"The fact that I 'have some verses' doesn't keep it from being completely misleading."
A great set of observations, but I had two small counter-thoughts:
1). I’m not sure the conservative Christian family always knows what all these cultural things mean. I think many times they know what it meant 5 or 10 years ago, perhaps because of an article they read. Eventually these things do become “generalized” within the culture. A great example is tattoos. They clearly indicated lower education, lower socio-economic class, and lowered expectations for life achievement a decade or two ago (and I’m not saying indicating those was evil). But I’m rather sure they are not limited to that cultural set now. I see them on doctors, lawyers, and a church board member here or there.
2). I was a little uncomfortable with the quick transition from “it’s not inherently sinful” to the “public act/community/make yourself a topic of discussion” thing. I’m not sure that’s the best argument to give a 20-something about not getting a nose-ring. It seems there should be a little more work in between. We desperately need some work in a theology of cultural analysis from which we can draw ethics of cultural interaction. It seems like much of the theorization done in these areas comes from two extremes. The “fit in better to reach them” crew and the “isolate from them so we’re not polluted by them” crew both have some pretty powerful Scripture passages to explain away before I can be convinced.
1). I’m not sure the conservative Christian family always knows what all these cultural things mean. I think many times they know what it meant 5 or 10 years ago, perhaps because of an article they read. Eventually these things do become “generalized” within the culture. A great example is tattoos. They clearly indicated lower education, lower socio-economic class, and lowered expectations for life achievement a decade or two ago (and I’m not saying indicating those was evil). But I’m rather sure they are not limited to that cultural set now. I see them on doctors, lawyers, and a church board member here or there.
2). I was a little uncomfortable with the quick transition from “it’s not inherently sinful” to the “public act/community/make yourself a topic of discussion” thing. I’m not sure that’s the best argument to give a 20-something about not getting a nose-ring. It seems there should be a little more work in between. We desperately need some work in a theology of cultural analysis from which we can draw ethics of cultural interaction. It seems like much of the theorization done in these areas comes from two extremes. The “fit in better to reach them” crew and the “isolate from them so we’re not polluted by them” crew both have some pretty powerful Scripture passages to explain away before I can be convinced.
A great example is tattoos. They clearly indicated lower education, lower socio-economic class, and lowered expectations for life achievement a decade or two ago (and I’m not saying indicating those was evil). But I’m rather sure they are not limited to that cultural set now. I see them on doctors, lawyers, and a church board member here or there.Ok… but how many of those people got them as some kind of statement in their college years? I’m really asking here- I understand that tattoos might be more common than they used to be, but I still don’t think that we can say that they are so common that doctors and lawyers between 45-60 are among the frequent customers at the local tattoo parlor, or that it is common to see parlors nestled between your local Starbucks and Best Buy. Furthermore, class distinctions aside for the moment, I do think we can say that whatever else one might say directly with the tattoo itself (“Mom,” “USMC,” etc…), that a tattoo is generally a brash, in your face way to say it. I’m sure someone will bring up the private tattoo in intimate locations, but even those are meant to be (continually) provocative, at least by those who are aware of them. Just because the communication method has become more commonplace and accepted doesn’t mean that “the conservative Christian family” isn’t aware of “what all these cultural things mean.”
It seems like much of the theorization done in these areas comes from two extremes. The “fit in better to reach them” crew and the “isolate from them so we’re not polluted by them” crew both have some pretty powerful Scripture passages to explain away before I can be convinced.The “fit in better” arguments hold little water, it seems to me. If one wants to be effective as a medical professional, government official, or even a letter carrier, it makes little difference if one has a tattoo, dreadlocks or what have you. It has to do with ideas. It has to do with how you do your job. It has to do with how you treat people. And on we could go… My point is that people can certainly be found endearing without these external things- even by others who (gladly) have them.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]…but I still don’t think that we can say that they are so common that doctors and lawyers between 45-60 are among the frequent customers at the local tattoo parlor, or that it is common to see parlors nestled between your local Starbucks and Best Buy…Actually there is a tattoo parlor in our local mall now.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I’d be curious to know. I’m guessing we’re not talking Jordan Creek.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott] I’d be curious to know. I’m guessing we’re not talking Jordan Creek.Valley West.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
In doing anything like this, something that advances the adoption of certain worldly practices in the church, you are placing yourself on the agenda of numerous dinner table conversations. These conversations are not gossip. These conversations, with your name in them, need to occur. And by adopting certain practices, you are the one who put your name into nomination to be used in those discussions.While Wilson is right, that the topic itself may become an agenda, he is wrong if he believes talking about the person themselves is not gossip.
Overall I found the treatment of the topic ineffective and saturated with Reformed piety with the self-serving description of those engaging in these practices as “worldlings”, so as to insure everyone reading knows those opposing Wilson’s sentiments are to be identified as such. Rather convenient.
As to the practice itself (and other similar practices), I find them to be indiscretions that Wilson does rightly identify as having some incongruity with our identity as Christians, though I cannot say I would subscribe to his form of deliberation on the matter which I see tends to point away from grace when one moves away from a context where they rightly can make a determination with their child to that of others, particularly adults, where such a person may be completely ignorant of the context of such markings or adornments and where Wilson’s prescription can lead to the very opposite of what God’s Word intends.
…but I still don’t think that we can say that they are so common that doctors and lawyers between 45-60 are among the frequent customers at the local tattoo parlor, or that it is common to see parlors nestled between your local Starbucks and Best Buy.Next time you’re in Ankeny, Greg, you need to check out the new “family-friendly” tattoo shop we have. It is between a coffee shop and a clothing store.
The irony is that often the worldings who develop these things know what they mean, and culturally conservative Christians know what they mean too. The Christians who adopt them thoughtlessly are the ones who can’t read the language they have attached so visibly to their bodies.I’m not sure I follow his assertions. I can see that the “worldlings who develop these things” understand what they are attempting to communicate, but he is assuming an awful lot after that. Considering myself and most of my social circles to be “culturally conservative Christians,” and considering myself to be well-educated and well-aware of my surroundings and culture at large, I have to admit I am inept at deciphering the meanings (conscious, subliminal, or what have you) of tattoos. Perhaps I’m thoughtless too (even though I don’t have a tattoo)?
Which leads me to a set of questions: Why are those Christians so thoughtless? And why are we (I’m including myself here) unable to read the language of culture in this regard? Should I be concerned that I don’t understand one of the languages of culture?
Discussion