What we are witnessing in Body Modification is the developing self-consciousness of a Christ-rejecting culture (see Part 1 “Body Modification: The Return to Paganism“). For the fundamental need of fallen man is atonement. This is critically important to know and understand. There is only one God-provided atonement, and that is the pierced and risen Christ. A societal rejection of this atonement will result in the arising of pseudo-atonements, typically involving the infliction of pain upon others or oneself.
Thus it is, that to ask “Doesn’t that hurt?,” is to miss the point. Of course it hurts! And the permanent holes and markings and scars are as sacraments of the false atonement. Thus the devil leads astray his hordes, turning their eyes and hearts from Christ to themselves.
A recent feature article in the New York Times Magazine talked about young people cutting themselves with knives, glass, fingernails, whatever, “to feel better.” The girl featured in the story told of how she cut herself the first time with a wallpaper cutter: “It felt good to see the blood coming out, like that was my other pain leaving, too. It felt right and it felt good.”
The New York Times, lacking a Christian worldview, can only describe the phenomenon; it cannot explain it. “In an age of tattoos and nose rings, self-mutilation is the latest expression of adolescent self-loathing.” According to Dr. A. Favazza, professor of psychiatry at the University of Missouri-Columbia medical school, “Self-injury is probably a bit epidemic.” He defines self-mutilation as “the direct, deliberate destruction or alteration of one’s own body tissue without conscious suicidal intent.” The Times recognized the relationship between the growing popularity of body modification and the estimated “two million people injuring [themselves] in secret.” We are beginning to “look like a nation obsessed with cutting.” One expert called it “the addiction of the 1990s.”
The article cites self-injury in other cultures, but the antecedents noted are cults, pagans, homosexuals, and sadomasochists. Hardly the kind of gallery to which a Christian or a Jew might appeal for justification for body-mutilation. Yet there is an increasingly vocal number of self-professing Jews and Christians intent on making BM just another form of lawful expression.
Interestingly, all the apologists I’ve read begin by rejecting the Law as normative. First, a Jew: “Are Jews prohibited from practicing body modification? In my opinion, the answer is ‘No,’ for several reasons. One, most Jews in the Reform [not to be confused with the Christian version of Reformed], Reconstructionist [not to be confused with the Christian version of Reconstructionist] and Conservative movements do not take the Bible to be pure divinely inspired word.” He then explains that this view of Scripture (not surprisingly) facilitates acceptance/tolerance of such things as “homosexuality, pre-marital sex, birth control … and our general rejection of antiquated sexist ideas….”
Next, a “Christian,” a United Methodist minister pastoring two Midwest churches, who has numerous piercings (including sublingual, nipple and genital) and a growing number of tattoos: This “minister” finds “analysis of specific Biblical passages … useful,” but prefers to justify BM theologically. (His theology includes spelling God as “Godde,” explaining that this “is a term being used by some to shift away from the culturally gender-bound term, ‘God.’”) BM, he insists, must be understood in the light of the Incarnation. For him this means that “Godde [sic] acts in and through the human experience.” Christians who reject BM are plagued by Hellenistic dualism. Enlightened Christians, such as himself, see the body as “a sacrament of Godde [sic] …. My piercings and tattoos are my attempt to clothe and ornament well my body.” His self-mutilations are “profoundly expressive of Godde [sic].” Maybe so, but not of our God, not of the true God.
In the Law it is written, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:28). The rabbis speak clearly on this passage: “It was a pagan custom to gash the skin when a close relative died. They also did this when they suffered any other grief. With this they would call upon their deity to help them (cf. 1 Kings 18:28). God told us to avoid this.
“The Torah continues, ‘Do not make tattoo marks on your skin.’ It is forbidden to make any tattoo marks or to allow oneself to be tattooed. The pagans used to make tattoo marks by gashing their skin and then placing dye or other coloring into the gashes so the color would remain. We similarly see many gentiles today who have tattoos on their arms, chests and other places. In ancient times this was done to show that they were like slaves to their pagan deity. The Torah therefore commands us not to do this. We are slaves of the Living and Everlasting God. We have our holy signs such as the mark of circumcision as well as the Sabbath and Festivals. These are the great signs that we are God’s servants.”
The prohibitions of Leviticus 19–28 are said to include “every area of the body, whether [generally] exposed or covered by clothing,” and to be “in effect everywhere, at every time, for both man and woman.
Compare this to the defense of BM by a self-described Christian: “Christians are not bound by the Law. Remember that it’s not what you do; it’s what’s in your heart when you do it.” Uh-huh. And hear yet another professing believer: “These laws are from the first covenant, which Jesus replaced with the new covenant.” This clever man uses the de facto American Christian view of the place of the Law in the life of the Christian to release himself from any obligation to it. None but the Reformed can respond potently. But how can anyone respond to this fellow’s New Testament justification for BM? The sum of it, for him, is to be found in Ephesians 5:29: “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” What remains to be said when a professing Christian equates piercing, cutting, burning. and slashing the body with nourishing and cherishing it? Pity his wife!! (Eph. 5:28). And if we are to love neighbor as self, my advice to his neighbors: Move!
Among the Jews the historic penalty for violation of Leviticus 19:28 was flogging. Of course, the Jews have not practiced flogging for some time, yet voluntary tattooing is non-existent among observant Jews, and almost non-existent among practicing Jews of most varieties. How do we explain this state of affairs, especially in view of the fact that nearly all Western Jews live in largely Gentile urban areas, where tattooing has not been unknown, and is sometimes not uncommon? There is a reason to explain this, and it is brimming with instruction.
Ironically, the reason can be traced to what is actually a myth: that if you have a tattoo, you cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetery. (The truth is that you may be buried in a cemetery, but if it is largely orthodox, you may be consigned to an isolated area marked off and away from the frum (observant) Jews. Other conditions may apply: no prayers on behalf of the dead [don’t confuse these with Romish prayers]; no shrouds; no entitlement to ritual cleansing; no prayers at the time of burial; Shiva, the traditional mourning period, may not be observed. In short, the “myth” is a handy, though inaccurate, shorthand for the facts.) Virtually every Jew I’ve ever known believes the myth to be true. And that belief alone was enough to utterly banish any thought of tattooing from our minds. We would never even for a moment entertain the thought of tattooing ourselves.
But this fear of being excluded in death from Am Yisrael—the “people of Israel”—is itself predicated upon a profoundly deep-seated understanding of oneself as a Jew. This, in turn, is built upon an understanding of Jewishness which utterly transcends the individual.
This—may I say?—is precisely where American Christianity has failed, pathetically and tragically failed. I am convinced that this fruit of the triumph of Baptistic, atomistic, anti-covenantal theology in our history. Yet, be that as it may, the fact remains that the consciousness of a Jew regarding his being a Jew has value only as part of a called people. The suggestion that a certain behavior will disqualify him from being buried with his people is enough to banish any thought of that behavior.
Now try that with a typical American Christian youth who is contemplating body modification. Tell him he won’t be allowed to be buried in a Christian cemetery. Oh, wow! Can’t you see him shaking in his boots?
Hardly. The fact is that we do not even approach (except among the Dutch Reformed) the Jewish sense of peoplehood. No matter that the Holy Spirit tells us that we are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9), we can’t help but think of ourselves as merely a collection of individuals who have made choices to become Christian. But this is precisely what the truth of the covenant, particularly as it is seen in infant baptism, is so-well fitted to overcome: we were appointed, designated and constituted a people by the one and only God! It is He who made us a people and not we ourselves!
Also involved in the Jewish rejection of BM is, as we have noted, the belief in the continuing validity of the Law of God. The orthodox Jews have bested us with a highly developed sense of corporate calling. They also hover closer to Scripture when they regard God’s moral standards as irrevocable. It is quite true that Christians, unlike the Jews, are united firstly by a common faith and creed. But this faith must never be thought of as a replacement for God’s Law, but rather as its only proper foundation (Rom. 3:3 1). True Christianity does not differ with Judaism by affirming faith and rejecting deeds. Rather it differs from Judaism in the arrangement of these two essential covenant elements: Jews believe in what they do; Christians do what they believe in.
The church in America and elsewhere will soon find itself plagued by the in-your-face confrontation of Body Modifiers. If it is to respond in a God-pleasing manner, its response will be exceedingly simple: We have no such practices, nor do the churches of God (1 Cor. 11:16). We do not do these things. We do not do such things because: (1) they are contrary to God’s Law. We do not pretend to know how to apply every law in every generation and culture, but this one offers little difficulty, Biblically or historically. This is a pagan practice and we are not to be like the pagans. (2) Such practices are contrary to God’s requirement to render our bodies unto Him in righteousness. Our bodies are not our own. (3) We reject practices which confuse the differences between male and female, and which confuse the differences between Christ’s people and the world. (4) Above all, we reject these practices because we are the people of the atonement. All these practices are inseparable from a mindset that operates without atonement. But we are controlled by Christ’s atonement in all we believe and do. “He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood.” (5) Thus we are of all people the most free, for we alone have “been set free from the tyranny of the devil.” It was for freedom that Christ set us free. We do not use our freedom as a cover-up for evil.
The encroachment of body modification into the church presents us with yet another opportunity to recover the sense of our unique calling. Shall we rise to the occasion or once again capitulate? The task assigned by God to us, particularly those of us in Reformed churches, is huge. And it is comprehensive. It cannot be completed, however, unless we inculcate in our congregations a worldview and more: a consciousness, an identity as members of the covenant community, a community redeemed by God’s grace to abide by God’s Law. Our calling impacts everything we do. We do not proclaim a one-dimensional Christ, but a Savior who is Prophet, Priest and King of His people, the Ruler, in fact, over all the world and all of life.
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. 
I am a true and strong Christian and I read the bible regularly but I know that a lot of people take quotes completely out of context. I always tell people to make sure that that the read the verses before and after to keep the true meaning of what was written. Now, that being said, the one issue I have is when they say that body modification is wrong, BUT that circumcision is ok. It seems to be a bit contradictory. Since circumcision is right (which by definition is a body modification) then ALL body modifications aren’t wrong. It is done for a purpose, not for the pain, same as ear piercing… Most people are babies when they get their ears pierced. It’s not pagan, and in history, it was believed that pressure to the earlobes improved a persons eye sight, like a pressure point… And many pressure points have been proven medically to exist. Other piercings are for other purposes, as was well as aesthetic reasons. That is why many people have painless piercing performed, where the area pierced is numbed with a needle by a licensed practitioner. Or if a burned victim receives plastic surgery to alter their skin back, it is STILL a body modification… And if this is ok, then once again, ALL body modifications aren’t wrong. My issue is the generalizing all body modifications, but then contradicting about circumcision.
Body modification and self-injury are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Self-injury is a psychological problem where people hurt themselves to relieve stress. Commonly known forms of self-injury include cutting and burning, and these people may often try to stop themselves but can’t and need help. I have friends that have suffered from this problem and they have slowly recovered with therapy. Body modification is done because the person is modifying his body in some way that he thinks will look “cool.” Some body modification forms include tatoos, microdermal implants, and piercings. And, I actually have asked some of these people if their piercings hurt, and they say that after it is healed, it does not. The purpose is not to feel pain as the author has suggested; the purpose it is to change appearance. As soon as I read the first few paragraphs that lumped body modification and self-injury as the same type of thing, I knew immediately that the author was not to be taken seriously. I consider myself a very religious Christian and the sheer number of misinformed or extremist christians saddens me, mostly because it gives the rest of us a bad reputation. I think the author started with good intentions, but he was badly misinformed and needs to do a decent bit more research.
I am really glad that Desert_Don is not my pastor.
I feel somewhat unique in my position on tattoos. I hold to the relevance of the moral law (as opposed to ceremonial). I also have several tattoos, but no earrings. The thing is, the word tattoo wasn’t even invented for centuries later. Modern tattoos hardly fit the bill of this verse. That being said, how does one establish a standard for bm? You must be consistent and ban all earrings or markings of any sort. My own personal issue is I know I got tattoos to be cool. It was a cry for attention. I’m not really sure I know anyone who has a different reason. Therefore, I’m finished getting them.
As a pastor and Christian, I find this article, and its accompanying mind-set to be both frustrating and fascinating.
Frustrating because it is a clear attempt to apply portions of the OT Law to Christians, and fascinating because it is such a muddle of muddy thinking.
Since I don't wish to write an essay on this subject, I'll limit my comments to two questions:
1) Was Mary, Jesus' mother a pagan? It's common knowledge that the cultural norm in first century Judea was for women to have both nose and ears pierced (likely as infants). Perhaps modern women seeking to be Biblically correct should follow that same practice.
2) Are we under the Law? Both Jesus and Paul had quite a bit to say on that subject. Indeed one of them remarked that the Law was surpassed and nullified by Jesus' sacrifice. Shall we try then to "keep" a law which was given to us to show us our inability to please and glorify God in our own strength and flesh?
Also, self-harm has absolutely nothing to do with body modification. It's a psychological problem of unhealthy stress release and an addiction. I have many friends who have suffered from it – including my older brother – and many who are still. Most cutters are extremely ashamed of their scars and go to great lengths to hide them. It's just as hard to stop as any addiction (and yes, it is one. Do some research on it). Please just love them and pray for them, and remember it doesn't have anything to do with the body mod culture.
Our bodies are our temples. The Bible describes grand, ornate temples. So, as long as one keeps their focus on God, it shouldn't be a problem to have minor body modification, like piercings. I plan to get several once I'm old enough. The Bible does not say anything against piercing specifically (correct me if I'm wrong). It's also wrong to say that piercings are wrong in males. It isn't demeaning, humbling, or anything of the sort. Piercings are usually reversible works of art that are done with someone's free will, not to make one a servant. Artful piercings are simply signs of individuality, art, and love for our bodies. Please, take it from a teen – it's true.
I completely agree with Catherine on the subject of tattoos. She's said what I would have said, much better than I could have.
O.k., so we pull one Levitical law out and condemn everyone that violates it. Wow, now there is a christian!!….by the way, how many of us wear polyester blends, or wool/cotton blend clothes. This is also outlawed. Are we to stop eating shellfish and pork as well? And since when is art (tattoos) considered mutilation? I always saw them as artistic expression.
Thanks for attempting to drive yet another wedge into the fabric of our christian lives!
Antinomianism is God Hating.
As someone who has over 200 hours of tattoos, and a longtime member of a certain sector of the tattooing community, I greatly respect Schlissel's arguments. I must distinguish between the piercing community and the tattooing community, as does my particular group – people who are 'merely' tattooed are generally a cross-section of the public at large. The piercing community, in contrast, is made up of a LOT of 'fringe' people (as the guy pictured above well demonstrates), particularly those into extreme sexual practices. I have always believed that the tactile changes in piercing truly lead to places that are difficult to come back from. Interestingly, some piercing experimentation was done around the 1940s by Jewish doctors who felt somehow mutilated by their circumcisions, a whole 'nother can of worms.
I do not know what God will think of my tattoos. I wonder if my sanctified body will have them. For me, it's about the art. The people I have known through tattooing have been wonderful people, and I have the least trauma associated with knowing them than any other interest group. Assuredly, now that tattooing is far more allowed socially, my experience cannot be the norm. *I* am deeply offended by most of the plain bad art I see. Further most of the time I cover my work, even though I know that people need to see the good art so that they will hopefully demand that quality for themselves. Sadly, this is not so. For this reason alone, I think that tattooing should go back to being heavily restricted socially. There should be waiting periods which become greater in proportion to how young one is. And ANY tattooing or BM should be outlawed if the consumer is under age 18; NONE of my friends and associates will work on anyone underage, no matter what permissions there are. My associates also will not do certain tattoos, nor will they do tattoos that cannot be easily covered up unless they have spent a long time understanding that person and their motives. Unfortunately, there are a great many people out there who are not so professional.
sirmichael's points above are well-taken. Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him which is important. As an Anglican Catholic, I respect that in today's world, an emphasis on the only real reason people get tattooed – because they WANT to – can either be done with respect to one's person relationship with God or against the faith… and then there is that pesky problem of what we do contributing to the sins or salvation of others. I worry a very great deal about my influence on others, that my fine work may contribute to some foolishness on someone else's part. The Coptic traditions regarding tattoos are often pointed to by tattooed people, as are the grand pagan traditions of the pagan South Sea Islands.
Ultimately, people get tattooed – or not – and tattoos have a strong effect on viewers. Native Americans and the U.S. Navy, for two 'communities', have both strong tattooing traditions and groups that wish to ban the practice. I have a feeling it will ever be so. What is important to me is ensuring that we diminish both the extreme attitudes of the naive who get tattooed without fully understanding or respecting those who will be shocked by their decision (and owning their decision without dismissing their critics as overly-judgmental), as well as those whom I have known who ostracize, misjudge or penalize the tattooed.
By the same token, I recommend to people who ask me that they NOT get tattooed unless they fully understand the ramifications and take full responsibility for their decision. I discourage anyone under the age of 25 from getting any sort of permanent markings – and if they betray any sort of belief they will somehow be thought cooler by having a tattoo, I discourage them no matter what age they are. Such a belief is a form of idolatry or totemism, after all, whether or not the person is aware of such things.
There is a very real objection to tattoos as a symptom of a person being overly concerned about one's physical appearance. And in this sense, YES – there can well be objections to plastic surgery (particularly breast implants for anyone other than the completely flat chested who is tired of being mistaken for a boy). We have seen extreme cases wherein a mother's pursuit of beauty (so-called) by plastic surgery ruins her family through harming her daughter's view of herself.
And so, as an owner of some very special tattoos, I say that we must be vigilant in all we do, to ask ourselves how what we do helps or hurts our devotions, how it does or does not fulfill God's plan for us, and how does what we do influence others and help or hurt them. I judge tattoos as good or evil depending upon their owner. I tend to agree that they are somewhat riskier than not having them, where most people are concerned. When in doubt, don't.
The so "called" christians in America, are not.. These soft go against the word of God, will only accept God under "my" conditions are not christians, they are phonys… It is too hard for these people to obey Gods laws. that is why there are gay ministers and priests, abortions, that is why they cry out at the Catholic church to change. You can't be a Christian, and have God under your conditions, you either take him at his, or not… Wait and see…………..
The Bible is very explicit. It means what is says. Period. I do not see how people justify piecering their bodies, and tatoos, when it says heathen do that, not Christ followers.
While I give Pastor Schlissel points for making the connection between body modification practices and the Christian idea of sacrament, I am still going to have to disagree with him on this topic. While I do agree that the Law of God should be followed (I am consistently Reformed like that), I do not agree that a rabbinical interpretation of the Levitical law concerning cutting and marking one's body for the dead has any relevance whatsoever. None. Shouldn't the sharp words of Jesus concerning the fencing of the law make us wary of such conclusions?
I am curious whether Pastor Schlissel celebrates Christmas with a tree & whether he celebrates "Easter" or Resurrection Sunday. Any bunnies and eggs on that special day? To be perfectly consistent he would have to forswear all of this, since it smacks of pagan influences as well. What he fails to realize is the difference interaction that NT believers have with culture due to the final victory of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It's a whole new ballgame. Instead of running away from the bent elements of the world, we bend them back. This is why early Christians pierced their ears, as a way of marking themselves as a slave to Christ. I got news for you. Tattoos were used in the ancient world for the same reason (mark of slavery), hence the long tradition of tattooing in the Coptic Church.
The Old/New argument is actually arguments, plural. Let's not be reductionists. I am no dispensationalist, nor am I an antinomian. I am simply trying to consistently apply a Reformed theology of culture without falling into pietistic nonsense. And just to be clear. I have pierced ears but no tattoos, though I am not opposed to them except in the specific case of memorial tattoos (which I think still has continuing validity).
So now that there has been presented a thoroughly Reformed justification for moderate body modification, what say ye? Let us not institutionalize an old testament theology of culture which amounts to cursing the darkness. That's all I'm saying.
(I wish I had the energy to write more. I wrote my master's thesis on this topic, so I do have plenty to say. My general dislike of electronically mediated communication, however, requires me to end my rant here.)
God bless.
Thanks for the thoughtful article. It got me thinking about how to approach people in this situation. http://www.hisbody.us/TeachingBlogs/tabid/62/Entr…
If you take it far enough you could say even the wearing of clothes to cover what God created is wrong. Moderation in all things. I personally don't like to see very many of the bodies around with no clothes on, or to expose mine for public inspection.
I think a good place to draw the line is: Can you wash it off at night? Can you take it off when you get tired of it? When you take it off does it leave a permanent mark behind?
Thank you, some good sense. I appreciate it.
A question: Following the logic of this article, would it be reasonable to conclude that other forms of body modification, such as plastic surgery (breast implants, face lifts, tummy tucks, liposuction and the like) would also be considered a violation of God's Law? Taken further, what about any form of cosmetics used to hide blemishes or enhance or exaggerate physical features (think lipstick)?
On one hand, it seems drastic to dismiss all attempts at physical adornment/enhancement. Yet, allowing for some forms of "modification" under the guide of one's conscience conceivably allows all forms of BM. What say you?
The portion of Leviticus to which Pastor Schlissel refers says not to cut or to tattoo. I doubt very seriously if there were very many breast implants, face lifts, tummy tucks, etc., at that time. The point was to avoid doing the things that pagans did. There have been prohibitions in some moderns churches against hair dye, lipstick and other cosmetic enhancements based on the notion that pagans, ie., Egyptians a very long time ago, practiced these cosmetic arts, and we, as Christians, were to remain separate and apart from those practices. I am not sure that the breast implants, etc., are necessarily a "violation" of God's Law. If they are only for the enhancement of self, they appear to go against the notion of our reaching out beyond ourselves as witnesses to Christ's sacrifice and God's perfect Grace. What we choose to do with our monies and our lives to impact others' lives reflects Whose we are or aren't.
I enjoy reading your articles. In most cases, they are interesting and don’t really need any additional comment. However, with this article, I became very concerned. I agree with what you said, but want to add a few more insites.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon to some) Please check this out.
Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the tattooing of the body. Those who disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. The Apostle Paul taught of the significance of our bodies and the danger of purposefully defiling them: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Corinthians 3:16–17). http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&am…
Wonderful article. I always taught my children that "BM" was our vain attempt at perfecting God's creation. The Old Covenant / New Covenant argument for BM misses the point entirely. Christ didn't replace the Law, He fullfilled the Law. We are called to be Christ like. We are called to obedience. If Christ replaced the Law, then what are we called to be obedient to? Body Modification is just another symptom of man's attempt to humanistically replace God. In the Garden, the fruit was eaten so that we could become as God. We've been doing it ever since. Thanks be to God for His Grace through Christ Jesus.
This was a very good and very helpful article. I have always taught my children that they are apart of the "great family of God" extending all the way back to Abraham through Christ. I have always taught them that when they read the bible they are not reading about other people, but their people. Those are our stories of our people and our covenant and our legacy. The law is every bit as important today as it always was because it is how we live to please God. When we honor Gods law we honor God, and our covenant brethren.
Another great post by Past Schlissel. It really is amusing that every time one states that the covenant community ought to live by the Law of God gave, Christians tie themselves in knots. Yes, we have liberty of conscience are redeemed by the blood of Jesus and are not saved by any merit of our own…then what. How should we then live? If we have been set apart as God's people, if we have been redeemed by Him, if He is our sovereign, if we trust in Him for the forgiveness of our sins then surely we ought to respond in faithful obedience to the entire Word of God? If God is still an all consuming fire, if Christ requires obedience as fruit of confession then surely we ought to seek to understand how the Law of God applies to our lives?
I do not delight in or want the freedom to do as I please. In Christ I want the freedom of trusting and obeying the gracious Law of my Savior. The debate ought to be over the application of the Law and not does Law bring salvation – of course it doesn't, that was never its intent.
The church in Australia has many younger people who have modified their bodies in all sorts of ways. In my opinion one of the major factors here is a low view of the Law of God. Thanks Pastor Schlissel, for encouraging us to keep the jots and tittles…they are important.