Back in October I found myself engaged in a friendly blog-comment-debate at another site on the subject of body art. The discussion thread dealt with the evangelical usefulness of tattoos.
For regular readers of my blog, it probably is not surprising to you to know that I can find nothing redemptive about body art. Redeemable yes, redemptive, no. I don’t understand the motivation for body art, and I don’t see how the permanant marking of the body, could be regarded as edifying for either the wearer, or for the church. It is a stretch for me to see how one’s faith is developed or grown, or how the church is built up by applying a permanant mark on a human body. And I hold that view irrespective of the subject matter, meaning that while I acknowledge the difference between a cross tattoo and a skull tattoo, I don’t see how either is really helpful.
To either wearers or supporters of tattoos, I wonder how strongly you defend other forms of body art. How about the examples below. Too much? Taken too far? The difference between these examples and a small tattoo of a cross, or an ichthus is only a matter of degrees. All of them are permanent, and presumably have been sought to serve some form of self-expression. So, where is the line to be drawn? How far, is too far?
Photos…HT: Don Weeks