Such A Teacher Alter Curriculum Based Upon Student's Faith

[Zenjael]

Last year I began instructing at a church. I have studied extensively as an undergrad with an avid interest in the subject while at George Mason University, and it occurred to me that certain aspects of martial arts, in certain styles, come into conflict with certain worldviews. While I myself am an atheist, I find it important in working with people to respecting their beliefs. Where I am contracted I am to teach Tang Soo Do, Karate that I know, following Kempo guidelines.

It seems morally wrong to me, to teach attack techniques to people, in a church mind you, as a combat. A lot of martial arts espouse self-defense as a core tenet, yet have many techniques which do the exact opposite. No self-defense should ever result in death, within reasonable circumstances (though good luck obtaining that when people do attack you) and yet many arts have techniques which completely contain this. A reverse-inverted axe-kick to the neck, striking through a heal at the base of shoulder is fatal the majority of the time.

This is well and fine for martial arts which emphasize offense; but when teaching to Christians, is it proper to modify one's curriculum to respect their beliefs. Not to a degree of crippling the art, but reorienting it.

I have not done this, as I take it very serious to follow the guidelines for who I teach under. It is just, someday should I have my own school, or teach at another religious center, how I should go about it.

A strong part of me feels I should alter, but what is your input?

 

[MA-Caver]

Part of one of my favorite quotes is... "...the greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill."
In combat the possibility of someone dying without the intent of anyone causing a death can happen. IMO every instructor should already know that. You can hit someone, they fall and hit their head on something and it kills them, it doesn't take much.
Sometimes a person won't stop no matter how much you hurt them.

When someone argues about the commandment "thou, shalt not kill." Explain to them that it means literally... "thou shalt not MURDER." Killing and murder are two different things. Soldiers kill, a man protecting his family, kills, a woman protecting her child, kills. These examples (among hundreds) are not murders.
A good MA-ist, IMO should know when enough is enough. That their attacker is incapacitated enough that they cannot continue the harm they intended. They don't have to die. Rendering someone unconscious is not killing them... unless their bodies are in danger because they cannot get away from it (fire, whatever). Simply remove them from danger unless it will become dangerous to you/them.

Teach up to whatever you're qualified to teach. What they do with the training is NOT your responsibility, it is theirs, they will be held accountable, by our laws and inevitably (according to their faith) their God. I'd rather have someone defend themselves, even to the point of death, than allow some atrocity to happen to them.
Another view point... sometimes it takes an evil act to remove something evil.

Teach and don't hold yourself responsible for what your students do once you have finished with them. If they're mature, intelligent, and responsible then they will know the point of no return and won't cross it.

True no guarantee... but same with the military. They'll teach a person 100 different ways to kill another... but they have no guarantee that they will once battle has commenced.

 

[Blindside]

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Christ didn't tell his followers to buy a cudgel or a staff, he told them to buy a sword. The purpose of a sword isn't to do yardwork, hunt, or help you walk down a path, it is to kill. It is the equivalent of a modern handgun, the purpose is to kill other humans. Clearly there is a time and place to defend oneself, even using deadly weapons.

 

[Zenjael]

Naturally, but I mean this in the sense should I focus on traditional division of say, blocking as opposed to striking techniques, or espouse defense techniques, which are also offensive, or solely defensive techniques.

 

[seasoned]

With all due respect, I think your question was answered in the above two posts.

 

[Jenna]

It is not incumbent upon a teacher to alter a curriculum based upon her students. It is up to the student to find an instructor or school or art whose instruction matches their own personal values and/or it is the further choice of the student to use that instruction in the manner that is also concomitant with their beliefs.

Since you mention Christians, do you not feel a Christian would have cause to use an attacking art? If a Christian must protect a son or daughter or friend from an assailant, how should they do that? If you are considering changing your curriculum to suit the Christian people who are your students, perhaps your understanding of Christianity should not be based upon any preconception of what Christianity implies. Have you spoken to any of these Christian students to ask them why they are studying an apparently offensive martial art? Perhaps that might cast some light upon the situation.

I wish you well in your endeavour.

 

[Zenjael]

If a Christian must protect a son or daughter or friend from an assailant, how should they do that?

To be honest, I would teach Aikido. This becomes difficult however when I am contracted to teach only American Kempo, for example.

 

[Omar B]

Religion affecting martial arts training? Religion founded completely separate from the culture the art is from. This is interesting. But you shouldnt change the art the person should accept it for what it is or find another path.

 

[ballen0351]

Teach what your hired to teach the way it was intended to be taught. Let the christians worry about when and where to use it and there faith. Yiu dont have a religious faith so why worry about someone elses?

 

[Zenjael]

Yiu dont have a religious faith so why worry about someone elses?

Because their world views determine how we interact, and what they will do. I'd hate for them to abuse what I show, I'd hate to ignore who they are when I teach them.

I don't have to agree with what they believe, but I would like to understand how they think, and where I can who they are, so I do not cross lines, and teach something which they can practically use.

 

[ballen0351]

Like i said teach what you were hired to teach the way its intended to be taught. I dont know any martial art that would be a violation of the christian faith. Leave the application to them to decide when and where to use it. Its between them and God.

 

[Jenna]

To be honest, I would teach Aikido. This becomes difficult however when I am contracted to teach only American Kempo, for example.

Why would you teach Aikido?

 

[decepticon]

The Christian Bible says, "Praise be to the Lord my Rock; who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1, NIV). The Bible is full of examples that you might want to ponder: Abram calling out 318 trained men of his household to go with him to rescue relatives who had been captured, angels killing thousands of enemy soldiers, a roman centurion (soldier) welcomed into the faith, among many others. While some Christians may be called to a life of pacifism, not all are.

Since you are not a Christian, you should talk to your students to ascertain whether any of them have a problem with what you were contracted to teach. If they are Christians, I imagine that they would be just as offended by someone who broke a contract as they would be by someone teaching inappropriate violence/aggression.

 

[Touch Of Death]

You can't properly learn to defend if you don't teach the attack.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Naturally, but I mean this in the sense should I focus on traditional division of say, blocking as opposed to striking techniques, or espouse defense techniques, which are also offensive, or solely defensive techniques.

Ok, you taught your students to block a few punches, but the guy keeps coming. Then what?
Sean

 

[clfsean]

Why would you teach Aikido?

Better question is how he thinks he would teach Aikido...

 

[Aiki Lee]

It seems morally wrong to me, to teach attack techniques to people, in a church mind you, as a combat. A lot of martial arts espouse self-defense as a core tenet, yet have many techniques which do the exact opposite. No self-defense should ever result in death, within reasonable circumstances (though good luck obtaining that when people do attack you) and yet many arts have techniques which completely contain this. A reverse-inverted axe-kick to the neck, striking through a heal at the base of shoulder is fatal the majority of the time.

First of all, combat is combat. It is not wrong to teach people how to properly defend themselves no matter where you are. Defense against a deadly attack may reuiqre a deadly response to stop it. That's just realistic and anyone not willing to admit that would never be successful in such an encounter. Second, Christians have killed and been killed all through history just like every other culture or belief or group of people. There are no prohibitions in Christian doctrines prohibiting killing in self defense, REAL self-defense not murder or revenge that someone tries to justify. For example, the Knights Hospitilar and the Knights Templar were religious orders, but they were warriors too. I'm sure sometimes they were forced to kill people. Because human beings don't have unlimited power we are not always in a position to resolve a conflict in the best fashion. It would be great if you could end war or attempted murder without resorting to killing, but humans, often lack the means when confronted with such scenarios and so must resort to deadly force for self-preservation.

This is well and fine for martial arts which emphasize offense; but when teaching to Christians, is it proper to modify one's curriculum to respect their beliefs. Not to a degree of crippling the art, but reorienting it.?

Y
ou should not assume how another person's beliefs will affect their ability to train correctly and with the correct purpose in mind. If you assume that a group won't be interested in something without exploring it with them first, you are sterotyping. One a slightly different note there may be some concessions one could make depending on the beliefs of a student. For example in our dojo we have a few Muslim students who state that it is improper for them to bow for any purpose other than worship. Originnally I was taken quite by surprised as it seemed silly to me that a person would not differentiate between a culturally accepted mannerism and a religious practice. But then after a thinking of it, a person's beliefs should be respected whether or not I agree with them as long as a difference of beliefs does not hinder the rest of the group; in which case the student should seek training elsewhere to a group that fits his or her preferences better.

I have not done this, as I take it very serious to follow the guidelines for who I teach under. It is just, someday should I have my own school, or teach at another religious center, how I should go about it.

A strong part of me feels I should alter, but what is your input?

Do not alter the art to suit an unrealsitic expectation. If the church group does not understand that sometimes escaping violence relies on equal or greater violence to make the opportunity of escape appear, then that group is not ready for martial arts. Ask the group what they are looking for, and determine if it is realistic to the threat they wish to prepare for and explain to them why their assumptions are wrong or correct. But you cannot undermind the realities of violence, they must be addressed appropriately.

Now in regards to teaching aikido; aiki startegies and tactics would work quite well but they must be trained dilligently and for sometime to become natural movements. Seminars for people jsut getting involved in MA for the first time would not give a person the appropriate amount of time to ingrain such practices, basic striking should be included as well as basic helpful tactics for escape.

TouchofDeath brought up a very important point as well. Teaching a person to attack is crucial for self-defense training, not only because people need decent attackers to train with to know their techniques will work, but because YOU CANNOT WIN A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE OFFENSIVE. A castle under siege cannot hope to prevail if it just waits and hopes the other guys give up, and a person cannot win by blocking or evading alone if the other person is intent on harming them. This goes back to my first point about the realities of fighting and self-defense.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Teach the art. It is really that simple. Your students will decide if in a self-defense situation what their response is. If a student learns a full spectrum of applications, they have options, and can tailor their application to the situation and their desired outcomes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[kungfu penguin]

my teacher teaches overkill his reasoning is that it is good to have 10 feet of rope and only need 5 it sucks to have 5 feet of rope and need 10 in other words in an altercation i can choose to amp up the damage because i pratice that way i can also down grade it too. however if i never train for the eventualaity that i might have to kill someone in a real fight i will sink to what ive been training and find out that i cant amp it up because there was no previous practice to really unleash on someone

you dont rise to your opponent in a fight you sink to the level of your training.


i heard this happened in las vegas
ie there was a good BJJ practioner that got jumped by a guy with a knife he armbarred the guy, the guy tapped and the BJJ person realeased hold automatically the guy grabbed his knife and shanked the BJJ dude because he was taught to let go instantly on the tap. we hold for 3-5 seconds after tap just to make sure
just my two cents

 

[Instructor]

Because their world views determine how we interact, and what they will do. I'd hate for them to abuse what I show, I'd hate to ignore who they are when I teach them.

I don't have to agree with what they believe, but I would like to understand how they think, and where I can who they are, so I do not cross lines, and teach something which they can practically use.

Christians can be warriors too and they can fall victim to the same senseless violence as anybody. If you have been hired to teach them a martial art, don't hold back, teach them everything.

Imagine how you would feel if one of your christian students was assaulted, raped, and killed because they didn't have the skills to deal with the threat. Not because they weren't good students but because you stifled their growth based on your own worldview.

Understanding how they think? Well each individual person has their own ideas and thoughts. Treat them as individuals and don't lump them all together because they are Christians.

I might suggest that if you are prone to blasphemy and many people are nowadays (not that you are) that you refrain from doing that in front of your Christian students. Otherwise, they are just folks like yourself trying to make their way in life.