In the midst of the sea of commentaries following the release of Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ movie, I have my bit to add. This comes after processing the movie over the past month since I saw it.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Jesus’ actions portrayed in the movie was how he responded to the individuals who were physically torturing him and verbally accusing him. Jesus did not respond to the allegations with longwinded defenses. He superseded the natural human response which is to defend ones’ self. Jesus’ inaction, his giving up his right to vindication, spoke more than any human defense could have. Jesus had the faith in God to trust that only God could penetrate the hearts of his perpetrators towards change.
I am reminded of the movie The Mission which stars Robert De Niro as Rodrigo Mendoza, a former mercenary in the process of converting to the Jesuit order and Jeremy Irons as a Jesuit Priest who moved into the Brazilian rainforest to bring the Gospel to the Guarani people. As the Spanish and Portuguese attempt to take over the land inhabited by the indigenous people, Irons and De Niro are divided in their ideas about fighting the occupation and usurpation of the land. De Niro, the former soldier, reverts back to taking up arms and fighting the European armies in conventional combat. Irons, unable to justify the killing of another human being, even the enemy, chooses not to fight back. Both men are killed--De Niro during the course of fighting with the enemy, and Irons while peacefully walking through the village, having just concluded mass, with natives following him. One man took the path natural to the human condition and fought to protect his people, his land—what was rightfully the community’s. The other man gave up his right physically to defend what was fairly the Guarani’s land. Irons rose to the higher level and did not take part in the combat. He took the path that others have taken—Archbishop Romero, Gandhi, MLK, Cesar Chavez….Jesus.
Is either defense greater than the other? Is one more life changing? Is one more impacting to the perpetrator?…………………….
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Jesus’ actions portrayed in the movie was how he responded to the individuals who were physically torturing him and verbally accusing him. Jesus did not respond to the allegations with longwinded defenses. He superseded the natural human response which is to defend ones’ self. Jesus’ inaction, his giving up his right to vindication, spoke more than any human defense could have. Jesus had the faith in God to trust that only God could penetrate the hearts of his perpetrators towards change.
I am reminded of the movie The Mission which stars Robert De Niro as Rodrigo Mendoza, a former mercenary in the process of converting to the Jesuit order and Jeremy Irons as a Jesuit Priest who moved into the Brazilian rainforest to bring the Gospel to the Guarani people. As the Spanish and Portuguese attempt to take over the land inhabited by the indigenous people, Irons and De Niro are divided in their ideas about fighting the occupation and usurpation of the land. De Niro, the former soldier, reverts back to taking up arms and fighting the European armies in conventional combat. Irons, unable to justify the killing of another human being, even the enemy, chooses not to fight back. Both men are killed--De Niro during the course of fighting with the enemy, and Irons while peacefully walking through the village, having just concluded mass, with natives following him. One man took the path natural to the human condition and fought to protect his people, his land—what was rightfully the community’s. The other man gave up his right physically to defend what was fairly the Guarani’s land. Irons rose to the higher level and did not take part in the combat. He took the path that others have taken—Archbishop Romero, Gandhi, MLK, Cesar Chavez….Jesus.
Is either defense greater than the other? Is one more life changing? Is one more impacting to the perpetrator?…………………….
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home