Alternate Endings

I was in church yesterday, a respectable and growing church that uses the seeker format of Willow Creek or Saddleback. I heard a good respectable sermon, based in Acts 4, stressing bravery and boldness in living and proclaiming the Christian faith. In the course of the message, near the end, the Pastor told the story of Telemachus, a monk who came to ancient Rome from what is now Turkey and by his martyrdom ended the gruesome spectacle of gladiator contests in the coliseum. The pastor stressed in his telling of the story how the courage of one individual can alter the course of whole cultures.

Being a curious fellow, I decided to find out more about Telemachus and found that there are really two different endings to his story. Both of which can be found at a site called The Prayer Foundation. The first version of the story goes like this:

"Telemachus was a monk that lived in Asia in the fourth century. He felt an inner voice from the Lord to go to Rome, but didn't know why. He went anyway. He saw crowds going into the Coliseum, so he followed. He saw two gladiators fighting to the death, so he jumped down and tried to stop them but he kept getting knocked down by the gladiators. On the third time one of the gladiators ran his sword thru Telemachus and for the third time said "In the name of Christ, forbear", then he died. As the crowd saw Telemachus lying there in a pool of blood, there was silence and one by one the Coliseum emptied. Never again was there another gladiator fight."

Now this is truly an inspiring story. Telemachus was an historical figure and a fellow who was instrumental in ending the fights of the gladiators. There are details that need clarification. For example, Telemachus actually lived in the fifth century, which is significant in that Rome was officially friendly to Christianity, post Constantine, a fact that might somewhat alter the mental picture folks have of the culuture in hearing the story. (For example, why, were the games still going on? And why were so many in the stands?)

But the other version of the story is found in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret of Cyrus, Book V, Chapter XXVI. It has a very different ending. It goes like this.

"HONORIUS, who inherited the empire of Europe, put a stop to the gladiatorial combats which had long been held at Rome. The occasion of his doing so arose from the following circumstance. A certain man of the name of Telemachus had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out from the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and, stepping down into the arena, endeavoured to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant. and inspired by the triad fury of the demon who delights in those bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death.

"When the admirable emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the array of victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious spectacle."

I'm sure everyone sees the obvious, that the difference in the two versions of the story is primarily in the response of the crowd. But as a sermon illustration, the focus tends to be on Telemachus and his altering of the course of a civilization. And the different implications in the different ending deserve discussion.

In my Evangelical experience, I have long noted the tendency to be fascinated by the inspirational story, to be drawn to the emotional impact of the great stirring ending. The hollywood climax of the first version of the story -- with Telemachus uttering the inspiring words "In the name of Christ, forbear", not once but three times in some tellings, the last time while lying in a pool of his own blood, leading to the stunned silence of 80,000 onlookers, who stricken with shame, slowly file out of the coliseum -- makes great theater.

The second version, on the other hand, has the ring of reality to it. Instead of Telemachus having a great "line" which pricks the conscience of the onlookers, he simply tries to stop two men from killing each other. Rather than the people being moved to repentance, the base human nature responds with the same selfish lust for blood that brought them to the arena in the first place. Telemachus is killed, just the same, but the effects of his action are not immediately felt. There is no "altar call" moment.

And I find that such a subtle distinction has great implications for how such a sermon illustration is applied.

Those of us listening to such a sermon are subtly inspired by the first version of the story to think that if we take a stand for what is right, the results will be just like the Hollywood ending. There will be immediate and visible fruit. If we are courageous, we will find just the right words to turn hearts from evil -- in a mere moment, great things will occur.

The reality is, I think somewhat different. We need to be told, reminded, warned, that standing for what is right often does not lead to immediate results. Telemachus never saw anyone changed by his action. Instead he saw an angry mob throwing stones with the intent to murder him. 80,000 people did not immediately repent. Rather they simply added him to their list of victims. Presumably the games went on that day and few in the stands gave his death a second thought.

We become disillusioned as Christians when our lives, our bold stands for truth, our struggles to be faithful do not lead to happy endings, do not lead to dramatic visible results. And that disillusionment is often the result of hearing a few too many "happy ending" stories. Not that ministers who use the first version of Telemachus' story intentionally mislead. But there is a temptation to go for the maximum emotional impact to get the maximum motivation. And for a moment, folks are motivated. Then the time to take a stand comes. And when the results are mixed, negative, or even completely nill, we wonder why. When will the climactic musical score rise? When will the dramatic final scene begin?

But the truth is that for every missionary who sees great numbers of converts and changed lives, there are other missionaries who see none at all. My hunch is for every act of courage that leads to dramatic change there are dozens of similar acts which have no visible effect on anyone. Yet which act is more faithful? Which is more effective? Which will God judge us by? Only he knows the effect of our faithfulness or lack thereof.

Of course, the end result, in the case of Telemachus, was that the gladiator games did end. His deed did produce results. The results were not perhaps what he might have planned for or hoped for, and he may have had no plan at all. Nor did he live to see any of it. Those are details that should not be left out. We need to know that standing for the truth often does not lead to visible results, the instant victory, the hollywood ending. Our faithfulness should be based on the truth of the faith, not the results we see in this life.