Nude, Lewd, and Crude?
Does the Bible support nudity or transgressive ideas in art?
April, 2023
This month's spotlight verse notes that James uses a Greek phrase for "put away sin" that resembles the way one would say to "take off clothes." That, itself, can be a controversial subject in Christian ethics. In daily life, the concept of nudity seems fairly self-explanatory: one ought to be modest, and covered. But what about art, such as paintings or sculptures? Does the same apply to film, or photography? Is that a question of making exceptions, or is it something entirely different?
Further complicating the issue is that some biblical texts include imagery one might properly call "offensive." Some have compared prophets to performers who use unsettling means to make their point. Isaiah was called on to preach without his normal clothes (Isaiah 20:1–4). Ezekiel objected to using human excrement for fuel because he said he would be "defiled" by it (Ezekiel 4:12–15). This is the same Ezekiel who delivered extraordinarily pointed, caustic imagery about idolatry (Ezekiel 23:18–20). Hosea infamously married a prostitute (Hosea 1:2–3). Do those examples mean concepts traditionally seen as "vulgar" are purely contextual? Does nudity, vulgarity, and such really matter, or can there be good reasons to use them?
It's true that intent is more important than content—but intent drives the choice of what content to include. The "message" cannot be separated entirely from the messenger's choices. Those choices reflect the thought process and motivations of the person creating the art or statement. God is not as woodenly legalistic as some assume. God sometimes tells messengers to violate social conventions, but not to blatantly contradict His own commands. There is such a thing as going too far, but it's not easy to write out sentences that explain every nuance, in advance. Knowing where to "draw the lines" is not easy to define in an all-encompassing way. In the end, we're required to apply discernment to situations individually (Hebrews 5:14).
As a parallel, the fact that a man might sometimes be justified in punching his son in the face does not mean he should make that choice often. Or without caution. In fact, in all but the most extreme and tragic cases, there would be no justification for that action. In nearly every situation, that choice would be "over the line." The situation and the intent are what matter, not a simplistic rule like "never do this…" That we might be justified in something, sometimes, doesn't mean we should be looking for reasons to do it.
So far as the literal examples given are concerned, the Hebrew language has a relatedly small vocabulary, so terms often have broad ranges of meaning. Terms translated "naked" don't always refer to absolute bare-skinned nudity, but also include being underdressed. For example, references to caring for the poor speak of "clothing the naked," but even extremely poor people would almost never be absolutely nude. Perhaps Isaiah was "bare naked," but more likely he was embarrassingly missing his outer garment. On the other hand, verse 4 of Isaiah chapter 20 compares the situation to complete exposure. Of course, any application of that one incident to a modern "artist" starts with asking, "are you a prophet of God acting under His direct command?"
There are no explicit commands about using human dung for fuel, but it was considered gross even in that era. Ezekiel wasn't referring to an overt rule, but the general idea of obeying the Mosaic Law which gave instructions for disposing of waste. God was polite by letting Ezekiel use cow dung, instead.
Ezekiel chapter 23's message is certainly coarse; but what's "inappropriate" depends very much on the audience. And that's not the only place God speaks in such eye-watering terms. Ezekiel 16:17 describes the humiliating, embarrassing disgust of idolatry using the most explicitly graphic imagery found in the Bible. Throwing that phrase at a deeply unfaithful and evil people is harsh, but not inappropriate. Reading or attempting to fully explain that passage to a young child would not be "appropriate" for their level of maturity and understanding.
Hosea's wife was very likely not an adulteress when he married her. God's command was to marry that exact woman, and she then turned to sin. That's a better parallel to God's "marriage" to Israel, and their turning from love and obedience to betrayal.
Some art is labelled "transgressive" because it deliberately seeks to offend. That can be used for a good purpose (1 Timothy 4:4), but it does not mean there are no limits. Bad "transgressive" art is just perversion being expressed for its own sake. When God compares idolatry to a promiscuous, sexually depraved spouse, the offense echoes His reaction to the idolatry. But even the most sexually "graphic" verses in the Bible are still couched in symbolism and relatively limited detail. Those are not in-depth, extended, detailed pornographic depictions intended to inflame erotic feelings. Nor are they carelessly phrased such that they inspire lust more than they make the intended point. Too often, we pretend some inclusion is "for the art," when we know full well it's because we get an illicit thrill from what we're presenting.
Language is much the same. In the strictest sense, there are no "forbidden syllables," in and of themselves. Intent matters: a person who stubs their toe and instinctively shouts, "gosh darn this sugary bull snot!" is succumbing to anger and uncontrolled speech more so than the factory worker who mindlessly inserts four-letter words into their conversation. Yet, some syllables are more offensive to neighbors than others. Are we using words with self-control and freedom, or are we being controlled by the words (1 Corinthians 6:12) and being inconsiderate of other people?
A good rule of thumb when it comes to "drawing lines" is to gauge its necessity. Does the message require nudity, or gore, or offense? If not, why use it at all? If the message needs to strike at certain emotions, is it pushing people in the right direction, or distracting them with an irrelevant sin? Are we being careful about other people's possible weaknesses, or ignoring them so we can do whatever we want (1 Corinthians 8:9–13)? What message are people most likely to gain, and how are they likely to react? If God wants us to avoid temptation, how are we promoting that message if we make art that's prone to tempt people?
It's good to note that discerning right from wrong is not about simplistic rule-following. Knowing where things like nudity, violence, or language fit into appropriate "art" is not simple. But that same maturity replaces rule-following with dependence on the Holy Spirit and concern for other people (Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16). Good rules and Spirit dependence usually imply the same conclusion; when they don't, it's the Spirit that leads, but always for better reasons than simplistic "expression."
-- Editor
