And, The Winner Is ...

May 30, 1991

In many religious communities, conversion is the acme of religious experience. Such is the witness of many thousands in times past and times present. Although never having this presumably supreme experience, I accept the testimony of those whose fervent conviction is that for them the experience is ineffable.

Religious conversion is an experience which profoundly changes the life of the convert. A different religion may be embraced, or there is a change from one belief or doctrine to another. Almost always for the true convert, there is an alteration in moral disposition and a mental shift in the way one understands the world. The convert believes, too, that a Divine Power was the catalyst in the radical change.

Paul represents the revered example of the Christian convert. Paul had persecuted the followers of Jesus. Paul had participated in, or observed with approval, the stoning to death of the martyr, Stephen. Then, on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced a stunning, blinding vision of Christ. From then on, year after year to the day of his martyrdom, he was the Apostle Paul, bringing the Christian faith to the Roman world. His missionary travels, his letters and influence sparked a world-wide Christian movement. The theology he constructed ABOUT Jesus Christ became more formative than the teachings OF Jesus. The intricate Christian theologies of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, countless others, can be fairly described as commentaries, footnotes and elaborations on the thought and convictions of Paul the Apostle.

Christianity won the Roman world. Nearly everyone likes to identify with the winner. But many times the identification seems more important than the experience.

Consider Constantine, “The Great,” another famous convert and a more powerful influence than Paul in transforming a Roman Empire to a Christian World. Constantine supported and extended the Edict of Toleration issued by Galerius in 311 (along with Constantine and Licinius). Constantine won an important victory at the battle of the Milvian Bridge, and later testified that he had a vision of the Cross which brought him victory.

Tolerance for other faiths continued under Constantine, but he was unquestionably an adherent of the Christian faith and granted special privileges to Christians. He subsidized Christian churches, gave special privileges to Christian priests, and housed the Bishop of Rome in the Lateran Palace. Constantine presided at the Council of Nicea (325) and supervised decisions of that and other Christian councils.

Constantine was a prudential convert. One need not question his sincerity to recognize his political acumen. He had observed the growing number of Christians, particularly among the lower and middle classes. Their growth was due not only to the appeal of the Savior they worshiped, but also to the bonds welded by their unselfish charities, their wide-spread mutual assistance groups, and their more exemplary ways of living.

Constantine was careful, too, in postponing Christian baptism until his death-bed. In Christian theology, baptism blotted out sins, and there were some sins he wanted to continue; [he] did not want the burden of sinning after baptism.

(A stray doctrinal question on this matter – why did Jesus undergo baptism by John the Baptist in the river Jordan? If Jesus was born free from Adam’s sin, why baptize him to wash away that which did not exist? I’m sure there are ponderous theological explanations, but is there a simple answer? I happen to believe that Jesus was not a sinless sin-bearer for all humankind, but a radical Jewish prophet preaching the Kingdom of God.)

Anyway/ Christianity became a winner. People identify with winners. Historian/biographer, Emil Ludwig (THE MEDITERRANEAN, p.226), relates the fascinating anecdote of Mamas, a Christian who owned a race-horse. When a Roman pagan entered his horse against the horse of Marnas, the Christian’s horse won, “whereupon many of the crowd accepted baptism.” But I guess that horseplayers have always entertained strange hunches in order to better their odds.

If you have a taste for religious history, you may remember Henry of Navarre (1553-1610). Against a background of religious persecution in France – the most notorious event being the slaughter of thousands of Huguenots in 1572 – Henry, a Protestant (or Reformed) became King of France on the condition that he convert to Roman Catholicism. Henry is reputed to have said, “Paris is worth a Mass.” Winning the crown was more important to Henry than losing his Protestant identity.

If one can reasonably say King Henry of Navarre was a religious hypocrite, one must also remember that he brought religious peace to a troubled land. In 1598, he issued the Edict of Nantes which granted toleration, with some limitations, to Protestants. The Edict also contained a secret provision forbidding that marriages between priests and nuns be disturbed. That Edict of toleration continued for nearly one hundred years until revoked by Louis XIV.

In our day, we are magnetized by winners and identify with them. Way back when I was growing up, there were anecdotes about some man, otherwise inconspicuous, who had once met the famous heavyweight boxing champion, John L. Sullivan, “The Boston Strong Boy.” Thereafter, the fan, every time he was introduced to someone, would always say, “Shake the hand that shook the hand of John L. Sullivan.” Many persons prize identifying with the famous winners even when the association is vague or trivial. In these early weeks of the 1991 baseball season, The Atlanta Braves are playing better baseball than for years. Guess what – attendance at home games has increased substantially. [CJW note, October 1991: Atlanta won the division and attendance was the most ever in the team’s 26 years in Atlanta]

A political manager treasures and publicizes a poll showing his candidate ahead. Why? Because there are those voters whose interest, knowledge, and political convictions may be minimal, but want to vote for the winner, even when the ballot is secret. The Winners’ Circle is a gratifying place to be.

For many, perhaps most, choosing one's religious affiliation or converting to another religion is an exalting and life-changing experience. No one may justly criticize such converts. But there have been a few times when a man, usually a professional, said candidly that while he agreed with the principles and practices of Unitarian Universalism, he was becoming a member of a church of another denomination. I was told that because another congregation was much larger or more select in socio-economic stratification, he could “generate more business.” I suppose that’s a variety of the Henry of Navarre syndrome. Whether such self-serving motivation is wide-spread, I have no idea. Usually not something anyone would admit.

I do not recall that I was saddened or bitter because of such encounters. In the many definitions of religion, there is always, explicitly or implicitly, principles that are linked to what a person values most (which may not always be the professed creed). While in office, President Calvin Coolidge said, “the business of America is business.” Could that be denied then or now? Metropolitan newspapers have a daily “Business” section with three or four pages of FREE listings of stock quotations, bond markets, foreign exchange, mutual funds, etc. On Saturday only, there is a “Religion” section where in my paper at least, much of the space is taken by PAID ads of various churches. This observation is not criticize the newspapers but rather an act of recognition as to what prevails in our culture. If Calvin Coolidge was paraphrased, “the religion of America is business,” would it be unduly cynical? The prophet, Jesus, said plainly, “where your treasure is there will be your heart also.” However, I am not unmindful that my minister’s salary was paid by members from their wages, salaries, profits, dividends. No matter how one exercises, one cannot pole vault out of the system. All are involved in its failings as well as virtues.

Fortunately for our present and future, there are some balancing ideas and motives. For some there are prevailing ideas even when it means exclusion from the Winners’ Circle. As a life-long Red Sox fan, I know that year after year after year there is strong, faithful attendance at Fenway Park, that architectural treasure of ball parks. Of course we moan and groan when, sooner or later in the season, the Bosox trip and fall. Our hopes are dashed but loyalty persists (amidst our grumbling).

In spite of the downsides in religious institutions to which I have referred, they still hold fast to principles which can sustain us. Sidney Alexander, the learned historian of the Italian Renaissance, wrote (LIONS AND FOXES, p.20) “The importance of ideas is determined not in terms of how many people hold them, understand them, or exercise them, but by the quality of the ideas.”

Churches, synagogues, religious fellowships have different myths, creeds, rituals, theologies, unlike ways of church governance, and have argued for millenia about where lies the seat of authority in religion. The history of religions, any and all of them, is not a seamless garment. There has been cruelty as well as kindness, bigotry as well as tolerance, tyranny as well as freedom, death-dealing as well as life-saving, much hate and much love.

Nevertheless, the Winners’ Circle may prevail – whether there are ten or a thousand gathered together – when among some at least, the religious meeting generates wholeness (holiness) as well as business, creates comrades as well as clients, acquires sensitivity as well as sales, and develops sustaining convictions as well as pleasant profits. That is a Winners’ Circle of enduring worth, perhaps unrecognized in our culture of consumers.