Resurgence UFC Ministry
This. Is. Awesome. The guys over at Resurgence are starting a new series on Ultimate Fighting (UFC)/Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). Their purpose is to inform, educate, and familiarize readers with this growing phenomenom and also bring in some spiritually relevant application like 1 Timothy 1:18.
This is amazing. This is the kind of masculine-relevant stuff that just trips my trigger. It is definitely helpful in motivating me to finish part 2 of my own series (coming soon). Check out this video of UFC Fighter giving some tips on how to close the distance in a fight.
And before you ask, no, I am not trying to insinuate gender norms, or a standard that all men must be THIS way to be masculine. Only that this is one aspect of healthy masculinity that is neglected (at best) or outright condemned (at worst) without biblical basis. Enjoy!
Posts
so “turn the other cheek” is an invalid message for resurgence?
mixing violence with the message of Christ seems really counter-intuitive.
“so “turn the other cheek” is an invalid message for resurgence?”
Where in the world did you get that? This is not a dispute between two people, but a mutually agreed-upon competition with deep-rooted traditions of sportsmanship. What about professional football? Do you think the defenders are not thinking about flattening the man lining up next to him? Indeed, if they did NOT turn the other cheek, they would not be able to shake hands after losing a fight. If anything, it is a great example of turning the other cheek.
“mixing violence with the message of Christ seems really counter-intuitive.”
Violence is inherrent throughout the message of Christ. He was CRUCIFIED! Or maybe you have a problem with Paul’s use of “fighting” in 1 Timothy 1:18-19? How about the entire book of Revelations? Or one of my personal favorites, Jesus taking the time to craft a whip before he drove the moneychangers out of the temple (John 2:15)?
If “turning the other cheek” is relegated merely to physical violence, we neglect verbal and emotional violence. “Fighting” is not bad in and of itself. What, who, and why you fight are what makes it qualitatively “good” or “bad.”
“What, who, and why you fight are what makes it qualitatively “good” or “bad.”” -Brad
excellent point. What we must always see in Christ and things like Paul and Revelation (no ’s’) is that there are a lot of violent and militaristic terms in them, but they are almost always subverted. The “final battle” in Rev. has the armies lining up and then no battle. Paul talks about spiritual warfare and uses much different ends than all out assult.
Jesus being crucified shows how the world views violence and power… Jesus statement “Forgive them they know not what they do” and resurrection shows us true power is.
i was seeking understanding of how you viewed this video, as i was completely flabbergasted as what i was to take from it. sportsmanship and fellowship is the way to go. thanks!
“i was seeking understanding of how you viewed this video, as i was completely flabbergasted as what i was to take from it. sportsmanship and fellowship is the way to go. thanks!”
Oh yeah. Noone is advocating the kind of heart-level attitude of murderous violence that is often stereotyped onto MMA. It is a very (for the most part, there are always exceptions) honorable competition. Matt Hughes, one of the first heavyweight champs out of UFC had his life totally transformed by Christ, and credited him with his success. He uses clinics and training classes to teach kids, teens, and young men confidence and competence.
Very rarely do I see anything but the best of sportsmanship. The most recent UFC match this past Saturday saw a monster of a man, Kimbo Slice, get knocked out in 14 seconds by an upstart newcomer. His reaction was to contragulate his opponent for capitalizing on his mistake, and demolished any speculation about how lucky he got by telling his opponent that his title was “well-earned.”
I could certainly learn from that kind of humility…
Brad
I guess you never heard a commentator describing Chris lebens unbringing. after letting us know how horrific it was he then went on to say what a great breeding ground for our fighters it was.
Actually, no I haven’t. But I can’t think of anything (sport, organization, political party, etc.) that is entirely made up of people participating for the right reasons…
The hope of the Christian familiarizing himself with or becoming a part any aspect of culture, is to be a “city on a hill,” or “salt and light” from within that culture, working to redeem it. All kinds of broken people need love and grace, UFC is no exception. Fighters like Matt Hughes and Ken Shamrock are doing just that.
“Fighters like Matt Hughes and Ken Shamrock are doing just that.” (Brad)
Ken Shamrock? Are you kidding? This is the same guy that pushed Kimbo Slice in the weigh in’s - he is salt and light? The same guy that could not bury the hatchet with Tito Ortiz for over 5 years (3 fights later)…he is a ‘light on the hill’. To be honest, I would have never guessed Ken Shamrock was a Christian…not from his personal behavior within the sport.
As for this being a man’s sporting field - uh - Gina Carono fella’s - and Cyborg’s wife Cris. Women also get a kick out of this sport.
I actually have little problem with the MMA sporting world - it’s not different than boxing in all actuality - boxing being worse due to the injuries suffered over a long period (punch drunk conditions). To me, it’s just a sporting event.
However, I enjoy the sporting event for it being a sporting event - does God have anything to do with it…not really. You can’t reform a sport with Christian ethics - if this is the case - then the MMA world will likely not exist at some point.
I personally think the Christian message hinges on a non-violent aspect - which if it revolutionizes a culture - will not take kindly to ideas of violence (which mma is - like tame gladiators with refs and rules and people get to survive). I think this idea might end up, if converted by Christian values, extinct.
However, I keep up with the sport, one might say, quite religiously (lol).
Hrmm… I know we’ve discussed this in past threads to a degree, but I’m really noticing how prevalent this association of non-violence with Christianity really is. What is your foundation/justification for it?
Historically, pacifism/nonviolence has not been a part of Christian Theology. Yes, the early martyrs prayed as they were killed by lion/burning/etc. but they certainly resisted their deaths. On an international level, Just War Doctrine was founded on the Christian ethic, and it wasn’t until the Quakers in the U.S. that pacifism was attempted to be justified theologically.
Let me assure you that I am not PROMOTING violence for the sake of violence. Once again, it is dependent upon how and why it is committed.
And in Re: to Ken Shamrock… I’m sure that there is more to him than those occurrences, and considering the intense pressure of competition, I don’t know that I would act with better behavior. I’m not trying to make excuses for him, but a Christian’s behavior should be evaluated in contrast to his pre-regenerative behavior and progress in sanctification… which is a 20-dollar way of saying that we all have room to grow and our walk with God is a progressive one.
“What is your foundation/justification for it? Historically, pacifism/nonviolence has not been a part of Christian Theology. ” -Brad
WHAT?!
have you taken a church history class? you only point to American Christianity (ie Quakers and Just War) which is quite different from the rest of the Church History.
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in his “Apostolic Traditions” who could become a Christian.
“inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and the trades of those brought to the faith.” (paraphrased by yours truly) If a man is a pander, he must stop. a sculptor or painter, they must not make idols. if an actor or pantomimist, teacher of young children, charioteer, gladiator or trainer of gladiators, a heathen priest, they must stop.
Here’s the biggie: “A soldier of civil authority must be taught not to kill and refuse to do so if commanded, and refused to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God.”
this is circa 217-222 CE. Why the other jobs? Because anything that furthers the empire is to be resisted. We only see Christians accepting these trades during the 3rd century with Constantine and esp. in 380 when Theodosius makes Xn the official religion.
before Constantine we had humble depictions of Christ as a fish, anchor, the PX, the Alpha and Omega, the gentle shepard… but after Constantine we have Christ the King, the Ruler of the World, the Conquering King. The Imperial Church has a mixed view of Christ, between Jesus and it’s own ego. part of this mix goes violence and militarism. many claim that this is the fall of the true church as the church took on worldly power. other claim that this is great for the church as there is a sense of relief from all the persecutions. i tend to go towards the former, that violence as the world understands it has no place in God’s kingdom. the only reason we don’t think twice about it is due to the Imperial Church in the 300s.
“but they certainly resisted their deaths.” -Brad
no, they didn’t. they didn’t see that they were doing any wrong! all they did was confess faith in Christ and they didn’t resist that. “when we are accused, we do not deny [the accusation] because we are not conscious of any evil, but count it impious not to speak the truth in all things” - Justin Martyr
The early church viewed these martyrs such as Felicitas and others as acting out the core of their faith. They were unwavering that Jesus taught a new way, a way of nonviolence, love, and self-sacrifice. The martyrs in turn become living examples of the faith, converting more because of their belief.
in fact Ignatius called off a “rescue” on his way to his martyrdom as he states that he just doesn’t want to be called a Christian but also to behave as such and in doing so, he will then become the word of God, not just a human voice.
i’m right in the midst of Church History if you can’t tell, so i have a lot to say about martyrs and early church things. Nonviolence is at the core of the faith up until the 4th century as understood by those writing and those dying for their faith.
Brad
Let me tell you straight up. I like much of what you say in regards to being a man and such. I may not know you personally but I get a sense we would probably get along pretty well, but you know what. Lol. You watch fighting cause you like it, if I was to take a guess its probably because you come from it. If you choose to try and associate fighting(UFC) and your faith, well, my friend thats a really slippery slope. Heres a piece of advice for you. Duck, the naysayers will be swinging. Oh by the way, have you ever watched Matt Hughes and his behaviour on the Ultimate Fighter show? Im not so sure you want to call him a “Christian”.
I gotta run, but I definitely want to address this…
“If you choose to try and associate fighting(UFC) and your faith, well, my friend thats a really slippery slope.”
John,
Thanks for the advice! I will definitely keep my head low and my guard up.
Nevertheless, I imagine that many of the same cautions were levied against Jesus when he ministered to a centurion (Matthew 8, Luke 7), and to Peter when he first preached the gospel to a gentile centurion and his family (Acts 10). The gospel is for everyone, period. Gentiles and Jews, hookers and hoodlums, gang-bangers and holy rollers, preachers and pedophiles. On the list of things to associate my faith with, why is UFC cautioned above any of those? I am not combining the two in an interpretive sense, but an applicative sense. Paul stood on the Areopagus in Athens and contextualized his message with one of the great poets of their day. How is contextualizing my faith with UFC, which is watched and followed by millions, any different?
It blows my mind how we have simply replaced 1st century cultural taboos with new ones. Ministering to the poor, destitute, and prostitute are now honorable, but beware! Do not associate yourself with those whose need for grace is not as physically obvious!
(a) Little ministry is done with someone’s fists - not according to the faith I see within the NT pages
(b) I see no problem with speaking into these people’s lives concering faith - but why does one have to be a UFC fighter to do so?
(c) The gospel is for everyone - but the gospel is not to be confused with mixed martial arts - they are not the same thing. Combining the two can lead people to thinking ‘violence’ for ‘violence sake’ is okay (namely impressionable youth). This is something I personally fight against in my own community - that violence is okay.
All that being said, I like the UFC and MMA fighting - the competition aspect of it is right on. I have never figured to associate this with Christian faith though - and to be honest - when some of these people (like Diego Sanchez) thank Jesus for allowing them to win - I think I puke a bit in my mouth.
I don’t think God has anything to do with sports - or who wins and what not. To me, and this is a personal opinion, it seems kind of shaming to the faith to thank God for kicking someone’s a**. I have never liked it - like I don’t like it when people thank God their team beat the other - like God cared they won.
“The gospel is for everyone, period. Gentiles and Jews, hookers and hoodlums, gang-bangers and holy rollers, preachers and pedophiles.” -Brad
absolutely! but the Gospel is nonviolent to it’s core. that’s not to outlaw good sportsmanship nor friendly competition, but to think that Christianity is anything but nonviolent misses the core of the Gospel.
I dont think God directly gets involved in any of this stuff we call life. I think the energy that is God, set up the format and lets us take it in any direction we choose. And because of the format we suffer the consequences from our decisions. We reap what we sow, or what goes around comes around. If you like the UFC then enjoy the fights but just remember it hurts when you get hit
SVS,
a.) Again, how do you reconcile John 2:15? Also, the NT cannot be read apart from the OT. Considering your love of Jewish theology, how can you now incorporate it? This is not to say that violence is GOOD, only that it is not straight-up BAD, nor is it that black and white.
b.) Why not? Why did God choose Paul of all people to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? The goal of this ministry (as far as i can tell) is not to make everyone a UFC fighter, or insinuate that it is necessary, but to familiarize interested people with the sport so that they can speak truth in such a way that is relevant to that culture.
c.) Who is combining the two? And in your community, why not seek to understand WHY violence is a problem and search for bridges in scripture to channel aggression in a healthy way instead of outright condemning it (EVEN IF it is a warranted condemnation)?
Luke,
Again, please tell me how you reconcile John 2:15 with that statement. I would agree that FORGIVENESS is the core of the Christian message, but the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive (i.e. I know many nonviolent people who do not forgive, and many forgiving people who participate in healthy violent activities).
John T.,
We are DEFINITELY working on different ideas of God… I believe in personal, omnipotent and omniscient God who is VERY concerned and involved in His creation… concerned enough to enter into it and powerful enough to reconcile it back to Himself. Without that foundation, there is a TON that we will disagree on, and a TON that I will say that won’t make sense within your paradigm. And that’s totally cool, just don’t be surprised when we don’t line up.
And yes, it does hurt when you get hit. But pain teaches us many lessons, and avoidance of pain makes love very difficult.
“Again, how do you reconcile John 2:15? Also, the NT cannot be read apart from the OT. Considering your love of Jewish theology, how can you now incorporate it? This is not to say that violence is GOOD, only that it is not straight-up BAD, nor is it that black and white.” (Brad)
John 2:15 occurs one time in the gospels – an isolated incident. I don’t think there is much to reconcile there - if it happens many times then I have to really look closer into this – as it is – it happened once in how many chapters in 4 gospels? That’s like under 1% of the totality of the gospels – and since it is an isolated incident – and not a teaching but an incident – I am not sure how you can build any foundation from something so minut?
As for the other side of this – well Matthew 26:52-53 should suffice to deal with John 2:15. If not, then I can go into more detail where non-violence is one of the main codes of ethic propagated by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and James. Not a single one of them would advocate violence in any sort of manner – even Luke in Acts has Christians dying by the sword (not fighting back)…Jesus’ example is one of being ‘led to the cross’…not resisting and punching people in the face on the way.
I don’t think I need to really get into examples here concerning the non-violence of the early community of faith – and from within the teachings.
Fact of the matter is – Christianity does not look and feel like Judaism and any appeal to their law/Torah is very skewed – namely in this argument on non-violence. Christianity is not concerned with a ‘nation’ – it has no ‘nation’. Jewish law functions like sharia law in Islam – in that the laws can govern a country…Christian scriptures are nothing like that in nature. So appealing to books on law – which relate to countries and empires – from a faith that does not do that is a skewed comparison.
“to familiarize interested people with the sport so that they can speak truth in such a way that is relevant to that culture” (Brad)
I have no problem with people watching and learning MMA – it is a regulated sport under the laws of many states – complete with referee’s. It is no different than football or hockey in the sense of violence (more players are injured in those sports than MMA – fact). If someone wants to become an MMA fighter – which is basically ‘hand to hand combat’ (unlike the sports previously mentioned) – they have to admit the basic challenge to their faith (even contradiction). If their conscience is good with it – then so be it.
“And in your community, why not seek to understand WHY violence is a problem and search for bridges in scripture to channel aggression in a healthy way instead of outright condemning it (EVEN IF it is a warranted condemnation)? “ (Brad)
Because scripture is of no use in the sense it cannot bridge someone from a violent past to violence being used healthily – except the acceptance of ‘non-violence’ as the basic moral standard they have to accept (which is very healthy). Where does scripture even imply or teach for me to approach someone with a violent past and how they can channel that anger for God? I cannot find that teaching.
Do you even understand people with violent pasts? These people are capable of murder – never mind channeling that aggression to something else – how’s about they deal with their anger problems and root causes for these emotions. This seems to be the path of the Christian faith in its teachings.
Again, this is a conscience issue with MMA. I know that I do not feel comfortable in my faith to hurt another person – as much as it is a sport and makes me feel more like a ‘man’ (whatever that means) – it is hurting another individual which goes against the core teaching of Jesus (love your neighbor as yourself or treat others how you want to be treated). I see the contradiction inherent there…and it doesn’t sit well with me.
Again, I watch the MMA stuff – is this hypocritical? Not really – watching something and doing it are 2 different things (in my personal opinion).
SVS,
You can’t read Matthew 23 in isolation. Yes, both Acts and early Christians refused to take up the sword and defend themselves. So, in regards to persecution for your faith, I wholeheartedly agree. However, you also have to discuss the centurion and his household in Acts 10, and the centurion in Matthew 27 and Luke 7. NOWHERE was their profession condemned or critiqued. Why?
Because there is a difference between aggression and violence. Violence can be the outward expression of inward aggression. Violence can also be expressed in professional service (as with the centurions) out of an INWARD sense of duty, honor, and love of country. Violence may also be expressed outwardly in sport and competition. Yes, some fighters do so out of misplaced aggression or anger/hatred. I would join you in critiquing that. But, as with most of our culture’s discussions of morality, we must go a level deeper. Jesus’ entire discourse at the Sermon on the Mount was to illustrate that our behavior (outward expression: violence) is moot and irrelevant if our heart is tainted (inward cause: anger/hatred). Torah is not an arbitrary set of rules, but a description of the result of a transformed heart.
“Christianity does not look and feel like Judaism and any appeal to their law/Torah is very skewed”
Based on your very specific stream/interpretation, yes. But Paul (among others) certainly would have disagreed.
“Where does scripture even imply or teach for me to approach someone with a violent past and how they can channel that anger for God? I cannot find that teaching.”
And you won’t! And I’m not saying that! But you are making a HUGE assumption in generalizing all violence as stemming from anger. See my point about aggression and violence above.
“Not really – watching something and doing it are 2 different things (in my personal opinion).”
I really hope you see the difficulty with this statement, as a simply comparison to ‘watching pornography’ instead of MMA would illustrate…
“NOWHERE was their profession condemned or critiqued. Why?” (Brad)
This is true – neither are tax collectors for that matter. I think it is because they were gentiles – they are not bound to the law of the Jewish nation. If so, then they would most certainly be asked to eschew their Roman leaders for Jewish ones. As it stands, they were not asked – because they were not adherents to Judaism.
The fact war is never addressed does leave it open to critique. It is not advocated by Jesus or any of the writers – and the majority of teachings lean towards non-violence (it would seem). The examples you provide actually show nothing towards advocating war and defense of country – unless Christians are into defending Rome for some reason by virtue of silence from Jesus on the subject. That I highly doubt.
“Based on your very specific stream/interpretation, yes. But Paul (among others) certainly would have disagreed.” (Brad)
How is it Paul and I are in disagreeance…he advocates for Gentiles to not be subject to Jewish law (to Peter, James, and John – Jerusalem Council)? Paul is the one that makes the break from Judaism for Christianity – and teaches it straight out. But when I claim an appeal to Jewish law is skewed I am the one with the interpretation problem? I don’t think so.
Paul knew, I am guessing here, that Gentiles are not bound to the Jewish law – they were not Jewish so it made no sense. They follow what Paul would call ‘faith’ – like Abraham. I am not sure Paul knew he was inventing a whole new religion when he did this – but this is what happened. He removed the law from Gentiles – and kept some ethical principles as guidelines for the new faith – which we also see in the gospel passages (all concerning ethics).
Paul only uses the Torah/Prophets for authority in what he is saying – so in that sense those scriptures are the actual word of God. Paul is writing letters here – to communities – and nowhere advocates any of the current positions concerning Torah/Prophets for the Gentiles. They are Gentiles – these are nation laws not truly concerned with them.
So yes, it is skewed to use Torah as some kind of reasoning for war from a Christian viewpoint – when we are not subject to those laws anyways.
“See my point about aggression and violence above” (Brad)
I do get it – don’t get me wrong – there is a difference between MMA and all other forms of aggression (they vary by degrees and intention). I just see how it could be in conflict with one’s faith.
“really hope you see the difficulty with this statement, as a simply comparison to ‘watching pornography’ instead of MMA would illustrate…” (Brad)
But we are not talking about pornography – we are talking about MMA in this instance. Maybe it is problematic in that I am supporting violence? But it’s also a known regulated sport – like football (which some could also call violent). I guess I don’t see the problem with watching the sport as much as I see with participating in it (and even then – I think this is a discretionary thing – if someone is comfortable with it then so be it).
The fact you make the comparison to porno is beyond me. There is no real way to justify porno – in my personal opinion – since it can lead to an addiction – and it watching other people have sex for the sake of ‘getting our rocks off’. MMA is nothing like that – it’s a sport.
I think the contention we will always face is the ‘just war’ idea. I don’t truly believe in the idea – but for a nation like America – it must exist. As a Christian I do not have to support that idea whatsoever – I am called to Christ – not America or Britain or wherever this ‘just war’ idea resonates from. Christianity is not a nation state and is in that sense not concerned with law-making.
i echo SVS and also like your take that there is a difference between violence and agression. i’ve been doing a lot of work with Paul recently and found that most of his vice lists speak out against exploitation and decadence.
here Paul is bringing the message of God’s forgiveness through the life of Christ nonviolently yet agressively. as in all things there is a balance and i think pointing to Jesus’ one violent act (well, there was the fig tree and the whole Legion bit as well) misreads the whole of the gospel. Paul constantly tells us that how the world views power is not how God reveals Godself. He talks of God using “what is despised, what is nothing, in order to destroy what is something,” (1 Cor. 1:28-29)
lets keep the source of our “power” clear and that’s why i reacted to the violent illustration. just like y’all posted in the politics post, keep the source clear!
Brad
“We are DEFINITELY working on different ideas of God”…
Lol…….of course we are, but you know what, Id still have a beer with you and I have a feeling you would with me also. And at the end of it all(in my view at least) we’ll be communicating in spirit form. All I hope is that there is still some Red Amber Ale
Thats the great thing about faith, thats all it is, how we choose to inform ourselves about what we believe is the only difference. Regardless of what differences we have, we still have to live by the format. So the pain I experience in my world is not much different than yours, neither is the Love.