Who would Jesus Punch?
I’ve never punched anyone. Not properly. I once accidentally gave someone a black eye, but that’s a really embarrassing story, and not one I’m keen to recount. I don’t much like violent sports, though Die Hard is one of my favourite films; oh double-minded man that I am!
So it was with mixed feelings and not a small amount of prejudice that I approached Mark Driscoll’s recent blog post, A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts, in which he raised the question of whether Christians should watch or participate in violent sports. It’s a long post, but you can skip the sections on rules and weight regulations; the first two thirds is what counts.
In it he essentially argues that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA, otherwise known as Ultimate Fighting or Cagefighting) is a misunderstood sport. It’s actually far safer than one might imagine, and it’s redeemable. Christians whose conscience allows them should feel free to watch it and participate in it.
In a sense, I don’t have a problem with some of his conclusions, since although I don’t personally think MMA is a particularly edifying sport for a Christian to watch, I too think it’s a matter of conscience. But the way in which he makes his points raised a few questions for me. For example, he writes:
Perhaps the most common reason some Christians oppose MMA is that they consider it simply too dangerous.
Really? That is the most common reason? Because I would have thought that this is a second-tier question, the first being “Is it wise, edifying, or godly to want to engage in a sport that basically consists of and promotes violence?” If your conscience allows you to answer with a “yes”, then you may want to raise the subsidiary question “given that it’s permissible, do I think it’s worth me doing, or is it too dangerous?”
In other words, the godliness question surely precedes the question of danger.
If you start with “is it too dangerous?” then all you need to do is pull out a bunch of statistics about why other sports are more dangerous, and you can relativize the risk. And that is exactly what Driscoll does; comparing UFC with Cheerleading, American Football and Hockey. He might as well have recounted a couple of anecdotes about children losing eyes to tiddlywinks.
But the difference is that in each of those sports, violence and the risk of injury are possibilities; they are not the core purpose of the sport. In each case there is another goal in mind: slamming down a ball on a bit of grass, running around people in order to hit a puck in a net, or raising morale through dance-moves. (I should point out, I’m not for a moment defending cheerleading; I think there are moral questions of a totally different sort involved there!!) When engaging in these sports, along the way you may or may not receive the odd blow, but with MMA, violence is the foundation on which the entire sport is built. Take the fighting element away and you’re left with burly men hanging around in vests! It’s conceivable that you could play a hockey game without a serious injury; the game doesn’t require forceful content in order to achieve its aim. Many high school cheerleading squads will spend a whole day dancing without the slightest accident. It is impossible to conceive of a UFC match where someone does not get punched and emerge with a bruise or worse: it’s integral to the entire concept.
To my mind one must ask, are the goals of the sport and the values on which it is founded edifying and godly? Or do they run counter to God’s plan for mankind? Only when you have answered those questions should we bring in the subject of danger and risk, and whether we are willing to endure it for the sake of our sport. And I would personally feel that the principles upon which MMA are based are morally questionable.
The argument looks most bizarre when Driscoll compares the danger inherent in MMA to a career in the emergency services:
Those participating in the sport enter voluntarily, knowing there is a possibility of injury, not unlike other professional athletes of other sports, or police officers, fire fighters, or soldiers who enter potential danger as part of their vocation.
Seriously? Am I really meant to compare a fire fighter who risks his life in order to rescue innocent civilians from burning wrecks and an MMA fighter who makes money from bruising people for the entertainment of the masses?
But probably my biggest concern was with the comments about the person of Christ. Driscoll writes:
Some Christians will vocally declare that we must reject MMA. Sometimes it’s because they simply do not understand the nature of the sport and misperceive it, and other times it’s because they are pacifists theologically who don’t condone violence in any form. Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone. The problem is that Jesus probably had short hair (1 Corinthians 11 says it was a disgrace in that day for a man to have long hair), was in good shape from a labor job and lots of walking across rugged terrain, and upon his return will come again not in humility but rather in glory.
He then quotes Revelation 19:11-18 and sums it up saying:
Simply, on his first trip to the earth Jesus took a beating to atone for sin; on his next trip he will hand them out to unrepentant sinners instead.
This sort of reasoning bothers me on too many levels. Firstly I dislike the implication that theologically-convinced pacifists have an effeminate view of Jesus. I’m not an out and out pacifist, though I would say that I sit towards that end of the spectrum, and I don’t believe there is anything inherent in my theology that leads to an emasculation of Christ! (I also drink a fair amount of strong, black, fully-caffeinated coffee, but that’s an aside.) As I understand it, Isaiah’s eschatological vision was of people beating swords into ploughshares, not swapping combats for maxi-dresses (Isaiah 2:4). Pacifism does not necessarily equal weakness!
Secondly, Jesus being a well-built manual labourer doesn’t mean that he would endorse MMA. His physique and occupation are totally irrelevant. Nor is it the case that Christian carpenters will like Ultimate Fighting and those who don’t work with their hands will not. Many people are well capable of separating their temperament from their theology, and stereotypes like this just detract from the issue at hand and get people’s backs up.
Thirdly, comparing the Jesus of the second coming to a Cagefighter who will ‘hand out beatings’ feels a little puerile, and trivialises the nature of his judgment. These verses talk about the righteous judgment of a perfect, holy, gracious God who has been sinned against by every being ever to have lived, has extended his mercy to mankind, and will return to put the world to rights, justly punishing the guilty. It is an astonishing step to make a passage like this a model and justification for a morally questionable sporting event! The sword-tongued Jesus of Revelation is hardly meant to be a model for us to attain to; the point is that he is completely unique in his perfection and right to judge, and not to be emulated by fallible human beings. It is completely coherent for a pacifist to hold to the belief in God’s right to judge mankind, whilst also recognising that as humans we should refrain from doing so.
I have no doubt there are Christians who are involved in MMA who have learnt to be Salt and Light in their chosen profession (though given the proverbial phrase about rubbing salt in wounds, the metaphor takes on a new kind of meaning in this arena). I am not 100% against MMA; I happen to agree that it’s a matter of conscience, and I’m glad that Driscoll at least recognizes “Not everyone should participate in MMA, watch it, or even enjoy it. The Bible doesn’t command us to” (!).
As Paul puts it, “‘Everything is permissible’, but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor 10:23) and I’m personally not convinced that watching or participating in MMA is edifying for Christians. I certainly don’t think it would build me up in my walk with God, and so I refrain. Sure, if you want to watch MMA, be my guest, but please think carefully before you apply your sporting preferences to your Christology. Jesus may be ok with you watching people beat each other up, but don’t assume (or worse still preach) that he’d want to pull up a chair and join you.
I recommend reading Joe Carter’s recent post at First Things, Jesus is not a Cagefighter, which to my mind is a balanced and sane approach to this discussion, and I would humbly suggest that in seeking to define biblical masculinity, we ought to be careful not to make our own preference and temperament the benchmark. This goes just as much for long-haired, decaf-drinking, tree-hugging hippies as it does for MMA-loving, feisty Seattleites. True masculinity cannot be measured by a taste for violent sports, or conforming to macho stereotypes.
And I’ll happily fight anyone who thinks otherwise!
Comments
Commenting is disabled in this entry
By Andrew Wilson on 14/11/2011 at 13:58
Excellent post. A really sensible and balanced critique. What with this, and Remembrance Day, a piece on pacifism looks ever more essential ... is that you, or Hosier, d’you think?
By Hugh Griffiths on 14/11/2011 at 14:01
Great headline for your article and more than sufficient commentary! Driscoll’s trademark approach is very evident here - although his approach for cultural analysis of ‘receive, reject, or redeem” should probably have at least one other category - ‘rationalise’.
I don’t wish to trivialise the faith of MMA competitors who clearly have found ways to express their Christianity within a challenging context that I will probably never fully understand. However, I am unconvinced by tattoos and quoting texts as a substantial means of witness. Surely a more effective route would be to reject the whole ‘violence as entertainment’ lifestyle?
By Jason Hodges on 14/11/2011 at 14:46
yeah good post Liam. I skimmed Driscoll’s article and would have to say that you have clearer reasoning when it comes to the points he uses. As an mma fan, I enjoy watching it and have trained a bit in that, and kickboxing. From a purely personal perspective I’ve had a great experience in gyms, training alongside others, pushing yourself and working alongside them to develop your skills. I wonder if there is a difference between training, and the potential pitfalls that arrive when actually fighting. I think I would struggle with the reliance on physical strength, harnessing the aggression required to be successful, the physical domination of another human, and the struggle with ego that would surely result. I’m sure there are guys competing in mma who are strong enough to keep all this in check. and their eyes on God but hmm. Hard one.
By Andy Johnston on 14/11/2011 at 15:01
Thanks Liam,
I think we need to do a whole lot of thinking about what constitutes masculinity and femininity. I am a huge Driscoll fan but I do tend to agree that we should adopt a more critical approach in trying to define what constitutes true biblical manhood and womanhood.
I was in a meeting recently where a particularly “Driscollesque” preacher suddenly made a remark about “weak feminine love”. My wife leaned over to me and whispered, “Weak! I would never have called the love of a mother for her newborn baby weak. It’s just about as strong a form of love as you can imagine.” I think she had a point!
By Anna on 14/11/2011 at 15:08
Thanks for this, great piece. However can I just defend cheerleading for a moment? I was one of those successful American high school athletes that looked down on cheerleaders (and had some moral issues with cheerleading in general) - until one day in the weight room my cheerleading friend lifted more weight than me. Don’t let Hollywood, Glee or pro sports colour your view of cheerleaders - most of them are incredibly athletic and amazing at what they do, and glorify God in the process. They made what were often dull high school games a LOT more fun. Also, if your problem is with the way the women often dress - I’ll concede that - but remember there are loads of male cheerleaders too. :) And you can find plenty of “moral questions” in every sport - don’t just pick on the women!
By Luke on 14/11/2011 at 15:51
Great work, Liam, thanks.
Ray Orlund’s annual benediction for the opportunity to shoot deer always feels weird too, but this would seem less helpful for the reasons you describe.
I think part of the worrying thing about Driscoll’s Incarnation/Second Coming summary that you quoted is that it could suggest that Jesus was struggling not to punch everyone in the face when He was on earth, rather than fully revealing the character of God to us.
PS I don’t wear pastels, drink any kind of coffee, or bench-press anything.
By Liam Thatcher on 14/11/2011 at 16:55
Thanks everyone for the comments.
@Andrew - Yep, that would be great… at some point. It’s a subject I’m still not settled on, but I’m happy to kick off a discussion…
@Andy - Agreed. Sadly stereotypes and unhelpful stock phrases like that are so easy to fall back on unthinkingly.
@Anna - Thanks - I wasn’t really intending to attack cheerleading. I was really mainly about the dresscode rather than anything else. But point taken! :-)
And it would appear that (albeit for different reasons) St Stuffed Shirt would agree with you: http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/st-stuffed-shirt/article/driscoll-and-the-dangers-of-dancing
By ben on 14/11/2011 at 18:43
Interesting stuff Liam, on the whole, I agree.
However, as someone who enjoys fighting(!) and someone who’s done a bit of MMA myself, I’d challenge your assertion that “...with MMA, violence is the foundation on which the entire sport is built.”
Whilst that might be true from your pascifist perspective, I think this may be a bit of a sweeping statement; I’m not sure that it is the foundation on which the sport is built.
Yes, it’s built around martial arts, but I’d suggest martial arts, in and of themselves, are not necessarily ‘violent’ - a word loaded with negative connotations.
From my experience, martial arts is actual more akin to a more physical game of chess or tennis. It requires total cerebral engagement; watching and anticipating an opponent’s move, and responding to them.
What I’m trying to highlight is that whilst fighting may appear to be foundationally violent, the violence is more the veneer than the foundation of the sport. Martial arts isn’t about violence, it’s about fighting in a specific, controlled manner.
From my experience, the benefits in self control and discipline derivied from learning and practising it, far excede the negative externalities of practising ‘violence’. Yes, it does become violent at times, but fundamentally, I don’t think that’s what it’s about.
By ben aston on 14/11/2011 at 18:44
Interesting stuff Liam, I agree with your overall conclusions.
However, as someone who enjoys fighting(!) and someone who’s done a bit of MMA myself, I’d challenge your assertion that “...with MMA, violence is the foundation on which the entire sport is built.”
Whilst that might be true from your pascifist perspective, I think this may be a bit of a sweeping statement; I’m not sure that it is the foundation on which the sport is built.
Yes, it’s built around martial arts, but I’d suggest martial arts, in and of themselves, are not necessarily ‘violent’ - a word loaded with negative connotations.
From my experience, martial arts is actual more akin to a more physical game of chess or tennis. It requires total cerebral engagement; watching and anticipating an opponent’s move, and responding to them.
What I’m trying to highlight is that whilst fighting may appear to be foundationally violent, the violence is more the veneer than the foundation of the sport. Martial arts isn’t about violence, it’s about fighting in a specific, controlled manner.
From my experience, the benefits in self control and discipline derivied from learning and practising it, far excede the negative externalities of practising ‘violence’. Yes, it does become violent at times, but fundamentally, I don’t think that’s what it’s about.
By Matthew Hosier on 14/11/2011 at 21:23
Nice work Liam! I, too, am somewhat conflicted on this one - I think your demolition of MD is spot on, but 20+ years ago (before MMA had been thought of) I trained in Thai boxing, and enjoyed smacking people round the head while sparring (but was too cowardly to get in the ring for a proper fight - I was in Newcastle at the time!).
There’s probably a lot more work to do on this whole theme - and some serious reflection on what truly constitutes ‘masculinity’ in a fallen world. Keep following the worm hole…
By Kyle on 14/11/2011 at 22:34
Great article ,
As a Christian pacifist/conscientious objector , who was sentenced to a 6 year prison sentence for refusing to do military service in South Africa, my country of origin durring the Apartheid Era , I find Driscolls comments insulting , patronising and ignorant .
Christian leaders have a great responsibility before God to think carefully about what they write and the views they express .
Kyle
By Oli Stevens on 14/11/2011 at 23:07
Great article thanks Liam, I love the “Punch Line” at the end.
(See what I did, a pun Andrew would be proud of!)
By Liam Thatcher on 15/11/2011 at 00:20
Thanks Ben - I take your point; ‘violence’ is a loaded word and perhaps ‘foundation’ is a little too strong as well, since arguably the foundation is something else which is akin to all sports, like competitiveness.
But if we can separate the idea of violence from the negative connotations of anger or loss of control (which Driscoll wants to do, hence stressing that MMA is strictly controlled and can’t get out of hand) I still think there’s something questionable about the desire to batter, bruise or draw blood from another individual for the purpose of entertainment.
A surprising number of people are admitting to being fighters… Perhaps this calls for a new seminar stream at the Everything Conference 2012? Being salt and light in the violent arts. Ending the day with a cage fight, refereed by Hosier ;-)
Thanks for the comments - I appreciate the interaction.
By Helen Ronald on 15/11/2011 at 11:13
Hey Liam
Great post. I am not much of a theologist and neither am I blessed with criticial writing skills but I have some thoughts.
I would have to agree on your point about putting God first in everything. As the typical question goes…‘What would Jesus do?’. Looking at the very basic bible verses that we teach to young children in church, we see God’s love for his creation, his devotion and very personal, deliberate and purposeful creation of each of us. The bible makes it clear that when God created Adam and Eve, they were meant to live in harmony with each other, and with God. The bible also tells us that loving God and loving others is our first priority.
I am not suggesting that MMA fighters hate their opponents, in fact, some of them may even be friends! I am sure its very professional and not based upon personal untoward feelings.
Ben, above, mentioned that violence isnt the primary foundation of MMA…but the focus and anticipation of the others moves…and the aim of those moves is to defeat your opponent…violently? We could argue that one (chicken and egg) for a while…but my immediate thought was, whether violence is the primary or secondary foundation, it is what it is. It brings to mind that attitude of, ‘how far can I go without sinning?’ rather than ‘how far can I run from sinning?’ How close to violence am I allowed to get without sinning against God? or ‘How far can I run from violence to please God?
At the end of the day, we are Gods creation. His love for us is not weak and soppy, rather, strong, jealous and protective (I dont think it was a weak love that was demonstrated on the cross). We should ask, would God want me to intentionally put myself in a position where I may/may not cause serious/minor injury to someone He has created? The message it sends is violence is ok as long as its in the context of sport and in a ‘controlled’ manner. I think thats the human in us that wants to rationalise our sinful desires and make it acceptable in God’s sight.
I don’t think MMA fighting is sin in itself…as Driscoll pointed out, it is on a willing and voluntary basis and if we are honest, that’s the only factor that allows our conscience to accept it, because if it was involuntary, we would all be up in arms about it.
I would stand on your point quoting Paul, concluding that it is not beneficial. If it isnt beneficial or strictly to the liking or image of God, then why engage with it? God wants us to be Christ-like, not some what Christ-like.
By Liam Thatcher on 15/11/2011 at 11:23
Oh Oliver… I cringe…
By Adrian Birks on 15/11/2011 at 12:47
Great post Liam & love the catchy title!! :)
By Kyle on 15/11/2011 at 22:03
I wanted to add an additional comment last night , but due to time constraints was unable to , but here goes…This is what the Bible says about MMA ...
Galatians 5:22-23” But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
Roman 12:8 ““Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody”
Colossians 3:12” Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.”
1 Corinthians 13:4"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.”
Colossians 3:8"But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage…”
By phil moore on 17/11/2011 at 02:03
Always love your posts, Liam. This one is great as ever.