against the misuse of christian scriptures to justify the taking of life: a biblical response to the feinbergs concerning the death penalty

Romans 13 and Genesis 9 are the lynchpin verses to many pro-capital punishment arguments in American evangelical Christianity. Indeed, these are the key passages to John and Paul Feinberg’s case for the death penalty in their book, Ethics for a Brave New World.[1] These verses are important for their argument because they believe any Old Testament laws that are not ruled out in the New Testament are binding on Christians today—this is what they call a moderate discontinuity position.[2] It turns out they believe a lot of the OT has been ruled out, either implicitly or explicitly, by the NT. For example, they believe that the OT ceremonial laws, as well as the civil laws, are all nullified by the law of Christ and are no longer operative today (which gets them out of some difficult capital crimes such as adultery and dishonoring one’s parents).[3] They also argue that, because several of the other Genesis 9 commands—such as not eating raw meat—are not explicitly upheld in the NT, they are no longer operative today.[4]  However, and here is the lynchpin, they believe that Romans 13, part of the law of Christ, does demand capital punishment, thus pulling Genesis 9 out of the rubble of inoperative OT laws. Thus, it is essential for them to prove that the teachings of Jesus and Paul support capital punishment so that they can resurrect Genesis 9.

In what follows I will show that one should reject the interpretation of Genesis 9 as prescribing capital punishment because it is very likely that Jesus rejected it. However, even if one ceded that Genesis 9 should be read as prescriptive, I will show that Romans 13 still fails to reinforce the death penalty, thus unraveling the argument that the Feinbergs have set up in favor of capital punishment. But before all of this, it is necessary to give a brief sketch of first-century views within Judaism on capital punishment.

Historical Context: Appealing to Judaism does not help the Pro-Capital Punishment Position

Within Judaism, in the two centuries before and after Jesus, there was much discussion among the rabbis concerning capital punishment.[5] Most rabbis at the time were absolutely committed to the scriptures—calling it fundamentalism might be understating it. Thus, they took seriously the twenty-some commands to carry-out the death penalty in the Mosaic Law. ^[6] Yet, most of the rabbis in the Mishnah clearly set out to do one thing—make these commands impossible to execute.[7] The Mishnah summarizes the teaching of authoritative rabbis as teaching that execution of one man in seven years is “ruinous”.[8] It continues, "Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah says: Or one in even seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel says: [for the Sanhedrin to put someone to death] would have multiplied the shedders of blood in Israel.”[9] The Encyclopedia Judaica affirms that “the whole tendency of the rabbis was toward the complete abolition of the death penalty.”[10]

This is important because when the Feinbergs make the assumption that, because Jesus and Paul were Jews, they must have accepted capital punishment, they are overlooking essential historical context. Rather, given the relevant statements from Paul and Jesus that will be discussed below, it would seem that these Jews clearly continue the tradition of frowning upon capital punishment and seeking ways to make it obsolete. For Jesus, this was easy because he could authoritatively reject capital punishment. Paul, and the rest of the early church, simply had to follow his lead. 

Genesis 9: Jesus’ Authoritative Interpretation Matters Most

It is possible that Genesis 9 was read prescriptively by various rabbis throughout history. But it is better to read the OT through the lens of Jesus. If Jesus did not read it as prescriptive, then followers of Jesus ought not either. For the Feinbergs, if Genesis 9 is not interpreted as a prescriptive command, then they have no substance behind their interpretation of Romans 13.

As commentator Donald Hagner points out, Jesus alludes to Genesis 9 with the “chiastically formed proverbial saying” in Matthew 26:52, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”[11] Likewise, Claus Westermann, in his commentary on Genesis, makes this same connection to Jesus’ words—he views Jesus’ proverb as deriving from this saying in Genesis 9.[12] The Feinbergs reject the argument that this is a predictive proverb even though the Hebrew allows for this possibility.[13] While the Feinbergs find the context to suggest it is a command, they admit that other commentators believe the evidence is not sufficient to make it foundational in the case for capital punishment.[14] Regardless of how the Feinbergs, or any other commentator for that matter, read the Hebrew text, what seems to be more important is that Jesus’ use of this proverb gives a glimpse of how he would interpret this passage. That is, Jesus uses this chiastic proverb as a reason to reject the use of violence—telling his disciple to put his sword away. As the Feinbergs acknowledge, Jesus has the authority to reinterpret OT laws with the new Law of Christ (hence, the reason they can reject all the other uncomfortable instances of capital crimes). If there is a connection between the proverb Jesus quotes in Matthew 26 and the Genesis 9 passage, then it strongly suggests that Jesus interprets this passage as a prediction that taking life is a vicious cycle. He is then taking the OT passage and authoritatively reinterpreting it to better fulfill God’s will—something that is not wholly unknown for Jesus. Frankly, this would align more clearly with the other words spoken by Jesus. 

For example, Jesus takes the “eye for eye, life for life” teaching in Leviticus 24:17-22, which was itself a limitation on punishment, and limits it even further.[15] In Matthew 5, Jesus quotes this passage and instructs that one should not resist the evil doer. As Stassen puts it, “If ‘life for life’ is understood as a limiting of revenge by killing only the killer and not also the killer's family, then Jesus is here taking a further leap in the same direction, limiting it all the way down to zero. If ‘life for life’ is understood as justifying or requiring the death penalty, then Jesus directly opposes it.”[16] The Feinbergs reject this interpretation for two main reasons. First, they say that if Jesus wanted to rule out capital punishment, he would have done so when he addressed murder in vv. 21-22.[17] There are some obvious problems with this logic. For one, it is an argument from silence and it could be flipped to make just as strong of argument, perhaps stronger, against the Feinbergs. That is, according to this logic, one could just as easily argue that because Jesus did not explicitly uphold the death penalty in vv. 21-22, he is likely against it. While I reject his logic, I find this latter formulation much more compelling. After all, if Jesus did have upholding capital punishment in mind when he said this, then he has actually expanded the harshness of the law—now one ought to be put to death for being angry. It is unlikely that Jesus was undoing the “limitations” that Mosaic Law had put on the harsh ancient cultures, reinterpreting the laws to go further than “life for life” or “eye for an eye”. The Feinbergs, at this point, have not offered a serious objection to the interpretation of Matthew 5 as a rejection of capital punishment. 

The second reason the Feinbergs reject that Jesus is limiting the “life for life” principle is because it would logically lead to a break down in the social order. That is, they believe if the teaching to “turn the other cheek” or “love one’s enemies” were applied to criminal justice, the logical outcome would be to rule out all punishment for crimes. Instead, they argue this passage should only apply to Christians in their interpersonal relationships—the commands are not universal rules and should not be adopted into societal penal codes.[18] If one were to read this as the Feinbergs suggest, not only does one have to accept that there are moral imperatives that only apply to Christians, but they also must conclude that Christians should not seek justice in their interpersonal relationships. However, this is not necessary because the Feinbergs fail to understand the heart of what Jesus is teaching here. Jesus is not instructing that people simply let evil run over them, he is offering a powerful alternative to resisting evil that does not use evil itself.[19] Walter Wink gives an excellent, and now famous, account of Jesus’ teaching here: “Jesus is not telling us to submit to evil, but to refuse to oppose it on its own terms…. Jesus is not advocating nonviolence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in a way that holds open the possibility of the enemy’s becoming just also…. He articulates…a way evil can be opposed without it being mirrored…and the enemy being neutralized without being destroyed.”[20] As is clear later in Matthew 5 (v.45), Jesus’ logic is that God himself loves both the just and the unjust—he gives his gracious gift of life to both—and those who wish to be perfect must seek to imitate the Father. Under this reading, the Feinbergs have no need to worry about Jesus’ teachings causing the collapse of social order. Rather, Jesus is offering a better social order. The Kingdom that Jesus is announcing is one where evil and injustice are confronted with radical, transforming love. Turn the other cheek does not teach a society to passively watch evil happen; turn the other cheek instructs societies to confront evil with transforming, constructive, and creative efforts. It teaches a redemptive justice system that values even the lives of the unjust, not a destructive one that seeks to answer bloodshed with bloodshed. In the end, a justice system that heeds the words of Christ is far from a chaotic break down in order as the Feinbergs suggest; it is God’s Kingdom come, His will being done on earth as it is in heaven.[21]

After considering Jesus’ teachings, against the backdrop of the first-century Jewish traditions, there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus himself does not view Genesis 9 as a mandate for capital punishment. Rather, Jesus is seen as continuing the Jewish tradition of moving away from the death penalty, but going even further—as he does—and speaking authoritatively on these scriptures. He teaches that “life for life” is not the way God will restore His creation; he predicts that bloodshed will mean more bloodshed. Instead, it is God’s will to redeem and transform the broken people all around. Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God, which is the proper order of society, finds creative, loving ways to confront evil and restore those who violate justice because their life is as valuable as anybody else’s. 

Romans 13: A Pharisee of Pharisees Pursues Peace

            The Apostle Paul, in Romans 12:14-21, explicitly upholds these words of Jesus: ^“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…. Repay no one evil for evil…. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” These are the words that precede the Feinbergs’ lynchpin passage in Romans 13. Of course, they would reject the relevance of these words on the same terms as they did the Sermon on the Mount—that these are words for interpersonal relationships among Christians, not rules for an ordered society. Though there is not space to fully unpack it, there is a serious problem here with the way the Feinbergs conceive of what is normative for Christians and what is normative for society in general. While there is certainly a specific role for a secular government, it cannot be the case that once this social institution began to look more like the Kingdom of God, all hell would break loose. The way Jesus has ordered his people on earth is exactly how all of society should be ordered—and governments of all shapes and sizes will do well to model themselves after God’s Kingdom. However, it is not the goal here to answer this problem. Rather, it will suffice to show that the Apostle Paul had no intention of upholding the death penalty, or violence at all for that matter, in the Feinberg’s lynchpin passage, Romans 13:1-7.

            Again, historical context is essential in understanding the nature of this passage in Romans. At first glance, this passage seems to be out of place, so much so that some have even gone so far as to suggest that it was added by a later writer. While this suggestion is unacceptable to those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture, it certainly highlights the significance of offering a careful interpretation of this passage. One must be fully aware of the oddity of Paul upholding the authority of a government that has unjustly executed Jesus, which oppressed his people for generations and is already beginning to wreak havoc on the Church. Indeed, reading these words with the Emperor Nero in mind must certainly cause one to pause and ask if Paul has lost his mind for a moment. But there is harmony to Paul’s message—he is making a specific point that is consistent with verses that lead up to Romans 13.

Paul is in fact addressing a specific historical problem that the church at Rome is facing—Nero’s taxes.[22] Those living in the city had to pay two types of taxes—direct and indirect. Nero had promised to cancel all indirect taxes, but of course did not follow through with his promise. The Christians, who had already given their allegiance to the true King, were tempted to use their commitment to Jesus as an excuse to join the trouble-makers that were resisting paying taxes.[23] Stassen points out that an insurrection against taxes had already occurred and gotten many Christians kicked out of Rome.[24] They cannot represent the gospel if they are getting tossed out of the cities for unnecessary rebellions. In fact, Paul is trying to give his words in Romans 12 a specific application—do not repay these evil taxes with a rebellion, live at peace so as far as it is possible. This is further reinforced when one considers that the Greek word for “sword” in Romans 13:4 names the weapon carried by the police who accompanied tax collectors.[25] As Stassen puts it, “Paul was urging Christians to make peace, pay Nero's new tax, and not rebel. He was not arguing for capital punishment. He was arguing against violence.”[26]

            The Feinbergs, instead of making a coherent argument, insist that commentators “uniformly agree” that the sword, here mentioned, represents death and thus must support the death penalty.[27] In the research for this paper, it immediately became clear that the Feinberg’s claim to “uniform agreement” deceitfully overstates the case. And despite making this claim twice, they offer no footnotes with even a few commentators for the reader to follow up with. Undoubtedly, there are commentators who take the position that the Feinbergs espouse, but there are also several theologians and scholars who reject it. For example, the position argued above, that focuses the passage on tax collection, was upheld by over thirty members of the Society of Christian Ethics, twelve of which, such as John Howard Yoder, were presidents of the society.[28] Even more significantly, N.T. Wright not only rejects the biblical support of capital punishment, but he also points out that this was the view of the early Church: “Almost all the early Christian Fathers were opposed to the death penalty, even though it was of course standard practice across the ancient world. As far as they were concerned, their stance went along with the traditional ancient Jewish and Christian belief in life as a gift from God.”[29]

Thus, the Feinberg’s assumptions about Paul—that he was a Jew and therefore obviously applied Genesis 9 to his understanding of justice, and that his use of “sword” implied the death penalty—sounds shallow against the evidence. Instead, when a fair reading of Romans 13 is given, it in no way compels one to accept that Paul, a first-century Jew, intended to uphold the Roman practice of execution. Rather, he was trying to offer a radical, peaceful, and redemptive alternative to the Roman Empire—an alternative that Jesus called the Kingdom of God.

---

[1] John and Paul Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, 2^nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 254.

[2] Ibid., 44-45.

[3] Ibid., 257

[4] Ibid., 254. John Howard Yoder’s criticism that pro-capital punishment arguments use an inconsistent hermeneutic appears to be upheld at this point. The Feinbergs have clearly articulated their discontinuity position as one that requires an explicit or implicit negation of OT laws. However, in dealing with Genesis 9 they choose to argue that, since these other commands are not reinforced in the NT, they are no longer operative. This is precisely the opposite of the position they take on page 44. See John C. Nugent, ed., The End of Sacrifice: The Capital Punishment Writings of John Howard Yoder (Harrisonburg: Herald Press, 2011), 33.

[5] Lawrence Marshall and Scotty McLennan, Religious Perspectives on Capital Punishment, podcast audio, Religious Perspectives, Stanford, iTunes University, October 24, 2012.  

[6] Ibid.

[7] Glen Stassen, “Biblical Teaching on Capital Punishment,” Review and Expositor, 93 (1996): 486-487.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Herbert Danby, trans., The Mishnah (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 403; Makkoth, 1.10. As quoted in Stassen.

[10] “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopedia Judaica (2007), http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2587503929/capital-punishment.html (accessed February 23, 2013).

[11] Donald Hagner, “Matthew 14-28,” World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Columbia: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 789.

[12] Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 466-469. Glen Stassen uses the commentaries by Hagner and Westermann to make the argument that this passage is a predictive proverb. I am not interested in making that argument here directly. Rather, I am trying to show that the Feinbergs’ argument ignores the possibility that Jesus might have authoritatively reinterpreted this Genesis 9 passage. See David P. Gushee, Richard Land, and Glen Stassen, “How Biblical is it to Support the Death Penalty and be Pro-Life?” Christianity Today, February 2012, 43.  

[13] Feinberg, 258.

[14] Ibid., 253.

[15] Stassen, 488.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Feinberg, 254.

[18] Ibid., 255.

[19] See Romans 12:14-21.  This passage is almost certainly Paul’s reiteration of Jesus’ teaching.

[20] Walter Wink, The Powers that Be: Theology for a New Millennium (New York: Galilee Doubleday, 1998), 100-111.

[21] Space does not permit a response to the Feinbergs treatment of John 8. However, this passage also serves to illustrate the significance of transformative, not destructive, justice. The Feinbergs raise similar complaints about a break down in social order, but these are equally misled. Jesus is consistently offering a more merciful and redemptive version of justice than that of the OT. It is not permissive of evil, but seeks to confront it and transform it with love and a profound respect for the dignity of human life—even for the unjust, the evil, or one’s enemies.

[22] N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone, Romans: Part Two (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) 89.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Stassen, 491.

[25] Stassen, 491.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Feinberg, 259.

[28] Stassen, 493-494.

[29] N.T. Wright, “American Christians and the Death Penalty,” Washington Post, September 15, 2011, On Faith section, Online edition, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/american-christians-and-the-death-penalty/2011/09/15/gIQAb8yaUK_blog.html (accessed February 21, 2013). 

a christian defense of limited competition: part three

Superficial and Arbitrary versus Pure and Arbitrary Competition: Thoughts on Sports and Fanaticism

To my own surprise, I have come to believe that playing sports—and to a lesser degree, watching sports—can aid in Christian discipleship. However, to make sports a useful tool it must always be kept within the confines of superficial and arbitrary competition. Whenever games and sports are played or vicariously enjoyed for the primary purpose of finding a winner over a loser—pure and arbitrary competition—they forfeit the good that competitive activities have to offer discipleship.      

There are plenty of examples of how competitive activities have benefited followers of Jesus. First of all, it takes incredible discipline to accomplish some of the feats in sports. As a high school teacher, I had the opportunity to watch students work with unmatched resolve to accomplish the goals they had set for themselves or their teams. Usually, though not always, that discipline carried over into other areas of their lives.

Also, sports or games can teach us the art of building community—collaborative hard work aimed towards a common goal is incredibly effective to this end. Teams learning to work together, to appreciate the role of every individual, to compensate for the weaknesses of some and make room for the strengths of others, all of this is training in the kind of body that Jesus instructs us to be.

Finally, competitive activities can create a new avenue for us to acquire particular goods that would otherwise be very difficult to attain. For example, some may find it difficult to incorporate healthy physical activity into their lives, but find that playing racquetball with a friend is both easier to gain motivation and still allows time for fellowship. Thus, competitive games can generate a more interesting and structured way to accomplish a good.

There are many more examples, I am sure, but one thing must be kept in mind—when competition is ultimately about finding a single victor, these goods are polluted. Community, self-discipline, joy, health—these  goods, and others like them,  can be shared by all who participate and must always be the primary purpose for which one engages in games or sports. When these goods are eclipsed by the desire to win, that competitive activity has ceased to be an instrument for discipleship and becomes an indulgence in pride. When establishing a winner over a loser becomes the primary reason for sports or games, one discovers that fellowship becomes rivalry, virtuous discipline becomes vicious conceit, health is turned to injury, and love becomes a strange concept that has no context.            

Keeping competitive activities within the confines of superficial arbitrary competition and making sure everyone wins at the end of the day is incredibly difficult. There are very strong currents that move against this task. Cultural pressure says that winning must be the point, anything else is absurd. Personally we feel our pride resisting the humility of seeking the good of others first. But this is precisely why competitive activities like sports can be such a good tool for discipleship. These forces, in society and in ourselves, are exposed. They can be resisted and they can be overcome. Yet, we must not neglect the responsibility to resist them, for many have already justified their surrender to social norms and human nature.    

  

Can we say, “It is just a game” without our insides aching? We need to be rid of the desires that well up and resist that possibility. We must be able to set aside pride, selfish ambition, and conceit. We must let it be just a game, just a tool for the goods that we all can share. And it is hard to do this when playing a competitive game, but surprisingly, it seems our culture has made it even more difficult to say “it is just a game” when watching it.

Fanaticism versus Spectatorship

In this section I want to consider what it means to be both a follower of Jesus and one who enjoys sports vicariously through sports teams in which they do not directly participate. To be a fan, shortened from the word fanatic, is to have an uncritical, arbitrary enthusiasm or zeal for something. In our current context, I assume that thing to be a sports team. While location or some other arbitrary personal connection, like a childhood memory or alma mater, seems to be the most common reason for allegiance, there is generally no principled reason for one’s fanaticism. Thus, the most common expression of sports fanaticism is a vicarious form of pure and arbitrary competition. Again, I believe that pure and arbitrary competition is the least likely kind of competition to resemble the way of Jesus and, therefore, believe that there must be an alternative to sports fanaticism if Christians are going to continue to vicariously engage in sports. I believe the alternative is spectatorship, allowing sports to be superficial and arbitrary, allowing all who watch to be edified.

In defense of sports fanaticism—swearing allegiance to one team—one might say that fanaticism serves the purpose of fellowship, or unity building. That is, the purpose for choosing one team is to deepen the connection one has to fellow fanatics. While unity and fellowship are definitely goods to be desired, and fanaticism has historically proven to offer this, building unity by choosing an arbitrary opponent or enemy is the worst kind of unity. Creating fellowship by arbitrarily alienating others is certainly not the way of Jesus. Unfortunately, my experience verifies the dangers of this kind of behavior. It is much too often the case that friendships and marriages, brotherhood and communities, are strained because of an arbitrary allegiance to teams. I wish this were an overstatement.

Still another objection might be that fanaticism is fun, it is the most pleasurable way to vicariously engage in sports. Even if that were true, though I am certain it is not, fun and pleasure alone can never serve as a justification. If we allow the fact that something is simply more pleasurable to justify our behavior, we can justify any indulgent and despicable action. However, I believe the alternative to fanaticism, what I am calling spectatorship, will open up a deeper level of enjoyment in vicariously engaging in sports.  

One of the flaws of fanaticism is that it undermines the virtue of the game. By virtue of the game I mean the best possible expression of the rules, best use of strategy within those rules, and highest potential of the specific skills needed in the players (for example, the virtue of a knife is sharpness, durability, etc.;  the virtue of a baseball is roundness, proper density and size, etc.).  The most obvious reason for cheering during a game is when it is virtuous—when a player makes a skillful maneuver, when an effective strategy is employed, when rules are accurately enforced, and so on. Rather, fanatics prefer to demonize every action of the “opposing” team, refusing to acknowledge the virtue that has been displayed. Thus, one who truly loves the game, as opposed to a team, and is willing to cheer for virtue is even “worse” than the opposition, deserving of the most violent derision.  To be a team fanatic means one must swear an uncritical allegiance to a team, even when the team lacks all the virtues of the game, undermining the very thing that the players have trained to accomplish. (It should not surprise us then, given this kind of conditioning from childhood, that people find it so natural, and so necessary, to swear uncritical allegiance to a nation or a political party or a religious group, no matter how virtuous.)

I do not mean to say that one cannot follow a team, have a preferred winner, or feel a connection to a particular team or player. Rather, I want to make a case for a slightly more detached, more critical approach than fanaticism, what I have been calling spectatorship. To cheer for the virtuous elements of the game, to appreciate excellence no matter who displays it, to be critical of even one’s preferred team would create a unity in spectatorship that fanaticism could never offer. Kansas and Missouri fanatics should let go of their arbitrary allegiances and find unity in an appreciation of the game. This would completely disarm the vicarious pure and arbitrary competition that is dissonant with discipleship and turn it into something mutually beneficial to all who engage in it. Even though the preferred team lost, everyone still wins—a good and virtuous game was played and enjoyed.

Recently, a friend of mine invited me to watch a basketball game with him. This man was older and wiser than me, so I decided that, though I saw little value in the game, I might benefit from the time spent with him. It turns out I learned quite a bit. I was pleasantly surprised to see that, though he had a preference that one team win over the other, he was equally impressed by the skill of each and every player, regardless of the team. Many times throughout the game he reminded me of the hours of hard work that must be invested into the few seconds it took to execute a play. He spoke critically about the character of the players, appreciating the patience and concentration of some, but disappointed in the egotistical, rash, or hostile behavior of others. When the game had concluded, the team that he preferred lost, but he was not angry or sad, rather he expressed gratitude that he had the opportunity to see such skill and hard work portrayed on his television—he said it was a good game. I suppose true fanatics will cringe, but this is how I imagine a follower of Jesus would enjoy a sports game.     

This experience opened my mind to a possibility that I had unfairly ruled out early on in life—watching sports can be beneficial. I believe if fanaticism can be transformed into spectatorship, then watching sports is much like engaging good music, paintings, literature, or film. A friend of mine once told me that Michael Jordan was “poetry in motion”—I am not quite the romantic he is, but I think I am closer to understanding his statement. The skill and discipline of an athlete, the excellent strategy of a coach, the flawless unity of a team, can inspire a person in the same way great works of literature can inspire a person.     

Of course, we have kept this discussion somewhat romanticized, pretending that sports and spectatorship are always purely about the game, though we know that it is—or has become—something much less attractive. It is not always only a game, but often it is also a business, bringing with it a much deeper complexity of competition. To support a group of athletes is one thing, but to support the business practices of administrative sports millionaires requires a very different critical approach.     

a christian defense of limited competition: part two

A Working Definition

First, let us get clear about what is meant by competition and form a working definition for this essay: competition is the rivalry between two or more people or communities for an end that cannot be shared equally. By this definition, I mean to say that competition is a struggle for first place, for a victory over the opponent, for the higher grade, for the desired job, for a piece of land, and so on. Beyond this, we will find that competition can be either pure or superficial, and that it can be either arbitrary or principled. That is what I would like to sort out now.

Pure Competition and Superficial Competition

The first of our sorting to be made is between pure and superficial competition. Pure competition is a strict adherence to the definition above and, at the core, is a struggle for the sake of victory over an opponent. That is, the purpose of the struggle is to be distinguished as a winner over the loser.

In contrast, superficial competition is a struggle that is undertaken, not ultimately for victory, but for an end that can be equally shared. Playing Wii Tennis with a group of friends, either because one wants to increase hand-eye coordination or because one wants to have a good time, would be an example of a struggle aimed at an end that can be shared equally among all participants. I call this superficial because, in the end, everyone gets what they set out for--everyone is a winner--which seems to contradict the very definition of competition. It is only competition at the surface.

In short, superficial competition means winning the struggle or game is secondary to the primary goal of having fun or developing certain skills or so on. And conversely, pure competition means the primary goal is always victory, no matter the secondary benefits, and the loser is primarily a loser, no matter the secondary benefits.

To distinguish between the two one can simply ask whether the struggle would be stopped if a goal other than victory were not being accomplished. That is, would one turn off the Wii if people are no longer enjoying one another's company? If so, it is superficial because the primary goal is having fun not finding a winner. However, if one persists in Wii Tennis, despite the fact that one or all have ceased to enjoy the game, then it is pure because the primary goal is to find a winner.

Arbitrary Competition and Principled Competition

Now we turn to the distinction between arbitrary and principled competition. Arbitrary competition describes the situations where the opposing sides have no objective or principled reason why they should be engaged in a struggle or why one opponent should win over the other; there are only relative gains or personal interests. For example, it is arbitrary whether the Boys beat the Girls in a game of Catch Phrase. While there may be a desirable gain for the Boys, such as bragging rights or vindication, there is no objective reason to believe that the Boys should subdue the Girls. That is, the Boys are certainly invested in a victory, but the Girls are equally invested; deciding which one ought to win is completely relative to the interests of the individuals involved.

This may make more sense when contrasted with its opposite, principled competition. In this case, the struggle is undertaken on the basis of a principle and there is an objectively desirable victor; it is a matter of principle that one side win over the other. For example, we can imagine a scenario where a greedy landlord has manipulated the law, taking advantage of a family and driving them out of their home, all the while making significant financial gain in the process. It is an objective matter of justice that one engages in a struggle—in this case, a legal battle—to be victorious over the other. This does not mean that there are not relative gains and personal preferences involved. Indeed, the landlord, and likely his attorney as well, have an interest in being victorious, protecting the money he has acquired unjustly. Yet, I would argue that there is a principled, objective reason why the family should be victorious--it is a matter of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsity, good and evil.

One can judge between these two by asking the question, "Will the world truly be better off if one side is victorious over the other?" In the case of arbitrary competition, the answer would be no—at least, from an objective point of view. I do not want to get ahead of myself, but in the case of sports, one might feel as though the world will be better if their team wins, but one must finally admit that this is completely arbitrary. However, in the case of principled competition, the world does objectively benefit from one side winning over the other, as in the example of the landlord and the family. If the family wins in the legal struggle, the world has objectively become a more just place is better off because of it.

Of course, one could complicate this distinction by raising a question about the nature of objectivity. However, the purpose of this essay is to give a Christian defense of limited competition, and therefore I take for granted some basic Christian presuppositions. Namely, that there is objective truth and morality; that this morality is revealed through scripture; and that while there may be conflicting views on the interpretation of scripture, Christians are committed to each other in love, resulting in a humble community that seeks to find truth in and through their disagreements. All that is to say, while there may not be an easy way to parse out an agreeable distinction between principled and arbitrary competition, we can certainly agree that there is a right answer to the question.

To take our definition of competition yet one step further, we may combine these distinctions in order to more accurately describe just what kind of competition we are discussing. So, we may talk about a pure and principled competition such as a debate about legalizing incest. Or we can talk about a superficial and arbitrary competition such as a little league baseball game. Or finally, we may talk about pure and arbitrary competition such as most business in a capitalist economy. (As for a superficial and principled competition, there can be no such thing—or at least I cannot think of an example.) In the following parts I would like to consider these combined distinctions even further and then draw some conclusions about a Biblical perspective on competition.

a christian defense of limited competition: part one

To be completely honest, competition is one of the most difficult subjects for me to address without a bias. I have never stood up well in highly competitive situations, and thus, have grown to despise them. So there may be some underlying prejudices that I am not aware of that influence the conclusions that I make. But, to my credit in this endeavor, I have ended with a conclusion that I had not held when I started. That is, I have discovered some of those biases, thought through them critically, and then finding them unfounded, have chucked them out the window. This has allowed me to see competition in a new, and hopefully more accurate, light. I suppose I would like to challenge everyone to that same end. I am certain there are many biases on this subject--let us be rid of them and submit ourselves to the discipleship of Jesus.

My goal in writing this essay has become an effort to isolate a particular kind of competition that is consistent with the guiding principles of Christian morality laid out in the life of Jesus and revealed through scripture. After a lot of discussion and study, I have come to the conclusion that there is a form of competition that can be positive for discipleship, though I think the parameters are narrow.

The Guiding Principles

What are the relevant principles by which a Christian should judge whether competition is good for a person or society? That is the question that I would like to answer at the outset; I would like to adjust the focus on our critical eye so that we may clearly see the parts that are in harmony or conflict with the worldview given to us by Jesus through scripture.

First, I would like to consider humility. Humility is one of those traits in Jesus that the secular world has a difficult time understanding or respecting, and therefore, has been something that the Church has tried to excuse or even deny. Yet, the second chapter of Philippians gives a vivid, undeniable example of the kind of humility that Jesus models. The chapter opens with this admonition: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Whatever we conclude about competition, we should agree that forfeiting our humble concern for the well-being of others would be a violation of our discipleship.

Along the same lines of humility, James 3:13-18 tells us to put off selfish ambition, an important thing to evaluate in a discussion about competition, and instead take up a more Jesus-like wisdom: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such 'wisdom' does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.”

Again, not straying too far from what we have already laid out, Paul says in Colossians 3, “Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” These particular “articles of clothing” can be summed up in the principle that Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, calls meekness. We should certainly maintain a meek character, even in competition, if we want to follow Jesus and “inherit the earth”.

Of course, all of these things are bound up in the essential principle of love. Paul gives a description of this love, what he calls the most excellent way, in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

What is interesting, and incredibly challenging, about Jesus’ call to love is that he is radically liberal with it. That is to say, he offers it to everyone, and to a shockingly painful degree. He not only commands his followers to love each other, but also their enemies. He makes it clear what he means by this by allowing his enemies to execute him, and then prays for God to forgive them for it. This is the kind of radical love that Jesus expects of his followers, and it is the kind of love that we should not violate in our concept of competition.

Now our critical eye should be in focus with these guiding principles as we consider how competition might benefit the ongoing discipleship of a follower of Jesus. Once again, to prepare our minds, here is the list of the relevant principles we have found in scripture: meekness, compassion, kindness, gentleness, patience, mercy, submission, humility, righteousness, peace, being considerate of others’ well-being, impartiality, sincerity, and finally, love. Is there a form of competition that we can participate in without losing these virtues? And if so, is there a compelling reason to employ such competition? These are the questions I will seek to answer in the next three parts that will follow.

goodness... it is cold

I remember walking to class in the winter when I lived in Manhattan. I would bounce my eyes between the sidewalk and the poor souls around me, not wanting to fall on my ass but not wanting to miss them falling on their asses. So many winter afternoons were brightened in the Blue House with hilarious stories of the cartoon-like slips we had seen that day.

I also remember walking in the freezing weather when, usually in front Wefald's house, I would begin praying... Was winter your idea? It is so painful, so deadly. How did California get off the hook?

I would also begin to recognize the blessing that the bitter cold brought. As I regularly tell Sara, it is invigorating! Somehow, I remember those walks very fondly.

Suffering tends to have this pattern for me. I remember being a cabin leader at a summer camp and feeling totally spent the final weeks of the summer... the last weeks when I was constantly on the verge of tears because I hadn't really slept for two months. These are the weeks that I cherish the most.

I grew up in a home that wasn't always welcoming. I remember sitting in my friends living room after leaving an ugly fight at my house... my closest friends were sitting there with me, feeling my pain with me, and struggling to find some reason to laugh with me. This is one of my favorite memories.

I know I am saying nothing new... I guess I am reminding myslef that there can be goodness in...through...after... the cold and the pain. More than that, I am calling myself out. If so much of my life is a testimony of how suffering can bear such beautiful fruit, why do I sit in all of these warm places?

dancing is still unchristian

I do not dance. Most people who know me at least know that. Unfortunately, the little girls at Love in Action did not know this about me when I suggested that we celebrate one of our last evenings together. They innocently insisted that I join them on the roof-top where they intended to teach me some traditional Indian dancing. I explained that my body is not capable of such things... that someone might get hurt... that dancing is not Christian... that no human should ever be so undignified.

Thankfully, it was late enough at night that there was very little light shed on my complete loss of dignity. I could not turn down twenty orphan girls. It was humiliating, it was ugly, and it was dangerous for those who got too close. The girls were overtaken by laughter as they watched me hop and stumble and bow and twirl and kick and... hell... I don't know what I was doing. We all stopped to catch our breath after each song--the girls were laughing too hard, I was simply out of shape.

But ultimately, I believe this experience was one of the more beautiful of my many lovely experiences in India. The beauty was in forgetting myself; it was a rare moment when I was totally free from my pride.

That night we celebrated God: the One who saves us from evil, hunger, poverty, and ourselves.

the sights

a tea leaf

lots of tea leaves

breakfast on a banana leaf

villains at rest

wild elephant

divine elephant

chennai beach cart

gandhi in chennai

healthcare

after school snack

lost appetite

working from home

capitalism

simplicity

fashion

two-wheelers

a modern indian

an old indian

a long ride

a family ride


Meet the children from Love in Action:

making faces

creating a distraction

preparing for dinner

the smile

the story-teller

the baby

shyness

bubbles

the sass

the sweetest

Indian faces with dignity:

selling guavas

emotional pose one

emotional pose two

emotional pose three

emotional pose four