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/

Here's a list of great women role models: http://www.unspecial.org/2012/03/women-who-made-a-difference/

@Christine Thomas - it was a tongue in cheek comment. The writer comments on the difficulty of getting men to consider women as subjects rather than objects - and then points to Lena Denham's show as an attempt to change this. I think it's counter-productive. I don't see anything brave in what Lena Denham or women like her is doing in her show. Lena is not someone I could count as a good role model for girls/women. What's brave about showing one's body and having sex with someone not your husband? Lots of women in varying sizes and forms have done that though perhaps not on tv. I personally think Christians should try to avoid watching shows that 'glorify' sin - in this tv program - sexual immorality primarily. If I am to draw attention to brave women - there are those who blazed trails - Marie Curie, Clara Barton, Amelia Earhart, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Corazon Aquino and the many women missionaries who left the comfort of home to share the gospel in foreign lands.

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.

Christine Thomas- Your arguement for homosexuality (or if you prefer to use the adopted euphemism "Gay") is in clear contrast with GOD's WORD. There are too many verses against this lifestyle for this comment block. I refer you to http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective for a decent treatise of the topic....

I saw this title/abstract on CT's main page. I had no idea who this actress (director, or whatever) was. I'm not sure why this author thinks Ms. Dunham is even worth the article. I don't know what "Girls" is about, but based on the fact that it is on HBO, it's safe to assume that it is 180 degrees from a Christian worldview! Ms. Dunham is not "brave" for showing her imperfect body to viewers, rather she is an exhibitionist and a contributor to pornagraphy! I'm also really sorry that Ms. Miller did not even bother to utilize Holy Scripture to speak to this issue if she felt so inclined to write about it. I think this reflects poorly on the Christianity Today name! If you are discussing a cultural issue from a Christian perspective, just how do you do it without even one single reference to the Bible? If we as Christians do not reference God's Word, then our worldview arguements are no more meaningful/impactful than anyone elses! How does the Holy Spirit work without God's Word?

The idea that one can just psychosurgically remove the lustful desires associated with nudity and everything will be okay is just naive and irresponsible. It's another detached dream from the overly-idealistic noodlings of theoretical feminists who wish too hard to change men from what they are to what they wish they would be instead. Our culture is our culture. We have to look at it like we would look at a culture we are foreign to. We shouldn't desire to go into other cultures and tinker with their moral and ethical paradigms just for the sake of experimenting. There is no reason to subject our own culture to the same aimless, potentially catastrophic tinkering. Modern social engineering is a sick kind of evil that presupposes the worthlessness of the average citizen and surmises that they need to be caged by social psychologists. God allowed us will. Social engineers want to take it from us.

J Thomas- There is nothing beautiful in pornography that has not been distorted and turned evil. And I am not trying to steer culture to consuming more nudity. I disagree with your impression that lust is a natural, physiological impulse. Lust is sin, and sin is unnatural. There are, and have been, many cultures in the world where a man might daily see undressed women, without necessarily being burned by passions. I looked at an online recap of the show, sorry, I should have before commenting. (I do not watch TV, and am surprised at the pace of degradation of culture.) The show appears to promote immodesty, on par with the 'Bachelor'... not on the basis of how much skin is shown on the screen, but how the characters behave. They seem to act as willing pawns of their own passions, and of the demons. There are times and places where I find public nakedness acceptable. Skinny-dipping, or breast-feeding, for example. Our culture has become so distorted that these have become "indecent".

Shame on Sharon Miller and C.T. Using the word "brave" of an unbeliever who exposes her body before the eyes of men (thousands, and even I dare say, millions of them), when her body is for the sole appreciation of her husband...should she be married. But I do not apply the word "shame" to Lena Dunham, as she is an unbeliever, and is not guided and motivated by God's word; therefore cannot be held up to the same plumbline as all godly women are.

Todd, if you're wanting to 'steer this culture' toward consuming more nudity, it might be a good idea to steer them toward God first. The hoards of young men across the world who view pornography on the internet are not viewing it for the art. They are viewing it because the chemicals that it releases in their brains are some of the same neural pathways that are stimulated for kinds of drug addiction. That's something that transcends cultures. It's physiological.

Human bodies are beautiful. It is tragic that our sins have so seized modern culture that the sight of a naked person is immediately tied to sensuality. Beauty is one thing that is desperately lacking in the modern world. Deep down, I think, humanity remembers and yearns for the innocent, primitive nakedness of Eden, but this longing for the good and beautiful has been perverted in our society. Part of the problem, I think, has been the objectification of certain body parts as being unfit for being seen in public. I haven't seen the show, but I find it strange that she referred to the "unattractiveness" of her body. If she means that she appeared in such a way as not to attract lust, that's a good thing. But beauty is always attractive, and a woman's body is beautiful. Regardless whether this woman is "anti-Christian", I think it's a move in the right direction to steer culture away from viewing nudity as always sexual, but part of being human, and of the beauty of Creation.

@Christine Thomas - I'm curious, are gay men that are *in relationships* banned from leadership positions, or are all gay men banned from leadership positions (even if they are celibate)? I can see an argument for the former (based on teachings from the common English versions of the Bible), but the latter seems downright unbiblical; how is a celibate gay person any more sinful than a celibate straight one?

What is CT's obsession with glorifying this intensely anti-Christian woman?

Right on Janet W, Tim Fall, Amy Peterson & Karen Smith. However I believe the "Christian culture" reflects the larger culture of about 50 years ago when it comes to how women are viewed. Not long ago my non-denominational and normally very non-political church leaders decided to address from the pulpit the issue of gay men in leadership positions in the church. It was declared they were welcome to attend and be part of the community, but not allowed in positions of leadership. At first I was annoyed at the "answer" but soon remembered that women are treated exactly the same way. In the case of gay people, it's because they are considered living in sin (a position I firmly disagree with). In the case of women...beats me. As far as Dunham's choices to reveal her body...it's art that moves culture and individuals. She is making her case and more power to her. The church...well, I keep going...but can't say much about it excites me. Jesus on the other hand...he's a different story.

One thing I wanted to add but didn't have space for in the post is that I think Dunham is actually challenging objectification through her work as a young, female writer, director and actress. She is now a woman with influence in an industry where women have not always had influence, and she got there not because of her looks but because of who she is as a whole person. Ironically, I don't think she needed to expose her breasts in order to challenge the objectification of women. I think she was already doing it.

Karen, I agree with your post. Though, I don't think that Dunham is "larger than average" -- she is average; just not average for the hollywood subset for which she is a member. Average may even be a little heavier than Ms. Dunham, in fact. I've not seen the show as it's not really my kind of show, either, but have seen pictures.

I ran out of space below, but I should add that the Leonard Nimoy book is nudes, though I'm uncertain if it's full frontal. It's certainly NSFW, though I've heard it's all tastefully done and fits into the category of "Beauty, not pornography".

@Janet W, @Tim Fall, @Amy Peterson - well put. Though @Amy, I think you'll find that a lot of shows these days (not all, certainly, but quite a few) pass the Bechdell test. Of course, the Bechdel test is itself flawed for reasons I don't have time to get into right now. @Esther Asher - If that was pushed for, it'd just be one more thing that modern extreme fundamentalists Christians would have in common in Muslims. --- I've never seen the show "Girls", nor do I plan to see it. It doesn't sound like my kind of show - I lean towards dramatic action and procedural shows ("Dexter", "Game of Thrones", "Castle", "Psych"...) rather than plain dramas - too many dramas focus too much on the negative interactions between people. In any case, I suspect a better example of something in the public eye about larger than average women being comfortable in their skin is probably "The Full Body Project: Photographs by Leonard Nimoy" - yes, Spock did a photography book about larger women.

I agree with most of what you've said here, and you've said it well. But I don't think you give Dunham enough credit. You say: "While Dunham might reclaim normal breasts, normal thighs, or the normal female body, she does not address the fact that women are constantly reduced to those parts. In America, women are treated as bodies. Rather than treat women as whole human beings, women are reduced to their bodies, their body parts, and the sexual function of those parts." I think in challenging conventional standards of beauty and the overly-romanticized visions of sex we usually see on tv, Dunham is doing exactly what you say she's not: she's plainly addressing the fact that women are constantly reduced to their parts. In creating a show that passes the Bechdel test, with female characters who have personal agency, she's giving us women who are subjects, not objects.

Hmm...there could be something then to women covering themselves from head to toe - everyone will be forced to engage with them as persons rather than bodies.

"our culture has an incoherent concept of the female self." So well put, Sharon. In the church, that incoherence is seen when we focus only on how women can serve in roles like the nursery or kitchen, but ignore that women can also teach Bible studies that will bless the socks off men and women alike. Incoherent indeed! Cheers, Tim ( timfall.wordpress.com )

I think it odd that we expect our larger society to do something that Christians have not; namely to treat women as whole beings who aren't a tool to be used by someone else (most often, a man). Christian culture reflects our larger culture in that women are viewed (and valued) based more on their bodies than on their beings. Thus our butts, boobs, and bellies are not our own, but are for public comment and judgement -- as if that's all that we are. The modesty doctrine like the purity doctrine, isn't about our worth as a whole human being but about our bodies and what we do with them sexually (or what others would like to do to us sexually). Thus I'm not Janet W., I'm "hot woman" .... an interchangeable body that could easily be replaced by a 10,000 others. Our pornified culture supports this. Our media cashes in on it. And our christian society buys into it right along with the secular world.