David Randall: Unlike Todd, I'm not going to hold to a Pelagian position. But, I come to a similar clothing stance, when I read the Scripture. I have yet to find a indication in Scripture that clothing was used and could be used to curtail lust of others. This idea would violate other scripture (James 1, Matthew 15). We start from a fallen position, use clothes (among other things), to "elevate" ourselves and yet, still remain fallen. We seek to be God's equal though our own strength or actions and, yet, prove, our need for a Savior again and again. There are a few other early church fathers who also recorded naked baptism instructions and Tertullian is known to have participated in such co-ed naked baptisms. (Why wouldn't he? The Roman baths were well attended by both genders at the same time.)

audrey ruth: Starting with Adam and Eve prefall through the resurrected Christ (what was he wearing when he met Mary Magdalene? - his clothes had been divided by the Romans and the grave clothes were still in the tomb and the Romans crucified the convicts completely naked.) Bathsheba was wealthy (wife of a general) and bathed on her roof, but what about the women who were not so wealthy. Where did they bathe? And what about Peter fishing? or the naked prophet (could be referring to Saul, Isaiah, or Malachi)? How does one explain Exezkiel 16? Or the 4th chapter of I Timothy when public nakedness is given a tacit approval?

I believe "Girls" is another example of a stock ploy in the arts of conveying a bad idea by cloaking it in a "high ideal". Viginia Slims: high ideal, "woman are as sophisticated as men" - bad idea, "woman should smoke" Thelma and Louise: high ideal, "heroes bravely stand up against the world" - bad idea, "women on a crime spree are heroes" Girls: high ideal "ordinary women are beautiful" - bad idea "it's cool for ordinary women to be slutty" Similar tactics are used in court to blur what ought to be simple with smoke and mirrors. Hint for discernment: apply Ockham's razor and reduce the message to its simplest terms. Is provocative dress or outright nudity in public and in everyday situations edifying? I have only one real issue with the article. By engaging in analysis of the possible "high ideals" involved the author gives too much credibility to the method and ends up playing the game on Dunham's terms confusing rather than clarifying the issue.

Some red herrings is these comments. Propriety of head covering in worship is a separate issue unrelated to sexual modesty. Whether early modes of baptism involved nudity is uncertain and is an entirely different context in any event. Finally nudity between spouses has nothing to do with it either, since sexual desire is in its proper place here. The real pertinent but dangerous idea that Todd raises is the Pelagian heresy that we all enter the world in the same state of innocence that Adam had before the fall so turning off temptation is a simple matter of the will. This idea has the appeal of being a "high idea", but the testimony of Scripture and centuries of human experience have both proved Pelagius wrong. Like it or not lustful desire IS part of who we are since the fall. This needs to inform our choices with regard to both exposing ourselves and others to temptation. Public nudity and provocative dress present powerful temptations.

Todd, there is no Scripture to support your idea of public nudity being acceptable in God's sight. You said, "My war is against the sin that wrecks mens' hearts." The Lord says this to men, "Flee immorality." And Jesus said that lust in one's heart is equal in His sight to adultery. I have not invented anything. My comments are all based on God's own Word.

Audrey- It is easy to assume that the (modern) way you have always experienced things is what is normal, and then interpret accordingly. The Corinthians would not have heard Paul's letter the way you are interpreting it. Would you, then, read v.5 as saying- that if a woman does not have hair on her head, then she should have it cut off? That makes no sense. There are many examples in Scripture that would demonstrate that the American idea of "indecent exposure" did not exist in the ancient world. What do you suppose Jesus wore at his baptism? Throughout ancient times, Christian baptisms were always unclothed. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem commented (shortly after the canonization of Scripture):"As soon as ye entered, ye put off your tunic, and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds...O wondrous thing! Ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed, for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed."

In the theological narrative of Adam and Eve, their sin brought them shame. God responded to that shame by covering them. Does this mean that a man and his wife are never to see one another naked, or that God never wants anyone to see anyone else naked? No. Scripture must be interpreted through the lens of Christ. Christ came to take away sin. In Christ, there is no longer need of this shame... and this is really a more important point in this article. It is apparent to me that both the writer of this article and of the Daily Beast article seem to have struggled with ‘body shame’, and for them, Lena Dunham has shared this fight. While I don’t think I would like the show or the methods Lena used, I can empathize with the plight of those who feel such shame. In my opinion, the eroticized modern culture is to blame, and nudity is rather beside the point. I care little about legislation, or what people wear. My war is against the sin that wrecks mens' hearts.

Todd, the Bible says that God has given women their hair for their covering (1 Corinthians 11:15). There is nothing in God's Word that even suggests that public nudity such as you mention is acceptable -- indeed, the first thing God did after Adam and Eve sinned was make them clothes to wear. I wonder what is CT's purpose for glorifying this woman's intensely anti-Christian behavior. How is she "brave"? It takes real courage these days to stand against such unGodly things. @ Esther Asher -- Good points!

J Thomas- I am not talking about social engineering, nor am I a 'theoretical feminist'. The problem I am addressing is in the hearts of men, and this disease has deeply affected culture. But, yes, I would like to see men changed from what they are, to what they should be. The one, true man is Jesus- in him we see the true humanity, and he is our pattern. Lustful desires are not a part of 'what men are'. Men are made in the image of God, and the will God gave man is intended for good. We were not made to be slaves to lust or any other vices. I don't know what psychosurgical removal is. But the way that God has given us for the healing of our hearts is through repentance. Christians are to be a light to the world, and this includes modesty. However, I think often modesty is confused with prudishness. I consider it immodest when women do not cover their head in worship, and indecent when short skirts are worn at church. But I see nothing wrong with sunbathing at the beach au naturale.

I'm not a fan of Miss Dunham's show & I don't see her actions as being driven by freeing women of the bondage of objectification. However, I can appreciate the dialogue. I think it's important to note that Lena is not a follower of Christ & cannot therefore be held to Christian standards. As Sharon pointed out here in the comments section, what's wonderful and should be celebrated is that Lena has made a name for herself initially based on her talent as a writer/director not as a nudist/exhibitionist. That should be applauded given that most of Hollywood is driven by men and their interpretations of what women are and therefore want to see. However, I believe she is using nudity for shock value (why it's considered shock is another conversation altogether). There is nothing brave about seeking to be shocking rather than authentic and progressive. P.S. @KarenSmith "Psych" and "Castle" are two of my favorite shows! http://theprocessofpurpose.com/