Posts like this, defending the Christian use of tattoos, flood the blogosphere. Most are written by those who have them, a few are written by those who don’t. 
That’s really not important at the moment. I think both sides should be able to put their body ink (or lack thereof) aside for a bit and consider some real Holy Ink,…the Bible.
To make an astounding generalization, the brunt of the “pro-tattoo” clique centers their fire and ire on proving that the Bible never prohibits tattoos for Christians, then logically progresses to their apparent morality today. The problem for them (and any other argument that focuses almost solely on the absence of biblical prohibitions (ie. birth control, recreational drug use, etc.)) is that the Bible says a lot more about life and godliness than “Thou shalt not’s…” In far too many of our contemporary ethical debates we either forget that fact or intentionally overlook it. No friends, Scripture gives us ethical commentary in many other ways than mere prohibitions. There are mandates, precedents, principles, counsel, examples and so on, and so forth. If our self-proclaimed, culturally-in-touch brethren want to convince us of the ethical good of tattoos — they’ve got quite a bit more ground to cover than just explaining away the prohibitions of Scripture. They’ve got to show from the Word that the heart behind tattoos is the heart of God, not just the heart of man; and prove that such actions are not just an expression of liberty, but are rather the denial of the flesh. For such a hot topic as tattoos, that’s not a lot to ask. But one thing is clear, whether they like it or not, the burden of proof is set firmly upon them…
‘BH
——-
Here’s my reply to the post that I linked to above. It elaborates on what I find lacking in most defenses of tattoos:
“Interesting thoughts my brother. I realize your focus of this post is mainly to debunk the force of the two passages you quoted, but it should be noted that there are more whollistic arguments against tattoos that are not quite as simple as “The Bible never says I can’t” (my quote, not yours). Of course, the issue here is that the Bible is not just a “rule book”, rather it is The “Life Book” revealing to us the Life-Giver in Jesus Christ, giving us all we need for life and godliness. That being understood, we need to realize that the Bible probably has much more to say about tattoos than we’d like to admit; or more aptly stated, it has much more to say about the heart of tattoos than mere “prohibitive silence.”
If you are attempting to prove the morality of tattoos, it seems like you should be looking for more of a positive ethical force in Scripture to accept tattoos, rather than attempting to highlight the absense of their prohibition. Look at the themes of self-denial, radical discipleship, holiness, temporality, eternality, and others — and then try to “make” a case for tattoos, rather than being content to dismantle the more shallow of your opponents’ cases. It is vain, arrogant, and foolish to ever do something merely because “we can,” and if one is a Christian, it is often ungodly. Behind every action, there is a heart (which is what Christ highlighted often in his ministry). Because of that, our question here must be: What Scriptural force is impacting the heart of those seeking tattoos? What epistles of Paul, or what random Levitical law is encouraging tattoos? And if we find none, then what biblical themes lend support to their presence on our bodies?
If these proofs are not present, then before you go under the needle, you should go back to the Book.”
4 Comments
January 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Here’s the problem: you spend money on a tat, that’s money you can’t spend to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, counsel the doubtful, instruct the ignorant, etc.
If this is about Scripture, meditate on Matt. 5.
Pax,
John
January 11, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Good point. But why not get Matt. 5 tattooed on your bicep? That way everyone knows that’s what Christians are supposed to do, or at the very least it might spark that much sought after “conversation” that we hear so much about in tattoo circles. Meditation is imperative Brother John, but our tattooing brethren wouldn’t disagree. Many would argue their tatts are an accessory to meditation and communication, not a hindrance to them. And then some would think we are back at square one; or at least ground zero of morality – all things being neutral. The problem for proponents of tattoos arises when we push past the good “ends” of tattoos, and question their “means”. But unfortunately, that’s where very little of this conversation is being had; which is why I’m pushing for it now.
Thanks for stirring the pot.
‘BH
January 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hank,
I think that’s a pretty poor argument that sets a dangerous precedent for Christian living.
For instance, as my family grows, so does our need for a minivan. Now, a car like that is more expensive, less fuel efficient, and more luxurious than, say, a station wagon. Am I prevented from spending more money on it because I can’t find a positive reason for taking the more comfortable choice?
My wife has pierced ears. It’s nice when I can give her a gift of earrings to express love, and when she wears them she looks nice. Should she stop, because Scripture allows it but doesn’t present a positive case FOR it?
Southern Seminary has beautiful grounds, and they are kept beautiful (and even improved upon) by means of lots of money. Where in Scripture do you find a positive case for the aesthetic improvement of a training ground for pastors? And please don’t tell me the temple- that’s very different territory.
I’m told that some people like to wear cowboy hats. Let me help you out… you really don’t need one. It’s merely an aesthetic choice that expresses something you like about the life and situation God has given you, even at risk of communicating certain things to other people. However, Scripture decidedly does not actively promote the wearing of cowboy hats.
Each Christian is called to live out faithfulness as best they can. But within that structure, there are millions of little decisions that help us understand ourselves in relation to God, and to understand and express the individuality he has given us. Our clothing, interior decoration, and computer screen wallpaper all are attempts to explore and express that gift in the world.
When a person takes a tatoo, sure, they should be careful. It’s the same as any other decision that affects things in the long term, and should be handled carefully and wisely, with close watch on motivations and purposes.
But to argue that a tattoo gets its own category apart from thousands of other aesthetic decisions (especially in a culture where tattoos are not feared as they once were) and therefore demands special warrant from Scripture is simply incorrect. A better lesson to take away is that Scripture gives clear guidelines on many areas of life. In those areas it does not prohibit or give clear guidance, as long as motive is right, there is freedom.
So before you criticize someone for going under the needle, go back to The Book.
January 13, 2009 at 2:13 am
Ben-
Thanks for responding.
Besides wearing a cowboy hat (which cost something as well), all of your examples focus primarily on excusing an action because of the monetary issues involved. That wasn’t the focus of my post, but merely part of my response to the comment above. Either way, money is not the point. If you were able to get a tattoo for free, the theological and philosophical problems would still hold true.
Secondly, it is a mistake to defend tattoos as just another “aesthetic decision.” The color of my drapes does not imprint itself on my flesh — permanently. What kind of car I drive does not mutilate my body — be it a minivan or a PT Cruiser. My garden has nothing to do with my skin. But tattoos do. And the Bible cares about our bodies, whether our dualistic/Gnostic tendencies admit it or not. And because the Bible cares about our bodies, so should we. Job said he came into the world naked, and went out the same. Many of us will die old, but that is not our choice. The fact that many of us will die with self mutilated flesh is a choice that requires defending…much more than the kind of car we drove while we were alive.
Which brings me back to the main idea which you brought up in your last paragraph: What motives are right and what are wrong? And how do we gauge them? Can I force my 2 year old to get a tattoo of a fish on his arm to start evangelistic conversations with the baby sitter? Why not? He’s my flesh and blood, I can do with him as I please, right? Or can I just get a random tattoo of Ron Paul on my back? I own myself anyways, right?
Simply put, we are not free to do as we like, we are free to do as God wills. That means our actions must consist of more thought than merely, “This is permissible because it is not prohibited.” The Bible never prohibits cremation, so does that mean it can glorify God? Human cloning is never prohibited, so can the proper motive excuse it? Designer babies are never condemned in Scripture, so are we then free to express our God-given individuality in creating them?
The fact is, you know certain things are not just “open to discernment.” The fact that so many claim that tattoos are, is not proof of their neutrality, it’s just proof of their cultural acceptance (which should tell us something right there)…