youch. that is tough. without nearly the time, thought, and prayer that dan has put into this, i've gotta say no. mainly for the sake of children in the shop. and for the sake of those who struggle in this area (more than we care to admit). i don't know that we can desexualize art. we, specifically men, seem to be wired to sexualize just about everything.

i'm looking forward to seeing other comments here, and dan's decision.

have a nice day

tuf

It's a cool idea, and would definitely bring people into the coffeehouse. However, understanding that there are 1) those who will see it as ntohing but art and 2) those that wil see it sexually - I believe you would have to err on the side of caution. Do you stumble people to make art lovers comfortable? And since it was submitted by a neighborhood person's sketchbook, how do we know that it wasn't submitted just to see if the church would post it? I dont think that it is "unholy" just because it is nude, but it would take the focus away from fellowship and outreach and even worship during the services, and put the focus on the nude art. The person who said " They believed the church should redeem the beauty of art and teach that the human body should not always be seen sexually", Its a great thing to do, but not really the church's job. I think its always better to consider not stumbling people (by stumbling, I mean that some might view it erotically, but also some who might just be offended) as opposed to standing up for your rights.

Wow, what a tough situation. I most likely would say no, simply because of the societal implications and issues. I would then invite the artists to submit another piece and honor them for their understanding. Finally I would create a set of standards and policies concerning future submissions.

There will likely not be a consensus on exactly what defines art. The other questions, however, most likely ought to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Of course, you then might not be "fair" with what you hang up and what you don't. Many people would look to defining a set rule for what should be displayed and what should not, but either you will exclude some art that you might otherwise include, or you will go the other way when you use such a rule.

The other option (to a general rule for what's in and what's out) is to take the "I know it when I see it" approach. Do you (or we) have the sort of flexibility and time for that, though?

Either way, you have to consider what is the desired balance among competing goals (none of these is mutually exclusive):
- Reaching out to non-church individuals
- Reaching out to church members
- Being "family friendly"
- Focusing on art
- Focusing on the gospel
- Focusing on coffee
- Art as a method to bring people in
- Art as a backdrop to make people feel comfortable
- Art as a backdrop to stimulate discussion

There are certainly others. In order to make a decision, I'd imagine you'd need to clarify your goals beyond what is stated in the original post, above.

Nudity was OK pre-Fall, and may be again when Christ returns, but in between we should take our cue from G, who made people, and originally intended for them to walk around nude: He clothed them after the fall. If G clothed them, and if G never led his people to have nude art or representations for 2,000 years before the time of Christ, and didn't lead by the Holy Spirit the early church into nude art and nude representations, then I don't believe that it is up to us to usurp G's authority and start having nudes in art. Of course, that would include movies, etc., all of which are out of bounds for followers of X.
regards,
J

I'll have to join in and be an old-fashioned dud on this one. There's a time for naked, and I can't help but think that anything to do with church is not that time. I have to concur with Lizc above ... I would be a bit suspicious. How do you kow that an "artist" isn't just trying to cause a stir and maybe land in the news?

Also, from a common-sense decency standpoint, you would need a bit of a warning or disclaimer fur such displays in public. A coffee shop is not a museum. And, come to think of it, I can't remember seeing any pictures of a dude (naked) from the waist down at any coffee shop that I've ever been to. I wouldn't think it would go well with a latte. :)
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com

nudity in the bible is almost always considered shameful other than 'naked and not ashamed' which implies that normally you are ashamed when naked. Beautiful? Sure but beauty isn't the point. God covered Adam and Eve for a reason and we are to remain that way. It's a simple decision Dan...even 3 year olds know they don't lift up their dresses. New Rule: No nudity in church. That should clear up a lot of problems...

God said not to look upon someone else's nakedness, so why do we think it's alright as long as the world (or even the church) considers it art? Nude art is simply pre-camera pornography, whether it's hanging in a gallery or featured on the cover of Leadership Journal.

Personally as a leader I would probably not have a problem with a nude sketch - although it would depend on the style of the piece of art and the context. I have an abstract piece of art work on my living room wall - I have never seen this piece as a sexual picture. However, i have seen some art that I would consider on the edge. I dont think you can make a decision and ban everything, also I think there are problems when we are afraid of people being sexually stimulated by sketches. What about nude statues? What about museums and art galleries? Do we not take our kids there because they may see a nude? Surely we are creating problems when we can not be comfortable with this type of art? Also our society has nude people/semi dressed people everywhere - here in the UK a popular tabloid newspaper prints a picture of a topless model everyday. It is impossible for us to block out every image that could be potentially sexually stimulating - surely we must teach people to love, respect, and demostrate self control?

While I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with nudity in art, it seems innappropriate in this case. Would most coffee shops display that? I think that for business reasons alone a normal coffee shop would probably not put those up. It could offend people - and that's something that a church especially should avoid doing. I suspect that even non-church-members would be more likely to be offended if you hung those up than if you didn't.

Someone above mentioned making guidlines for future use. That I would not suggest. I think case-by-case is the way to go with something as diverse and unpredictable as art.

So much for my thoughts.

it all depends on context. but personally i think if there is a safe place for the human nude to be displayed it should be in a place of worship. i wonder how much of the issues with this are because we are neo-platonic in our view of the body?

I am with the no group. The distraction visually and socially would be too much. It would seem to continually bring contention.

I cannot believe this is even a discussion. Something I love about emergents is their passion to impact the world with the Gospel, using whatever methodology works... including art which is honored in our circles.

But this is going too far... male genitalia... that's art? In the church? Not in Christ's church... sorry, I don't think so.

The Word of God has something to say about these things.

There seems to be a couple of issues to consider here:
1) How should the church approach nudity in art in general?
2) How should the church approach the human body in general?
3) Is this an appropriate place for nude artwork?

There is a long tradition of nudity in art among Christians. The human body is a legitimate area of exploration through art, as is all of God's creation. Truth is the domain of Christian thought and art is an exploration of truth. There is nothing inherently exploitive in nude artwork.

The human body is a divine masterpiece. It is wonderful and good. There is nothing intrinsically shameful or dirty about the human body, even those parts we tend to consider sexual. We err when we automatically associate the body, and any exposure of it, with sexuality. A hyper-sexualized view of the body is not Christian. In this area, Christians often share the same outlook as non-Christians, which is a disappointment. This may contribute to the problems many Christians have with sexuality impurity. It should be our vision to break this connection and bring the Lordship of Christ over this area.

Some of the artwork mentioned probably isn't appropriate for this setting for several reasons cited in the comments. Not the least being, we are so woefully uneducated about the beauty and goodness of the human body and art in general that most Christians and non-Christians visiting would not know how to understand the presence of such artwork. It's not good to give a message that almost certainly will not be understood. However, this reveals a weakness in that we are not educating our members and we have unchristian attitudes towards the human body and art. If the congregation had been used to seeing tasteful nudes and were taught a theology of art and the pursuit of truth, there probably would have been no problem, although guests may still have been confused. But then again, that would be an opportunity to witness to a different value system.

While I don't think I would have a problem with nudes being included in an art display (especially at rate of only 1 out of 100), with the actual pieces described here I'd be a bit more hesitant. The description of the male piece in particular sounds like it could cross the boundary from tasteful art over into pornography in that according to the description it is objectifying (it's only torso down lacking a particular face or identity) and the focus of piece is the genitalia. The female pictures aren't really described in enough detail to make any sort of judgment just from reading the description.

I do though think it's also important to keep in mind that right now the coffee house is being used as the primary meeting place of the church and it would also be possible to ultimately decide that such pictures are too much of a distraction while it's serving that purpose but would be fine once it starts serving as just a coffee house.

I do also think though this makes an important point that it isn't enough embrace the arts by hanging up a bunch of pictures, if we're going to do that I think it's important within the congregation to spend time discussing and becoming educated on the use of artwork in worship and thereby coming to better educated and reasoned stances as to what is and is not appropriate in a given setting.

I think one unspoken presupposition in this conversation is that Michaelangelo was right in what he did. If Mike hadn't done nudes umpteen years ago, we wouldn't likely be having this discussion. Is it possible that Mike should never have painted as he did in the first place? If this is so, then our answer is pretty clear...

Further, just because something is heralded as "art" due to the fact that we've called it that for hundreds of years doesn't make it so. The Parthenon in Athens is consider a wonder of art and architecture and a tourist attraction, but Paul in Acts 17 was "greatly distressed by it." I think God hates the Parthenon. Do we celebrate it?

Art is intended to be provocative (otherwise it's just decoration), but it must not cross the line into an area that God has made off-limits.

How about avoiding the issue altogether by just getting rid of the coffee shop? I'm firmly against conducting any form of commerce on church property. Christ cleared the money changers out of the temple because it was supposed to be a house of prayer. Commercial facilities mean money which means temptation. Bad mix with church. Plus, I seriously doubt unbelievers are going to walk in to a church just to buy a latte, unless your church is located on a busy urban street or in a shopping complex.

I feel that sheltering kids from such works is only going to do more harm than good. I understand the complexity of the issue, however from what I understood it is not pornography with sexual intent- it is the emulation of our beautifully created bodies. Who are we to cover up Michelangelo- and anyone else's interpretations? I would much rather my kids were confronted with questions of sexuality and the human body in church and have wisdom concerning such issues, than the elementary school lunch table. Agreed- it is a hot topic but I don't think it is so necessary to tiptoe around it. If it were degrading in any way I would oppose it. But these appear to be creative interpretations. We as a global church and individual communites need to embrace other's interpretations- not cross our fingers against them and claim that Jesus would have none of it. My first encounter of the "birds and the bees" was my third grade lunch table. Can a church provide a conducive environment not only to worship and fellowship, but converse as human beings created for the sake of His glory? Male and female genetalia are not something to drop our jaws at. I find it beautiful, and art that depicts this beauty is not something to be ashamed of.

I'm a little surprised by the direction of these comments.

One Sunday I brought a reproduction of a panel from the Sistine chapel to the Bible class I teach. Honestly, I didn't think anything of it. Michelangelo's depiction of Adam and Eve fleeing the garden is one of the most powerful depictions I've seen. To see people respond to the painting--averting their eyes and whatnot--I felt like a bit of a pervert.

We laughed about it, and they still tease me about it. But I am careful what I bring to that class now.

That said, if I were Kimball, I'd want to leave the pictures up--at least for the sake of discussion. The real question is whether Kimball wants to have that discussion. I'm sure it would be easier just to take the pictures down.

Here's the thing: I still don't understand what is offensive about Michelangelo. Do people really believe that classical nudes are a slippery slope to pornography? Or worse, do those images somehow create feelings of lust in them? If not, then what's the problem?

Does anyone else find it interesting that no one has addressed question 6 yet? I tend to agree with Thinking in Ohio that we've "hyper-sexualized" the human body and the fact that the discussion (as of this posting) is focusing on the nudity while ignoring the violence question illustrates that point. Would anyone be comfortable showing The Passion of the Christ on a Sunday morning during worship? How about a painting depicting the death of one of the martyrs? Is displaying those "works of art" more acceptable because there is no nudity in them? I think it comes down to knowing your audience. Can they handle art for the sake of art or would it cause distraction and take their attention away from God?

Acts 17:16 says Paul was distressed to see the city full of idols. Nudity in art is not idolatry. The human body can become a object of worship, but so can anything else. Are we to think that all art is idolatry? Surely not.

"Then Moses said to the Israelites, 'See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts - to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kind of artistic craftsmanship."

- Exodus 35:30-33

Wow! What a tough situation!

On the theoretical side, maybe the issue really isn't, "Should we or shouldn't hang the art," but "What do our reactions about the nude art reveal about ourselves?"

Grant it, nude art in a church is a hard concept to grasp, but shouldn't there be at least some freedom to celebrate how God created men and women differently and the purposes behind those differences? In a world where sexuality has been tainted, does such a scenario spur us to further thinking of ways human creation and sex could be celebrated positively where we look for ways God's redemption is evident in human sexuality?

hmm. i like what cal said up there. but i think i would have just gone ahead and left the art up. but maybe that is why i am not in ministry any more!

There are obviously those who can better cite Biblical support for their choices than I can. Scanning the comments I would say those citing specific verses are generally against it. I would ask a more simple question: will posting nudity bring more people to Jesus? If not, you have your answer. Jesus is not about artistic intent, or free speech, or any other justification for this.

So, do we have nude dance in the sanctuary and skinny-dipping in the baptismal tank next?

Dave asks, "Will posting nudity bring more people to Jesus?" I wish it were that easy. For me at least, most decisions in my life aren't a matter of bringing people directly to Jesus. I just try to live in a way that constantly points toward Jesus.

Of course nudity won't bring people to Jesus. But neither will the donuts we have in our Sunday school class. Does that make the donuts evil? Some people do abuse them, eating too many and indulging in gluttony.

Can nudity or donuts point the way to Jesus? Can they express the truth of God's wonderful creation and redemption and grace. In certain contexts, I think they can. In churches, for example, I think they can.

I like what Rink says, "I would much rather my kids were confronted with questions of sexuality and the human body in church and have wisdom concerning such issues, than the elementary school lunch table."

One more comment, did anyone read the interview with Patricia Heaton in the CT Connections newsletter today?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/22.62.html

In the very beginning she says, "For the serious [movie] projects, you want to tell the truth. Sometimes people think if you're a Christian you can't do a part that has any nudity or obscenities. Those things, in and of themselves, are not problematic. It's the way they are portrayed."

She then talks about the way Christians compartmentalize their lives. And I suppose that is what bothers me the most about this conversation. People are uncomfortable with nudity in the church building. Fine. But somehow I doubt these people give the same thought to the much more sensual images of modern day advertisements.

We shouldn't treat the church building like it is a holy place. It isn't.

Anything we don't do there, we shouldn't do elsewhere. If you avert your eyes at home because you struggle with sensual images, then there is no shame in averting your eyes at church if you find artistic nudes to be sensual. Similarly, if you must resist the temptation to eat donuts at home, there is no shame in resisting the tempation to eat donuts at church.

People who struggle with gluttony shouldn't make the church ban donuts. People who struggle with lust shouldn't expect the church to ban Michelangelo or similar work.

Interesting that the only commentators that have actually used Scripture to directly support their position that all nudity is wrong are those against it. G created sex too, made it beautiful, and made it the subject of his first command (leave and cleave). But just because its beautiful does not mean that we engage in it with any one we want, any time we want, or that we can watch it (on TV, in pictures, in film, etc.). Adam & Eve are the only people around, they've seen each naked, but G still clothes them after sin. The Bible has a consistent position against sex with anyone or anything except one's spouse. The Bible also has a consistent position against nudity with anyone except one's spouse. All the pro nudity arguments above are based on a Western cultural secularized understanding of art and the body. There is no valid, Biblical reason for nudity in art.

Sometimes I feel like the church tries so hard to be relevant to society that we have forgotten how rediculous this really is. Often, we try so hard to reach the world that we end up looking a lot like the world. I am not questioning Dan's motives, but in reality what good would that piece of art be? Is having that on the wall helpful in any way? We have to ask those questions, especially when there is plenty of great art out there other than art with nudity.

I've been leading worship for a while now, and I've learned that moments before the start of a worship service is not the time for a long discussion on what is and what is not art. The discussion has to be about what will and what will not draw the hearts of the actual people that we know will be in the room to worship. There's more to lose here than to gain.

I'd have called the shop owner and asked permission to temporarily adjust the display immediately, and then (just in case) I'd have asked if the coffeehouse was sending a subtle message that we weren't welcome anymore.

We should lean toward modesty and I would decide NOT to display the nude pictures. The Bible is clear in Ephesions 5:3 that "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality". The nude displays could be this "hint" warned about. Nude depictions of men and women, especially in our sexually explicit culture WILL definitely incite lusts in "weaker brothers and sisters".

Let's be careful not to be the "frog in the kettle".

The above conversation is an excellent example of why people think Christians are idiots.

One of the early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, was tasked with spending too much time with the women of the church. His response was, "The Lord was not ashamed to make them so I am not ashamed to look at them."

In 1st Corinthians 8, Paul sets a clear precedent that we must not do things that cause other believers to stumble spiritually. (This is stated in verse 8:9.)

Perhaps there exists a church for which no members of the church would find the artwork with nudes a potential source of spiritual trouble. But it sounds like this church is not in that situation.

As a Messianic Rabbi, I have a quite similar issue this time of year with congregants wondering how to approach Christmas. My blog post with a collection of links is here:
http://davidvs.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-season-is-starting-early.html

Interesting comments....

in response to John M. - "Plus, I seriously doubt unbelievers are going to walk in to a church just to buy a latte, unless your church is located on a busy urban street or in a shopping complex."

The building we just moved into is on a very busy intersection and the bus stop to the local university is at the end of the driveway and very close to the entry of the coffee house.

also, for those who say that God did not permit nudity after the Fall, don't forget He told Isaiah in Isaiah 20: 2-4 to be prophesying naked. All the commentaries I have read on that, say he was naked not symbolically or partially naked. Now God told him to do that, so I don't at all think that is excuse for people to be doing that today. But you can't make the argument God didn't want others to see people nude if He told Isaiah to go around publicly naked.

I tell my students that Phil. 4:8 is a litmus test. If they can cite the verse, (which oddly enough I require them to memorize for a Risk Management Class) while doing something, (watching a movie or whatever)then they should be okay.

Finally brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.

I would defer to scripture (novel concept, I know).

"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you...eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ dies, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat (display, sing, do...added author) causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fail. "

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NIV

I would not display the nude, not because of personal distaste, but for love. I am a recovered sex addict, and for me a classical nude would not give me a problem. But it might. And it might cause the unrecovered sex addict to stumble. On that eventuality, I would sacrifice my freedom to preserve a person's relationship with Christ. Sure, someone else might show a nude on screen, in cinema, or on a billboard. But to attach it to a body of Christ context may damage someone's faith. I wouldn't risk it.

For those who wish to use Michaelangelo as an example of spiritual art (as Dan does), a quick perusal of Wikipedia's overview could be insightful. Here is a quote, "Censorship always followed Michelangelo, once described as "inventor delle porcherie" ("inventor of obscenities", in the original Italian language referring to "pork things").

Dave,

my question for you is, then, is "bringing more people to Jesus" what we are to about? if so then what exactly does that mean?

i am not attacking you here, please don't take it that way, i just think you brought up an important issue.

This seems like a no brainer to me. I think anyone with some common sense is going to come to the inevitable conclusion that there is really no good reason to allow the art to remain. I cannot think of any positive reason that is not far outweighed by other negative ones. This is a "no", without a doubt.

Certainly, there will be people who disagree with me, and that’s okay. Of all of the questions that have been asked and contemplated during this discussion, one that I think is most important is, “what do we want to be known for, as a church?” Personally, I would want to be known as a safe, family friendly place where people come to worship and hear a powerful message from the Word of God that will change their life. I would not want to be known as the church with naked pictures. But hey, that’s just me!

Interesting discussion.

There is something to be said about foresight and hindsight. I think thematic art could be useful when preaching to the people. There are some preachers who can take any subject who can take anything and make it a teaching moment. However, once so much noise has been made on the subject, I'd say you would only have 2 choices: 1.Remove it and tell the unchurched their ideas have no value or 2. Place the art in only one area of the coffee house where the offended will know they shouldn't go. (Like an "R-rated" area. I really like the idea of a coffee shop attached to the church--Great Job!

When G commands a prophet to produce nude art, then I'll think that nude art is OK. The special nature of what G commanded the prophet to do, and the very fact that the Israelites found the display attention getting and shocking, indicates that it was an unusual, unique, and limited incidence of public nudity.
regards,
J.I.

Dear J.J. Please, read Exodus to the end, then answer yourself the question: How much nudity did those filled with the Spirit of G-d guys create? Thus, we know exactly what kind of spiritual art our most creative Creator prefers in our midst, don't we?

"Flee from all appearances of evil". When I think of these words, my heart quakes at the turn christianity is taking in this 21st century. If these nude artwork is allowed to hang in the coffehouse, who knows what would be brought in the next time art is requested for. If I may ask,"How will the nude art be explained to non-believers if the coffehouse is meant to be a meeting point for christian discussion?" Please for the love of God don't hang up the nude art. Remain blessed.

I don't think the naked body is not ecessarily sexual. True physical beauty can be revealed through a nude image. If the image is supposed to create lustful thoughts, then that is a different story. I don't think I would leave them in the coffeehouse, just because it will be used as a place to witness for God and that may hurt your witnessing.

If a sketch is ok, then what about a photo of an actual nude person? What about a broader issue; is it ok for a Christian to sketch or photograph nudes? Is it ok for a Christian to pose for nude art, especially as a live nude model for an art class? Then what about doctors and nurses who see nude patients. What about Christians disrobing for a doctor/nurse? Can Christian go to a nudist camp or nude beach???

The goal is to reach those outside the church. guess what? they have seen enough nude men and women on our streets, the media and everywhere. So stay with your goal. Nudity isn't part of it.This is about lost souls, not refreshing appetites or appreciating art work.

A place of worship is meant to be a place where anyone can come and not feel "put on the spot" or uncomfortable. If just one person walks out because of these feelings, we have not done our job. My answer is..No. Take them down from the area and maybe have a second area where people can, voluntarily, walk through and see the art.

Bodies are made beautiful,.... God saw to that. But I believe they have no place depicted on church walls, Christian materials or any such like, when unclothed. Modesty, was the word given to Christian women. If we see nudity portrayed amongst the Christian faith as being "OK", it will be a hard distinguishing factor when we see our teens "watching or looking" at it from an unhealthy manner. Let's keep a few things personal, private and most of all, respected. .....

Absolutely not!! There is enough pornography flooding our streets like sewers in America without having this type of "art" in a place of worship. Someone definately needs to read, "Every Man's Battle" and "Every Women's Battle".

I think it is a shame that what God made beautiful has been brought down to such a level that a debate like this is necessary. While the human body is beautiful creation of God, at the same time society has cheapened it through pornography - just like casual sex has tarnished something that God meant to be a beautiful expression of love INSIDE a marriage covenant. With greed and lust being two of the predominant issues facing people today - and not just the unchurched - I would have to say that even if it were tastefully done, this could be a stumbling block for someone struggling with a pornography addiction or could plant ideas in a kid's head who has yet to discover the wonderful world of pornography (please note sarcasm).

Until two weeks ago I would have agreed with many of the posts here. But two weeks ago I was in Europe visiting my daughter in Vienna. She took me to the Art Museum there and I was embarrassed by the number of paintings showing women exposed. As we talked, and she was taking an art course, she told me that until the victorian era people had little problem with displaying the human body in art. Look at much of art throughout history and it is not unusal to see nudity. Then in the 1500's an artist named Klimpf and a few others came on the scene and began displaying their subjects in more erotic and sexual poses.

She said something that struck me as being very true and she is as conservative as they come. The human body is beautiful and was created by God to be enjoyed. It is us who have debased it and made it seem dirty. As I looked at some of the art again after having this discussion, I saw it in a new way. I say let the art stay if it is classical and in good taste. But put a disclaimer near the door and let people know that this is art and it reflects the beauty of God's creation.

No one would claim that a painting of Christ in a loin cloth on the cross is pornographic, yet he is partially nude. However, a drawing of the lower part of a man's torso crosses the line. Partially nude women in drawings or paintings should be left to the museums and homes based on one's tastes. They do not belong in a coffee shop, nor in a McDonald's, or anywhere else where one does not expect to see partial nudity in art. As much as I love art, I have to side with those saying remove the drawings. If the church wants to sponsor an art exhibit, with a notice that partial nudes are part of the exhibit, they should do that. However, I still would object to the drawing of the lower torso of the man since it is obviously only highlighting the sexual part of a man, not motherhood or the feminine form as bare breasts in art often do.

I appreciate the importance of this conversation. We are talking about many things here: the position the church takes on issues of sexuality; the problem of sexuality in our culture; the place of art in worship/church; the inherit goodness or evil of the human form; our call to reach our culture; etc. I do not believe the form of the human body is evil. Still, I hold a bias towards being appropriate. The church coffee house is not the appropriate location for the more "delicate" parts of the human body to be explored. I wonder if this could be a teaching moment for the congregation? Could a series of lectures or discussions be created which addresses the issues? Could this be the catalyst for a conversation that gets to the core of what it means to be Christian in today's culture?

I find it interesting that I haven't seen a cooment about approaching the artist of these works to discuss the purpose of the coffeehouse with an attitude to use this as an opportunity to draw the artist closer to God. If done privately, affirming the artist's talent, an interest in displaying this artist's works, etc., explain what the concerns are & then give him the opportunity to submit more appropriate works. Wanting to have an atmosphere of openness does not appear to me to be license for 'anything goes'.

Good conversation. I love the idea of a coffee-house outreach and wonder if any of the previous comments would change if the coffee house wasn't on the church's property. I, too, would rather have my children see and discuss nudes in the context of the Church. If not there, then what happens when they confront the David or other great works in the unreal world? I don't want them to pursue the sexualized nudity our culture presents, but neither do I want them to automatically see a nude and think sex. Also, I haven't noticed any discussion of the church's relationships with the artist. If the artist is from outside the Church (probably), then taking the picture down without a significant conversation could impeded building a witnessing or discpling relationship for a long time to come. Reasoning together, explaining the goals of the gathering place, and asking the artist's help in determining the outcome might go a long way in preserving that relationship and presenting the Church as valuing expression and valuing the effect of the expression. So, what was the outcome?

I think abhorence of our natural state, nudity, is a psychological phenomenon deep in us, and it is a pity that it gets mixed up with religion. Did god not create our body? Did he not create sexuality?

The human baody is in and of itself a work of art, designed by the Master himself; however, beauty remains in the eye of the beholder, and you do have to give strong consideration to the feelings of your congregants, including that with which parents are comfortable in exposing smaller children. I would make this a teaching lesson with the "parts" in question covered. I would render sermons on God's creative power and how we, as his creatures bring negativitiy by not treating the human body as the temple it was designed to be. I would talk about honoring versus offending God with the ways in which we use not only our bodies, but our speech, our minds, and Oh Lord! our tongues. This presents itself as an excellent opportunity to go indepth in to Romans 12. To cover the parts that may be offensive is not theologically incorrect, as you are not hiding something that is doctrinally necessary to the growth of your congregants. There is opportunity to give historical information about how others misused the bodies of the first century believers by wrapping them in animal skins and allowing ravaging lions to rip them to shreds, or how Domician used them as torches to light his gardens while he entertained guests at night. There is more than ample opportunity here to use this situation as a chance to get in some good biblically based & theologically sound teaching.

This is what is wrong with the 'emergent' church. Psuedo-intellectuals rationalising their own ideas and culture into a purpose. Like fish, they don't realise they are 'all wet' because of their immersion in the world.

I have read all the above discussion. Frankly, this is a no brainer. It is clear biblically and from a common sense standpoint that the nude art does not belong in the church. If the coffee house serves as "church" then I suggest it stay that way. (I have no problem with the coffee shop idea at all. Keep going guys.)Yes, God created the human body and it is beautiful but he did not have nude priests (or priestesses) leading his church. That was left to the pagans to have their nude worship. Leave the art to the art museums.

Paul recognized that certain parts of the body were to be covered in public. "And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty" 1 Corinthians 12:12 NKJV
I have to say that any time a nude female figure is on display--whether it is "art" or not--baser desires within me are stirred. Do I like that fact? NO. I am fairly certain that I am not alone. Since when does the designation of "art" dictate how the Body of Christ should act? In a loving manner, with a humble, Christ-like spirit I would remove the drawings and explain why to the artists. A year ago a graphic design artist submitted artwork for a banner to be displayed on our church auditorium walls. One photo showed a female rock climber in a very dangerous position--a very dramatic pic. However, the focus was on her backside in tight pants and not much more than a sports bra was covering the rest of her. I can only imagine the distraction that would have placed before all of us guys at church.

Life is a storm of confusion when we start to focus to much on what people think, and not enough time taken to focus on God. In this situation it may require a time of prayer and fasting, seeking the face of God. As to those who made the decision, which at this point we do not know what the decision was, take heart that God will give you peace with the decision you made. We will all look at this from different perspectives depending on our up bringing. Let us beware of "tolerance" in this situation. Satan is and has been out to destroy God's image in which we are created, causing nudity to be perverse in our minds. What ever our opinions are, may we check our motives with God.

This is certainly unexpected.
But the guidelines that God gives in His word is thatin Philippians 4:8, "whatever is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely and of good repute......let your mind dwell on these things.
As I understand it, whatever leads us to be pure and holy in our thoughts and actions are what we are to think on, and nude pictures will most probably not do that.

we need to be careful brethren because if somebody will stumble and fall with those nude photos, it's your accountability to God. He wants us to harvest souls and present them holy and acceptable in His sight. If holiness is not in us and the church, who will be holy? satan? he likes it, (the nudity).
as a Christian, we need to be a model to the world. how can we win the lost if they will say, it's the same.
anyway, i don't want to be sound judgmental but "consider your ways...", says the Lord.
Careful - careful - you're being watched by God and people around you..

haha... this is an easy one,i should say. just the hesitation of putting it or not would already give an answer of NO. just the fact of we questioning our decision, is an indication that we are doing something wrong

Our culture focuses (to an extreme) to the south of the navel? Should the church follow the same direction? Why not take the opposite direction in order to balance that extreme?

About three years ago we had an art show in our storefront church that was well attended. There were a couple of semi-nudes included in the showing by one of our own regulars and they were well-received. We even left them up through the worship event and no one balked. And about five years ago while preaching on Why God Allows Evil and Suffering, we put together a video montage of some horrific scenes (concentration camps, vietnames boy being shot, etc.) all to AC/DC's "Hells Bells". This was challenging and edgy for us, but it was very evocative and helped set the tone to approach the issue from reality. It was shocking/breath-taking, but well-received (after a clearand adamant disclaimer).

But I'd like to point out that we were careful to contextualize the media and direct people's thoughts concerning its use and meaning.

I share this to ask: Can we expect a self-obsessed and secular-oriented world to look upon art and naturally draw theocentric conclusions about them without any prompting and contextualization? Does art lead to God-worship or must we, for the most part, be directed/redirected to see the Holy in the everyday? Does art, whether hanging in a church or a gallery, actually promote God-directed contemplation?

Many churches use video clips to illustrate, to teach, and to point people to God's grace and truth. Most clips have to be "set up" by the communicator and then stitched into the fabric of the overall message of the day. Few smart communicators would just stick it into the lineup and expect the crowd to get it. With that thought in mind, can we really expect visitors (believers or non-believers) to view 300 pieces of art and see it as anything more than decor? What would be meaningful to me is if there were careful reflections strategically placed with the art to guide the heart and mind.

I don't have a problem with nudity as art, but the expressions of mankind are not inherently spiritual nor a reflection of the spirit...in fact, many are expressions of the "old man"...and I don't mean Michelangelo.

So many have made the important points, but I'll be succinct.
When in doubt, leave it out.
A recent survey by SermonCentral.com revealed that among eight sins with with ministers struggle, lust took up a third of the pie chart. Why cause our brother, or sister, to stumble?
Coffeehouses are fine places to discuss such subjects as nudity in art. Organized worship of Almighty God is not. How do we know that? If the question must be asked, as "J" pointed out, one of the first things God did after the fall was to clothe his male and female creation.
This should be a Bible's worth of no-brainer.

WWJD. The Bible is our standard, not Michael Angelo or what anyone thinks. Each person thinks and feels differently and what offends one does not offend another. All of you are thinking way too hard. It is very plain and simple. The standard and principle has been in place from the beginning.

Our reaction to art is typical of how we treat the Song of Solomon. Maybe we avoid the Song of Solomon because we are afraid of arousing our lusts? Could any of us do what the Lord commanded Isaiah in Chapter 13? We are a long way from having a biblical attitude about the body. How in the world can a Christian be a doctor? I wonder how Paul managed to walk the streets of Corinth without attacking the nearest woman? From all of the evidence, people with all of their clothes on aren't stopping the sexual sins that are taking place in the church. Nevertheless, for the weaker souls, take the stuff down!

I guess if it is OK to have tastefully done nude art in a place of worship, then it would be OK if I came tastefully nude to church (I would wear socks) and call it performance art? I mean my body is God's creation...right? Moreover, the stuff that comes out of our body is also part of God's creation, and therefore beautiful...right? Yet we don't have displays of that in church, do we? No wonder we have people smearing dung all over Mary and the baby Jesus and calling it sacred!

Really interesting.... us questioning about this. It is SO easy: just think about your focuses, what was the main "target" of that coffeehouse? To allow people express themselves freely or to kind of "control" the way things go and direct everything towards GOD?
Just thinking...
Raluca

The problem I have with 1 Corinthians 8:9-13 is it implies a two-faced morality, depending on who is watching me. It suggests that while I may be strong enough in the faith to tread close to the edge, but if anyone weaker than I is watching and may be tempted then I should abstain for their sake. This must be hypocrisy!

I am not without my own conservatist tendencies but in the same way that we once asked 'Why should the Devil have all the good music?', we should also now ask 'Why should the Devil taint all the physical pleasures in life?'. Sexuality should be celebrated as a wonderful gift. The artistic value of nudes partakes in that celebration. Being sensible, there are situations where nudes would be inappropriate, and an art exhibition in a church coffeehouse does not strike me as one of them unless it is a particularly cloistered community that would shatter under the strain of a little nudity. And as for the poster who worried about being 'stirred' to sin, there is a passage in the gospels (Acts?) where hot blooded men were told to find wives if they could not bear the pressure, the catch being the commitment this entails! :)

Dear Saints, Our king was displyed naked on a cross accordinng to many historians, it was for our sin but it was the father's plan of redemption. Why is it that we have put a cloth over the naked truth and sensitise it? God our father was not surprised, but we are imbarssed. "you follish saints, who has blinded you, christ was cleary protrayed crusified. Should we become real about the world we live in, are we just religious? When have you seen a ture picture of Jesus on the cross? Pastor in ireland

I have to ask 2 questions:
1. Is it pornographic or obscene in any way?
If the answer is no, then I would classify it as art. And there is a place for such art.
2. Should 'such art' be displayed in this Christian coffee house? My opinion is no - because of the mission and the audience this art is being presented to.

What is missing here is 'guidelines to artists'. Here is what we will not display: violence, nudity, sac religious artwork and so on.

Fascinating discussion...not so much for the nudity or not, but for what the Church is.

As an evangelical catholic (Lutheran) Pastor, I find myself in disagreement with those who say that the sanctuary is not a holy place. I also question worship in a coffee house, but realize that my bias toward a dedicated worship space is a function of my tradition, and not necessarily a Scriptural mandate.

An art show in the sanctuary? Not unless it is explicitly worshipful Christian art, for the sake of the worshipping community. Otherwise, an art show for the community is best presented in an art museum in the community or a coffee shop in the community. That removes the discussion about what type of art should be in the space used to gather God's people to receive His Word and life-giving Sacraments.

We must be careful, the enemy will try to plant seed where ever he can. The church must take a stand and say NO!

Church is for a worship and deepening a relationship with Christ.
The MUSEUM is for art.
Although not all nudity is pornography, there's much more beauty G-d created that we can adorn our walls with other than a sketched nipple or penis--particularly church walls.
So...go to church to worship and appreciate all He does for us.
Go to a museum to appreciate an artistic talent to draw, paint, or carve the nude human body.

I concur with the Rev. JimmyZ. The sanctuary is a place of worship, a concept that has been lost today. Most community churches view the place of worship as an auditorium, and thus have lost a feeling of reverence for the King of Kings.

As for nudity, pornography is in the presentation. I would not consider Venus de Milo or Michaelango's David as pornographic. But others would. I believe that it is incumbant upon us to make sexuality godly, and not evil or shameful. At the same time, it must be revered as a gift from God to be shared only in the bonds of marriage.

This is not so much an issue of personal opinion or a discussion as to what constitutes art. The human body could definitely be classified as a great work of art. No one would really contest that but does that mean that nudity is okay? A famous artist once said that he painted nude art because he wanted to see the human body as God saw it. To which the response was given... "but you're not God." Adam and Eve as husband and wife were the only humans in the garden at the time of the fall but still felt it necessary to cover themselves. Let us remember who it was that provided the first clothing for man to wear and at what expense. Fig leaves weren't good enough, blood had to be shed.

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, this is a no-brainer. The circumstances of discovery are humorous. But, I am a little dismayed at those who have said this is a tough decision. If you lead a church and think this is a difficult decision, you may want to do a little self-check as to what informs your Christian leadership; Biblical correctness or political correctness.

Art is Art and that discussion could fill more volumes than it would take to record all that Jesus said. But, that discussion has no place in this one. Who cares what you call it, it is not appropriate for the setting described. When taking the family to the museum, one expects an encounter with avant garde, or naturalistic art. But, not in a church coffee house. And, that is the deciding factor here; not whether it is art, or "fair".

So, what is Dan to do? Simply tell the artist (via the coffee house mgr, if applicable) that you very much appreciate his contribution to the astetics of the coffee house, but there are some forms of art that we do not wish to display in this setting, which is not open to debate. If you have some creative way to cover the pertinent items, feel free to do so; otherwise you will have to remove them. I hope you understand, and we are happy to display any of the non-questionable pieces.

Aaron made them naked when they worshipped the idol. Fornication and idolatry are united. the answer to fornication and homosexuality are not commandments but rather spirit filled worship and thanksgiving to God. Those feelings satisfy and leave us so satisfied that we do not need porneo to stir our emotions. Even as speaking to ourselves in songs and hymns and spiritual songs is the answer to alcolism and drug addictions.

Jesus was very clear on the topic of being morally clean. Anyone who looked upon a woman with desire was guilty. I perceive this situation as one that could cause people to perhaps think unholy thoughts and also set a wrong precedence for the younger generation. Art is a wonderful gift of God, but if it in anyway leads anyone on the road to impurity, cannot be one that glorifies God. Many things may be lawful but not edifying. Nudity only within the confines of marriage is sanctioned and sublime, anything else is sinful.

Seems like a no brainer to me. Avoid any appearance of evil - or of that which may lead to sinful thoughts in the life of people. The touchy thing is if you know who posted it and how to take advantage of a teaching situation for that person (s).

I vote along with all the other teenage boys that we take down the male nude and leave up the female nudes. And I think I'm voting with a bunch of the twenty-something males, and probably with the thirty-somethings also. Let's not kid ourselves. Naked women are a distraction for lots of men. Sorry if we aren't holier.

How many men are going to be looking at the nudes from the corner of their eye and be getting an elbow from their wives? How many moms are going to go home and try to explain the human anatomy to their grade-school children.

At least when you go to the museum you know there are going to be nude statues and paintings and you can leave the kids at home if you want.

I'm also curious how many of us have asked our wives what they would do.

In order to paint the human form it is of extreme importance to study the human form in life drawing and painting classes. I am an artist and through my studies of the body, I have created some fine art, which includes nudes. In order to correctly paint the clothed body you must be able to have a good understanding of what is underneath. Many of the art instructors that I have met also believe as I do. Not everyone looks good nude so it is up to the artist to improve on what he sees or paint it as he sees it.

I can hardly believe that immorality is beinging discussed here. Is this Sodom were talking about? The answer to this is simple--pornography does not belong in any place that is being used as a church. I believe a real short study of the Adam and Eve shows that nakedness is not acceptable to creatures whos eyes have been opened to good and evil. God clothed man. On every occasion throughout history, man has found cause to "undress" and glorify man's nakedness. I think we should all remember that GOD IS HOLY AND THEY THAT WORSHIP HIM MUST WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. Not after the lust of our own hearts.

well,its a touhg and easy one.but the word is clear on the issue involved....anything that distorts decency is out of order the church should never allow herself to be under pressure from the world to "appreciate art" in the sense of displaying that which is explicit......well my comment is BIG NO to the NUDES,thank u

The problem is that most of the comments seem to have a disdain for the human body that God created, and it was Very Good!" The assumption is that all nudity is pornographic and is done to create lust. This is a result of a gnostic disdain for the body, and has little to do with biblical truth. This mentality holds to a pagan notion that sin is what is outside of us, while the solution remains in a pagan form of asceticism. In many Muslim countries women are covered from head to toe, for some of the same reasons voiced above, yet these same said countries have alarming numbers of men viewing pornography. Lust is a heart issue, not an body issue. The naked body is not sinful, naked men are.

Interesting discussion. It should cause the church to reflect upon itself and its attitudes. Let me say something as both a pastor and former psychiatrist: when a Christian equates nudity with sex, and thinks only "sexual" when he sees a nude (art form) or a nude person, then the problem is unhealthy sexual obsession. The church, even before Michaelangelo, has failed to deal with both sex and nudity, and has succeeded in putting the pornographers in business. This is an area where we must get to our children first, to teach them that the naked human body is the Image and Likeness of God, the temple of The Spirit, and to be respected for its beauty, by which God is glorified, and for its purpose.
Satan has gotten to so many of our young people in this area of sex and nudity, creating a perverted fascination in them, because we as Christian parents failed to get to them first. Now, the church finds itself in an unenviable position of trying to "clean up" and "pick up the pieces" because of stringent attitudes not based on Scripture. Adam and Eve fell into shame after sin. But does not The Redemption RESTORE our pre-Fall relationship with God? Are we not now to walk in the fullness of the Redemption and can we not now be naked and not ashamed? Or is it that we really don't believe that Jesus DID it? Let the redeemed of the Lord say so! Let us teach our children that nude is not lewd; it is God-given and God-created for us to see in it His Image and Likeness and His Glory. Let us teach them to respect it as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Let us clearly understand the difference between art and pornography. When an image portrays something as it is, defining it's nature and truth, that is art, and the image reflects the God-given talent of the artist, whether of a "nude" or not. When the image is intentionally and implicitly created to stimulate and seduce the viewer to lust, or to sexually excite...then THAT is pornography. It reduces the naked human body to a sex object. We, and our children must learn boundaries, without "moving the boundary stones". The Holy Spirit does not call us to be legalists, but to be free yet not lust or sin; to be the head and not the tail, and not to be constantly running from every little thing that we believe is "sin". Non-believers will want to be Christians when they see Christians behaving toward subjects such as this in a scriptural, balanced, manner. If nudity is a sin, then the Creator of it, has sinned in creating it. May it never be! Reality: [1]God created Adam and Eve naked and not ashamed [2]Isaiah was told to walk naked around Israel for 3 years...it was obviously acceptable to God;[3] Peter worked naked,and jumped in the water when Jesus arrived, not because he was ashamed, but because he was still under Law until the crucifixion, and the Law provided that a "priest" could not be naked in the presence of God. [4]Paul's NT comments on modesty, address overdressing in the church, not underdressing; [5] Jesus stripped naked to wash the apostles feet, wrapped in a towel (folded into a band), as was the custom of slaves of that day. As church, God does not call us to be a "prudist camp" or a nudist camp, but to be balanced as Jesus was balanced. Let us see the love of God in everything good that He has created.Nudes in a church coffee-shop? It depends on the maturity of the pastor and the congregation.To him to whom a thing is pure, it is pure. Or don't you really believe ALL of the Word? We, as a church, need an attitude adjustment.

G clothed them after the fall - I agree. He did not give them fur! The first fatality caused by man was of animals to provide clothes.

Still best left out.
Cast not a stone or some such.

Coffee shops generally want to avoid things like those, if they intend to stay in business. But as a moral issue, to those who said that just b/c God clothed Adam & Eve means we must all keep it that way, know this: A good number of early Christians lived in a hot climate, poor & without clothes. If clothes were a moral need, know each S-O-U-L that would be S.O.L. I mean, Christian nudism was an attitude surely present among such early Christians, for what other choice was there? The richer Christians or those not in hot climates may not have been.
In general, we must live for God & serve Him w/ resources we can use, but not panic about resources we don't have.

Im going through this exact problem right now only im the artist and the church is saying no.

My church is holding an art exhibition. Art is submitted by people in the church and viewed by the public. I didnt think it would be a big issue so I submitted two nudes (of women).

They're done in charcoal, they're sketchy and so very little detail. They're tasteful and in no way pornographic.

In one drawing the lady is standing with her back to the front and you can see her naked bottom and back. In the other, the lady is facing the front and you can see her naked breasts and pelvic area.

The church have told me that they can not exhibit the one where you can see the lady's breasts as it is not ok for women's nipples to be seen in church.

However....they are quite happy to exhibit the other one where you can see the lady's bottom.

Ive now been left feeling hurt and confused. To me, nudity is nudity and there is no difference between nakes breasts and a naked bum.

I have decided to withdraw both pieces of art. I designed them as a set - the were supposed to be viewed as a pair.

I guess I dont understand how the church can take such a ridiculous stance on nudity. We were born naked and the bodies we have are a result of God's careful planning - we were built this way for a reason, why shouldnt we celebrate it?