---

Mark likes to talk about staying in the context of the Bible.

He talks about not changing the words. Not twisting Scripture. Not reshaping the Bible to fit personal needs, personal wants, personal comfort, or personal sin.

Fine.

Then let’s put Mark in context.

Not the Facebook context. Not the Bible-verse-over-a-selfie context. Not the “holy warrior” context. The real one.

The context of a man getting biblical tattoos and pistol tattoos while he and Melissa were in the middle of divorce.

The context of a man permanently marking his body while failing to pay child support.

The context of a man preaching biblical purity while avoiding basic biblical responsibility.

Because yes, the Bible does talk about marking the body.

Leviticus 19:28 says not to cut the body for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourself. (Bible Hub) And 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 says the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and should be used to honor God. (Bible Gateway)

Now, to be clear, this is not an anti-tattoo argument.

I am not against tattoos.

I have a tattoo myself: the tree of life, with my daughters’ names woven into the roots and my goddaughter’s name in the branches. Mine is about family, love, legacy, connection, and responsibility. It points to the people I am responsible to love.

That is not the issue.

The issue is hypocrisy.

Modern Christian interpretation often argues that Leviticus 19:28 was part of the Mosaic covenant and likely addressed ancient pagan mourning or identity practices, meaning it is not treated by many Christians as a blanket ban on modern tattoos. Crossway makes that argument from a New Covenant perspective, Catholic Answers says the Church does not oppose tattoos in principle, and GotQuestions frames tattoos as a “gray area” where motive, wisdom, and conscience matter. (Crossway)

And honestly?

That is a reasonable argument.

But here is where Mark’s hypocrisy shows up wearing boots, tattoos, and a fake halo.

Because that “modern Christian” tattoo argument requires context.

It requires interpretation.

It requires saying, “Yes, the words are there, but we need to understand the covenant, the culture, the purpose, and the application today.”

In other words, it requires doing the exact thing Mark attacks other people for doing.

So where does “modern religion” become “New Age Christian”?

Apparently, in Mark’s world, it becomes “New Age” the moment someone else uses context in a way he does not like.

But when Mark needs context to protect his tattoos?

Suddenly context is holy.

Suddenly interpretation is mature.

Suddenly the Bible needs nuance.

Suddenly Leviticus does not mean what it plainly says.

That is not conviction.

That is convenience.

That is not biblical discernment.

That is a man building himself an escape hatch and calling it theology.

New Age Christianity is often criticized by conservative Christian writers as a form of syncretism — blending Christian language with outside spiritual ideas, personal truth, intuition, self-deification, or spirituality centered on the self rather than submission to Scripture. The Christian Research Institute warns against judging New Age only by surface symbols and instead points to deeper beliefs like self-focused spiritual elevation, pantheism, karma, reincarnation, and spirit-guide concepts. (Equip) Other Christian critiques define New Age syncretism as mixing New Age spirituality with Christian language in a way that sounds Christian but changes the underlying authority. (Feeding the Flock Ministry)

So let’s ask the brutal question:

What is more “New Age” than using the Bible as aesthetic branding?

What is more self-centered than tattooing biblical imagery and pistols onto your body while ignoring the biblical command to provide for your own household?

What is more “personal truth” than deciding Scripture is literal when it judges other people, but symbolic, contextual, and flexible when it touches your own vanity?

Because 1 Timothy 5:8 is not vague. It says that if someone does not provide for his relatives, especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (Bible Gateway)

That verse does not need a tattoo.

It needs obedience.

That verse does not need a Facebook post.

It needs a payment.

That verse does not need a pistol on each arm.

It needs a father to stop performing and start providing.

And that is the context Mark does not want examined.

He wants to talk about Leviticus only when it helps him attack someone else. He wants to talk about biblical context only when he gets to control the interpretation. He wants to bash “New Age Christians” while practicing his own personalized, self-serving, image-based version of Christianity.

A Christianity where tattoos are fine because they are his.

A Christianity where context matters because he needs it.

A Christianity where Scripture is strict for everyone else but negotiable for him.

A Christianity where pistols can sit beside Bible imagery because apparently nothing says “deny yourself and follow Christ” like permanently branding yourself as a discount holy gunslinger.

Jesus had words for religious image management.

Matthew 23:27–28 calls out people who look righteous on the outside while being full of hypocrisy inside. (Bible Gateway) Matthew 7:5 says to remove the plank from your own eye before correcting someone else. (Bible Gateway) James 1:22 says to be doers of the word, not merely hearers who deceive themselves. (Bible Gateway)

That is the real tattoo Mark should worry about.

Not the ink on his skin.

The hypocrisy written all over his life.

Because biblical tattoos do not make a man biblical.

Pistol tattoos do not make a man strong.

Quoting Scripture does not make a man obedient.

Bashing “New Age Christians” does not make a man orthodox when his own faith seems custom-built around ego, image, blame, and escape clauses.

The Bible is not Mark’s problem.

Context is not Mark’s problem.

Tattoos are not Mark’s problem.

Mark’s problem is that when Scripture confronts him, he suddenly becomes the very thing he condemns: a man reshaping the Bible around his own needs, his own wants, his own image, and his own refusal to be accountable.

So yes, Mark is right about one thing.

Context matters.

And in the context of divorce, unpaid child support, biblical tattoos, pistol tattoos, and religious lectures about not twisting Scripture, the context is devastating.

It does not make him look like a man of God.

It makes him look like a man using God to decorate the costume.