Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:25:02 -0800 From: eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: Eskrima digest, Vol 10 #10 - 5 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.13.cisto1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13.cisto1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Subscribed-Address: fma@martialartsresource.com List-Id: Eskrima-FMA discussion forum, the premier FMA forum on the Internet. List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: Send Eskrima mailing list submissions to eskrima@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Eskrima digest..." <<---- The Sudlud-Inayan/Eskrima/Kali/Arnis/FMA mailing list ---->> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2003: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Filipino Martial Arts. Provided in memory of Mangisursuro Michael G. Inay (1944-2000). http://SudludEskrima.com http://InayanEskrima.com/index.cfm See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of the Eskrima/FMA list at http://MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Today's Topics: 1. RE: Craig's Gotch ? (Stovall, Craig) 2. Christianity (Jon Maudal) 3. Re: FMA and Christianity (or Religious Ethics) (Buz Grover) 4. Re: Christianity & Turning the Other Cheek (Terry Tippie) 5. MA and christians (Ray Terry) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Stovall, Craig" To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:44:35 -0600 Subject: [Eskrima] RE: Craig's Gotch ? Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Dr. Fung, Thanks for the reply. Have you directly trained under Gotch, or with one of his students? If so, that's a great thing because from what I understand there's not many in the States that have seen a lot of his material other than through it's integration into Sayama's Shooto. Great info! Craig Stovall --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:16:46 -0800 (PST) From: Jon Maudal To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: [Eskrima] Christianity Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Did Peter (the rock) try to kill Jesus's arresting officer with his sword? I imagine that the man arresting Jesus was saved by his helmet... Or maybe Peter missed, and got soldier's ear... We all know Jesus reatached his ear. Jon __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 16:25:38 -0500 From: "Buz Grover" To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: [Eskrima] Re: FMA and Christianity (or Religious Ethics) Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Lee asks: > I was wondering how an evangelical Christian can > reconcile his training in the Filipino martial arts > (considering the knife and edged weapons training and > the counteroffensive focus of training) with Christian > values such as "turning the other cheek" and meekness. Though this response is somewhat tangental, I've had several left of center sweetness and light types give me grief about my martial studies over the years. My response is that martial studies allow me to choose peace, while those without martial competencies have few options other than to embrace what peace an opponent allows. As moral postures go, proclaiming your peaceful nature when you have few tools to be anything but peaceful doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment: there are lots of peaceful bunnies hopping about the planet. I respect folks with training who choose restraint a lot more than those who have no choice but to preach peace. Regards, Buz Grover --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:45:11 -0800 To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net From: Terry Tippie Subject: [Eskrima] Re: Christianity & Turning the Other Cheek Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net 'Turning the other cheek', if I remember my theological history correctly, has some social overtones that were specific to the day. These are sometimes lost in contemporary discussions. When a roman slapped a slave or a person of low status, which the early Christians generally were, they used the back of their right hand. If the slave then turned their head such that the other cheek is facing the agressor, presumably a Roman, it places the agressor in the position of making a choice: 1) Hitting the person again with a forehand strike. This is something a Roman did to equals, not inferiors. Thus, it would have made the Roman uncomfortable position of dealing with a slave as an equal, something Jesus would have liked. 2) Not hitting the person again. Also a desirable outcome if you're a slave. What I cannot remember is why they didn't use their left hand. I think this was another cultural issue as well, but I can't remember. Christianity has justified a lot of actions over its history, and the particular issue of the tension between pacifism and non-pacifism has been dealt with in some detail by early theologians. Aquinas has some interesting stuff to say on stuff such as 'just wars', etc. Obviously, by the time they got to the Crusades they had bolstered the non-pacifist argument. Terry --__--__-- Message: 5 From: Ray Terry To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net (Eskrima) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:37:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Eskrima] MA and christians Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Forwarded message: Martial Arts and the Christian Faith By Bob Orlando 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 many 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. Bob Orlando ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list Eskrima@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima http://eskrima-fma.net Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2003: Ray Terry, www.MartialArtsResource.com, www.Sudlud.com Standard disclaimers apply. Remember 9-11! End of Eskrima Digest