How Bruce Lee shaped my ministry (part 5)
Hello Dojo readers!
We’re continuing our series on how the philosophy and overall approach to the study of martial arts by the legendary martial artist and cultural icon Bruce Lee has impacted my approach to various biblical, theological and ministerial issues.
If you’re just tuning in, here are the previous links. Read them first, as today’s post builds upon what came before:
- For part 1 (intro) click HERE.
- For part 2 (authenticity) click HERE.
- For part 3 (getting to the root) click HERE.
- For part 4 (not being bound by tradition) click HERE.
As we discussed in the last post, Bruce was most famous (or infamous, if you were a traditional martial artist who felt your style was the best and most effective!) for popularizing the notion that much of what passed as “sacred” martial arts tradition was in fact useless.
Bruce used such rhetorically divisive terms as “fancy mess” and “organized despair” to describe much of what was being passed on from teacher to student in the traditional martial arts.
He argued vehemently that such patterns and stylistic traditions were actually counter-productive to any martial artist who was looking to acquire skill in actual live combat with an opponent who acted in unexpected and unanticipated ways. If a student was used to only doing an attack or defense in a certain prescribed manner, he or she would be unprepared when their adversary acted in a way that did not fit their conditioned response.
For instance, someone who was a master of intricate kung-fu forms and precision techniques–who became such by training only to fight other kung-fu practitioners–would find themselves in deep trouble if they faced a wrestler who wasn’t trying to punch or kick then, but instead was intent on shooting for a double-leg and putting them on their back on the ground. If the kung-fu master was to overcome the wrestler (in this case), he or she would have to train in and have a working knowledge of grappling as well.
[And 21 years after Bruce’s death, the American martial arts community as a whole would learn this lesson in the public eye with the introduction of the first UFC competitions–where traditional style martial artists were constantly outmatched by those who trained in grappling arts.]
So given Bruce’s insistence on the superfluousness of much within the traditional martial arts, it would be natural to assume that he placed no value in traditional styles and didn’t believe people should spend time learning any of them.
However, this not at all the case…
“Expression is not developed through the practice of form, yet form is a part of expression. The greater (expression) is not found in the lesser (expression) but the lesser is found within the greater. Having ‘no form,’ then, does not mean having no ‘form.’ Having ‘no form’ evolves from having form. ‘No form’ is the higher individual expression.” TJKD, 25
Bruce recognized that what had become entrenched as rigid traditionalism had once started out as practical martial art. The forms and styles were originally expressions of living, breathing responses. There was much value in many of the underlying concepts and foundational truths which the forms and styles had attempted to preserve and communicate to future practitioners.
The problem was that instead of seeing the forms and traditions as means to understanding the greater concepts they were intended to encapsulate, generations of martial artists had come to see the forms and traditions as ends in themselves. Instead of learning how to fight an opponent, many martial artists were simply learning how to do moves and techniques for their own sake.
Of course this LOOKED very impressive…especially to untrained audiences.
However…
“Just as yellow leaves may be gold coins to stop the crying children, thus, the so-called secret moves and contorted postures appease the unknowledgeable martial artists.” TJKD, 19
Bruce felt that the styles and traditions were (as we discussed in the last post) hindering people from developing as true martial artists. But because they looked and sounded so impressive (a public relations image which many martial arts “masters” worked hard to maintain, mind you!) people continued buying into the styles themselves rather than the deeper essence they were originally intended to convey.
He realized that it wouldn’t do to simply “reject tradition” a priori, anyone could do that out of either reactionary thinking or laziness…or both. Furthermore, such an insistence on no tradition could itself quickly become tradition!
Do not deny the classical approach simply as a reaction, for you will have created another pattern and trapped yourself there.” TJKD, 25
The answer was to understand, adapt, and apply all that worked from various traditions. In order to do that, one must first have a knowledge of such traditions and be able to discern what is and what is not useful within them.
One can’t “go beyond” something one has not first explored in depth.
One area where I have seen this concept playing out is in terms of how Churches in America worship.
Huh?
Let me explain.
For much of the history of American Christianity worship services in various denominations had a familiar feel. Each denomination had a certain “style” to worship, but there was a good deal of overlap due to broad cultural connection they all shared. You had candles, stained-glass, hymnals, responsive readings, sermons from behind a raised pulpit, long pews in which everyone faced the same direction and music generated by choirs, pianos and/or organs.
All of these elements were originally intended to have genuine and authentic spiritual meaning and to help enable people to experience God’s presence in a greater or more profound degree when gathering together in community to worship. But over time they became nothing more than mindless repetition and empty tradition for a large number of Christians who’d grown up with them. They also became less and less connected to those outside the Church as culture developed, particularly in terms of popular music and media.
In the 60s-70s (around the time of Bruce Lee’s rise to fame, coincidentally) there was a revolution among Christians seeking to break away from what they perceived as the “organized despair” and “vain repetition” (to borrow Bruce’s phraseology) of traditional worship.
The “Jesus People” came on the scene as communities of Christians sought to do away with the traditionalism of their parents’ and grandparents’ churches and connect with the Gospel in fresh and new ways, using elements of pop-culture that they and their non-Christian peers were comfortable with and which they felt contained the “soul” and emotional/spiritual depth that was lacking in traditional worship elements. They were children of the 60s…so guitars replaced pianos. Microphones and keyboards replaced organs. Synthesizers replaced choirs. Cushioned chairs replaced wooden pews. And the “Contemporary” church was born.
In the late-70s through the early-90s, Churches continued seeking to catch up with the culture they had long ignored. Ministers began looking to corporate America for tips on leadership, marketing and branding. Podiums replaced elevated pulpits. Worship services began to become TV-friendly and take on the feel of a stage or screen production, which people could enjoy in the comfort of their own home as Christian satellite networks were launched. The modern “mega-church” came into being, meeting in renovated strip-malls and warehouses decorated to look more like 5-star hotel lobbies than ancient monasteries. Audio and Video teams became the norm in terms of volunteer services. “Churchy” terms like “sanctuary”, “narthex”, “confession” and “repentance” were dropped or euphemisms were adopted to replace them.
In short, there was a reaction against the traditionalism of previous centuries in terms of Church.
However…
In rejecting tradition so completely, the modern church began to suffer theologically and often lacked the very spiritual depth they had originally sought to experience afresh.
The “nontraditional” worship service became the new tradition. And a new generation of Christians arose who had no experience with the “traditions” that their churches had rejected. As this new generation came into adulthood in the late-90s through the present, they began to feel that much of what had been adopted by the “modern” or “contemporary” churches they belonged to was itself lacking in spiritual depth and vitality and was simply going through the (slickly-produced and impressive looking) motions–the very things this new ‘tradition’ had been started in order to remedy!
Eventually a new movement arose among such Christians which sought to reclaim the traditions of the past, but without much of the corporate modern excess that had become standard within the mega-church culture. Thus the “Emerging Church” movement came into being. Emergent Christians sought to take from various traditions and styles and develop, in terms of worship services, in a more organic manner according to the gifts, needs, and personalities of their community. The goal was to preserve the ancient core truths of the Gospel, but present it in new and ever-changing formats which connect with people in an authentic manner.
There has been, of course, a backlash among some from within both “traditionalist” and “Contemporary” Christian circles. Emergent churches have been criticized for lack of doctrinal faithfulness, lack of organization, cultural accommodation, being overly influenced by Postmodern philosophy, etc. And as time goes on, the Emergent movement will likely become a “tradition” in and of itself, and something else will arise as a reaction against it.
Okay…so what does any of this have to do with Bruce Lee and my own outlook on ministry?
Well, simply this: I believe that almost anything which becomes tradition in the Church, no matter how lifelessly repetitive, was once seen as revolutionary and authentic by someone in some setting.
Traditions have ebbed and flowed within the history of the Church as people have experienced different means of authentically connecting with God in new ways and have, in turn, sought to pass those on to later generations.
This is not a bad thing. There is a difference between tradition and ‘traditionalism‘ in the negative sense. We can learn from, embrace, and apply the former without falling into the trap of the latter.
Just as Bruce Lee sought to explore and understand the various martial arts traditions and styles in order to find the truth contained within them, I believe we too should seek to explore and understand the various worship traditions (even looking for elements of God’s common grace among non-Christian traditions–something that is a subject I don’t have the space to explore in more detail here though!) in order to see the truth they all have sought to preserve.
Of course, this doesn’t mean uncritical acceptance of every tradition or a naive belief that all are equally true and valid!
Far from it!
There is MUCH in the history of the Church which rightly deserves a labels like “systematic uselessness”, “fancy mess”, or “routines…which lead nowhere” (to borrow Bruce’s phraseology once again)!
But we should be hesitant to apply such labels to a tradition or practice until we’ve first had sufficient chance to study, explore, understand and apply any kernel of truth found within it. To do otherwise often leads one into the pits of traditionalism on the one hand, or reactionism on the other.
The truth is often in the middle…and balance isn’t always easy.
Thus we should temper any discussion of such things with a strong dose of grace toward our fellow Disciples and a willingness to be challenged or corrected in our own understanding of things. A “pliable awareness”, to borrow Bruce’s term, of our own theological and ecclesiological conclusions and subjectivity. And the most effective means of maintaining such an attitude is to be found within community with one another…
…which is will be the subject of our next and final post in this series!
[Continue to Conclusion]
Categories: Blog, Martial Arts, Ministry, Theological issues