Sacred Nudity to Body Shame

Introduction

Let us start with a premise: did Christianity cause Western society's endemic fear of nudity? There are many naturists in the UK today who have concluded that the answer is obviously yes. Yet the historical evidence shows a contradiction in the faith; during the initial centuries of Christianity, believers had to be baptised completely naked in ceremonies presided over by church leadership. This practice, documented by multiple church fathers and considered theologically essential, continued until approximately 700–800 CE. So how did a religion that once celebrated ritual nudity as symbolising spiritual purity become synonymous with body shame?

Contemporary Christian naturist organisations like Naked and Unashamed and the Christian Naturist Fellowship (CNF) argue for returning to this earlier understanding, claiming body shame represents distortion rather than Christian essence. This essay examines Christianity's complex relationship with the human body from biblical times, through the Middle Ages and the Victorian era, to contemporary movements. It aims to show that it was not simple religious prudery, but rather a nuanced and complex history involving philosophical infiltration, cultural anxiety, conflation of modesty with shame, economic forces, and genuine theological evolution.

Part One: The Biblical Era and Early Christian Reality

Eden's original vision

Setting aside personal beliefs, let us look at how the Christian Bible states how humanity began. The biblical foundation begins unambiguously. Genesis 2:25 establishes humanity's created state: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." The Hebrew arummim (עֲרוּמִּים) means naked or bare, representing their innocence, but the word also carries a sense of openness, integrity and lack of shame. However, the text immediately introduces deliberate wordplay: Genesis 3:1 describes the serpent as "more cunning (arum, עָרוּם) than any other beast." The linguistic connection suggests that what disrupted Eden was cunning deception, not nakedness or the body.

Crucially, shame only entered after the Fall (Genesis 3:7). When God asked Adam "Who told you that you were naked?" (Genesis 3:11), only four beings were present: God, Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Contemporary Christian naturists like Chris of Mudwalkers emphasise this point: it was the devil, not God, who introduced the idea that nakedness was shameful.

Christian naturists argue that Adam and Eve covered themselves from fear of divine judgement for their disobedience, not shame about their bodies. When God provided garments of animal skin (Genesis 3:21), He did so for practical protection in the harsh world outside Eden, not as a moral requirement. As the CNF puts it: "God mercifully clothed mankind out of physical necessity, not moral necessity."

Contextual nudity in scripture

Biblical attitudes toward nudity were contextual rather than uniformly negative. Whilst sexual nakedness outside marriage and forced nakedness representing poverty carried shame, functional and ritual nudity were accepted matter-of-factly. The prophet Isaiah walked "naked and barefoot" for three years at God's explicit command (Isaiah 20:2-4). King Saul "prophesied naked all that day and all that night" (1 Samuel 19:24), described without moral condemnation. The scholarly volume Clothing and Nudity in the Hebrew Bible (2019) concludes: "The sight of the body's exposure in work, in a prophetic role, or in outdoor bathing are never depicted by the writers of Scripture as shameful."

Jewish ritual bathing and Christian adoption

Jewish ritual bathing (mikveh) required complete nakedness for immersion after menstruation, before marriage, for conversion to Judaism, and after contact with corpses. Jewish law strictly required removal of all clothing, jewellery, makeup—any barrier between body and water. Hundreds of stepped pools (mikva'ot) from the Second Temple period have been discovered throughout Israel, with the earliest purpose-built structures dating to the 1st century BCE. This practice continues in Orthodox Judaism today.

Early Christianity inherited and adapted this tradition. The most significant evidence is naked baptism, standard practice for at least 400 years. Saint Hippolytus of Rome documented, in around 215 CE in his Apostolic Tradition, that candidates must remove all clothing and jewellery before baptism. In the 4th century, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem described in Mystagogical Catecheses: "You stripped off your clothes … you were anointed with oil … you immersed in the baptismal pool three times … you emerged and were clothed with white robes."

Saint John Chrysostom (c. 400 CE) explicitly connected baptismal nudity to Eden: "After stripping you of your robe, the priest leads you down into the flowing waters. But why naked? He reminds you of your former nakedness, when you were in paradise and not ashamed."

The theological rationale was that baptismal nudity symbolised returning to Edenic innocence, represented death and rebirth (Romans 6:3-4), connected to Christ's naked crucifixion, and mirrored Jewish mikveh tradition. Indeed, early catacomb paintings depict naked baptisms without any scandal.

The Greco-Roman cultural context

Early Christianity existed within Greco-Roman culture where certain forms of public nudity were normalised. Ancient Greece celebrated athletic nudity, with many gymnasiums; the Latin word we know today being derived directly from the ancient Greek word γυμνάσιον (gymnasion), literally meaning "school for naked exercise". A major feature of these were public bathing facilities. Romans also developed massive public thermae (baths) central to social life. By the 1st century CE, mixed-gender nude bathing was common and a part of normal life. A 354 CE catalogue documented 952 baths just in Rome.

However, Roman attitudes were ambivalent. Complete public nudity could be offensive in certain areas or venues. This contradiction between functional acceptance and contextual concern would later influence Christian developments.

Part Two: From Sacred Nudity to Body Shame

Augustine's theological revolution (4th–5th centuries)

Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) fundamentally changed Christian attitudes toward the body through theological extrapolations that would dominate Western Christianity for over a millennium. Augustine taught that original sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse itself, specifically through the concupiscence (lust) inherent in the sexual act. He wrote: "Those who are born from the union of bodies are under the power of the devil … because they are born through that concupiscence by which the flesh has desires opposed to the spirit."

Before the Fall, Augustine argued, Adam could have procreated "purely as a matter of intelligent choice" without passion. After the Fall, sexual desire became uncontrollable and disordered. He interpreted Genesis 3 to mean that after sinning, "there arose in men affections common to the brutes which are productive of shame, and which made man ashamed of his own nakedness."

Augustine was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism and Stoicism. Platonism is a dualistic theology, where 'pure ideas' are good and 'matter' is evil. Translated to humans, Neoplatonism saw the soul as good and the body as evil. This Neoplatonic emphasis on the spirit's superiority over matter, combined with the Stoic concepts of controlling bodily passions through mental reasoning, were subsumed into his Christian theology. And then in 418 CE the Council of Carthage adopted his views on original sin, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of nakedness during baptism.

However, there's an important nuance. Augustine used Neoplatonism to argue for the goodness of creation, not against it. His target was Gnostic heresy, which taught that matter and bodies were inherently evil. As scholar Robin Mark Phillips notes, by the 4th century "Christians were using Neoplatonism as one of their chief weapons for affirming the goodness of the created world."

The Carolingian turning point (750–900 CE)

The most dramatic shift occurred during the Carolingian period. The shift away from sacred nudity was driven by a complex convergence of theological and political forces. Named after Charlemagne, who was King of the Franks from 768 CE and crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 CE, this era saw Charlemagne and his successors implement sweeping reforms, seeking to impose Roman liturgical standards on all Western churches and centralising religious authority under bishops and the emperor. Up until this point Christians were still often baptised naked. The standardisation of practices saw the outlawing of this on the grounds that it promoted immodesty, marking the point widely regarded as where nudity itself started to be seen as inherently sexual.

Furthermore, the period saw the widespread use of penitentials – handbooks for confessors – which meticulously categorised and condemned sexual sins, intensifying the focus on morality and making the uncontrolled environment of public bathing seem dangerous. This era also saw the Roman Empire contract rapidly after the death of Louis the Pious, Charlemagne's son, in 843 CE. As such, clothing became a crucial marker of social status and 'civilisation', heavily contributing to an ecclesiastical and societal view where nudity was equated with the profane or uncivilised, directly contradicting the earlier, sacred view.

This transformation affected religious art as well. Christ began to be depicted clothed on the cross, as opposed to the earlier depictions which had shown him naked, as would have been historically accurate for Roman crucifixions. The practice associating Christian nudity with grace and spiritual purity was replaced with a view that nudity itself was inherently problematic.

The High Middle Ages (12th–13th centuries)

The High Middle Ages witnessed unprecedented proliferation of asceticism. Thomas Aquinas took Augustine's views further, teaching that "sexual desire was shameful not only as original sin, but that lust was a disorder because it undermined reason." Sexual arousal was deemed so dangerous that it was "to be avoided except for procreation", an ideal that remained until the Renaissance.

The 12th and 13th centuries saw extreme ascetic movements. Saint Bartholomew of Farne proclaimed: "We must inflict our body with all kinds of adversity if we want to deliver it to perfect purity of soul!" Female ascetics practised severe bodily mortification: Catherine of Siena practised severe fasting and self-induced vomiting, ultimately dying from refusing food and water.

Despite growing body shame, nude public bathing remained common. Roman baths in Bath, England, were "used by both sexes without garments until the 15th century." Church attitudes towards this were ambivalent as many church fathers promoted cleanliness as being a prerequisite to Godliness.

The Renaissance and Counter-Reformation backlash (14th–16th centuries)

The Italian Renaissance brought another major shift through its renewed interest in the Greco-Roman culture. Donatello's David was the first fully nude sculpture since antiquity. And Michelangelo's more famous David was celebrated yet controversial. Artists argued for the dignity and beauty of the nude human form as reflecting divine creation.

And indeed, Catholic popes initially patronised the concept of nude art. However, Michelangelo's Last Judgment, featuring hundreds of nude figures, prompted fierce controversy. In response, the Council of Trent's 25th Session issued formal decrees prohibiting "all lasciviousness" in religious art. Almost all nudity was forbidden, including depictions of the infant Jesus. Daniele da Volterra was commissioned to paint over nude figures in Michelangelo's Last Judgment with clothing, earning him the nickname il Braghettone ("the breeches-maker"). This campaign continued for over two centuries.

Protestant reformers maintained diverse attitudes. Martin Luther elevated marriage and rejected mandatory clerical celibacy, theoretically giving new dignity to sexuality within marriage, though this didn't translate to any acceptance of public nudity. John Calvin and Reformed churches were more restrictive, practising iconoclasm that destroyed all religious art, including works with nudity. Both Catholic and Protestant streams condemned public nudity across denominational lines.

The Victorian apex of gymnophobia (19th century)

The Victorian period (1837–1901) represented the culmination of centuries of Christian body-negative attitudes. Public nakedness was considered obscene. Extreme modesty requirements emerged with swimming costumes requiring coverage "from neck to knees." Even Queen Victoria was scandalised by nude art, commissioning removable fig leaves for classical statues.

Christian missionaries imposed Victorian standards globally. Indigenous peoples' traditional practices of partial or complete nudity were condemned, and nudity became equated with "savagery." The Victorian era transformed earlier Christian teachings into a comprehensive system of body shame: equation of all nudity with sexuality, extreme gender segregation, and the body itself becoming a source of shame. This represented the most restrictive period in Christian attitudes toward the body since the 8th century.

However, Victorian body attitudes were also tied to class distinctions, industrial capitalism, specific anxieties about overpopulation, and the medicalisation of sexuality – so not purely to religious origins. Indeed, the Victorian era also produced extensive pornography and erotica. Victorian era body shame is a whole and specific historical development in its own right, combining Christian elements with several secular anxieties.

The Purity Culture movement (20th–21st centuries)

The late 20th century saw the emergence of evangelical "Purity Culture", which intensified Victorian-era body shame through new mechanisms. Beginning in the 1990s with movements like True Love Waits (1993), this primarily American evangelical phenomenon promoted sexual abstinence until marriage through purity pledges, purity rings, and father-daughter "purity balls". Books like I Kissed Dating Goodbye (Joshua Harris, 1997) became bestsellers, teaching that any romantic or physical contact before marriage damaged one's purity.

Purity Culture teachings focused disproportionately on female bodies and dress. Young women received detailed instruction on covering their bodies to avoid being "stumbling blocks" that caused men to lust. The movement taught that women bore responsibility for men's sexual thoughts, and that a woman's value was intrinsically tied to her sexual "purity". Metaphors comparing sexually active women to chewed gum, used tape, or damaged goods became common in youth group teachings.

The psychological impact has been significant, with research by psychologist Tina Schermer Sellers demonstrating that shame instilled through 'purity culture' parallels the trauma from sexual abuse. Many who grew up in these movements report difficulty with sexual intimacy even within marriage, persistent feelings of shame about their bodies, and anxiety disorders. Notably, several key purity culture leaders, including Joshua Harris, have since publicly renounced their earlier teachings and apologised for the harm caused.

Whilst purity culture represents a specific late-20th-century American evangelical movement rather than historic Christian orthodoxy, its influence spread widely through megachurches, youth ministries, Christian publications and the early internet. It created a generation who associate Christianity with extreme body shame and sexual repression. This context is crucial for understanding both why many assume Christianity is inherently anti-body, and why Christian naturists feel compelled to argue for theological alternatives.

Part Three: Contemporary reclamation

The modern Christian naturist movement

With the rise of the modern internet, Christian naturism got a chance to become organised. The website Naturist-Christians.org founded in 1999 became the largest site devoted exclusively to Christian naturism. Annual Christian Nudist Convocations began in the early 2000s. In Britain, the Christian Naturist Fellowship provides support for Christian naturists across denominations, and since the pandemic has broadened its reach globally.

Chris of Mudwalkers, previously cited, represents modern Christian naturist activism, uniquely combining Christianity, naturism, and rewilding. His mission statement articulates the challenge: "Christianity looks back on Eden, with its nakedness and its harmony with the natural world, but doesn't embrace it. Naturism so often misses out on the Creator who gave us this wonderful world to enjoy and on the fullest integration and harmony with it. Rewilding is too often based on atheism or paganism rather than Yahweh's vision for humanity made in his image."

Chris's work includes video content, podcast appearances, and active participation in events like the World Naked Bike Ride where he and fellow Christians wore body paint with Christian messages. His tagline "naked means human" encapsulates his core argument that nudity represents our fundamental human state. His "Personal Manifesto of a Christian Naturist" presents 85 propositions deliberately echoing Martin Luther's 95 Theses, providing a comprehensive theological framework.

Core theological arguments

Contemporary Christian naturists present coherent biblical interpretation challenging traditional opposition. They emphasise Genesis 2:25 as foundational: God created humans naked intentionally and declared creation "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Nakedness reflects being created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27).

Crucially, they argue shame came from Satan, not God. Chris's manifesto states: "I believe it must be assumed that the serpent is the 'who' of 'Who told you that you were naked?' (Gen. 3:11). I believe 'that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world' (Rev. 12:9) started a lie that all of mankind has wrestled with ever since. Part of that lie is a distorted view of the body, that it is impure, dirty, lewd, or shameful in and of itself."

Regarding the fig leaves, they distinguish fear from shame. Adam and Eve covered themselves from fear of God after sinning, not shame about their bodies. The fig leaves were "a futile attempt to hide what the couple had done from God—not each other, noting they were married, and equally guilty of the same original sin." God was displeased with both their disobedience and "with Adam and Eve's subsequent attempt to cover up their bodies."

When God provided garments of skin (Genesis 3:21), the CNF emphasises: "God mercifully clothed mankind out of physical necessity, not moral necessity." Clothing provided protection in the harsh world outside Eden, such as thorns, bad weather, etc., not because nakedness itself was shameful. As Fig Leaf Forum states: "Any and every understanding of why God gave them clothes must be 'read into' the text, because the explanation of God's purpose simply is not there."

Papal developments and other historical precedents

Pope John Paul II's papacy, beginning in 1978, represented a papal shift. His Love and Responsibility stated: "Nakedness itself is not immodest … Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence." His Theology of the Body argues "the body, in fact, and only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine."

Historically, Ilsley Boone (1879–1968), a Dutch Reformed minister, founded the American naturism movement in the late 1920s, leading the American League for Physical Culture, later renamed the American Sunbathing Association in 1931. And Reverend Bob Horrocks, founder of the CNF, wrote Uncovering the Image, an 80-page "definitive guide for the Christian Naturist".

And indeed, several historical sects practised ritual nudity including the Adamites (2nd–4th century North Africa) who claimed to restore Adam and Eve's innocence, and the Naaktloopers ('naked walkers') who in 1535 ran naked through Amsterdam streets proclaiming the "naked truth".

Part Four: Critical analysis

The historical verdict

The proposition that Christianity caused Western gymnophobia is historically reductionist and empirically challenged. Early Christians practised naked baptism for many centuries. The early Church built and maintained public baths throughout the Middle Ages. Eastern Orthodox churches still practise baptismal nudity for infants today. Multiple Church Fathers condemned promiscuous nudity but not the body itself, supporting gender-separated bathing facilities.

The evidence reveals distinct patterns. Early Christianity was not inherently gymnophobic. Mediaeval Christianity showed mixed attitudes following the Carolingian turning point. Renaissance and Reformation witnessed both artistic celebration and Counter-Reformation suppression. Victorian Christianity represented specific cultural-religious fusion that resulted in extreme repression. Modern Christianity remains diverse across traditions.

Multi-factorial causation

Western gymnophobia arose from multiple interacting factors: specific historical misinterpretations of Christianity, Victorian cultural anxieties, Platonic and Gnostic infiltration into Christian theology, modern capitalism and body commodification, medicalisation of sexuality, media culture and impossible beauty standards, and the Purity Culture movement. None are inherent to biblical or orthodox Christianity.

Kyle Harper's award-winning scholarship From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Harvard University Press, 2013) provides crucial nuance. Christianity transformed sexual morality from "shame" (social regulation) to "sin" (theological accountability), revolutionising human dignity by granting equal moral standing to slaves, women, and the poor. The transformation was gradual and more just in some ways, ending routine sexual exploitation, even if the unintended consequences still echo over a millennium later.

Cross-denominational evidence

Eastern Orthodox Christianity provides crucial evidence that Western gymnophobia represents specific Western cultural developments, not inherent Christian theology. Orthodox theology views nakedness as representing vulnerability and humanity before God, with no inherent shame. It maintains baptismal practices including nudity and, as Father Stephen Freeman, an Orthodox priest, affirms: "Originally, we were naked and unashamed – but we lost our original beauty."

Contemporary mainstream Christian perspectives on nudity and modesty

The vast majority of contemporary Western Christians hold views shaped by the historical developments outlined above, though perspectives vary significantly across denominations.

Catholic teaching, following John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body', affirms that the body is good and nakedness not inherently immodest, whilst emphasising modest dress to protect dignity. The Catechism acknowledges that "modesty varies from one culture to another" and most Catholic moral theology accepts contextual nudity – such as medical settings, family contexts, certain artistic expressions – whilst maintaining that public social nudity is generally inappropriate.

Mainline Protestant denominations generally hold similar positions: the body is created good, but public 'modesty' is appropriate. These churches typically avoid detailed dress codes, trusting congregants' judgement about appropriate attire for different contexts.

Evangelical and fundamentalist churches tend towards more restrictive positions, often heavily influenced by purity culture. Many provide specific dress codes, particularly for women: prescribed skirt lengths, covered shoulders, high necklines. Some prohibit mixed-gender swimming or are highly prescriptive about swimwear.

The primary theological justification across these traditions is the "stumbling block" argument from Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. These passages originally addressed eating food by way of example, warning against behaving in such a way that would cause fellow believers to violate their conscience. Conservative teaching, however, makes a theological leap and applies this to dress, arguing that if one's clothing could cause another to lust and therefore violate their conscience, one should cover up out of Christian love.

This application warrants scrutiny, however. The original context concerned religious practice, not managing others' sexual thoughts. The argument also assumes 'modest dress' prevents lust (empirically questionable to say the least), that women bear responsibility for men's thoughts (contradicting all personal accountability), and that hiding bodies 'solves' lust rather than addressing the lust itself – all the while perpetuating the Mediaeval idea that lust transmitted original sin and was a "disorder because it undermined reason". Furthermore, it's applied inconsistently and with prejudice: focusing almost exclusively on female bodies whilst ignoring athletic wear, dance contexts, or whether men's bodies might have a similar effect on women or gay men.

But what is modesty, properly understood? Within modern Christian teaching, modesty is an internal virtue characterised by humility and a non-judgmental attitude toward others. It manifests through respectful conduct and appropriate behaviour in different contexts. True modesty with regards to nudity recognises that different situations call for different standards – what's appropriate at a beach differs from a business meeting, which differs from a medical examination. Pope John Paul II clarified this when he wrote: "Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person … The human body is not in itself shameful … Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."

Regarding 1 Timothy 2:9 commanding modest dress, Christian naturists argue the passage addresses women wearing "costly array" and focuses on avoiding "outlandish and expensive clothing," not prohibiting those who choose not to dress at all. The context is about ostentatious display and class distinctions, not about coverage per se.

Indeed, many contemporary Christians now advocate for more balanced approaches: teaching personal responsibility for one's thoughts, acknowledging cultural relativity in modesty standards, and distinguishing between sexualisation and simple nudity. Some progressive Christian communities have abandoned dress codes entirely, trusting members to exercise wisdom whilst maintaining appropriate boundaries.

Body shame versus Christian teaching

A critical distinction exists between Christian teaching on modesty and psychological body shame. These are fundamentally different phenomena that purity culture and much of contemporary Christian teachings have unfortunately conflated.

Body shame is a psychological dysfunction involving fear or disgust toward one's own body, belief that the body is inherently corrupt or dirty, and often has roots in trauma. It manifests as anxiety about one's physical form, compulsive covering or hiding of the body even in appropriate contexts, and often a profound discomfort with natural bodily functions. Research by psychologist Tina Schermer Sellers and others demonstrates that shame instilled through religious purity culture creates symptoms parallel to sexual abuse trauma; difficulty with intimacy even within marriage, persistent guilt about embodiment, and chronic general anxiety.

Christian modesty, properly understood, is something entirely different. It's not about fear or shame but about respect – for oneself, for others, and for context. It recognises human dignity whilst acknowledging our social nature. Authentic Christian teaching affirms that God created the body and declared it "very good", that Christ himself took on human form (the Incarnation), and that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Body shame contradicts these core Christian affirmations.

The confusion between these concepts has deep roots in the historical developments traced earlier. None of these represent biblical Christianity's original understanding of the body. Christian naturists argue that their practice actually embodies authentic Christian modesty better than shame-based dress codes. By normalising the human body in non-sexual contexts, naturism separates nudity from sexuality, challenges the objectification and commercialisation of bodies, and affirms embodied human dignity without imposing fear or shame.

Whether one accepts this argument or not, it highlights the essential question: does contemporary Christian teaching about bodies promote virtue, or does it reinforce dysfunction?

Conclusion: Towards historical accuracy and theological clarity

The proposition that Christianity or misinterpretation of the Bible caused Western gymnophobia contains partial truth – certain Christian developments did contribute significantly. Christianity's relationship with nudity and the body, however, has been dialectical rather than uniformly negative.

A more accurate formulation recognises that certain interpretations and cultural expressions of Christianity (particularly where influenced by remaining Victorian cultural anxieties, the capitalist commodification of bodies, and the modern Purity Culture movements) certainly contributed to, but did not solely cause, modern Western society's endemic gymnophobia. Early and Orthodox Christianity maintained practices affirming bodily goodness, and social gymnophobia has multiple non-Christian sources including economic, racial, and media factors.

Contemporary Christian naturist movements represent not innovation but rather reclamation of earlier philosophies. Mudwalker's emphasis on rewilding adds an ecological dimension; "letting your skin interface with nature" represents both spiritual and physical health. His work demonstrates that Christianity offers theological resources for affirming embodied human dignity whilst maintaining appropriate ethical boundaries.

Indeed, as the Reverend Ross Comyn notes: "Naturism is essentially non-erotic, and actually is a remedy for porn addiction. Pure, simple nudity does not imply or demand a sexual response. Naturists, both Christian and non-Christian, say that body type or image is not of interest to them."

The Christian naturist argument that shame came from the devil, not God, finds support in Genesis 3:11. Their emphasis on contextual interpretation, recognition of cultural overlay on scripture, and a return to early church practice deserves serious theological engagement rather than dismissal. Whether one agrees with their conclusions, their work demonstrates that body-positive Christianity has deep historical and biblical roots.

The relationship between Christianity and Western body attitudes involves complex interactions between theology, philosophy, culture, and economics across two millennia. Simple causal narratives fail to capture this complexity. Christianity transformed Western sexual ethics in ways that both elevated human dignity and contributed to body anxiety. This "paradox of progress", created through a shift from social shame to theological sin, paradoxically elevated the moral standing of the body while simultaneously creating the conditions for its repression. Understanding this history requires nuanced analysis, acknowledging both Christianity's contributions to body-negative attitudes, and its theological resources for affirming the goodness of all embodied human life – creation that the Christian God declared "very good".

As a postscript, Helen hosted an episode of British Naturism's Women in Focus podcast in January 2025, dedicated to Christianity in Naturism. Stream it here, or wherever you normally get your podcasts.