All I know is St. Nicolas was somewhat of an “Ultimate Fighter” when according to church history he punched Arius out at Nicea!

If there are men who need their aggression channeled into something, let them channel it into defending the vulnerable, instead of beating the living daylights out of each other for fun.

I do think American Christianity has sentimentalized Jesus too much… the nice, sanitary Hallmark Jesus with positive self-help messages.
But, I agree… what Eldredge & especially Driscoll have done by re-imaging Jesus as the ‘fighting man’ is troubling. As if a man can only be respected by how he intimidates and uses force against others! It often comes across to me as a very immature, macho stereotype.
Money quote,
“Rather than trying to make His message more “macho”, those of us who follow Him should strive to redefine the very concept of “macho” in light of who He is and what He teaches.”
Well said… we need to help people connect with that!

How does “love your enemy” square with “beat the living crap out of another human being?” At any level – symbolically, physically, dare I say spiritually – I can’t see human violence as helpful. But to be consistent, we would probably have to include gloved boxing, and even rugby and American football. I like football, yet kids and adults are regularly hurt bad.

If Jesus was more “masculine” and more of a “fighter”, then should’t we also encourage women to be more “masculine” and to “fight” more? I mean aren’t all of us to strive to be more Christ-like?

this discussion over the last few years has been baffling to me..
i never conceived of Jesus as a wimp or a tough guy…
I just was taught that he was God, the Creator, the Savior and the One to whom we belong.
when you have a robust understanding of God and Omnipotence…you don’t need MMA Jesus or see Jesus as a weakling.
All this strum und drang rises out of a failure of theology…

Amen, Scot, i do a lot of martial arts. Couple of black belts and a bunch of brown belts later, I remain convinced that I’m going to leave Jesus out of it and do my own butt kicking.

This post reminded me of my soccer playing days when coach would send us out on to the field with the exhortation, “Now get out there and beat the crap out of ‘em! … but in a Christlike manner.”

I like the image of Jesus as liberator… it portrays a very different image. He is still a fighter but not in the martial arts sense.
I also think that some men are not the fist-fighting type. Are they not manly? I think that it is important that the church does not offer such a narrow definition of manilness.
I think we should help men become all of who they are in Christ, impacting the world for good.
I am not sure the martial arts… thing is it… It says in Romans… “do not let the world squeeze you into its mold… but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Michael (#8) — Ha! On my Christian college baseball team, our coach once go exasperated because we all were “too nice”!
This “masculine Jesus” stuff is just a bunch of American sub-cultural skubala, to use the Pauline term for it. Why do we have such a hard time dealing with complexity? You can’t domesticate Jesus.

I don’t feel the need to bring MMA or UFC into my speaking about the gospel. But I am an avid UFC fan.

Peter Rollins might suggest that we don’t take either extreme far enough!
I’m a little uncomfortable with the glorified violence and the joy received in tearing down another human. Having said that, MMA is entertaining – just makes me uncomfortable sometimes.
I would never use MMA as a promotional tool for Jesus but I am interested in using an MMA fighter to help me with a sermon some day. I would like to do an object lesson on submission and I think an MMA fighter could give us some good insight into what it means to submit.

As an MMA fighter and a Christian my take is this…its wrong to “make” Jesus into anything other than the culmination of everything wonderful about God the Father…
I think that the macho movement in Christianity was simply a reaction to the effects of feminism in the church. Men were asked to be what they were never intended to be (passive). It seems to me that a big swing to the other side (overly macho and aggressive) isn’t the answer either. How about we just strive to reflect Jesus in mercy, forgiveness and mission?
I use the martial arts not only to exercise and compete but also to gain entrance into a world that needs Christ…To try and Christianize MMA won’t change a thing but introducing fighters and fans to Christ will. And to try and “man-up” Christianity won’t accomplish anything other than a weak, watered down Christian.

I go to Pastor Brandon Beals Church and it is unfortunate that the quote that was highlighted in this is a direct mis-quote. I have never heard Pastor Brandon or anyone in leadership ever say or imply that Jesus needs to be “made appealing”. I am not aware how the business of journalism works but, shouldn’t that be considered fact checking? Praise Jesus and have a blessed day.

I appreciate the wisdom in the comments here, and I hope that someone at the NY Times will explain where that quote came from if it wasn’t accurate.
One of my concerns based on the article stems from the “attractional” nature of the events, rather than the church acting as a sending point into mission. While an MMA event may have some value in drawing people into the church, I’d like to ask if that’s the best way to “reach out” to a community. Can we line this up with a New Testament picture of ministry?
The last thing I want to do is to sound critical of this church or such ministries. I understand they’re trying to be creative and to reach out. However, I think there is a lot of room for a robust discussion about what it means to do missional ministry and whether we should invest more time and resources into going than attracting.

I’ll join with the chorus that says we need to look at Jesus and what he actually does and teaches and redraw our concept of manhood around that.
In that vein, we need to talk more about “turning the other cheek”, “loving our enemies”, “doing good to those who hurt you” etc. Too often, IMO, we fail to appreciate the difference b/n non-retaliation out of love vs. non-retaliation out of fear, and, relatedly we tend to grossly underestimate the transformative power of the former and the central importance of that dynamic in God’s redemptive plan (of turning enemies into cooperative friends).
Ironically, I’ve got some friends who are taking a Russian martial arts class from a Christian and the main benefit they’re getting from it (and a central part of the trianing) is learning how to lose their fear of physical attacks. By training their body to stay relaxed when hit, they actually sustain far lesser injury when hit. When they tense up before impact because of natural fear, the bruising, etc is much worse. I could definitely see some part of that training (and the actual physical interaction) as a real help for those who want to learn how to lose their fear of physical attack so as to be better able to respond out of love than fear. I could see it being a regular part of our church that is awash in inner-city youth who are routinely surrounded by threat of physical violence. I don’t think it’s enough to tell them “don’t fear those who can kill the body.” A class with some experiential training is likely in our future.

If you’ll forgive a mild profanity, the Gospels portray the Jesus who demonstrated His strength by accepting a monumental ass kicking — and then an imperial execution.
However, the MMA context does add a nice layer to Claiborne’s call (by way of J.H. Yoder) to “subversive submission.”
I don’t want to learn how to fight like Jesus. I want to learn how to tap out like Him.

The Eldridge/Driscoll stuff that expects male followers of Jesus to be wild and macho and aggressive also has the effect of making men who are of more reflective or meek temperament feel inadequate and out of place in churches, especially in men’s ministries.
The Evangelical church can be an unfriendly place for the sensitive soul, especially for a male.

Jesus was a fighter, but he fought ignorance and evil and he fought them through the power of his love. And he won! I do not think there can be a more “manly” man than Jesus:
a. He never compromised the truth
b. He suffered great pain willingly for a great cause
c. He was not afraid to go against convention in his talking and teaching women
d. In spite of the fact that he was tired at times of the unbelieving, mis-understanding disciples surrounding him, he encouraged, loved, and forgave them over and over.
I don’t think the image of Jesus needs to be reworked. We just need to read what is there to see that Jesus was powerful and manly. And yet, his power was in his gentleness and thus he had a big attraction for the women who also followed him and supported his mission even with their finances.

Scot and all,
I think there must be a serious consideration of what it means to be “weak” in the eyes of the culture, but “strong” in God’s eyes. The weakness Jesus and Paul embraced was to be perceived as a wimp in the violent Roman culture … yet their strength was in the power of God’s love to overcome.
I’m with you, T #16! We need to learn to relax into the reality of the Father’s love for us (that love that casts out fear) — so we won’t feel the need to defend ourselves when we love others … and the “punches” of the world won’t hurt us.

Does the Church’s historical stance towards the gladitorial games factor in at all here?

This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the real Jesus.

Jesus’ power is in who he is. It’s not just part of his character but all of his character. The Jesus of the west (and especially America) is blond-haired, blue-eyed, Gentile, Republican, meek, mild and whatever pasteurized version you want to throw out there.
What we all seem to overlook somewhat willingly is Jesus is and was a male Israeli Jew. He talked with his hands. He was direct and to the point even if it bothered his hearers. But he was and is the best male Israeli Jew who ever lived and will live. He is the most polite, bravest, kindest, most loving, most joyful, you can go on. He doesn’t need to be masculinized or feminized (I am pretty sure doesn’t appreciate this too much). He wants us to love him and quit making him in our image.

Thanks for posting my article, Scot! And thanks to everyone who commented. Great points and great discussion!
Whatever our feelings, there is a growing Christian subculture within MMA and a number of top MMA athletes are vocal about their faith (though often their language and behavior tarnishes their witness, i.e. Diego Sanchez’ drunken awards speech and Matt Lindland’s profanity-laced cornering of Chael Sonnen at this past UFC).

I understand what these churches are trying. I have some close friends who are pastors at a church that is planning to host an MMA fight to reach the men in the community. I understand that move. However, the hang-up I’m having has to do with the fact that we are all created in the image of God. How does one person violently beat another person made in the image of God, period, and especially if it is just for sport. I repeat that I do understand the need to meet folks where they are and engage them. I just believe we could come up with a more creative way to take the message to men.

This is closely akin to Christians against public health care. It’s all about MY personal salvation, not anyone else’s. If I can beat the crap out of my neighbor or deny him health care, why I’m acting just like Jesus. Uh huh.
And how about that father who waterboarded his kindergartner? Perhaps the apostles would not have acted so poorly if occasionally Jesus had tortured them a bit to reinforce his lessons.
The angry, vengeful, killing God of the OT is much more American in orientation than the wimpy Jesus. Jesus is just so European.

Considering the question – What do you think of “manly” and “fighting” images for Jesus? Since Jesus was (1) a man and (2) is portrayed in the NT as fighting for the Kingdom of God, I would find no problem with such a portrayal in principle. Of course specific applications can go awry, and his method of fighting for the cause wasn’t exactly kick-boxing. But he certainly wasn’t the milk-toast sort.
I have a bigger problem with some of the language in these discussions though, from the likes of Driscoll and Eldredge among others. Not for looking to and preaching a strong Jesus (which is biblical), but for finding it necessary to do so in the language of gender stereotypes with weak and wishy-washy being “feminine” while strong and courageous are “masculine.”
Certainly we can preach the truth and spread the gospel without insulting more than half of the population. (I say more because it insults all women and any men who fit in any other than the “preferred” boxes.)

There’s an aspect I like about this. So much of Christian art made Jesus into a slight, delicate figure. I think this is a docetic impulse, and that’s something that is very present in contemporary churches even if it is rhetorically denied.
Jesus was not violent. Jesus was not, even in his own time, macho. There were a lot of macho ways of expressing even a conservative Jewish perspective. But, he wasn’t a zealot. He offered a non-violent alternative.
However, this was not out of weakness. I think that’s the big point. He showed his strength during his clearing of the Temple courts. But, more than this, there was a strong sense he both knew who he was, and so had a strong character and will. There was also, it seems, that he knew there was an army he could call up to fight the battles.
But he didn’t. He was not macho. But he was not weak either.
This is Philippians 2. He did not need to prove anything. He didn’t need to take up the powers that were available to him. In fact, he let them go, so that he could walk among the weak and speak with them. He let go his ability to conquer so that he could lose the apparent conflict, but in losing he showed a strength that went beyond a single fight, or a single argument, or a single struggle. By letting go, by losing, he won even over death. He was passive, but it was not a passivity driven by fear or weakness. It was driven by a greater hope in something more thorough and defining.
He offers that same definition of identity to us as we participate with him, join with him. But, that may mean letting go our other definitions of identity or sources of domination.
That’s still not a weakness. That is confidence in absolute strength and victory.
I think the macho Jesus’s, however they appear, try to down-define his identity, in trying to prop him up in contemporary terms they lose the radical identity he was knowingly projecting.

Not that it really matters to anyone but me, but message #19 was me, JoanieD. Sorry for messing that up again!

If I may extend RJS’ (#27) and Patrick Oden’s (#28) comments just a bit, Jesus went to war, took on head on, evil, death, suffering, injustice, deception, oppression and hell. And he conquered. He was the most courageous fighter who ever lived.
The issue is how did he do this? In his death and resurrection, in which he calls us to participate. I think this perspective incorporates everyone – macho, non-macho, male, female, etc.
Identifying Jesus with MMA (and the like) is a misguided response to the neglect of this aspect of Jesus as “ultimate fighter” through his pouring out his life as a sacrifice. “Greater love has no man than this…”
Here I think Tremper Longman’s “Divine Warrior” perspective is helpful.
Also, consider this passage: “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their leader. About four hundred men were with him.”
This sounds similar to gospe passages concerning Jesus. It’s 1 Samuel 22:2, concerning David. In applying it to David, we can now imagine those around him as “fighters” and “warriors.” In Jesus – David’s greater son – we have the fulfillment of all that David could have hoped for and was promised extended well beyond anything either he or his men could have asked or imagined.

Comment #30 was yours truly.

An observation from my limited knowledge of church history?the early church was criticised for being a religion of widows and women.
Along came Constantine who poured the weight of the Roman Empire into the church and suddenly Christianity was a powerhouse, one that attracted plenty of men.
Fast forward to 2010, the church in the USA is losing power and status, and a whole lot of men are exiting. Unconnected? Maybe, but perhaps a significant issue is in fact the (unnamed) attraction to power bases.

To some of these judgmental comments, let me say this as a lifetime martial artist. If you’ve never trained at the high level and competed to make yourself better (and ultimately that’s what these comps are about), you are not qualified to judge the sport or comment on its commitment and training. And to your point, Jennifer, there’re more than a few cases where these fighters HAVE defended the innocent and foiled robberies with their expertise. Without their high level of training, nothing would’ve prevented the victims from suffering serious injuries or death. MMA is one of the most demanding sports physically and psychologically. How often do we see ex-pro players get into it only to gas badly (ex-NFL, MLB you name it)? These are highly trained athletes. To John, don’t question the sport unless you know the sport at an “up close and personal” level (not at the “gosh, i watched a pay per view commercial and got sickened by the blood” level). Although many of the competitors talk a big game, when push comes to shove, most i met are really super nice guys away from pre-fight commercial hype. So, please leave the “I’m better than they are” Christianese comments to yourself. I tell you why i train.
Three simple reasons: to keep fit, to make push myself a little further everyday athletically and spiritually, and to protect my loved ones.
Now to Scot’s point, i agree that it may be pushing it too far to bring a Christomorphic image into the faith, but i honestly see nothing wrong with a great guy like Matt Hughes giving glory for Jesus when he wins, no more than an NFL receiver take a knee in the end zone after the touch down.

To some of these judgmental comments, let me say this as a lifetime martial artist. If you’ve never trained at the high level and competed to make yourself better (and ultimately that’s what these comps are about), you are not qualified to judge the sport or comment on its commitment and training. And to your point, Jennifer, there’re more than a few cases where these fighters HAVE defended the innocent and foiled robberies with their expertise. Without their high level of training, nothing would’ve prevented the victims from suffering serious injuries or death. MMA is one of the most demanding sports physically and psychologically. How often do we see ex-pro players get into it only to gas badly (ex-NFL, MLB you name it)? These are highly trained athletes. To John, don’t question the sport unless you know the sport at an “up close and personal” level (not at the “gosh, i watched a pay per view commercial and got sickened by the blood” level). Although many of the competitors talk a big game, when push comes to shove, most i met are really super nice guys away from pre-fight commercial hype. So, please leave the “I’m better than they are” Christianese comments to yourself. I tell you why i train. Three simple reasons: to keep fit, to make push myself a little further everyday athletically and spiritually, and to protect my loved ones. Now to Scot’s point, i agree that it may be pushing it too far to bring a Christomorphic image into the faith, but i honestly see nothing wrong with a great guy like Matt Hughes giving glory for Jesus when he wins, no more than an NFL receiver take a knee in the end zone after the touch down.

sorry, I forgot to enter my name. I did the above post.

It’s a shame how certain ministries of the Catholic Church resort to ‘brand image marketing’ Jesus in a certain light in hope of attracting more followers.
I don’t blame them for this. There intention seems good, to help others find Jesus so they can learn from his teaching.
To me thought, it’s just indicative of how spiritually ignorant so many people still are…that the church has to seek out followers rather than people seeking out the church.