Tuesday, February 15, 2005 AD
...was crucified also for us under...
Finally got round to watching The Passion of the Christ recently. Powerful stuff. For all the film's flaws - particularly its lingering focus on physical details that the Gospel writers choose to pass over in a few words - it defies understanding that anyone could watch that film and not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of humanity. But then, the film itself depicts well the ability of people to witness these events at first hand and still come away unmoved.
Of course, not all the responses shown are negative. One of the best moments is Mel Gibson's treatment of the centurion's declaration, "Truly this man was the Son of God." How on earth do you depict this on film without calling John Wayne irresistibly to mind? Simple: don't have him say it at all. But as he removes his helmet and looks towards the body of Jesus on the cross, we all know what he's thinking. The restraint of that shot is particularly moving in a film that is otherwise not exactly characterised by restraint (which I don't mean as a criticism, but which is still true).
However, like Tony Blair - who once famously described him as "the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of a dilemma" - one figure I found particularly compelling in the film was Pontius Pilate.
Apparently, some Coptic churches regard Pontius Pilate as a saint. Well, if he is a saint, then surely he is the patron saint of unforeseen consequences. Or perhaps more precisely: the patron saint of underestimated consequences.
Let's look at this from Pilate's perspective. Is his sin really so shocking? After all, governing authorities have been condemning innocent people to death for the sake of public expediency since time immemorial. Pilate was scarcely to know that Innocent Victim #2,365,485 out of total to date of 145,635,485 was in fact the Lord of Life, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.
In short, Pilate - though by all accounts a pretty nasty specimen - was not especially or uniquely wicked. Any other Roman governor in his position would probably have done the same thing. Pilate was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Much the same thing can be said about the others involved in Jesus' death, such as the soldiers, or members of the Jewish religious establishment. The human beings responsible for Jesus' death were not engaged in a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy the Lord of Life: they were people who were cutting a few corners to deal with a situation that threatened their own positions. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".
So, does this make what Pilate did OK, then? Not at all. This isn't about saying "Well, Pilate's sin wasn't all that bad in itself, it just had unexpected consequences". Still less is it about saying that Pilate was a "saint". Rather, Pilate's sin shows just how consequential our "small" sins really are.
Jesus Himself teaches that it is the small decisions, the casual words, that reveal our true character and which will condemn us at the Judgment . Pilate is perhaps history's greatest example of how this can work in practice.
One"expedient" decision, one "pragmatic" bypassing of proper behaviour - and you end up in the Creed.
Of course, not all the responses shown are negative. One of the best moments is Mel Gibson's treatment of the centurion's declaration, "Truly this man was the Son of God." How on earth do you depict this on film without calling John Wayne irresistibly to mind? Simple: don't have him say it at all. But as he removes his helmet and looks towards the body of Jesus on the cross, we all know what he's thinking. The restraint of that shot is particularly moving in a film that is otherwise not exactly characterised by restraint (which I don't mean as a criticism, but which is still true).
However, like Tony Blair - who once famously described him as "the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of a dilemma" - one figure I found particularly compelling in the film was Pontius Pilate.
Apparently, some Coptic churches regard Pontius Pilate as a saint. Well, if he is a saint, then surely he is the patron saint of unforeseen consequences. Or perhaps more precisely: the patron saint of underestimated consequences.
Let's look at this from Pilate's perspective. Is his sin really so shocking? After all, governing authorities have been condemning innocent people to death for the sake of public expediency since time immemorial. Pilate was scarcely to know that Innocent Victim #2,365,485 out of total to date of 145,635,485 was in fact the Lord of Life, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.
In short, Pilate - though by all accounts a pretty nasty specimen - was not especially or uniquely wicked. Any other Roman governor in his position would probably have done the same thing. Pilate was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Much the same thing can be said about the others involved in Jesus' death, such as the soldiers, or members of the Jewish religious establishment. The human beings responsible for Jesus' death were not engaged in a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy the Lord of Life: they were people who were cutting a few corners to deal with a situation that threatened their own positions. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".
So, does this make what Pilate did OK, then? Not at all. This isn't about saying "Well, Pilate's sin wasn't all that bad in itself, it just had unexpected consequences". Still less is it about saying that Pilate was a "saint". Rather, Pilate's sin shows just how consequential our "small" sins really are.
Jesus Himself teaches that it is the small decisions, the casual words, that reveal our true character and which will condemn us at the Judgment . Pilate is perhaps history's greatest example of how this can work in practice.
One"expedient" decision, one "pragmatic" bypassing of proper behaviour - and you end up in the Creed.
