"At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women"

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

And at the end of the day, I would rather be surrounded by a bunch of brothers and sisters full of tattoos and piercings than to be with a bunch of suit wearing hypocrites.

Are those the only choices we have? Why not opt for a bunch of people filled with the calmness and peace of the Holy Spirit? That's what we need to be trying to accomplish in our flesh for the sake of the kingdom. That will go farther, to more people, and accomplish much more than a tattoo. And it won't leave ugly stains later in life, lol.

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

It's not. That's why I suggest it's not as effective as one might claim. I'm suggesting it may in fact be counter productive. For the reasons I stated.

I say just skip the tattoos, and the ugly stains they will become when you're old, and nurture a more effective mark of your faith in your flesh. One that both the world and believers will universally respect--"righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit". You know, the fruit of the Spirit. It causes no one to stumble, there is no law against it, and it's pleasing to both God and man, witnessing the truth and reality of God in a way nothing else can compare.

Jethro: Oh I agree, the power and joy of the Spirit are essential and don't need a faith related tattoo design.

I still wouldn't discount the possibility of initial contacts coming about because of a Bible ref. tattoo, etc., nor would I discount the possibility of blessing later resulting. Nor would I suggest that those who choose this as one means to communicate their convictions shouldn't be respected (Romans 14 again).

Blessings.

 

[Pard]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

I do feel that a tattoo as a mark of faith, with the intent to be a means of ministering, is slightly silly at best and down right lazy and hypocritical at the worst. A Christian should have no need of a mark or symbol to distinguish himself as a Christian. A Christian should be someone who can be distinguished simply by their actions and words. And I do say should because I struggle with with quality more than anyone else at times. And in this way it is slightly silly, but I am not going to say it is pointless, because I do wear a cross around my neck, though I must admit it is more for myself than for anyone else.

At the worst it is lazy and hypocritical because if you cannot be distinguished from the rapscallions of the world without your tattoo than you need to concern yourself with the matter of your own salvation and let the matter of others be left to those who are secured in it.

This being said, my largest reason against a tattoo is the cost of it! Lordy! Even a small tattoo is a few hundred bucks! I'd rather put that money into the Lord's purse, where I know it can be a blessing, than to put it into a silly thing like a tattoo which will only last as long as this body lasts, because when we are made anew in Heaven earthly marks will be nonexistent on our bodies.

 

[Navigator]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

I think the 'them' is referring to tattoos, not people.

Haha! Touche! So I rephrase the question, why are we preaching AGAINST tattoos? Is it really that important an issue?

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

Well, folks, over 100 posts on the thread, now. Keep up the interesting discussion!

Thanks for the votes, too. (Has everyone voted yet that posted?)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

In what way is a tattoo, in of itself, sinful?

Now, if someone got a tattoo because they were being rebellious...then that would be sinful... but the mere presence of a tattoo?

I don't believe there is anything inherently sinful about a tattoo.

Correct. But that is not the point. It's how the tattoo is perceived. That is where the problem lies.

I think this could be compared to a woman wearing a skirt that hits her knees...

A young woman wearing such a skirt in the '20's would be considered a loose woman, a tart even. The flappers were "bad" girls.

A young woman wearing such a skirt today would be considered modest.. many Christian parents probably don't allow their daughters to wear any other type of skirt.

And if the flapper generation was still alive today in numbers it would be no different than this issue about tattoos. But, since that generation has passed the argument is not useful.

The length of skirt in of itself isn't sinful (well, unless it's not covering the bum). But, the attitude that society has towards the hemline... knee high being scandalous during the '20's but conservative in 2012... is what counts.

Correct...it's all about attitude. And until the attitude about tatts becomes like the attitude about flapper's skirts we can't just decide we all must accept the new thinking about it and ignore those who aren't prepared by conscience to think differently about it and incorporate it into the spreading of the gospel to the world. Love demands that we consider the conscience of those who don't have the faith of others to indulge debatable things with clear consciences. Read Romans 14.

As with all things, the Lord looks at the heart. The heart of a woman wearing a knee length skirt in 1920 was one of rebellion and trying to shock. The heart of a woman wearing a knee length skirt in 2012 is trying to be modest.

I believe this fits well in with tattoos... Tattoos in the 50's, 60's and even 70's were associated with sailors, bikers and rough, rebellious type people.

And many people from the 50's, 60's, and 70's are still alive and well. And until we die off, tattoos will continue to be a legitimate cultural issue no mater what people insist has changed in regard to tattoos and our culture.

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

..

And many people from the 50's, 60's, and 70's are still alive and well. And until we die off, tattoos will continue to be a legitimate cultural issue no mater what people insist has changed in regard to tattoos and our culture.

Jethro:

I see some of your point, but I don't think either than those who lived in certain decades have a veto over other people, several decades later.

This is apparently a fact: in North America, a majority of tattoo parlor clients are women. That there has been this very large trend among women is undeniable: the various women of a certain age mentioned by handy at her conservative church kind of prove the point. And so for example a pastor's wife with a Bible ref. wrist tattoo cannot reasonably be assumed to be 'a bad person', or whatever, even by someone alive now who was also alive and with opinions 50 or 60 years ago. It's just unrealistic, I feel.

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

Haha! Touche! So I rephrase the question, why are we preaching AGAINST tattoos? Is it really that important an issue?

Yes, it is.

I really don't think we should be communicating to the world and the church that the Christian life includes getting a tattoo. Despite what some people insist, tattoos still generally signify the very wrong, and ungodly reasons people have historically gotten them.

So, until my generation dies off it simply should not be purposely embraced and endorsed by Christians as some kind of friendly olive branch extended to a world separated by the attitudes and motivations that made them get tattooed in the first place.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

Jethro:

I see some of your point, but I don't think either than those who lived in certain decades have a veto over other people, several decades later.

If they were only a handful of us left, outside of the mainstream of active society, I'd agree.

Romans 14 makes it very clear that you are very wrong.

This is apparently a fact: in North America, a majority of tattoo parlor clients are women. That there has been this very large trend among women is undeniable: the various women of a certain age mentioned by handy at her conservative church kind of prove the point. And so for example a pastor's wife with a Bible ref. wrist tattoo cannot reasonably be assumed to be 'a bad person', or whatever, even by someone alive now who was also alive and with opinions 50 or 60 years ago. It's just unrealistic, I feel.

Blessings.

I'll be perfectly and honestly blunt and say that I think it is this mindless sexualizaton of our society that is driving this trend of woman getting tattooed.

I can already hear the resistance to that charge, but you'll have a hard time proving otherwise in the face of such overwhelming evidence we can see with our own eyes.

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

If they were only a handful of us left, outside of the mainstream of active society, I'd agree.

Romans 14 makes it very clear that you are very wrong.

Jethro:

You see, when I read Romans 14, I actually come to the opposite conclusion, because in the face of trends borne of decades, someone can't reasonably persist in disallowing large numbers of Christians that they may reasonably want to have a witness design and be persuaded of it in their own minds.

I'll be perfectly and honestly blunt and say that I think it is this mindless sexualizaton of our society that is driving this trend of woman getting tattooed.

I can already hear the resistance to that charge, but you'll have a hard time proving otherwise in the face of such overwhelming evidence we can see with our own eyes.

Some placements may undoubtedly be so, but then you could say that about a wide range of things that are worn.

But how is for example a Bible reference on a wrist supposed to turn a pastor's wife or a soccer mom into a woman of ill repute, if this is what you are suggesting? I don't think that this line of thinking can be reasonably maintained in the face of the fact that a majority of parlor clients in North America are women and the fact that many Godly Christians have faith related ink.

I do think that you are using emotive terms which simply do not fit the reality of the situation for many people, including probably the several women in handy's conservative church.

Blessings.

 

[Navigator]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

Yes, it is.

I really don't think we should be communicating to the world and the church that the Christian life includes getting a tattoo. Despite what some people insist, tattoos still generally signify the very wrong, and ungodly reasons people have historically gotten them.

So, until my generation dies off it simply should not be purposely embraced and endorsed by Christians as some kind of friendly olive branch extended to a world separated by the attitudes and motivations that made them get tattooed in the first place.

So are you afraid that the Christian body may face a little backlash because of this? Going back to the circumcision "comparison," uncircumcised people (physically) were viewed as unworthy or simply "less than," but look at Titus who traveled with Paul...the man spent close to what? 15 years preaching the Gospel and probably got some flak for having a physical difference compared to the others sharers of the Gospel. He was a Greek and not being circumcised was common, though viewed by Jews as unclean or sinful.... Did he wait until the generations died off where being uncircumcised wouldn't be that big of a deal? Nope. He shared the Gospel regardless.

Whether or not these people are sharing the Gospel is an important issue...whether or not they have ink on their bodies is not...

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

..
This being said, my largest reason against a tattoo is the cost of it! ..

Pard:

Actually it does depend a lot on the size and the design.

Blessings.

 

[Stan53]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

But the motivations and intents of the heart that put them there are. That's the point I'm stressing.

Sorry, I'm missing your point, whatever it is. Either believers or unbelievers can have good or bad intentions when it comes to tats. My point is that Christians who HAVE tats are more likely to have credibility with an unsaved person with tats. Just as I had more credibility when I was much younger, witnessing to kids on the street doing drugs because I came from the street and did drugs. It's NOT a requirement, but it is something that God uses. It shows that Christians do not always come from a place that cannot cause empathy. People want to know you are no better than them and when they see the difference in your life now from theirs and the fact that you were like them, they come to the realization that God does understand them and does NOT condemn them for their past action or who they are now.

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

Either believers or unbelievers can have good or bad intentions when it comes to tats.

Stan53:

It's really hard to argue that a believer has a bad intention in getting a faith related tattoo design. And I think you would have been annoyed if someone seriously tried to tell this to your daughter and sons, right.

Blessings.

 

[handy]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

And many people from the 50's, 60's, and 70's are still alive and well. And until we die off, tattoos will continue to be a legitimate cultural issue no mater what people insist has changed in regard to tattoos and our culture.

I don't know... I'm from the 60's-70's generation... born in '61. I don't know all that many my age that still view tattoos as that big of an issue. 'Smatter of fact, many people my age are getting tattoos if they don't already have one.

Read Romans 14.

You see, when I read Romans 14, I actually come to the opposite conclusion,

I've read Romans 14 as well and come to the opposite conclusion also... the conclusion being that we really shouldn't judge anyone for these kinds of issues.... from someone eating meat as opposed to veggies, to Nina (who is about my age), down at church who has a butterfly tattooed just above her ankle, for all to see when she kneels before the alter to take communion.

I just have a hard time believing that Nina's tattoo is leading anyone into sin.

Now, if tattoos were inherently sinful, then yes, there would be a problem. But, since tattoos are not inherently sinful... and are no longer are the provenance of the rebellious and sinful... just what sin would that butterfly tattoo be leading someone into?

 

[handy]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

So are you afraid that the Christian body may face a little backlash because of this? Going back to the circumcision "comparison," uncircumcised people (physically) were viewed as unworthy or simply "less than," but look at Titus who traveled with Paul...the man spent close to what? 15 years preaching the Gospel and probably got some flak for having a physical difference compared to the others sharers of the Gospel. He was a Greek and not being circumcised was common, though viewed by Jews as unclean or sinful.... Did he wait until the generations died off where being uncircumcised wouldn't be that big of a deal? Nope. He shared the Gospel regardless.

Whether or not these people are sharing the Gospel is an important issue...whether or not they have ink on their bodies is not...

 

[farouk]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

I don't know... I'm from the 60's-70's generation... born in '61. I don't know all that many my age that still view tattoos as that big of an issue. 'Smatter of fact, many people my age are getting tattoos if they don't already have one.



I've read Romans 14 as well and come to the opposite conclusion also... the conclusion being that we really shouldn't judge anyone for these kinds of issues....

handy:

Yes, even at a very neutral level, considered dispassionately, the facts speak volumes about those of a certain age who are having it done if they haven't already. I think our friend J's position is harder and harder to maintain. The fact is that (for many who have reached 50 or thereabouts without visiting a tattooist) the occasion for the first grandchild's initials, a tattooist's voucher for the 50th b-day, something faith related ink maybe, are very widespread occurrences.

Interesting you should read Romans 14 the same say, too.

 

[joethemechanic]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

I don't know all that many my age that still view tattoos as that big of an issue.

Pictures of a friend of mine's tatts. She is 42 and doesn't drink or do drugs. Not really a party girl although she is a semi-retired "dancer".

What would be your first reaction if you saw her at church? Suppose she started up a conversation with your husband?

 

[handy]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

What would be your first reaction if you saw her at church? Suppose she started up a conversation with your husband?

I'm so used to women starting up conversations with my husband, I wouldn't think a thing of it. Steve is always running into people he knows... both men and women. He always introduces me. I can't fathom how him meeting your friend would be any different.

My first reaction to seeing her at church would most likely be to welcome her to the church and introduce myself, husband and kids. I would assume she'd most likely wear something different than a string bikini though... have to admit, if she wore a string bikini to church, I would think it weird.

(btw... kudos to her for having such a trim and toned body at 42... I have to admit, by 42 I was getting saggy and crepe-pappery. She looks awesome!)

 

[reba]

Re: "At our church, there are several with tatts, including several middle aged women

:toofunny