It was more than entertainment. A movie I just saw made me think, and it even deepened my awareness. It reminded me how systems of religious belief consistently become intertwined with secular social structure and the exercise of power. I see this at all levels, from a family to a mega-state. The belief and control structures become so entangled with each other that it becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other.
I instantly saw echoes of my younger self in the movie “Silence”, a story of two young Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Japan. The Japanese are torn between a traditional social structure and the recent infusion of christianity. The intense personal belief of the missionary priests is challenged by the pragmatism of saving peasants from suffering at the expense of the faith of the priests.
The one priest is confronted by silence, a lack of divine inspiration on how to solve his conflict. His unyielding attachment to his personal identify as a believer, to the end, keeps him from being of substantive use to the people he is there to help.
He is ultimately unable to be of benefit to the Japanese because he remains such an outsider both in belief and nationality. The struggle is never resolved.
I was reminded of how I saw that my own personal belief began to be an obstacle to my being a genuine benefit to people I intended to serve. Had I been loyal to the beliefs of my community of Catholic monks, I might have been able to give believing people what they wanted but not what I saw they needed.
I deliberately and pragmatically learned how to bend the rules of my believing community so that I could be of genuine service. In time I learned that I had to let go of loyalty to the institution that made the rules and dictated my faith. I separated myself from the structure of belief, and in time embraced my own personal belief.
Since then, I have realized that I am better living a life without belief altogether. I have decided to attach myself only to what I can experience and understand. In the movie, I was surprised that the missionary priest never made that move, but instead chose to remain stubbornly attached to his silent divinity. All the supporting elements were present, but he could not let go of his own restricted identity as a believer.
The identities of Church and State were mingled, just in real life. I think his identity as a believer was intertwined with his identity as Portuguese. And so it was for the Japanese. He remained a Portuguese believer in a country of Japanese believers.
His system of belief supported a certain social structure, and that belief could not yield to a foreign social structure. Neither could his belief be tolerated by a country whose social structure relied on beliefs indigenous to Japan.
Commitment to my way of belief was once tied intimately to my commitment to a certain social structure and social order. My commitment to belief was actually synonymous with my commitment to a religious institution. In the movie, I well understood the Japanese concern for maintaining a belief that supported social order, even while I did not like their methods of imposing control.
That should not be at all surprising because belief systems, religions, are consistently part of the affairs of state. Christianity prevailed because it became the state religion and strengthened the power of the state. Muslims are often identified not by religious beliefs as their name would suggest, but with their political entanglements.
I often hear it asked whether someone a Jew because of their belief, their heritage or their nationality. From the beginning, Christianity has been the State religion of the United States, in spite of a bold and brave attempt by many to support and be inclusive of people who have other beliefs. While hardly practiced, the intent to be inclusive is often spoken.
The movie reminded me what a relief it is for me to be separate from the social framework of a Church. I am able to acknowledge that I no longer want to believe in a certain way or believe at all. I am free of that strangling structure. The movie left me disappointed that neither the main character nor the director, Martin Scorsese, seemed to exhibit that same break.