« Is Music Really Neutral? | Main | Ohio Pastor Sues to Get His Job Back »

Friday, March 03, 2006

New Florida Church: Clothes Optional

Nudist IN THE beginning was the word of God and God never said anything about brassieres or boxer shorts. Thus was born Natura, America’s first Christian nudist camp.

After two years of biblical debate over Adam and Eve and their fig leaves and whether or not nudity is sinful, a 67-year-old Quaker grandfather is preparing to open a modern-day Garden of Eden 40 miles north of Tampa, Florida.

Bill Martin’s ambitious plan for a 200-acre Christian- oriented Family Naturist Village has survived legal challenges, doctrinal disputes and a plague of internet prudes. Land is now being cleared for the opening next year of what may become the world’s only Christian community to feature nude volleyball.

Despite howls of complaint from fundamentalists who have likened Martin to the Antichrist — and described his nudist plans as “graphic evidence of America’s moral collapse” — Natura intends to build 50 houses around a non-denominational church where clothing for services will be optional.

He has fought with his neighbours over property rights, fallen out with other nudists over his promotional material and sparked a vigorous internet debate over whether the true path to godliness really involves getting naked.

Yet Martin remains confident that Christians will flock to Natura to experience the spiritual benefits of a lifestyle “free from body shame”. He is spending more than $2m on a nudist recreational complex that will also feature a hotel, campsites and a children’s water park.

“As evidenced by Adam and Eve, we believe that when God’s children are in the right relationship to Him, they will be naked and unashamed,” explains one of Natura’s brochures.

American Christians have long been intrigued by the biblical implications of nudity and Ilsley Boone, a Baptist pastor, was the founder in 1931 of the American Sunbathing Association, an early naturist group.

Martin and his supporters argue that nudism is unhealthy, especially for children, unless it occurs in a proper Christian context. He has criticised non- religious nudist camps for encouraging alcohol and sensuality. “We are going after a totally different group, a group that doesn’t want a sexual atmosphere,” he said. “There is absolutely no relationship between nudity and sex.”

Much of his group’s philosophy appears in a book, Nakedness and the Bible, self- published on the internet by Paul Bowman, a Canadian author. The book cites several biblical references suggesting that God does not disapprove of nudity and that Jesus may have been naked at several key moments of his life — notably when he washed the feet of his disciples.

Martin’s supporters also claim that nude worship is much more in keeping with modest Christian values than are the ostentatious displays of wealth on show at the suburban “megachurches”, where women attend services in “designer clothes and $90 haircuts”, says one internet posting.

None of which has stopped Martin’s critics from battling against his project. Texe Marrs, who operates a website called Conspiracyworld.com, has pointed to Martin’s project as evidence that Satan is subverting Christianity.

Daniel Bellows, chief executive of the new development, said that he regularly receives e-mails from Christians appalled by the idea of nude worship and warning him that he faces eternal damnation.

Although Martin’s land has been used by naturists before — the area has the largest concentration of nudist camps in America — he has alienated local residents with proposed property improvements that have spawned half a dozen lawsuits.

He has also upset America’s largest naturist association with his “holier-than-thou” approach. Earlier this year Natura was expelled by the American Association for Nude Recreation, representing 270 member organisations, on the grounds that his website was publishing “sexually exploitative material”.

Martin, who made his money building nursing and retirement homes in Washington, dismissed the allegations as professional jealousy and defended the photographs as harmless.

“Christ has forewarned us that we would be persecuted for his sake,” he told supporters in an e-mail. But he later removed all photographs from his site.

Martin also became embroiled in a bizarre dispute about an article that appeared on his website discussing male erections — a perennial concern for novice nudists. Martin told the St Petersburg Times that the article was meant to help young men worried about an embarrassing reaction when first confronting naked women.

“If you can’t speak about human nature, I don’t know what you can speak about,” he said. “Erections have got to be addressed. It’s a major concern of teen males.”

Martin’s critics depict him as a religious fanatic whose criticisms of rival resorts are damaging the naturist industry. “We are not concerned about him taking our members,” said Elf Anderson, who conducts nude marriage ceremonies at other resorts. “But we are concerned about the impression he gives to the public about us.

“We are all for wholesome family nudism — but he’s just way off the scale.”

From The Times...

Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts

March 3, 2006 in For What It's Worth | Permalink

First Name:
Email:
 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d83462b3b569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Florida Church: Clothes Optional:

Comments

Move back Joel O. Now, for many this will define "Your Best Life Now!"

Posted by: Al | Mar 3, 2006 2:28:26 PM

“There is absolutely no relationship between nudity and sex.”

REALLY? I disagree.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 3, 2006 2:48:39 PM

One thing that always amazed me when I watched documentaries about the Amazon growing up, was that indigenous women could walk around with their breasts bared, and no one thought anything of it. But it makes sense when you think about it. 'Appropriate' is culturally relative. What is modest today was whore's attire yesterday. All this to say, I don't think one can say that nudity is 'objectively wrong'. I see people like this as trying to create a new kind of culture in which bodies are valued and embraced, but not hypersexualized. This is very noble goal. I am personally skeptical that such an enterprise will actually succeed (perhaps because I am a man who would enjoy seeing naked women too much), but I see no reason to get all up in a huff about it. I wear clothes mostly because I live in Minnesota and it's cold up here.

Posted by: Daniel | Mar 3, 2006 3:26:40 PM

Daniel, your honesty is refreshing! When I was getting ready to go to Ethiopia on a mission trip last year, several non-Christian women co-workers jokingly warned me to "keep my eyes up - look at the face!" Jeff, the same sentence caught my eye - I guess sex without nudity is possible, though perhaps a bit cumbersome. (And unbiblical: "Let us lay aside every encumbrance...." Okay, maybe that's poor exegesis!)

I guess I won't get my panties in a wad - and maybe that's why Martin's taking his off. But I may need to see a chiropractor to take care of all this head shaking I'm doing!

On a moderately (or modestly?!) serious note, I think there are some indications in the Bible that covering our bodies is appropriate. Noah's sons took pains to avoid seeing their father's nakedness. Several other passages link nakedness to shame. Clothing may be a byproduct of original sin, but I wonder if we are really supposed to fight against the curse?

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 3, 2006 3:45:45 PM

OK...I'll say it once again. Another reason for the world to look at the church, shake their heads and say, "no thank you."

Posted by: Andy McAdams | Mar 3, 2006 4:22:11 PM

Aside from wanting no one to see ME naked, I do agree with Daniel... I am also under the influence of the Fall... Sorry to all of my "claim victory and march on theological brothers..."

Peter -

I know a couple of good Chriopractors who don't charge people in ministry.... And they let you keep your clothes on!

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 3, 2006 5:25:54 PM

"'Appropriate' is culturally relative."

What "culture" made Adam and Eve ashamed of their nakedness? Just a thought...

Posted by: ME | Mar 3, 2006 10:32:12 PM

DO WHAT?

Todd, Please tell me this is not happing?

I know this is one of those funnies you are pulling right?

If not I have this to say... THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. The church as we know it is becoming to much like the world. THis is going to cause so much havoc that it is going to be just like the Church at Cornith.

Think about. Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves because they where naked. God brought them skins of an animal to cover up because 1st of all they where married. THEY ARE ONE FLESH. If someone is gapping at their spouse checking them out in other words that is called LUSTING. Jesus taught that to look at a woman and lust after her is just like or equal to committing adultery with her. It is the thought.

I do not think there is a person living on the face of this earth that is or would be able to handle this temptation.

Call it judging if you'd like, but this fellow needs to go back and check to see if he truly accepted Christ the first time around.

THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!1

Posted by: Clairvoyent 1 | Mar 3, 2006 10:59:07 PM

Actually, Clair, Adam & Eve only felt shame in their nakedness after they sinned. Maybe it was because of the sin, maybe it was the "knowledge of good and evil" thing, but either way, before sin there was no shame in their nakedness - and "it was very good." (Not suggesting that this "naturist camp" is a good idea, mind you!)

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 4, 2006 1:38:29 AM

I remember reading an article once about some cultures where most men had never masturbated. I thought to myself, how ludicrous! Every man on the face of this earth is totally depraved! How could any man not have at least the temptation to lust in such fashion?!! The truth of the matter is that the things which turn us on are culturally and personally conditionned. And so I will maintain that it is at least theoretically possible for nudity to leave someone (especially a Christian) totally unaffected. In fact, many missionaries to indigenous tribes have had to learn to relate to cultures in which (as I highlighted above) bare breasts are no object of shame (regardless of Eve's supposed fig leaves).
Clair I'm afraid you may be projecting too much of yourself onto these people. While I myself am quite skeptical, I really don't think it's helpful to starting questioning the sincerity of someone's faith just because they're maybe a little too eager for the new creation. At least they acknowledge that nudism can only be well done (understand: done without creating a lustful atmosphere) by Christians. God accomodated Adam and Eve's felt shame, but in no way did he order it. Epidurals 'undo' the curse... should we keep women in labor in pain, lest we undo the Creational categories? I think not.

Posted by: Daniel | Mar 4, 2006 10:42:45 PM

Looks like a good outreach for Granger, as a follow-on to their "lamesex" program outreach (said with sarcasm).

...Bernie

Posted by: Bernie Dehler of FreeGoodNews.com | Mar 5, 2006 8:02:23 AM

Too bad this is real, it could be a Friday Funnie... I guess the beat way to combat it is to not publicize it and give it the press it needs to spawn its Pedophile-like invitation to 'Christian' folks to go and get the church (and I use that term loosely here) involved in another giant mess.

Adam and Eve were naked it the garden but once they sinned they realized the need to cover up... their nudity. God cursed them and ran them from the garden so they wouldn’t continue to live in rebellion to Him, and eat of any other trees of the garden and become immortal like God.

This whole thing definitely speaks the glory of depraved man and the thoughts and intents of the heart. Let us pray for the whole project that it flops like other 'man driven' (and I don't want to call this a ministry) programs. Amen. J

Posted by: Jay Gainer | Mar 5, 2006 4:15:11 PM

I'd like to know where the wives are finding "$90 haircuts". :0

Posted by: Floyd | Mar 6, 2006 9:30:39 AM

Having lived through the 'free sex' of the late 60's and early 70's and now reside in an area know for nakedness etc., [cape cod ma] the only thing to say that we are becoming so desparate with sex and the flesh [which the Apostle Paul, John and Peter wrote about] that we are heading down that same path just as with those young men who believe as it is written in their holy book the Qu'ran that dying for the cause will yield 70 virgins. Where will nakedness get us. We are a nation built upon principles and have become so deceived by satan that I am continually suprised that other countries think of us as christian. We've made abortion legal, sex between middle school and elementary school, boys and men, etc, etc, etc....what next.........that though scares me - really

Posted by: bill | Mar 6, 2006 8:15:09 PM

Bill, I am with you. My son is only 5 yrs old, and in Kindergarten. Just the other day he heard some students talking about sex and he got into trouble for repeating a statement that he heard.

America is just to SEX crazy.... Is it any wonder why we have such a high rate in pregnacy, abortion, and rape. If you open up a newspaper magazine or a sales ad, there is a half naked man or woman. If you turn on the T.V. look at the filth and trash that comes through it.

My wife and I was watching a family movie with the kids several weeks ago and throughout the entire movie, they showed that Pizza commerical with Jessica Simpson in it the entire time. Who cares about her struting across the screen. Every time that commerical came on we turned it.

Posted by: Clairvoyent 1 | Mar 6, 2006 10:07:15 PM

some would argue that americans are too "sex-crazed" because we're so uptight about nudity, censorship etc. as a result of our "puritanical" origin. that our preoccupation with it is mostly cultural. we spend so much time screaming at everyone to "get their hand out of the cookie jar" that all they think about is the cookie jar. do the missionaries mentioned above preach against nudity on the mission field or just preach "jesus" and not focus on the local cultural mores? the same idea as the foolishness of preaching against beer in Germany during Oktoberfest. not offering a justification. just curious. any ideas, for example, how rampant STD's, abortion, pre-marital sex are in areas of Europe where pornography is pretty much on display in your airport giftshop as complared to the USA?
just thinking out loud about universal biblical truth vs. regional/cultural tradition.

any comments or thoughts?

Posted by: danny | Mar 7, 2006 11:52:16 AM

danny,

the intereesting thing to me about your commetn is that you seem to intimate that aversion to nudity is an American thing...

Scripture is clear that women should adorn themselves in MODEST attire, that we should not behave in ways that would cause others to stumble, and that the "wise" will flee from the way of sexual temptation.

The empirical evidence of what happens in more promiscuous European countries is very clear. Preganancies/abortions out of wedlock, decline of the family... on and on.

God's Word is pretty clear that after SIN entered the created world, Man and Woman needed to cover themselves to function appropriately.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 7, 2006 11:59:46 AM

Jeff, thanks for the response. I am completely clear on the scripture you mentioned. I'm really just speaking to the amount of focus we spend on it. Your paragraph referring to the "empirical evidence of what happens in more promiscuous European countries" could just as precisely have been referring to America, the country that preaches so loudly against the above mentioned things. I'm wondering if the rate of pregnancies/abortions, etc is any higher in "secular" Europe than it is here in "Christian" America. I'm reminded of a couple of pentecostal girls I dated in High School that never wore pants because it was sinful. They were the greatest threats I faced to my desired virginity. They were constantly preached to about modest dress when at the end of the day, their chastity would certainly have been better served in pants the the easily accessible dresses they wore. And again, having never been on mission field in some of the above mentioned cultures, i'm curious how their customs are treated doctrinally. Blessings, Jeff.

Posted by: danny | Mar 7, 2006 12:21:14 PM

Jeff, you raise some interesting points. I was reading in Romans 7 this morning where Paul makes some statements that kind of go along with your thinking - that we are made aware of sin because of the law. "I would not have known what sin was except through the law." (v. 7) However, Paul also explicitly states that the law isn't sin, nor did sin come about because of the law; rather, the law brings sin to our mind. We can certainly see that our "puritanical" roots did not free us from sin (ever read "The Scarlett Letter"?), but neither did the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, and neither has Europe's more open attitude toward sex, nudity, etc.

I'll respond to your comments on the mission field in a separate post.

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 12:37:24 PM

Jeff asked how other cultural customs are treated doctrinally. That is, in many ways, one of the central questions we need to consider as we strategize to fulfill the Great Commission. How does a western missionary take the gospel to a non-western culture, without imposing western culture? (Note: this need not be limited to western missionaries; the questions are the same in any cross-cultural communication.)

I would suggest that first and foremost one needs a very good understanding of the Bible and how to interpret it across the centuries and cultures. If I believe everything the Bible teaches is normative - that is, it should be applied today just as it was applied when written - then I am going to make some very serious errors in my own culture; those errors may be magnified in another culture.

I also need to recognize that discipleship results in my disciple becoming like me. Thus, if I as a western missionary go to an unreached people group that wears few clothes, I can expect that they will begin to wear clothes as they become like me. (I think to strip off my own clothes would be a poor interpretation of Paul's statement that he "became all things to all men".) But I may not need to compel them to wear clothes in their own cultural context.

These cultural issues are myriad - polygamy is a big one - and we need to teach Biblical principles, not western cultural mores.

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 12:54:06 PM

Randy. great stuff. Yeah, the law served to show us our need for grace due to our inability to observe the law to its fullest. makes you thankful for the cross doesn't it?. anyway, just thinking through how our preoccupation with regulations (the law) can instead have the opposite of the desired affect by actually increasing our focus on the "regulation" or sin.

I sense that the guy alluded to in this blog (martin) has a heartfelt intention to kind of rekindle childlike innocence, but that will be difficult in our current cultural climate. I just don't know that the guy is so much "the antichrist" as much as misguided or in denial. i do like the idea of "stripping away" facades, though. i read an interesting article once in a travel magazing by the writer who took a "nude cruise" for the purpose of the article. of course, all of the imagined discomfort was present at the beginning of the trip. what was interesting, though, was how she described her group of friends that she was placed with at dinner and tended to group with on the cruise. She said by the end of the trip, she had forgotten who was the doctor, housewife, mechanic, etc because all of the original stereotypes typified by clothing were removed. Therefore, she simply "related" to the others as the persons she had come to know based on several days of conversation, with no preconceived notions based on "khakis and pressed button-downs versus jeans and t-shirts". Don't know that we need to return to our birthday suits to accomplish that, but i'm sure that is a mindset that the church could use in our missional activities.

thanks!!

danny
(accidentally put the comma before "jeff" in my last post, making it appear it was from Jeff, not me. sorry about that, jeff.)

Posted by: danny | Mar 7, 2006 12:58:32 PM

Yeah, Danny, I'm not sure we need to get naked to get real. Though a local church is doing a series on being real and using the term "naked" as a near-synonym for "real". I noticed a couple classes they have coming up. One is "Get Naked With Your Spouse"; the other is "Get Real With Others." I wonder why they didn't use the naked theme in both?!?! (Ouch - I just bit my tongue, which was in my cheek!)

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 1:15:59 PM

Yeah, Danny, I'm not sure we need to get naked to get real. Though a local church is doing a series on being real and using the term "naked" as a near-synonym for "real". I noticed a couple classes they have coming up. One is "Get Naked With Your Spouse"; the other is "Get Real With Others." I wonder why they didn't use the naked theme in both?!?! (Ouch - I just bit my tongue, which was in my cheek!)

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 1:16:19 PM

Yeah, Danny, I'm not sure we need to get naked to get real. Though a local church is doing a series on being real and using the term "naked" as a near-synonym for "real". I noticed a couple classes they have coming up. One is "Get Naked With Your Spouse"; the other is "Get Real With Others." I wonder why they didn't use the naked theme in both?!?! (Ouch - I just bit my tongue, which was in my cheek!)

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 1:16:36 PM

Sorry about the multiple reposting. Problems with my server, apparently. (You just can't good help these days! Oh well, they say repetition aids learning!)

Posted by: Randy Ehle | Mar 7, 2006 1:32:07 PM

Post a comment