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

[farouk]

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

Jethro:

I don't quite see why e.g., a faith related tattoo, Bible ref. on a wrist, etc., might be regarded as what you say is 'dangerous'.

I got your other explanation, and it was great. I don't quite see what you mean by 'dangerous', though. (I would gather than the responses to the poll indicate that it can hardy be regarded as strange for the middle aged women in handy's conservative church to have gotten them done, for example.)

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Because of the very same passage I find it hard to be against Christians who choose to have a faith related tattoo for witness purposes. It's all about letting everyone be 'fully persuaded' in his or her own mind, I guess.

...AND not causing others to stumble by what we approve of.

IMO, the only tatts that have the potential to be truly used as an effective witnessing tool to unbelievers are the tatts believers got while they were unbelievers.

Honestly, it's probably better to just skip purposely getting tattoos as an effective witnessing tool. As I pointed out, just having unbelievers bring the subject up is enough of a launch pad to witness the gospel to them. It works. Cover up any tatts you may have and try it. In the end, you've humbly come down to where they're at...without giving the impression that what they do as unbelievers (whatever that may be) is okay with God.

 

[Stan53]

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

Yes, the idea of mixing it up with unbelievers in the hope of breaking down the barriers between believers and unbelievers and being friendly with them is entirely legitimate. I try to do that myself. I just think there are things that even unbelievers know a Christian should not indulge in their attempt to do that.

It's dangerous to do things that really do more to show you're not any different than them in their sinful state than shows them we are not as condescending and self righteous and judgmental and standoffish as unbelievers perceive us to be.

But yet who is going to have better rapport and credibility with an unbeliever? Someone who has a tat or someone who doesn't and preaches aginst them?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

I don't quite see what you mean by 'dangerous', though. (I would gather than the responses to the poll indicate that it can hardy be regarded as strange for the middle aged women in handy's conservative church to have gotten them done, for example.)

Blessings.

The bottom line is it's dangerous to approve of things that may ultimately reduce the conviction of being separated from the righteousness of God unbelievers so desperately need communicated to them to win them to Christ.

 

[farouk]

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

...AND not causing others to stumble by what we approve of.

IMO, the only tatts that have the potential to be truly used as an effective witnessing tool to unbelievers are the tatts believers got while they were unbelievers.

Honestly, it's probably better to just skip purposely getting tattoos as an effective witnessing tool. As I pointed out, just having unbelievers bring the subject up is enough of a launch pad to witness the gospel to them. It works. Cover up any tatts you may have and try it. In the end, you've humbly come down to where they're at...without giving the impression that what they do as unbelievers (whatever that may be) is okay with God.

Jethro:

Well, thank-you; I partly see what you mean.

But I guess there are tattoos and tattoos, just as there are apples and oranges, right.

For example, if someone does get a Bible ref. tattoo and it causes a conversation, would you really discount the possibility that will be any blessing to the other person through the Scripture highlighted?

And if we can't discount that possibility, and there does turn out to be blessing, then maybe this was the motive of the person getting it in the first place and maybe also, particularly in the light of Romans 14 and Christian liberty, we should at least respect it?

(Two cents')

It's interesting how two ppl can read the same passage and come to opposite conclusions sometimes ...

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

But yet who is going to have better rapport and credibility with an unbeliever? Someone who has a tat or someone who doesn't and preaches aginst them?

Answer: the one who has them from their former life in the world.

I watched the awesome testimony of a skin head with the word 'pride' tattooed on the side of his head. At first I thought he really should have that thing removed. But then I realized it's a great way to start a conversation with someone from that same lifestyle who needs to hear how he has turned away from that lifestyle and to the love of God. But to purposely tattoo yourself in the hopes of doing that...I see that as having the opposite effect on an unbeliever. They may be persuaded that they really don't have to change at all to be a Christian. And we sure need more people like that in the church, don't we?

 

[Stan53]

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

Answer: the one who has them from their former life in the world.

I watched the awesome testimony of a skin head with the word 'pride' tattooed on the side of his head. At first I thought he really should have that thing removed. But then I realized it's a great way to start a conversation with someone from that same lifestyle who needs to hear how he has turned away from that lifestyle and to the love of God. But to purposely tattoo yourself in the hopes of doing that...I see that as having the opposite effect on an unbeliever. They may be persuaded that they really don't have to change at all to be a Christian. And we sure need more people like that in the church, don't we?

That makes no sense. How would the unbeliever know? Like I said...it's a matter of rapport and credibity.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Jethro:

Well, thank-you; I partly see what you mean.

But I guess there are tattoos and tattoos, just as there are apples and oranges, right.

For example, if someone does get a Bible ref. tattoo and it causes a conversation, would you really discount the possibility that will be any blessing to the other person through the Scripture highlighted?

Even a conservative person from the seventies generation like me can appreciate what you're saying here. The smaller the tattoo, and the farther away they are from the fleshy parts of the body, the more potential, IMO, they have to be used to open the door to witness the gospel to an unbeliever.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

How would the unbeliever know?

Know what? That your tatts are the mark of a former sinful lifestyle that you've turned away from to serve God? Tell them.

 

[farouk]

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

Even a conservative person from the seventies generation like me can appreciate what you're saying here. The smaller the tattoo, and the farther away they are from the fleshy parts of the body, the more potential, IMO, they have to be used to open the door to witness the gospel to an unbeliever.

Jethro:

Well, yes; and quite a few Christians think this way, also.

(I wouldn't be surprised if some of the middle aged women in handy's conservative church that prompted her original comments, think this way, too.)

In the end there are apples and oranges, I guess. A pastor's wife or soccer mom with a well-thought out and discreet Bible verse on her wrist, and something vaguely rude or dubious, are kind of vastly different from one another. I guess this is why it's hard to generalize too much or to lump everything together.

Blessings.

 

[Navigator]

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

But yet who is going to have better rapport and credibility with an unbeliever? Someone who has a tat or someone who doesn't and preaches aginst them?

Why are we preaching AGAINST anyone?

 

[farouk]

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

Know what? That your tatts are the mark of a former sinful lifestyle that you've turned away from to serve God? Tell them.

Jethro:

My question would be, though, if the tatt, e.g, on a wrist, etc., has a Bible verse ref. that the bearer wants to talk about, how is it a sign of a former sinful lifestyle?

I think there are tattoos and tattoos.

 

[Stan53]

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

Know what? That your tatts are the mark of a former sinful lifestyle that you've turned away from to serve God? Tell them.

Know the difference. Not all tats from a former lifestyles are skull and cross bones.

 

[Pard]

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

Lots of people think it is "hip" to put smart Bible verses on their person because it shows they are "educated" and "philosophical" and know that the Bible is only a book of "good moral teachings".

Heck I know people who wear crosses around their neck and don't believe in Christ. Many gangs use the cross in their tattoos, but surely one who is in an active and violent gang isn't a Christian.

It would be very much presumptuous of use to think that just because someone has a cross or a verse on their skin makes them a brother or sister in Christ, but likewise it is also very presumptuous of us to condemn them for that tattoo. You don't know their heart. Maybe you ought to use that tattoo to meet them. Most people with tattoos have it for a reason and are more than happy to share that reason with you.

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.

 

[farouk]

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

Lots of people think it is "hip" to put smart Bible verses on their person because it shows they are "educated" and "philosophical" and know that the Bible is only a book of "good moral teachings".

Heck I know people who wear crosses around their neck and don't believe in Christ. Many gangs use the cross in their tattoos, but surely one who is in an active and violent gang isn't a Christian.

It would be very much presumptuous of use to think that just because someone has a cross or a verse on their skin makes them a brother or sister in Christ, but likewise it is also very presumptuous of us to condemn them for that tattoo. You don't know their heart. Maybe you ought to use that tattoo to meet them. Most people with tattoos have it for a reason and are more than happy to share that reason with you.

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.

Pard:

This is true. And this is also part of the reason behind the motivation of some Christians to get a faith related design, because there is a quite widespread assumption that people with tattoos are often willing to talk about them, so they can expect that they will have opportunities to speak to others about their faith design, Bible ref., or whatever.

To your point about hypocrites, Amen!

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Know the difference. Not all tats from a former lifestyles are skull and cross bones.

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

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Why are we preaching AGAINST anyone?

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

 

[handy]

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

...AND not causing others to stumble by what we approve of.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tattoos today? Pretty mainstream.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

Jethro:

My question would be, though, if the tatt, e.g, on a wrist, etc., has a Bible verse ref. that the bearer wants to talk about, how is it a sign of a former sinful lifestyle?

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.

 

[farouk]

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

handy:

I guess what you're saying is that 50 - 60 years ago you might have been hostile to a family member wanting to get tattooed, but hardly today. If this is your point.

Yes, I think a lot of it relative to culture. Some things are indeed right and wrong; others are more neutral, and in the case of some tattoo designs which are faith related they have evidently been put to a good use, I guess.

God bless your family.