmm...If one sees nakedness as a burden, it is indeed, to him or her. But to many of us, The Great Coverup is the problem, whose solution is the recovery of everyday nudity.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies our dilemma. We know, in so many ways, that the world isn't as it should be, and we long, we yearn for its proper expression. Creation, notes Paul in Romans chapter 8, is in exactly the same state, yearning for the full redemption of God's children so it may be evidenced in its release from the bondage of corruption. Occasionally, we glean a glimpse of what is coming in our tasting a moment which speaks of the richness and significance of that reality, but for much of the time, we live in a world brutally marred by sin and death, hence, our need for the redemption of life through Jesus Christ, who is reconciling all that is good, which includes bodily life, to Himself to be evidenced in the new creation.
ReplyDelete