For some 43 years, I’m a Christian. I’ve certainly not been perfect, holy, nor righteous as God calls me to be (and all other Christians too, for that matter). Yet, I press on for the eternal prize of a second life, dwelling with the Heavenly Host in their blessed domain as opposed to Satans’s death dungeon.

I’m also a visual artist. Painting to be specific. In those 43 years since my baptism, I’ve worshipped consistently at three different church of Christ congregations. No eldership, except this last one, has ever approached me about my painting unclothed female figures. This writing speaks to my having been asked by the eldership of where I presently worship to remove from my art website all the paintings that have any unclothed figures in them regardless of when or in what context they were created. I’m certainly not the first Christian artist that has had to deal with such a request. I’ve read of those who flatly refuse, Others, I surmise that didn’t. My response–well, it’s complicated.

First off, nobody and no body of Christ have the right to censor my (or any other artist’s) personal visual expressions. But given an eldership of a congregation has a responsibility of keeping its members on the “straight and narrow,” I can understand where they are coming from concerning their request. But only to a certain degree am I in agreement.

I don’t believe my paintings of a nude female are sinful just because they’re naked per se. Great works of art have been created purposely in the buff (I believe, to mainly show their humanity). Michelangelo’s David and his Creation of Man painting in the Sistine Chapel are prime examples. We wouldn’t ever consider throwing a make–shift covering over their genitals just because some young children were about to enter a museum now would we. And as an artist, not too unlike myself, one shouldn’t have to be a Michelangelo clone in talent to be automatically exempted from nudity scrutiny of their created works.

Adam and Eve were naked in God’s garden–without shame. God didn’t put Adam and Eve out of the Garden because of their nakedness, but because of their disobedience in their eating of the forbidden fruit. Their coverings (first by themselves and later by God Himself) concealed their sins of disobedience, not sins of indecent exposure (which would have had no significance inside of God’s idyllic garden). The Song of Solomon gives all kinds of visual, stimulating imagery to the fleshly beauty of the human body. I’ve mentioned but a few here. You can research the web (as I did for hours) and find numerous articles by Christian artists and theologians on the subject of weather or not a Christian artists should or shouldn’t have any reservations about painting and/or drawing the naked human form. Furthermore, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers…….Ephesians 6:12-13

Christian churches in general push that the fleshly body is almost inherently evil in and of itself. The Godhead created man–body, soul, and spirit. I don’t believe the Godhead would have created a human body with reservations about its purity. That would go against God’s nature. HE creates nothing evil from the get go (although we finite beings might think differently at times). Male artists (especially) look upon the naked female human form as a beautiful shape, and as they seek to imitate God’s creation of nature, they seek to do likewise to what some artists consider to be God’s ultimate creation of beauty–the human female figure (include me in). Now, just as you wouldn’t put a tarp over a landscape to paint it; likewise, you don’t cover a model to paint her either. Covering–up (almost) suggests sin below. Just think politics here.

The younger adult college students of our congregation were the first to voice their concerns (make that disapprovals) over my female nude paintings. They most likely have been programmed through their Christian upbringing to interpret any and all nudity, whether fine art or not, as pornography. The two are, basically, miles apart, and it’s up to the students and their professors to be educated in the differences. I consider some of Picasso’s Erotic Gravures to be porn. But he needn’t worry about that since I doubt very seriously that he professed to be a Christian.

Sexual arousal (especially in young males) can and does occur frequently–regardless of clothing. The fact that a woman is clothed or not makes little difference. Matter of fact a clothed female figure often lets the imagination run wild even more so because the clothing covers up a woman’s imperfections. And few men can nor would chose to be aroused by viewing an ugly (naked) woman.

Now there exist distinctive differences between sexual arousal and lust. God put sexual arousal innately in each one of us. Lust, on the other hand, is totally on our shoulders (with the exception of Satan’s influences). Lust is what we do or do not let happen after we’ve been sexually aroused. When a figure is nude, there are no blanks to fill in for the imagination to feed off of. When partially or fully clothed, the imagination runs wild trying its level best to fantasize about what lies underneath. Imagination and lust are strange bedfellows, indeed.

I’m reminded of a fellow artist in Christ that was taking part in a live drawing class in his younger days. The female model was posing nude. Every artist was into their rendering the human form as closely as their abilities would allow them. No degrading nor derogatory remarks about the models ever were voiced. As soon as the particular sessions were over, the model threw on a clock and went around viewing the drawings of the artists. It’s only on these “close encounters of the first kind” that my friend witnessed artists peering down the top portion of her clock, using no doubt their imagination to fill in the rest of the covered fleshly iceberg below her waterline–OK, make that cloak line.

Please don’t mistake me. I’m not advocating we all run around wildly naked. Quite the contrary. In fact, I well agree with the saying the closer one gets to the fire, the greater the chances of getting burnt. But it’s the individual’s responsibility to gauge his comfortable distance, not necessarily mine.

Still, I feel an obligation as a Christian brother not to lead any brother or sister astray from their Christian faith by what they might misinterpret as a hypocritical walk on my part due to being a visual artist exhibiting certain “questionable art.” Because I sincerely respect the eldership of the congregation where I presently worship, I have decided to pull from the home page (and sideline in the menu selection section) of my art website (larrygagner.com) most of the more graphic renderings of female nudes (not the slightly abstracted ones) that some conservative viewers might find offensive for whatever their reasons. Again, I do this out of respect for my church elders’ request, not out of agreement with their thinking. I have also removed or reworded some of my painting commentary that may also ruffle some Christian feathers.

Early on, the apostle Paul was a persecutor of the church of Christ. Later, after his conversion, he became a kingpin for Christ. Earlier in my art career, I took little thought of how my now “questionable” artworks might negatively impact practicing Christians. My apologies. I’ll seek to do better in the future, so as to have little or no negatives in my accountability folder when our Savior comes to judge.

The Bible scrolls didn’t cease to record Paul’s persecution of Christians because they were vile, even through he thought them valid at the time. Likewise, please don’t think unkindly of me for leaving in my art website some paintings of my decades past you might still interpret as incongruous with the visual presentations (SignsSublime.com) of my Christian faith now. Electing to keep some (less questionable nudes in my website) provides a measure of how far I’ve possible come as a Christian. I don’t paint nudes any more (and haven’t for years), certainly not because I think it’s evil to do so, but I’m just lacking the motivation for whatever unknown reasons. And at this point in my late life (76 years young), I don’t want to entertain any more scrutiny from whomever about my Christian walk being infected by what I choose to paint.

PS: In my opinion, my painting of female nudes pales to the stage production that happened at this last (LIV) Super Bowl halftime entertainment show that featured the suggestive glorification of in your face “shaking your booty.” The performers may have had their sexual parts covered (just barely), but if I had kids, I’d sooner let them view a museum nude than watch this glorified lap/dirty dancing. And they (whoever) thought Elvis “the pelvis” gyrations were too suggestive for public viewing! Nowadays, Super Bowl halftime entertainment is a Dare to Damage endeavor.

I’d sooner see and hear a rerun of the Rat Pack starring Frank Sinatra for a Super Bowl halftime show