A Tattoo Apologetic...and No that Doesn't Mean I'm Sorry

In the comment section for the post on Piper and tattoos, Logan raised a good question regarding what the context was that Lev 19 was referring to. I started to respond in the comment section but decided it might be helpful to post it here instead. I think what Piper had in mind was the fact that many of the commands regarding outward observances (you mentioned the beard thing, of course tattoos, polyester, hey, even boiling a goat in it's mother's milk) were pertaining to what we today commonly refer to as "boundary markers", that is: things that distinguished Israel from pagan nations around her. While I know some fundy lurker will be quick to point out that WE shouldn't be like the world EITHER, I'd be quick to add that circumcision was the CHIEF boundary marker, yet I don't remember that being one of the closing steps for EE.

If circumcision is out the window, I take it to imply that the beard thing, the polyester thing, the tattoo thing etc. is out too. While I would still recommend avoiding polyester, I hear the goat in it's mother's milk thing can be quite a delicacy. If our heart is circumcised in Christ, it's fair to say we've been "tattooed" with the seal of the Spirit :-)

Much of modern day tattoos are either entertainment or decorative in nature (though some may still be "tribal" so to speak, and I'd avoid those). The primary issue is exactly what Piper pointed out: you don't have to get one, but if you get a tattoo, get it and use it for the glory of God! Hence, post tenebras lux (and hopefully soon - "recovering pharisee"). Granted it was a bit easier to justify when I was a thorough going dispensationalist; I got a bit concerned as my trajectory became more and more reformed, but not too fear - my conscience is indeed robust in this area :-) Of course, there is always the "Driscoll Justification" - The exalted Jesus is no longer a humble Mediterranean peasant....he's a tattooed (His leg) ultimate fighter coming back to rescue His people and destroy His enemies. Okay - maybe, maybe not, but it sure does sound cool!

Colossians 1:12-14 and the Kingdom

"...giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. 13For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

This passage was read this past Sunday in the course of our morning message. The Spirit really captured my attention on the larger context of Colossians 1 and the supremacy of Christ. To put it anachronistically, Paul sounds an awful lot like a Christian Hedonist. Anyway, due to my recent meanderings on the kingdom, my attention was also drown to verse 13, and I found myself a bit stumped. Verse 12 seems to be pretty black and white on the current presence of the Kingdom, but as I thought about it, I don't think this was ever a passage I raised in question to a traditional or revised dispensationalist (ie someone who thinks the Kingdom is wholly future). Mind you, it wouldn't be a problem for a progressive, a covenant premill or amiller. While I can certainly offer my own speculations, I'm curious does anyone know how a normal dispensationalist would dodge...ah I mean handle this text on the Kingdom? Ok, that was a cheapshot, I admit it, but seriously...I'd be curious for a concrete answer from either a dispensationalist, a recovering dispensationalist or even someone who has a "friend" that's a dispensationalist.

Charismatic and Reformed

No, this isn't a three word summary of my theology (yet); rather I was thinking about the relatively recent connection between these two in the contemporary church. Typically these two have been at odds; charismatics were largely wesleyan/arminian and calvinists were historically cessasionists (with rare exceptions). Nevertheless, recent decades have demonstrated through the minstry of John Piper, the emergence and growth of Sovereign Grace ministries and the publication of Wayne Grudem's systematic, that these two may quite happily coexist.

Yesterday I was thinking out loud and talking to my wife about Longenecker's Apostolic Exegesis and stumbled upon a possible connection. I was informing her that most of my friends who had read the book agreed it was an awesome book with a sucky conclusion - that is, Longenecker makes a great case for christological/pneumatically dependent exegesis in the 1st Century but says we shouldn't do it today. While I haven't finished the book, I was reflecting on the fact that many I've spoken with adopt such a conclusion on the grounds that the NT authors were writing under inspiration and the Spirit was moving in a way different from the way that He does today (classic cessationism). To argue otherwise would hint of charismaticism; and then I thought, "wait a minute..." The reformed tradition has always argued for just such a christological hermeneutic. Yet, the charismatic emphasis on the continuity of the Spirit's working between the 1st and the 21st Century seems to be the best way to legitimize such a pneumatologically dependent exegetical approach. My conclusion: whether or not there is a genetic relationship between my observations and the modern connection between Reformed Theology and Charismaticism, the two may fit together more harmoniously than I had previously considered.