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

Nancy Wilson on tatoos and body piercings

12270 reads

There are 83 Comments

Matthew Richards's picture

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

Gabe Franklin's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
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.

dmicah's picture

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.

Matthew Richards's picture

"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

LydiaH's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
"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

ChrisC's picture

from http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/08/02/markings-piercings-and-blue-h... Markings, Piercings, and Blue Hair :

Quote:
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-tattoo ]So your daughter wants a tattoo :

Quote:
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):
[img ]http://tattoo.about.com/library/graphics/enriqueback.jpg[/img ]
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.

Greg Linscott's picture

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-

Quote:
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

Charlie's picture

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

ChrisC's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:
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 .

Greg Linscott's picture

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

Greg Linscott's picture

Quote:
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

ChrisC's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:
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 ?

Greg Linscott's picture

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...

Quote:
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

John Benzing's picture

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.

Pastor Harold's picture

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.

ChrisC's picture

John Benzing wrote:
I like Chris's explanation of identity...
i think you've got my explanation backwards. i was taking issue with nancy wilson's (i thought her last name was ann at first) explanation that all tattoos are pagan, mostly from http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/07/29/so-your-daughter-wants-a-tattoo ]So your daughter wants a tattoo . i think some tattoos have a positive message and some have a neutral message, but the meaning of the tattoo should be interpreted like any other art form without putting the entire medium in the pagan category.

and i think wilson really misses the boat on interpreting the meaning of the lower back tattoo (also known as a "tramp stamp") and the tongue stud. their meanings have nothing to do with drunk sailors or papuan full-body tattoos.

Greg Linscott wrote:
That's why Wilson also distinguishes...
i reread both articles, especially since i was mostly commenting on http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/07/29/so-your-daughter-wants-a-tattoo ]So your daughter wants a tattoo , and i don't think wilson ever distinguishes between types of tattoos. the sentences you quoted from http://femina.reformedblogs.com/2009/08/02/markings-piercings-and-blue-h... Markings, Piercings, and Blue Hair are a bit confusing, but it seems like she is saying that any piercing or tattoo "fall into the category of outright rebellion", even for the ones that may not seem so bad. i think she only lists one thing she feels is a matter of discernment in the next paragraph: earings.

but maybe there's a misplaced modifier and she really means to say that "cute" tattoos are only bad because they're permanent, but this seems to be a misuse of the word discernment since there isn't actually anything to discern. it's always bad and never good.

John Benzing's picture

Chris, I may not agree with all of your conclusion, but I do think you are right to pass on the idea that a tattoo is necessarily pagan. However, I'm not convinced that it is okay simply because it is art.. The true "art" of our body is the way in which our Creator made us. I believe tattoos and other such defacing are the creatures attempt to take the canvas out of the Master's hands. That is not our right and no matter pagan or not, we are unwise to use our bodies in this manner.

Gabe Franklin's picture

Of course we know that under Old Testament law, the Israelites were forbidden from getting tattoos. I have heard different ideas as to why God made this a law. Maybe I am thinking to simply about this, but wouldn't we assume that the same principles should be applied today. I am not really formulating an argument, gust wondering.

John Benzing's picture

Gabe Franklin wrote:
Of course we know that under Old Testament law, the Israelites were forbidden from getting tattoos. I have heard different ideas as to why God made this a law. Maybe I am thinking to simply about this, but wouldn't we assume that the same principles should be applied today. I am not really formulating an argument, gust wondering.

I don' have the answer, but it is a good idea to discern why God gave this command--it should at least give us pause before we deface our bodies.

Charlie's picture

John Benzing wrote:
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.

John, I think you meant me, since I didn't see Chris explicitly address identity the way I did. I'm glad if you found something I wrote helpful, but I have to wonder if you didn't take what I said somewhere I never intended to go. My intention was not to say that I need express permission from Jesus to alter my physical appearance, only that a consistent Christian should not feel entitled to unlimited redefinition of self. Why would piercing necessarily be an act of rebellion? One question I might ask is, do you see any difference between men and women piercing their ears, or between a woman having a pierced ear and a pierced belly button? Why would face-lifting be messing up my body, if I am actually trying to improve its appearance or restore it to a less degenerated condition? Is tattooing really "messing up" your body? If I tattoo my shoulder, will my arm not rotate?

So, this brings me to the second part of my thoughts, which I think will interact quite significantly with Greg's contribution. What is the relationship between identity and culture? To illustrate three approaches, I will discuss a similar problem in early Greek philosophy. Particularly in the area of politics, the Greeks realized quickly that different people do things differently, and that forms of government, laws, and even standards of justice and morality varied from polis to polis. Recognizing the plurality of cultures even within the limited area of Greece led to three distinct reactions:

1) The Sophists, whom we know about mostly from their detractors, seemed to advocate (or at least engender) a form of relativism. They were traveling teachers who would instruct young men in various arts. During their teaching they would naturally express sentiments that reflected their cosmopolitan lifestyles. When their students, who generally had little exposure outside their own polis, came into contact with these foreign ideas, they naturally became curious as to whether the standards of their own polis were ultimately true or just relative. Many of these young men would pursue their own course rather than conform to societal standards. As a result, the Sophists were generally regarded as relativists who spread confusion and anarchy, even though that was almost certainly not their intention.

2) Protagoras (I believe this is the right guy, I don't have my Copleston on me) advocated a different way. Even though he was ultimately a relativist, believing that there was no "right" culture, nevertheless insisted that individual citizens must conform to the standards of their polis, since the alternative is anarchy. The laws may not be perfect, and maybe there is no such thing as law, but we're better off for it. So Protagoras' relativism actually winds up as provincial absolutism.

3) Socates (or Plato, hard to tell the difference) rejected the idea that there should be a plurality of cultures. There is one qualitatively best way to live, and philosophy holds the answer, or at least the prospect of reaching an answer. Plato's Republic gives one picture of the utopian society, and his later work Laws offers some refinements to the Republic. Other polises (poloi?) should just realize that his way is best.

So, to relate this to our current situation, there are several approaches to the issue that are similar (probably not identical) to these three approaches:

1) Someone might surmise, that since there are multiple cultures, none are really superior or at least there are several viable options. So, this person may feel entitled to simply assume whichever culture fits his personality and views. I think this is the dominant paradigm in the industrialized world and fits the picture I painted in my previous post. Everyone is Irish, at least on St. Patty's Day.

2) Protagoras seems similar (probably not identical) to ideas which Greg Linscott has expressed. God may not have one expressed standard for how many holes are allowed in your body, but each person exists within a context larger than himself, and his actions and choices are bound to be perceived in certain ways. So, a person should strive to operate within the parameters of his context, even if they don't represent absolutes.

3) The Socratic/Platonic absolute method seems to have been employed by certain groups, including some Fundamentalists. An evidence of this is missionaries who go to underdeveloped countries and import concepts such as church pews, skirts and ties, American hymns, and revival meetings. A perhaps less extreme example is pastors who insist that other pastors must wear suits and ties to preach (even in the desert), or that facial hair is unacceptable.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

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

Matthew Richards's picture

Gabe Franklin wrote:
Of course we know that under Old Testament law, the Israelites were forbidden from getting tattoos. I have heard different ideas as to why God made this a law. Maybe I am thinking to simply about this, but wouldn't we assume that the same principles should be applied today. I am not really formulating an argument, gust wondering.

they also were forbidden to wear a mixed garment--let's not even go down that Leviticus road. I am wondering also if we shouldn't just adopt the practice of our Pentecostal friends--no makeup and such. Maybe we should look again at the use of deodorant--God made us a certain way and to smell a certain way so we should not fight it or the beauty of His creation. Women--forget shaving your legs as well--this is ungodly. We could go on and on...

Matthew Richards

Greg Linscott's picture

Quote:
they also were forbidden to wear a mixed garment--let's not even go down that Leviticus road. I am wondering also if we shouldn't just adopt the practice of our Pentecostal friends--no makeup and such. Maybe we should look again at the use of deodorant--God made us a certain way and to smell a certain way so we should not fight it or the beauty of His creation. Women--forget shaving your legs as well--this is ungodly. We could go on and on...

Things like shaving and deodorant come under hygiene or personal cleanliness, which very definitely are concepts compatible with Scripture. The mixed fiber would come under similar categories to consuming shellfish or ham- such things are not expressly forbidden.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Gabe Franklin's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
they also were forbidden to wear a mixed garment--let's not even go down that Leviticus road. I am wondering also if we shouldn't just adopt the practice of our Pentecostal friends--no makeup and such. Maybe we should look again at the use of deodorant--God made us a certain way and to smell a certain way so we should not fight it or the beauty of His creation. Women--forget shaving your legs as well--this is ungodly. We could go on and on...

Matthew Richards


So, are you saying that because it is such a complex issue, that we should not even attempt to understand it? Why would you say "let's not even go down that Leviticus road"? How could the one portion of Scripture that deals with tattoos not be important to this discussion?

When studying the law, we must study the principle behind the commandment. For example in Deut. 22:8, God commands the Israelites to put a railing around their roofs. This was done for their safety because they would spend time on their roofs. Since I do not spend much time on my roof (except after a big windstorm) then I understand that the principle behind this command does not apply. As far as the mixed fibers idea. I believe that the command had more to due with the construction of the material rather than what it signified. If I felt God told them not to get a tattoo because it was dangerous or unhealthy, but that modern day procedures for getting tattoos were much less dangerous, than I would believe that the principle no longer applies.

Pastor Harold's picture

Tell me the benefits of having a tattoo.
Show me how a nose ring can help my walk with God.
Prove that these will not reflect in others eyes the signs of worldliness in my character.

There is no spiritual benefit to any of these things, yet they could possibly affect your witness. Is this not similar to the drinking debate? Why try to defend these things? What do you hope to accomplish by wearing a stud in your eye brow? Do you want attention and to stand out from the crowd? Yes! Rebellion is behind most of this stuff! I hear a lot of "Why not's" but no one can tell me why they should poke holes in them selves and color their skin with permanent marking. Let every thing be done to the glory of God.

John Benzing's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:
"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

I think your aversion to Hyles may have caused you to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because two people disagree on what is worldly doesn't mean one of them can't be wrong.

Kevin Subra's picture

The OT cannot be wholly rejected, even if it is understood to be a direct command to Israel. Do not such limitations (mixed cloth) reflect in some way the nature and character of God? There is some weight to such which is reflected in God's commands regarding forbidden physical intercourse, etc. We don't lightly toss those out, do we?

The whole legalistic argument is overstated. For example, mention clothing at all, and people "Hyles" you. However, even in the NT, clothing is clearly something addressed in 1 Tim 2, and is required to be modest, and not attention-drawing (in the least), and it specifically addresses it in light of women (as opposed to men) who live godly (so it reflects a godly femininity that is distinct from male dress).

I would say, leaving Leviticus aside, that one still would need to have some clear reason to get a tattoo. Even if we could agree that a tattoo in and of itself is not wrong, one still would have to grapple with (1) who owns my body (1 Cor 6:19-20) and (2) who is getting the attention (1 Cor 10:31)? What evangelistic or disciple-enhancing or kingdom-building purpose would be served by a tattoo?

For the Shepherd and His sheep,
Kevin
Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings.
http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com

Matthew Richards's picture

John Benzing wrote:
Matthew Richards wrote:
"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

I think your aversion to Hyles may have caused you to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because two people disagree on what is worldly doesn't mean one of them can't be wrong.

John,

my lack of affinity for hyles notwithstanding, I have not thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I was simply making the true statement that he had used the old "devil's uniform" bit as a launch pad for all sorts of wacky cultural dress and hair standards--nothing more and nothing less.

Matthew Richards

Matthew Richards's picture

Gabe Franklin wrote:
Matthew Richards wrote:
they also were forbidden to wear a mixed garment--let's not even go down that Leviticus road. I am wondering also if we shouldn't just adopt the practice of our Pentecostal friends--no makeup and such. Maybe we should look again at the use of deodorant--God made us a certain way and to smell a certain way so we should not fight it or the beauty of His creation. Women--forget shaving your legs as well--this is ungodly. We could go on and on...

Matthew Richards


So, are you saying that because it is such a complex issue, that we should not even attempt to understand it? Why would you say "let's not even go down that Leviticus road"? How could the one portion of Scripture that deals with tattoos not be important to this discussion?

When studying the law, we must study the principle behind the commandment. For example in Deut. 22:8, God commands the Israelites to put a railing around their roofs. This was done for their safety because they would spend time on their roofs. Since I do not spend much time on my roof (except after a big windstorm) then I understand that the principle behind this command does not apply. As far as the mixed fibers idea. I believe that the command had more to due with the construction of the material rather than what it signified. If I felt God told them not to get a tattoo because it was dangerous or unhealthy, but that modern day procedures for getting tattoos were much less dangerous, than I would believe that the principle no longer applies.

Gabe,

Your interpretation of Leviticus is probably very good. I am curious as to who determines which parts of Leviticus to follow and which parts not to follow? God says not to wear a mixed garment and you have a perfect explanation for the reason behind the command--no doubt there is an excellent explanation for why God told them not to scar in this manner as well back in those days. Let's think through this one a bit...this is a great discussion!

Matthew Richards

Matthew Richards's picture

Greg Linscott wrote:
Quote:
they also were forbidden to wear a mixed garment--let's not even go down that Leviticus road. I am wondering also if we shouldn't just adopt the practice of our Pentecostal friends--no makeup and such. Maybe we should look again at the use of deodorant--God made us a certain way and to smell a certain way so we should not fight it or the beauty of His creation. Women--forget shaving your legs as well--this is ungodly. We could go on and on...

Things like shaving and deodorant come under hygiene or personal cleanliness, which very definitely are concepts compatible with Scripture. The mixed fiber would come under similar categories to consuming shellfish or ham- such things are not expressly forbidden.

Greg,

Certainly the deodorant crack I made was very weak but I would say that the shaving part and makeup in general does not fall under hygiene or personal cleanliness clause. I believe that European women have it right--if God didn't want women to have hairy legs he would have made them that way. They are obviously the most godly of all women since they accept themselves the way God created them. Of course I am playing a bit here but it was just in response to a comment earlier regarding temporary hair color/face painting. BTW, at the present time I have no ink and have no desire to receive any tattoos.

Matthew Richards

Greg Long's picture

Since no one else has yet to do so (surprisingly), I guess I'll have to be the one to point out that God has a tattoo (Is. 49:16) and Jesus has a tattoo (Rev. 19:16).

P.S. I don't.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Pages