|
As a Christian martial artist, I am often asked two questions
regarding my martial arts study and my faith. From
non-believers
(those who do not follow "Biblical Christianity") I
am asked how I
reconcile the apparent conflict between martial arts training
and
Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek. From my
Christian
friends I am asked how I handle the religious, philosophical,
mystical, and metaphysical aspects of the art. The first
question
reveals the general misunderstanding of Christ's teachings so
common among non-believers. The second reveals a similar
lack of understanding on the Christian's part.
Although the "turning the other cheek" question is
raised most often by my non-Christian friends, it just as
misunderstood by my Christian brothers and sisters.
Since Christians have the most difficulty with these issues I
will address them from the Christian perspective using
frequent biblical references and examples. We will
begin with, what was for me, the tougher of the two questions.
To turn or not to turn. A brochure from a martial arts
publishing firm well described what
most of the world believes about Christian participation in
the martial arts. It said:
"Kung-fu teaches that turning the
other cheek to those
whose ways of life are set in strength and
violence is
wrong. Such a passive attitude
encourages lawlessness
and injustice."
The suggestion is that those who believe in "turning the
other cheek" believe in voluntarily accepting violence
and injustice. Further, such a position is considered
wrong and contrary to the
philosophy of kung-fu. Since the idea of "turning
the other cheek" is from the Bible, are we to
believe that there is a conflict between Christian
teaching and the study of martial arts? Is the
Christian attitude toward physical violence to be a passive
one? The essential question is whether there is ever
justification for inflicting injury, or even death, on another
human being. That is the primary issue because other
issues like pacifism, the morality of war, capital punishment
and the like, are actually derivatives or corollaries of that
primary issue.(1)
The idea of turning the other cheek, if not one of the more
difficult sayings of Jesus to understand, is certainly one of
the more difficult ones to observe -- providing it is to be
taken
without qualification. From the gospel of Matthew,
Chapter 5, verses 38 and 39 we read:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An
eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do
not resist one
who is evil. But if anyone strikes
you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also."
There are two ways one can interpret the command to turn the
other cheek. One may interpret the text literally
asserting that it means exactly what it says. That would
impose a duty of
nonresistance on all men in all circumstances. One
cannot, however, require the literal acceptance of verse 38
without also requiring the same of the other verses in that
chapter -- like
verses 29 and 30. Verse 29 reads, "if your right
eye causes you to sin, pluck it out," and verse 30
adds, "if your right hand causes you sin, cut it
off." Taking these verses literally, without
qualification, would quickly lead to institutionalized
confinement! No. This literal, unqualified
interpretation seems untenable.
The other way to interpret the text is to say that it means
exactly what it says, but with an understood reservation in
favor of those obviously exceptional cases that every hearer
would naturally assume to be exceptions without being told.
For example, when I
tell my children to be good, they understand that I do not
have to tell them all of what that includes -- i.e., don't
burn down the house, don't put the neighbor's car in the lake,
etc. -- those
things are understood. This is a normal interpretation.
C.S. Lewis, a popular Christian theologian, put it like this:
"Does anyone suppose that our Lord's
hearers understood
him to mean that if a homicidal maniac,
attempting to
murder a third party, tried to knock me out
of the way, I
must stand aside and let him get his
victim? I think it
impossible that they could have so
understood him.
I believe the meaning of the words was
perfectly clear --
insofar as you are simply an angry man who
has been hurt,
mortify your anger and do not strike back.
If however,
your motives are other than egoistic
retaliation, then
not only are you free to protect yourself
and others,
rather it is your responsibility to do
so."
Can we find any scripture or biblical examples that confirm
this? Yes. Look at Jesus' life. Jesus lived
what he preached. He never returned evil for evil; he
never retaliated (although he possessed the wherewithal to do
so),(2) but did he always "turn the other
cheek?" In at least one case, he did not.
The 18th chapter of John's gospel records Jesus' arrest and
trial before both the Jewish and Roman courts. In verse
22 of that chapter Jesus is struck with the palm of the hand
by one of the
officers of the Jewish religious court for answering the high
priest in what the officer thought was a disrespectful manner.
In verse 23 Jesus responded,
"If I have spoken wrongly, bear
witness of the wrong; but
if rightly, why do you strike Me?"
The officer could have struck him anywhere, but a slap across
the face is a common response to disrespectful speech.
Assuming that Jesus was slapped across the face; we find
no evidence of his voluntarily offering his other cheek for
more. On the contrary, he asks why he deserved such
unjust treatment.
In the book of Acts, Chapter 16, we find that the apostle Paul
took a similar stand. After being beaten and cast into
prison unjustly, the Philippian magistrates decided that they
would release Paul and his companions and forget the matter.
To this Paul responded in verse 37,
"They have beaten us publicly,
uncondemned, men who are
Roman citizens, and have thrown us into
prison; and do
they now cast us out secretly? No!
Let them come
themselves and take us out."
Clearly, Paul accepted no such injustice. This refutes
the literal interpretation and supports the normal
interpretation. The actions of Jesus and his apostle
Paul indicate that there are times when
the believer can and should resist evil and not offer the
other cheek.
The scriptures contain still other examples that support
this. Paul, writing in the first epistle to Timothy,
Chapter five, verse 8 charges me, as a husband and father,
with the following
responsibility:
"If any one does not provide for his
relatives, and
especially for his own family, he has
disowned the faith
and is worse than an unbeliever."
Provision means more than just food, shelter, and clothing.
It also includes safety, security and protection from harm?
Jesus, when telling his followers that they should always be
ready for his
return illustrated his point by saying that his return would
be as a "thief in the night"; that is, unexpected.
In Matthew 24, verse 43, he added,
"But know this, that if the
householder had known in what
part of the night the thief was coming, he
would have
watched and not have let his house to be
broken into."
While this verse refers to believers being ever ready for the
Lord's return, it also clearly demonstrates the idea that a
man was rightfully expected to defend his home and family from
harm.
There is one more, lesser known, verse we should look at.
In the moments before Christ's arrest in the garden he said to
his followers,
"When I sent you out with no purse or
bag or sandals, did
you lack anything? They said,
'Nothing.' He said to
them, But now, let him who has a purse take
it, and
likewise a bag. And let him who has
no sword sell his
mantle and buy one. (Luke
22:35-36)"
Moments later, as Jesus is arrested; Peter uses his sword to
defend his master. In John's gospel, Chapter 18, verses
10 and 11 it is recorded,
"Then Simon Peter, having a sword,
drew it and struck the
high priest's slave and cut off his
right ear. The
slave's name was Malchus. Jesus
said unto Peter, 'Put up
your sword in its sheath; shall I not
drink the cup which
the Father has given me?'"
Do these two accounts conflict? No. In the first
account the Lord was telling his disciples that the time was
coming when they would no longer receive hospitality and must
labor to provide for
themselves including self-protection (the need for the
sword). This does not conflict with John's account
because there Jesus does not tell Peter to get rid of his
sword, but to put it in its
sheath. The sword was, and still is, necessary.
There, in the garden, however, it was counter to Christ's
purpose.
On the basis of Christ's teachings, is there really a conflict
between Christian teaching and the study of martial arts?
No. Is the Christian attitude toward physical violence
to be a passive
one? Again, the answer is no.
Religious Influences
Discussions about "turning the other cheek" focus on
the question of Christian participation in martial arts in
general. What about participation in Oriental martial
arts?
Questions about how we handle the philosophical and religious
aspects of the art usually center on certain practices in
various traditional martial arts schools. However,
before addressing
specific questions, some background and history are necessary.
We need to know what philosophical or religious aspects are
inherent in Oriental martial arts; why they are taught; and,
are they necessary for training?
Today, a number of people devote their lives to martial arts
study primarily for reasons of self-development. Through
their practice of the martial arts, they seek to attain some
glimpse of the "Wisdom of the East" as set forth in
the various philosophies of Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen.
One writer put it this way.
"Karate-do means the way of Karate.
It is a journey which
begins with the physical and ends with the
spirit. The
goal is to develop the spirit. How?
Through physical
karate training."(3)
This parallels the path of hatha-yoga with its
self-purification through physical application.
The incorporation of the contemplative, meditative, or
philosophical aspects into the martial arts may have evolved
as teachers began to see a need for morality in the art.
As
practitioners became increasingly capable of destruction, some
form of control -- some personal means of tempering physical
conduct and actions became necessary. Hence, moral codes
like the Japanese code of bushido evolved.
For some, then, the martial arts offer a way that they hope
will lead them to discover the wisdom needed to understand
both themselves and the often unintelligible world in which
they live.
What they seek is a philosophy of life; a code to live by; a
discipline, in an otherwise undisciplined world.
For the Christian, using martial arts study for the purposes
of spiritual self-development fails for two reasons. First,
from a practical standpoint, there are a variety of other
avenues
available to the individual wishing to study Eastern culture,
thought, or philosophy to formulate a life credo (and without
having to break a sweat doing it, either). Second, and
more
important, Oriental martial arts philosophy is deeply entwined
in Eastern mysticism and religion. As such, it is
incompatible with Christian beliefs. However the
philosophical and religious aspects
of the martial arts are not necessary for developing the
physical skills the martial arts student is seeking.
Target shooting is, for many, an enjoyable pastime, but it is
not without its dangers. Awareness and care are
necessary to prevent injury. The same is true of
everything we do, be it driving a car, cooking, using power
tools, even watching television. Martial arts
are no different. Christians must be aware of the
inherent dangers in the study of Eastern martial arts; but
that awareness does not necessarily mean abstinence from the
martial arts training.
The Christian martial artist must remove the religious
overtones that are frequently taught as part of Eastern
martial arts. In its place he should concentrate on
skills that enhance mental
concentration, improve sensitivity to differing degrees of
threat, and increase awareness of the interaction between
attitude and performance. This is learning the fine art
of strategic thinking.
Meditation
Specifically, the question I am most often asked concerns the
practice of meditation. What does the Christian do when
asked to meditate? First, this form of meditation should
not cause the
believer to back away from Biblical meditation.
Meditation itself is not the thing to avoid. Throughout
history, Christian symbols and quotations from the Bible have
been manipulated and abused by any including the occult, hate
groups; even the news media. Should we abstain from
displaying a cross because some hate group uses a burning
cross to legitimize its actions? Should we avoid those
verses from the Bible that have been misinterpreted, twisted,
and perverted by those who would use them to serve their own
purposes? No! Dr. Walter Martin, founder of
Christian Research Institute, probably said it best:
"The believer should not surrender the
tools of light to
anyone simply because others have abused
them and
perverted their meaning."(4)
When told to use class time to meditate, the Christian can
meditate. Not necessarily on what the instructor tells
you to meditate on (if he tells you anything). Not with
the aim of
emptying your mind (as in Zen mushin) or looking within for
some mystic power (like centering in Transcendental
Meditation), but purposefully and productively busying it --
focusing it outward and upward to the Creator God.
Scripture abounds with passages admonishing the believer to
meditate on the Lord, meditate on his law, meditate on his
promises, and meditate on his Word.
If you are not feeling particularly spiritual during karate
class, then meditate on the techniques you are learning.
Because of its use by New Age groups, visualization has been
given an undeserved
bad reputation. However, using imagination to train
physical skills does not violate Biblical principles. So
use meditation time to rehearse what you were learning;
mentally practice; see
yourself having a great workout. Again, use meditation
to focus your mind and attention in a positive and productive
way.
Bowing
Another question I was asked referred to the practice of
bowing. In many schools, everyone bows before entering
or leaving the training area. This is done as a sign of
respect for a place of
learning. In most schools, the students and instructors
bow to each other. In some schools, there is even bowing
before the American flag (and sometimes, before the flag of
the country from
which the art or instructor came as well). Finally,
there are some schools where it is customary to bow before a
school shrine or altar. What are we to make of these?
Historically, bowing has been used to demonstrate an attitude
of respect, reverence, and submission. Culturally,
Orientals in the presence of kings and princes often prostrate
themselves on the ground. Such customs were also
prevalent among the Hebrews.
However, bowing is just as frequently noticed in Scripture as
an act of religious homage. No mention is made of
posture, so we have no clear instructions as to whether bowing
with one's face to the ground (a common Eastern practice) is
any worse or more significant
than simply bowing from the waist? This issue is not
addressed because it is unimportant. It is not the
posture that counts, but the purpose.
Bowing, as an act of religious homage is well addressed in the
Bible and there is no doubt that bowing before any idol, any
spiritual leader or guide, or representative of a false god,
is
prohibited. Joshua, in his last words to the elders of
Israel said,
"Do not associate with these nations
that remain among
you; do not invoke the names of their gods
or swear by
them. You must not serve them or bow
down to them:"
(Joshua 23:7)
This theme is repeated throughout scripture, so it is clear
that bowing as an act of religious or spiritual homage is
prohibited.
So serious is this matter that the godly man finds, even
innocent association with such an act painful to his
conscience. For example, Naaman is cleansed of his
leprosy by God through His
prophet Elisha. A highly regarded general of the king of
Syria, Naaman says afterward that he will never again make
burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god save the Lord.
However, he still had one problem. His master, the king
of Syria, still worshipped his own god. The Syrian king
was old and often took Naaman with him to lean on his arm when
he went to worship. Naaman's words to Elisha reflect his
predicament.
"But may the LORD forgive your servant
for this one thing:
When my master enters the temple of Rimmon
to bow down
and he is leaning on my arm and I bow also
-- when I bow
down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD
forgive your
servant for this. "Go in
peace," Elisha said." (2 Kings 5:18-19)
Again, Naaman, was not worshipping this Syrian deity; his
master was. He was not bowing down before Rimmon.
He was only providing physical support for his master.
However, Naaman found even this association was uncomfortable.
What seems clear from all of this is that the act of bowing is
not the problem. Rather, it is the purpose of such an
act. Biblically, bowing before lawful authority and
spiritual leaders
(like the kings and prophets) was an accepted practice.
For that reason alone I think one would be hard pressed to
convince an Englishman he should not bow before his
monarch.
As for bowing before a school altar or shrine -- If such an
act is an act of obeisance or homage to some spiritual leader
or guide, then its practice is for the Christian, prohibited,
and you must
excuse yourself from participation. If that is not
possible (the bowing is required), then you should seek
instruction elsewhere. There are many good schools where
a Christian can train without
having to involve himself in those kinds of practice.
Suppose that bowing before the school shrine is simply a
cultural tradition; a sign of respect for a place of learning,
or just recognition of the efforts of past teachers,
without any religious
or spiritual significance: Is that all right?
Every believer must answer that question for himself.
The apostle Paul in I Corinthians, Chapter 10, verse 23 makes
it clear that "all things are lawful," but at the
same time he says, all things
are not "expedient." There may be cultural
standards to consider. For example, drinking alcoholic
beverages of any kind by Christians in our culture is
generally frowned upon. However, our brothers in Germany
would not consider ordering a soft drink or iced tea with
their meals. The Christian, then, must balance biblical
truth with social standards, asking himself: Is it
lawful? Is it expedient? If, in clear conscience
before God, you can answer both of those
questions affirmatively, then go ahead and participate.
In our school the only bowing we do is a type of mutual salute
to begin and end our classes. It is neither a bow of
submission, obeisance, nor homage. Rather, it is like an
officer returning the
salute of an enlisted man. With the words:
"Attention" and "Salute," the teacher
shows his respect for the students -- they honor him by
choosing to study and train with him. The students, in
return, show their respect for the teacher as a worthy
instructor and fellow student. It is, quite simply,
mutual respect.
Finally, those who would tell us to separate ourselves
completely from the study of Oriental martial arts because of
the general religious influences inherent there would do well
to look at
Christmas. Christmas is not held on Christ's birthday,
but on the birthday of the sun. (December 25th was the
first day after the winter solstice that the ancients could
tell the days were getting
longer.) The Christmas tree, the boughs of holly, the
Christmas wreath, and the Yule log are all pagan traditions
(and these are only a few). Should not our response to
the Christmas celebration
be a likewise abstention? No. As with everything
we do in life, awareness and understanding are the keys.
Conclusion
The study and practice of martial arts, including Oriental
martial arts, offer the discerning believer an enjoyable
alternative to conventional, and often boring, exercise
programs. Further, they
are a practical means of providing security for family, self,
and home. Approached as outlined above, I find nothing
in them that conflict with biblical truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. While the scope of this paper is limited to
addressing the
question of how a Christian reconciles the
biblical principle
of "turning the other cheek,"
with participation in the martial arts,
the answers given here have direct bearing
on resolution of the
primary issue and, to some degree, the
other satellite issues as well.
2. The fact that Christ was capable of resisting evil is
important. A man of peace is not one
who is incapable of
resisting evil. Claiming to be a man
of peace when incapable
of resisting evil is merely compliance.
Accepting evil, on the
other hand, when one is fully capable of
resisting or returning
it is the true mark of a man of peace.
3. Black Belt magazine, "What you should know about
Karate-do," July 86, p.47
4. Moody Monthly, Dec. 86
Visit Bob Orlando's Site:
Je
du-too School of Martial Arts
|
Realistic
Self-Defense
Dynamic
Joint-Locks 