“The High Seriousness of the Religion of Sports: A Return to Polytheism” - Brittney Block

In this article, Higgs and Braswell try to distinguish between the ever twining topics of sport and religion. Their starting point is the popular college football. Higgs and Braswell then delve into the complex world known as sport and religion. This article explains how sport derived from religion and then explains how sport is now separating from religion.

Higgs and Braswell first begin the article with talking in-depth of the complex world known as college football. They explain how most footballers believe they are gods and expect to be treated as nothing less. Instead of student-athletes, they should be called athlete-students. Letting everyone know exactly where their priorities are: sport above everything else in their lives. Coach Paul “Bear” Bryant was the main advocacy of this theory, explaining how football is sacred; explaining how sport isn’t a religion, “…it’s more important than that.”

Higgs and Braswell identify how sport came about in Christianity. In order to be a successful religion, Christianity needed to shy away from its increasing seriousness. There began to be little play and humor in Christianity, the main focus was the seriousness of the sacred. To gain more support and following, the idea of play was introduced; this was known as Muscular Christianity. Muscular Christianity provided Christians with the ideal of masculinity and promoted physical strength & health in men. An increase of physical strength was seen as just as important as spirituality strength. This idea of play was seen as expression of faith; without play, religion is just “sterile rituals and stagnant beliefs.”

However, as time went by, play began to elevate to a higher standing; some claiming it to be on the same level as religion, others claiming it to be their religion. Play gave them everything that religion gave them; a sense of belonging, sense of identification, and a “church” where thousands worshipped. Higgs and Braswell said this to be the “eutrapelia or polytheism” debate. They pinned this debate to one fundamental question: “Can a person serve two masters if the masters are substantially different, if one master says love your neighbor as yourself and another says winning is the only thing?” In Higgs and Braswell’s arguments, they believe that sport isn’t a religion, rather an “authentic archetype of human action.” They believe that this whole idea is nothing more than eutrapelia: a well-turning person. This allows for both humor and play in the extremely sacred world that is religion. Going back to their fundamental question, eutrapelia is their answer. It wouldn’t be polytheistic to attend churches of different denominations; it would rather be the idea of eutrapelia. Having the ability to believe and practice different “religions” but still holding your fundamental beliefs in something greater than you.

References: Higgs, Robert J., and Michael C. Braswell. The High Seriousness of the Religion as Sports: A Return to Polytheism? An Unholy Alliance: The Sacred and Modern Sports. Macon: Mercer UP, 2004. 337-66.