AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Mark Driscoll changed my life - he introduced me to the UFC. For those who don’t know, UFC stands for “Ultimate Fighting Championship”, and it is the number one promoter of mixed martial arts events in the world. The sport is already huge in America and Europe, and they are putting on their first Australian show in February.
Mixed martial arts is a new sport, and is essentially a combination of boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and jiu-jitsu. The fights are full contact, and for protection the fighters wear only light gloves, a mouth guard and a groin guard. Sometimes it is called “cage-fighting”, because the fights take place inside a mesh cage rather than a ring.
It’s well known that Driscoll is a huge fan of this sport. After hearing him mention it on his blog a few years ago, I rented a DVD and immediately became hooked. But I’ve encountered some raised eyebrows. Should Christians be watching full contact martial arts? And not just MMA - what about boxing? Or wrestling even?
I haven’t been able to track down a good essay presenting a Christian case against MMA. One former minister told me that it was not appropriate viewing material for a Christian, but he gave no reasons. I believe that Broughton Knox wrote an essay against boxing, but I’ve been unable to find it.
For many, their first gut reaction to the sport will define their position. But it may be worth spending some time to work through the issue properly. I predict this sport will become enormously popular in Australia over the next few years, especially amongst young men. If this happens, it will be good if we have done some proper thinking on the subject beforehand.
Well, context is important - it's two consenting adults engaging in a sporting contest, not a brawl on the street.
I suspect rugby players are far more likely to suffer serious injury
I agree - there is little information regarding this topic and it would be wise to research it - at my work people are paying massive amounts of dollars to get good ringside seats. The reason for the growing popularity is that unlike boxing, you have a result at the end that is evident. Even if you don't like the sport you cannot deny the popularity.
I would love to hear other peoples opinions on this because it is part of arming ourselves for battle in reaching to all the lost.
For or against UFC/MMA/Boxing or any other of these sports is not the issue - the issue is reaching non-believers.
In what sense is it animalistic? And why is this wrong?
How do you know what satanists want? Have you been speaking to them?
I imagine you wont be commenting any further then. Bye.
Yep, and I hope people will do that rather than jump to hasty conclusions. Personally, I've watched at least 400 fights and have also studied a number of the specific martial arts employed. I feel I have some authority to comment on the sport.
There are some points decisions, but there are many more results (ie knockout or submission) than you get in boxing. I agree this is part of the appeal.
I'd like to see a denominational/sectarian fight-off series. Cream a Quaker. Pummel a Pente. Pin a Preso. Whack a Wesleyan...All good manhandling fun, right? And what about the heavyweight grudge match of the half-millennium: Calvinists vs Catholics, eh?...woo hoo! Geneva John takes on Papal Pete for the world title...
I'd also like to see Driscoll, man's man that he is, enter the cage and give and take a bit of biff, and show us all what a Reformission Rev is really made of. If he were in the ring, I'd pay good money to have a go myself. All proceeds to buy Bibles for somewhere needy in Africa.
Bring it on.
Good things come in threes.
surely that doesn't address Shane's concern of loving your neighbour. Popular sport has social consequences: I take it as almost certain that as the sport gets more popular we will see individuals engaging in public forms of violence that they say was directly inspired by it. Those individuals will not have medical professionals standing by.
Alcoholism only hurts the persons engaging in it... and their family... and their friends... and any stranger who get in the way of the alcoholic who expresses their drunkenness violently! Likewise, both the personal AND social consequences of popularised violence must be thought through. Even TV violence has social consequences, and unless I am mistaken, this is far more serious.
I've been thinking about trying to work out a bit of a theology of competitive activities such as sports. Does anyone know of anyone who's written on this topic?
First things first. Get that sorted, then I'll get on to UFC.
And concludes:
Well, I would want to see some pretty strong empirical evidence if someone was claiming that the UFC is causing street brawls. I know many people (like myself) who enjoy the sport, but are not involved in violent altercations every second day.
A good question...
I agree with the aspect of retaining his/her dignity but the one thing you do not understand is that it doesn't profane humanity.
Unfortunately if it isn't kept in the ring and judged over by people whom have a fair and just judgement (yes - check it up, there are rules that make all those sports fair for both parties) then it will be carried out in the streets where people will be hurt even more.
Tell me - do you disagree with the Military too seeing as it might have to take life?
Thanks for that Sam. Seamus and I have discussed this in person (briefly). He is a formidable intellect, and also speaks from knowledge, having formerly been a fan. Still, in this instance I think he's got it wrong.
Most of his argument is emotionally charged rhetoric, talking of being "stripped of human dignity" etc. The only real argument he makes from the Bible is this - "When one reads the New Testament, one reads in vain looking for any Christian case legitimising violence."
Firstly, I think this is wrong. Romans 13 springs to mind, as do all of Jesus' judgement sayings, and the rather gory stuff in Revelation too.
Even putting that aside, his argument assumes we need to find something in the NT to justify MMA. But I think it is enough to show that there is nothing in the NT denouncing the practice.
Craig, do you think there will be MMA in heaven?
Cheers all,
Mark
PS - I used to box, and have been toying with getting back into it, so thanks for the discussion!
So, Craig, are you saying that it is acceptable in the sight of God for two Christians or non-Christians to beat each other up with the real possibility of drawing blood until one fighter surrenders by "tapping out" for the sake of nothing else than a contest to see who can win the fight?
In my opinion one's 'enjoyment'of something does automatically validate it or mean it is appropriate for Christians to watch.
Would the 1st century Christians watch Gladiators at the Colloseum? Interesting that when Constantine converted, Gladitorial games soon ended.
I think the other danger of cage fighting Craig, is that it taps into the part of the male pysche that love violence. I don't think it is good to tap into this.
All to do with judgement - Romans 13 in the present (the sword of the implicitly Roman authorities); Jesus' logia and Revelation are eschatological. Not guidelines for Christian behaviour.
There is no endorsement of violence-as-entertainment-spectacle (a la UFC) in the NT. It is not expressly forbidden either, but arguing for it on that basis seems pretty desperate. By that standard you can sanction bull-baiting and drinking the blood of skinned-alive kittens.
If you like to fight, and watch fighting - fair enough. But there's nothing biblically justifiable about it. Unless of course WWJD? has been trumped by WW Driscoll D?
I must confess that I don't buy into any argument about people appreciating MMA on artistic grounds. If this was really where the appeal was, then MMA would also appeal to females, not just testosterone-filled young men, many of whom seem to have chronic doubts about their sexuality.
Of course, even if MMA was admired on artistic and technical grounds, does this validate it? Craig, what would you say to someone who enjoyed watching hardcore pornography for a similar reason i.e. they both marvelled at the technical proficiency and the stamina of the participants?
It is not difficult to see how the rising popularity of UFC points directly to the question of what real masculinity is.
Blogging is easier than living.
Well, I feel harmed when people criticise my favourite sport... ;-)
Read my post again - yes.
Of course not - I've never suggested otherwise.
It's simply not a valid comparison.
I was not using that as an argument for the sport. I was simply challenging Seamus's assertion that NT nowhere endorses violence.
I'm more interested in "What Has Jesus Done" ?
In the homosexual debate. But that's not relevant here.
I don't see why. Rugby is a far more dangerous sport than MMA, if you look at serious injuries sustained. If you are saying the problem is people potentially being hurt, then surely all contact sports are unbiblical.
The most dangerous sport of all, of course, is motorsport. Many fatalities every year in that.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily use the word "artistic", but I appreciate it on the grounds of skill and elegance. After you've watched 50 good fights, perhaps you would be in a better position to comment yourself.
I would say that God abhor's that sort of lustful behaviour (Matthew 5:28). But that is not relevant to MMA.
True enough, Andrew.
Well, I'm not saying that. As Joshua pointed out, the object of rugby is to score more points than your opponents. What's more, displays of overt violence are more likely to be punished through a penalty or through the offending player being sent off. On the contrary, overt displays of violence is the actual object of MMA, not simply a peripheral means to an end.
I've watched enough fights where waiting for my meal in pubs and clubs to know that I found it to be mind-numbingly boring. However, you miss my point. Even if I were to accept that one enjoy MMA on these "legitimate" grounds and does not simply use this stock answer to simply cover over motivations that could include a simple appeal to their baser instincts or a way to alleviate fears and doubts concerning one's sexuality, this still wouldn't validate MMA as a reasonable pursuit, for reasons, I've discussed and will clarify below.
I suspect that it is more relevant than you may think. What if the individual watching hardcore pornography says that his interest has nothing to do with lust and that he merely admires the form, technique and stamina of the participants?
Well, two 100kg mean colliding at full run seems pretty violent to me. Tackles, scrums, mauls - all violent. None of the forwards leave a rugby match without bruises, scrapes, bumps, grazes or worse.
I know, and I never claimed it would. You said you doubted anyone really enjoys the artistic/athletic side of MMA - I said you we were wrong, as I do, and I know many who do as well. But I agree this has nothing to do with the rightness or not of the sport.
I've already answered this question
I really don't get why you think that is irrelevant, if you are concerned about the welfare of athletes in a particular sport.
And so will many other activities - both legal and illegal. Where does one draw the line ?
Personally I cannot believe that Christians - and this site - are promoting such violence.
Yes that's a judgemental statement - but what are you going to do about it ? Ask me to step- out the back ?
You're confusing violence with risk of physical injury. For example, risk of loss of life and limb is part and parcel of firefighting, but it doesn't make sense to call it a "violent" profession.
What would you say about the advertising of MMA? Does it or does it not pander to our intrinsic love of violence?
In what sense is an individual watching porn looking lustfully at a woman if his reasons for looking at her are not lustful, but merely for artistic purposes? Or are you now broadening your argument beyond Matthew 5:28 to suggest that the actual performance of pornography is a priori wrong? If so, on what grounds and how do you distinguish the intrinsic wrongness of a gratuitous display of sex from the gratuitous display of violence in MMA?
Of course the welfare of athletes is important, but its not really a relevant consideration to the specific question at hand.
I do wonder if the fundamental difference is theological and relates to our respective beliefs about the acceptability of violence. It seems that Calvinism has a very cosy relationship with violence (one may even suggest that Calvinism and violence are two inseparable ideas) and perhaps this is why MMA has gained such unfortunate traction in this community, especially among young men in a fatherless generation.
No, I'm not. A tackle is an intrinsically violent action. If you don't believe me, go and crash-tackle someone in the street and see what you are charged with.
Very slick, and shows you honestly what the show is about.
That is a really, really funny thing for a Catholic to say. Actually, I think you are pulling my leg...
I'm going to respect your right to a personal opinion.
I think there is strong correlations:
1. Both are watched by large groups of poeple who are attracted to violence
2. The point of the 'sport'is to win,
Of course the obvious difference is that in the Colloseum, one had to kill the other, but I don't think people have changed all that much. The Roman Empire was a paradoxical empire. It led the world in architecture, law and technology yet people were drawn to brutality.
Another concern I have with Cage Fighting is that over time people who watch it become desensitised to it; it becomes not enough. I wonder what will come next after cage fighting. I think it would only take a nudge for people to want more blood.
Craig, I just find it hard to envisage the scenario where a Christian bloke is at church on any given Sunday night, is praising God, hears God's Word expounded, prayes for people and then goes out with his mates to watch MMA and is screaming for a bloke to place his opponent in an arm lock and then repeatedly punches him in the face till, blood everywhere, then he taps out or is knocked out. And the guy from church is being entertained by this. 21st Colloseum without the death.
I don't accept that the 1st century gladiatorial contests were even remotely like today's MMA fights. Have you actually watched any MMA?
Craig, I just find it hard to envisage the scenario...
I understand that. But, respectfully, whether you can envisage it or not doesn't really say much about whether it is right or wrong.
I want to start by saying that before starting BJJ/MMA I failed to ask myself explicitly "should a Christian condone, support or take part in this sport?"
The reason I chose to start BJJ was that I was looking for a physically intense sport to be involved in for my rugby offseason with a low risk of injury. After doing some research I chose BJJ. As far as keeping me fit for rugby, avoiding injury and building relationships with other guys BJJ has been a great choice, and it's crept into my head a few times that it may be more enjoyable than rugby. The guys that do it have been very welcoming and great in giving me advice. It's a highly technical, chess-like sport. I really enjoy using my body and my mind together to gain points against my opponents. From the MMA I've done, it's no different apart from being more cardio-dependent.
I started rugby before I became a Christian. I feel that abandoning my team mates after becoming a Christian would be an unloving thing to do.
In both sports, the players primarily focus on strategy not violence.
In both sports, the players are human and sin whilst playing.
I'd have to say both sports are good, but the people playing them are not.
Some people shouldn't play rugby or MMA.
MMA is a contest of skill, but it is also a contest of applying that skill in a manner that either knocks the opponent out cold from the violence of the strike, chokes the opponent unconscious or inflicts such pain on him that he 'taps out' surrendering the fight before his joints are dislocated or broken.
Lets not pretend otherwise, MMA is about violence or the application of violence (skillful as it may be at times) against an opponent, pure and simple. I have to confess to have loved watching it too! It is violent to the point that it is not rare to seeing both fighters’ bodies literally slippery with one or both fighters blood, they will not usually stop the bout from a cut, even if you can see the bubbles of blood coming from a broken nose as the fighter breathes in and out. At the beginning of fights it is commonplace to see the dried red stains from the blood of previous fights smeared across the floor of the octagon. The more pain inflicted, the more blood that is on display the wilder, more excited and louder the crowd gets. As a Christian I have come to the conclusion that I cannot participate (even if just by watching on TV) in this.
It is also a fact that Outlaw motorcycle gangs actively recruit experienced kick boxers, BJJ & MMA fighters, obviously there is a reason for this. Experienced fighters have a higher propensity towards violence, the skillful application of violence and a lower ability to feel empathy towards their victims.
I am not for a second suggesting that MMA shoulders all the blame for violence on our streets, but I am convinced it contributes.
Imagine if MMA hit our TV screens 20 years ago, what would be the reaction then? To all the men participating in this thread, would you let your young kids watch UFC on TV? Why not? Lets get serious fellas, violence leads to violence, take a dose of reality about this please.
Given the serious level of theological knowledge and wisdom on this website, I realise the following is clearly quite simplistic………. somehow I can’t see Jesus watching UFC and turning to his mate and saying ‘wow did you see the blood coming out of that blokes nose’ or “wow did you see that elbow joint popâ€. Simplistic is may be, but the WWJD still applies.
There are many who are in agreement with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing from your experience. And there's nothing wrong with being 'simplistic' about one's beliefs. Why even the Psalmist proclaimed :
Blessed are the peacemakers.... so keep up "the good fight" !
And yet the UFC has become more concerned for the safety of their fighters and not less, as one might initially expect. More rules have been implemented to reduce the likelihood of serious injury (and obviously to protect the fighters who bring in the money!). Now, only time will tell if you are right and some other 'bloodsport' organisation rises up to dethrone the UFC with claim of increased violence and risk.
Earlier someone asked whether those who watch MMA (and similar sports) would allow their young children to watch them. I wonder if I should stop reading my children the accounts of David and Goliath, the fall of Jericho, the conquest of Canaan, and the similarly violent stories often found in children's Bibles(!)? People are about to shout "no!" obviously, but it raises some questions. Are we opposed to violence or just non-Biblical violence? Or is it the promotion of violence that irks?
[Poster's admission: I may be biased, having played contact sports all my life and having taken up BJJ and Muay Thai in the last few years after full-time ministry took way my options for team based weekend sports.]
You would no doubt have been shocked (as I was!) to hear my wife say, "That was a great fight" after watching an episode of The Ultimate Fighter with me just a week or two ago.
I'm pretty sure it was the artistic* elements of the match that caught her attention rather than the force of any contact or the amount of blood split (since she is rather squeamish). (* If skill-based fighting may be spoken of as 'artistic.' I am sure there will be doubters :D).
@ Joshua, your line of reasoning that you wonder that if we should not allow our children to watch UFC then therefore you/we should stop reading accounts of David & Goliath does indeed raise some questions for me, are you suggesting that if we read biblical accounts of voilence that therefore we should allow our children to watch UFC? I assume that your answer to that question would cancel out your own argument.
For me it comes down to this, how as Christians can we support something that promotes voilence? Also how is it a witness to non believers that we as Christians support such voilence? I dont think the biblical accounts of voilence in any way support gratuitous voilence whose sole reason for existance is to make money from peoples entertainment in watching said voilence.
Which hasn't lessened the popularity of MMA, regardless.
Of course not. I'm questioning on what grounds one is assumed to be okay and the other not. If violence is wrong for children to see (televised MMA, boxing, etc.), are spoken or read accounts of violence also inappropriate for them?
Is the question, at the end of the day, "is violence wrong?"
Great to have you on the boards mate! Where are you training BJJ? I did a few months down at SPMA Concord, though I'm doing other stuff now.
Anyway, keep enjoying your sport!
It's good to hear from you mate, especially since you have some relevant experience.
Your main objection to MMA seems to be that you believe it is causing an increase in violence on our streets. I'm not sure if street violence is increasing or not, but it is probably hard to identify causes if it is. If there is any one cause behind increased violence, I would say it is family breakdown. Kids that are in solid, stable families are not out on the street brawling.
You ask if I would let my kids watch MMA. Of course I do - my youngest watched his first fight at about 9yo. None of my 3 boys are especially interested in the sport, to be honest - they do other things when it is on TV. They are all very good teenagers, by the way, who seem to have avoided most of the sort of trouble that teens often get in (so far at least).
You ask "What Would Jesus Do?" He would agree with me, of course. But I'll share with you a more useful phrase - "abusus non tollit usum". It is latin, and means "misuse does not remove right use".
Joshua and his army invaded Jericho because God told them to. God had good reason for this. It was because He wanted to wipe the city and its people off the map. He didn't tell Joshua to invade Jericho on a whim because he wanted to see who could win a contest of violence between Joshua's army and the people in Jericho. God doesn't treat His creatures with that kind of total indifference to their well-being.
There is one instance in the Bible in 2 Samuel 2:12-16 where two opposing groups of soldiers fought to see who were the best fighters for the sake of a contest only. All of them ended up dead. It's difficult to see anything but futility in the results of this fight which was for the sake of a contest alone, just like UFC.
If violence has a righteous purpose, it is ok. If you use violence in self-defence, it is ok.
If violence has no righteous purpose, it is not ok. If you use violence because you want to see if you are a better fighter than the next person, it is not ok. You are basing your value as a person on something that is totally unrighteous. What are you going to do? Walk down the street and smile to yourself because you know that you can
Continued...
Not true - they were active participants in creating the unified rules. As you point out, they are in the business of making money - and they realised that the best way to make money was to make their product more commercially friendly. That is why they cleaned it up. And that is why they are desperate to make sure that no-one gets hurt - it would be a PR disaster for them.
So it is absolutely true that the UFC takes figher safety very, very seriously...
Mixed martial arts and other forms of fighting are good for one thing for Christians and one thing only - the learning of self-defence. Any Christian is free to pursue this training as vigorously as they want to. Any other application of these fighting techniques by a Christian to satisfy their ego is indefensible.
I agree. Same as your value in God's sight has nothing to do with your ability to play Rugby, or Scrabble for that matter. But that doesn't mean Rugby or Scrabble are somehow wrong as a consequence.
your not serious right? Have you spent your whole life in a book? Mental training is not the only training that can be done you know - a strong body is just as important to a mental edge as reading a book.
There is not difference between training for a sport like baseball/soccer and rugby/BJJ/MMA.
It is a sport - pure and simple. Enjoying training for either of these does in no way make you any spiritually smaller than someone else. In fact it can be another place of witness by showing we are not closed off to the world.
I am curious - do you play any sort of sport?
I went to the mailbox to check my mail yesterday and saw two teenagers play-acting at fighting, punching each other in the kidneys using the moves that the fighters they watch use.
Fighting has invaded the teenage culture in the form of UFC and also, just as importantly, in the form of computer games where fighting in all its forms is brought to electronic life.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the the rising popularity of UFC, together with fighting video games, has led to an increase in violence in teenagers which has especially manifested itself in an increase in bullying. Bullying is entirely based on ego which is exactly what UFC is based on - feeling better about oneself because one is able to physically dominate another.
No doubt Craig will say, "Prove that the rise of UFC has led to a rise in teenage bullying." Well, I don't have the data to prove it and even if there was a correlation between the two increases, that is not proof. But it would not take much to survey 1000 teenage males to log whether they view UFC and
Continued...
There is plenty of doubt. Regarding bullying, that seems much more under control in schools these days than when I was at school.
You have no evidence for all these assertions, you are just making them up.
Andrew said:
Are these the only two options? You participate in martial arts to learn self-defense or it's an ego trip?
Presumably that rules out all forms of competition in all fields, yes? Not just fighting techniques?
You would include self-defense, presumably, but anything else?
How does it advance the Gospel cause if we Christians are supporting (Even if by only watching) something that has such a wide following based on the skillful application of violence.
How can we as Christians support something that is essential violent?
Yes of course there a many factors around the increasing levels of voilence in Sydney, socio economic, family breakdown et etc. But does anyone seriously believe that UFC does NOT contribute to this at all? Can anyone put their hand up and say, UFC does not contribute and encourage violence? I personally know people who have used MMA skills to perpetuate violence and they encourage use of violence as a means to resolve issues. Not only that but it encourages a particularly vicious violence, were not talking about black eyes here, but grevious bodily harm. Participating in BJJ as a sport is not the same thing as participating in a cage fight where the aim and crowd expectation is violence.
When Jesus said that the 2nd great commandment was to love your neighbour as yourself, how can we possibly justify supporting what are essentially bloodsports?
If we are going to have a frank discussion about UFC then I think we need to talk about violence directly and not skirt around it.
Perhaps I have participated in too much MMA ... :D
Why shouldn't we? Where in scripture does it say that Christians cannot enjoy martial arts competitions?
Most of the arguments against MMA on this thread have been strong on personal reaction, but short on Scripture. Seems clear to me that no-one here has a strong Scriptural case against the sport.
@ Craig Swarze, Yes I am saying that I believe it contributes to violence on the streets. Of course there are other factors, Ive said that all along. People are desensitised to violence through watching things like UFC (and playing videogames where you kill and bash people etc), it becomes a legitimate way of resolving issues, it lowers the ability of people to empathise with their victims. But even worse Craig, it teaches them how to hurt people to a far greater degree than otherwise may have been the case. A black eye is no longer the common result of a fight.
I might add, UFC stands for ultimate FIGHTING championship.
What do you think fighting means?
Is violence ok?
Is violence in sport something Christians should support?
I haven't time right now to delve into the scriptures - as I have an appointment with "Midsomer Murders" on Channel 2 ;)
You are entertained by murder??????
As I said Andrew, all of your attacks on my favourite sport do harm to me. Should you stop?
Read my article again. Clearly I believe that combat sports like boxing and mma are ok.
You asked for a scriptural case against UFC at #70. I provided the following:
Romans 13:10 - Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
Your response at #75 has shown you to be disingenuous.
1. Don't often comment or read stuff here except when procrastinating.
2. Am an Ordained minister in Sydney.
3. Taught P.E. at High School prior to Moore College, ergo LOVE sport, played most of them, been injured in many (and have injured others, by accident sir!), am quite competetive.
4. Have even trained in MMA (when a teacher) even though I wasn't convinced either way whether it was the right thing to do or not. I stopped when I actually hurt someone during sparring because although I loved the physical training I hated the feeling of hurting someone else physically (not real fond of doing it emotionally either, and that happens accidentally as well - often without training).
Having read the above posts, I can't believe the following points haven't been trotted out:
1. "violence" is not in any list of vices that I can see in the Bible, but not one of the virtues either - hence the argument in the grey areas that is this thread. However, one of the fruits of the Spirit is gentleness and we do find being violent as an opposite of being gentle in the context of what is required of an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
2. (more frivolous) we can't argue from the point of view of the amount or extent of injuries of people playing different sports - I seem to remember a statistic that said that the sport with the highest mortality rate of those participating was .....
lawn bowls. bada bing.
Nor can anyone provide a strong Scriptural case against competitive bear-baiting, cock-fighting, slicing up cadavers with samurai swords, or lawn-mowing over live puppies. So I don't see any problem with Christians doing those things...especially if Mark Driscoll happens to enjoy any of them.
I think it's probably unwise to jump to those kind of conclusions when other explanations are available. Perhaps it might just be that Craig isn't that bright? Of course, I'm only putting this up as a possible alternative, not suggesting that this is definitely the case.
I must confess that considering Craig's hollering about the perceived objections to MMA, I actually find his own arguments to be rather emotional and lacking in biblical substance. This is not particularly surprising, given that he has been influenced by the theological lightweight Mark Driscoll. I've also tried to get him to explain why it is legitimate for someone to claim to like MMA for pure reasons, but not hardcore pornography. Twice, to no avail.
I think one of the problems with pseudo sports such as MMA is that it encourages the belief that violence is redemptive. That might and virtue are fundamentally indistinguishable. That resolving complex problems through violence is appropriate. It seems to me that many of the people who like MMA also believe in the use of violence to solve other problems, whether it is war in international disputes, capital punishment in criminal justice, spanking and corporal punishment in discipline and the weight of numbers at Sydney Anglican synods.
Driscoll himself portrays Jesus as the very model of a confrontational tough guy, a sort of Chuck Norris/Fight Club Christology, viz. his (in)famous line:
"I can't worship a guy I can beat up."
And, in more detail:
"Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship."
(from 7 Big Questions, Relevant Magazine, Jan 2007)
Driscoll relishes that his God wants to injure somebody badly. Any wonder that he enjoys watching men do exactly that?
Is this violence really part of the "new nature" in Christ?
If you want to become a person of integrity, you have to care about the small things in life.You have to care about the things in your private life that nobody sees.You have to care about details that are really important.You have to care about things that seem inconsequential if you’re going to have integrity...Integrity is what you are when nobody’s looking.Integrity is what you are in the dark...That’s character...That’s integrity.
My challenge to you today is to commit to becoming a person of integrity in what the Bible calls “a crooked a perverse generation among whom you may shine as lights in a dark world.†If you live with integrity, you’re going to shine against the lot that’s going on in our society today.
Australia is desperately in need of men and women of integrity, at work, in the schools, in our government, in our churches. It is a crying need for integrity. Without that; the foundations are going to crumble. Do you want to please God? Do you want to influence other people for good? Do you want to make a difference with your life? Do you want God’s blessings on your life and the way to be smoother than it is now, with less stress because of incongruity; and more joy because of God’s blessing in your life?
Are you a lover of UFC? Do you think God would love UFC?
Be person of integrity, a pruner of activities God would care about; and in so doing make a difference!
Lovely, Joshua. A credit to your faith. Goodbye.
Not true. My point was this - how do we define harm? I personally find unkind words on a forum like this far more painful than physical blows or submission holds.
I would argue that the fighters are not "harming" each other in any significant way.
Yes I can -
Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
1. Yes
2. I don't think God "loves" any sport, but I think He approves of it
A friend rang me last night about this debate, and said, "be aware of the weaker brother". It's perfectly clear to me that my Christian liberty enables me to watch MMA in a good conscience. At the same time, clearly some Christians are very disturbed by this.
The appropriate response as a Christian is not to make a big deal about it, in case it leads to a brother stumbling. I'm still glad I raised the issue, as it clearly needed to be discussed. But I will probably avoid drawing excessive attention to my passion for this sport in future - in Christian forums at least.
Hang on. I thought he was paraphrasing Revelation. Or did I miss something somewhere? :)
I think there is a tendency here to roll all kinds of arguments together without dealing with each individually.
To those that are against WFC - I would say that Craig's reductio of comparing Rugby and UFC is a helpful analogy that hasn't been satisfactorily addressed.
Tackling is an important part of Rugby, and mastering it (and the violence it causes) is rewarded in the game. Similarly, two blokes duking it out in the competitive environment (where incidentally, there is often post-bout hugging and words of encouragement) of UFC involves harm as well.
Have not some here drawn an arbitrary line for what is "acceptable" violence in sport?
The only premise Paul establishes in Romans 13 is that of "harm". To be consistent, we would have to concede that Rugby causes harm - does it not? Crying foul with "disingenuous" seems unhelpful... But I would like to hear someone elaborate on the Gladiators 1 CE analogy.
That's "strong"? Half a proverb? And who says the righteous man owns the bear? Since you're OK with taking textual silence as implied permission, (never mind that spirit of the law quibble), a keen bear-bating fan could argue that it's not his bear, it's just some wild animal caught and brought in for the show.
And where is the resolute prohibition in the writings of the New Covenant? Clearly Peter, Paul and Co. were not concerned to forbid king-hitting donkeys for a bet. (And before you scoff, the "good" 3rd century Roman Emperor Claudius II Gothicus was widely admired for his prowess in this regard. Apparently, he could dash out the teeth of an ass with a single blow - a Driscoll kinda guy!)
And what about competitive cadaver-carving?
Tackles aren't made in rugby with the objective of causing injury. If you injure somebody in a rugby game, there is a high possibility that you will be sent off the field. If you punch somebody in a rugby game, there is a high possibility that you will be sent off the field.
If you punch somebody in a UFC match and draw blood, you will not be penalised because this violence is permissible behaviour.
Therefore UFC is nothing like rugby.
This thread is a joke and reflects very poorly on the Sydney Anglican Diocese.
No need to spit the dummy, Craig. I simply raised this as one possibility as an alternative to the allegation that you were being disingenuous. I was coming to your defence. I wonder if your sensitivity and poor problem handling skills are a result of watching too much MMA?
This is no more a weaker brother scenario than the person who feels that they can watch hardcore pornography in good conscience. Your repeated failure to deal with this comparison seems to suggest to me that you simply want to make excuses for this continued source of your gratification, which is probably why you wrote the article in the first place.
The intent seems plain enough to me, but I'm not going to argue about bear-baiting.
What is your position on MMA Grant? Do you really feel strongly about this, or are you just here for the argument?
I have the potential to be an MMA fan - I'm still a little fond of the fake stuff (WWE). I haven't really tuned in to the One HD UFC bouts - but fully intend to.
I don't think that "being aware of the weaker brother" or realising that this is an issue of conscience means that it shouldn't be talked about. I get the impression that Romans 14 encourages us not to dispute conscience issues - but disputes and discussions aren't the same thing.
Other stronger brothers out there might be thinking through similar issues (eg Kutz and his theology of sport).
On some unrelated (and less serious) Biblical notes...
Did not God partake in some UFC with Jacob in Genesis 32?
Are we not encouraged to see some value in physical training in 1 Timothy 4.
It would be a tragedy if the discussion the church has to have about an emerging cultural trend were stymied by weaker brothers. Your alcohol example is a good one for the harm this can do - and that Latin quote is terrific.
What is the difference between being hurt in rugby without drawing blood, and drawing blood? Is prohibited violence only that which draws blood?
I personally can't see the ethical relevance of that kind of arbitrary position. Let me take the argument further - having played rugby as a kid, I was hurt often in most games. Now, you might say this is "incidental" violence as its not the objective to hurt, but what is the difference when applying the *results* to Paul's use of the term "harm"?
I was hurt too - less hurt than WFC but *hurt*!
Does not rugby involve itself in causing unloving harm?
Blessings too, Rohan, good words...
"This is no more a weaker brother scenario than the person who feels that they can watch hardcore pornography in good conscience."
Other people might not be willing to engage with your trolling - but I can't help myself. Since you are clearly a weaker step-brother let me spell out some easy differences...
The Bible speaks extensively about sexual immorality. It condemns it. We are told to flee from sexual immorality. Regardless of the intentions of the viewer when it comes to your analogy the participants are engaged, undoubtedly, in sinful behaviour. To not flee that sexual immorality (even if one is not engaging in lustful gratification) is a sin.
You can make the analogy if you think the Bible rules out any violent sporting endeavour. You have not established any similarity between the participants in your comparison while seeking to compare the experience of the viewer. Your analogy is as poor as your trolling.
I am sure that you are not grasping the premise. In rugby, there are penalties for deliberately harming another player. In UFC, there are no penalties for deliberately harming the other fighter. Therefore UFC cannot be compared to rugby.
In any case, Rohan, rugby is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about whether it is permissible for a Christian to watch or participate in a UFC match. We are not talking about whether it is permissible for a Christian to watch or participate in a rugby match.
This thread highlights a major weakness in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. Many members of the diocese are more interested in winning an argument than pursuing truth. I am interested in pursuing truth.
But how does he paraphrase it? Read it again. Driscoll is exulting in the eschatological Christ's power to injure per se: he relishes the "commitment to make someone bleed" (my italics). It doesn't matter who, just that it's someone. The "pride fighter" metaphor valorises and sanctions that violent "sport" by association with the avenging righteousness of the Christ figure.
The paraphrase implies that "pride fighting" and the potential for inflicting arbitrary violence are attributes worthy of worship. And what is held up for worship is worthy of imitation, is it not?
You've run down the diocese a few times, Andrew. Out of interest, what denomination do you belong to?
Ok, you've run it down *many* times - credit where it's due.
Seriously though, what denom do you belong to? Where do you church?
Honestly Nathan, it would great if you could critique my argument without engaging in cheap ad hominem attacks.
Begging the question, Nathan. You haven't established that hardcore pornography constitutes sexaul immorality. Even if we agreed that pre-marital sex constituted sexual immorality, then what about hardcore porn between two monogamously married people. Where would the sexual immorality be there that the viewer needed to flee from? Does this then mean that the rightness or wrongness of watching this material depends upon whether the participants are married or not?
Comparison between the participants?
Both specialise in voyeuristic entertainment.
Both profit from this voyeurism.
Both involve consensual parties.
Both engage in conduct that is unquestionably negative/sinful in at least some contexts.
It is my policy to not reveal any personal information about myself on the internet.
Too right. On the whole, it's physically hazardous - players are regularly injured, and for what good cause other than "winning"? The game is associated with a culture of heavy drinking, prideful bravado, and mysogyny, and seems to attract/produce a lot of vainglorious louts.
All things are permitted, but not all are beneficial, eh?
but the unfaithful have a craving for violence." - Proverbs 13:2
I can only assure you that I'm committed to pursuing truth, and feel that we really have to get to the nitty gritty to test our position(s). Reductios in my opinion are a perfectly legitimate way of applying this test - thus the Rugby analogy.
I'll cease and desist on this post now, and am off to reflect more on these points of view!
I've appreciated the comments of you all!
I would have thought that was fairly evident by now. I don't see how you can reconcile such brutal entertainment with the spirit of the NT. The no clear prohibition argument you've been using, as I've tried to show, is weak. Finding some sort of sanction in images of divine eschatological violence (a la Driscoll) is a concern - the implication appears to be that "God inflicts physical violence, so maybe we can too." And the "maybe" fades with when the blood is up. That kind of thing - actualising Christ militant - inspired the Crusaders.
I don't wish to gainsay the natural desire to protect oneself from violence, and I understand that MMI, as a martial art, offers that. In that regard, it's not so objectionable. Who wants to be defenceless against a mugger, right? But it's the violent spectacle of it promoted by Driscoll's darlings UFC that is particularly repellent, since it appeals to the heart of darkness in men. There lies the desire to injure, to conquer, to kill. Brutal.
Fancy yourself as a bit of an Aragorn, or Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes, or maybe Russell Crowe's Maximus? Christ's ἀγών is with the cross, not the bodies of other men, which is the pagan Hellenic ideal epitomised in Homer.
I thought SydAngs liked an argument. I've known them to hatch plenty ;^)
Do you uphold the NT as authoritative? I ask because I thought you were an atheist - I might be mixing you up with another Grant.
I don't "handle it rightly". You, as a Calvinist, do adhere to such authority, and I am calling you to account on it, based on my own familiarity with the texts in question.
I might be, but I'm not sure. I let others decide that. By Christians I've been called an atheist, a pagan, a heretic, and some things I will not repeat! Among non-Christians I am often assumed to be Christian. I don't own any of the labels; no point.
Sorry, I'm the one you know and loathe ;^)
So, on what personal basis do you reject MMA? Is it anything to do with the NT, or from moral precepts derived elsewhere?
I already answered this @ 114:
I don't wish to gainsay the natural desire to protect oneself from violence, and I understand that MMI, as a martial art, offers that. In that regard, it's not so objectionable. Who wants to be defenceless against a mugger, right? But it's the violent spectacle of it promoted by Driscoll's darlings UFC that is particularly repellent, since it appeals to the heart of darkness in men. There lies the desire to injure, to conquer, to kill. Brutal.
Relevant to what? Do you mean that you can't take my objections seriously unless I view the NT as you do? Do you mean that you're not answerable to an unbeliever about how you live up to your authoritative Scriptures?
Um, that would be Craig, methinks.
Why not bite the bullet and just start a Fight Club. Craig could play Brad Pitt.
Don't be silly - I didn't say that at all. Don't go looking for offense where none is intended.
My point was simply as I stated. When I asked your opinion on MMA, you referred to the NT. This surprised, as I didn't know whether you considered NT morally authoritative or not.
It's like you asking me for my moral position on something, and me quoting the Baghvad Gita in response. I think you would be surprised, and would wonder if I treated the BG as morally authoritative.
So chill...
There are quite a few in the UFC -
Rich Franklin (former middleweight champ)
Matt Hughes (former welterweight champ)
Rampage Jackson (former light heavyweight champ, though current faith status is a bit unknown)
Randy Couture (all round MMA legend)
Ken Shamrock (ditto)
Diego Sanchez (Ultimate Fighter winner)
...and a few others as well...
The position you have taken on this thread, together with your continual avoidance of responding to legitimate issues that many posts have raised, is highly offensive.
I suspect this means the debate is already effectively over, and my team wins over the next 10 years...
To name some of those fighters as Christians is dubious in the least, sure they claim to be Christians in their own American way, but so does Oprah.
The UFC deliberately downplays injuries in trying to protect its brand. It doesnt like to discuss the various pain killers that many fighters take and it doesnt like to discuss the problem of addiction to the pain killers that some fighters have battled.
Perhaps there is a reason why over 30's on this thread are against violence for entertainment. Perhaps our life experience has shown us the results of such violence. In my current and past work, I have known many fighters (including proffessional) I have observed the change in attitude in these people that I call friends. I can honestly say that not one of these people did not consider violence an appropriate way to resolve issues. One particular guy I know started BJJ about 10 years ago and his change in attitude towards violence has been noticed in everyone who knows him.
Howard, the onus is surely on those who want to prohibit an activity to provide a biblical argument. If you are saying we need to provide a biblical argument "in favour" of anything we do, this is unworkable. Provide a biblical justification for driving a car? For using the internet? For ringing someone on the phone?
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Doubtless, there are some people who should not train BJJ. There are also some people who should not work in kindergartens. But neither activity is wrong per se.
Craig, this is your topic, you started it. You made the comment that an argument based on scripture should be presented. I therefore made the assumption (tongue in cheek, partially) that you already had a sound biblical reasoning for violence as a legitimate form of entertainment. Especially given that you had started this topic on the Sydney Anglican website.
SO....... again.... I would love to hear your scriptural argument. Taking into account that you have already accepted on this thread that UFC is violent.
I told you already Howard - I don't have to provide a scriptural argument. Those who believe the sport is unbiblical need to prove it is so. If they cannot, that's fine - but they should admit that their position is simply personal preference.
This is a Christian website and there is an expectation from posters such as myself that other posters will respond to biblical and logical points that are raised. Again and again on this thread, there have been posters who have absolutely refused to respond to biblical and logical points raised. This clearly means that such posters are more interested in winning an argument than pursuing truth.
Irrespective of the outcome of this thread, there is absolutely no way that UFC is going to achieve any significant acceptance in the Christian church. Any cursory reading of the Bible makes it clear that UFC is repugnant and glorifies the conquest of one over another using violence for the sake of nothing more than a contest. The Christian faith is not about conquest using violence for the sake of nothing more than a contest. The Christian faith is about the conquest of truth over falsehood and any violence that God employs to achieve that conquest is directed towards the evil nature of falsehood. It is not directed by God in an arbitrary manner for the sake of nothing more than winning a contest as is the case in UFC.
For the third time, here is the Scripture that prohibits involvement in UFC:
Romans 13:10 - Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
On the prior two occasions at #21 and #72 that I have posted this Scripture, you have refused to respond to it. Perhaps this third time that I have posted it, you will respond to it.
Remember, to be old and wise, one has first to be young and stupid ;)
How amazing it was to wake up earlier and find 53 ( fifty three !!! ) additional responses in my inbox from this thread - and now there have been another 13 ( and counting ) this morning. It certainly seems to be the most enthusiastic bunch of replies ever.
Just a few observations :
1. Again, it is not surprising that the ladies have left this one alone.
2. Some guys seem to have too much testerone.
3. I don't know if anyone has raised the fact that bullying and violence go hand-in-hand.
4. I challenge Craig and others in favour of this alleged 'sport' to volunteer to go and plead their case for sanctioned violence to any of the myriad of battered wives groups.
5. The level of personal vindictiveness on this thread has been at an ALL TIME LOW - and I eagerly await Jeremy's response to all this on Monday.
6. It seems strange that there are those who are so keen to rubbish 'prosperity gospel' preachers along Biblical lines - but insist that Caged Fighting should not be admonished - because there is no 'silver bullet' verse specifically against it. (This line of thinking is worthy of any cult.)
7. I hope that this debate isn't in Monday's SMH !
8. RULE 1 -Don't talk about Fight Club
Just quoting a single verse out of context is not a biblical argument. Using that method, I could quote Psalm 144:1 in favour of MMA - "Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle."
Note - I am not using Psalm 144:1 as an argument for martial arts. I'm simply showing how easily it is to take a bible verse out of context and press it into service for just about any argument.
In Romans 13:9b, the verse you refer to above as showing Romans 13:10 to be inapplicable to UFC, it says, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
Loving your neighbour is not punching them in the head so that they fall to the mat and then kneeing them in the head so that they are knocked out, as I read on the Wikipedia entry for Diego Sanchez, the Christian UFC fighter you referenced at #123.
Just a few observations :
Not necessarily and certainly not in this day and age. Cyber-bullying, which does no physical violence, is far more prominent than the playground push-and-shove many of us grew us witnessing or involved with (at either end of the spectrum). And yes, before someone assumes I'm therefore pro-bullying, all forms of bullying should be condemned.
Domestic violence didn't exist before televised mixed martial arts?
I've spent the morning thinking about the nature of 'violence,' since that seems to be the heart of this matter. Obviously it is not only physical violence that should be abhorent to the Christian but I wonder if we're hung up on it here. After all, it would be my contention that the SMH has done significant violence to the cause of Christ, his church and his kingdom in the fifteen years I've been reading it, and that, perhaps, Christians should not be seen to support it by either buying it or reading it? But I'm sure someone will show me the error of my ways :)
8. RULE 1 -Don't talk about Fight Club
You couldn't quote Psalm 144:1 in favour of UFC because it's a verse by King David referring to war in which the enemy is killed. It is not referring to a physical conflict in which violence is employed for the sake of a contest alone, which is what UFC is.
And if Diego Sanchez's opponent had stood after the match, shaken his hand, embraced him, told him it was a great fight and how much he had enjoyed the competition, and they'd gone out for dinner afterwards ...
... would that make any difference?
You said:
"After all, it would be my contention that the SMH has done significant violence to the cause of Christ, his church and his kingdom in the fifteen years I've been reading it, and that, perhaps, Christians should not be seen to support it by either buying it or reading it?"
The same thing applies to 'The Simpsons'.
Did you read the whole comment? I made it exactly that point - that it was a verse I deliberately quoted out of context. Just like you quoted Romans 13:10 with no context.
Answer me this Andrew - in a soccer game, in what way is it "loving your neighbour" to go out and try and score goals against them?
You're right. You did say that applying that verse to UFC would be taking it out of context. I read on one of the Wikipedia entries for one of the players you referenced that he quotes that verse on his website. So I charged ahead thoughtlessly and showed that it was taken out of context.
However, Romans 13:10 is not taken out of context for the reasons I gave at #137.
In answer to your question, this thread is not about soccer, it's about UFC. I would really like to resolve this thread and then, if you want to, you can start a thread about soccer.
And you complained before about people avoiding questions! If you will answer my soccer question, it will help demonstrate why your take on "love your neighbour" is wrong. Since you are such a seeker after truth, I imagine you will want to explore every possible avenue of enlightenment.
I'm saying that you're avoiding the issues. This thread is about UFC and you want to talk about soccer.
However, I will humour you and answer your pivotal question. I do not believe that going out with a soccer team and trying to score goals against an opposing team could be categorised as loving the people on that opposing team. However, I do not believe that this same thing could be categorised as hating them either. It is effectively morally and spiritually neutral.
As a long term participant in many sports, including all those mentioned in this thread, my experience suggests that there are a very significant number of violent episodes in any 90 minute game of soccer or 80 minute game of football, perhaps at least as many in a fifteen minute MMA bout if you count an episode as an 'exchange' rather an an individual punch or kick.
And perhaps that is beside the point, but, if it is violence in sport that is the issue then surely all contact sports should be (at least) frowned upon?
Some will say that hurting another person is not part of a sport like soccer. The aim is to score more goals than the opposition and thereby win the match. This suggests two things to me: (i) they've never played competitive soccer, especially in a 'church comp' (:D), and (ii) they've misunderstood the aim of competitive martials arts, which is not to hurt the other person but to win the match.
A little facetious? Touche!
Equating the level of violence in soccer, rugby or AFL to UFC is ridiculous and intellectually-insulting.
We are not talking about competitive martial arts in which the aim is "not to hurt the other person but to win the match". We are talking about UFC in which blood is drawn on a regular basis.
You and Craig are wasting my time. My time on this blog is quickly evaporating.
Also, in my off-topic post at #141, I was not being facetious. I was being deadly serious about an issue involving extremely strong deception which uses humour as a mask.
I was implying that my argument was a little facetious.
It wasn't a cheap shot at all. It was what I was expecting the next poster to say!
It's ok. There's nothing to be sorry about.
Farewell all. I do not want to post anymore. My head hurts from beating it against the wall.
I will leave it to others to finish this thread unless I come back, which I really don't want to do.
Cue hilarious joke that beating one's head against the wall is violence which the Bible prohibits.
Surely that's the key definition we must be playing around with in all this back and forth isn't it? Or are we debating the rightness of being involved with violence at all? It seems there have been a bit of both debates amongst barely disguised insults (which has been a bit sad).
Still surprised nobody has interacted with 1 Timothey 3:1-7, specifically verse 2, "Now the overseer must be above reproach ... not violent but gentle..." as here is a piece of the New Testament that seems to clearly indicate that gentle is good, violence is bad (to put it as clearly as I think the paired opposites in the text do). There are also a bunch of Proverbs that describe violence (and violent people) as not good as well ...
Of course, one still has to define what 'violence' looks like in a particular context. Sounds stupid, I know, but, if gentleness is always right and violence is always wrong then self-defense (which everyone is always quick to say is a form of 'righteous' violence) must also be wrong, no?
Turn the other cheek and all that?
What are the two opposites being talked about by Paul?
You're right in asking what does gentleness and violence look like in our lives and that's where the argument about involvement in support of the UFC stands.
So, 'overseers' can't fight in the UFC.
But what about the rest of the church? ;)
Thanks Gaz. See, here is (one of) my issues: on the one hand, I am sickened by CCTV footage of (dare I say 'actual') violence that plays itself out in our streets, I despise teenage idiots posting youtube videos of school bullying and the like, and yet, at the same time, I thoroughly enjoy watching two trained athletes (who typically bear one another no ill will) competing in a martial arts event, utilising the skills they have trained and experience they have gathered.
And, maybe I'm wrong, but I see a distinct difference between the two.
Two people who have agree to compete in a martial arts event, who respect each other, who agree to compete by certain rules, whose aim (despite earlier arguments) *is* to win matches and not to hurt the other person (although this may occur as a by-product of that aim), who will shake hands afterward and begin preparing for another such competition -- well, to me that seems of a completely different nature to the examples above.
If context determines meaning, perhaps 'violence' looks different in the world of competitive, combative martial arts than it does elsewhere?? :O
Did you know that StrikeForce is on SevenTwo these days?
Opening Act : "YECS" vs "Evolutionists"
Support Act : "Hillsong" vs "The Rest"
Junior division : "Atheists" vs "True Believers"
but surely the main bill would have to be : "Protestants" vs "Catholics"
The winner takes it all ! Ah, what a promoter's dream that would be ;)
Bags *not* fighting Father Dave!
Having reflected a bit more on the topic - I'm interested in the Roman Gladiator analogy being pushed a bit further.
What if we hypothesized a scenario where two people agreed, without malice, to a contest with referees that involved clubs and long sticks... perhaps even a cat-o-nine tails. The potential for bloodied bodies would be enormous, but death would be unlikely (but perhaps more likely than UFC).
Now, even though we might be nauseous at this kind of competition - would we not have to approve of Chrisitan interest in the sport on the same premises we've established here?
I suppose the question is - how much does the likelihood of death or permanent damage have to be before we condemn it?
Cheers!
In terms of the "love your neighbour as yourself" arguments, another illustration from football, imagine how annoying it would be if the other team didn't take it seriously, kept deliberately scoring own goals, not trying to attack at all, etc. That's not loving. The loving thing to do in such a situation is in fact to do your best in opposing the other team, which at first glance might seem to be an unloving thing to do. The same applies to MMA.
But Gary, your Timothy verse about overseers being above reproach, gentle not violent, does seem like a strong argument. It does seem to imply violent = bad. If (as this thread has clearly shown) many people do believe cage fighting is wrong because it is violent, being involved in cage fighting seems to clearly not be above reproach.
10:23-24 "'Everything is permissible'-but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible'-but not everything is constructive. DOn't be concerned for your own good but for the good of others."
So in what ways is MMA constructive and beneficial, and for the benefit of others? Craig, this could be a reply to your claim before that the onus is on the people saying it's wrong. Perhaps the onus is on you to show why it's a good thing?
10:28 "But suppose someone tells you, 'This meat was offered to an idol.' Don't eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person."
So whether we think it is a good or bad thing, we need to keep in mind that others have different views, and for example, a MMA fan should try not to watch it with someone they know thinks it is wrong (and this discussion has shown there are plenty of people like this!)
btw Father Dave is a Protestant - Sydney Anglican dude!
@Rohan:
I don't know, but research tells me I'm far more likely to be killed or experience serious injury by riding a bicycle than participating in MMA!! (Which isn't why I don't ride - that's just laziness.)
@Tim:
If this is the case, I still contend that all competitive sport involving physical contact falls into the same boat, at the end of the day, as will any sport involving mental, emotional or psychological violence to another person or persons (eg. cricket's "Monkey" incident). Sport is out, basically, if we pursue this line of reasoning to its end, right?
I still think it's worth pursuing questions of 'violence' and the context in which the word is understood. What is 'violent' in one situation may be considered perfectly normal in another, no? A 'violent' tackle in a game of soccer is par for the course in rugby, for example.
What does Paul have in mind when he speaks of gentleness and violence? It's obviously not cage-fighting, but what is it?
Absolutely - and I made a similar comment above. I have Christian friends who are circumspect in their alcohol consumption for exactly the same reason.
It would be in the same way that any competitive sport is considered constructive and beneficial - largely because it affords entertainment.
I'm pretty sure that that was from one of his weekly talks on 2CH on Sunday evenings called "The Protestant Faith". That was in the early 70's and his secretary would run off copies ( on an old memeograph machine ) and they would be on sale in the Moore College office/book shop for 5 cents each ! I also have a feeling that there is a pile of his 5c talks stored in a box somewhere. I don't know if it will surface soon ( I've started on a huge clean up project ) - but if it does, I'll pass it on to you Craig.
Cheers for now - we're just off to the first Twilight at Taronga Concert - with Katie Noonan presenting her jazz style "Blackbird" concert - a tribute to the music of Lennon and McCartney. Hopefully, it'll be a peaceful event - with no fighting among the patrons - and the animals are the only ones to be seen in cages ;)
ps Ironically, Broughton was born on BOXING Day in 1916.
At the risk of being called a Pharisee, sometimes we need to discuss where the line is drawn and take a stand, which is what we need to do when we are trying to define what counts as violence in this case in point.
Now I'd better get back to Mark 11....getting way too distracted.
Please don't take my lack of further responses as being rude or as taking my bat and ball and going home :)
Not surprisingly, none of the those who love MMA have dealt with Proverbs 13:2. Indeed, it may be either that Sydney Anglicans have a generally poor knowledge of their Bibles, or that they just choose to ignore those bit that condemn aspects of their lifestyles and interests. One really doesn't have to go too far to build a case against violence, especially for the purposes of entertainment. Here are just a few of the many references:
Genesis 6:11-13 suggests the violence of the people as a reason for God flooding the earth.
In Job 16:17, Job appeals to his lack of violence as a virtue.
Psalm 11:5 suggests that God hates those who love violence.
Psalm 73:6 associates violence with the wicked.
Proverbs 26:6 talks about the folly of engaging in or embracing violence.
Malachi 2:16 suggests that God hates a man covering himself in violence.
"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life"?
Oh no, that's Proverbs 13:12. :)
You mean: "From the fruit of his lips a man enjoys good things, but the unfaithful have a craving for violence." I'm not avoiding these things, Joshua, I'm just raising the question of if what is meant by 'violence' in these verses applies to mixed martial arts competition. Contact sport obviously wasn't in the minds of the Bible writers.
There is a distinct difference (in my mind, although obviously not in those of many posters) between the violence evident in, for example, an unprovoked attack in the street, a home-invasion, school bullying, or the like, and the 'violence' evident in a competitive martial arts competition.
In Deuteronomy 13:6-11, God tells the Israelites to kill their own brothers, sons, wives and closest friends should they say, "Let us go and worship other Gods."
In 1 Samuel 17, Saul and the Israelite army are implicitly condemned for not doing violence against Goliath while David is lauded for killing him.
Some violence is obviously encouraged though, right, as long as the opponent worships another God?
Sorry, I'm being facetious again. I'll stop and go get some fresh air.
That is absolutely right, though I don't think opponents of MMA will be convinced. Reading through the wisdom literature, violence seems to be unlawful acts, committed by ones enemies, with the intention of causing substantial, serious and lasting harm. This is nothing like the "violence" of a sporting event. Even a cursory reading of the scripture should make it plain that this is not on view.
This debate reminds me of the Harry Potter debate a few years ago, and those Christians who simplistically drew a straight line between the "witchcraft" in HP and the "witchcraft" condemned in the OT, and concluded the whole series was a massive satanic conspiracy.
No, Proverbs 18:6 states that a fool's mouth invites a flogging, quite likely as a result of the strife aforementioned. It is not a general exhortation to flog fools. Proverbs 13:24 is an exhortation to discipline. As with the case of "just war" and the police force, this violence is seen as a lesser evil. It simply doesn't help your argument in favour of a pseudo sport where such violence is not necessary, but only takes place so that immature men can gratify their primal desires.
To Tom's credit, he's at least thrown a few proof-texts into the fire, even if he doesn't tackle these verse head on, which seem to suggest that violence is an evil in and of itself. You've complained about the lack of biblical merit in the opposing camp, so I've given you a few verses to think about. But given that you don't seem to take the Bible too seriously, I doubt you'll do that.
Hey - I am under 30!
(Though seriously, if this is a wisdom issue then perhaps we ought to pay special attention to those who are older!)
My reservations about the sport are all anecdotal. I was a high-school teacher before college and got to know the interests and temperaments of many students. In light of this, I think that the growing popularity of this kind of sport will be (at best) unhelpful for many of them.
Hi Tom - good to see someone I know on this site. I don't think you have addressed those texts about violence. Commands relating specifically to the conquest of Canaan are not relevant to the character traits that the Bible commends.
@ Craig & Tom - I agree that 'violence' needs more exploring as a topic and I look forward to hearing any more insights.
It is also worth realising from the response on this thread that many Christians may view their MMA-loving overseer as a fan of violence. As you have already acknowledged, this is an issue that may harm the conscience of a weaker brother and we must take great care (especially those of us in authority in congregations).
Galations 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Do some of you truly believe that violence can fit side by side with this picture? ........ Really?
Hi Matt! /wave
I'd argue here (as I imagine Father Dave would) that *proper instruction* in the sport would actually result in positive outcomes for many young men struggling with anger issues and social alienation. Proper instruction in martial arts teaches you self-discipline, obedience, and humility; amongst other things. (And we know that physical training is of some value!)
I know. Like I said, I was being facetious ... a bit. My take is really what I put forth above, that what is intended by "violence" as condemned in those OT passage has nothing to do with contact sports engaged in between consenting, trained athletes involved in a sporting contest, protected from serious harm by rules and a referee and provided with expert medical oversight and care. And, if they can't be incorporated under the same banner ("violence") then those texts don't apply.
But, I don't expect any of the anti-MMA crowd to concede this difference in the slightest...
Slightly tongue-in-cheek:
- I have loved many of the people I have wrestled and that love was in no way affected by our seeking to achieve martial victory over one another for a few minutes.
- I have found joy in the exercise of training for martial arts and in the competition and in the camaraderie of the students.
- Assuming a Biblical definition of peace includes much more than non-violence but also aspects of health and wholeness, I think I could work with this too. :)
- Training in martial arts certainly teaches you patience.
- Kindness? Okay, that might be more of a stretch...
- Goodness and faithfulness? Well I don't think you could claim MMA is the opposite of those things, even if it doesn't promote them. Shall we call it a draw?
- No one took up the challenge as to what was meant by gentleness earlier and whether context played any part in understanding it. But, I was always taught that submissions should be applied gently to allow the other person plenty of time to tap out before being hurt. Am I reaching? ;)
- And self-control? Well, this is at the heart of all martial arts training!
Therefore, mixed martial arts and Gal 5:22-23 are not in conflict.
QED.
/laugh
Having said that, I also dont think that on balance, most martial arts benefit society. I say this having obviously seen plenty of the results of fight, attacks, assualts from martial artists. (again im not suggesting you are like this). Children and youths can find plenty of other outlets for their energy and find plenty of other ways to gain discipline. But that is for another thread. This one is about UFC & thats what Im aiming Galations 5 at.
Oh, absolutely Howard! And yet, there is a great deal of continuity, is there not? The guy who trains BJJ and actively spars at his gym or takes part in a tournament is still out to win his match and defeat his opponent. It's difficult to envisage a line between 'training' for combat sports and participating in combat sports, other than an arbitrary one; to my way of thinking anyway. If I'm participating in any way I must of necessity 'do violence' to my sparring partner or competition opponent - according to the definition of 'violence' that some here want to espouse.
I'm not sure the others who are anti-MMA in this thread will allow you the luxury of a training v. competing distinction!
In the same way, I don't think they can fairly hold the distinction they want to between competitive combat sports and competitive contact sports where the rules allow one to act in a violent manner toward an opponent (or where such conduct is tolerated by the governing bodies despite being officially against the rules).
To risk pushing people's buttons a little more, I think if you're going to draw a line in the sand against violence in sport, you'd have to exclude any competition where one player or team might do physical, mental or emotional harm to another player or team, in preparation for, during or after the contest. That's if all violence in sport is evil, obviously.
This whole discussion seems quite highly charged, & has made me uncomfortable several times as I've read the many comments.
(And I say this as someone who, at age 15, was suspended from school for 3 days
- after I punched another schoolgirl in the face so hard that her head snapped backwards.)
(I attribute my superb - but damaging - right hook to the self-defence classes I'd started taking, the previous year.)
As a teacher of young kids since '02, a role that necessitates that wonderful institution known as "playground duty", I can safely say that the frequent instances of playground violence I see (esp. among little boys & that always end up with somebody hurt and/or crying) are mostly closely related to the violent videos/TV shows/sporting events that the kids are permitted to watch by their primary caregivers (e.g. mums and/or dads).
How do I know?
Well, when as a teacher you're dealing with an issue between 2+ unhappy little boys, and when the instigator/s/culprit/s is/are asked to explain how the victim/s got hurt - most often what it comes down to is
"We were pretending to be like [insert name of rugby-player/boxer/computer-game-martial-arts-expert/violent crime-fighting TV hero/etc.]".
From my observations, incl. playground duty in Sydney's west/south-west, kids' exposure to violence in TV shows or sports only brings them grief.
*ducks*
As a teacher, do you think the answer is to ban all: "[insert name of rugby-player/boxer/computer-game-martial-arts-expert/violent crime-fighting TV hero/etc.]"s?
That's just silly Tom. A number of people have been saying all along that it is the object of the sport that is important. Just because there is a risk of physical injury in soccer or rugby does not make it any more violent that firefighting or working on an oil rig. The things which make MMA stand out are
(1) Violence is the whole object of the game - You want to either knock your opponent out or make him tap out. In rugby, to prevent the opponent from scoring a try, a certain physicality is allowed, but violent behaviour will often be penalised and/or the offending player sent off for his indiscretions.
(2) MMA is promoted as being violent - The marketers know what they're doing. They know that if there was no blood then no-one would watch, given that MMA is otherwise quite boring and mundane.
(3) MMA is watched because it is violent - Closely related to the last point, but worth bearing in mind independently. And it would be interesting indeed to have a look at a profile of your typical MMA enthusiast.
This is the best way for you to see what the fruit of UFC is and whether it's compatible with the aims of the church.
Yet I wish it were possible. School playgrounds might prove far less "tearful" places if kids didn't think it was OK to pretend-fight, e.g. boxing, biffing or even Ben 10.
The ultimate answer must be in saving knowledge of Jesus Christ - the Prince of Peace. Yes - the One who will judge all peoples in righteousness & justice; yes, the One before whom all knees will bow & tongues confess that He is Lord; yes, the One in whose mouth is a sword (REV.1:16, 19:15); BUT the One who calls us to do what leads to peace & mutual edification (ROM.14:19).
So often, I feel so frustrated when some little boy gets hurt in a playground because either he..
..or the boys he's playing with..
..or the boys just nearby in the same set of 2 sq. metres he's also playing in..
..happen/s to be re-enacting something violent (though not necessarily malicious) that they've watched a lot on TV.
At such times I wish all parents would get their kids to only watch programs with no violence (& also no inappropriate sexuality) - e.g. Charlie&Lola. (Which is great!)
IMHO, I don't see it as "mutually edifying" when 2 small boys play fighting because it looks like fun, only for one/both of them to then get hurt. Nor does it "lead to peace"; most kids hit back instinctively, lashing out at what (or who) hurt them.
All of ROM.14 seems pertinent here.
I think I was one of them Josh, which is why I don't think it's silly at all. The object in any competitive combat sport - whether it be a points based karate tournament or a UFC match - is to win the match, not to hurt your opponent. A submission win which causes momentary pain and no lasting harm is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving that result.
You want to say that "Just because there is a risk of physical injury in soccer or rugby does not make it any more violent that firefighting or working on an oil rig" but I cannot see how that could be true at all. The threat of injury isn't the issue. Rugby allows - no, encourages - the violent action or one participant toward another. A tackle is, by nature, a violent action. And the game is enthusiastic in its promotion of such actions - which anyone who has seen a 'big hits' advertisement for a World Cup or State of Origin would know. Likewise, a quick search for 'soccer injuries' on YouTube will reveal innumerable incidents of violence (both within and outside the laws of the game) committed by one player against another. You can't want define violence as only punch- and kick-throwing and leave out bone-jarring tackling in rugby, blocking in gridiron, blindside hip-and-shoulders in AFL, and the like, can you?!
Grace and peace,
Tia Z.
I was thinking more in the line of incorporating into Parish Council meetings across the Diocese - as I think a number of them need waking up - and I also hear that a few Rectors would like to settle a few old scores ;)
Do you have any constructive comments to add to this discussion surrounding UFC which has an exponentially increasing popularity according to YouTube viewing numbers and therefore an exponentially increasing influence upon our society?
Well, I certainly don't cede the "no comparison" argument. I see a number of repeated claims and no one on either side willing to alter their viewpoint. That you happen to agree with someone whose viewpoint is in opposition to mine in no way validates that position. Anyone who wanted to claim that we're talking about totally different kettles of fish would, I think, have to demonstrate that there is *no* violence in contact sports like rugby *or* that violence in rugby isn't glorified (which is plainly is and I'll lend you the copy of Rugby's Greatest Hits someone gave me for Christmas once to demonstrate that fact, if you like, or you can watch the State of Origin promos next time they come around if it's the other code that tickles your fancy).
As for incorporating MMA into church activities - is that an argument? My friend likes fishing but do I need to incorporate it into youth group? I like bonsai but I've never shown a youth group kid how to wire a branch - is bonsai wrong? That I don't do one thing in one context in no way speaks to its validity in others.
Goodnight.
"As for incorporating MMA into church activities - is that an argument? My friend likes fishing but do I need to incorporate it into youth group? I like bonsai but I've never shown a youth group kid how to wire a branch - is bonsai wrong? That I don't do one thing in one context in no way speaks to its validity in others."
You're dodging the question. The question is:
Can you incorporate UFC into youth group activities so that the aims of the church are not compromised?
Since you have brought fishing and bonsai into the discussion, you should also answer the questions:
Can you incorporate fishing into youth group activities so that the aims of the church are not compromised?
Can you incorporate bonsai into youth group activities so that the aims of the church are not compromised?
Also, you're the one saying that soccer and rugby result in just as much risk of injury as UFC and you're the one saying that UFC is effectively just another competitive sport like soccer and rugby, so if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you should answer my questions at #201.
I'm not demanding that you answer my questions. I'm telling you that you if you want to be taken seriously, you should answer my questions. There is a difference.
I couldn't really care less whether you answer the questions or not. You don't owe me anything. It's up to you what you want to do now, tomorrow or next week.
I'm pretty sure MMA bouts are not permitted for under-18s in Australia and I'm also sure that our public liability insurance would not cover such a thing even if it were allowed and Parish Council would have significant issue with that in our litigious society. So, the answer to your question must be "No, I can't."
However, if those things were not at issue ... well then the question becomes: could I allow properly trained and physically conditioned athletes to compete in rules-controlled and referee-supervised martial arts bouts with proper medical clearance and supervision (which are all things the UFC has and without which bouts wouldn't be permitted), without compromising our church's goal of introducing people to Jesus? I can't see why not.
That doesn't mean I'd do it, mind you, but it wouldn't be for the reason that I think MMA is evil. It, like bonsai, would probably not be appropriate in that venue. Bonsai would bore the active lads away and mixed martial arts would scare the less active ones away. So, we don't have either.
If that were true, you wouldn't keep asking them. :)
At #205, you have raised the issue that UFC bouts are not legally allowed for people aged under 18. Ok. Then I would like to apply the same set of questions at #190 and #201 to church youth groups of people aged 18 to 24, which is effectively the age group of young adults. This allows UFC to take place legally in the church youth group. You don't have to worry about legal issues because the participants would sign waivers releasing the church from all legal liability and taking full legal responsibility for their actions. The issue you need to worry about is whether incorporating this UFC activity into such an over-18 youth group compromises the aims of the church. In #204, you have indicated that the legal aims of the church would be compromised. I am not talking about the incidental legal aims of the church which are no longer an issue because the participants are over 18 years of age. I am talking about the spiritual aims of the church which obviously comprise the primary aims of the church.
At #204 above, you said that you wouldn’t necessarily introduce bonsai as a youth group activity and you wouldn’t necessarily introduce UFC as a youth group activity. However, that is not what I was asking you. I was not asking you to make a judgement on whether you would introduce them. I was asking you if you CAN introduce them as youth group activities without compromising the aims of the church.
Continued…
My valid point is that youth group activities are demand-driven. If you make a grass field available to youth group members, somebody will bring a ball and start a soccer game. If you make it known that UFC is allowed at a youth group event, some people will bring their mouth guards and get stuck into each other. If you put bonsai plants out on a table with pruning implements, some people will sit down and look at them with fascination.
I’m not asking you whether you think any of these activities such as bonsai are boring. That is for the members of the youth group to decide. If they think soccer is boring, they won’t start a game on the field. I’m asking you whether you think any of these activities, including UFC can be incorporated into youth group activities so that the aims of the church are not compromised.
Not just to Tom but to the other supporters of MMA as a legitimate form of entertainment. Maybe it will help if I give my reasons (Without trying to repeat myself) for choosing not to watch MMA anymore.
1/ Does me watching this level of violence help to promote a Christian witness that is compatible with the biblical concept of showing love for my neighbour and telling them about our Saviour who loved us so much he died for us? My answer was no.
Cont’d
3/ As a I have gained more life experience and have matured a little (hopefully especially as a Christian, though I still have a long way to go) it has become more obvious that watching violence is not compatible with trying to live a Christ centered life. I would love to have this conversation with the “under 30’s†MMA supporters in 20 years time and see if their view has changed!
5/ As a Christian who is supposed to love my nieghbour, should I not be concerned about things my own experience clearly shows me that contributes to not only the increase in violence but also to the level of the violence? Should I not care about levels of decency in society around me. Answer Yes.
At the end of the day, just because I enjoyed it, did not make it ok.
Ok, I wasn't aware that you were making that distinction. One of the problems is that everyone on this thread has a slightly different take. One person wants to say all contact sports are bad. Another will say all martial arts are bad. Another will say just the UFC competition is bad. Very difficult to answer everyone!
But Howard, as I'm aware, you know the history of the sport. The UFC started as a vehicle for the Gracie's to show off their BJJ. BJJ remains an integral part of the sport. It doesn't seem terribly consistent to say that BJJ sparring is ok, but UFC is suddenly called "violence". You would need a consistent approach.
A number of churches have incorporated martial arts into their youth programs - I'm thinking of Father Dave specifically, but I've heard of others.
And I thought you'd retired from this thread, Andrew.
Going back 30 years ago, there was plenty of fighting going in my school playground, and this was before home computer games, DVDs, televised martial arts etc.
I have three teenage sons, and in their entire history of schooling, they have been involved in a combined total of 1 fight. Schools seem to have a much better handle on this sort of thing these days.
This is a totally different thing to little Johnny suddenly attacking Timmy in the playground with a spinning half moon kick...
Howard, thanks for your contributions to this debate. By and large, I think everyone will have to agree to disagree on this one. The opposing sides don't seem to be shifting much, and the same ground is being repeated.
However, many people will read what you have written and will find it helpful as they make up their own mind. If you are concerned about this issue, you should probably do some more writing on it - as I said, I believe the sport will explode in popularity here over the next few years. In fact, I think the horse has already bolted on this one, especially now that MMA is on free to air...
You said:
"And I thought you'd retired from this thread, Andrew."
This is what I said at #152:
"Farewell all. I do not want to post anymore. My head hurts from beating it against the wall.
I will leave it to others to finish this thread unless I come back, which I really don't want to do.
Cue hilarious joke that beating one's head against the wall is violence which the Bible prohibits."
Personally, I don't think it's consistent to try and separate the "UFC" from the martial arts that make up the contest. "Mixed Martial Arts" means exactly what it says - a mixture of martial arts.
Regarding BJJ, it's true that it doesn't contain striking in it's purest forms. It does however, contain very painful armlocks, leglocks and chokeholds. Other people on this thread have pointed to these as examples of violence.
Howard, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. As I said above, if you feel strongly about this, I would encourage you to write some more on it. There is a link called "insight" on the front page of this website, where the editor will allow anyone to submit a 350 word essay for possible publishing. You should think about that, perhaps. You could also consider sending letters to Southern Cross and Eternity magazines.
As I said in my original article, I want this debate to happen. I am very happy to hear from those who are in opposition to my view point, and I'd like to see the subject more widely discussed.
Hey Craig, Are you moving into a smaller or bigger cage ? ;)
Your sons didn't go to public schools in Blacktown or Smithfield, did they..? Don't you go to church in a galaxy far, far away from there - er, I mean, Annandale?
And as a Christian father - whenever given the opportunity - you've tried to bring up your boys in the training & instruction of the Lord, haven't you?
To the great credit of believing fathers such as yourself, boys from Christian upbringings on the whole are much less likely to come sobbing to me on the playground. More resilient; better with self-control; much more likely to know when to stop. - But such boys with a Christian father figure, like your three, are regrettably so few in the playgrounds where I've spent the better part of the last 7 years.
I rejoice that your teenagers have come through unscathed. They sound like great kids and I look forward to some random day when by some freak of nature I might get to meet them.
Sadly, I suspect their experience probably doesn't come anywhere close to that of most boys I've seen from non-Christian families.
3 well-adjusted boys sounds great. At last count, I've probably encountered only 430 boys in my paid teaching duties. Most of whom are growing up with little or no Christian influence. *sigh*
I'm sorry if I offended you at all. Regarding "complicated", I remember from clues in your previous posts on the old forums, you may not have had as much influence in your boys' lives as you would have wished.
Being a Christian father does make a difference though, in the grace of God - wouldn't you agree?
It's keeping an eye on those boys with absolutely no Christian influences (and no fathers at all), & the harm I've seen them cause themselves & others (from a young age) that really comes close to breaking my heart.
Grace & peace,
TZ.
Enjoy the great pleasures of moving. I used to have a sticker on my old ute ' yes I own a ute and no I wont help you move!
This from the NYT
and this blog post it promted at The Gospel Coalition web site.
I think there is a far bigger discussion to be had about Christian men and masculine identity
Its fascinating that the response to this has been to start up an MMA ministry that actually participates in the sport.
I think the last sentence of your comment would make a great topic for a new thread. Obviously this isnt just an issue in Australia.
Hmmmm... why does that remind me of some religious fanatic crying out "Kill the infidel!"
What ever happened to "Blessed are the peacemakers" ( Matthew 5:9 ) ?
Maybe he's right - and this will prove to be the future direction for parish councils. Instead of "put it to a vote" - it'll be "best of 3 rounds" ;)
That NYT article received over 271 comments, including this amusing response to Tom Skiles :
Check out "Tough Guy 2010". HUNDRED'S of hopefuls get down and dirty to compete in the Tough Guy 2010 race in Telford, England on 31 January 2010 :
gallery
Thanks for the link, Jim. Reinforces my view that this is something we need to get a handle on, locally.
I fully agree that the bigger issue is "men and church". That *has* been discussed in the past, though I don't think we've really made much progress. Some churches do it well, some don't.
I can't be the only one thinking that that looks awesome!!
I still think it would be worth someone with a big brain doing some work on whether contextualisation is necessary (even possible) when talking about "peace." I think many simply assume that "peace" = "non-violence" (thus ruling out basically all contact sports, not just MMA, if one is going to be consistent).
But, is that necessarily the case? Is peace simply the absence of violence? Is it even the absence of violence? Can either or both of these two concepts be contextualised at all or is their meaning universal and unchangeable?
And in 2009, he was appointed UK's "Chief Scout" :
Bear sounds like one inspirational guy - who gets his own inspiration from the God he serves.
You're not... ;-)
He'd want to be raising 'em tough with names like that!! :O
(Apologies to any Marmaduke's reading this...)
There has been a polarisation amongst Christians on this issue for years, in magazines both in the UK and in Australia and currently on the internet in forums globally.
This discussion always seems to end in a draw - no-one seems able to deliver either a decent theological knockout or an effective pragmatic submission hold. I have wrestled with this issue for years. I do think that we have both a responsibility and freedom in Christ to better understand conflict.
There are a couple of basic questions that intrigue me.
What is pain and why is it there?
What is violence and why is it there?
IMO pain is a practical bodily provision to ensure that we respond to its source in a way that preserves our body. Praise God! It provides the motivation to sensibly submit in a situation of inter-personal conflict.
The definition and purpose of violence is much harder to establish to everyone’s comfort. I hope to have engaged with this to some degree of satisfaction in a thesis I wrote a few years ago. It is by no means conclusive but I think it gives a theologically grounded justification for inter-personal violence in certain very specific circumstances.
we may dispense pain in a controlled training environment in:
o preparation for real conflict;
o preparation for controlled conflict; and
we may dispense pain in a non-training environment in:
o a situation of real conflict;
o a situation of controlled conflict.
Concerning the situation of real conflict I have developed a matrix of ‘appropriate’ responses (page 43) outlining the circumstances and limitations within which pain should be dispensed. I have concluded that self-defence is acceptable at certain levels in certain circumstances for the benefit of self-preservation or the preservation of others as risk in an overriding gospel context.
From this point on we can either:
o prepare for real conflict; and/or
o prepare for controlled conflict;
o participate in real conflict;
o participate in controlled conflict;
and finally, and most relevantly for this discussion,
o observe real conflict;
o and observe controlled conflict.
Why might a Christian watch UFC? Why do I watch UFC?
Do I watch UFC to develop in my understanding and appreciation of fighting method and conflict resolution?
Do I delight in watching one man made in God’s image make another bleed?
I have watched UFC from 1-100+ and I have been tempted to visit my first real life UFC (though it was a sell out before I made a firm decision either way).
As in any borderline pursuit in life, I must surely spend ongoing time with the Lord to search my heart for my motivation.
I do hope that I am rightly motivated in my viewing. I certainly have to keep myself accountable to others to ensure that this is so – in this my viewing of UFC is in way no different to pornography or spending or other things not mentioned in Bible that can creep into pole position in my heart.
I do hope that my viewing of fighting tournaments trains me in the art of pain dispensation more effectively so that alongside my practical preparation for conflict I might be a gentler man in the circumstances of both controlled and real life conflict.
And I do hope that the controlled conflict I view in UFC is as well mediated, assessed, regulated, medically supervised as it appears to be and is really the safest possible environment within which to allow pain dispensation within conflict between men.
But most of all I do hope to find some sort of resolution as I wrestle with the issues because, and I can put it no better than Dennis Denuto, it does seem to me that the ‘vibe’ of the NT is for the Christian to reject violence as a way of life. Whilst Jesus himself certainly opted to use peaceful means to achieve his purposes, even though he had supremely powerful resources at his disposal in the garden of Gethsemane, his attitude and aptitude here are not legislative for the Christian. He had a greater purpose in his rejection of a violent methodology to curtail his arrest and that was to obediently fulfil his Father’s salvific purposes on the cross.
This post is not intended in any way as contributing to the resolution of the issue but is merely a contribution and, perhaps, a confession. Thank you Craig for raising the issue. I have enjoyed this thread (for the most part, minus a couple of needless prickly personal excurses) and have appreciated the diversity of interest from Christians.
It would be wonderful if the Lord would provide a clear and emphatic way forward to conclude our discussion. In my own journey I suspect that I am soon to arrive at a destination of opinion appropriate for a maturing, conservative, anglican evangelical who is probably getting too old to fight for the ‘aye’ corner anymore and really ought to be concentrating on fighting the good fight. After all, as Paul noted, physical training is of come value, but godliness is of value in this life and the life to come.
T.
I wouldn't usually advertise a non-Anglican event on the Sydney Anglicans forum, but I feel it is very relevant to this topic.