By Nick Peters
[Note from Brian LePort: When I announced a call for contributions to a blog series on the NFL and Christian Theology I received a response from Christian apologist Nick Peters saying that he has no interest in talking about sports, but that he would like to address whether there is anything antithetical to Christian participating in animated violence through video games. I thought the contribution could be interesting so I agreed to post it here.]
I don’t care a bit about football. I watch the Super Bowl for the same reason several of you probably do. I want to see the commercials! The only sport I could ever get into any at all is Braves baseball. Yet I saw the question about football being violent and thought from a different perspective that I could handle that.
Why? Not because I like football, but because from as far back as I can remember, I’ve had a great interest in video games. For me, it started with realizing my parents had something called a ColecoVision (Some of you remember those I’m sure). My favorite game on it was not a fighting game but a puzzle game called Ladybug. (I would love to be able to download this game on the Wii today!) I could often reach level 100 on the game. I had it mastered from an early age. (It’s not as easy to do on the computer)
Being in Elementary School, I realized I needed to get a Nintendo soon and so like many others, I grew up playing games like Super Mario Brothers and the Legend of Zelda. Link of the Zelda series was a hero of mine growing up. I still remember taking a Nintendo Power magazine to the place I’d get my hair cut. In it, I showed a picture of Link from Zelda II and said that I wanted my hair to look like that.
And before too long, people at my school knew who was the main expert on video games. While there are puzzle games and some adventure games I still enjoy, far and long the games I enjoy the most are RPGs. I prefer Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, etc. A notable exception could be multi-player games such as how in Charlotte I got together with friends every Sunday night to play Super Smash Brothers Brawl. When I visit my in-laws, we can play the Wii Sports or Mario Kart Wii. I also like to play the old classic games.
Now with puzzle games we don’t really have much problem of course. That my Dad and I can still play Dr. Mario today is not really a problem to anyone. What about a game where you get a sword and cut through monsters? Isn’t that violent?
Why yes. Yes it is.
Now note in this that for me, I don’t play games that have gratuitous violence. There are limits for me. I do not really like to see the sight of blood that much. I could take something such as playing Goldeneye on the 64 and seeing the blood come down when my character died, but to see someone get shot at regularly and have blood come gushing out would not be something that I want to see. Just yesterday my wife and I watched “Flags of our Fathers” and I had to cover my eyes a number of times because I can’t stand the blood. Watching “House M.D.” can be difficult and I have no idea how I got through the first season of Dexter. This could also be a question of conscience, which many of this is. Note that if someone reads this and still has hesitations and really doesn’t think they should play the games I play, that is just fine with me. I have no problem there. Let us follow a Romans 14 perspective and see this as a matter of conscience. Of course, if you have a real objection, then bring it.
Yet if we are to say that something is to be rejected because it contains violence, then frankly we Christians will have to reject the Bible as well which has much violence in it, something that we need to accept. God is a holy God and those who go against Him are dealt with in accordance with what they do wrong, and sometimes His instrument for doing that is human beings. This still goes on today. Romans 13 speaks about government being such a force that bears the sword. Yes. There are times violence is necessary.
Why?
It would be nice if we all lived in a world where everyone would sit down to peace conferences and be willing to do all that was necessary, but because we are still in the flesh, such is not going on. There are people who will want to get whatever they want and who cares about anyone else? There will be people who do not follow the rules of others and go forward on their own authority seeking to stomp on anyone who gets in their way.
But are we not told that blessed are the peacemakers?
Those familiar with Westerns know that Wyatt Earp referred to his gun as the peacemaker. Let’s suppose I had been out somewhere and came home and heard my wife screaming inside. I go in and find some man attacking her and getting a weapon, I manage to kill her assailant. In doing this, I have become a peacemaker the way Earp said his gun was. The person who I dealt with was someone who was violating the peace. By eliminating him, I have restored the peace that he shattered.
“But Jesus told us to love our enemies! Should we kill them?”
Most of us would not consider it loving to lock someone behind bars in a destitute situation for years or to charge a really hefty fine for something. This is what we do however! Why? Because love does not mean everyone gets to do what they want without any consequences whatsoever. Now some have argued that Jesus would forgive people. Yes he would. So should we. However, there is a difference between private and public forgiveness. Someone can privately receive forgiveness for what they’ve done, but they still owe a debt to society and that debt is to be repaid. For an example, David in the sin of Bathsheba was privately forgiven, but his son still died. Forgiveness does not automatically mean there are no consequences. In fact, the Christian narrative should remind us that all actions we do have consequences.
If someone is out there actively doing evil, you can be sure that they are NOT seeking forgiveness. They are not in a state of repentance. I hold that Christians should always be willing to forgive, but they are not to offer forgiveness until the person comes to them and asks for forgiveness. Some might think that is not a good attitude to have, but why think that when that is the exact position God Himself holds?
Yet are we not to turn the other cheek?
Jesus’s statement was about an event in the private setting that constituted a simple insult. The idea was to end the cycle of retaliation before it starts. It says absolutely nothing about physical danger. It is not being like Christ to do nothing while someone inflicts serious injury on innocent people. If you are insulted, it can be a mark of character to simply not choose to retaliate in private. In public, matters are different. While it can be questioned whether Edmund Burke said it, I can easily agree with the idea that “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” If we sit back and do nothing in the face of evil, let us not be surprised that evil flourishes.
So what about the gaming area since you are the one doing the activity?
And I have no qualms about it. Note for instance that in many games today, one is fighting monsters who are not rational human beings and seek only destruction. (Never mind in these worlds for some reason they all breed like rabbits and are all deadset on destroying you and your party) There are times you fight people, but again, this is in a public forum with fighting those who wish to do evil and are not repentance. There are times in RPGs where you can be given the choice to let a character go who seems repentant.
We also should realize that a game must be considered in the world that it is in. We can look and say that on Earth it would not be like this, but then on Earth we don’t have dragons flying around us and imps breeding everywhere. In this world, if one does not fight evil villains, then the good of the whole world will suffer and we must seek to bring about the good of the world and not just that of an individual.
Of course, we must be sure we are fighting for the good of the world. Are we doing that? If someone is going on a quest and slaying monsters but they’re only doing that so they can get to the hapless village and destroy it, then it would be apparent that while they could be doing good on the way, their overall approach is not good and is therefore something that should be condemned.
Now what about football with all of this? It’s also important to consider that men by nature do tend to enjoy violent activities. That’s the way we are. We’re warriors at heart. Men like something to fight for. One of the reasons I believe marriage can domesticate a man for instance is that it gives him something he can fight for. Many of us men would hopefully be ready for action immediately if someone were to do something that would endanger our wives. We have this instinct to protect and fight born into us. We grow up with toy guns and swords and all manner of activity like this.
What we need to ask is what are we going to do with all this aggression and energy that we can have? Football could be a fine outlet for some people, though I would advise them to be extremely careful. Several older people today suffer greatly because of injuries they got when playing football while young. Of course, on a field, one should only use enough force to take down an opponent. (Don’t expect technical terms from me on football. I couldn’t tell you) I do understand that there are such things as unnecessary roughness in a sport like football. It can be necessary to knock down your opponent. It does not mean it is necessary to pummel him on the ground to keep him down.
Of course, every Christian will have to examine themselves. My great concern for us gamers is not that we will become violent people, but that we will spend too much time with our hobby. I make it a point for instance that when game time comes here, I usually listen to an MP3 at the same time so I can at least be educating myself as well. (Somehow, I don’t think this would work in a football game) Of course, that doesn’t hold if I’m playing a multi-player game with friends in which it’s just fun fellowship. Now if you really have serious qualms about this and you’re not even sure why, you can examine those, but you do not have to partake of something. This is the freedom of the Christian.
As we observe our freedom, let us be careful about how we approach another person’s freedom. What you might find questionable they could have no problem for and let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Nick Peters is a Christian apologist. He writes for Ratio Christi and he has a personal blog called Deeper Waters.

September 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Thsnks for allowing me to guest post Brian and for the mention of Deeper Waters and my position at Ratio Christi.
September 23, 2012 at 9:35 am
Nick
You’re welcome, I hope you get some interaction in the comments!
September 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I dislike football but enjoy watching baseball, but find that I can actually get plenty of things done while watching a game. The leisurely, slow pace of the game allows me to get things done, especially online, at the same time. Some Christians legalistically demand that all Christians abstain from such things either because it’s a waste of time or violates their interpretation of 1 John 2:15 (which I interpret as a commandment to stay away from sinful passions), but I do not think this is correct.
September 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm
As a gamer with a heart to minister to those with an unhealthy attachment to their games – and as someone who is seeking ways to use games as an online mission field – I thank you for your post Nick, and share your concerns that Christians would spend too much time with games. There is no other form of media or entertainment as immersive and as easily used for escapism – I know from personal experience – and while I believe that games are a wonderful form of entertainment, and as a potential tool for a variety of ministries, I also believe that we need people who encourage us to exercise caution in all things – including how much time we spend gaming.
September 24, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Thanks. I realize that I can still spend too much time sometimes. I usually set a goal for the day and do that or just wait till the podcast is done and then stop. Of course, it is different if I have friends over and we’re playing a game. I hope you’ll follow Deeper Waters.
September 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Hi Blue. I’m sure if we looked at anyone’s life we could each find things we think “wasteful.” I think we need to realize pleasure isn’t everything, but it is something.
September 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Hey Nick,
First off, I want to say my childhood was steeped in gaming of all kinds (including RPGs!).
However, while I agree with liberty of conscience and the fact of being in a fictional world, I found your explanations lacking and even a bit bizarre.
Yes, the Scripture is filled with violence and violent men yet it is because of sin this violence is prevalent. Yes, Romans 13 is about God using the principalities and powers (just like the evil empires of Assyria, Babylon and Nero’s Rome when it was written), but it in no way justifies these as good as Christ is good and what the Church is supposed to be.
With the bit about Wyatt Earp and “men born to be violent”, I’m a little ashamed of this natural theology. According to you, Jesus is really out of step to say to the Zealots ‘No’ when all they wanted was to reclaim Israel from the oppressive Romans. To Protect their women and children from greedy and bored soldiers. It’s all very Niehburian and it makes the Gospel worthless, it’s just a pious affection that warms the soul until the hard times come, when we roll up our sleeves and do the real work. This all was my outlook (and even called myself ‘christian’) before I was converted. It’s a romanticized cowboy ethic, and it makes worldly sense. Most non-Christians could agree to that too.
Again, I have no problem with video games, I play a couple of zombie shoot-em ups every once in awhile. However translating this into a real-life justification for a Christian to ignore the words of His Lord is something that would cause me to have a conniption. This isn’t a good approach, this is just silly.
Pax,
Cal
September 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Hi Cal. I do not think Jesus would say what they wanted was wrong. Those are good things. Their means are questionable to do them. For instance, I’m sure the early church wanted to be free of persecution. That does not mean that the proper method to do was to hole up and make tactical raids on pagans coming through and slaughtering them. Now supposing one person was in danger physically and another Christian saw it. With no one around, active force could be required and sometimes lethal. The question we have to ask is are we the ones who should be making that call? If there is no one around, then that is justified self-defense.
I hope this clears up my position some.
September 27, 2012 at 9:15 am
I think that the Old Testament is full of violence, and often times it is commanded by God or blessed by God (The conquests of Joshua, Saul and David protecting the kingdom, etc.), and in Daniel we’re told that God’s angels are involved in violent warfare against demons, so God’s involved in spiritual and earthly warfare for the sake of His kingdom. The New Testament portrays Jesus making a whip and chasing the moneychangers out of the temple in the Gospel of John, and in the Apocalypse of John God’s judgement is revealed, and it’s not exactly nice, or clean, or pretty. It’s violent.
I think we westerners have some really odd ideas about love and peace, and we think they’re cutesy, valentine’s day ideas, not tough, real, nitty-gritty ideas.
On the issue of self-defense, I believe we have a responsibility to protect our families and our property. However, if the violence against us is motivated by our status as Christians (if it’s persecution, not theft or assault), we have to respond differently.
September 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Nick,
When Jesus puts Malchus’ ear back on after Peter hacked it off, He gave him a dire truth: “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”. This was self-defense, even defense of Peter’s own Master, Peter’s friends. He was rebuked.
What you’re saying makes sense, it is natural reasoning. Tell me where Jesus teaches self-defense? Or these reasons your positing? I’m not saying do nothing or let someone commit violence without action, but your ethic is Western and not Christian. It justifies being an ethical cowboy and it’s thoroughly American but hardly Christian.
Tiller:
“On the issue of self-defense, I believe we have a responsibility to protect our families and our property. However, if the violence against us is motivated by our status as Christians (if it’s persecution, not theft or assault), we have to respond differently.”
Where does Jesus teach that we can strike out when our property is threatened? Actually, Jesus places Himself in such a place that one might have to abandon his family to follow Him. Abandon his property and his family! Where do you find these distinctions of justifying using violence to harm? Jesus may have driven out the money changers, but how many did He kill? How many Romans, the oppressors, did He cut down? The property of the Jews was seized and their families were not safe. What did He teach?
September 28, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Cal: Nick, When Jesus puts Malchus’ ear back on after Peter hacked it off, He gave him a dire truth: “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”.
Reply: No. He gave him a proverb. Proverbs are general principles and not universals. There are exceptions to proverbs. For instance, David was a man of war. He did not die by the sword. Also, what does it mean to live by the sword? If I carry a gun to defend myself and I have to shoot someone sometime who I think is causing evil and that is the only time I do it and it is a case where the police determine my action was just and I am not a criminal, does that equal living by the gun? Could Jesus not be saying that those who seek to bring about violence will often receive violence? If so, when I am acting in proper self-defense, am I seeking to bring about violence or end it? If end it, how can I be living by the sword?
Cal: This was self-defense, even defense of Peter’s own Master, Peter’s friends. He was rebuked.
Reply: Jesus is also an extraordinary situation. For one thing, Jesus had foreknowledge of what would happen and had told his disciples in advance. Second, Jesus had consistently avoided a revolutionary violent role in his coming to be the Messiah. (A role that he took up definitely in 70 A.D.) Why? Because he did not come to overthrow the Roman Empire and would not start a revolution. It’s quite likely Peter’s sword couldn’t do that anyway as it was likely a short dagger than even the peace-loving Essenes carried with them.
Peter had been told how the kingdom would come about and had been told that Jesus would die and rise again. Acting out went against that. For the time being, Jesus submitted to the legal authorities. To not do so would start a revolution that would impede His going to the cross.
Cal: What you’re saying makes sense, it is natural reasoning. Tell me where Jesus teaches self-defense? Or these reasons your positing? I’m not saying do nothing or let someone commit violence without action, but your ethic is Western and not Christian.
Reply: If you’re not saying to avoid doing that, then you should have no problem with my ethic, unless you think that we should sit by and do nothing while evil people act. Note also Jesus lived in a society quite different from ours where there wasn’t an effective police state the populace could trust. To act out suddenly like that would bring about judgment from an overarching Roman Empire who would be more than happy to destroy a community. Jesus actually does not say anything directly on the topic. What he says is to avoid being a vigilante (Which Peter would have been doing) and to not let violence escalate. Self-defense today is not letting violence escalate but rather ending violence.
Cal: It justifies being an ethical cowboy and it’s thoroughly American but hardly Christian.
Reply: No. It justifies what you said you are not telling us to avoid. It is not saying to go out and seek evildoers where they are and put them down. It is saying that when evil comes against you or those you love, you can stop it.
Cal: Tiller: “On the issue of self-defense, I believe we have a responsibility to protect our families and our property. However, if the violence against us is motivated by our status as Christians (if it’s persecution, not theft or assault), we have to respond differently.”
Reply: We could, but that depends on where we are again. It would have been counter-productive in the Roman Empire. In Modern America, not so much. I am not thinking Christians need to take up arms in America to change the country, but Christians need to stand up intellectually and argue for what they believe in and not let themselves be bullied.
Cal: Where does Jesus teach that we can strike out when our property is threatened? Actually, Jesus places Himself in such a place that one might have to abandon his family to follow Him. Abandon his property and his family!
Reply: To abandon something is a willful choice. To allow someone to take that which is rightfully yours or harm that which you love and to ignore it is to say that their will will be supreme. Excuse me, but I am against letting evil people do what they want and think Christ takes a similar approach and we need to realize the difference in the social and cultural context.
Cal: Where do you find these distinctions of justifying using violence to harm?
Reply: Throughout the whole of Scripture with God and His agents being used when necessary.
Cal: Jesus may have driven out the money changers, but how many did He kill?
Reply: How many were guilty of a capital crime?
Cal: How many Romans, the oppressors, did He cut down? The property of the Jews was seized and their families were not safe. What did He teach?
Reply: This confuses the question of “What did Jesus come for?” with “How ought we to live?” We are to live like Christ, but no one takes that to mean we ought to start wearing sandals, go without air conditioning, and move to the Middle East and walk everywhere. Our attitude is to be like His in that we are to love the good of God and hate evil. Jesus came not to defeat Rome but to defeat sin, so it makes no sense to say He would have started a revolutionary movement against Rome. That would have been counterproductive to what He did and establish a quite different kingdom.