Good call, Dan. Tastefully done or not, there still remain standards of common decency. I still think that church is the last place we need to be "appreciating" the human body. Instead, we need to "be" the body of Christ and focus totally and completely upon our Savior and King!
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com

I guess that probably means the F-bomb is out for Christmas Eve too. Good grief--the church is going down the tubes. First we don't like the 'F' word in a church service; now we won't allow nudity. What are we coming to? Where's our freedom of spiritual expression? Where's our Christian liberty? The prudes have won again.

Hello Pastor Dan,

You had an interesting situation. You could have left up the 3 nude sketches which would have led to discussions on how God made us in his image and likeness and what role does art play in portraying the greatness of God. Or you could have taken the easy way out and asked that the sketches not be shown. The easy way is not always the best way long term.

What next, bikinis on the angels in the Sistene Chapel?

I think Michelangelo gives the best advice:

"What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?"

You missed a great opportunity to educate you flock. Good luck to you with your next "situation." Hopefully you won't take the easy road again.

Some have said that Dan took the "easy way out" when he took down the porn..I mean art. But to them I would say that there is not an understanding of the flesh if you think that taking it down is the "easy way out."

To take the pictures down means that you are not allowing those images to tempt your soul and flesh. You are not allowing something so minor to gain a foothold in your life and cause you to sin. Wouldn't it be better to remove the images now, than have to try and rescue someone 5 years from now who it hooked on porn? He saw the images in the church, went online to look at "art", soon he was looking at "erotic art", and before he knows it he is looking at "erotic" with no art in it.

The "easy road" would be to give in to the flesh and allow simple things like nude images on the wall desensitize us. The "easy road" would be to let it hang and to show the world "why should playboy have all the good pictures?" The "easy road" would be to allow guys who stumble at the sight of a naked women, let alone one in a tight outfit, to be able to look up from their latte's and have it for their eyes to gaze upon.

No, the "easy road" is not to remove it! The harder, better, way that leads to holiness is to "flee from youthful lust" and to remove the things that "so easily ensnare us." What is sad is that there is even a debate about this issue. How many men in here would allow a picture of their wives, sisters, girlfriends, to hang on a wall and let all your church buddies come and see it? How many? Now why do we let others, whether they sketched it or not is irrelavent, hang pictures of a women on the wall? I wouldn't because for one I want to maintain her holiness (no man shall look upon the body of another man's wife) and two I want to look out for my fellow believer's holiness (whole weaker/stronger brother deal).

The "easy road" is to leave it up. The "hard road" is the one that leads to Jesus and to holiness and begs us to remove the trappings of sin!

Blessings,

I also think it was a good call. Better safe than sorry, I always say (which probably makes me boring, right???? hee!)

Anyway, its nice to say that we "should" see the human body as God's masterpiece, and that we "should" be mature and appreciate art. However, what we "should" be is not what you were dealing with here. You were dealing with what we ARE - which is imperfect humans - some of which would be offended. Some of which would see it as sexual. As you said, it wasnt worth the questions it would stir up. The best part is that the artist was understanding. That makes a big difference. It would be a shame to make someone feel weird about their work. If the church wants to help others appreciate art, then maybe pointing them to a museum or gallery would be the best approach.!

Tom:

Pastor Dan could just as easily have that conversation and teaching moment without the presence of the nude art.

For the record, context is everything. Decisions need to be made on that basis. Pastor Dan seems to have taken the context into consideration and determined that this expression of art was not appropriate at this time and stage of his congregations understanding.

Not the easy way out at all. It was the prudent thing to do.

2 cents

Since when did Michaelangelo become the giver of spiritual advice? Adam and Eve clothed themselves with fig leaves immediately after they sinned because they were naked and ashamed. The fig leaves didn't meet Gods standard and thus animals had to be killed in order to make God approved clothing. Doesn't anybody read the Bible anymore? You don't need to graduate from seminary to read the book! We do love to grapple with these deep discussions though.

Good call Pastor Dan! it saddens me to see the level of ignorance with in the church body. although well thought out and stated responces they try to take away from the first responce and that is the church is not the place for admiring the human body. that is huminism, which is the present reining religion of this world. God's house is for worshiping Him and not His creation. discussion on nudes and other works of art are for small groups outside the church building. I could go on an on but i only have 1500 characters. Blessing to you Pastor Dan good decision!

Good call Pastor Dan and what a wonderful understanding artist. Nudity is not the issue I believe, since everything can be used for good or bad in this world ( including the bible. ) A knife is appreciated as a tool for cutting bread or abhored as a tool to end a person's .... that is why we, at our house put knives far away from the reach of a child until they lear to be safe with it.

Thanks Pastor for expressing the Living God.

I agree that this was a good call. Simply reading the comments here, it would have been almost impossible for the nude artwork to be seen in a wholesome light. You want people to actually understand your message and that would have been difficult in this circumstance.

As for the idea that nude artwork is automatically porn or, at best, better left to art galleries since it is not under the purview of the Church, that is just patently false. All of truth is the domain of Christianity. It is not humanistic, either. It IS human and that is “very good” as our Father has said. When we can't distinguish between simple, wholesome nudity and pornography we trivialize real pornography and make our stand against it laughable. Our message about human dignity and divine beauty should be razor sharp and full of conviction, not a watered-down, uneducated and ridiculous shrill.

Nude artwork has a long Christian tradition, both Catholic and Protestant. Michelangelo is not alone. Lucas Cranach, Luther's friend, painted both Luther's portrait and several famous nudes, including “Adam and Eve”.

As for the Bible condemning nudity out of hand, that is just not true. Many worthy studies have been done on how the Bible approaches nudity. Verses taken out of context can be used to prove anything. For example, “uncovering the nakedness” is a euphemism for sexual relations, as any Biblical scholar will tell you.

A hyper-sexualized view of the human body leads us to define lust incorrectly, also. To not look upon a women with lust has nothing to do with averting one's eyes. Lust is an intentional act to dehumanize someone. It is to violate your relationship with that person, seeking to posses them. To appreciate and enjoy beauty is godly. We should not mistake that with lust. In fact, I suspect that the trouble some Christians have with sexual impurity has something to do with this wrong way of seeing the human body and beauty in general.

This discussion does reveal that we need to educate our members. We need creation affirming teaching and instruction in a theology of art.

This is an interesting dilemma in that we are dealing with several issues. first of all it was NOT Michael Angelo who painted the pictures in this coffee shop. It was not a commissioned piece for the church and it was not the story of God as revealed in scripture. It was a local artist, we do not know of this was an artist or someone who draws. The issue of would you put MA out or not let him paint is in the realm of Does Not Apply.

While I agree with call we need both creation affirming teaching and theology in art teaching, I would say that hanging nudes in a church coffee shop is a long way from that issue and most likely not the best way to teach these things. I am sure this artist is no MA. The idea of averting the eyes has nothing to do with lust ignores the covenant the writer made with his eyes to look at no unclean thing, the eyes being the gateway to the heart (lamp to the body) and all the instruction to not let the eyes wander. Sure lust is a heart issue, but Jesus, in his words, connects the eyes and the heart. If a man looks…and lusts in his heart… to say it has nothing to do with it is simply poor biblical and human understanding.

Finally the hyper-sexualized view of the human body is exactly the point. This is what changed after the fall. We went from naked and no shame to we were naked and had to cover ourselves. It is not a huge jump from looking to lusting, we are fallen. I do not have to see someone’s naked body to appreciate the beauty of God’s creation and design, in fact because of the fallen state of humanity I think naked bodies actually gets in the way of seeing God’s beauty. Good call Dan.

What is needed here is a truly thoughtful, specific, readable discussion of what the difference is between art and pornography. I don't think most of us want to submit Michaelangelo and Rembrandt to the bonfires as porn, but we certainly want nothing to do with Hefner. There has to be a reasonably understandable way of discerning the difference. Just a hint - context. Not just "what does the work portray?" but "what does the work say about what is portrayed?"

I spend time in a variety of secular coffeeshops. I can't imagine seeing, on display, a gential-only drawing in any of the secular locations that show local art. This is an interesting discussion, and if it were an abstract "nude" I would understand some of the arguments on both sides. However I'm not sure ANY coffeeshop (whether a church or secular gathering spot) could hang up that kind of graphic "art" and not have people of all faiths (and perhaps the law, which does limit what can be publically displayed) complain.

David got naked in front of the servant girls when they brought the Ark of the Covenant back and God was happy with them. Meanwhile Michal watched from her room, filled with jealous anger. Whom did God have the problem with? Michal.

Do all things to the Glory of God! :)

For me, this was a black and white decision and an issue that was not deserving of much consideration. Perhaps I am more close-minded that I'd like to consider myself.

But an issue that has being raised in the discussion is the need for a restored appreciation for God's creation, particularly the human body. It has been stated in several comments that we live in a "hyper-sexualized" society, one in which honor and worship are seldom given to God for the creation of the human body. Coupled with that idea is the suggestion that a "proper" appreciation of the human body will eliminate much of the "pornographic" obsession with nudity and lust.

I want to go on the record as saying that I think there may be some legitimacy to this argument and concern.

However, in my opinion, drawing nude art is not the best way to go about allievating this epidemic. In fact, as far as methodology goes... my hunch is that nude art is probably the least effective means of achieving this goal. Call me a prude, uncultured, ultra-conservative, whatever... I'm speaking in terms of "means" and "ends". Percisely because we do live in a "hyper-sexualized" society this particular methodology will not prevail.

One further thought is this, that while anthropology and a proper "biblical" view of man is impt... even needed. I don't think a worship setting is the best place for the discussion, is it? When we enter any place of worship... be it the Sistine Chapel or a coffee house... we do so to worship "God". Mich. paintings helped to share the Biblical story of creation and fall... they assisted in worship. They drew attention to God and his relationship to man.

Shouldn't most icons in worship should point back to God specifically? I'm not suggesting that "every" icon must be a portrait of Christ... etc. But shouldn't they have some connection to the Biblical story?

How many hundereds of painting and you took down three? I dont know, I think its unnecessary, If you want real artist to check out your church, you have to create a safe space. If you want to engage culture, then put yourself out, Otherwise your teaching your people how to hid themselves from the world rather than trasforming it.

As the comments on both articles reveal, this was a no-win situation: Dan was either prudish or biblically illiterate depending upon his choice.

Without taking a side, as is my wont, I'll say only that it is quite telling and unremarkable that many people would be offended for finding in church what they allow in their living rooms through television and the internet. Perhaps removing the boards from our own eyes would be equip us to see more clearly the beauty and appropriateness of various types of art at church.

(As for A&E's actions following the Fall, it is to be remembered that their actions were a post-Fall decision and that God covered them because they were ashamed, not necessarily because they were naked. Additionally, there was considerable - i.e., total - nudity pre-Fall; at the same time, there was no violence in Eden. Why are we more tolerant of something that is a consequence of sin (violence) but so offended by the human body?

(I am not suggesting that churches become free-for-all nudist fellowships; I am suggesting that we have a problem with our sensibilities and priorities in this regard.)

Even from all the comments there are those who see nakedness in art as a sin, also some defend it as one does not view it as erotic as one would view pornography.

The issue is not the art itself, rather the concern for the "weaker brother". Though all things are permissible, not all things are beneficial... in that to error on the conservative side will be better at times if it is a question that it may cause a weaker brother or sister to sin.

We have great freedom in Christ, and some may be able to look at art and not have erotic feelings they have not matured enough to deal with, which can cause them to sin, and others can see the beauty of creation and see it is good…

This is more in line with Romans 14 concerning meat sacrificed to idols. Paul states there are no other gods so the meat was not sacrificed to anything, yet some still believed that it was and thus would be sinning if they ate it. Paul said you are free to eat it, just don’t make a weaker brother eat it if they see it as sin, nor rub it in their face that you do! (This is not even an attempt to paraphrase, just breezing through the essence of Romans 14) Paul was not concerned over the meat, but the person… and showed grace and mercy which is a reflection of Christ Himself.

Blessings,
iggy

Most (evangelicals) will applaud the ministers decision since there has been little appreciation, support, understanding, for the arts anyway. Environmental ugliness and poor taste seems to be the rule rather the exception in Evangelical circles. While I do commend the ministers attempt to encourage beauty and taste in his church it does remind me of former Attorney General John Ashcroft response to Lady Justice and his efforts to clothe her with drapes to make her presentable. (cost tax payers over $100,000.)
I was pleasantly surprised last year when visiting David Wilkerson's Time Square Church to see that the church not only retained the tasteful nudes on the ceiling of the lobby of the Church (former theatre) but also have restored them to their original brilliance.
Harold

I want to reply to "Truth Seeker's" comment above.

I must say, we have become extremely judgmental and opinionated if we are going to rush in and chose sides. The "easy road," and the "hard road," depends upon the context that person is facing.

What I would have done in that situation is completely beside the point- who are we to say he made the right or wrong move? Can we respect his decision?

I respect Dan's decision- but I will still render the work done by those artists as exquisite and necessary for our soceity's growth. Maybe if there was more appreciation of the human body there would be less degredation of it and porn's selfish intents might lose to the wonderous depictions upon canvas.

Were these paintings art? Probably.

Were they worthwhile? Probably.

Art finds its worthiness in the message it protrays and that message very often transcends the content of the art itself, in this case a nude human form.

But we still must consider the content in valuing the art and in deciding where and how it may be appropriately experienced.

To admire such art for what it is and not as a temptation or oportunity for lust takes a wonderfully developed artistic sensibility. I don't have that, but I'm working on it. I don't think most people do either.

I think myself and many others would have been wrestling with lust that Sunday, not worship our Lord.

We don't want nudity in church despite the inherant goodness of the human form as created by God. Life in a fallen world isn't perfect and neither is our response to such a situation. Good call Dan.

Rink,

Thank you for your response. I understand much of what you are saying and I sympathize, but I wanted to ask a question, if I may.

What is wrong with choosing sides? I see the dilemna that this issue raises and I see both sides. But I have chosen to take the side that I chose. It is not being "judgemental" and "opinionated", its choosing a belief based on evidence shown. I have looked at the issue, looked at scripture, and came to a conclusion, and now I can move on in the understanding of my conviction. There is nothing wrong with picking a side. I respect those who take the other side, I dont harbor animosity towards them. I just chose to present the view that I have sided with.

We as a people need to get off this mindset that says that if someone takes a side than they are judgemental and arrogant. Thats ludicrious. In fact, I probably will respect a man that stands by his conviction, even if I dont agree with him, over the one who flip-flops and bends with every idea that comes around. I say take time to look over the view, read scripture, pray, take a view, and stand with it. Its not arrogance, its living the faith!

Blessings,

I didn't look at many comments so this one may be repetitive. One of my first thoughts was-Why didn't the artist, knowing she was hanging them in a CHURCH coffeehouse, seek the Leadership's input before hanging them? That would've saved having to make a rush decision on an already busy Sunday morning.

My 2 cents' worth:

The nudes were tasteful, as the pastor says. It COULD have been a teaching point for his flock.

However, it was not HIS decision as to whether to let the children see those nudes or not. The parents of the children couldn't be gotten in touch with before the children got there, but the artist could.

Given the time and resources he had, I feel Pastor Dan made the right decision.

I do agree with Truth Seeker, though: If he'd been given more time, by the artist of the nudes getting ahold of him beforehand, he would have had more time to make the decision. Then getting ahold of the parents would have been the right choice. If even one parent objected then, even given the idea that this would be a teaching exercise about the glory of God in the human body, the decision to take them down would be the right one, and on the parents.

He wasn't given the time, though, and so the parents weren't given the chance to make the decision for their children, so he made the right choice. Suggestion, though, is to get ahold of the parents and ask them about it for next week.

Dan's situation not only gives us a chance to look at how we make tough decisions, but also to ask the question, "Is there are place for the presentation of art depicting nudity in the church?" If so, what are the guidelines or parameters. How do we do it in a way that promotes honest discusion of what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God without getting wrapped up in the image-driven world live in? How can we show people to learn to appreciate God's sense of beauty and not the media-driven ideal beauty? With so many people struggle with identity and self-worth regarding their body maybe we need a forum or gathering to help the church redefine beauty as God intended it.

Unfortunately, I'm just now getting the original email, and so I'm commenting after the decision was made. I feel that what Pastor Dan did was the best thing. What would have been the next picture? If these had been allowed, then others would have submitted nudes, and they might not have been "tastefully" done. Better safe than sorry. God did indeed make the human body, and He declared it to be very good. But sin has entered the picture, and sin affects how we view things.
Love you all!

I get the feeling that you personally would have left it up there but because of other perhaps less spiritually mature individuals you took it down... kind of a gesture to keep the weaker brother from stumbing. You really didn't give your rationale nor did you clearly answer the question. Is it wrong or not? Will you say it all depends on your situation? Will you simply say that it is a judgment call? I am disappointed with the lack of discernment and courage in the church today that won't take a stand concerning what is right... one way or the other. No one has a clue where you really stand on this issue. Very wishy washy.

Each situation and each group of believers presents its unique challenges, opportunities and decisions. I assume that part of Dan's decision included prayer. Nudity is neither right nor wrong. Would leaving the nudes up have brought greater glory to God? Would people have grown closer to Christ? Dan is in Santa Cruz--a pretty liberal place. Possibly more clothing in the picture would have been more "daring" than taking the nudes down. Leaving them up might have been the easy way out, who knows. Appreciating from afar,

For me the question is, "What do the nudes add to the purpose of our coming together as a congregation? Do they help us focus on Jesus, the reason for our meeting? or Do they focus us upon ourselves and our desires and prejudices?" Whatever subject Pastor Dan had planned to discuss, the nudes would have refocused the meeting. I think it was a good call.

It's interesting to see some people writing about an appreciation for the beauty of the human body. Well, most people are ugly and I don't want to see them naked. Male or female. When someone tells me it's about an "appreciation of the human body" I think they are only "appreciating" the small percentage that have something worth showing.

I don't think they are thinking of the incredible intricacy of the human organism: How the most unappreciated body part is beyond imagination in it's design, how the systems interact seamlessly for most people, how even disease is interesting from a scientific perspective.

Maybe I'm a cynic

I am coming in late to this discussion but I can't pass on the chance. It was the right decision and I admire the depth of thought that Dan used to come up with his decision.

We all can hope that art will be taken in the correct context but sadly we face an enemy that makes the good perverse. While it may not bother someone on an individual basis, we have a call to care for more than ourselves. We must look out for the needs of the entire group and the battles that individuals might be facing. The church may want to reach the un-churched but does it mean we have to resemble the un-churched? "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." The enticement to the un-churched should be the regeneration of the sinner by the grace of God.

We have many different churches and each has their own liberty of expression. When we open ourselves up to being too closely aligned with the world we must be careful to not be taken over by those things that separate us from the world. While we are called to go into the world, it is for a purpose of calling the world to follow Christ. While we don't want to be isolated from the people we are called to reach, some sense of insulation from torrents of worldliness must be put in place.

Have a blessed day!

http://www.dianedew.com/porn.htm

(a lot of good scripture references are on this site)

Matthew 5:28 "but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Sadly to my shame as a result of the following I am guilty of the sin of adultery:

1. TV
2. Movies
3. Internet
4. The beach
5. Billboards
6. Textbooks
7. Clothing mags from kmart
8. Fine art displays in museams / galleries

The bible clearly addresses the issues raised in this blog, and does so effectivily via the use of words and words alone.

We don't need to show our kids (or adults for that matter) any form of pictures to fully and adequatly explain the pitfalls of this fallen world.

We are called to love the sinner but hate the sin.

Jesus example was an example of perfection,

...................

My personal stand is based on what i read in scripture and on the life experiance of other christian men I know and respect.

and my view is:

remove from all tv programs and ads, all media, all shopping centers, all video stores, all websites. anything that may tempt anyone to sin.

which i'm afraid includes some (many PG movies).

The world is teaching our kids that lust and sex is the norm and we as bible believing people are letting it happen.

How many kids today are being raised by tv, and not there parents, and most parents are desentisied any way.

God have mercy on us all.

Since no one has as of yet countered my statements.....

Ill do it myself, i do recognise that many of these statements are idealist. (however i think my idealist statement achievable in a couple generations if we train the young uns' well).

So here is the first decent scripture for the counter arguement, and i believe that it is important to list as it affirms what many of the previous comments have said.

Matthew 15:11
10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Mark 7:14-23
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]

Therefore there is no problem all men and childern and women for that matter should control what goes in in their mind / heart / soul. (For him / her who finds that hard I recomend removing all temptation like Joseph did (run from it)).

but then again to put more understanding to this argument....

Philippians 4:8
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

God bless us all, as we put our faith in him!

Hi Dan (and the whole Out of Ur family)

Perhaps this has been brought up already ... haven't had time to read all the posts! But this is a bit of wisdom I gleaned from the Apostle Paul about five Christmases ago when faced with a smilar decision.
1Cor. 10:23
"'Everything is permissible'—but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible'—but not everything is constructive."

Dan, as the head pastor of the church, had to make the call about whether or not the permission he had in Christ to show nude artwork in his coffee shop was constructive and beneficial to his congregation and community. He struggled with the pro, the cons, and the possible consequences.

I know Dan personally and have sat under his fine teaching. I trust he made the right decision for that time and place. May Jesus be glorified through His church.