Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church based in Seattle, WA. He's an author of several books as well. He's been at the receiving end of a lot of press over the last several years. There is a lot I admire about Driscoll as a pastor but we have a lot of theological disagreements. This week he released an essay on MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) entitled A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts. You can find it here.
I was excited to read this article because I had a good inkling that I'd disagree with Driscoll on the position he brought forward and I was eager to see how he presented it and I was hoping it would challenge me. Like Driscoll is now, I used to be an avid MMA fan. I watched every UFC bout possibly and even kept up with Pride and several other brands (even the Japanese based ones). I knew the ins and outs of the sport. I loved the original concept of the UFC. I loved the TV shows it created and I've enjoyed meeting some fighters through the years (Mr. Pulver being a real treat since he introduced me to Vibrum shoes). I lay this on the table because it'd be easy for readers who are familiar with my articles to think of me as a completely anti-MMA Christian when that isn't the case. It's true that I've stopped watching MMA (UFC100 was my last event) but I'm far more reasonable than Driscoll would assume. With that said, I was severely disappointed in Driscoll's essay. I expected a theological evaluation of the sport. I thought he was going to present opposing theological and scriptural arguments against watching or participating in MMA but he left me with little. It is because Driscoll's presentation was so disappointing that I've chosen to evaluate his essay here and not because I disagree with him. However, I will address his presentation as well as his stance.
The essay begins with a short preface and then a section on how MMA originated and morphed into what we now see today. That's good. We have to know what we're talking about. The next section is entitled The Redemption of MMA. Driscoll states, "My belief is that MMA can be redeemed as a sport for a Christian." This is why I wanted to read the essay: the thesis (at least it certainly seems to be a thesis). He goes on to state that there are two types of Christians who oppose MMA. He writes, "Some Christians will vocally declare that we must reject MMA. Sometimes it’s because they simply do not understand the nature of the sport and misperceive it, and other times it’s becausethey are pacifists theologically who don’t condone violence in any form" [emphasis mine]. Driscoll sees two camps that stand against Christians supporting MMA. The ignorant (in the kindest sense of the word) and the nonviolent or "pacifist." He first directs his attention to the nonviolent pacifists.
Not spending much time on this camp of MMA rejectors Driscoll says of the nonviolent Christians, "Their picture of Jesus is basically a guy in a dress with fabulous long hair, drinking decaf and in touch with his feelings, who would never hurt anyone." This is his main critique of the group. He attacks what he believes is the common pacifist view of Jesus Christ. Either that or he is being snarky and not really interested in acknowledging the notion that violence is wrong or that this camp of Christians have anything to bring to the discussion. Without volunteering, the pacifists are now in the octagon with Pastor Driscoll and he's keeping it a stand up game, swinging for the fences like Chris Leben. To correct what he believes is the pacifist view of Christ he argues Jesus' hair was most likely short (fabulous or not), his body physically impressive due to his hard labor job and traveling, and that when he returns it will not be in humility but in glory. So far none of this has to do with the nonviolent position against MMA. In fact, no argument has been presented on the pacifist behalf other than that Jesus drank decaf coffee and is in touch with his feelings.* However, he continues on the notion of Jesus returning not in humility but in glory by quoting Revelation 19:11-18 (which mentions neither humility nor glory). To summarize the message of the Revelation passage Driscoll writes, "Simply, on his first trip to the earth Jesus took a beating to atone for sin; on his next trip he will hand them out to unrepentant sinners instead." All of this is reminiscent of the time in 2007 when he said in Relevant Magazine "...I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."
It's true that this portion of Revelation paints a pretty violent looking picture of the coming judgment and Christ's return. It's true that Christ said he would return in glory. That can't and shouldn't be argued against. What can be argued against is Driscoll's approach to the passage. Does he see this as a passage to be interpretted literally? Is a sword protruding from the mouth of Jesus, who came to serve, truly going to slay all sinners? Did Jesus come and die on the cross for all people so that they might be saved so that he could later come back and violently lay waste to those who did not repent? I'm not exactly sure what Driscoll's approach to this passage looks like. I'm not sure how his reformed theology forces him to read it but regardless of how he approaches the passage he concludes that Jesus is the type of person/God who kills the unrepentant. It's not mere imagery for Driscoll. It's literal character analysis and perhaps literal foretelling. For Driscoll, Jesus is coming back like Terminator, to seek and destroy.
Something that has to be kept in mind when approaching the book of Revelation is that it was written by the apostle John. This is the same man who was Jesus' "beloved" disciple, who wrote one of the four gospels (an evangelical favorite it seems), and who also wrote 1, 2, and 3 John. Whatever picture of Jesus is drawn in those books precedes Revelation and is a basis for how to understand Revelation. Also, John is writing about a vision (much like prophets of the Old Testament). Also, Jesus doesn't do a lot of killing in the passage. Birds do a lot of eating of human flesh, and the Beast teams up with the nations of the world to fight Jesus and his army only to be captured and thrown into the fire. The remaining rebels are killed by the sword coming from Jesus' mouth. But is this really to be read a foretelling of Jesus' righteous killing rampage? Most note-worthy commentators suggest that this isn't literal. Jesus isn't slaying the unrepentant in the way men slay men. The sword coming from Jesus' mouth is truth, the Word of God (for companion scriptures about judgment, swords, and the word of God see Hebrews 4:12-13 and Ephesians 17). It'd be more accurate to say Jesus speaks the truth and people's slaying is more rightly their condemning which they brought upon themselves (Titus 3:11). After all, God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him (John 3:17). While Driscoll believes that "Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed" (source) John has previously told us that Jesus came and bled for us (John 6:53-59). It's almost as if Driscoll see's a violent imagery of Jesus' second coming and thinks "Well if it looks like he kicks some ass in the judgement then it must be okay for us to kick some neighbor's ass for money and entertainment" and that's a perspective I can't support. Though, I would hope his approach isn't so simplistic and foolish. He's smarter than that.
For a while this is all Driscoll says on the issue of the pacifist rejection of MMA. He states that pacifists reject violence in all forms but he doesn't give a single word to that stance other than Jesus appears to be violent in a few verses of Revelation. He doesn't present or engage any reasoning pacifist Christians may have for rejecting MMA or what scriptures or biblical themes they would base their conclusions on. If the crux of the pacifist rejection of MMA is that they renounce violence in all forms then he ought to unpack that and his stance against it. He doesn't. Worse, he states that MMA can be redeemed and doesn't explain how. If this is significant for any camp of Christians isn't it the pacifists he's brushing away? Aren't these some of the people he should be most concerned for in talking about how MMA can be a redeemed sport for Christians? Yet he doesn't enter into that argument. Driscoll does a disservice to his pacifist siblings by brushing them off in such a snarky fashion and by not reasoning with them as to why they should be convinced of his thesis. He doesn't show any concern for properly presenting the pacifist position, perhaps because he doesn't truly know it, and proves he doesn't care much about honest discussion/debate, and perhaps even the pacifists themselves. Nothing in Driscoll's presentation makes me think he values his pacifist siblings as anything beyond a punching bag.
From here Driscoll moves forward into arguments about MMA and nonChristian philosophies that coincide with the various martial art forms used in MMA. He gives some great advice on rejecting any practices that are directly or clearly connected to idolatrous practices of beliefs. I agree with Driscoll that there are forms of strength training, martial arts, and stretching that are near identical to what we see in the lives of most MMA competitors and that these practices are perfectly acceptable for Christians should they be untainted by idolatrous influences.
As one could predict, Driscoll does what many reformed theologians would when there is a moral dilemma and points to the individual conscience as the answer for determining what is best (no offense intended to my reformed siblings). He writes, "Not everyone should participate in MMA, watch it, or even enjoy it. The Bible doesn’t command us to, and God’s people are free to operate according to conscience on this matter... As Christians, the question is, where is the line to be drawn and why? I would argue the line should be drawn wherever one’s conscience permits." Different strokes for different folks in other words. When it comes to MMA it's all about your own conviction and not about a biblical standard of how we entertain ourselves, physically interact with our neighbors or how we engage the culture surrounding us. I'm not saying it's a sin to participate in or enjoy watching MMA. Please don't receive that message. I'm simply saying that Driscoll's answer is too lazy. To lean on the argument that it's up to the individual is to dismiss the scriptural problems that MMA rejectors in the church would point to. The problem with Driscoll's leaning on the conscience is that there is no explanation of how one does this according to scripture. How do we know when we can and can't trust our conscience? How do we guard our conscience from being swayed by cultural seductions? Again, this is where it would have been helpful to give a proper examination of the pacifist rejection for Driscoll. It seems Driscoll would dismiss anyone claiming MMA is wrong to watch or participate in by saying they are trying "to bind everyone with your conscience" and that the Bible forbids that. He goes on to make a wise statement, "All of God’s people are to obey all of God’s Word, and beyond that we are to operate according to conscience."** However, it doesn't seem like he is interested in how his opponents read scripture. He chalks it up to their conscience. He's not hearing the other side out. Listening to one's conscience is great advice but outside of safety and participating in idolatrous practices Driscoll doesn't point out any other ethical issues one's conscience must wrestle with.
To support his position that it is a matter of conscience whether or not one engages MMA, Driscoll spends 8 paragraphs discussing fighters who claim to be Christians, pray, read scripture on TV, and have tattoos of scripture passages. However, this doesn't prove anything other than the fact that some fighters claim to be Christians. Politicians and tyrannical dictators do a lot of the same things. Even demons can acknowledge Jesus Christ in the public square with impressive theology. So what? A stripper can say she's a Christian and read scripture while swinging on a pole but does that mean her stripping is a matter of conscience or that it's appropriate for Christians? Of course not. It's nice that Tim Tebow (NFL quarterback) is vocal about his faith in Jesus Christ but that doesn't mean football is a good activity for Christians (I'm not saying it isn't either). I'm not attacking MMA with this challenge but simply trying to say I have a hard time understanding Driscoll's logic here. He spends a significant amount of time talking more about UFC fighters being professed Christians and MMA affiliated companies being Christian based than addressing the issue of violence for the sake of entertainment and profit. That's problematic for what is meant to be a Christian evaluation of mixed martial arts. When it comes to the moral and scriptural issues concerned with this issue Driscoll seems to throw a few one liners out on table about pacifists having a poor view of Christ and it all being a matter of conscience but when it comes to talking about the fighters, safety requirements, history of the sport, and other non-christian-specific issues he writes with indulgence. It's hard to tell if Driscoll wants to give a Christian evaluation of MMA or a Christian's promotion of MMA.
The next section in the essay deals with the safety of the combat sport and how it's injury statistics are far less in number than high school cheerleading and football. Driscoll believes this is a reason many Christians oppose the sport. Safety is a bigger issue for Christians than the morality of violence for pay and entertainment according to the time Driscoll devotes to the issue (and the difference in weight class between the two is clear as day). Driscoll gives a good 10 paragraphs to this issue and in so doing shows his priorities for the arguments against his favor for Christians involving themselves with MMA. What's strange is that a sport being safe is not a uniquely Christian issue, and if it is then Driscoll certainly didn't give us reason to believe it is by proposing any substantial arguments or scriptural backings. How this section received the amount of attention it did in a Christian evaluation is a mystery to me.
This brings us near the end of the essay. At this point Mark Driscoll appeals to a scriptural argument that he feels people use to say that Christians shouldn't engage MMA. He writes, "Jesus said both to turn the other cheek and to bring a sword to defend oneself. So let’s not simply quote one thing he said as if it were the only thing he said." The irony of this statement is that Driscoll is pleading for a full look at the message of Christ and encouraging his opponents to consider context but to make his point he uses two scriptures that are not opposed to one another and uses one of them out of context. It requires a poor reading of the gospels to believe Jesus commanded his disciples to bring swords for the purpose of defending themselves when the text clearly shows that is not the purpose. The rebuke following the use of said swords for defense should make that abundantly clear. Even if he was doing such a thing that doesn't make violence for the sake of entertainment of profit a permissible engagement for Christians. MMA bouts are not self defense and Driscoll knows this fact as he illustrates later in the essay (we'll get to it). If we're going to quote Jesus let's actually quote Jesus. He did say "turn... the other cheek" but he never said "bring a sword to defend..." Even if Driscoll's Jesus comes to slay sinners in the eschaton he never gives permission for his followers to perform similar action (otherwise Peter might have gotten his zealot way a little more than the New Testament witness shows). He does however deliver a number of teachings (as do his disciples) on suffering, self-sacrifice, picking up one's own cross, serving, being last, accepting persecution, being wronged, and similar seemingly weak ways of living in the world. I say weak because that's how the world views those sorts of activities. Nietzsche reasons this view in The Antichrist. With some of his published quotes I worry that Driscoll would sometimes agree with Nietzsche on the issue. He comes dangerously close to making it seem so with the persona he has created. That's not good and I don't want that for him or those connected to him.
Next Driscoll states, "Furthermore, quoting Bible verses against assault or persecution is not appropriate in regards to MMA, because such verses do not refer to a regulated sporting competition governed by rules where two athletes of similar size and skill agree to a competition. It would be akin to telling a Christian hockey player they could never check anyone into the boards, or a soldier at war or police officer in a crisis to turn the other cheek. Good verse, wrong application." He's right that Jesus' sermon on the mount morality is not aimed at sporting events or athletes specifically. However, it's dangerous to say that Jesus' words for how to live on this earth as his people, the salt and light of the world, don't apply to all realms of life. Recreation, employment, family, etc.; these all fall under the reign of God and we must be the same faithful disciples to Christ's teachings in every role we play be it a doctor, hockey player, father, governor, or small group leader. Jesus doesn't preach to turn the other cheek unless one's job says they must do otherwise. The gospel isn't an exception gospel. Jesus also doesn't say that one only turns the other cheek in a specific instance. It's a life principle. This is why Jesus demonstrates the principle with three scenarios. It's about communicating love and power like Christ did on the cross. This "way" enters all spheres of life. Do we also say we shouldn't give to those in need if we're a cop, soldier, hockey player, or UFC fighter? While Driscoll is right that we have to differentiate between being attacked against our will and fighting for entertainment and money that doesn't mean we can ever dismiss Jesus' teachings as irrelevant. Either you live the life Christ called you to or you don't. Either you're walking the narrow path or the wide. You're loving your neighbor or you're not. You're embracing the way of God or you aren't.
This should be a simple motif for such a bold and extreme pastor to embrace. After all, he goes to the extreme by saying "If MMA were a sin, we would need to bring up for church discipline every wrestler, American- and Australian-rules football player, rugby player, and hockey player, along with everyone who is involved in combat sports. And if we were going to also discipline those who were endangering their bodies for athletic competition, we would need to include the cheerleaders as well. While we’re at it, we should also rebuke God for wrestling all night with Jacob, and tell Paul to stop using wrestling metaphors to teach us spiritual principles throughout the Bible because he’s setting a bad example." Come on Mark, nobody is saying this about God wrestling Jacob or Paul using metaphors. I'm not even sure most MMA rejectors would call it sin. They might call it foolishness, and that's worth engaging, especially for a man so concerned with conscience. It'd be far better for Driscoll to approach this with a reasonableness that demands he doesn't make arguments like the one above. He was on a good track in trying to make a distinction between the violence of sports and the violence of assault but he left it an empty topic. By showing that there is a difference between violent sports and other forms of violence Driscoll also shoots himself in the foot because once he does this he also must admit the great difference between cheerleading's aim and MMA's aim. Comparing the two in this last quote is unfair and he ought to see that by his own reasoning. A Christian evaluation must simultaneously be a reasonable and honest evaluation. In this previous quote Driscoll strays from both. Bringing up an issue isn't arguing an issue. Driscoll proves he can state what some of the issues might be for this type of discussion but he doesn't seem willing, or perhaps able, to actually engage those issues.
The final 1/3 of the essay is dedicated to explaining more about the sport of MMA. In his earlier quoted interview with Relevant magazine Pastor Driscoll mentions his worry that the Christians who see Jesus as having fabulous long hair are being consumed by the culture and yet historical record shows that the early church seems to have been almost uniformly nonviolent, refusing to be entertained by violence, and Driscoll mentions that MMA is taking this culture and the world by storm. Why is it that the pacifist types, who are staying in line with several loud early church leaders, are the ones being said to be swayed by the culture when Driscoll is the one slanting them for essentially being wusses for not liking a combat sport that he loves and is becoming the most popular sport in the world? How does he handle this conundrum? Does he need to? I think he at least needs to protect himself from this sort of questioning by giving a fair treatment to the people who have actual arguments against his own instead of catering to the easily handled disputes, especially the ones that aren't uniquely Christian such as safety issues. The fact that MMA in it's mainstream form is recreational violence against neighbor for the sake of income and entertainment hardly enters the discussion except for a few moments in which Driscoll ridicules pacifists he doesn't seem to understand. I'm disappointed that in reading A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts I hardly saw a Christian evaluation. Driscoll missed what I believe is the biggest Christian concern with MMA in this essay and it's a shame because he had the potential to produce an amazing essay. If I misunderstood his intent then that's on me but I certainly think Pastor Driscoll severely missed the mark in this project.
The questions I still have for Driscoll are: What is the good? What is the benefit for the Christian to participate in MMA or be entertained by it? How does it edify? Must it be edifying in order for Christians to engage in it? Does MMA posses more potential to edify or bring down a believer or community of believers? How do we reconcile the fact that mainstream MMA is recreational violence for the sake of entertainment and income? Is that appropriate for Christians? Does being an MMA fighter send a mixed message about one's commitment to enemy love and Paul's words, 'Love does no harm to a neighbor'? How does the early church witness play a role in all this? How do you read Revelation? And finally, who on earth will ever dethrone Anderson Silva?
*For the record, as a nonviolent Christian I don't want a Saviour who is out of touch with his feelings. Nobody should. That's an unhealthy and out of tune person. Jesus isn't unhealthy or out of tune. He knows this creation and he knows himself. He has to be in touch with his feelings. We know Christ is a compassionate person who doesn't mask, avoid, repress, or have ignorance of his feelings because the gospels repeatedly show him crying for others, being sensitive to children, even sweating blood over difficult situations. Not only that but he speaks boldly, is angered, and overthrows tables in righteousness. This is a man not acting out of unjustifiable or unexplainable rage but a man who understands and is in touch with his inner workings, his feelings. Driscoll can have a disconnected saviour all he wants but he won't have Jesus. Also for the record, I believe Mark is a true believer and my brother in Christ Jesus.
**Perhaps it is a bit postmodern of me to say this but I believe we must look to the Church body for wisdom on how to live righteously before we look to our own conscience. The two ought to work together but there needs be authority in our lives and being a member of Christ's body means submitting to the rest of the body. It'd be individualistic to think we all have to obey the Bible but if the scriptures don't touch on a specific issue then I'm free to make up my own mind on how to live concerning that issue without first consulting the rest of the Church body. To be clear though, I'm not at all convinced Driscoll is attempting to convey that the conscience is to be held above the community. I think he'd very much disagree with that. I do worry that when we focus too much on the individual's conscience we tend to become so individualistic that we disregard the wisdom of the saints around (and before) us.
