I don’t remember the first time I saw the film, Pulp Fiction, and I don’t particularly remember much from the film, but I do remember the great scene where Jules (played by Samuel L. Jackson) quotes scripture.
Near the beginning of the movie, Vincent (played by John Travolta) and Jules go visit a couple of guys who owe a debt to Marcellus, a mob-type guy they work for In an intense scene, filled with violence and profanity, Jules says the following:
There’s a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.”
After this, Vincent and Jules violently kill their captive.
The ideas of vengeance and retaliation seem to be bred into human nature. History is rife with times where, in a fit of rage, vengeance, or retaliation, persons have executed their own form of justice, irregardless of societal norms or legal consequences.
In the world of sport, vigilante justice is especially apparent in baseball; particularly when pitchers throw a “beanball.”
Most athletes will use a form of intimidation against their opponents, from the New Zealand national rugby team’s “Haka” dance to intentionally hard and flagrant fouls on the basketball court to Ray Lewis’ introduction dance before each football game. These moves, some choreographed while others occur in the moment, serve notice to the opponent that the contest will be intense, physical, and demanding. These tactics also serve to fire up the fans to make noise, thus making it even harder for the opponent to concentrate and perform.
While boxing’s inherent violent nature has claimed many lives during matches and Chuck Hughes had a heart attack on the field while playing for the NFL’s Detroit Lions, baseball’s history of pitchers (and, by extension, teams) using a beanball is particularly troubling. In boxing, the fighters are engaged with each other, both fighters actively trying to best the other. But in baseball, the bean ball is a one-sided attempt to injure an opponent while the opponent is usually standing still.
A bean ball occurs when a pitcher deliberately throws at the opposing batter, often times throwing at the batter’s head. Only once has an MLB player died on the field and that was due to an accidental bean ball. In 1920, Ray Chapman, shortstop for the Cleveland Indians, was squaring up to bunt against Carl Mays of the New York Yankees. Mays was a “submariner,” meaning he threw with a side-arm delivery that dipped the ball low to the ground before releasing it, and the combination of dirty, non-white ball and a funky delivery led many to speculated that Chapman didn’t see the ball very well as it came out of Mays’s hand was tight and inside to the batter. The result is that the ball hit Chapman square in the temple, collapsing him to the ground where he would never regain consciousness. This play led to many changes in how the game was played, including introducing new game balls after each foul or homer, eventually ending the practice of “doctoring” balls with spit, sandpaper, and other foreign substances, and the introduction of required batting helmets (although this took a few years to be codified).
Nearly one hundred later, one would think the bean ball would have disappeared from the game. But it hasn’t.
1972, Bert Campeneris, of the Oakland A’s, through his bat at Lerrin Lagrow, of the Detroit Tigers, in retaliation of a perceived bean ball (although the ball hit him lower in his body, not his head).
In 1984, the Atlanta Braves and the San Diego Padres played in the “Bean Brawl Game,” where players were consistently hit (many on purpose) with hard pitches which led to two bench-clearing brawls during the game.
In 1993, Nolan Ryan, then of the Texas Rangers and in the twilight of a Hall of Fame career, hit Robin Ventura, of the Chicago White Sox, who promptly charged the mound (and got beat-up by the 46 year-old Ryan).
1998 brought us the Armando Benitez versus the Yankees (although he didn’t plan it that way) brawl for hitting Tino Martinez in the back.
Last year, in 2016, Manny Machado of the Baltimore Orioles charged the mound against the Kansas City Royals’s Yordano Ventura (who died on January 22, 2017 in an accident in his home country of the Dominican Republic) after being drilled with a 99 mph fastball to the back.
This season, on Saturday, April 22, Manny Machado, the slugging third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles, slid hard into Boston Red Sox second baseman, Dustin Pedroia. During the following night’s game, Matt Barnes of the Red Sox through a head-high, hard fastball at Machado. Had Machado not gotten out the way, the consequences could have been serious. Barnes was subsequently suspended for four games for his attempted bean ball.
All of these incidences, and many, many more, bring us to this past week, when the Atlanta Braves played against the Toronto Blue Jays in Atlanta.
On Monday, May 15, 2017, the Braves opened a two and two series with the Blue Jays; 2 games played in Toronto, two in Atlanta. Freddie Freeman, easily the best player on the Braves this season and perhaps the leading candidate for NL MVP at this early stage in the season, had a solid game, going 2 for 5 at the plate with his 13th HR and 3 RBIs, in the Braves 10-5 victory. Most troubling for the Braves, however, were the 5 batters who were hit by Toronto pitchers. None of the HBPs (hit by pitch) looked intentional, but any casual observer could note that 5 in a single game is a few too many. Tuesday night, May 16, was more of the same: another very solid game by Freeman (2 for 4, with another HR and 2 more RBIs), an Atlanta victory (9-5), and another HBP (only 1 in this game).
Wednesday, May 17, as the teams played in Atlanta, though, was the turning point in the series and maybe the season, at least for the Braves. Freeman, as David Schoenfield of ESPN noted, had emerged as one of the best hitters in baseball, if not the best hitter by statistical measurement this season, entering the game with .343 batting average, an National League leading 14 HRS, and second in the NL with a 1.209 OBS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage) and second in total bases with 101. He was having, quite possibly, the best hitting season in Braves history, including those years when a guy named Hank Aaron patrolled right field.
On that Wednesday night, the Braves jumped out to a big lead, thanks to a 6-run first inning. When Freeman came to bat in the 5th inning, he was hit on the left wrist with a high, tight and inside fastball. It did not appear to be intentional but he was the 7th hit batsman in 3 games by the Blue Jays. Freeman would not return to the game. Later, even though the Braves were cruising, Jose Bautista, a bona fide slugger in his own right but also a guy who’s developed a reputation as the most disliked guy in baseball, hit a towering home run. Instead of starting his home run trot immediately after the ball was hit, Bautista waited and watched the home run sail over the fence, a big no-no in the unwritten code of ethics for ball players. Additionally, he flipped his bat in his usual showy way. The Braves were upset by these actions as they seemed to be trying to show up the Braves and their pitcher at the time, Eric O’Flaherty. Players scowled at Bautista as he slowly made his way around the bases. The Braves’ tempers were hot but they were heading towards a win so perhaps the thrill of victory would cool off the hot-headedness of anger.
But that was not meant to be, either.
During the seventh inning, Braves reliever Jason Motte was pitching to Blue Jays OF Kevin Pillar. During the at-bat, Motte took issue with what he perceived as a “quick pitch” by Motte. After striking out, apparently Pillar hurled a homophobic slur at Motte, who began walking toward home plate. Umpires and catchers intervened but not before the benches of both teams cleared and entered the field.
Given all the animosity that was boiling over between the teams, one could assume that more theatrics and fireworks would occur on Thursday, May 18.
On Thursday, the Braves sent Julio Teheran, their number one starter and staff ace, to the mound in an attempt to sweep a four-game series from the Blue Jays. With the second pitch of Jose Bautista’s first inning at-bat, Teheran drilled him with a fast ball in the left thigh. Bautista calmly walked to first base as the home plate umpire warned both teams about the incident and the game continued to the Braves’ chagrin as the Blue Jays pounded them, 9-0.
ESPN.com’s Buster Olney wrote two excellent pieces following the event; one specifically aimed at the Braves’ and Teheran’s decision to hit Bautista in retaliation and one aimed toward Major League Baseball. After reading both pieces, I found myself thinking about retaliation and the role of faith.
In the holiness code found in Leviticus, both Jews and Christians read:
The Lord said to Moses, saying: Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands on his head, and let the whole congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying: Anyone who curses God shall bear the sin. One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. Anyone who kills a human being shall be put to death. Anyone who kills an animal shall make restitution for it, life for life. Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death. You shall have one law for the alien and for the citizen: for I am the Lord your God. Moses spoke thus to the people of Israel; and they took the blasphemer outside the camp, and stoned him to death. The people of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Leviticus 24:13-23)
Lex Talionis, the law of “an eye for an eye,” is the basis for many of our legal and law enforcement decisions. It’s also the basis for how we train our children to respond to others: if someone hits you, hit them back. In the best of our intentions, we claim that a proportional response to violence keeps us in check. And at the same time, our culture and her talking heads on radio, television, and the internet decry the violence that engulfs our nation and world. Just tonight, May 22, at an Ariana Grande concert in England, a bomb blast ripped through the stadium as concertgoers, mostly young children and young adults, were preparing to exit the concert. Every day, we read or hear stories of violence between God’s children that offends God and should offend us, too. But it doesn’t because we are comfortably numb to the ideas of violence, retribution, and retaliation. While we often don’t seek to begin the violence, we feel it our right to respond accordingly, both personally and nationally, when we experience violence. There is no other way; if we are attacked then we will attack back. This ideology misconstrues what it means to be human and what it means to be a Christian. In Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote,
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that. (62).
As a nation, and as people of faith, we have embraced the notion that “might makes right” and that the more weaponry we have at our disposal, the more secure we are personally and as a country. I’ve always found this to be strange for followers of Jesus, the one whose own personal security seemed tenuous at best: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests” he said, “but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Luke 9:58).
In Walter Wink’s seminal work, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium, he describes Jesus’ “Third Way” as a radical approach to violence and retribution. Wink notes that Jesus was a pacifist but was certainly not passive, especially if one understands his context. In Matthew 5, Jesus pushes back against lex talionis, saying:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. (Matthew 5:38-41)
Wink contends that while we often understand this passage to mean that followers of Jesus should passively turn the other cheek to evildoers and allow them to walk over us, we couldn’t be further from the truth of the passage. Middle Easter customs of domination and hospitality help set the stage for understanding this passage; namely, Jesus is calling his followers to shame those who through violence, intimidation, or domination abuse others. By turning the tables on the offender and using societal shame-producing customs on them, Jesus’ response allowed him to be faithful to his “new” understanding of Levitical law as well as offering a way for the victim to have dignity in the moment.
Confessionally, I struggle with my anger and, more importantly, my response to my anger. I’ve never been a fighter and have never been in a “real” fight. But the sentiment to respond to violence directed at me or ones I love (or even to those who can not respond on their own accord) with violence of my own runs deep within me, even if I never physically act upon it.
I don’t know how I would respond had I been Jose Bautista or Manny Machado or any of the other numerous purposefully hit-batsmen in baseball history. Given my own internal struggles with responding to violence, I imagine that I would be conflicted just as I’m conflicted every time my own spirit and physical nature are harmed. More important than my own response, however, is the example that I’m setting for my children.
My daughter rarely responds physically or violently to a situation; she’s a pretty level-headed young lady. My younger son, however, responds physically, and sometimes violently, to threats against him or the ones he loves. If you push him, he’ll most likely push back. Many folks have assured me that he’ll grow out of it, that’s it’s just a “boy’s response,” and that his physicality could serve him well in life. For all of these assurances, I pray those offering them are correct.
For my sake; for my son’s sake; for the world’s sake; for whatever pitcher ever drills my son with a bean ball, I pray we all find a “third way” to face violence and retaliation so as not to leave the whole world blind.
The Ineffable Pastime 