"No need to wear the pagan uniform, and even worse to envy it."

Nancy Wilson on tatoos and body piercings

Discussion

Unfortunately I heard this very same argument growing up in Hylesdom in relation to women only wearing skirts and dresses and men wearing tapered haircuts. Weak and legalistic IMHO. BTW I don’t have any tatts.

Matthew Richards

[Matthew Richards] Unfortunately I heard this very same argument growing up in Hylesdom in relation to women only wearing skirts and dresses and men wearing tapered haircuts. Weak and legalistic IMHO. BTW I don’t have any tatts.

Matthew Richards

Just because some people were wrong in labeling certain things as worldly, does not mean that anyone else who labels something as worldly is also wrong. I am afraid that we have responded to charges of legalism by refusing to label anything as worldly in fear of being labeled a legalist. I think the author did a very good job of explaining the worldliness of this choices.

actually she didn’t really explain…she just said it was wrong. so it must be wrong. she called it worldly because some folks in a third world country wear tattoos. not a strong argument. i think matthew is correct, it is old fashioned rule based decision making.

“worldly” to one is not so “worldly” to another—two people can disagree on this sort of cultural issue and both still be passionate Christ followers. I don’t think everything labeled as “worldly” isn’t such just because of the garbage I heard under the Hyles regime. Point is that good people can disagree on it regardless of the old “don’t wear the uniform” play that is quite tired now IMHO.

Matthew Richards

[Matthew Richards] “worldly” to one is not so “worldly” to another—two people can disagree on this sort of cultural issue and both still be passionate Christ followers. I don’t think everything labeled as “worldly” isn’t such just because of the garbage I heard under the Hyles regime. Point is that good people can disagree on it regardless of the old “don’t wear the uniform” play that is quite tired now IMHO.
I think that would it depend upon what image of Christ they are following. The image that they have made Him to be or the image that He is. 1Jn 2:15 “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” I think some have trouble defining “the world.”

I thought that it was a pretty interesting article. Brave of her to write about it.

Respectfully,
Lydia

from http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/08/02/markings-piercings-and-blue-… Markings, Piercings, and Blue Hair :
Rings in the nose, eyebrows, tongue or lip can be more of the same cries for help from sad and lonely people who do not know who they are.
or the nose ring can be a normal piece of jewelry as seen in genesis 24, isaiah 3 and ezekiel 16.

———

from http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/07/29/so-your-daughter-wants-a-tat…] So your daughter wants a tattoo :
Tattoos and body piercings are historically pagan… Tattoos are part of the uniform of the [devil’s] team…
i have a hard time seeing how this is pagan (catholic – sure, but not pagan):
http://tattoo.about.com/library/graphics/enriqueback.jpg
tattoos from pagan civilizations reflect pagan ideology just like any of their other art forms. i don’t see anyone saying pottery decorations are pagan because pagans use pagan iconography in their decorations. if you think a flower decorating an ankle is pagan or part of the devil’s uniform, you need to get out more.

i don’t have a tattoo, but it’s because i’m not interested and i’ve never thought of any design i’d want to have on me forever, not because it’s pagan or forbidden.

i wonder if this lady has a problem with face painting for kids. her logic about tattoos should apply just as completely to some five-year-old getting their face painted like a tiger.

To those of you objecting to or dismissing the reasoning being applied, would you object as strenuously to say, someone identifying objectionable language (corrupt communication)?

As far as pagan reasoning goes, I think example Chris provided can be explained by this quote of Wilson’s-
If we belong to Christ, if we are His own special people, then we are set free from sin and death. We don’t need to live in it any longer, and we don’t have to drag our chains around with us. We are unshackled and made new creations in Christ. A people zealous for good works. This is what should define us, not the markings and piercings of a lost generation.
In other words, it is a pagan notion to think that the example of the tattoo provided would in some way have a positive, meaningful Christian significance before God.

Regarding the face painting- it’s not the same thing. Face paint is easily washed away, and does not have the same lasting consequences as do the disfigurements being discussed here. In many contexts, face paint is applied in a utilitarian fashion- say, eye black for athletes, or camouflage for a hunter or soldier- that isn’t much different than wearing a protective helmet or pair of sunglasses. It does not become a permanent identifier as do tattoos or piercings.

The point Wilson is making is not necessarily a universal forbidding, either. We recognize that there are words, gestures, and symbols that have evil connotations in specific contexts, but might not universally or at all times. Think the swastika- before being adopted by the Nazis in 1920, it had nothing like the connotation it has today. Wilson is addressing the significance of what these things mean today in our cultural context- which none of you have attempted to counter.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Disclaimer: I didn’t read Wilson’s articles.

Part of the difficulty in discussing an issue like this is that it falls into the broader subject area of identity. Throughout most of history, identity has been viewed as something that is assigned to you by your cultural context. Your job, your religion, your clothes, your hair length and style, etc. could all be determined by the circumstances of your birth. With the birth of the modern era, we have seen a shift toward the individual determining his or her own identity. Michael Jackson’s not-so-successful move from black to white illustrates the desire to have full control over determining one’s identity. The most extreme example of this that I’ve seen is a judge on the show America’s Next Top Model. I don’t really know anything about him, since I don’t watch the show, but I noticed a man dressed in woman’s clothing talking in a feminine voice. His (her?) compatriots referred to him as “Mrs. something” and used feminine pronouns to refer to her (er, him). This is, in my mind, even more extreme than a sex change of Jackson’s skin bleach, because he didn’t even look like a woman! He didn’t even feel the need to have reconstructive surgery. He could be a woman just by saying so, and enforcing that decision on the people around him. “Call me Mrs….”

The larger issue facing us is who or what determines our identity. As long as people think that things like gender and race are within the realm of self-determination (or are even close to this point), I doubt that any cultural association argument against anything will be heard. Someone could simply say, “Well, I don’t mean anything by the swastika except that I like the way it looks. It’s just a picture.” That is an entirely plausible response in this culture. Don’t put me in a box, don’t define me in any way that I wouldn’t define myself. I can make anything about me mean whatever I want.

I think as Christians we can say that our identity is found in Christ, since we have died to ourselves and it is now Christ who lives in us (Gal. 2:20). However, we don’t always know how that translates into the real specifics of life. Many of the Fundamentalist arguments against tatoos or long hair or even dress seem to me to be missing the deeper issue of who determines identity and how. On the other hand, I’m not saying that the conclusions of those arguments are necessarily wrong. I think if Christians moved the discussion to a higher level, there would be a greater prospect for clarity about these matters.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Greg Linscott] Regarding the face painting- it’s not the same thing.
there are differences, the most obvious being permanence. but if face painting has a pagan connection equivalent to tattooing, it shouldn’t matter whether the mark lasts hours or decades. i was making the connection in terms of nancy ann’s understanding of tattoos in the context of paganism because of her visit to new guinea. http://www.ericlafforgue.com/papua.htm face painting is a big deal there .

I imagine that if the face-painting trend took off as portrayed in your link, there would be good reason for believers to avoid it.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Someone could simply say, “Well, I don’t mean anything by the swastika except that I like the way it looks. It’s just a picture.” That is an entirely plausible response in this culture.
It’s plausible that someone would offer that, true. Whether or not it would ever be universally accepted in this culture is another matter.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Greg Linscott] I imagine that if the face-painting trend took off as portrayed in your link, there would be good reason for believers to avoid it.
so should a multi-colored tattoo of a flower wrapped around an ankle still count as a paganism when it’s quite different from http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tribal_tattoos_papua_new_guinea.htm how new guinea women were tattooed in the past ?

Chris,

If that was the only argument being presented, I suppose you’d have a point. But the New Guinea argument is only one reference amongst many others.

A flower wrapped around an ankle? Perhaps not the worst thing ever- fine. That’s why Wilson also distinguishes…
Some of these things like piercings and tattoos fall into the category of outright rebellion, and some fall into the category of using discernment and wisdom. For example, a tattoo, no matter how “cute” it may seem at the time, can certainly (at the very least) create the potential for regret later. So it is foolish and short-sighted. Blue hair can be washed out, but it is still like painting an ugly mustache on the Mona Lisa. Temporary or not, everyone knows it does not belong there.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

I like Chris’s explanation of identity because it goes in a direction that has helped me in thinking about tattoos and piercings. I think the issue for the Christian comes down to who owns our bodies. Everything I do to or with my body should be processed through the teaching that the Christian’s body (not just the spirit) is owned by Christ—he bought it. I should not have the idea that I can do this just because I wnat to do it and it only affects my body. These are not our bodies. So even temporary defacing is misusing the body that Christ has bought.

It all seems to have at its heart a prideful, haughty “this is my body and I’ll mess it up if I want to.” So piercing, tattooing, bleaching, face-lifting, gorging—you name it—are rebellious acts of people trying to throw God off and completely owning their bodies.

If one has to take his shirt off for it to be used; how effective is his Tattoo? Other than my family how many people have seen my bare back in the last 10 yrs?

This should not even be up for debate! Many Christians like OT Jews are always looking for loop holes in God’s Word that allow them fellowship with the world. I don’t have any ink stains or extra holes in my body, and I do not ever encourage any one else to get any. Let us not hold mistakes in ones past against them, but lets be clear about who we are now, God’s Children. My dad had some rules when I lived in his home and I have some standards for my kids. Can our heavenly Father not have some high standards for his Children? “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

It is not “Why not?” but rather “What for?”. There are no good reasons for these things.