Not Your Granny's Presbyterians

[FMeekins]

Among Christian denominations, Presbyterians have a reputation for sobriety and decorum. However, as denominations and churches try to out do one another in the rush to appear the most “authentic” and “with it”, that noble reputation might be coming to an end.

On the website of Covenant Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America is a section where websurfers can listen to audio files addressing a wide variety of issues and topics. Finding one on tattooing, I thought I’d hear a rational discourse against this popular form of personal disfigurement since Presbyterians are renowned for their skill at argumentation.

Much to my surprise, the lecturer, Margie Haack of RansomFellowship.org , gave an exposition on tattoos literally making them of little more consequence than applying makeup up or toning one’s muscles. Haack deceptively lumps all of these under the politically correct banner of “body modification“.

While doing a satisfactory job explicating the various emotional traumas tempting individuals to do something like this to their bodies, her message is woefully inadequate in extolling the shortcomings and dangers of these ghastly scribblings. No where does she even suggest tattoos might be something questionable yet eraseable (at least in the metaphysical sense) under Christ’s redeeming blood.

In fact, the only guilt trip was laid on those daring to retain the traditional Judeo-Christian reluctance to the practice. Throughout, Haack criticizes Christians leery of those branded in this fashion, likening the attitude to racial prejudice. But the last time I checked, the individual has no choice over their race; getting tattooed is a matter of personal volition.

Might most Christians raised properly or later schooled in correct deportment pull back from individuals exhibiting these markings since there might be something wrong with tattooing? After all, most of those with an affinity for this form of decoration aren’t exactly known for their reputations as upstanding members of the community.

Haack attributes these pangs of conscience to misguided middle class values. Interesting, isn’t it, how these attacks on decency always boil down to this argument.

Haack further undermines traditional Biblical teachings on this issue by equating Scriptural injunctions against the practice in question with other Old Testament legal provisions no longer observed under the dispensation or covenant of grace of the New Testament such as dietary restrictions against pork, garments of mixed fabric, and other hygienic or ceremonial matters. While some rules such as those dealing with diet have been rescinded elsewhere in the Bible, ceremonial ones fulfilled by Christ’s coming, and others specified for the particular cultural and historical setting of ancient Israel, many still serve as moral principles and commands conductive to personal health and well being.

For example, nothing much is going to happen to you if you occasionally enjoy some pork or shellfish. However, it only takes one prick of a dirty tattoo needle to get hepatitis (ask Pamela Anderson) or AIDS.

When that happens, I suppose all the pro-tattoo clergy, academics, and otherwise unproductive intellectuals will turn around and lecture all of the unenlightened clods of the middle class why it is now our Christian obligation to put more into the collection plate or have taken out in taxes to alleviate suffering that could have been prevented in the first place.

Interestingly, Mrs. Haack goes on to create the impression that somehow Christians are spiritually superior if they deface themselves with this religious graffiti. Haack justifies tattoos all in the name of Jesus since some early and medieval Christians had them.

While we must study the past or be doomed to repeat it, that does not mean it is the end all in terms of doctrine and practice. After all, if everything had been peachy keen from day one onward, there wouldn’t have been much need for a Reformation, would there?

Haack also provides example of cotemporary Christians who have exhibited their “spirituality” through being tattooed. Specifically, she mentions Jeremy Huggins whom she is careful to point out is a graduate of Covenant Seminary and whom mentions in his own lecture about blogging archived on Covenant Seminary’s webpage his enjoyment of smoking and whiskey. My haven’t we come along way; I remember back in my Christian school days you played it down if you liked “The Simpsons” for fear of running afoul of authorities.

It is revealed that Huggins has a Hebrew word emblazoned across his chest and a Greek phrase etched into his back to remind him of his reliance upon God. If that’s what it takes to jog his memory, his faith must be pretty weak.

If these inscriptions are on sections of his anatomy not normally gawked at by the church going public, then why are we even being told about them? Could be it that those like Rev. Huggins feel guilty about what they have done to themselves, and instead of seeking forgiveness, they try to drown out the shame with applause and accolades from today’s doctrinally fickle congregations?

Since these human billboards advertise their intense religious devotion, it won’t be long until those with tattoos come to be seen as more dedicated to their God than those not decorated in this manner. Eventually in much the same manner as Christians who did not care to view “The Passion” were pressed for a reason as to why they did not want to see the movie, those without tattoos will be hounded by taunts such as “Jesus was scarred for you. Don’t you love him enough to be scarred for him?”

Interestingly, this unsightly body vandalism in a sense serves as a roadmap to certain questionable trends underway within the Presbyterian Church in America. This denomination, once noted for its sticktoitiveness to propriety now, from the attitudes conveyed on their flagship seminary’s website, would rather Christian young people drink, smoke, and turn their bodies into human sketchpads than read Left Behind novels.

Much of the ministry within this denomination is targeted at the highly educated. While that is commendable since this segment is often overlooked in terms of witness, maybe Presbyterians need to worry more about winning approval of the Lord rather than that of slovenly college professors and students.

I ask you what would you rather your children do? Are you going to be so pleased with you own sense of tolerance when your daughter or son comes home having put your broadmindedness into practice?

Furthermore, why should I listen to some preacher prattle on about the “evils” of some young adult activities such as dating (as is the case in the now pervasive Josh Harris I Kissed Dating Goodbye syndrome) or as to why I ought to drop more into the collection plate when the pastor looks like a cheesy roadside advertisement for his own lack of self-discipline especially if he does not readily display a sense of repentance over such an obvious shortcoming?

It has been said youth is fleeting; the indiscretions of it are not. As such, you should not do much of anything you would not want to catch your granny or grampy doing since, try as we might to put the passage of time out of our minds, one day each of us will be one of those elderly souls that have to dispense advice to the young whether they want to hear it or not.

by Frederick Meekins

[Triton]

Please provide a link to the offending material. I visited Covenant's site, and could not find the lecturer or the subject you are referring to.

[FMeekins]

Here is the link to the lecture sponsored by Covenant Seminaryon tattooing:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Haack_WhyDoYouTattoo.mp3

[Joe_Liberty]

Markings, cuttings, and tattoos of the body and all such acts are forbidden in the law, whether for mourning, as religious marks, or for ornamental or other uses (Lev. 19:28, 21:5). Tattooing was practiced religiously to indicate that one adhered to or belonged to a god; it also indicated that a man was a slave, that he belonged to lord or owner. The believer, as a free man in Christ, indicates, Christ's lordship by obedience, not be servile markings: the body is kept holy and clean unto the Lord. The persistence of a mark of slavery among men is indicative of man's perversity.

[FMeekins]

Kind of like the Jaffa on Stargate.

[Triton]

Moderators, please note: this rebuttal is direct, but it is not meant to flame Mr. Meekins.

I write this rebuttal not because I think you penned an intelligent, well thought out essay; in fact, I think it was hasty, hateful, and devoid of thought. It was heat and light, designed to draw attention to yourself, at the expense of a vibrant, growing, sound denomination. It smacked of petty legalism, and was entirely devoid of the grace that we know as believers in Jesus Christ. This is shameful, and if your aim is to gain employment as a writer or commentator, you will not get it this way.

First, let's make a distinction here that you neglected to make in your essay: there is more than one type of Presbyterian church. The one which you are maligning - and I say that because I am convinced you did not listen to more than the first 10 minutes of the lecture - is called the Presbyterian Church in America. They split from the PCUSA, the large, liberal denomination that most people, unfortunately, think of when they hear the word "presbyterian".

You missed the entire point, and the vitriole in your words leads me to believe that you were unable - or unwilling - to see past your pre-conceived notions about the lecture. You were correct in that there was no outright condemnation of body modification, but neither was there glorification, as you incorrectly stated. That wasn't the purpose. I, too, have been to the emotion laden "Truth About Rock" seminars hosted by the Peters Brothers back in the '80s. I went right home and bought another Led Zeppelin album. Is this really what you expected to hear?

37 minutes 40 seconds in, Mrs. Haack makes a statement which, I believe, is the key to understanding what she was saying, "It saddens me that we are hostile to people just because they look different." Body modification - and she used that term not to be politically correct, but to rightly encompass tattoos, circumcision, cosmetics, jewelry, liposuction, and virtually anything else we do to our bodies to alter its appearance, was really but one example of many practices she could have used to make the same point. Two minutes later, she says, "There are many things in life which we can be involved in which are fine, but that anything we can do can be taken in the wrong direction, from sexuality to eating." Her point is made well by Jesus in Matthew 15:11, which says, "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "as well as Mark 7:14-16. I found it particularly telling that in Matthew 12 it says, "Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" Your righteous indignation reminded me of those Pharisees.

At 31:48, she even gives an excellent example of why post-moderns feel the need to modify themselves, "<We have shown> enormous tolerance for the transient nature of post modern life". What are they expressing with tattoos? I think we can all guess - and that need for permanence, that need for wholeness and completeness, is perfectly met in the Gospel. The same Gospel that we are not adequately sharing with our neighbors.

We cannot be an effective witness to the alien culture which has sprung up in America since approximately the fall of the Berlin Wall unless we can put what we say in proper context. If you had gotten to 13:40 of her lecture, you would have heard her say, "Even if we tend to barricade ourselves in this tiny pod of people who think, act, and dress as we do, we can't keep from being exposed to our culture." We can allow our children to be exposed and make the wrong conclusions about how to react - or we can prepare them to be ambassadors for Christ in a dying world, ready to live in the world, but not become a part of it.

[FMeekins]

Not ment to be a flame against Mr. Triton,

But wonders if you will be "unable - or unwilling - to see past your pre-conceived notions" and "hasty, hateful, and devoid of thought" when your kids come home looking like a graffitied billboard and tell you its the hip, new Christian thing to do.

[Triton]

Not ment to be a flame against Mr. Triton.

I would never take it that way!

But wonders if you will be "unable - or unwilling - to see past your pre-conceived notions" and "hasty, hateful, and devoid of thought" when your kids come home looking like a graffitied billboard and tell you its the hip, new Christian thing to do.

Now now Fred. Crimson fish will get you nowhere. Where did she say that in her lecture?

I will answer your question if you will answer mine.

[TimV]

As long as one holds to the artificial distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" law the Biblical injunction against tatooing is null and voil. We can all wear woman's clothes, eat road kill etc...

[Triton]

As long as one holds to the artificial distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" law the Biblical injunction against tatooing is null and voil. We can all wear woman's clothes, eat road kill etc...

Unless you're a Jew, I am not sure how you can say that in light of Matthew 15:11. Does this mean that you regularly sacrifice animals?

[TimV]

Unless you're a Jew, I am not sure how you can say that in light of Matthew 15:11. Does this mean that you regularly sacrifice animals?

The question you should ask is "how was this fulfilled in Christ". The sacrificial laws are easy to understand in this light, that they have been totally fulfilled. There are harder laws, though, that take wisdom to understand.

[Triton]

The question you should ask is "how was this fulfilled in Christ". The sacrificial laws are easy to understand in this light, that they have been totally fulfilled. There are harder laws, though, that take wisdom to understand.

So either you do make a distinction or you don't. Earlier, you said you don't. Perhaps the proper question, in light of the grace we enjoy, is, "How is Christ's death on the cross made less effective by this behavior", or "Was Christ crucified for this behavior?" Example? The Covenant Seminary lecture on body modification described one young couple who had their wedding rings tattoo-ed on their ring fingers. I found this to be a powerful testimony to their peers, and there is NO WAY they would be condemned by God for this act.

I could go on. I found two verses particularly illuminating with regards to this subject:

Galatians (NIV) 3 "1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"

AND
Romans 14:19-21 "19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall."

[TimV]

So either you do make a distinction or you don't. Earlier, you said you don't.

You are confused, but this is a lengthy and difficult subject. I don't make a distinction. I still believe a man having sex with a pig is wrong, whether or not it was specifically outlawed in the NT. But I allow my older sons to shave. As I said, it takes wisdom to understand how the Law is applicable today.

[Triton]

You are confused, but this is a lengthy and difficult subject.

Well, I guess I could agree, except you did say this:

As long as one holds to the artificial distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" law the Biblical injunction against tatooing is null and voil. We can all wear woman's clothes, eat road kill etc...

I don't think I am confused. It sounds like you make subjective decisions about what is ceremonial law and what is moral law when it suits you. I am willing to bet you didn't really mean to give us that impression.

With that in mind, please enlighten me: how can I have this wisdom to know what is applicable law and what is not? Contrasting bestiality with shaving does not count. Those are two unrelated extremes.

[TimV]

I don't think I am confused. It sounds like you make subjective decisions about what is ceremonial law and what is moral law when it suits you.

You are confused. I clearly said the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law is artificial. Therefore I do not make subjective decisions about what is and what isn't. I say they are two categories that some people have just made up, and can't be proven from Scripture. You could read up on some of the Theonomists, like R.J. Rushdoony.

With that in mind, please enlighten me: how can I have this wisdom to know what is applicable law and what is not?

As I've said, you have to ask yourself "how was it fulfilled in Christ".

Contrasting bestiality with shaving does not count. Those are two unrelated extremes.

That criticism is meaningless. They are both Biblical Laws, right?

[Triton]

Hebrews 10: 7 - 9 "Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second."

I think I see the point you are trying to make, but to me it seems to be a distinction without a difference. Even if you make the case that the Israelites didn't see a difference between ceremonial law and moral law, clearly, in light of the scripture above, a portion of that law was set aside. If nothing else, for the sake of clarity - what is the error in referring to that which was set aside as "ceremonial law"?

[TimV]

If nothing else, for the sake of clarity - what is the error in referring to that which was set aside as "ceremonial law"?

Amongst several other reasons, who are you going to trust tell you which were set aside?

[Triton]

Amongst several other reasons, who are you going to trust tell you which were set aside?

Well, based on the scriptures I quoted, we know there is no more sacrifice, and no more restriction on food. I trusted in Scripture alone to tell me that. Are there no other laws which were set aside?

[TimV]

Are there no other laws which were set aside?

Again, none were set aside, but some were fulfilled in different ways. Remember what Christ said, that not one jot nor one tittle of the Law would pass away until all of them do.

[Triton]

Again, none were set aside, but some were fulfilled in different ways. Remember what Christ said, that not one jot nor one tittle of the Law would pass away until all of them do.

What does the believer do with Hebrews 10:9?

[TimV]

What does the believer do with Hebrews 10:9?

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.”[b] He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

First, you must posit that there are no contradictions in Scripture. Then you let the clear verse interpret the verse that is less clear. So, using this formula we get Christ fulfilling the sacrificial laws. Christ is the perfect sacrifice, so no more are necessary.

[Patriot 2]

As I have stated on other posts, TimV appears to want to attack anyone disagreeing with his "bulls' about whatever

satan talks to divide, starts squabbles and works for general dissension.

I noticed that prior to TimV, this site was going well with mutual respect for differences in opinions between Catholics and various Protestant beleivers.

BTW- in order to win Florida, California and NY, we may want o tone down the Jewish slur stuff a bit. the CP will go NOWHERE if that continues.

TimV, please keep your preaching to yourself, the CP, as Wm Shearer has noted, is a POLITICAL Party, not a church. As he noted "when I go to the opera, I go to listen to music, when I go to church, to listen to the WOrd of God" His point in his article, keep the rhetoric and preaching in church and in your everyday behaviors.

We are trying to build a credible and electable Party with Mormons, Catholics and Protestants, not to mention jews and others that may support our stances.

For the record- anarcho is not our stance in anything I am aware of. Questioning each others patriotism is the work of Limbaugh and Co.

[TimV]

What, five different threads you've brought this up?

OK, for those who don't know Patriot is an illiterate dolt and didn't see the post he was refering to, I will draw a picture.

Someone sent me this by PM:

Subject: REVELATION 13:11-18


11 And I (John) beheld another beast(America) coming up out of the earth; and he(U.S.) had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.(United States Of America).

12 And he(America) exerciseth all the power of the first beast(PAGAN- Catholic Rome) before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast,(Roman Catholocism) whose deadly wound was healed.(Which has "NOT" yet been done...For she has not declared to the world that they "Must" worship the pope!

13 And he(America) doeth great wonders, so that he(America) maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, (Nuclear war)!

14 And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he (America)had power to do in the sight of the beast;(Roman Catholicism) saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast,((Roman Catholicism) which had the wound by a sword,(Protestant Reformation) and did live.

15 And he(America) had power to give life unto the image of (Roman Catholicism the beast) that the image of(Roman Catholicism the beast) should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast(Roman Catholicism) should be killed.(The coming inquisition)!

16 And he(America) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and "his" number is Six hundred threescore and six.

I titled my thread

Conspiracy Nuts

and I said to the person who sent me this

If you have a point, or what to discuss things, please do so openly. I don't want to have to spend time deleting PMs from fruitcakes like the one I just got

Patriot, I will try to make this soooo easy that even you can understand. I called the author of that quote a fruitcake. That means a "nut". That means I have so little regard for the contents that.....ah, forget it, it's over your head.

[Tmax]

Timv, you have just lost a whole bunch of credibility and respect. There is a way to get your point across without attempting to insult one's intelligence....even if your point is valid.

[TimV]

Timv, you have just lost a whole bunch of credibility and respect. There is a way to get your point across without attempting to insult one's intelligence....even if your point is valid.

The guy attacked me on five different threads about the same post he misread without even waiting for a reply on the first one. Respect is one thing but credibility has more to do with the factual contents of a post.

[The Kangaroo]

I ask you what would you rather your children do? Are you going to be so pleased with you own sense of tolerance when your daughter or son comes home having put your broadmindedness into practice?


Don't bother me one iota. We're inked and they're inked and that's the way it is. The condescension the author offers toward others different from her is more than a little pathetic.