In the last installment of this series, the argument was made that there can be no principled objection to MMA based on some vague notion that all “fighting” is sinful. The foundation of the argument was that since the Bible permits a man to defend himself, his possessions, and his family against hostile attack, then it must, by good and necessary inference, permit a man to acquire a proficiency in self-defense techniques in the event that he may have to use them to defend himself. Taking that a step further, it was argued that if it was permissible to train self-defense techniques in live simulated sparring situations, otherwise known as randori, then MMA competition is morally legitimate since it is essentially a form of randori.
Though this argument draws the conclusion that MMA competition, considered in itself, is morally legitimate, it does not rule out counter-considerations that may make it morally reprehensible. What I am thinking of, in this instance, is that participation in MMA competition may contribute to attitudes, which are clearly contrary to God’s word, such as unbridled anger, longing for revenge, and sinful pride. I am sure that if you put some thought to it, you could come up with some others, but to keep this manageable, I will stick with these three. Let’s put a fine edge on the moral dilemma presented in this objection by putting it in the form of a question: does MMA competition necessarily foster sinful attitudes and emotions which make it morally reprehensible?
First, does MMA competition necessarily foster unbridled anger in those who compete against each other? My answer is, no, not necessarily. Let’s begin by making the point that not all anger is sinful anger. Paul says in Ephesians 4:26, quoting from Psalm 4:4, “be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.” Many things could be said about this statement, but an obvious one, and one that fits our purpose here, is that not all anger is sin. The clear implication of Paul’s words is that anger can and should be bridled, or restrained by the Christian, in such a way that it does not spiral sinfully out of control. When anger spins out of control, the devil uses it as an opportunity to lead Christians into flagrant sin, as Paul points out in v27. Plug this back in to the question we are addressing in this first point. On the one hand, we don’t need to assume that when two opponents square off in MMA competition that they are angry with each other or even that they feel angry towards each other in the course of the fight. On the other hand, let’s be honest, whether someone goes into a fight intending to get angry with an opponent, anger often does crop up in the flow of a fight in some cases. Does that mean then that it is sinful to be involved in MMA competition because it is possible that you might get mad? No, of course not, it means that a Christian must be aware of it in advance and aim to discipline his anger so that he does not lose control. Someone may argue, well, if it presents the opportunity for being angry then no Christian should be involved with it. My response is, then be consistent across the board in applying that point. In all marriages people get angry with each other at some point, so does that mean people should not get married because they know in advance that they will get angry with their spouse during their marriage? Well, the answer is obvious. This argument that MMA competition presents an occasion for getting angry, and therefore is morally reprehensible, is not a solid or reasonable moral objection. MMA competition does not necessarily foster sinful, unbridled anger against an opponent, so it cannot be prohibited on this ground.
Second, does MMA competition necessarily foster a desire for revenge against an opponent? Honestly, this is a bit more tricky than the first objection. Anyone who has been hit hard in the face, knows how easy it is to want to strike back and take the opponent's head off in order to even the score. Maybe this is a “gotcha” then? Not necessarily, because a thoughtful fighter knows that mental composure is essential to fighting. When a fighter is overcome by emotion and seeks to get revenge in a fight, it can often lead him to make costly mistakes. So, though MMA competition may provide a person the context to foster and seek revenge, the disciplined fighter will realize that being gripped emotionally to the point of seeking revenge may be extremely costly, and will maintain mental discipline. MMA competition does not necessarily foster a desire to take revenge against and opponent, so it cannot be prohibited on this ground.
Third, does MMA competition necessarily foster sinful pride in those who both train for and compete in sport fighting? I think it is helpful to begin by distinguishing between a sense of confidence in one’s sharpened skills and sinful pride in one’s physical skills abilities. Clearly, fighters can be prone to arrogance and pride; all you have to do to verify that is go hang out at your local MMA gym. Often cage fighters are younger, physically strong, and possess above average fighting skills, and this can certainly foster a sense of sinful pride and arrogance. However, it is not just athletes who participate in MMA that can be prone to arrogance and sinful pride. Go to a local gym and you will find plenty of people in the weight room, on the aerobic equipment, or on the basketball court, who are proud. Also, realize that guys who train with top competitors and who have fought in the cage multiple times have, in most cases, found someone who put a beat-down on them and humbled them to the point that they have a more realistic assessment of their abilities and this has placed a check on their pride so that it is not wildly out of control. The proof of that is found in what you see at the end of most MMA fights: almost always the opponents embrace each other and show a profound respect for each other, win or lose. Can MMA foster a sense of sinful pride in those involved with it? Of course it can, but it does not necessarily foster sinful pride and it can even contribute to a profoundly realistic sense of self, so it cannot be prohibited on this ground.
We have briefly examined three sinful attitudes that critics often argue make MMA morally reprehensible and therefore sinful for Christians to participate in. While it is fair, on one hand, to say that this sport in particular may provide a greater context for fostering these sinful attitudes in participants, it does not necessarily foster these attitudes and thereby promote sin. In fact, on the other hand, MMA training and competition might actually provide a person the opportunity to learn how to manage these sinful attitudes in a way that other sports might not. But, no matter how participants manage these attitudes, there is nothing inherent in the sport that fosters sinful attitudes, therefore, it is not morally reprehensible for Christians to compete in MMA. The prudent person will beware of the pitfalls in competing in MMA, but, as in so many other circumstances in life, he will also have the choice to exercise restraint, and may even be afforded the opportunity to sharpen his ability to manage these attitudes in a way not presented in other forms of competition.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
What would Jesus say about MMA: Fight!
When tackling topics such as this, it hardly needs stating, that the expressed opinions are tentative in nature. In a sense, it is impossible to know exactly what Jesus thinks about MMA, simply because he never explicitly addressed the subject. So, to build a case for what he might say about it, we must set up some ground rules to guide our reflection. That being the case, I propose 3 guidelines to assist us in our inquiry: 1) direct scriptural statements (since Christ, by His Spirit is the author of scripture); 2) actions recorded in scripture which are cited with approval; and 3) themes and ideas which are parallel in nature to the topic of sport fighting. With those principles in mind, let’s address the question whether Jesus forbids or condones physically striking an opponent, within the context of a rule-governed competition which show a reasonable regard for human safety and life.
Let’s begin addressing this question by posing another question, does the Bible prohibit or authorize individuals to use force to defend their person, family, or property? The answer to that question is an emphatic “yes;” the Bible plainly permits the use of physical force under certain conditions. We can defend this answer from both the OT and the NT. In Exodus 22:2-3 the law says that if a thief is caught breaking into a persons residence in the darkness of night, the homeowner is authorized to use deadly force to kill the intruder, without penalty under the law; however, if the thief is caught during daylight hours he is to be merely apprehended. The restriction posed in the latter part of the verse raises many questions, and should probably not be understood to mean that the homeowner is prohibited from using deadly force if the robber shows intention to physically harm the owner or his family. What is clear from both v2 and v3 is that the homeowner is permitted to use physical force against an opponent in order to restrain him. In the NT (Mark 3:27) Jesus, speaking in a parable, offhandedly affirms this same legal right of self-defense, when he explains, “no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” Jesus uses a domestic illustration to make an obvious point, which is that if a robber wants to take a homeowners stuff while he is present, he will have to overpower him and tie him down before he can steal his possessions. Jesus assumes the audience will understand that the necessity of overpowering the owner and tying him down, is on account of the fact that the homeowner will do everything in his power to physically prevent the thief from stealing his belongings. In other words, the parable is premised on the assumption that it is legitimate to use physical force to defend oneself and one’s possessions.
Given this clear Biblical warrant for self-defense and use of physical force in defense of self, family, and property, it seems legitimate to infer from this that a man has every right to learn self-defense techniques. More than self-defense, a man is also authorized to acquire a proficiency in the methods, tactics, and weaponry that will enable him to apply lethal force if necessary. Now, if these deductions are sound, then it must be lawful, Biblically speaking, to engage not only in the study of martial arts and techniques of self-defense, but also the drilling and live fighting needed to apply these tactics in situations which simulate a real self-defense situation. For such live drilling and fighting to take place, there must be agreed upon rules that opponents follow in order to prevent injury and bodily harm to those involved in receiving instruction. If the underlying premise is agreed to, that the Bible condones self-defense, along with its logical corollary that receiving martial arts training and participating in simulated self-defense instruction, through live drilling and competition governed by rules which protect participants,then there can be no principled objection to MMA competition.
MMA competition, in a very real sense, is nothing more than an extension of randori in the dojo. It is about two trained fighters, applying the methods of their particular martial arts instruction, in a live training exercise, according to standard rules, under the oversight of a competent referee. Given that definition of MMA, based upon the Biblical authorization of self-defense, taught in the OT and confirmed in the NT by Jesus himself, it is more than reasonable to conclude that Jesus would say that MMA training and competition is completely lawful for Christians to both view and engage in.
Let’s begin addressing this question by posing another question, does the Bible prohibit or authorize individuals to use force to defend their person, family, or property? The answer to that question is an emphatic “yes;” the Bible plainly permits the use of physical force under certain conditions. We can defend this answer from both the OT and the NT. In Exodus 22:2-3 the law says that if a thief is caught breaking into a persons residence in the darkness of night, the homeowner is authorized to use deadly force to kill the intruder, without penalty under the law; however, if the thief is caught during daylight hours he is to be merely apprehended. The restriction posed in the latter part of the verse raises many questions, and should probably not be understood to mean that the homeowner is prohibited from using deadly force if the robber shows intention to physically harm the owner or his family. What is clear from both v2 and v3 is that the homeowner is permitted to use physical force against an opponent in order to restrain him. In the NT (Mark 3:27) Jesus, speaking in a parable, offhandedly affirms this same legal right of self-defense, when he explains, “no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.” Jesus uses a domestic illustration to make an obvious point, which is that if a robber wants to take a homeowners stuff while he is present, he will have to overpower him and tie him down before he can steal his possessions. Jesus assumes the audience will understand that the necessity of overpowering the owner and tying him down, is on account of the fact that the homeowner will do everything in his power to physically prevent the thief from stealing his belongings. In other words, the parable is premised on the assumption that it is legitimate to use physical force to defend oneself and one’s possessions.
Given this clear Biblical warrant for self-defense and use of physical force in defense of self, family, and property, it seems legitimate to infer from this that a man has every right to learn self-defense techniques. More than self-defense, a man is also authorized to acquire a proficiency in the methods, tactics, and weaponry that will enable him to apply lethal force if necessary. Now, if these deductions are sound, then it must be lawful, Biblically speaking, to engage not only in the study of martial arts and techniques of self-defense, but also the drilling and live fighting needed to apply these tactics in situations which simulate a real self-defense situation. For such live drilling and fighting to take place, there must be agreed upon rules that opponents follow in order to prevent injury and bodily harm to those involved in receiving instruction. If the underlying premise is agreed to, that the Bible condones self-defense, along with its logical corollary that receiving martial arts training and participating in simulated self-defense instruction, through live drilling and competition governed by rules which protect participants,then there can be no principled objection to MMA competition.
MMA competition, in a very real sense, is nothing more than an extension of randori in the dojo. It is about two trained fighters, applying the methods of their particular martial arts instruction, in a live training exercise, according to standard rules, under the oversight of a competent referee. Given that definition of MMA, based upon the Biblical authorization of self-defense, taught in the OT and confirmed in the NT by Jesus himself, it is more than reasonable to conclude that Jesus would say that MMA training and competition is completely lawful for Christians to both view and engage in.
Monday, May 4, 2009
What would Jesus say about MMA: turn the other cheek?
When we ask the question, “what would Jesus say about MMA?” I would imagine that the thoughts of most people, who have some basic knowledge of the Bible, would quickly range toward one of Jesus’ most well known and oft quoted statements, “turn the other cheek.” (Matthew 5:39) On the face of it, it seems that this verse is a reasonable place to begin in assessing what Jesus would say about sport fighting. MMA is about applying maximum force against an opponent, within the bounds of agreed upon rules, in order to physically harm an opponent to the point that they either willingly submit or the referee calls a stop to the action. In that case, the application seems ready made: if Jesus said turn the other cheek, instead of returning a strike for a strike, then Jesus would certainly not approve of the intentional effort to stalk an opponent in a cage and try to knock him out with strikes and knees as in MMA.
In figuring out the application of any given statement, the first place to begin is to correctly interpret it. It is incorrect to seek to determine how a statement applies, without first establishing what the statement means. The best way to establish the correct interpretation of Jesus words in Matthew 5:39 is context. In Matthew 5:38 Jesus refers to the legal principle known as the lex taliones, literally, the law of retaliation. The principle in question is found in Exodus 21:24 which is concerned with codifying statutes of revenge in cases of personal injury or insult. Basically, OT law says that if you gouge out my right eye, accidentally or not, I have the legal right to gouge out your right eye.
Jesus takes up that legal statute here and applies to the Jewish courtroom. We know he is referring to the courtroom because he says, “do not resist.” The word “resist,” in view of the following legal illustrations in verses 40-42, should be interpreted to mean “don’t insist on your rights in a court of law.” You see, it was well agreed upon in the ancient world, that slapping someone with the back of the hand constituted a serious public insult which made one subject to a court fine. So what Jesus is referring to is the situation of being publicly insulted. The point he makes to his disciples is that they should be willing to bear the insult and to not take the offenders to a court of law in order to secure from them financial compensation for public insult. The bottom line is that Jesus is saying don't retaliate in court when publicly insulted.
In figuring out the application of any given statement, the first place to begin is to correctly interpret it. It is incorrect to seek to determine how a statement applies, without first establishing what the statement means. The best way to establish the correct interpretation of Jesus words in Matthew 5:39 is context. In Matthew 5:38 Jesus refers to the legal principle known as the lex taliones, literally, the law of retaliation. The principle in question is found in Exodus 21:24 which is concerned with codifying statutes of revenge in cases of personal injury or insult. Basically, OT law says that if you gouge out my right eye, accidentally or not, I have the legal right to gouge out your right eye.
Jesus takes up that legal statute here and applies to the Jewish courtroom. We know he is referring to the courtroom because he says, “do not resist.” The word “resist,” in view of the following legal illustrations in verses 40-42, should be interpreted to mean “don’t insist on your rights in a court of law.” You see, it was well agreed upon in the ancient world, that slapping someone with the back of the hand constituted a serious public insult which made one subject to a court fine. So what Jesus is referring to is the situation of being publicly insulted. The point he makes to his disciples is that they should be willing to bear the insult and to not take the offenders to a court of law in order to secure from them financial compensation for public insult. The bottom line is that Jesus is saying don't retaliate in court when publicly insulted.
With the correct interpretation in view, let’s come back to our question, “what would Jesus say about MMA?” It is apparent from the brief exposition given of Jesus’ famous saying, “turn the other cheek,” that Matthew 5:39 does not in any way bear upon what Jesus would say about cage fighting. “Turn the other cheek” is about prohibiting a disciple of Christ from seeking to retaliate against someone in a court of law, by securing a financial settlement from them for obvious public insult. It has nothing to do with fighting in general. These words in no way prohibit a follower of Christ from defending themselves, family, or neighbor in the face of bodily assault, and furthermore, it says nothing about engaging in contact sport fighting that is governed by rules which protect the contestants.
If we want to know what Jesus would say about MMA, it is clear that we must turn to other passages or broader Biblical principles to see if he would oppose it or condone it under certain conditions; “turn the other cheek” simply does not give us the information we need.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
What would Jesus say about MMA: tap, tap, tap!
These days, its not unusual to watch a sporting event and be exposed to someones testimony to Jesus. For instance, many football players make the sign of the cross on their chest after scoring a touchdown, others look up and point to the sky to show their appreciation to Jesus for helping them score, and others give a verbal shout out to Jesus during post game interviews. Its not just football players who do this kind of thing though, many athletes, including boxers take a moment in post fight interviews to thank Jesus for helping them gain the victory. Given that, I suppose it is not too surprising that testimonies to Jesus are creeping into the cage these days, with many MMA fighters doing what they can to show their allegiance to Jesus when they fight. But recently, a new way of testifying to Jesus is emerging among cage fighters through the use of fight gear that prominently displays the slogan "Jesus didn't tap."
On the web site nosubmit.com, the purveyors of this new Jesusified MMA clothing line explain what this freshly minted slogan means. According to the web site, "Jesus didn't tap" means that, "Jesus didn't quit after going through unimaginable suffering and pain when he was crucified on the cross." Of course, the use of this slogan is not merely a marketing ploy, it also doubles as a means of evangelism, functioning as a tool which "will help spread the Christian message of salvation to a whole new audience." http://www.nosubmit.com/company.html Apparently, these entrepreneurs think that the "tap out" metaphor is a culturally savvy way of telling 18-35 year old men that Jesus was no sissy, and that if you want to be a Christian, you don't necessarily have to sacrifice your love of the Octagon in order to come to Jesus.
Its not just creative entrepreneurs who are mixing the gospel with MMA, clever pastors are jumping on the bandwagon too, using the Octagon as a means of reaching tough guys with the gospel. A recent article surfaced, on Cagepotato.com, relating how a St. Louis church is connecting Jesus to MMA in order to reach men. Quoting the pastor, Tom Skiles, the article says:
“The Ultimate Fighting is something we're doing to promote to the guys. We want to make Easter relevant again. We don't want to make it about lilies and nice dresses. When they walk in we'll have a chain link fence set up, it'll be set up like an octagon. We'll talk about fact that Jesus didn't tap out, he was an ultimate fighter.” http://www.cagepotato.com/st-louis-pastor-takes-‘jesus-didn’t-tap’-mantra-little-too-literally
It seems that Pastor Skiles thinks that a packaging problem is preventing too many guy guys from receiving the real Jesus. See, when someone talks to real men about Jesus dying on the cross for their sins, they hear, "Jesus wants you to be soft, vulnerable, and feminine," which is obviously an unpalatable message for the masculine species. It is just that kind of packaging, promoting a touchy-feely Jesus, that leaves real men with no other option than to say "no" to Jesus and stay home from church and watch football and NASCAR. The all too obvious solution to this problem is to slap a few tattoos on Jesus and throw him in the cage with his cross, and then men will start coming to Jesus in droves, having found a masculine Jesus who they can finally relate to.
Well, all this brings me back to the topic I want to address here, which is, JESUS DID TAP. I realize that this won't be a useful marketing slogan for the hard to reach tough guys, but, facts are facts, and the glaring fact is, Jesus "tapped out." To put this in MMA parlance, Jesus was "submitted" by His Father on the cross. After experiencing six hours of hell on the cross, Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." (Matthew 27:46) After that we are told that he said, "It is finished" in John 19:30, meaning he had endured all the agony he needed to in order to atone for human sin. Finally, just before dying he triumphantly exclaimed, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46).
Now, if that is not "tapping out" I don't know what is! Clearly Jesus is saying that he is giving up. When he says "I commit my spirit" he is literally saying that he is giving his soul to the Father in an act of submission. You see, he did not die simply out of physical agony. We know that is true because we are told that the two thugs crucified to the left and right of him were still alive after he died and had to have their legs broken in order to finish them off. In fact, ancient sources tell us that it was not uncommon for victims to hang on a cross for more than 24 hours before they died. All this underscores the point, Jesus died not because his body couldn't take it any more, he died as an act of SUBMISSION to the Father. The Father required his death, after the atoning act of suffering, as the final act of obedience which satisfied God's wrath against human sin. Without that wilful act of submission, Christ's redemptive work would have been incomplete, and there would be no possibility of salvation.
So that is the first thing Jesus would say about MMA: I DID TAP, SO STOP USING THIS RIDICULOUS AND INACCURATE SLOGAN TO SELL YOUR SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL and your lame fight gear. We will have to examine some of the sayings of Jesus about violence and fighting, in view of the broader context of scripture, to establish what Jesus would say about MMA in general, and whether Jesus would mind if fighters used him as a model of inspiration for fighting. One thing I am very certain Jesus would say to Christians who do fight in the cage or to MMA clothing entrepreneurs is, "don't misrepresent what the cross means in order to have a catchy slogan to put on your fight gear." Jesus is not honored by his disciples perpetuating a false understanding of the cross. Think about it, if you really do believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins in order to save you from God's wrath, wouldn't it be fair to assume, without knowing much else, that Jesus would not want you to misrepresent that enormous truth; and, wouldn't it be fair to say that since he went to the great length of dying for our sins that we should not trivialize that fact with silly slogans that promote our own selfish ends?
Jesus may or may not support MMA, but he certainly does not support distorting the truth about the gospel. He also does not support Christians using gimmicks to "sell" the gospel. Men have been reached with the gospel for 2,000 years without the use of steel cages and MMA metaphors, by the simple means of preaching the gospel from the scriptures, in a clear and straightforward manner. So Christian entrepreneurs and clever pastors, drop the antics! Jesus does not need your creativity to grow his church. If you do wind up using distorted images of the gospel in order to grow your business, whether that be a fight gear business or a church, be aware of the fact that you are not doing Jesus any favors, and rid yourself of the delusion that you are truly reaching anyone for Jesus with such silly slogans and juvenile ideas about how to get more guys into church.
On the web site nosubmit.com, the purveyors of this new Jesusified MMA clothing line explain what this freshly minted slogan means. According to the web site, "Jesus didn't tap" means that, "Jesus didn't quit after going through unimaginable suffering and pain when he was crucified on the cross." Of course, the use of this slogan is not merely a marketing ploy, it also doubles as a means of evangelism, functioning as a tool which "will help spread the Christian message of salvation to a whole new audience." http://www.nosubmit.com/company.html Apparently, these entrepreneurs think that the "tap out" metaphor is a culturally savvy way of telling 18-35 year old men that Jesus was no sissy, and that if you want to be a Christian, you don't necessarily have to sacrifice your love of the Octagon in order to come to Jesus.
Its not just creative entrepreneurs who are mixing the gospel with MMA, clever pastors are jumping on the bandwagon too, using the Octagon as a means of reaching tough guys with the gospel. A recent article surfaced, on Cagepotato.com, relating how a St. Louis church is connecting Jesus to MMA in order to reach men. Quoting the pastor, Tom Skiles, the article says:
“The Ultimate Fighting is something we're doing to promote to the guys. We want to make Easter relevant again. We don't want to make it about lilies and nice dresses. When they walk in we'll have a chain link fence set up, it'll be set up like an octagon. We'll talk about fact that Jesus didn't tap out, he was an ultimate fighter.” http://www.cagepotato.com/st-louis-pastor-takes-‘jesus-didn’t-tap’-mantra-little-too-literally
It seems that Pastor Skiles thinks that a packaging problem is preventing too many guy guys from receiving the real Jesus. See, when someone talks to real men about Jesus dying on the cross for their sins, they hear, "Jesus wants you to be soft, vulnerable, and feminine," which is obviously an unpalatable message for the masculine species. It is just that kind of packaging, promoting a touchy-feely Jesus, that leaves real men with no other option than to say "no" to Jesus and stay home from church and watch football and NASCAR. The all too obvious solution to this problem is to slap a few tattoos on Jesus and throw him in the cage with his cross, and then men will start coming to Jesus in droves, having found a masculine Jesus who they can finally relate to.
Well, all this brings me back to the topic I want to address here, which is, JESUS DID TAP. I realize that this won't be a useful marketing slogan for the hard to reach tough guys, but, facts are facts, and the glaring fact is, Jesus "tapped out." To put this in MMA parlance, Jesus was "submitted" by His Father on the cross. After experiencing six hours of hell on the cross, Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." (Matthew 27:46) After that we are told that he said, "It is finished" in John 19:30, meaning he had endured all the agony he needed to in order to atone for human sin. Finally, just before dying he triumphantly exclaimed, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46).
Now, if that is not "tapping out" I don't know what is! Clearly Jesus is saying that he is giving up. When he says "I commit my spirit" he is literally saying that he is giving his soul to the Father in an act of submission. You see, he did not die simply out of physical agony. We know that is true because we are told that the two thugs crucified to the left and right of him were still alive after he died and had to have their legs broken in order to finish them off. In fact, ancient sources tell us that it was not uncommon for victims to hang on a cross for more than 24 hours before they died. All this underscores the point, Jesus died not because his body couldn't take it any more, he died as an act of SUBMISSION to the Father. The Father required his death, after the atoning act of suffering, as the final act of obedience which satisfied God's wrath against human sin. Without that wilful act of submission, Christ's redemptive work would have been incomplete, and there would be no possibility of salvation.
So that is the first thing Jesus would say about MMA: I DID TAP, SO STOP USING THIS RIDICULOUS AND INACCURATE SLOGAN TO SELL YOUR SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL and your lame fight gear. We will have to examine some of the sayings of Jesus about violence and fighting, in view of the broader context of scripture, to establish what Jesus would say about MMA in general, and whether Jesus would mind if fighters used him as a model of inspiration for fighting. One thing I am very certain Jesus would say to Christians who do fight in the cage or to MMA clothing entrepreneurs is, "don't misrepresent what the cross means in order to have a catchy slogan to put on your fight gear." Jesus is not honored by his disciples perpetuating a false understanding of the cross. Think about it, if you really do believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins in order to save you from God's wrath, wouldn't it be fair to assume, without knowing much else, that Jesus would not want you to misrepresent that enormous truth; and, wouldn't it be fair to say that since he went to the great length of dying for our sins that we should not trivialize that fact with silly slogans that promote our own selfish ends?
Jesus may or may not support MMA, but he certainly does not support distorting the truth about the gospel. He also does not support Christians using gimmicks to "sell" the gospel. Men have been reached with the gospel for 2,000 years without the use of steel cages and MMA metaphors, by the simple means of preaching the gospel from the scriptures, in a clear and straightforward manner. So Christian entrepreneurs and clever pastors, drop the antics! Jesus does not need your creativity to grow his church. If you do wind up using distorted images of the gospel in order to grow your business, whether that be a fight gear business or a church, be aware of the fact that you are not doing Jesus any favors, and rid yourself of the delusion that you are truly reaching anyone for Jesus with such silly slogans and juvenile ideas about how to get more guys into church.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
What would Jesus say about MMA? An introduction
On November 12, 1993 a new sport burst on to the American scene, which was bathed in blood, testosterone, and physical violence. With its fights to the finish, its no-holds barred rules, its bloodied and battered contestants, and its showcase of shocking real life brutality, it not only gained a rabid following among martial artists and fight fans, it also rapidly acquired a reputation for violence and inhumane brutality, viewed by some as nothing less than “human cockfighting.” It was not just the bloody slugfests which played out on the canvass inside the steel cage otherwise known as the “Octagon” that shaped perceptions of it being nothing more than primitive violence, it was many of the fighters themselves which contributed to this perception. Large thickly muscled men, covered in tattoos, sporting menacing glares, and taking on names such the “Axe Murderer,” “the Dean of Mean,” and “The Baby Faced Assassin” underscored its image of violence. Of course, the sport is called Mixed Martial Arts (otherwise and hereafter referred to as MMA) and it is wildly popular, financially lucrative, and what is more, its here to stay, having carved out a powerful marketing niche among young males between 18 to 35 years of age.
Not surprisingly, given its violent nature, accompanying its rise in popularity is a chorus of critics. These critics raise ethical questions about the sport, arguing that it glamorizes violence, it subjects participants to extreme and unnecessary physical risks, and it leads to a number of undesirable unintended consequences, not the least of which is a growing class of violent criminals who are becoming more sophisticated in their attacks on law-enforcement personnel. Given the apparently violent nature of the sport and the host of ethical questions which it generates, it might be surprising to some that a number of MMA fighters (Quinton Jackson, Matt Hughes, Rich Franklin, etc.) and now an MMA apparel company (you probaly wouldn't believe it unless you saw it for yourself, enjoy! http://www.nosubmit.com/) self-consciously and explicitly identify themselves as both Christian and proponents of the MMA industry. Immediately, such a congenial alliance between apparently disparate and unexpected parties prompts an intriguing question: what would Jesus say about MMA?
In a series of articles I plan to address this question from a number of angles including Jesus’ explicit prohibitions against taking vengeance on others, against unrestrained anger, as well as his undeniable calls for promoting peace and loving one’s neighbor. The question which we will particularly aim to answer is whether one can participate in a sport which intentionally seeks to inflict physical damage on an opponent and still maintain a valid claim to be a follower of Christ.
In the course of these articles, I don’t want to simply be answering my own questions about the ethics of MMA, I want to hear from you, and try to address questions which you may have as well. So please, come back and join me in discussing what Jesus would say about MMA.
Not surprisingly, given its violent nature, accompanying its rise in popularity is a chorus of critics. These critics raise ethical questions about the sport, arguing that it glamorizes violence, it subjects participants to extreme and unnecessary physical risks, and it leads to a number of undesirable unintended consequences, not the least of which is a growing class of violent criminals who are becoming more sophisticated in their attacks on law-enforcement personnel. Given the apparently violent nature of the sport and the host of ethical questions which it generates, it might be surprising to some that a number of MMA fighters (Quinton Jackson, Matt Hughes, Rich Franklin, etc.) and now an MMA apparel company (you probaly wouldn't believe it unless you saw it for yourself, enjoy! http://www.nosubmit.com/) self-consciously and explicitly identify themselves as both Christian and proponents of the MMA industry. Immediately, such a congenial alliance between apparently disparate and unexpected parties prompts an intriguing question: what would Jesus say about MMA?
In a series of articles I plan to address this question from a number of angles including Jesus’ explicit prohibitions against taking vengeance on others, against unrestrained anger, as well as his undeniable calls for promoting peace and loving one’s neighbor. The question which we will particularly aim to answer is whether one can participate in a sport which intentionally seeks to inflict physical damage on an opponent and still maintain a valid claim to be a follower of Christ.
In the course of these articles, I don’t want to simply be answering my own questions about the ethics of MMA, I want to hear from you, and try to address questions which you may have as well. So please, come back and join me in discussing what Jesus would say about MMA.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
UFC 96
I don't think there is a lot to say here about this UFC. This card is pretty much a one horse show, with Jackson v Jardine at the top, the rest of the matches are not that big of a deal. That being the case, I will only comment on two matchups.
Jackson v Jardine
This fight will not go well for Jardine. Jackson has too much speed, too much strength, and too much power. I call this fight for Jackson either via knockout or TKO probably in the 2nd round. Jardine is a good fighter at 205, but will never make it to the top of the heap in the UFC. That is no disrespect to his skills, its just to say that his natural abilities are just not top 3 level, and they won't ever be. Jackson, on the other hand, has tremendous athletic ability and has made some good adjustments to his training since joining up with the boys from Wolfslair. Once Jackson puts Jardine aside, the table should be set for the Jackson-Rashad Evans title fight, and I don't have to tell even the casual MMA fan that that will be a huge fight.
Gonzaga v Carwin
I really like this matchup for a lot of reasons. Carwin is an enormous guy with great athletic ability, excellent wrestling, and improved striking. Gonzo has great jujitsu and improved striking, as well as a ton of big-time MMA experience. I have a hunch that Gonzo wins this via submission. Carwin is a great wrestler, but I don't have confidence that he wins if this thing goes to the ground. The wild card in this fight is the stand up game. Will Carwin be able to use his greater size to tie Gonzo up, control the distance between them, and hold him against the cage and dirty box him, or will Gonzo keep Carwin at bay with leg kicks and superior foot work? At the end of the day I say Gonzo has too much experience against better opponents to lose this, but Carwin does have a chance for an upset. Look for a great fight and I think the winner of this match can make a strong argument that they deserve a shot at the belt.
Enjoy the fights!
Jackson v Jardine
This fight will not go well for Jardine. Jackson has too much speed, too much strength, and too much power. I call this fight for Jackson either via knockout or TKO probably in the 2nd round. Jardine is a good fighter at 205, but will never make it to the top of the heap in the UFC. That is no disrespect to his skills, its just to say that his natural abilities are just not top 3 level, and they won't ever be. Jackson, on the other hand, has tremendous athletic ability and has made some good adjustments to his training since joining up with the boys from Wolfslair. Once Jackson puts Jardine aside, the table should be set for the Jackson-Rashad Evans title fight, and I don't have to tell even the casual MMA fan that that will be a huge fight.
Gonzaga v Carwin
I really like this matchup for a lot of reasons. Carwin is an enormous guy with great athletic ability, excellent wrestling, and improved striking. Gonzo has great jujitsu and improved striking, as well as a ton of big-time MMA experience. I have a hunch that Gonzo wins this via submission. Carwin is a great wrestler, but I don't have confidence that he wins if this thing goes to the ground. The wild card in this fight is the stand up game. Will Carwin be able to use his greater size to tie Gonzo up, control the distance between them, and hold him against the cage and dirty box him, or will Gonzo keep Carwin at bay with leg kicks and superior foot work? At the end of the day I say Gonzo has too much experience against better opponents to lose this, but Carwin does have a chance for an upset. Look for a great fight and I think the winner of this match can make a strong argument that they deserve a shot at the belt.
Enjoy the fights!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Churchapreneurs: a Reformed response
As we take up our final installment in this series, I want to conclude by offering a way forward. Before I do that, I want to briefly review what we have said. We began by defining a churchapreneur: a churchapreneur is a pastor of a local church who views Christianity as a product to be marketed and sold. In other words, churchapreneurs see the church and Christianity as a means of seeking financial gain and gaining access to power and influence through growing a big business. The churchapreneur creed is well articulated in the poster that hangs outside of Bill Hybel's office: what is our business? who is our customer? what does our customer consider value? This view is prevalent throughout Protestant evangelicalism today. To confirm that, all you have to do is take a look at the "whose who" of North American Christianity and the overwhelming percentage of them are churchapreneurs, from Chuck Smith, to Robert Schuller, to Joel Osteen, to Rick Warren. All of these men have compromised Biblical standards and replaced them with pragmatic practices designed to build their megachurch empires.
With that brief overview in mind, my purpose now is to offer a way forward that is Biblical and CONFESSIONAL. My aim is not to rehash critiques of broader evangelicalism, but to propose a model for confessionally Reformed churches to follow in order to counteract the devastating effects of the churchapreneur model upon the image of the church today.
First, Reformed churches need to stress the nature of church. One of the most significant questions that has to be answered in order to offset the business model of church is, what is a church? That's really the nub of the debate; if scripture did not include any teaching on the nature of the church, if it did not condemn using the church and Christianity to get rich and acquire influence and power, we would have no quarrel with churchapreneurs. The fact is however, scripture forbids using the ministry and the church as a means of financial gain, and it does give explicit teaching about the nature of the church. Over against the the business model of church, scripture teaches that the visible church is the covenant people of God and exists to be a word and sacrament institution governed by duly called and appointed elders. The church consists of believers and their children, and is authorized to worship collectively and Biblically, shepherd the saints lovingly, and evangelize the lost relentlessly. The primary way all three of these objectives is accomplished is through the public preaching of the word by a lawfully ordained minister of the word; and then secondly, that public, verbal ministry of the word is publicly reinforced through the proper administration of the sacraments, which are designed to visibly signify the gospel, and to seal and intesify our union with Christ. So, the first way for Reformed churches to work to counteract the unbiblical, churchapreneur business model is to identify the nature and function of the church, and then to faithfully implement that at the local church level. The visible church is not a business and it is not a social organization, it is the covenant people of God, believers and their children, and it exists to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and lovingly shepherd God's people.
Second, the Reformed church needs to recommit to the regulative principle. The regulative principle, as stated in our Reformed confessions, is that we may worship God in no other way than he has commanded in His word. That means, that the church, when it gathers for worship, may only do what God has commanded in scripture. This is a very challenging principle, because it is so clear cut: it does not permit good intentions, people's preferences, or church traditions to determine what is done in worship; it only permits what is commanded either explicitly or what is deduced by good and necessary inference. Just because some people find certain things "meaningful" or "enjoyable" does not mean that its warranted to have in worship. Additionally, just because we think certain practices or styles of music might attract unbelievers to church, that, of itself, does not authorize the church to worship in that manner. God is worshipped only in the way He has commanded. If you think about that, it makes perfect sense. God knows Himself and what glorifies Him better than we know Him and what glorifies Him; and therefore, we must not presume to be wiser than God by offering worship to Him that seems fitting, proper, and even satisfying to us, if He did not command it. To do so is to put ourselves above God and dictate to Him what He should like.
If the church submitted to this principle, much of what passes for worship, in the name of "innovation" or "creativity" or "seeker sensitivity," would be eliminated from worship since it is included in the service purely for human consumption, and, is not commanded by God. Its what Paul called "self-made religion" in Colossians 2:23; it has the appearance of a religious experience, makes people "feel good," might even attract a crowd, but it is of no value because God did not command it. The Reformed church could do much to counteract the churchapreneur phenomenon by conforming its own worship to the regulative principle which it confesses, and then call other Protestant churches to do the same thing.
Beyond conforming its worship to what scripture commands, the Reformed church needs to conform its church life to what God commands. The regulative principle extends not only to worship but also to church governement and by extension to church life. I say this in connection with the churchapreneur "program" approach to luring people to church. We talked about the "cutting edge" programs churches utilize in order to attract customers to church. These programs are designed to offer some sort of religious experience in a casual, attractive atmosphere. The problem with this approach is that it seeks to offer something that God did not command the church to do. Christ has instituted the means of grace, the preaching of the word and the sacraments, as the two means by which he communicates himself with his grace to believers. There is no other way, ordinarily, to receive the grace of Jesus Christ than the preaching of the word and the sacraments. Yet, the modern Protestant church has multiplied sacraments, far beyond Roman Catholicism, through instituting numerlous programs, as new and "fresh" ways to access the grace of Jesus. The church does not exist to be a social club, to hold karaoke meetings, to be a place to pursue personal hobbies with fellow believers, or to be a glorified recreational facility or amusement park; the church is a word and sacrament institution where believers may access the grace of Christ by making use of the means which Christ has appointed to receive his grace, and be shepherded through this life under the watchful care of the elders of the church; THAT'S IT! If Reformed churches are to please God and to counter the destructive influence of churchapreneurs they must recommit themselves to this regulative principle, remove from their worship and church life what is contrary to it, and seek to access the grace of Christ only in the ways which he has ordained: the preaching of the word and the administration of the two sacraments, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.
Third, the Reformed church needs to counter the churchapreneur paradigm by aggressively and relentlessly pursuing its mission, the Great Commission. The Great Commission is Christ's command to the church to make disciples by going, teaching, and baptizing. Its aim is to win converts to Christ by His grace, not to simply attract great numbers of people to church in order to have a big building, make lots of money, and acquire access to power and influence. The aim is not numbers, its CONVERTS to Christ. We don't know how many the Lord has determined to effectually call; but, we do know He has chosen to call His elect to himself through the preaching of the gospel by the church and therefore we must be busy pursuing that commission. Just as the churchapreneur paradigm is unbiblical in so far as it conceives of the church as a business and aims at acquiring wealth and access to power and influence, so it is wrong for the Reformed church to sequester itself behind the safety of the church walls, turning the church into a social club for personal enrichment and mutual admiration, to endlessly dot doctrinal "i's" and "t's," and to rarely, if ever, lift a finger to go out into the world where lost sinners are and seek to win them to Christ. It is fair to say that some of what goes on in the churchapreneur, seeker sensitive church world, is a reaction to the laziness and indolence of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian church which decided to retreat behind church walls rather than to vigorously engage unbelievers with the gospel. The sad fact is, by doing this, not only have the lost not been reached out to by us, we have made it more difficult to reach the lost because we have allowed the churchapreneur segment of evangelicalism to be the public face of Christianity in North America, and due to the slick, business oriented packaging of the Christian faith, a vast segment of unchurched people in the United States have grown wary of Christianity and are turning a deaf ear toward its message because of the hypocritical, unscrupulous methods of the churchapreneur model. We can counteract this though, if we recommit not only to embodying, at the local church level, the nature of the church as described in scripture, by worshiping and conducting church government and church life according to the regulative principle, and also by mounting a vigorous campaign to go out into the world, and live among unbelievers, love them, pray for them, and seek intentionally to win them to Jesus Christ.
That's my Reformed response to churchapreneurs: recover the Biblical concept of the nature and function of the church, carefully and scrupulously follow the regulative principle both in worship, in church government and in church life, and aggressively pursue the Great Commission. I HOPE YOU WILL ENGAGE ME IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS MODEL.
With that brief overview in mind, my purpose now is to offer a way forward that is Biblical and CONFESSIONAL. My aim is not to rehash critiques of broader evangelicalism, but to propose a model for confessionally Reformed churches to follow in order to counteract the devastating effects of the churchapreneur model upon the image of the church today.
First, Reformed churches need to stress the nature of church. One of the most significant questions that has to be answered in order to offset the business model of church is, what is a church? That's really the nub of the debate; if scripture did not include any teaching on the nature of the church, if it did not condemn using the church and Christianity to get rich and acquire influence and power, we would have no quarrel with churchapreneurs. The fact is however, scripture forbids using the ministry and the church as a means of financial gain, and it does give explicit teaching about the nature of the church. Over against the the business model of church, scripture teaches that the visible church is the covenant people of God and exists to be a word and sacrament institution governed by duly called and appointed elders. The church consists of believers and their children, and is authorized to worship collectively and Biblically, shepherd the saints lovingly, and evangelize the lost relentlessly. The primary way all three of these objectives is accomplished is through the public preaching of the word by a lawfully ordained minister of the word; and then secondly, that public, verbal ministry of the word is publicly reinforced through the proper administration of the sacraments, which are designed to visibly signify the gospel, and to seal and intesify our union with Christ. So, the first way for Reformed churches to work to counteract the unbiblical, churchapreneur business model is to identify the nature and function of the church, and then to faithfully implement that at the local church level. The visible church is not a business and it is not a social organization, it is the covenant people of God, believers and their children, and it exists to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and lovingly shepherd God's people.
Second, the Reformed church needs to recommit to the regulative principle. The regulative principle, as stated in our Reformed confessions, is that we may worship God in no other way than he has commanded in His word. That means, that the church, when it gathers for worship, may only do what God has commanded in scripture. This is a very challenging principle, because it is so clear cut: it does not permit good intentions, people's preferences, or church traditions to determine what is done in worship; it only permits what is commanded either explicitly or what is deduced by good and necessary inference. Just because some people find certain things "meaningful" or "enjoyable" does not mean that its warranted to have in worship. Additionally, just because we think certain practices or styles of music might attract unbelievers to church, that, of itself, does not authorize the church to worship in that manner. God is worshipped only in the way He has commanded. If you think about that, it makes perfect sense. God knows Himself and what glorifies Him better than we know Him and what glorifies Him; and therefore, we must not presume to be wiser than God by offering worship to Him that seems fitting, proper, and even satisfying to us, if He did not command it. To do so is to put ourselves above God and dictate to Him what He should like.
If the church submitted to this principle, much of what passes for worship, in the name of "innovation" or "creativity" or "seeker sensitivity," would be eliminated from worship since it is included in the service purely for human consumption, and, is not commanded by God. Its what Paul called "self-made religion" in Colossians 2:23; it has the appearance of a religious experience, makes people "feel good," might even attract a crowd, but it is of no value because God did not command it. The Reformed church could do much to counteract the churchapreneur phenomenon by conforming its own worship to the regulative principle which it confesses, and then call other Protestant churches to do the same thing.
Beyond conforming its worship to what scripture commands, the Reformed church needs to conform its church life to what God commands. The regulative principle extends not only to worship but also to church governement and by extension to church life. I say this in connection with the churchapreneur "program" approach to luring people to church. We talked about the "cutting edge" programs churches utilize in order to attract customers to church. These programs are designed to offer some sort of religious experience in a casual, attractive atmosphere. The problem with this approach is that it seeks to offer something that God did not command the church to do. Christ has instituted the means of grace, the preaching of the word and the sacraments, as the two means by which he communicates himself with his grace to believers. There is no other way, ordinarily, to receive the grace of Jesus Christ than the preaching of the word and the sacraments. Yet, the modern Protestant church has multiplied sacraments, far beyond Roman Catholicism, through instituting numerlous programs, as new and "fresh" ways to access the grace of Jesus. The church does not exist to be a social club, to hold karaoke meetings, to be a place to pursue personal hobbies with fellow believers, or to be a glorified recreational facility or amusement park; the church is a word and sacrament institution where believers may access the grace of Christ by making use of the means which Christ has appointed to receive his grace, and be shepherded through this life under the watchful care of the elders of the church; THAT'S IT! If Reformed churches are to please God and to counter the destructive influence of churchapreneurs they must recommit themselves to this regulative principle, remove from their worship and church life what is contrary to it, and seek to access the grace of Christ only in the ways which he has ordained: the preaching of the word and the administration of the two sacraments, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.
Third, the Reformed church needs to counter the churchapreneur paradigm by aggressively and relentlessly pursuing its mission, the Great Commission. The Great Commission is Christ's command to the church to make disciples by going, teaching, and baptizing. Its aim is to win converts to Christ by His grace, not to simply attract great numbers of people to church in order to have a big building, make lots of money, and acquire access to power and influence. The aim is not numbers, its CONVERTS to Christ. We don't know how many the Lord has determined to effectually call; but, we do know He has chosen to call His elect to himself through the preaching of the gospel by the church and therefore we must be busy pursuing that commission. Just as the churchapreneur paradigm is unbiblical in so far as it conceives of the church as a business and aims at acquiring wealth and access to power and influence, so it is wrong for the Reformed church to sequester itself behind the safety of the church walls, turning the church into a social club for personal enrichment and mutual admiration, to endlessly dot doctrinal "i's" and "t's," and to rarely, if ever, lift a finger to go out into the world where lost sinners are and seek to win them to Christ. It is fair to say that some of what goes on in the churchapreneur, seeker sensitive church world, is a reaction to the laziness and indolence of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian church which decided to retreat behind church walls rather than to vigorously engage unbelievers with the gospel. The sad fact is, by doing this, not only have the lost not been reached out to by us, we have made it more difficult to reach the lost because we have allowed the churchapreneur segment of evangelicalism to be the public face of Christianity in North America, and due to the slick, business oriented packaging of the Christian faith, a vast segment of unchurched people in the United States have grown wary of Christianity and are turning a deaf ear toward its message because of the hypocritical, unscrupulous methods of the churchapreneur model. We can counteract this though, if we recommit not only to embodying, at the local church level, the nature of the church as described in scripture, by worshiping and conducting church government and church life according to the regulative principle, and also by mounting a vigorous campaign to go out into the world, and live among unbelievers, love them, pray for them, and seek intentionally to win them to Jesus Christ.
That's my Reformed response to churchapreneurs: recover the Biblical concept of the nature and function of the church, carefully and scrupulously follow the regulative principle both in worship, in church government and in church life, and aggressively pursue the Great Commission. I HOPE YOU WILL ENGAGE ME IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS MODEL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)