Ever since our first mother, Eve, facilely discovered multiple reasons to do what God had expressly commanded her through Adam not to do, we’ve proven to be, in our fallen estate, a darkness-loving lot that excels in creatively justifying any sin-embracing choice we desire to make. This ability wreaks havoc in ethics. No sooner do we learn the right thing than we begin paralogizing in the pursuit of what we think of as “freedom.”
But freedom from God’s Law as a rule of faith and life is no freedom at all. Some think the opposite of Law is Grace. Rather, the opposite of Law is chaos, meaninglessness and death. Thinking which leads to a justification for disobedience is, by definition, wrong thinking.
With the modern church having largely capitulated to some or another form of antinomianism, it should not surprise us that it seems ever to be engaged in lowering the flag before each new assault on the ethics of the Antithesis. Whether we are asked to adjust God’s standards for marriage and divorce, or Lord’s Day worship, or the tithe, or homosexuality, or love of the brethren, we find an ever-vigilant phalanx of theologians whose favorite color is grey and whose favorite work is dismantling the Antithesis, directing us, like the serpent did Eve, to ignore what God says and to seek life in death.
In every dispensation God has made it clear that His people are a people of life, a people distinct from “the world,” a people with a different idea of wisdom,” a people with a different way of living. God’s word to Israel and the church is (of course) one: “Do not think as they think; do not do as they do” (Deut. 18:9; Eph. 4:17–20).
Keeping God’s Law in Christ is a community affair. To comply with the demands of the Antithesis, it is necessary not only to have those commands, but to have a people committed to abiding by them. Though we are made up of individuals, the covenant community is an entity in its own right, an organism which confesses covenant truth and lives the covenant life. We are to be a people set apart both by what we believe and how we behave.
Included in the set-apartness required of us in both the Old and New administrations of the covenant is the sanctification of our bodies unto God. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:1–2a).
Only a Gnostic, a Platonist or a nut would interpret the command to present our bodies to God as having nothing to do with our bodies. The human body is most definitely a concern of God’s and He has given us various laws designed to maintain its integrity and dignity, to keep it suitable for one in service to the living and true God. If anything, the New Testament heightens our concern with the body, for there it is oft-designated a temple of God. And we must not desecrate God’s temple. The wicked say, “Our lips [and our bodies] are our own” (Psalm 12:4). The Christian answers with the great confession: “I am not my own, but belong body and soul to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.”
But confessions without content remain mere words: pretty, maybe, but empty. When we confess that our bodies belong to God, do we actually believe that He may regulate what we do with them? At one time this was definitely what the Christian community believed. Lately, however, it seems to be standing with its hands in its pockets as it watches a new wave of defiance of this confession.
A phenomenon among us that is gaining notoriety and adherents, and sadly making inroads into Christian circles, is the deliberate and systematic desecration of the human body. It is making progress among us for three reasons: the Christian community has (1) neglected the Law of God, (2) largely lost its sense of being a community of grace and law; and (3) bought into the notion that fashion is, for all intents and purposes, a matter in which God is disinterested.
The diverse methods of self-desecration have been lumped together under the fitting initials BM, though here it stands for body modification. BM includes piercing, tattooing, scarring, branding, cutting and mutilation. BM is becoming more than a trend: it is an identifiable subculture, impacting millions through a huge presence on the Internet. There are even international conventions. BM shops are proliferating at an astonishing rate (the one across the street from Messiah Covenant Community Congregation’s offices does a very brisk business).
Body piercing, like marijuana to heroin, is often but the first step into a world of multiple self-inflicted indignities. And like marijuana, proponents think it is the easiest to justify. After all, who hasn’t seen the male athletes and movie stars with their earrings? And haven’t you seen the picture of Shakespeare wearing one in his left ear?
And thus the reasoning begins with an assumption that what is right for women must also be right for men, and what is right in popular culture must be right for the Christian. But our standard is the Word of God. And that Word gives us warrant to regard piercing as possibly appropriate for some, but not necessarily for others. (The other forms of BM are fit for none but pagans, as we’ll see.)
Put plainly, piercing is normally an act appropriate only for women and, in some cases, male slaves. Delicacy is difficult here—and I want to avoid a charge of misogyny—but the fact is that woman, by her from-the-creation role in the marriage act, is a “piercee.” Within marriage, of course, no stigma at all attaches to this, but outside of marriage, Scripture often refers to it as a “humbling” (Deut. 21:14; 22:24; 22:29). In this regard, too, childbirth is woman’s triumphant vindication. Consider this when exegeting 1 Timothy 2:15.
Obviously, piercing for a woman need not involve sodomy or “lowering.” She was made a woman, for man, a fact to which her body itself testifies.
Man, however, was not made a woman nor was he made to abide piercing. It is still a universal that he is not expected to. The recent attack on a Brooklyn prisoner provides a tragic case in point. The Associated Press reported: “One of the police officers charged with torturing a man by sodomizing him with a stick bragged about the attack, saying he had to ‘break a man’ who took a swing at him. Officer Justin Volpe also told fellow officers ‘I had to bring a man down tonight.’”
Piercing may or may not bring a woman down, depending on many factors. But piercing always brings a man down. That piercing bespeaks a relational subordination is implicitly recognized even in our American culture, yet often below the surface. To the astute it appears dramatically when considering the vocabulary of popular “curses” (as in humiliating phrases, not maledictions). The most common two-word curse in English, the one we want our children never to use, is simply a wish for someone to be humiliated through being pierced. To be pierced, for a man, is necessarily to be lowered.
For in the view of Scripture, piercing is a token of being under the dominion of another. (Even the unique piercing of Christ was a testimony of His total submission to the Father: Isaiah 53:5, 10; Phil. 2:8; see also Psalm 40:6–8.) Since woman was created to be under the loving headship of her husband, piercing can be seen as consistent with that calling. Hebrew men, however, were called to be directly under the authority of God (see 1 Cor. 11:3).
Consequently, limitations of Hebrew servitude were codified in the Law. But if a Hebrew servant, at the time of his manumission, desired to be permanently under the dominion of his master, this was to be indicated in a rite in which his ear was bored with an awl (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:17). The fact that a pierced ear served as a sign of permanent subordination suggests that it was not practiced by males in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.
Some have called attention to the fact that Israelite males took off their golden earrings and contributed them to Aaron for the making of the golden calf. This seems to be the case (Ex. 32:14). But out of what estate had they just escaped? That’s right: slavery. So this proves nothing other than that slaves had earrings. Similarly, those who cite the Ishmaelite practice of wearing gold earrings (Judges 8:24) must not miss the point: the Ishmaelites had this custom, not the Israelites. Newly delivered Hebrew slaves and Ishmaelites don’t constitute a powerful precedent for free males to engage in piercing themselves!
It is interesting that as men in our culture began to pierce their ears, women began piercing multiple holes in their ears. But it didn’t stop there. Piercing parlors now routinely pierce ears, lips, eyebrows, tongues, noses, nipples, and male and female genitals. For those who cringe, not only at the ghastliness of the piercings, but at the thought of the pain involved, you need to understand that the pain is central to the experience. This is freely admitted, even boasted of, in this new “subculture.”
One woman describes the piercing of her clitoris as “a rite of sexual reclamation.” The piercer explained, after a pre-piercing examination, that hers was going to be a particularly painful experience. She insisted that he proceed, and described the procedure: “My body tensed. I heard Jim say, ‘Ready?’ [It was as if] one hundred thousand volts of electricity jolted me out of my body. My scream never passed my throat … I couldn’t see. After Jim inserted the ring in my clitoris and handed me a hand mirror, I stood up and paced the small room. I never had an experience of such intensity. My body tingled. I felt powerful, charged, triumphant … I was alive! For the first time in my life I felt whole, complete and perfect.” She then tells that years later, she returned to school “to broaden [her] understanding of pain, ecstasy and body modification.”
Anyone who believes that this current obsession with body modification is simply a fashion statement is not merely naive, but ignorant of the literature of BM devotees. For them, the more radical piercings are self-consciously religious experiences. Its association with paganism is known, understood and cherished. The piercings, etc., are regarded as rituals. “Rituals take place in urban settings: libraries, public parks, warehouses, abandoned city sites. Rituals take many forms: piercing, tattooing, branding and scarification in private and public ceremonies, S/M [sado-masochistic] psychodramas in private dungeons, technoshamanic trance dances at underground Rave parties, psychedelic shamanism, in living rooms- any activity capable of producing the direct experience of spiritual truth and healing in the participant.” Consider the mindset of someone who regards mutilation as healing! (To be continued . . . )
Served as pastor of Messiah's Covenant Community Church in Brooklyn, N.Y. since 1979. Born and raised a Jew, Steve's revelatory insights into the unity of the Old and New Testaments have made him a popular speaker and essayist. Steve and his wife Jeanne have six children, and eight grandchildren. They have also raised six foster children. 
The real issue here is moderation, not absolutism. I am an ordained minister in the conservative Reformed tradition, and have an earring and two tattoos, wiht a couple more on the way. I consider them manly-decorative. My earring is tiny and the tats are tasteful. I am also a committed Christian and gym-enthusiast/bodybuilder type. However, I also reject extremism in anything: drinking, dress, eating, etc. – as in the picture above. There is little debate but that ancient men, and more recent ones as well, have sported earrings as decorative accessories, along with bracelets and necklaces. The fact that pagans, gays and transvestites also wear jeweled watches should not imply that straight men should toss their bejeweled Rolexes. Your position, though well-intended, is biblically and logically tenuous at best, as one blogger pointed out – with much argument from silence and dubious correlation.
The hard-right, law-driving Christian position seems to bask in the glow of peculiar American clean-cutness as a badge of legitimate Christian holiness, sort of like Billy Joe Hargess' all-American kids or Mormon missionaries. Anything that transgresses this standard of acculturated normalcy is berated across the board with a one-size-fits-all condescension.
Although the stated position has SOME salient points, it lacks any real subtlety or convincing proof. Guys, some folks like a little bling and bravado, and refuse to be put in strait-laced legalistic boxes just to conform to the prevailing bias. Some of the most clean-cut Christian men of late have done some of the most horrendous and hurtful things. I know for sure that God is much more concerned about our words and moral behavior than how many rings or tats we sport. Again, its all about moderation and taste, and not about strictly constured moralism.
How do you reconcile God's word in Leviticus 19:28? " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (NIV). If this is God's law for the Israelites, why would you think that it wouldn't apply to us? You might want to rethink getting more tats in the future.
David:
As Christians we belong to Christ who fulfilled the law. The law was intended to lead us to Christ, not to make us slaves to it. Otherwise, you should consider ALL the things we are told not do in the passage you reference as well as many others.
LEVITICUS 19:19 " 'Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
LEVITICUS 19:26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD .
Granted, being in Christ does not give us license to sin, but legalism is not pleasing to God, that is what the pharisees of old, and modern day ones, practice. We should practice Christ-likeness and live out the two greatest commands, to Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and to love one another as Christ loved (and still does love) us. Without that, whether one is tattooed OR NOT is irrelevant.
Fantastic article from Pastor Schlissel. Thank you.
My favorite saying to my children when they were growing up was, "Cool is synonymous to fool." Most of this stuff is done simply as an attempt to be accepted by a group of peers. If you choose to hang out with fools, it's your business; however, don't be offended when those outside of your chosen peer group considers you a fool at first glance.
Also, the argument that the reason why the Israelite men had earrings on at Sinai is because of their slavery in Egypt is just factually false. On a relief found in tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes, there are pictures of Semites and Nubian slaves. While there are a few slaves that do have earrings, there are *many* examples on this relief of slaves without earrings. Also, using the author’s previous argument against him, wearing earrings was hardly serve as a distinguishing mark of slavery in Egypt since both men and women wore earrings in ancient Egypt.
Using this kind of hermeneutic, you can prove anything is wrong. Just find a general concept, find some loose association with one thing, and completely ignore context. I am concerned that there is a societal problem with piercings like you find in the picture above, but I think we should deal with this problem by rightly handling the scriptures, and not by reading the societal problem into the text.
God Bless,
Adam
Adam. Than you for the insightful and even handed address to this post.
Worse than that, there are problems in logic and just simple errors. First of all, it is irrational to say that, because piercing was the mark of a permenant slave that therefore it must not have been common among males.That is a little bit like saying “In our society, the fact that a wedding ring is a symbol of a woman’s marriage to her husband suggests that the wearing of rings is not practiced by women in general, else it would hardly serve as a distinguishing mark.” Actually, we know very little about this law, and how it was carried out, what ear it was done on, where on the ear it was done, and what, if anything was unique about this procedure.
[continued]
The first sentence means that Craig has some personal vendetta against John. Does that somehow mean, though, that, in the second sentence, we can conclude that Craig has some personal vendetta against the broccoli stick? Such is absurd. The is the semantic fallacy known as "illegitimate totality transfer." You have to look at the context. In the case of marriage, it is not the woman's anatomy which makes the her submissive; it has to do with her order of creation, and the fact that she sinned first [1 Timothy 2:13-14]. {also, most probably the reference to "childbearing" in verse 15 is probably referring back to Genesis 3:15-16, where the salvation through childbearing is the birth of Christ}. The reason why Christ was pierced is because that was the duty that the father [the one he was submitting to] gave him. None of these things come even close to the piercing in the context of jewelry.
[continued]
In Deuteronomy 22, there is nothing in the context to suggest that the inherent nature of the marital act is in any way contributing to the humiliation of these women. One has been put into an adulterous scandal, and the other has been raped! It is easy to see the humiliation completely apart from anything having to do with the inherent nature of the marital act. Even worse, the context is not about the *nature* of the marital act, but the *context* in which it is done. Hence, the context of the act seems to be the only factor in the humiliation.
The main problem here, though, has to do with semantics. Just because the term "pierce" is used of the marital act, the death of Christ, and jewelry piercing does *not* mean you can connect them. Consider these two sentences:
Craig hates John.
Craig hates broccoli.
[continued]
I agree that there are problems with the self-mutilation found in the photograph above. No doubt about it. However, my concern is that this article is playing fast and loose with the text of scripture.
In the passages in Deuteronomy 21 and 22, there is nothing "humbling" about the marital act itself. It is the context in which the act is done, and the context alone that makes it "humiliating." First of all, I don't see how anyone could see what the man in Deuteronomy 21 does to that foreign woman, and say that she has been humiliated by the marital act. It has nothing to do with the marital act; it has to do with the killing of her parents, the marrying of her shortly thereafter, and the the dumping of her just because she doesn't please you. That would certainly humiliate anyone. Thus, most probably we are not talking about the marital act.
[continued]
I find his view of intimacy very very strange. If he were consistent, wouldn't he need to conclude that his wife is a sado-masochistist?
Are those allowed in church?
I wonder what his views on circumcision are.
RAyds3, why the stars in the word circumcision? I saw that earlier in the word circumstance? Odd, and I am not sure why folks are doing that?
Daniel and Ken,
I typed my posting normally without stars. Before getting posted, it's run through a program that apparently scans the posting for questionable words and places stars in their place. The program is there is scan out inappropriate posting from individuals.
My wife and I were blessed with two sons, and while they are now mature adults, niether son has any piercing or marks of any kind on their bodies. While we never expressly forbid these things, we always stressed that Gods people do not mark, mutilate, or alter their bodies, which were made in God's image, and only livestock are required to be branded, and people who do these things often are victims of a "herd mentality", which is not of God.
Our bodies were not "made in God's image". Man IS the image of God. MAN. The person of man. Nothing to do with man's body.
While many these days may fall into the "herd mentality" you describe, the assumption of that being applied to all who are tattooed or pierced is at best short sighted and at worse foolish. I also raised two children who are model citizens. One is a devoted wife and mother who stays home and raises children and the other just married and is seeking a job as a police officer. Both of them love the Lord and seek to serve Him above all. I, on the other hand, have long hair, tattoos and a decidedly anti status quo attitude. My love for the Lord is constantly questioned by others that would rather look at outward appearances rather than listen to the Word of God. Telling your children that if they get tattooed or branded or pierced or whatever is implicitly telling them that you think less of them if they do so. In any case, congratulations on raising Godly kids in this age and I wish that there were more of us doing so. Godspeed…
This is a fantastic article. Modern evangelicals get themselves in knots over writing like this because it expresses the objective truth, relevancy and beauty of God's Law. The dots many don't connect is that we either accept the gracious Law of God or we live in covenant rebellion to the very Christ we cling to! Perhaps the picture of the open arms Jesus is not complete. Perhaps we also need to be reminded of the same Jesus who cleansed the Temple, sharply rebuked the Pharisees and other hypocrites, declared obedience to the Law of God as a mark of loving and following Him and who returned within one generation to bring judgment upon the socio-political nation of Israel. Perhaps we ought to also remember that our God is still a consuming fire! Perhaps grace does not abolish our duty towards obedience. Perhaps the grace of Christ empowers us to walk in the Law of God and teach others to do the same.
Perhaps when we shelf our modern individualism we will see with new eyes; the holiness, beauty and requirements of applying God's Law to our lives, our family lives and societal lives. Perhaps then will the West experience revival and reform.
Umm…which law of God, Trev? Moral law? Ceremonial law? It's obvious that the author and MANY churches today desire PARTS of the ceremonial law to be followed, but not all. This is picking and choosing. ALL aspects of the cermonial law passed away…they were type and shadow. Also, there were specific rules for Israelites to set them apart, but they were for THAT time period and THOSE circumstances.
Even the whole "Lord's Day" worship requirements are silly. It is all tradition. Sunday is the "Lord's Day"? No. Every day is the Lord's Day. And I believe the whole "Lord's Day" thing is a misinterpretation from Revelation, which should actually read "Day of the Lord", which, ya know, kinda makes sense considering that's what Revelation is about
Christians should set themselves apart, no doubt. But who draws the line? How 'apart' are we to be? We cannot separate ourselves from secular THINGS, and in fact, inanimate objects are not "evil" in and of themselves. Even a piercing. It's the heart that matters, and the CONSCIENCE. One man's tv set is another man's idol. All things can become "bad" if the heart isn't right. Christians have this thing called "liberty" in Christ in this new covenant age. Next thing you know, smoking will be a mega-sin as well since lotsa secular folks do it. Or maybe drinkin some wine? It's not what goes into or ONTO the body that defiles it, guys – remember our Lord saying that to those Hebrews who probably thought "HUH!? What did He just say?!?! THAT doesn't line up with our Torah!!". Yeah, Christ fulfilled those things. They were meant to teach the Israelites about Christ..they were "pictures" of Spiritual truths.
Honestly, the the majority tone of this article made me a bit nauseated. Label me an "antinomian" all day, I guess…I simply believe Christ fulfilled the law's requirements for me, and I believe the law is summed up in: love the Lord, Love your neighbor – out of faith in Christ of course.
i AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH YOUR COMMENTS, AND WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AN ALMOST IDENTICAL POST, BUT YOU STATED IT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I . I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT i THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BACK AWAY FROM THEIR INDIVIDUAL DOGMA AT TIMES AND CONSIDER WHAT THE APOSTLE PAUL CALLED THE "FRUITS" OF THE SPIRIT. WE ALL SHOULD STRIVE TO CONFORM TO THESE FRUITS, RATHER THAN BECOMING OVER INVOLVED WITH "WORKS" OUT OF LOVE FOR JESUS.
While this article is well written, it is naive, intolerant, sexist, and just plain filled with self-righteous theological clap-trap. I am a Conservative, a Roman Catholic, and Married father of two beautiful children. You can quote scripture all you want, sir. In the end, when presented with a person whose look does not conform to your own, what do you do? Do you shun them? Deride them for being different? I have a better solution, and it works every time. I would welcome them with open arms. You know….like Jesus would do.
The comment, "What would Jesus do?", is a common one. It is somewhat of a mystery why someone born in the West need be concerned with people and events in the distant past, allegedly treading the sands of the East. Every race has it's view of the teachings, looks, and color of an alleged "Jesus". This is one of the most devisive topics of conversation anywhere, so why do so many keep pushing it? Each group wants to convert everyone else to his/her view of the subject, or it's off to hell or purgatory with ya. There must be better ways of bringing the world together. Thousands of groups claim to have the ear of "God", but they can't get together to help heal the wounds that are deep in the Marxized Amerikan body. Why don't we try healing wounds instead of opening fresh ones with dogmatic zeal? Peace to all.
Amen
I can agree with you in part. First of all the King James Version of the Bible is God's word given to us as a guide to running our lives. Secondly Christians that are true Christians do not hate anyone that was described in the above report. True Christians will hate the sin and love the sinner. I hate the sin but as a true Christian I would also welcome them with open arms, and given the chance I would befriend them and try to lead them to the Lord.
A Baptist in Nevada
Instead of offering a venomous reaction to an obviously grotesque practice (when viewed in terms of the extreme forms of body modification), perhaps we should be worrying ourselves with the circumstances which gave rise to such a practice amongst Christians. Sin is the obvious Sunday School answer, but the question then becomes: "Why this sin?" Christians which gravitate toward heavy bod mod are, self-consciously or not, reacting to the pietistic legalism and Victorian mores of the contemporary American church. Granted, their reaction is a bit misdirected, but is another helping of knee-jerk, reactionary rhetoric really what we need here? Shouldn't we light a candle instead of cursing the darkness? Your one dimensional post leaves me unfulfilled.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. However I am curious about the omission of letters in the word circumstances…does this provide you with a feeling that you have kept your communication more pure? The omission of letters in a word because they, in a different context, are indicative of something pornographic is akin to the omission of the vowel "o" when certain people refer to diety as G_d. Both fail to produce the desired effect and instead force a focus on the non-existent word in the former case and the self righteous attitude in the latter. I only comment because your even handed and well presented point seems compromised by this, in my humble opinion. Thanks!
Wow. I would have never thought of that. I am totally amazed. I wondered "why are there stars in the middle of the word?" but had no idea he was bothered by spelling a word. Do folks like sirmichael observe this when they speak as well? if so, it would be totally funny to listen to them talk! Thanks.
People like sirmichael were as surprised as you when the post was edited… must be an auto-edit feature of "intensedebate" software. My wife and I even chuckled over the fact that the auto-editing feature edited those three letters even in the middle of another word.
Hi Ken, generally G_d is spelled that way to that articles can conform to internet standards and not be blocked by spam filters etc. Aside from that, I think it is a beautiful observation on your part to keep things as they should be. A message delivered with a pure motive (smiles to you!).
I think there has always been sick, dark evil people around. The fact that they advertize makes it easier for us to notice – the ones that scare me are like our current President – the ones who go out of their way to appear normal and to be doing good, while their entire life is decaded to doing eveil.
I have to agree with Big Bus….Speaking as a Christian woman who, as a matter of fact, has several tattoos it seems to me that the point of the matter has been totally missed. A tattoo, piercing, scarring or other form of body-art (As I like to call them) does not necessarily indicate the condition of a person's heart which is and always should be the main concern. Not the cover of the book boys but the contents, that's what's important. Jesus' gift of life given freely from the cross allows me the opportunity to celebrate the life given to me by God and releases me from the ceremonial Law of the OT. I don't tattoo my body as a sign of morning or to inflict "pain" to bring on a "Religious experience" Intent is everything. I did get most of my tattoo's before I knew the Lord on a personal basis but have gotten one since my conversion and will probably get more. Although I must say, I am really picky about what is put on my body. After all, it is permanent.
I won't condemn you if you have freedom in Christ, however, the book cover is precisely the problem in this case: Despite the fact (and I believe you) that you do not have the same motives as most other adherents to BM practices, others will not know that, and signals you, however wrongly, as a member of something decidedly ungodly. If one looks like and acts like a pagan, I'm sore pressed to believe that the heart is any different. I think it results in a poor witness. I used to believe that most of those things were okay, even as a believer, until I began to understand that I must not use my freedom in Christ in any way that will be a stumbling block to other believers. This is the same reason that, though I do not believe there is any sin whatsoever in the moderate consumption of alcohol, I have chosen to abstain totally. Free or not, a fellow believer or someone whom I hope to win to Christ may not know that I do not abuse alcohol. Go in peace, but I would encourage you to humbly and openly seek the Lord on this one.
The Lord asks that we put on the new man when one has been saved from this sin-darkened "world". Continuing to live the "old" life into the "new" is not truly a new creature. It is like packing your worn out clothes along with your newly bought clothes into the same suitcase and going on a long travel. Pretty soon, the new clothes will begin to look like the old and what is the "difference" then? It is but lukewarm. This is why WE, as believers, must throw the the old torn, rageed clothes out and leave them behind as we enter daily into our new clothes. This is the example that God talks of in 1 & 2 Corinthians, as well, as Roman, 1 Thessalonians, etc. If you are a believer in Christ, then the entirety of the bible belongs to you, not only what you feel is appropriate for you. Throw out the old and bring in the new.
Ahh…the legalism is STRONG in this one. :-}
@aseattleconservative – I don't know how serious you are in your jab at Joel (you may be kidding), but if it is in reference to his tattoos, have you considered that he very well may have gotten those before his Christian conversion? If you admit to that strong possibility, would you suggest that he needs to go through tattoo removal procedures to further his sanctification?
Yep. Joel McD. Why not ask him to express his regrets.
Thanks for your reply Gary. First let me say that Joel McD is a brilliant man; I enjoy reading his articles as much as I do yours. I had considered that Joel had the tattoo's before he found Christ, but do those that don't know him and then hear his words that defend God know that? Joel will have to deal with that issue; I'm just pointing out a "possible" hypocrisy point that the atheist left can use against him.
Speaking of regrets: you might ask your son James why he banned me from your Christian Worldview Forum. I was one of the few that thanked your father for his service to our country. I was saddened to see that his own grandson didn't do the same.
James "bans" people for very good reasons. You must have given him one.
I know a man who put a gun to his head and blew off a good part of it. What should he do now that he is a Christian? Should we listen to him now on why it's wrong to try to kill yourself because he did it to himself?
And what if a person who is a Christian does something stupid or sinful, is he to be condemned for that thing forever?
"James "bans" people for very good reasons. You must have given him one."
While James "claims" that he banned me for calling an unappreciate snot-nosed kid an "unappreciative snot-nosed kid", I think it had more to do with "outing" the Libertarian Party views of Gary North and his associate Ron Paul. (I'm surprised you haven't pulled a Rushdoony and parted your ways as well Gary).
A Police Field Training Officer once told me a story about his rookie partner. The rookie had written a petty traffic violation to upstanding type citizen in her own neighborhood. The FTO afterwards said the following words to the rookie: "There aren't a lot of people out there that like us, don't alienate those that do."
Please pass that on to James for me Gary.
My regards to Joel McD. He (like you) is a good man.
I would love to respond to the above post if your son would allow me Gary.
Psssst, Joel McD….
Largely, I agree, though I don't know that "piercing" is the central idea. We are made in the image of God. I note that altars were to be made of unhewn stones. ( Deuteronomy 27:5) It is also true that such markings were ancient signs of slavery. I also don't shy away from the implication drawn from a woman and the wearing of piercing rings. They signified her servitude. Too often we are reluctant to complete the Biblical picture of men and women, fearing that the world will criticize.