When did tattoos become ok?

[darrellmaurina]

Semper Fidelis is right.

When the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, has a huge Crusader cross tattooed on his chest and he's a member of a denomination which by culture war standards (not theology, of course) is FAR to the right of many in NAPARC, we've essentially lost any functional taboo against tattoos in the military.

You just can't tell a soldier, or an officer, or even a general officer, that he can't have something on his body that the Secretary of War is proudly and publicly displaying.

For whatever it's worth, Koreans (and other Asians) still connect tattoos with the Yakuza (the Japanese Mafia), and other Asian criminal groups such as the Tongs in China. I do not have a tattoo and I won't get one. But if I did, until recent years, I would be barred from admission to most Korean and Japanese bathhouses and spas on the assumption that I am involved with organized crime.

As an Italian, I have enough problems with Koreans who love the Godfather movies and the Sopranos without having to explain a tattoo! That's not really part of the Italian "Cosa Nostra" tradition, but it's what the typical Korean, Japanese, or Chinese person would think of first.

I guess I need to keep my Beretta from "printing" through my suit the next time I visit a Korean friend. That might be a better indicator of "connections" than a tattoo. Of course, I mean the suit is the indicator. Here in the Ozarks, guns are normal and suits aren't!

When I was commissioned as a 2nd Lt in the Marine Corps in 1990, it was well understood that Marine officers did not get tattoos. That was not because every officer had a carefully footnoted biblical argument about Leviticus 19, nor because every tattoo was treated as some uniquely damnable sin. It was part of a broader officer culture that still retained something of a gentlemanly ideal. Tattoos were viewed as transgressive. The people you most commonly associated with tattoos were sailors, bikers, and others who were, in one way or another, outside the respectable mainstream.

Now that cultural memory is almost gone. Tattoos are everywhere, and because they are everywhere, it becomes very difficult to argue against them without immediately being accused of legalism. If a person asks, “Where is the verse?” the discussion often ends there. Unless you can produce a specific proof text that settles the matter in one sentence, the assumption is that the practice must be morally indifferent.

 

[Deleted member 12759]

The world's culture will creep into the Church and there's very little we can do about it. High housing prices are forcing women into the work force here so now most young women have a job outside the home which is causing a noticeable amount of increase in feministic culture in the Church. Tattoos, worldly music and movies are other examples of how the world has infected the Church. The only way to prevent these things would be to go full Amish, though this has of course been condemned by the Church. The anti-Christian culture will continue to chip away at the moral fiber of the Church until the culture itself becomes more Christian again.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Arguments above that everyone else is doing it and it's too hard to go against the cultural flow rather than an actual careful consideration of Scriptures given that the historic church has recognized such as the standard view (again not only on with the Leviticus verse referenced and certainly not footnoted) is not compelling and demonstrates many of the laments on this thread already. A review of some of what Jesus said to the seven churches in Revelation is suggested as well as the Beatitudes in terms of how others may or may not respond to disciples of Christ who have taken up their crosses to follow Him. It would be more compelling to interact with the various resources given previously on the topic and endeavor to actually demonstrate how they are faulty rather than essentially just forcefully saying they are "fake exegesis." Such is far less an argument from Scripture, not a greater one, and also bypassing other important principles from the Scriptures. Bearing a cross has other implications for instance--not only does it not favor the argument against the majority view of church history but rather it further raises other discernment concerns. The brotherhood of the Christian faith trumps any other allegiance as does the sovereignty of God. Sola Scriptura must be the primary Latin cry of soldiers fighting the good fight for Christ.