T for Two - Are T's for You?? Are Tattoos Taboo??

While I have been considering a post like this for the last couple of years, my impetus to do it now comes by way of a book I discovered several months ago. It's called, "To Tattoo or not to Tattoo - A Christian Analysis of the Tattoo" by Dr. Terry Watkins, Th.D., published in 2003. I found multiple copies in one of those Library Boxes a few blocks from my apartment.

As I already had a good handle on the subject, I promptly tossed all but 1 in the trash. I was curious as to the exact nature of the drivel I knew he was spouting. This article is a concise rebuttal of the book it's based on, as I made notes throughout.

Just a quick note here that all bold-face, regular type is Dr. Wilkins' emphasis. Any bold face italics are mine.

Starting in the preface, I saw 2 things that needed to be addressed:

1) The whole idea of "taboo tattoos", was he going to make an exception for Military insignias?? (As we will see in reading through, he makes no mention of them whatsoever) My only conclusions here are that he is either grouping them together with his major theme of people who are either criminal and/or aggressive, or he's simply chosen to ignore them so as not to offend a wider audience than his work is already doing*. The only other thought here may be that he doesn't want to make himself sound like a hypocrite by denouncing most, but not all tattooed people. (As far as that goes, he's already being hypocritical by judging others, both inappropriately and improperly)

2) He cites 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23 as an argument due to its admonition to, A. "prove all things good" - I would point out here that tattoos are not listed among the things God hates in Proverbs 6:16-19. Most of the things on that list are strictly heart issues, not so much physical. B. "Avoid all appearance of evil" - the problem with this is that the definitions of "sin" or "evil" vary greatly from one culture to another. While there are basic guidelines of behavior in the Bible, the specifics are between us and God. It's subjective according to cultural norms over the course of time, and therefore, inevitably, changes. And, C. "keep your spirit, soul, and body blameless" -- this is not talking about tattoos, haircuts, or clothing*. Its only talking about Christlike behavior. (more on this later)

Chapter 1 - The Trail of Blood

Dr. Watkins opens the main body of his book with the earliest practices of what is now called tattooing. And I agree with that on a basic level. (One should always start with the origin/history) The problem is that he doesn't consider all the aspects. While it's true that the early populations of humanity purposely bled themselves on some kind of regular basis, the point he's missing is that this was just as likely, if not far more so, to be for medicinal purposes rather than for Pagan ritual.

He makes reference here to 1 Kings 18:25-28 which speaks to the idea of people "cutting themselves". To my mind, this only speaks of idolatry, not of tattooing because there is no mention of any specific design. Cutting was clearly a common part of Baal worship, but at the same time, you can't just lump all forms and reasons for it together and call it evil. The most important point to consider is the individual intention of any given activity. I would honesty venture to say that, at this point in time, over 99% of the reasons people get tattoos are for nothing more than personal expression. Only a small group may still be doing it for any kind of ritual purpose. (and even then, it doesn't mean that purpose is inherently bad)

Our author then proceeds to delve into the Old Testament book of Leviticus to support his thesis. Specifically, chapter 21, verse 5, which told the Israelites not to cut themselves. He cross-references this with Deuteronomy 14:1 where He instructs them not to cut themselves or to cut their hair in allegiance to the dead. This also included shaving the space between their eyebrows*.

He then flips over to the New Testament where he directs the reader to Mark 5:1-9. For those of you unfamiliar, this is the story of Jesus exorcizing a bunch of demons from a single man in the Gadarene region. One aspect of this man's possession involves cutting his skin.

I find these passages entirely irrelevant to the discussion of tattoos because, like our other verses above, there is absolutely no evidence of any specific designs, or, as far as the possessed man, no personal intention to harm. Actually, by including this story in his arguments, he's suggesting that every single person who gets tattooed must be possessed by demons. (He literally claims later on that we are at least mentally ill)

He then goes on to bring a pop culture reference to vampires and magic into the mix. Seriously?? Fictional themes are giving this man fuel for his fire?? (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, if you're curious)

Dr. Watkins ends the first chapter by quoting 2 Corinthians 2:11, indicating that tattoos, being the "devices of Satan" that he thinks they are, must all be evil. What a load of crap!!

Chapter 2 - The Cup of Devils

This chapter opens with Dr. Watkins saying that it hasn't been until the 21st century that tattoos have been associated with anything other than Paganism, demonism, etc... etc... Only relatively recently have they been embraced by what he calls, "lukewarm, carnal, disobedient, Laodicean Christians. (See Revelation 3:14-21)

He goes on to state that, "The birth of the tattoo always produces the fruits of pagan religion and mysticism." Really?? Always?? Any time anyone tries to make a blanket statement for a specific issue, they're going to be wrong. He doesn't seem to realize that both people, and therefore, times, change. I mean, granted, he mentions that the Christian community has never been a part of the tattooed populace until the past couple of decades; but at the same time, that should mean that he recognizes the fact that change is a constant, albeit slow moving part of life, and therefore, culture. And beyond that, the acknowledgment that not all change is for the worse.

He goes on to cite various quotations from "pro-tattoo" books. One of these says that tattoos are often a magical rite in the more traditional cultures, and that the tattooist is respected as a priest or shaman*. (Delio 73) -- to me, this is nothing more than an interesting factoid. It has no bearing on the vast majority of today's tattoo culture.

Another concludes that, "historically, tattooing had originated in connection with ancient rites of scarification and bloodletting which were associated with religious practices intended to put the human soul in harmony with supernatural forces and ensure continuity between this life and the next." Uuuummmm... okay. What's the downside here?? Isn't it supposed to be our ultimate goal to have harmony with God?? Whom, may I remind you, IS "supernatural"!? If a tattoo can help with that, as a visual reminder of our relationship with Him, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

In the next paragraph, Dr. Watkins reiterates his earlier claim that the tattoo, "in every culture, in every country, up until the 21st century, was a vehicle for pagan spiritual and religious invocations". He adds that even today, most cultures around the world believe the tattoo to be a bridge into the supernatural world. A relatively brief internet search did not bear this out beyond a single website relating to tantric symbols. And even then the article said that the power connected with them could be used for either good or evil, so that's still not entirely pertinent. He claims that all tattoos open the person up to demonic possession. That's nothing but pure, unadulterated BS. As I said earlier, and will continue to reiterate throughout this article, the most important aspect of a tattoo lies in personal intent. There is still no mention of Military designs.

The next citation involves the concept of tattoos as a way of "calling the spirits, proudly, defiantly, or sneakily, showing who you are via body art". I didn't actually have a note about this before, but as I'm reading back through as I go, it occurs to me that this idea could actually be a positive thing. For example, my own tattoo of an Infinity Cross and iris is not only a reminder to me of my relationship with God, but also shows the Devil Whose I am.

The following paragraph mentions tattooing as a form of physical therapy, or more accurately, healing therapy. They talk about how the Ojibwa tribe used it to heal headaches, toothaches, etc... that were thought to be caused by demons. Part of the exorcism ritual, along with the tattoo, included dancing. My question is, how is it a bad thing to want to exorcize demons?? Just because they were wrong about physical ailments being caused by demons doesn't mean we have the right to judge them or their practices as evil; especially in light of the fact that they were trying to do something good.

The idea of personalizing the body and making it "fit for the spirit that dwells inside it" is actually a perfect way to support Christians in their choice to get tattooed. If anything, it relates back to the idea from 2 paragraphs ago about telling the spirits exactly who we are. In my notes here I said that this was exactly right and that fewer than 1% of people who get tattoos are specifically doing it for evil purposes.

Several of the paragraphs that follow on this same page refer to the "magic" that happens during a tattoo session or to letting the "demon" guide the needle. These are ridiculous inclusions to the discussion as they indicate nothing more than metaphors of the experience. Among these commentaries, the author both states and quotes another concerning the idea that tattoos open people up to the dangers of demonic possession. I say BS. It all comes back to intention and design image.

Dr. Watkins then embarks on an exercise of pure conjecture in which he claims that images of skulls and the Grim Reaper reflect either uncertainty about death or an invocation to "whatever undefinable forces of nature and the cosmos that exist, in an attempt to protect the wearer from this fate." (Ferguson and Procter 76) In my own research, I have found nothing negative about this. People either use those images in an attempt to better understand death or, as suggested above, to protect themselves from it.

On the next page, the author cites another author, Ronald Scutt, and his book, "Art, Sex and Symbol", supposedly documenting the "fact" that most tattoos are connected to spiritual, religious, and mystical purposes. The point that is being missed here is that the terms "spiritual" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive. As we saw earlier, in talking about "supernatural" connections, God is "supernatural" and now, we add "spiritual" in relation to the immediate context.

Terry then spends two paragraphs focusing on the Mohave Indians and other Native American tribal practices in regards to tattooing. He describes how they would mark their faces in belief that it was necessary to ensure a good experience in the afterlife. Understanding as I do, that God meets everyone where they are at; I see this as their way of symbolizing Salvation as they understood it at that time. A couple of paragraphs down, he mentions how Frijan women viewed their fate if they remained untattooed. Once again, nothing more than their concept of Salvation.

He then goes back to citing Scutt's work and listing several of the most popular reasons for people getting tattoos. They are as follow, with my commentary added:

• To secure a place in Heaven -- positive - those who see tattoos as a means of identification in the afterlife are not bad. The Bible clearly states that we will have glorified bodies in Heaven. Whether they will still retain earthly decoration is a moot point. The intention is good regardless.

• To propitiate malignant spirits at time of death -- positive

• To acquire special characteristics through totemism and ancestor worship -- not inherently bad

• To make the body sexually interesting -- This is subjective, both to the individual and to any partners they may engage with. Not inherently negative.

The paragraph that comes next outlines numerous other purposes of tattoos; all but one of which focuses on either healing or protection. My note here is that these are mostly positive, just depending on the deity or power being connected with.

He then poses the question, "Who is the tattoos greatest enemy??" and proceeds to claim that the answer is Jesus.

Dr. Watkins presumes to support this opinion by relating the fact that whenever tattooing pagan tribes were converted to Christianity, one of the 1st things to be eliminated was that very practice. He cites 2 Corinthians 5:17 here about all things becoming new. The truth is that this verse is talking specifically about spiritual renewal, not practices in which people sought out protection from evil, showed reverence for their elders, and displayed enthusiasm for their cultural traditions and community. He tries to claim here that the reason for this was that the Holy Spirit "told" the converted pagan "no tattoo". I seriously doubt that. My thought, particularly after having visited Hawaii back in September and attending a Luau, is that the Missionaries influenced that decision with fear and personal/cultural bias. Personally, I am both saddened and ashamed that any of my Christian brothers or sisters ever presumed to eradicate so much cultural history in the Name of Jesus. To me, that is no different than the Catholics forcing their beliefs on the Jews during the Crusades. It shows a weakness of faith, exacerbated by a lack of character, borne out in violence and/or prejudice for the purposes of power and control. All of which stemmed from a gross mistranslation of the Bible (also relating, in part, to the pursuit of power and control) leading to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

Dr. Watkins then shares with his audience the fact that he has many Christian friends who had gotten tattoos before becoming Saved. He claims that, to a man/woman, they understood that tattoos were wrong immediately upon their decisions for Christ. Supposedly before anyone told them, or before they had read Leviticus 19:28, which specifically prohibits the Jews to be tattooed. Personally, I don't believe it. I've seen plenty of people in my church who have tattoos, both staff and general membership/attendees. None of them make any attempt to hide them, nor have I seen any that are inappropriate in design. (no nude women, etc...) The other issue I have with this bit is the fact that Old Testament law no longer applies to anyone, Jew or Gentile since Jesus came and abolished it all on the Cross. Galatians 3:24-25 tells us that Jesus is the "end of the Law unto righteousness". Paul is talking here about how the Law was never meant as anything more than a tutor, leading them to Jesus. Ephesians 2:15 says, "By abolishing in His flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments..." I realize that there are those who would direct my attention to Matthew 5:17 where Jesus said that He had come, not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The problem here is that "fulfill" means "to complete". In other words, the Law would be over with, so, nope. You're still wrong.

A citation of author Steve Gilbert comes next, describing how the Spaniards immediately recognized the tattoos of the Mexicans as "the work of Satan". This is ridiculous, as it was the idolatry that was bad, not the tattoos themselves. The Spaniards were reacting out of ignorance and religious bias. Tattoos and idolatry are not mutually exclusive activities. Dr. Wilkins goes on to repeat part of the quote and say that Christians who embrace tattooing today will "gibber-gabber" about "marking themselves for Jesus". I say that's all many of the other people throughout history were attempting to do, according to their cultural interpretations of God in their day. In mine, and, I would venture to say the minds of all other Christians who have Spiritual tattoos, our defending statement is that the silent witness of a tattoo may lead to a verbal conversation about our faith. We understand that God meets everyone where they're at. That means the Christian has to be relatable to our audience. Although we are "in the world, but not of it" (John 17:11and 14-15), the fact of our being tattooed does not automatically make us rebels. The difference lies in the positive designs of our tattoos as opposed to some of the "darker" images found on the unsaved. That being said, this article contains plenty of evidence to support the idea that these images are not actually "dark", but a form of positive protection.

The author goes on to note the fact that "some body artists" who perform ritual tattoos will go to the trouble of getting every detail right, even down to the client's astrological sign, and lighting candles, etc. The truth is that this represents less than 1% of artists today. Although it may be valid, it's a weak argument at best. He follows this on the next page with the suggestion that some Western artists are experimenting with ritual tattooing, involving the creation of a "sacred space" and burning incense. And?? What's the problem here?? Positive vibes are never a bad thing. (although the incense may be something I'm sensitive to)

He closes out the 2nd chapter with 1 Corinthians 10:21 -- "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils". As we've observed here, and will repeatedly observe throughout this article, tattoos and evil are not mutually exclusive.

It's also a major theme throughout the Bible that God is less concerned with our outward appearance than with our hearts and resulting behaviors. We see this spelled out for us in 1 Samuel 16:7 when God is leading Samuel to anoint David as the next King of Israel.

Chapter 3 - The Symbols of Death

Dr. Wilkins opens this portion by once again citing Leviticus 19:28 and including the verse in full. "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you; I am the Lord."

You can see by the chapter heading why he highlights that phrase. Get ready for more generalized, inaccurate BS...

Although it may be true to say that images such as skulls and reapers are the most prevalent images in the "tattoo universe"*; his mistake is in judging the reasons. He spends the next page or so on generalized conjecture, including a repeat of the earlier quote about possibly invoking undefinable forces or seeking protection from death. He goes on to list a plethora of other "morbid scenes of death", demons, Hell*, etc... including, but not limited to pornography and blasphemy. He presumes that all of these are meant to glorify Satan and death. He even goes so far as to pose the question of who the real "master tattooist" is; clearly indicating Satan as the answer.

My responses are these -- once again, there is no mutual exclusivity between tattoos and evil. Each is capable of existence in its own right. Personal intention is the key. Also, as to his point of "blasphemy" having anything to do with specific tattoo images, it may be true for 1 or 2 people out of millions who have tattoos. That doesn't make his generalized statement of an individual issue a good argument against tattoos. My margin note here simply retorts by asking "Who's calling evil good??" Because that's what blasphemy is. This is found in Isaiah 5:20-21 in so many words, and clearly suggested by numerous verses in the New Testament. Ephesians 4:30 warns both them and us against grieving the Holy Spirit by rejecting Salvation.

I also have more information on the use of skull imagery based on searches responding to a pamphlet on Halloween published by our friend, Terry. (he has a number of them that I'm working through) The truth is, the skull has been seen by various groups throughout history as the seat of life, connecting the body with the spirit (which is our natural makeup, btw. Spirit, soul, and body), protection again the "evil eye" (curses are just as real as blessings), it is also used as a visual aid when honoring ancestors. For many, it simply represents the cycle of life and death (not "glorifying", but acknowledging), and finally, others wear it as a reminder of the mortality of human pleasures. This relates directly with the cycle of life and death concept.

Dr. Watkins goes on to suggest that, since Satan's victory in the Garden of Eden was that death would come to humanity, it must follow that 1) His followers wear symbols of his victory and 2) That all tattoo wearers must be evil; particularly those who wear those images. (Just to be clear, he didn't say the 2nd part, but the suggestion of the logic leads there; especially in light of the entire book) Like I said earlier, he's full of crap!!

After quoting several verses that speak to Jesus as the author of Life as opposed to Satan being the author of death, he follows up with Hebrews 2 and how the Devil "had the power of death". He then celebrates the fact of Jesus' victory over the Devil. My question is, "Since Jesus won, how are symbols guarding against death a bad thing??"

He proceeds to double-down on the Man of Gadera from earlier; specifically noting the fact this man who was possessed lived among the tombs, the cemetery, the place of DEATH. Once again, I'm forced to point out that there is no indication of imagery here, nor are those who get tattooed necessarily possessed. Both are suggested by Dr. Watkins in his citing of this passage. (Mark 5) Just because bloodletting is considered as the beginning of the evolution of the tattoo doesn't mean that this man's intentions in cutting himself were inherently evil. And really, when you consider the fact that he was possessed, that tells me that the intent lay with the demons and not the man. Wouldn't you agree?? And again, no indication of specific imagery is present in this scenario. (which, considering the demons, would be a moot point anyway)

After some other bits about flames and hell-fire, our author moves on to serpents and dragons. He is postulating here that, just because the snake is used by God in the Garden of Eden to represent Satan, that everyone who wears a snake tattoo must be glorifying him. This tells me that he doesn't think that anyone who would wear a snake tattoo might simply like snakes for their own sake. He continues to presume people's intentions throughout the book.

He ends the chapter by citing quotes from and about tattoo artist to the stars, Paul Booth. There are things about how his studio is filled with Satanic imagery, skulls, upside down crosses, etc... and the fact that his website even says that his mission is "spewed from the depth of Hell..." This is ONE ARTIST. Just because he may be the "most sought after" doesn't mean anything in the greater scheme of things. (besides which, this was written about 20 yrs ago)

The next bit is a quote from another tattoo artist on his own website. Tim Kern writes, "A faithless Deviant, Tim has been staining skin since the Black Plague. Soon to be one of Satan's leading henchmen, Tim will spread Profane Immortality with each stroke of his Evil machine." (Last Rites) While it's true that it's possible for people to sell their souls to the Devil, I feel that this is nothing more than delusional hyperbole on the part of Tim Kern. Just an extreme commentary designed to draw in more customers.

He finishes out by quoting 2 Corinthians 2:11, 1 Timothy 5:15, and Ephesians 4:27, all of which speak to the idea of being aware of the schemes of the Devil and giving place to him. In other words, Legalistic, bigoted presumption.

Chapter 4 - The Sign of Rebellion

This chapter opens with 1 Samuel 15:23 and Exodus 22:18. The first shows that God's opinion of rebellion is equal to that of witchcraft. The second demands death for witches. Dr. Watkins' suggestion that all who wear tattoos are inherently rebellious is more generalized conjecture on his part. It's based on limited experience and the fact is that the opinions of 2 or 3 people don't represent the truth for everyone. (he insists here, based on "book after book and article after article", that every. single. person. throughout history. who wears a tattoo. is, in fact, a rebel.)

One quote in this section is from Delio 75 reads, "In this culture, a tattooed person is still looked at as a rebel, as someone who has very visibly stepped out of the bounds of normal society..." Once again here, I question the validity of Military tattoos in the minds of these people.

The next reads, "Unquestionably tattoos are socially unacceptable." (Scutt 179) This is one opinion. Times change. Weak arguments all around.

One turns the page to a lengthier quote concerning one of the definitions of the word "tattoo" in Latin*. The author here, Steve Gilbert, cites the portion that specifically points to the tattoo as a mark inherently representing stigma due to its association with slaves and criminals. This was based on the person in charge purposefully pricking the other person with a "pointed instrument". Hhhhmmm... let's see, no indication of specific design, nor any personal intent. Other connections made were to Adulterers, traitors, deserters, outcasts, and deviants. The only people listed here with any possibility of personal intent might be the last. But that's only assuming that the markings were a choice and not a punishment based on the judgments of others.

My own research on this revealed several other, positive applications of tattoos in history. For example, in the Middle Ages, the tattoo was regularly used by professionals, knights, and sailors to display their trade or allegiance to their specific groups. Also, (drumroll please...) Christian Pilgrims would get tattooed in commemoration of their journey(s). (If Dr. Watkins had/has any awareness of this at all, he conveniently ignored it for the sake of his Legalistic, bigoted opinion.

The booklet goes on to mention the arrival of the tattoo in the US as relating to Circus Sideshows. Even today, full-cover tattoos are not the norm, but that doesn't make it inherently bad.

Our author then proceeds to again quote Mr. Scutt, who deems tattoos as "dirty, indecent, subversive, and immoral" in direct correlation with nudity. This suggests that innocent designs such as flowers, animals, or hearts are automatically wrong when used in tattoos. And here again, we come back to the question of intention, which, as I've consistently shown here, is positive to a far greater extent than suggested by Dr. Watkins and those he quotes from in support of his ridiculous premise.

The idea that tattoos are a mark of indecency is ludicrous. There are preachers of the Gospel who have tattoos, including Joyce Meyer. Also, why would designs such as flowers and crosses (one of 5 tattoos that I have, currently)* be considered "indecent"?? The fact that a minute percentage of those sporting flower tattoos throughout history have used them as some form of spirit connection or power source is another weak point in the mix of Dr. Watkins mess of Legalistic bigotry. As with any given practice, whether it be collecting tattoos, magic, yoga, Halloween, etc... the key element lies in personal intention, not in its history or in the personal opinions of the ignorant. His next point is that, even in the barbaric societies of Ancient Greece and Rome, the tattoo was considered beyond the limits of accepted punishments or rituals. This may be an interesting factoid of history, but it is entirely out of place here due to its extremely outdated cultural reference. He closes out this paragraph with the idea that, based on the fact that the Ancient Greeks and Romans included slavery among their repertoire of acceptable behaviors, and modern Christians have come to embrace tattoo culture, then the next logical step for us may involve slavery. I find that to be delusional BS.

Dr. Watkins continues down the page with assertion that "criminals, drug addicts, sex perverts, and social outlaws" comprise the "overwhelming majority" of those who get tattooed. He bases this on statistics, "both old and new". Yeah, okay... based on what, exactly??

What follows is a quote from Danny Sugerman. The first portion of this states, "In addition to being a form of self-destruction, the tattoo seals the wearer off from the rest of normal society forever." This shows a level of ignorance beyond imagination. Society never remains stagnant for long.

After another obsolete cultural reference about Ancient Japanese criminals, he covers the next couple of pages expounding on the idea that, based on citations of sources from the West Coast of the US, to the UK and Denmark, the only possible conclusion is that everyone with a tattoo MUST either be a criminal; or have some level of psychiatric issue. Those listed include everything from impulsivity to sexual orientation*/turn on, to schizophrenia. (If the last point were true, then it still wouldn't be the personal intent of the person typically "in charge", or at least not an absolute guarantee) Another bit suggested that, since a high percentage of women's prisoners with tattoos also exhibited Lesbian behaviors, the two must be connected. This is ridiculous because "Prison behaviors" vs "Free behaviors" are not mutually exclusive. People fill needs as they have resources available. What goes on behind locked doors does not guarantee that the same happens elsewhere.

He also mentions here that self-inflicted tattoos are a sign of a troubled mind, but this is such a small percentage that it's not worth adding to the argument.

Our author continues by attempting to prove that modern cultural tattooing is equal to the history in relation to criminal/deviant/immoral behaviors. He does this by citing a comprehensive study of young people, ages 11-21, thus implying that tattoos are bad at any age. (Who's allowing their 11-15 yr old get tattooed in the first place?? [16-17, maybe] Most shops I've even been in don't allow anyone under 18 in the inside the door, never mind the procedure spaces.) This was emphasized by the fact that the results of the study held true across all economic statuses and ethnicities. He adds here that the Dr. who performed the study, Dr. Roberts, came into the whole thing, already having a tattoo and believing that people who got them were unfairly stereotyped. His findings shocked him. I maintain that this doesn't mean he was wrong to get the tattoo. He was simply an exception to the rule based on the study. Only in this case, the exception does not prove the rule. If anything, it refutes it.

The point they're missing here is the group involved in the study, basically adolescents with tattoos, still remain the smallest demographic of all people under 65 who have tattoos.

He concludes the chapter with a discussion of Jesus having been a rebel. His answer is that, although Jesus may have rebelled against World Systems, it was only because those systems were rebelling against God.

This, however, is only his perspective, based on his views. Just because someone gets a tattoo doesn't automatically meant that they are rebelling against God. Actually, in light of how society has come to be more accepting of tattoos, it doesn't inherently mean they

are rebelling against anything. (or anyone)

Chapter 5 - The Deadly Little Secret

First of all, the medical dangers of tattoos are hardly a "secret". Anyone above the age of 12 with a working brain stem knows that dirty needles of any sort are dangerous. This has no bearing on the author's moral arguments.

In this chapter, our friend, Terry, is trying to scare the reader with threats of blood-borne diseases due to unsanitary practices and lackadaisical laws and enforcement. (if any)

This, among other points, speaks to the fact of his having published this booklet in 2002.* One study he cites resulted in showing that more than double the number of Hepatitis C cases stemmed from professionally done tattoos than from injection drug use.

He also tells of a 22 yr. old who needed a liver transplant only 1 month after getting her first tattoo. To me, that says there has to have been a pre-existing condition or at least high risk factors. So really, it may have been that getting the tattoo actually saved her life.

Dr. Watkins goes on for the next 3 1/2 pages, spouting off about other studies and stories from as far back as 1853!! Once again, this man is willfully ignorant of the fact that times change.

I looked up what he said about the NYC ban of tattooing from 1961-1997 (because I didn't believe it was true). I found that it was, but I also saw an article from a shop that has been in business there since 1976, on the DL until the ban was lifted.

He ends the chapter by attempting to conflate Scripture with the potential physical harm of tattoos. First, he cites the suffering of David in Psalm 38:5-8. In these verses, David is equating his emotional turmoil with physical attributes. When you look at the full context of the chapter, this becomes abundantly clear. Verse for even tells us outright, "4 My guilt has overwhelmed me like a burden too heavy to bear." This shows that Dr. Watkins, Th. D., is so filled with Legalistic bigotry that he's willing to take Scripture out of context in an effort to support his warped, unbiblical views.

The second passage he uses here is Exodus 15:26 which is part of what God is telling Moses concerning the curse of disease in return for Israel's disobedience. Number one, this is God speaking, not a human being. Number two, as mentioned earlier, tattoos are not disobedience under the New Covenant.

Chapter 6 - Tattoos and the Bible

Dr. Watkins begins this portion of his book by repeating Leviticus 19:28. I'm here to inform (or remind) you that this verse, along with many others concerning the ungodly practices of other nations was only written to Jews during that time in reference to Egyptian/Pagan idolatry. God was still in the process of establishing them a New Nation, unique among their peers. Using this continues to prove his Old Testament, Legalistic bias.

He continues for 3 1/2 pages about how Leviticus 19 is primarily about moral laws that still apply today; still missing the point that tattoos are not inherently immoral. He even focuses in on verse 27 being about specific haircutting practices in relation to idol worship. He contends that this verse is not an interruption of the moral code being presented.

Next, the author talks about the widespread banning of tattoos by missionaries. (You may recall this was touched on earlier) While his indications were that the ban was total, I found evidence to the contrary in at least 1 instance. In the South Pacific, it continued unabated on the island of Tonga. I also found an article that provides a basic overview of the history of tattoo in that region. It supports my thoughts, not only in terms of the disgraceful behavior on the part of the missionaries in disrespecting their culture, all but eradicating their history for future generations; but in causing them to fear Godly retribution for continuing it. Here's the link -- https://www.zealandtattoo.co.nz/tattoo-styles/polynesian-tattoo-history-meanings-traditional-designs/

He then goes to citing Isaiah 44:5 and Ezekiel 9:4 as both are frequently used in Biblical support of tattoos. (and rightly so, to my thinking)

Dr. Watkins explains the difference in Leviticus 19 where the word "qu'aqa" is used to describe the action of "to insert or stick in". Oral Hebrew tradition tells us that refers to tattoos. Conversely, Isaiah 44:5 doesn't include that word. His information reveals that the wording actually refers to signing a contract. I still say this still speaks to the point of identity and expressing your associations/allegiances. He then tells us that Ezekiel 9:4 is only talking about a "mark or sign", done in ink, as the word "tav" is used. This sounds like identity to me. Wouldn't you agree??

He follows this up with a treatise on Revelation 19:11-16; which mentions the possibility of Jesus having 2 tattoos upon His Second Coming, one on the forehead and another on His thigh. Further research on this has been inconclusive. While some agree that the passage refers to a tattoo, as it was common practice for a victorious warrior* to display His conquests on his thigh; others adamantly reject this idea due to Jesus having been Jewish. Another source shows that a ram's thigh was regularly used for sacrifices, thus being an appropriate location for Jesus to further prove His position as Messiah to the Jews. Another thought is that the fact that the verse explicitly says, "...vesture and on His thigh" is a reference to Hellenistic statuary where there may have been wording that started on the clothing and extended onto the thigh. My own first reaction here was that the wording may have no further significance than a poetic reference to strength and authority. Over a lifetime of "Church-world", I've become educated in the ways of the Jews in terms of poetic hyperbole, so that's where my thoughts gravitated first. Included in these pages, he lists several verses that prove Jesus was without sin. He is consistently conflating tattoos, inextricably, with sin, and it simply isn't true.

The point being missed by those who reject the possibility out of hand that Jesus would never get a tattoo based on His Jewish upbringing is that, by the time Jesus died and was resurrected, He was no longer strictly Jewish.

In Colossians 1:18, we read that Jesus was "firstborn among the dead" in order to establish His authority as God's*. Galatians 3:24-25 tell us that Jesus' Sacrifice marked the end of Judaic Law; which only existed as a tutor, leading them to Christ. Ephesians 2:15 clearly states, "He did away with the law of the commandments... in order to create unity among Jews and Gentiles."

These, along with Romans 10:4, which clearly reveals Jesus as "the end of the Law unto righteousness", makes a mockery of Dr. Watkins' arguments and refutes those insisting that Jesus would never get a tattoo based on His Jewish background. Jesus may have been born a Jew; but He arose to establish Christianity. (aka - "better covenant" as per Hebrews 8:6)

Our friend then proceeds to admonish people for "defiling the Temple". The main problem here is that he references 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19-20, both of which are collective in their indication of the Church Body vs individual bodies.* Citing 1 Corinthians 12:1-2 would have been more accurate to his premise; although, ultimately, he would still be wrong due to the fact that Paul is only talking about morality of behavior, not physical adornment. To be clear, this is not to say that we don't need to take decent care of our bodies in terms of overall health; but tattoos don't mutilate our bodies like excessive piercings or depression-based cutting. While it's true that tattoo inks may contain minimal amounts of toxins, they are in such low amounts as to be negligible in effect for most people. The FDA has standards set for this, but most professional shops have essentially non-toxic inks.

Next, he tries to employ peer pressure by sharing about a group of Christians who were considering tattoos but decided against them based on his "evidence". I say that these people were clearly weak-minded and ignorant of what the Bible really says.

In closing out chapter 6, Dr. Watkins challenges the Christian reader to go back through this booklet, looking up the references and pray, asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth. (Jn.16:13, and possibly the only thing he gets right, other than the invitation to Salvation at the end) I've done that, and also done my own research. His book is, as I continue to point out, nothing but Legalistic, bigoted, generalized BS that doesn't take either the full context of Scripture, nor of tattoo history, into account. He actually does include 1 Corinthians 12 here, which I had forgotten earlier; but again, Paul is only talking about our behavior towards others, not necessarily about the choices we make for ourselves. This is further supported in the next phrase, "be transformed by the renewing of your minds..." The truth is, God meets us where we're at. It's a fact of life that times change. Therefore, Paul's admonition that we, as Christians, "be not conformed to this world..." is going to look different in the ongoing course of of time. And really, the issue is not so much of appearance, but of behavior. (Review 1 Sam. 12 from earlier) Some of you may be familiar with the internet meme about how some of the kindest people in the world are filled with tattoos while the most judgmental are found in Church on Sundays. I couldn't help thinking how well this applies here; particularly as a person with tattoos who also attends a Church that is not only accepting of them, but where some staff even wear them. <3 This all means that changing times inevitably lead to changing methods of sharing the Gospel.

As I've mentioned several times now, my own Infinity Cross/iris tattoo was an inspiration of God for my life at the time. And while it's only been a silent witness that led to a verbal one just once so far, it has likely either planted or watered a seed in the lives of others.

Also, as I've touched on previously, the whole concept of "being conformed" looks different depending on what country you're in. (sometimes even various parts of the same country) The fact is, Missionaries are literally trained to "conform" to different cultures in order to be relatable so as to be better equipped to share the Gospel in those areas. (clearly not a point considered by Dr. Watkins here) The point Paul was making is that, in our relatability, we don't sin.*

My final thoughts on chapter 6 are these -

• Romans 8:1 tells us that there is now no condemnation for those of us in Christ, so why is Dr. Watkins putting his opinions above God's??

• Acts 15 makes it abundantly clear that Gentiles have never been subject to any but 3 Jewish Laws. (None of which are relevant to this discussion)

• As mentioned before, Galatians 3:26-27, among other verses, tell us that the arrival of Jesus marked the end of the Law.

Chapter 7 - The Mark of Regret

In the final chapter of his book, Dr. Watkins tries to dissuade people from getting tattoos by talking about the potentially long, painful, and expensive cost of removing them. He cites a lengthy email he received from a woman who ended up regretting her decisions of 2 tattoos. Although he also devotes essentially 2 pages to the expense and how removal is nearly as common as getting tattooed in the first place (or was 20 yrs. ago), I view this email as one example of one individual who came to regret her choices. In the midst of her missive, she shares about having justified her decision with the thoughts that "God only considers the heart and mind" and "physical sins don't compare to spiritual sins." My challenge to her is, "Define 'sin'." Does the decision adversely affect your relationship with God or others?? If not, then it doesn't qualify as "sin", Biblically speaking. Another thing included in this chapter is yet further quotes from a couple of authors, one of whom is our buddy, Scutt, as his work has been mentioned multiple times here. He says this in his commentary against tattoos: "What so few realize, tragically, is that such a mark [tattoo] becomes the albatross around the neck for all time." This is one man's clearly ignorant opinion, based on the fact, as we've seen throughout this article, that times change.

To me, this email is a weak argument on Dr. Watkins part because, as I've reiterated numerous times throughout this rebuttal, times change and his reasonings are inherently flawed by the lack of both Biblical and historical context.

He then references 2 Scriptures about sin and iniquity. Psalm 51:3, where David is lamenting his missteps with Bathsheba, speaks of how his sin is "ever before me". The other is Jeremiah 2:22, which speaks to the point that "...thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God." This is not applicable here because the word "iniquity", in the original Hebrew, indicates a "bent" relationship. As I said just above, if a decision does not adversely affect our relationship with God, then it is not a real problem.

Honestly, the most accurate thing he says in the entire book, aside from sharing the Gospel separately, is the fact that people with too much visible body art may be limited in their job options. (and that's quoted from Graves 43)

Dr. Watkins ends his colossal waste of time and paper (57 8 1/2"x5 1/4" pages, plus citations and Salvation info.) by summarizing his major points. That having been said, I would like to thank him for giving my thoughts an outline from which to share them. (While most of my posts are well researched, but essentially "winged" in the moment; this one has been mostly pre-written, longhand.)

10 Reasons Christians should not get tattoos --

1. Christians should "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22) It is Dr. Watkins subjective opinion that "most 'so-called' Christian tattoos have a Gothic, deathly, appearance of evil. Cross reference this with my previous facts on what qualifies as "sin". (and btw, I have yet to see anything like this in my experiences with tattooed Christians)

2. A Christian should not imitate the world. (1 John 2:15 and Jeremiah 10:2) The problem here is that the Jeremiah passage is specifically referring to the use of wood and stone for idolatry. Any application to tattoos, wood cutting, or stonework would be a question of intent. As to 1 John 2:15, it's only talking about heart issues, not self-expression. This is supported by the fact that the following verses are about the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life.

3. Here, Dr. Watkins, once again, cites 1 Kings 18:28 as reinforcing his premise that "every serious study of the origin of the tattoo... goes back to Satanic bloodletting." I say, look at the intent.

4. Another inaccurate reference to 1 Corinthians 3 as individual discussion as opposed to its collective context.

5. He reiterates here the idea that tattoos are a "vehicle for the possession of devils...", citing Mark 5 and the Man of the Gadarenes. As mentioned earlier, there is no indication of specific design. Also, since the presence of demons came before the cutting; this makes the argument invalid. Depression may result in cutting without the influence of demons; but that's not the same thing. Finally, my earlier point that it was the demons that were the catalyst to the cutting, it was clearly NOT the individual intent of the man himself.

6. Tattoos are a sign of rebellion and therefore equal to witchcraft. (I Samuel 15:23) While rebellion is comparable to witchcraft in the eyes of God; the question of intent is still at play on the part of the person getting tattooed. As indicated by my own first tattoo, which I was inspired to get as a reminder of my life in Christ, rebellion and tattoos are not mutually exclusive decisions. The idea of a silent witness potentially leading to a verbal one also refutes Dr. Watkins premise.

7. Our author repeats the warning of possible infection as a result of tattoos. This is no longer relevant in professional settings today. The only valid risk now is by doing it at home with a dirty needle. He cites Deuteronomy 28:58-61 where God is telling them that one potential punishment for disobedience would be severe illness and diseases. He is clearly ignorant of the fact that Jesus' New Covenant rendered the old one null and void. (Review Galatians 3:24-25, Ephesians 2:15, and Romans 10:4)

8. The idea that many people later regret their tattoos is less valid today than it may have been in 2002 when this was published. That being said, however, those people have clearly bought into the misinformed lies of people like Dr. Watkins. Specific designs that were a bad idea can always be modified. He goes back to his reference of Jeremiah 2:22 here which is only talking about how Israel has again turned away from God. The word "iniquity" in this verse speaks to the point of a "bent" relationship. Once again, Dr. Watkins is grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to make his case. Granted, the concept of rebellion can be brought up; but as I've said more than once, tattoos and rebellion are not mutually exclusive.

9. The thought that he states of tattoos being strictly forbidden in the Bible, as per Leviticus 19:28, is clearly invalidated by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. In his effort at proving tattoos unbiblical, Dr. Watkins has succeeded only in making a fool of himself in his bigoted, Old Testament display of Legalism and judgment.

10. Finally, our friend, Terry, tries to insist that, as Christians who should be following the examples of Jesus, we should not get tattoos because He wouldn't. As this was covered in detail earlier, I'll just say that Jesus' most important examples lie in how He treated others; not in how He may or may not have adorned Himself.

As we approach the end of this article, I would like to just share briefly from commentary I discovered from a man who is known as "The Tattooed Preacher", Aaron Davis.

His Biblical references in support of tattoos include the following --

• Leviticus 19 with the context that the Egyptians were simply seeking better passage in death.

• Isaiah 44:5 where he agrees with my thoughts on identity with God/Christ.

• Isaiah 49:16, which also ultimately speaks to the idea of identity.

• Revelation 19:16 which I didn't fully explain earlier that it the "tattoos" that may be on Jesus' forehead and thigh read, "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords". (clearly positive messages)

• Ezekiel 16:12 - while this speaks to the idea of piercings "enhancing beauty", it's relatable in the fact that many tattoo parlors include a professional piercer.

• 1 Corinthians 16 -- I'm not actually sure at this point what his point was here in relation to tattoos, but maybe it was simply about the fact that this verse speaks of physical sins; specifically, sexual immorality and gluttony, with the latter being the more egregious. This was likely due to the idea that gluttony was directly related to lust.

Bottom line from the Tattooed Preacher, love your neighbors and your enemies. Most people are not intending harm. Don't be a superficial bigot. Amen, Brother!!

My own closing thoughts involve something I only touched on briefly before. The subject of judgment. The Bible has very specific guidelines about this; and Dr. Wilkins has gone against all of them.

First of all, in Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus tells us not to judge others for the speck in their eye until we can remove the plank in our own.

Secondly, Paul admonishes his audience in 1 Corinthians 4:5 not to judge people's hearts based on personal opinions or perspectives; but only on issues that are clearly revealed as problematic by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The third point is in the very next chapter where Paul is saying that the Church should only be concerned with its own members. We have no business judging the unsaved, as they don't live by our rules.

Finally, James 4:11 says that we should not be judging others out of bitterness or jealousy; but out of love. (this may be the only one Dr. Watkins is "potentially" getting right. I can't help but wonder though, what is he hiding that he's coming out so strongly against things that are not actually a Biblical problem.) Things that make you go, "Hhhhmmm..." amiright??

Footnotes:

1. If you're going to offend anyone, in this case speaking to the point that he never mentions Military tattoos, you should at least be right. Dr. Watkins is wrong all 7 ways to Sunday here.

2. Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 talk about single fabric clothing. The verse about haircutting is included above.

3. Specific haircutting styles, including the bit about going between the eyebrows, was about patterning oneself after certain pagan deities or an attempt to connect with relatives who had predeceased you.

4. Personally, I don't see a problem with a tattoo artist being viewed as a priest or shaman. These roles are historically positive in nature in a vast majority of cultures.

5. I actually have it on good authority that the "most prevalent" images are, in fact, Crosses. Also, the truth about sailors having naked women tattooed didn't speak of anything other than the point of having something beautiful to look at when nothing else was available.

6. While I understand that his use of the word "Hell" here is a mistake common to many, I just want to clarify for those who may not know. The truth is that Hell is not the "fire and brimstone" place we've all been taught to think it is. To be brief, I'll direct your attention to Revelation 20:14 and call it good.

7. The word "tattoo" actually has no direct translation in Latin being that it is "borrowed" from the Polynesian word "tatau". The word relates to the tapping sound made during the process of marking a person with ink. The following is copied and pasted directly from the internet -- Meaning - The tatau represents tautua, the Samoan concept of service and filial piety. It is also a rite of passage for young men, who are accepted into the aumaga (untitled men) and are allowed to serve the matai (chiefs) after receiving the tattoo. -- I see no bad here, do you??

8. To my knowledge, none of the gays/lesbians that I know have tattoos. (look for a separate post on Homosexuality and the Bible in the "relatively" near future)

9. Fun fact, 2002 was the same year my youngest, Jasmine, was born. :D

10. The idea of Jesus relating to a victorious warrior puts me in mind of His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem ahead of His crucifixion. In light of this, the thought of Him having a "victory tattoo" upon HIs Return makes perfect sense. Especially when you consider how both society and Christianity (in part) have embraced tattoo culture. This would be a final example of God meeting us where we're at.

11. The point of Jesus' authority being equal with God the Fathers' will be included in another future post on the Trinity.

12. My reference for the collective vs individual contexts of the 1 Corinthians passages comes from the book, "Misreading Scripture though Western Eyes" by co-authors E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien.

13. The fact is that while the ISSUE of sin is universal, the DEFINITIONS of sin differ culturally. For example, here in the US, no self-respecting Christian may want to be caught smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. At the same time, if you were to go to to Indonesia, no "good Christian" would be caught dead in a Pool Hall. (cite the same book as the previous note)

    
    

My left forearm -- this is the cross and iris tattoo mentioned multiple times above.

And my right forearm - this one represents my love for all things Country Style and reminds me to be like the sunflower, always looking toward the Light. The hummingbird stems from the nickname my ex-husband gave me. It is small, fast, smart, and beautiful. Legend says that the hummingbird is a messenger between the physical and spiritual realms as a representative of infinity, as that's the pattern of it's wing movements. When finances allow, I plan on adding a dragonfly to this image due to its being my boyfriend, Michael's, Native American symbol. Some qualities listed include change/transformation, purity, swiftness, and connection to nature.