Resources
 Articles
Frequently
Asked Questions
By Dr. Greg Linville
QUESTION
#2 – Can God’s sanctioning of violence throughout the OT (wrestling
with Jacob, David battling and killing Goliath, the Israelite army
killing 1,000s, etc.) be used to justify more violent sports such as
MMA, boxing, etc.?
Overview
This question makes an assumption that typifies one of the classic
mistakes made by beginning Biblical interpreters. It also
violates a foundational principle of logic. The error in Biblical
interpretation is made when a person offers a sweeping general
application based upon a very specific and limited command of
God. It is true, God commanded very specific and limited uses of
violence for His unique purposes. He issued a specific command to
institute Capital Punishment, but that directive is a specific command
which is designed to govern one specific aspect of human
interaction. God’s command to carefully but forcefully
incorporate Capital Punishment is not to be misinterpreted as license
to commit violent acts beyond the set of parameters outlined in
Scripture.
The logical fallacy of this inquiry is technically categorized as the
overall fallacy of Ambiguity with a specific sub-section of ambiguity
termed: Division. The fallacy of division makes a general
proposition false by stating the whole is to be considered the same as
a part. In this case, it is fallacious logic to state
because the Bible condones one specific act of violence it thus
condones every act of violence.
Furthermore, it is helpful to address the question about violence and
sport by evaluating it through overarching theological
principles. In particular, it should be evaluated through the
theological lenses of the “Template for Determining Biblically
Defensible Sport” and the “Honor Code for Participating in Biblically
Defensible Sport.” The question also needs further defined and
clarified.
a. Definitions
Violence can be defined as intentionally inflicting harm or death on a
person. Thus, a “sport” which mandates intentionally hurting an
opponent as its intended goal or is needed to accomplish its intended
goal, is by definition a violent activity.
b. Clarification
Again, violence can be defined as an act of force committed against a
person with the intent to harm, maim or kill. In contrast, the
overwhelming majority of the Christian Scriptures prohibit such
intentional violence. In general, verbal, mental and physical
acts of violence are all condemned.1
A few Biblical mandates however, do mandate intentional violent
acts. God mandates Capital Punishment in a few specific and
limited cases. Similarly, for His own purposes, God occasionally
commands His followers to wage war.2
It must be noted however, these Biblical mandates are very
narrowly prescribed for very specific situations and thus cannot be
applied to sport nor can they be used to justify intentional violence
within sport.
A proper interpretation of the Bible3
reveals overarching Biblical truths that are supported throughout the
Bible which are called a prioris. For example, honesty is a
Biblical a priori. However, there are a couple of very specific times
in which dishonesty is temporarily allowed. The specific mandate
of honesty is not done away, only superseded by another Biblical a
priori for a specific time and place. In the case of Rahab, she
was honored by God for protecting the lives of Joshua and the other
spies, even though she had to lie to protect them. This
principle of one law temporarily superseding another can best be
illustrated by Natural Revelation. The natural law of gravity is
always in effect. However, for short periods of time it is
superseded by the law of aerodynamics. Normally everything is pulled to
earth via gravity but airplanes via aerodynamics can temporarily “rise
above” the normal law of gravity. Any pilot, who enjoys the
temporariness of aerodynamics and seeks to make it permanent, denies
the law of gravity to his own (and to all others on the plane)
peril. A good pilot knows how and when to deny the law of gravity
but also knows to keep an eye on the “gas tank.”
 So,
a proper clarification of the theological question - can MMA and Prize
Fighting be Biblically justified on the basis of God-prescribed
military actions and/or Capital Punishment - becomes clear. The
overall Biblical a priori is to love and not intentionally hurt, maim,
wound or kill any other human being. The specific mandates of war
and Capital Punishment are limited to very prescripted times and
purposes. They are not overarching Biblical a prioris but rather
temporary, specifically proscribed mandates designed to rule specific
situations and times.
c. The Template of
Biblically Defensible Sport
The Template of Biblically Defensible Sport has been developed as an
aid and guide for all athletes and coaches who desire to be
Biblically-based and Christ-honoring in all their sporting
pursuits. In order for a specific sport to be Biblically
defensible, it must meet each level of the template.
Most sports that fail to meet the criteria do so at the very first
level: Redemptive Purpose. This is true for sports such as
Prize-fighting and MMA. One is hard pressed to claim MMA has a
redemptive purpose when the ultimate goal is to physically disable and
harm your opponent. At least Prize Fighting could muster one
possible redemptive purpose: earning a living through winning the
“prize” money awarded from being victorious in the arena. Even
this stretches credulity to the breaking point. Prostitution and
drug dealing could be justified by this same logic. So unless the
rules of engagement within Prize Fighting and MMA can be changed, they
do not get past the first step on the Biblically Based Template.
In addition, any sport which has the intentional harming of an opponent
as its goal and intended purpose fails to meet standards set in the
“Honor Code for Participating in Biblically Based Sport. To honor
the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” is a key component of this Honor Code;
so obviously, any sport which intentionally harms or maims a human body
is problematic and does not meet the “Honor Code” criteria.
 The
key word for this discussion is: intentionality. Intentional
violence is what differentiates Prize Fighting from Rugby, American
Football, Lacrosse or many other sports. Most sports have the potential
for unintentionally harming a human body. This raises the
possibility for Boxing or MMA to be adapted in ways which could meet
the standards of both the Template of Determining Biblical Based Sport
and the Honor Code for Participating in Biblically Based Sport.
For example, there is a clear difference between Olympic styled boxing
and Prize Fighting. The purpose of Olympic Boxing is not to
pummel an opponent into unconsciousness but rather to score points by
landing certain punches on an opponent’s torso. Notice how the
Olympic rules of not punching above the neck or below the waist are
designed to protect the human body (temple of the Holy Spirit).
Thus, Olympic Styled Boxing could be considered Biblically
Defensible. Could MMA’s goals be changed? Could its rules
be adapted to come into compliance with the Honor Code? If so,
then it too could be considered as legitimately meeting the criteria
for Biblically based Sport.
d. Summary
Ultimate Fighting Sports have been clearly defined as athletic contests
which intentionally inflict bodily harm to an opponent. It has
also been clarified that specifically prescribed violent activities
such as Capital Punishment and War have been mandated but limited by
God for specific purposes and cannot be used to justify wanton
violence. Specific mandates are not Biblical a prioris and
thus only apply to the specific time and situations they are referenced
to.
In addition, the Template and Honor Code for Determining and
Participating in Biblically Defensible Sports condemn any sport which
has intentionally harming an opponent as its ultimate goal and
purpose. Such sports must not be conducted or participated
in. These two sets of guidelines do however, suggest ways in
which such pursuits could be changed and adapted which would make them
Biblically-defensible and Christ-honoring.
1 The last
six of the Ten Commandments all mandate love towards others and
prohibits evil and violence to the person and his/her
possessions. The “Sermon on the Mount” is also full of
admonitions to love and not hate as are many of the New Testament
teachings of Christ, Paul, Peter and others.
2 I
realize there is some debate about both of these issues. A few
Christian Theological communities are total pacifists (any act of
violence or restraint is condemned). Some decry war only and
support Capital Punishment while others believe war is Biblical but not
Capital Punishment. These intramural debates have no bearing on
the discussion of sport and violence because anyone holding a total or
partial pacifistic view will agree with the thesis proposed here
because it claims any act of intentional violence within sport is
antithetical to Biblical theology.
3 The
official term for Biblical Interpretation is Hermeneutics. The
discipline of Biblical Hermeneutics has been developed and utilized by
the Christian Church over thousands of years. It is a trustworthy
guide to determining Christ-honoring, Biblically-based ethics.
For more on this consult Dr. Greg Linville’s “Christmanship – Theology
of Competition and Sport.”
|