The Evils of Ear-Piercing

As I remarked in my last blog entry, rather odd "artistic differences" arose when I was in a rock band. Doubtlessly many of these arose because we were a group of 12 year olds from conservative Christian backgrounds. One of the biggest issues was male ear-piercing. I should note that, for at least a year, the discussion about ear-piercing was theoretical at best, given that none of our parents would allow ear-piercing anyway. Nevertheless, some of us railed against parental tyranny, while some of us--well, okay, basically just me--contended that ear-piercing was a sin. In my defense, it's not as if any of the pro-ear-piercing arguments were compelling. For instance, argument #1: 1.God is omnipotent. 2.I'll pray to God not to let me get an earring if it is bad. 3.If He doesn't stop me, that must mean it was okay. Or, argument #2: 1.Leopold, you like band X. 2.Band member of band X has an earring. 3.Therefore, you should like men wearing earrings. Admittedly, I made some logical fallacies myself, but I had to spend so much time pointing out everyone else's arguments that, mysteriously, there was never time to consider my own.

Well, finally the time came when parental resistance crumbled, and God's omnipotence seemed a little on the weak side, so a couple of band members got earrings. It seemed unfair to me that, given I believed earrings were reprehensible etc., and given that the earringed band members would not be wearing bags over their heads, audience members would see the earrings. Implicitly, the band posters and videos would be advocating a kind of life I could not condone. What could I do to make my stand more visible? Getting a tattoo that said, "Earrings are bad," would seem to miss the point. So finally, I figured out what we as a band could do: one of our songs could be against ear-piercing.

Now, the other band members raised silly objections to this, such as that I would be turning them into hypocrites, that they didn't actually believe earrings were sinful, etc. But I was being marginalized! I was having my voice silenced! If they really felt like "hypocrites" singing it, I could just have a special solo or something, and they could go backstage, get a drink of water, and go do something earring-related.

Despite my best efforts, the song was vetoed. I am confident that, had we performed the song, people certainly would have taken notice. It would have been a bold, counter-cultural voice about counter-cultural ears. For instance, many people at the time who opposed male ear-piercing made only relativistic arguments: that is, they would say, "we are living in a culture in which only drug-dealers or women wear earrings." This did not solve the problem, because (as we see today) what happens when you live in a culture in which people other than women and drug-dealers wear earrings? You now have no foundation for raising objections. I wanted to write a ballad that would be based upon the eternal, unchanging principles of Scripture, especially as revealed in the Old Testament. I entitled my song, "Lend me your ear (and not the way Van Gogh did.)" As the very title suggests, much as Van Gogh the artist wrongly maimed his ear by mailing it (I wonder if he sent it by "ear-mail"), so too did many musical artists wrongly maim their ears. I was advocating a different kind of aesthetic. Given that it is easy to quibble with portions of my argument now, I would like to include the lyrics as well as a little elaboration on why the argument, although stupid, is not as stupid as it appears.

Verse 1: "First, you must take into account what the Bible must say,/At one point it says do not defile the temple of the Lord in any way./How does the Lord consider a hole in the ear you think?/Indeed, this is not a question which can be solved quick as a wink." One of the admirable features of this verse is that it does admit the complexity of the earring issue. As the lyrics indicate, it is only the person who has carefully considered the issue who is capable of seeing just how wrong ear-piercing is.

"Since the Bible speaks of our bodies as the temple of the Lord,/The only way to understand this is to look at other parts of his word./Another Scripture says, "Do not cut off limbs or wear tattoos."/Could earrings be akin to that? Would this Scripture be meant to speak to you?" Here, we see the principle of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. We see a condemnation of the habit of just taking one little proof-text to establish a position. As the song advocates, we must have at least two proof-texts to establish a position (much as in Mosaic Law, someone could not be condemned without two witnesses). Further, it is not limited to mere explicit references to earrings: it is intending to establish a larger framework, a world and life view, that sees earrings in relation to the rest of God's creation, like tattoos.

"Before tattoos, it says not to cut off body limbs./Tattoos and cutting limbs have to do with pain, and not hurting yourself on a whim./Earrings cause some pain, and cut a hole in your ear./But is it sinning against the Lord? That's the biggest fear." At this point, in order to understand why tattoos are condemned, the lyric asks us to look at the immediate context, at the preceding part of the verse connecting tattoos and the cutting off of limbs. (See Leviticus 19:28) The importance of context for determination of meaning is a central tenet of Biblical hermeneutics.

"What do you think it means when the Bible speaks on pain?/What sort of things is it telling you from which to refrain?/What's the difference between a shot from the doctor and masochism?/The answer to this question you must think of, and decide with wisdom./A shot may cause pain, but in reality seeks to heal you from your hurt,/While a masochist feels pain because he enjoys it, and with its company he likes to flirt./But why does the Scripture say not to wear a tattoo?/What other things could that reference mean? Don't worry, we'll get to that, too." We see here an attempt to distinguish actions on the basis of motivation--sin is not simply external action but the internal attitude of the heart.

"A tattoo, although it is for decoration, causes much pain,/Like cutting body limbs, it hurts, so in that way it is profane./It appears that, in the Bible, fashion's less important than health,/The shot is a form of health, because in the long run makes healing felt." We should not inflict pain for aesthetic purposes. I should note that I still am a supporter of the "no pain for aesthetic purposes" position, although I have a rather broad definition of pain that includes such actions as wearing a tie and standing up straight. Further, this lyric is a reminder that, as God views our actions from the perspective of eternity, so we should not be concerned with short-term pain but long-term glory. The glory of the earring is but a passing glory, while shots are forever. Until we die. Or until we have to get them again in seven years.

"So if the Bible chooses health, over fashion,/Could earrings hurt your body too much in the sight of God and in reality wrong is your passion?/Fashion can be glamorous, it can even be said somewhat to be art,/But at the same time, the Bible says, 'The Lord looks at the heart.'/ Not at the ear, Y'hear!/But still, we can not say it is wrong, it is your decision,/But through it all, we hope and pray, that your decision will have God's wisdom." Since God looks at our hearts rather than our ears, it is quite clear that there is no need to wear an earring, and it is probably sinful. Still, note the gentleness of the song--it does not say ear-piercing is "wrong," just that it hopes God gives people wisdom not to get one.

I realize that the song as a whole might be labelled as "preachy." But hey, Alexander Pope's poem Essay on Man is "preachy" in its own way, what with systematizing a philosophy of humanity's role in the world and the relation between partial evil and universal good. The difference is that mine is rather singable, once someone writes the music for it.