Over the past few days I’ve been watching with interest the protests facing the Olympic torch as it went from Greece, to London, to Paris, and yesterday to San Francisco. This weekend, prior to its arrival in London, a number of public figures, including Steve Redgrave, spoke out against the protests saying that sport should not be the pawn of politics. These figures were ostensibly making the argument that the messy symbolism and realities of “politics” are and ought to be distinct from the “pure” symbolism of Olympic sport.

The problem with this line of argument is that it falls flat on its face in the first instance. A quick glance at the IOC’s own material on the Olympic ideal demonstrates that the Olympic organisers themselves are unable to separate themselves from the real world – indeed, they are compelled to be fully involved in bringing about positive political change. The Olympic Truce is a prominent feature on the IOC’s web site describing the Olympic charter. Here they emphasis how they envision sport to be a powerful symbol for peace and reconciliation. My question is – where is this action in relation to China’s illegal occupation of Tibet? How is the IOC actively engaging with the oppression of Tibetens in their own country by an occupying power?

When I first read Steve Redgrave’s justification for his carrying the torch through London in this weekend’s Guardian, my first reaction was, less than refined: Bullocks! I sat and reflected for a moment on his line – that sport is not the medium of politics. The fact is however, that this has never been true. More importantly however, according to the Olympic charter itself, the Olympic ideal is one of realising the “educational value of good example and respect for universal ethical principles.” What are these universal ethical principals if not to defend the right of a country the size of the EU not to be occupied by a foreign power? What are these universal ethical principals if not to recognise that Tibetens are not second and third class citizens anywhere, let alone in their own country? What are these universal ethical principals if not to defend the right of Tibetens to observe their faith, celebrate their culture, speak their language, and observe their laws and customs?

Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world” (Jn. 18.36). We often think of this as referring to the spiritual dominion of God. But take a moment and think of whom he was standing before when he said it. Pilate was the political authority – Jesus was making a clear statement that his authority did not arise from political means. Did this make his teaching any less true, or authoritative? No of course not. What is interesting to me here is the fact that while political movements and ideas are constantly shifting (one need only look at the many identities of Chinese communism to see this borne out) the foundational teaching of Christ remains constant (how we struggle with its meaning and application is another story).

I applaud the hundreds of protesters who have, and who are preparing to engage with the potent symbolism of the Olympic torch on its journey around the world. I am dismayed at the blinders Steve Redgrave and others have chosen to wear at this time – ignoring the principles of their own movement, the plight of Tibet, and the powerful symbolism of the Olympic torch relay to the Beijing games, and to China. The assertion that this is merely a political issue, and ought not to be intertwined with the Olympics is both naïve and, it seems to me, ignores one of the ideals of the Olympic spirit – basic human rights (ethics) is not a political issue, it is a human issue. How do we know this, because the Master taught us that, politics aside, our neighbour is the man or woman in front of us, and we as ambassadors of Christ, the living embodiment of the Christian ideal, have a responsibility to “create a way of life based on . . . [the] value of good example and respect for universal ethical principles.”