{"id":5926,"date":"2018-02-12T13:27:11","date_gmt":"2018-02-12T19:27:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tampaseo.expert\/focus\/?p=5926"},"modified":"2018-02-12T13:27:11","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T19:27:11","slug":"open-letter-fhu-board-regarding-nudity-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tampaseo.expert\/focus\/2018\/02\/12\/open-letter-fhu-board-regarding-nudity-art\/","title":{"rendered":"An open letter to the FHU board regarding nudity in art"},"content":{"rendered":"

February 12, 2018<\/span><\/p>\n

Dear David Shannon and FHU Board Members,<\/span><\/p>\n

I send you all warm greetings from Franklin, TN. I hope that this note finds each of you well. I want to commend you on your recent decision to hire David Shannon as the new President of FHU. I, like many Christians in the southeast, believe hiring David was a brilliant move and sent a loud message across the brotherhood about the direction you want to take FHU. Thank you for having the courage and conviction to make such a bold statement.<\/span><\/p>\n

This letter is in hopes you will have the same courage and boldness on a separate issue. Please allow me a few minutes of your time to explain.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a relatively new sub-discipline field of science known as neuroesthetics. This branch studies<\/span> the\u00a0<\/span>aesthetic<\/span>\u00a0perceptions of art, music, or any object, investigating the neuronal circuitry involved in specific responses. For instance, in a recent study they analyzed the eye response when human males where shown images of naked people. This study demonstrated what part of the body the eyes lingered on and which areas the eyes skipped over. It also showed how long the eyes lingered over specific genders and what part of the brain lit up. This new field is demonstrating what happens on a neuronal level in the brain when individuals look at art. (See \u201cThe Experience of Art : Insights from Neuroimaging\u201d by M. Nadal, 2013, Progressive Brain Research, 204:135-158.)<\/span><\/p>\n

So what about naked images? Research has shown repeatedly that any time a nude image is viewed, the brain INVOLUNTARILY releases two neurochemicals: dopamine and norepinephrine. (For a good review see Todd Love et al\u2019s 2015 review, \u201cNeuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction\u201d published in Behavioral Science September <\/i>5(3):388-433.). These chemicals are released whether the individual is looking at material that is deemed art or pornography. From an aesthetics perspective at the neuronal level there is no distinction in the brain. Dopamine is a pleasure neurotransmitter\u2014activating the pleasure circuit of the brain. (It is similar to the feeling a drug user gets when they take a hit of some type of drug.)\u00a0 <\/span>(For a great review of this please see Anjan Chatterjee\u2019s Neurobiology of Sensation and Reward<\/i>)<\/span><\/p>\n

Norepinephrine is the neurochemical I hope you will remember. This has been called the \u201cpaperclip\u201d neurotransmitter\u2014in that it clips the image into your memory, making it available for recall. The average college student takes about 0.7 seconds (less than a second) to paper-clip an image they view into their brain.\u00a0 <\/span>A better description would be the \u201ctattoo\u201d neurotransmitter\u2014because it builds a permanent memory of that image that is very hard to erase. There are other chemicals the body releases under certain conditions such as oxytocin, vasopressin, and endorphins that all help create a \u201chigh\u201d and bring pleasure, but the two that I hope you will remember are dopamine and norepinephrine.<\/span><\/p>\n

So what happens when a student in an art class views a picture of a naked person? Dopamine is involuntarily dumped into the brain, stimulating the reward center. The image is then \u201cpaper-clipped\u201d into memory and is available for recall. Overstimulation of the reward circuitry in the brain\u2014such as occurs when dopamine is repeatedly released from viewing nude images\u2014creates desensitization. <\/span><\/p>\n

When you think about something (or view something) it actually changes the physical structure of the nerve cells in your brain\u2014and it can change the connections between nerve cells.\u00a0 <\/span>In other words, your brain is wired according to what you think about\u2026 which is probably why Paul wrote \u201c\u201cFinally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are<\/i> noble, whatever things are<\/i> just, whatever things are<\/i> pure, whatever things are<\/i> lovely, whatever things are<\/i> of good report, if there is<\/i> any virtue and if there is<\/i> anything praiseworthy\u2014think on these things\u201d (Philippians 4:8).<\/span><\/p>\n

For drug addicts to feel the feeling they initially felt when they got that first \u201chit\u201d they need to take more drugs. For individuals who get that feeling from nude images, they don\u2019t need more\u2026they need something <\/span>different <\/b><\/span>(or more intense). <\/b>Thus individuals will often \u201dgraduate\u201d to material that contains multiple people, violent scenes, or even children. The reality is that viewing nude images is actually changing the physical structure of the brain. There are recent studies that point out viewing naked images also changes a person\u2019s attitude toward sex as well as divorce.<\/span><\/p>\n

Please understand that I fully comprehend that the human body is amazing\u2014and I too believe it should be celebrated as an incredible marvel of God\u2019s creation. I frequently teach on Intelligent Design, and I often use the human body in that discussion. However, I am able to have that discussion (with PowerPoint images) without ever showing naked images to the audience.<\/span><\/p>\n

My background is in neuroscience. One of the troubling factors for me personally is that when many humans view a nude image, their brain identifies it as an object\u2014not a human. Research using brain scans has shown that viewing naked images lights up a different region of the brain. The brain views the person in the image as \u201ca piece of meat\u201d rather than a human, created in the image of God, who possesses a soul. Love is left out of the equation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lumping artists and medical students into the same category is like comparing apples and oranges. Artists can selectively choose what they draw\/paint. Doctors are charged with learning and treating the entire human body. I earned a doctorate in Anatomy and Neurobiology\u2014and in the course of my training viewed both images and cadavers of the human body for the purpose of learning various systems.\u00a0 <\/span>Professors spent an enormous amount of time discussing how human bodies were to be treated and the genitals were always kept covered unless we were dissecting that specific area. Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo did look at human bodies\u2014in an era that we had little knowledge of internal human anatomy and in an effort to produce accurate medical textbooks. Their efforts were to broaden the knowledge our knowledge of the human body\u2014not to look at it from an artistic perspective or to appreciate it artistically.<\/span><\/p>\n

In almost all fifty states being naked or exposing oneself is considered a criminal act of public indecency. Look carefully at that description\u2014public indecency. In simple terms, this is something that is not decent in public. The Bible speaks clearly about modesty. Paul wrote, \u201clikewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control (1 Timothy 2:9, ESV). Most universities have a dress code. As Christians, we recognize that clothes that are low cut or too revealing are not pleasing to God. So what about no clothes at all? If these same images from textbooks were sent to a classmate who missed a class via cell phone it would be perceived as sexting\u2014something most preachers and youth ministers have spoken out against.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many youth rallies on modesty have pointed out that Adam and Eve were naked prior to sin. However, after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil the \u201c<\/span>eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they\u00a0<\/span>were<\/i><\/span>\u00a0naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings\u201d (Genesis 3:7). They were ashamed and tried to hide. I have heard point out that the fig leaves were inadequate and so \u201c<\/span>God made tunics of skin, and clothed them\u201d (Genesis 3:21). The fact of the matter is, thanks to sin, we now live in a fallen world in which immodesty is sinful. The Bible overwhelmingly presents nakedness as shameful, immodest, and degrading (e.g., Genesis 9:21; Exodus 20:26; 32:25; 2 Chronicles 28:19; Isaiah 47:3; Luke 8:27; Revelation 3:17).\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Last week I spent several days with Josh McDowell\u2014having dinner with him and listening to him talk patiently about a subject that is often taboo in the church. Josh has authored over 100 books including More Than a Carpenter<\/i> and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. <\/i>He has a popular radio show and is a professional speaker on Christian evidences and cultural issues. Last year Josh commissioned Barna Group to carry out the largest survey on pornography\u2014costing well over $250,000. They spoke to thousands of individuals and spent months analyzing their data. I interviewed him following that survey for Think <\/i>magazine. In that interview he gave several startling statistics:<\/span><\/p>\n