Yesterday, my wife went to visit some family members. These older individuals are very warm and caring people. I love them very much and I can only imagine that my wife must have even greater affection for them. However, something was said by them which I believe warrants my detailed response.
BACKGROUND
As my wife stood outside with "Joe", she was asked why she allowed my son Everett to have a fake tattoo on his arm. This was a "Cars" tattoo that I put on him the day prior at his request so he could "look like daddy."
My wife was then told that tattoos are wrong and we shouldn't be teaching our kids to do wrong. She disagreed and Joe summoned "Jane." Joe asked Jane to tell Tiffany about tattoos.
Jane told Tiffany that tattoos were a sin and we shouldn't allow them. My wife said she disagreed. Jane told my wife that her opinion didn't matter. It was clear in the bible that tattoos were a sin.
My wife asked for the passage and Jane said that it was in the Old Testament in her King James Version. My wife said that we didn't read the KJV. Jane said that there were many different translations, but the KJV was the most accurate.
The conversation concluded when Joe and Jane told me wife: "its ok I guess, we are sinners too and we sin everyday as well" - implying once again that tattoos, even my toddlers fake tattoo, were morally wrong in themselves.
My wife was really upset by their dogmatic attitude about the issue and the condemnation that they portrayed about tattoos in front of my boy. She told me about the incident and I felt the need to respond with the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
RESPONSE
1) I agree with Joe and Jane that my wifes opinion does not matter, only what scripture says. Beware the two-edged sword however since that also means that their opinions don't count. To get past the rhetoric, we need to do some serious investigation into both sides of the tattoo issue with the Bible as our reference.
2) Lets assume that we can find a bible verse or two that seem to prohibit tattooing. I do not think that verse would necessarily apply to us today. We have to look at the scripture verse by verse to determine what is currently applicable and what was contextual or traditional. There are many bible passages which command or admonish against things to the audience of that particular book, which we might not adhere to today. Some examples include:
Women should not wear gold or pearls (2 Tim 2)
Men should have short hair, and women long hair (1 Corinth 11)
Its better to go live on your roof than with a quarreling wife (Proverbs 25)
Death to those who break the Jewish Sabbath: Friday sundown to Sat sundown (Exodus 31)
We don't follow all of those today. Why?
3) All scriptural commands and prohibitions must be judges in light of the historical context relevant to that writing and the wholeness of Gods redemptive plan. Some things were given for a season to carry out the Mosaic Law (Sabbath), to provide general advice about civil life (living on the roof), or to address a particular group of people due to their contemporary conditions (women and jewelry in Corinth).
That said, some commands are obviously moral in nature and thus transcend all time and culture. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie...these are general moral commands that are never seen as anything but applicable to all circumstances.
4) The big question then is what are the verse(s) that are used against tattoos and do they appear to be part of the always enforced moral code of scripture. Most people cite Leviticus 19:28 as the key text in this issue:
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. - KJV
Lets address this verse...
Leviticus 19:28 condemned tattoos in ancient Israel. This prohibition was part of the “holiness code,” a large section of Leviticus dedicated to laws that were given to Israel in order to distinguish the people from the nations around them. The Gentiles used tattoos, therefore Israel was not to use them in order to provide a visible demonstration of the fact that Israel was “holy” (that is, set apart as special unto God). It would seem from the context of Leviticus 19:28 that the tattoos that were specifically forbidden were those received as part of a pagan ceremony, though some have taken it as a broad prohibition against all tattoos.
When Christ came, however, he tore down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:12ff.). Specifically, this means that the laws that were given in order to separate Israel from the rest of the nations are now counter-productive if applied in the same way that ancient Israel observed them. We must adapt our application of the Law so as to follow its original purpose in light of the changes that Christ brought.
Consider the example of circumcision. This stipulation distinguished Israel from the Canaanites in the Promised Land. But the New Testament clearly tells us that being holy unto God no longer requires us to be circumcised (e.g. Rom. 2; Gal. 2; 5). Circumcision was an outward symbol of dedication unto God. But that outward symbol, dividing people along racial lines, is no longer helpful. The people of God are from every nation, and the symbols of holiness that we now must bear are things like a pure heart (e.g. Rom. 2:28-29, which was also required in the Old Testament) and baptism (which does not have any racial connotations, and has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign; Col. 2:11-12).
Now, this is not to say that everything that appears in the “holiness code” pertains only to such separation - there are other factors at work too, such as moral ones (Israel’s morality was to help distinguish her from other nations). If one is convinced that tattoos are a moral issue, then one ought to abstain from them. I, however, cannot think of any reason that a tattoo would be a moral issue - certainly the Bible does not state that there are moral failings involved in getting a tattoo no matter what the context. The case would seem to be very similar to the commands that we not round off the edges of our beards or cut the hair on our temples (Lev. 19:27). These are innocent practices in and of themselves. They were wrong in ancient Israel because of their association with pagan practices (such as divination, death rituals, cultic prostitution, etc.; cf. Lev. 19:26-31). If these actions do not have evil associations in our own time, there would seem to be no reason to forbid them.
(http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99786.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim)
5) So, it appears that there is a very rational explanation for why Leviticus prohibits tattoos. Given this understanding I think we can see that the tattoo itself is not a sin. Rather, use of the thing in a sinful, blasphemous, or idolatrous manner is the issue. I cannot see where a tattoo is a universal moral wrong equal to murder, rape, or theft. However, I do not mean to advocate that we should all have a bunch of tattoos or anything. This question is one that we must all deal with individually. Letting our own conscience be our guide, we should deal with our personal view on non-essentials in private...
Instead of asking, "Is it okay for a Christian to get a tattoo," perhaps a better question might be, "Is it okay for me to get a tattoo?"
Since tattooing is such a controversial issue today, I think it's important to examine your heart and your motives before you make the decision.
Self Exam - To Tattoo or Not To?
Here is a self-exam based on the ideas put forth in Romans 14. These questions will help you decide whether or not getting a tattoo is a sin for you:
How does my heart and my conscience convict me? Do I have freedom in Christ and a clear conscience before the Lord regarding the decision to get a tattoo?
Am I passing judgment on a brother or sister because I don't have freedom in Christ to receive a tattoo?
Will I still want this tattoo years from now?
Will my parents and family approve, and/or will my future spouse want me to have this tattoo?
Will I cause a weaker brother to stumble if I receive a tattoo?
Is my decision based on faith and will the result be glorifying to God?
Ultimately, the decision is between you and God. Though it may not be a black and white issue, there is a right choice for each individual. Take some time to honestly answer these questions and the Lord will show you what to do.
(http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/tattoochristian.htm)
The questions above are good and they could actually apply to a vast variety of subjects; the car you buy, the clothes you wear, the way you tip waiters, etc...
6) Sometimes folks want to use the verse in 1 Corinthians 3 to also prove that tattoos are wrong;
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. - ESV
But, how far can we go with this very broad statement. What about piercing ones ears? Drinking COKE? The list could go on and on. We could make up all sort of legalistic rules based on such a general verse. Ultimately, the issue is one of the heart. When you do what you do in life (regardless of what it is) are you seeking to glorify God, rebel against him, or simply act in a neutral manner. For example, going to the bathroom is a neutral act. It neither gives glory to God in any purposed sense, nor does it lend itself to rebellion per se. I think that tattooing can be in that neutral position also.
7) What about the stumbling block aspect - some people will ask. There are individuals who would argue that having tattoos somehow impedes one from sharing the gospel.
I find the truth to be quite the opposite. In the culture today, having a tat can open doors for the spread of the gospel to communities that would be put off by the stuffy shirt and tie evangelist. The tattoo lends street credit in those situations and allows conversations to take place that might not have taken place if the tattoo was absent.
Ultimately, there is no definitive nature of a tattoo that either makes it essential for evangelism or which makes it a serious impediment to sharing faith. The truth is that we must evaluate who we are and who can most effectively reach for Jesus based on our own personalities (tattoos included.) Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 9 that he became all things to all men that he might save some - perhaps we should follow his example. Rather than condemning people who have tattoos, lets encourage them to use who they are to bring the good news to those who need it in their demographic.
8) As for the translation issue that seems to have been part of the discussion. I read the ESV and the NASB. My wife has a NIV. I respect the KJV, but I hope that Joe and Jane were not advocating for "King James Onlyism." I am unsure, so I won't speak to that very much. Read more about my ideas on translations here:
http://words100.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-believe-that-words-matter.html
9) Finally, I am most distressed by what happened to my wife because it was done in front of my son. He is getting old enough to understand these concepts now. We teach him about Jesus, offending God, forgiveness, etc... He sees his daddy with tattoos. When anyone goes off on how tattoos are wrong and how they are a sin while he is standing there - his little brain is getting confused.
If anyone has a personal conviction about any topic and they wish to bring it up to another individual - I would suggest praying about the propriety of that move. If they decide after prayer to still discuss the matter - it should be done with the husband and the wife (minus the kids.)
To rain down condemnation on the wife, in front of the child, is bad judgement and can be far more devastating than a fake CARS tattoo will ever be.
I pray that Joe and Jane will ease up on the dogmatic view they have of tattoos. As Saint Augustine says:
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things - love."
Tattoos are not an essential subject of the faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment