U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) often tells audiences, “Republican Party events need more people with tattoos.” It struck me, as I heard him say this, that this is kind of what evangelical Christians ought to be saying about our churches. It struck me further when I read this tribute my former student Spencer Harmon wrote about his new wife and her past that this is precisely the issue facing the next generation of the Bride of Christ, the church.
What Paul (the senator, not the Apostle) means, it seems, is that his party, if it is to have a future, shouldn’t count on just doing the same thing it’s always done, and it can’t rely on people who look like what people think Republicans ought to look like. The party must expand out to people whose pictures don’t currently show up in a Google image search for “Republican.” There are people, Paul says, who agree with the Republican message, in theory, but who pay no attention to it because they assume they aren’t the kind of people the party wants to talk to.
Paul isn’t alone in this. His colleague Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who disagrees sharply with Paul on foreign policy and other issues, quipped recently, “They aren’t making enough angry white men for our party to have a future,” unless the party reaches new constituencies.
My interest here isn’t the Republican Party, or the Paul or Graham wings of it and their ideas for reinvigorating a political movement, or even whether their critique of the political situation is accurate. Instead, Paul’s imagery reminded me of a burden I have for the church of Jesus Christ to, as Jesus puts it, “seek and to save that which was lost.”
I don’t like tattoos, and I can’t emphasize that enough (especially if you’re one of my children, one day, reading this). But if the Spirit starts moving with velocity in this country, our churches will see more people in our pews and in our pulpits with tattoos.
Now, what I don’t mean by that is that we need more Christians to tattoo crosses or Bible verses or Psalms in Hebrew or the Apostles’ Creed or the sinner’s prayer across their arms or necks. That’s not a sign of gospel awakening; it’s just, at best, personal fashion and, at worst, more marketing in an already overmarketed evangelical church.
Tattoos don’t mean what they used to. They don’t signify, necessarily, by a long shot, the kind of “tough” image they used to. I spoke with a friend who mentioned that as he walked through an upscale resort in South Florida, almost everyone in the pool was wearing ink. But, what if the tattoos, in some cases, do signify a tough back-story? That’s what I want to see more of.
I first saw this not in a “relevant” urban church, but in the most stereotypically “hellfire and brimstone,” King James Version, gospel hymn-singing southern revivalist church you could imagine.
As a child, I remember seeing a man sitting in front of me with his arm resting on the pew. The arm was covered with a large tattoo of a woman who was, well, let’s just say she didn’t fit what we would consider biblical standards of modesty in her attire. I couldn’t believe I was seeing this in my church, so I nudged my grandmother and pointed, as if to say, “Can you believe this?”
My grandmother whispered, “Yes, honey. He doesn’t know the Lord yet, and he’s had a hard life. But his wife has been trying to get him to come to church for a long time, and we’ve all been praying for him. He’s not trying to be ugly to anybody. He just doesn’t know Jesus yet.”
I’ll never forget that “yet.”
With that one word, she put before me the possibility that this hardened ex-military man with the unclothed lady tattoo might one day be my brother in Christ. And, in time, he was. I suppose as time went on, this new Christian started to see that his tattoo was potentially a stumbling block, because I started to see it less and less as he started to wear long sleeves to church.