[amc] John Stoner on "The Passion..."

From: "Ray Gingerich" <RGingerich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Austin Mennonite Church" <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:38:49 -0600
Nature 

Tuesday 2/24/04 Flier for Gibson's "Passion"



  Remembering 
  that Jesus spoke for himself
  centuries before
  Mel Gibson’s movie came out. 

  Did watching the movie THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST help you to understand what 
Jesus meant when he said “If any want to become my followers, let them deny 
themselves and take up their cross and follow me?” (Mark 8)

  If you do indeed want to be a follower of Jesus, are you interested in doing 
that on his terms? That is to say, interested in letting Jesus, perhaps even 
more than Mel Gibson or centuries of church tradition, define what following 
Jesus would mean?

  To follow Jesus, one would need to see where Jesus is going; to see the path, 
the journey, and not only the point of arrival.

  And so following Jesus would involve understanding not only his death, but 
also, no doubt, his life and his teachings.

  Did the movie show you what there was in Jesus’ life and teachings which 
explains why some people and some powerful institutions of church and state 
wished to execute him? In other words, did the movie help you to understand why 
Jesus was killed, not only the fact that he suffered a horrible death? (Many 
people have suffered horrible deaths). 

  More than a comma
  You may have noticed that the movie is a little like the church’s confession 
in the Apostle’s Creed -- it passes over the life and teachings of Jesus. In 
the case of the creed, passes over with a comma (born of the Virgin Mary, 
suffered under Pontius Pilate). As a consequence, the death comes without a 
connection to the life; the life is rendered virtually irrelevant. And so of 
course, the life, and teachings, have no chance to explain the death. Could we 
give his life more than a comma?

  Could we believe Jesus, as well as believe in him?
  Jesus lived his life with the poor, the outcast, the marginalized, and even 
the rebels of society. He taught that those who hunger and thirst to see 
justice prevail will be satisfied, and he blessed the peacemakers (not the 
warmakers). He taught love of God, and of neighbor as self. But he went 
further, he taught love of enemies! (Matthew 5, Luke 6).

  Domineering religious and political powers kill enemies.
  It has been fairly suggested that while we may not know all that it means to 
love our enemies, it probably means at least do not kill them. The cross was 
the instrument of political execution used by the Romans to deter rebellion. 
There was a fundamental conflict between two methods of dealing with enemies: 
Jesus said love them; entrenched religious and political ideologies and powers 
said kill them (they truly believed their violence was redemptive). It could 
not be both ways. If people took Jesus’ way, the other way was doomed to lose 
adherents and power. And so, of course, they felt threatened by Jesus.

  So, what is Mel’s answer, your answer, to the question Jesus asked?
  Jesus asked, Is it lawful to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill? 
(Mark 3) If you ask that question of a draft board or a recruiting officer, of 
a Saddam or a George, you are beginning to take up your cross. You are 
believing Jesus enough to risk the cross, concretely, not just symbolically. 
Now you are believing Jesus (enough to take him seriously), not just believing 
in him. Again, in Jesus’ own words, whoever would be my follower, let them take 
up their cross and follow me. 

  Every Church A Peace Church, PO Box 240 Akron PA 17501 www.ecapc.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 "The only people on earth who do  not  see Christ and his teachings as 
non-violent are Christians." --Mohandas K. Gandhi
[amc] John Stoner on "The Passion..."

Other related posts:
