It's a strange issue to have to discuss, all the more because
it wasn't that long ago that this issue was unheard of. Tattoos were pretty
rare and almost unheard of among Christians. Additionally the idea of
Christian-themed tattoos would have been viewed as something not only bizarre
but something laughable, absurd, an oxymoronic suggestion to be sure.
And yet culture changes and values shift and just because
generations saw something as wrong, doesn't mean that they were always right.
Maybe centuries of tradition on this point were mistaken and not only is it
okay to get a tattoo but maybe Christians should do so as an act of devotion.
The discussion here is restricted to professing Christians. I
am not trying to address pagan society on this point. There are no good
arguments against tattoos that would apply to lost people. Apart from just
being vain and foolish, the ethics and arguments upon which a Christian
anti-tattoo position is established would mean nothing to do them.
And is that what I'm saying? Is it wrong for a Christian to
get a tattoo? Yes, I am but I hope to tackle this question with a little more
wisdom and nuance than what one might normally encounter.
So what's the issue? What's the problem?
Let's set the context, consider some of the common arguments
against Christian tattooing and demonstrate why most of these positions are
actually flawed.
Most criticisms come from the standpoint of social
conservatism. For example, tattooing is heathen and represents a regression to
the days before Christendom.
While it's largely true, I don't buy it. It will be granted
that tattooing largely disappeared with Christianisation and that the timing of
its cultural return being coincident with rampant secularism is suspect.
And yet the argument fails in many respects as so much of
what has been deemed 'Christian' culture is really little more than baptised
heathenism itself. Christendom, a moniker for Christian culture and
civilisation is itself an unbiblical concept and represents not the triumph of
Biblical doctrine but a compromise with the world.
Historical arguments always carry some weight but at the same
time can almost never be conclusive.
Additionally (in our time) such arguments are also prone to
rest in the values and expectations of the Middle Class and its values of
security and respectability. The issue here is not in reference to security but
in terms of social acceptance, and the 'decency' granted to the middle class.
But of course these values prove elusive and a close
examination will discover they are in fact fluid and dynamic, ever changing and
often intertwined with immorality.
Regular readers will know the values of the bourgeoisie are
not a set of concerns that resonate with this author. Many of the assumptions
and values of the middle class are (I would argue) profoundly anti-Christian
and so we can say that concerns for conformity as well as that sector's
definitions of 'respectability' are of little import to believers shaping their
doctrine from the New Testament.
What about the question of etiquette and manners? Again,
these questions prove difficult and conclusions are far from concrete. 18th
century aristocratic manners would have often been considered fairly offensive
by the Victorians and in many cases even by today's standards.
The notion of politeness I think comes into play and respect
for others should affect how we think and therefore (to a degree) how we
interact with them. This includes dress and grooming and yet to be honest I
would only take it so far. Clearly this was not a concern of either Christ or
His followers within the pages of the New Testament. On the contrary many
'respectable' folks would likely have found both Christ and the Apostles to be
fairly offensive in their appearance and social status.
The question of politeness is an open one but the question of
respectability can be summarily dismissed. Actually if anything I'm more likely
to resonate with the down and out folks living in the crumbling buildings, with
the folk who are the outsiders and the despised, the rejected who have
(consciously or not) discarded and even abandoned the system.
Tattoos at one time expressed this along with other forms of
self-destructive defacing behaviour. While this segment of fringe society often
strays into immorality there are principles embedded in their thinking (at
least for the more intellectual among them) that are strangely enough somewhat
resonant with the social critique we as Christians should offer. That said, the
response and solutions couldn't be more different.
Other criticisms are wont to come from references to Old
Testament Law and Leviticus in particular. But if the New Testament teaches the
Mosaic Law has been abrogated, what then? Contrary to the assertions of Theonomists,
we don't actually need the Old Testament to tell us bestiality and tattoos are
wrong.
I will grant that for Christians a general equity is
applicable but again I restrict that to the covenant and there's no basis to
apply it to pagan society at large. Though some erroneously argue that legal
universality was the telos-design of Mosaic Law, it was never the intention of
Old Testament and it's certainly not in the New. The equity is not universal
but covenantal and Christocentric.
Pagan societies were condemned for what could be called a
general framework of natural law violations. I say general because I am not an
advocate of the Natural Law project, neither the Thomistic nor the variety
represented by some within Reformed Two-Kingdom circles. Their understanding of
Two Kingdoms is in reality a One Kingdom model with a dual aspect, a position
at odds with the older Two Kingdom views of groups like the Waldensians and
what I would argue is presented in the New Testament itself.
The nations were condemned for avarice, murder, lack of mercy,
injustice, idolatry etc. They were never condemned for violations of Old
Testament law, for desecrating the Sabbath, for failing to keep Passover,
circumcision or any of the other covenant ordinances.
So then what's left, what can be said about tattoos?
I'm afraid once again it comes down to an oft repeated and
appealed to principle. It comes down to the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.
When discussing tattoos, usually one hears....
That it's a way to express one's self.
But we're told by the Scriptures to die to self, to set aside
our desires, even our identity. We become slaves to our Risen Redeemer. This is
the significance of Union with Christ.
Where then do we find this concern to call attention to
ourselves and to focus on the very passions and fleshly impulses that we're
called to suppress? We don't and this is why 'expressing one's self' would
strike Christians of old as a strange and alien sentiment.
Should this also affect how we dress?
Yes, contrary to the many sects enslaved by legalism, modesty
stems primarily not from 'a look' but a mindset which is about not calling attention to one's self.
This has been utterly lost and sadly many of the 'modesty' sects like
Fundamentalists and Holiness groups don't understand it either. They're
focusing, even obsessing about themselves and calling attention to themselves
by embracing a certain type of 'look'.... the exact opposite of modesty.
What about women doing their hair, jewelry etc.?
Obviously it can be taken too far, a point dealt with in the
epistles. But the plain look can also become a point of pride, a point of focus
especially when the plain person focuses on everyone else and judges them as
not being plain enough.
Even in the seemingly strict Old Testament there are
suggestions of women wearing jewelry and appearing beautiful. It's not sinful
in itself but likewise Isaiah as well as Peter condemn a different type of accoutrement,
a femininity gone astray and abused.
Femininity and a basic adornment are fine. They are in
keeping with the nature of womanhood, but beware. Loveliness can quickly turn
sour if the shamefacedness Paul speaks of in 1 Timothy is set aside. Oh and how
it has been set aside. It is a completely foreign concept to most today and
rare indeed in Evangelical circles.
Accoutrements can be worn or cast off as occasion demands.
They can be reflected on and set aside. They intrinsically are impermanent and
contextual. Tattoos are of a different order and represent a different kind of
vanity.