As I write this, the Olympic Flame has just been lit opening the 29th Modern Olympic Games. The first Olympic flame was lit at the Amsterdam Olympics of 1928 and the Torch Relay was added to the ceremony in Berlin, 1936, at ‘Hitler’s Olympics’. It was not in the original vision of the founder of the modern Olympic movement, Pierre de Coubertin, in 1896, but he welcomed it as a powerful religious and artistic symbol that could be used to educate people in the ideals of the Olympic movement.

Image courtesy of Rick Sforza

These ideals, according to the Olympic Charter, are to

…contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

Nothing wrong with that, you would agree, but as the pro-Tibet demonstrators would have us remember, there is a huge gap between that ideal and the practise of the host nation in its occupied territory.

Double standards

This is in stark contrast to the myth that the Olympics are the one place where politics and war do not hold sway, where small and great nations compete as equals. Advocates will point to the 2000 Sydney Olympics where North and South Korea competed under one flag and the disputed nation of East Timor as an independent state. But while China crushes protests with one hand and lights the Flame with another, we should remember that double standards are no stranger to the Games. Think of sports fans cheering on the great black American sprinter, Jesse Owens, while Jews and Communists were being driven from their homes in the streets outside the Olympiastadion. Think of the banning of South Africa for 32 years for its abhorrent racial policies while Sudan and Zimbabwe are still allowed to send teams. Think of the tit-for-tat boycotts of America and the Soviets in ’80 and ’84 and the abandonment of the Games during two world wars – would the ancients be turning in their graves? I think not.

Wars and rumours of wars

The ancient Greeks never let war get in the way of a good athletic contest in nearly a thousand years. By and large the Greeks kept to the Olympic Truce whereby all wars were put on hold for the duration of the games, but ever so often they let it slip. In 364 BC, the city of Elis lost control of the games to Pisa and launched an attack during the wrestling event in the Pentathlon. But the games went on, with spectators keeping one eye on the wrestling and the other on the streets outside where thousands of allied troops defended against the invading Eleans. A day later Elis regained control of the Games and declared them null and void. Let’s hope Paris won’t do the same to London in 2012!

For glory or for gain?

Nationalism, commercialism, politicking and dirty tricks were just as much a part of the ancient Olympics as they are today, with a continuous struggle to cleanse the Festival of Zeus of its baser trappings. There were idealists then as now, and officially the athletic contests were for glory, not for gain, with only an olive wreath and adulation for reward. But olive wreaths do not put food on the table as the Persian general Tigranes commented:

Good heavens, Mardonius, what kind of men are these that you have pitted us against? It is not for money they contend, but for glory of achievement!
(Herodutus, ‘Histories’)

Herodotus does not record Mardonius’ response, but no doubt it was along the lines of: ‘if you believe that General, you’ll believe anything!’ Just like today’s athletes aren’t forced to flog their medallions to keep the wolves from the door (well most of them, I haven’t checked eBay yet), the Ancient Greeks had no currency in olive wreaths.

Appearance fees

Olympic victors were set for life. They were given free meals at public expense, front-row seats at the theatre and public festivals, tax breaks and guaranteed appointments to the public service. They even received ‘appearance fees’ at lesser athletic events and prizes such as tripods, cauldrons, precious metal, oxen and women. (Homer, ‘The Iliad’, Bk 23). Now don’t get me started on the exclusion of women from the Games, I’m writing a whole play about it!

Breaching the amateur code

Some would say payment in kind does not breach the amateur code, but cash certainly does. The Ancients had no such quibbles. According to the Roman author Plutarch, in 600BC an Athenian Olympic victor could expect to receive 500 drachmai from the city coffers, a fortune in ancient times.

And if one’s hometown was not forthcoming with the loot, one could always defect. Fidel Castro was not the first leader to lose his athletes at the Olympics. Take the Olympic victor from Crotona, who was offered a better deal by the Syracusians to represent them at the next Games. The good citizens of Crotona were so incensed they tore down his statue and turned his house into a prison.

Bribes

In 1999 the modern Olympic Games was hit by the worst scandal in its history, after it was discovered that six members of the IOC had been accepting ‘improper gifts’ from cities bidding to host the Games. There’s nothing new there either. Although the ancient games were held at Olympia, a holy site dedicated to Zeus, the patron-god of the contest, there was an ongoing battle between various cities as to who would have the privilege of actually running the Games.

Just like today, control of the Olympics had very lucrative commercial spin-offs for the host city. In 668 BC we hear of a dispute between Elis and Pisa. The city fathers hired the tyrant Pheidon to ‘secure the Sanctuary’ in the name of Pisa. With the help of a well-trained army, Pheidon took over Olympia and personally presided over the Games. But by 664, Elis was once again in control.

Elis was usually in control and provided all the judges. But this didn’t stop Elean athletes from competing. Although writers from the time tell us that the Eleans had a reputation for fairness and it would have been a shock to other Greeks if they had been caught cheating. Bribery, however, was not unheard of, and Pausanius records with horror that ‘one of the Eleans themselves had fallen so low’ (Pausanius 5.21.16ff). The dirty judge was one Damonicus, who received a pay-off from Sosander of Smyrna to make sure Sosander Junior won in the wrestling contest.

Bad winds and cowardice

The punishment for such a crime was not death, as the purists of today would like to believe, but a simple fine. In fact fines were imposed for all sorts of things. One athlete claimed that bad winds had kept his ship from arriving in time to join the pre-games training session, but it was later discovered that he had been travelling around Greece winning prize money in other competitions instead. He was liberated of his earnings. Another poor chap, when during a warm-up session saw the form of his rivals in the notoriously brutal wrestling contest (where only biting and the genital hold were outlawed, but breaking your opponent’s fingers was well within the rules) decided that discretion was the better part of valour and withdrew from the contest. He was fined for cowardice.

Tainted gold

So from the olive wreaths of the ancient games to the gold medals of the modern, we see that this showpiece of human idealism fails to live up to its own standards. And yet, I’m still a fan. It would be hypocritical of me not to be. In the same way that the Christian faith sets up an ideal of human co-operation and personal fulfilment that it frequently fails to deliver, the Olympic movement is still a noble idea: if you aim for the stars you can always fall on the tree tops.

This side of heaven

The difference between the Christian faith’s ‘failings’ and those of the Olympic movement are that the former’s imperfections will be made perfect in eternity. For the Olympics, this side of heaven is all that it’s got. And though it fails, it also succeeds, wonderously. Like many of you I will be glued to the television screen this August, marvelling at the diversity of human talent from around the world and the awesome achievements of people who strive to make the most of their physical talents. I will be moved by the strength of character of many of these athletes, in particular the paralympians, and will rise to my feet and applaud every gold, silver and bronze won with sweat and blood.

As a Christian I can learn what it means to make the most of the gifts God has given me. And though I lack in sporting prowess, I am reminded that my artistic, relational and spiritual gifts should not be neglected. And though millions today watching the Olympics may not acknowledge God as the creator and designer of the human form, it is still a testimony to His greatness.

Eternal flame

While the Olympic flame burns in Beijing, may it be a lasting symbol of the flame of God’s Spirit within us. The symbolism of fire was not lost on Pierre de Coubertin, Adolf Hitler or even the ancient Greeks – fire purifies, fire ignites, fire illuminates, fire nurtures and, if not handled with care, fire burns. The torch was not part of the original games, but is based on the idea that young athletes would race to win the privilege of lighting the altar fire at the Temple of Zeus.

Sport as religion

In ancient times sporting and cultural festivals would be staged in honour of the gods. In this newly secular world, these festivals are now held to the honour of Man as God. Yet they cannot get away from religious symbolism in the staging of their spectacles. Nor can we get away from sport as a religious metaphor, as the New Testament writers remind us:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? (there were no silver and gold places in those days!) Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.
(1 Cor 9:24)

To the glory of God

Sports stadia and theatres were once the temples of the ancient world. Some would say they still are. But rather than bemoaning the secularisation of sport and culture let us make every effort to reintegrate them into a Christian world view. Many of the new and growing churches around the world aim to meet in sports stadia; it is aligning Christianity with one of the world’s most successful religions: sport. The Olympian Eric Liddle famously said: ‘when I run I feel God’s pleasure’; let us remember that when we watch the Olympics this summer, and whatever we do, whether sporting or otherwise, let us do it all to the Glory of God.

A version of this article first appeared in SA Sports Illustrated as ‘For Glory and for Gain’ for the Athens Games, and more recently in The Plain Truth as ‘Olympic Spirit’ on the eve of the Beijing celebration.

Riots in Kenya, roadshows in America and assassinations in Pakistan make one wonder how healthy the 21st century’s state of democracy really is. It’s a doctrine espoused almost universally but applied with only relative success. So why is it still seen as an ideal of modern governance?

Image courtesy of e-strategy.com

As The Tablet pointed out in a recent editorial, some supporters of Kenya’s snubbed presidential candidate Raila Odinga feel that they’ve been denied ‘their chance to eat’; meaning a chance to enjoy the spoils of political victory. It’s widely perceived in Kenya that the current regime, under Mwai Kibaki has only been interested in the welfare of the president’s own Kikuyu tribe. It was felt that Odinga, a Luo, would correct this imbalance. While not wanting to malign Mr Odinga’s motivations without any evidence to support it, one wonders if his proposed administration will bring balance or simply tip the scale in the other direction.

A right to speak

Democracy is often misunderstood as ‘winner takes all’, forgetting that in a multi-party system, proportional representation should ensure minority rights are protected against the whims of the majority. Which is why, as was pointed out at the last British national election, more people voted against the Labour Party than for it (not forgetting there was only a voter turnout of 60%). But because the ruling party still had the biggest single slice of the pie, Tony Blair was asked to form a government. Yet Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and even the BNP still have the right to speak on behalf of their constituencies.

Another illustration of how democracy is not a majority rules system is the common view that if referenda were taken on certain contentious issues such as reintroducing the death penalty, the European Constitution, our involvement in Iraq etc, the ‘will of the people’ could be determined from a majority ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote.

Switzerland has this system of direct rather than solely representational democracy and referenda are held on a regular basis to determine how government policy should reflect the will of the people. However, Switzerland has a population of only 7.6 million compared to 60.8 million in the United Kingdom; hence it is far easier for the Swiss cantons to affect a system of direct democracy.

And have you also considered that the majority could also be wrong? As Shami Chakrabati of Liberty points out (read the full interview),

Democracy is not just majority rule; if it were there would be little difference between it and the rule of the mob.

Let’s not forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected to be Chancellor of Germany by a majority. And the majority of white Americans denied black Americans voting rights for centuries. Of course, in South Africa, it was the minority who oppressed the black majority; but it still does not mean that the majority is automatically right. As a voting adult in South Africa I voted in favour of majority rule, but it doesn’t follow that I believe everything the majority government now does is right.

Government in the pews

How does this apply to the Church? I have been brought up in Baptist churches where congregational government – run on a democratic system where each person admitted into membership has the right to vote on the running of the church – including the appointment or dismissal of pastors, deacons and elders – is in place. Now, in principle, I believe it’s a good system, particularly when I’m in agreement with the majority. But I’ve also been in the position where I’ve been in the minority camp where votes were cast to approve or disapprove of speaking in tongues in public worship and in another case the appointment of women as elders.

In both cases I believe that the minority view was backed by what I perceived to be the ‘Will of God’. Of course, the majority Holy Spirit-quenching misogynists (sorry!) believed God was on their side too. Who was right? To quote Abraham Lincoln:

My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.

In both churches, both ‘Tongues’ and women were admitted into the inner sanctuary in subsequent years. What I and the minority had to realize was that the democratic vote had shown not so much what was right but what the prevailing view of the majority was. If a minority vote had been pushed through at that time, the majority of the church would have been alienated and a split may have ensued.

Majority rules?

I was in another church for a few years (not Baptist) where congregational government was not observed. The pastor and some leaders felt ‘led’ to implement a new discipleship programme that I and many others in the church thought not suitable for our particular situation. ‘We’ were in the majority, but the pastor and his self-appointed inner circle felt it was the right thing and pushed it through. The result was 2/3 of the church leaving. It is four years later now and there is still emotional and spiritual fall-out from that dreadful split.

Of course, I’m aware that there are many churches that quite successfully operate without congregational government, with checks and balances in place from hierarchical structures to ensure that the leaders try, to the best of their ability, to serve their congregants and God. But democracy still operates at some level – even if it is on the most senior council.

Democracy of the heart

So what is it in the human heart that keeps democracy on its shaky pedestal? What most of us desire more than anything else is to be understood and loved for who we are. It’s an issue of value. Does my opinion or my needs, dreams or desires matter in this world? Being ignored is a terrible thing particularly when that ignorance deepens your suffering. What the notion of democracy does is to present an ideal world in which each individual matters, where we all care for each other whether we’re part of a minority or majority. In that sense, God is a democrat. He hears our prayers. We all matter to Him. And He instructs us to do the same. Jesus said:

Love the Lord you God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.
Matthew 22:37-39

Elsewhere it is said: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ I cannot think of a better outworking of the goals of democracy.

Unfortunately, as we all know, all of us fail to live up to God’s standards, and in the earthly realm we need structures and laws to protect the weak from the strong, to make sure all of us have the right to be heard and that the earth’s resources are equitably shared. And that’s what democracy attempts to do. It’s a poor reflection of God’s Kingdom but, for now, it’s the best we have got.

‘Democracy Rules – OK?’ first appeared in Plain Truth, March 2008