"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades. Now write what you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this." Rev. 1:17-19.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

"Son of God" vs. God's Beloved Son



 The Last Sunday of Epiphany: The Transfiguration of Our Lord


Exodus 24:12-18
2 Peter 1:16-21
Matthew 17:1-9
Psalm 99


O God, who before the passion of your only­ begotten Son revealed his glory upon the holy mountain: Grant to us that we, beholding by faith the light of his countenance, may be strengthened to bear our cross, and be changed into his likeness from glory to glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.


          I saw the “Son of God” on Friday! Not in blindingly white robes on a mountain with Moses and Elijah, but on the screen at Tinseltown! Perhaps you have heard about this new movie, based on footage of TV’s miniseries The Bible and produced by Touched By An Angel’s Roma Downey and her husband? I knew that it wouldn’t be great cinema and had heard that it was both predictable and melodramatic—but I grew up on Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea and am an avid collector of Celine Dion ballads—so I took a chance that there would be a Transfiguration scene, and I headed over to check it out.
          I won’t advise you to rush to see this movie or to avoid it. Scholars could have a field day with some historical inaccuracies, and movie-makers could slam it for cheesy sets and stilted dialogue. What I found interesting, though, is how the film’s writers played with the Bible’s chronologies and characters to get across their own particular understanding of the Gospel. At first, the blatant changes from scripture irritated me, but then it hit me: That is just what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were doing, I realized with a smile: retelling the story so that it would speak Good News to their own communities. What interests me for this sermon, then, is to examine what kind of Son of God has been created for our community of American Christians by this film … And more specifically, is he different from the Jesus of Matthew’s Transfiguration story that we read today?
          The Jesus in Son of God is distractingly handsome. As one critic put it, “he would be the best-looking guy in the room at an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog shoot.”[1] He is very laid-back, far from the angry revolutionary of Reza Aslans’ recent Zealot book. Trying very hard to sport the Mona Lisa’s enigmatic half-smile, this Jesus floats from scene to scene, oozing confidence, grace, and ease—until the Passion draws nigh, that is, and the film decides that it needs to be sure we know that he is suffering mightily for our sins. Most of all, though, the movie’s Jesus is full of compassion, and that resonated with me. I liked the way the film portrays the scenes of his healing miracles—as real miracles, yet more focused on the love that Jesus has for the sufferers than on the miraculous gestures. I liked how the writers emphasize the brutal oppression that the Jewish people suffered under Roman rule, and how this Jesus speaks to his disciples of changing the world, of bringing hope into the darkness of their lives. I liked the way the film shows him doing my own favorite “Jesus-thing”: shaking up the certainties of the Pharisees with a just a gentle little twist of words that turns everything upside down. The Resurrection appearances are also tastefully done, I thought. Like the earthly Jesus, this Resurrected Christ also emphasizes the call to action, the call to us as disciples to go out and change the world. So, all in all, I was comfortable with this Jesus: a handsome and compassionate face of God; a clever and peaceful agent of change in the world. He is a Jesus who could fit nicely in the understanding of Evangelical Christians, who seek a loving friend, a personal relationship, with their Lord. He is a Jesus who could fit just as nicely in the understanding of “progressive Christians,” who find hope in social change and want a pacifist, liberator-Jesus whom they can imitate in word and deed.
          Yet, there was no Transfiguration scene in Son of God. I was hopeful when the movie began the story of Jesus’ birth with the scene of the wise men following the star to the stable. “Perfect,” I thought, “they are starting with Epiphany, the manifestation to the gentile world of Jesus as God’s Son! Next, they’ll have Jesus’ baptism, and then his transfiguration, and each time they can have God’s voice from heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son…’ Yes, Son of God! They are so clever to tie Epiphany into the title of the movie!” I marveled. But they didn’t do it. Even Jesus’ baptism was only given a hurried flashback of a few seconds, as Jesus remembered his murdered cousin John the Baptist. A friend reminded me that transfiguration would be difficult to portray on film, and that is true. Yet, the filmmakers didn’t shy away from portraying miracles or the resurrection appearances—equally as difficult to film. Goodness, they even did a rather tasteful job with Jesus’ ascension into heaven!  They certainly weren’t reticent to portray Jesus as the Son of God. After all, that’s what they named the movie! This was no purely human Jesus teaching us good life lessons. So where was the Transfiguration?
          I believe that the transfiguration got left out of the movie for the same reason that it troubles us when we read about it. I think that we American Christians these days want our Jesus to be our personal friend, to be someone that we can imitate and understand. We want Jesus to be the compassionate and friendly face of God, not some brilliantly dark mystery just as perplexing as the Father. But Jesus, of course, is never just what we want him to be.
          Barbara Brown Taylor gives a wonderful sermon on today’s text in which she criticizes the directions of most sermons on it. To preachers, she advises, tongue in cheek: “If you have to say anything at all [about transfiguration], then you’re better off sticking with the Bible commentaries. Just say the thing about Jesus surpassing the law and the prophets, poke a little fun at Peter [wanting to build a tent up there], bury the rest. It might have been God. Then, again, it might have been last night’s Thai food.”[2] I’m afraid that’s what we usually do—bury the inexplicable mystery that might make us sound like superstitious fools. We try to lay out what this strange story of transfiguration means. We start to make the story about us and our own mystical experiences of God. We try to find the “take away” or relate it to current events, making the image about something that we can do and understand. As preacher Fred Craddock writes, “[N]ot all [understandings of Jesus] fit the contours of our lives, not all [understandings of Jesus] can be consumed without remainder in moral examples and ethical preachments.”[3]
We do need moral examples, scripture texts that we can try to apply to our lives, ethical guidance for the tough road that we walk in the world. We were just talking at Pub Theology on Tuesday about how thirsty we are for scripture to speak to our lives and guide us in our political and moral choices. But whenever we seek such guidance, we need to keep in mind that encounters with God—in scripture and in the world—are dazzling encounters that blind us as often as they enlighten us. There are no easy answers. The Transfiguration reminds us, with its blinding white light and its mysterious divine cloud on the mountaintop, that Jesus is more than our friend and teacher, that Jesus’ story is more than compassion and answers to the world’s troubles, that God’s Son has a streak of strangeness in him.
What I like about Matthew’s description of the Transfiguration is that Matthew’s Jesus steps out of the blinding light and away from the divine cloud and comes over to the disciples, who have collapsed in the dust with the kind of awe that is akin to terror. Jesus comes and touches them saying, “Be raised up and do not be afraid.” Matthew’s transfiguration gives us the recent film’s compassionate Jesus, smiling and gently touching, at the same time as he gives us the strange Jesus, enshrouded in divine mystery. Craddock says that Matthew’s transfiguration scene is one of “disturbing consolation.”[4] That’s what God always gives us, isn’t it? Disturbing consolation. Clarity that is mystery. Jesus in the face of a homeless man. Jesus in the face of our enemy. A glorious Presence in the midst of terrible pain.
On the other hand, a Jesus who only consoles, handing us the miracles for which we clamor, the easy freedom for which we long, the satisfying personal relationship that we would crave from loved ones here on earth, that isn’t a real Jesus, is it? I think that if I had been one of the disciples in the film, I probably wouldn’t have gone with Jesus to face the perils that awaited them all in Jerusalem. The rabbi that the film’s disciples followed promised to change the world; he was clever with the religious authorities; he was compassionate and did some miraculous things …. But without the transfiguration, without seeing the glory of God in him and being raised up in love all at the same time, I don’t think that I would have risked my neck by following him to the Cross. Today, too, I need a glimpse of Transfiguration before Lent, glory before passion, light before darkness. Compassion alone won’t make me strong. An example to follow won’t make me brave. A handsome friend is not the God who creates from nothing and raises me up to a new kind of courageous life. No matter how glorious the end of the film, I need “disturbing consolation” along the way.


[1] Peter Hartlaub, “‘Son of God’ Review: Jesus Biography a Mixed Blessing” found at http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Son-of-God-review-Jesus-biography-a-mixed-5274945.php
[2] Barbara Brown Taylor, “The Bright Cloud of Unknowing,” found at http://day1.org/5560-the_bright_cloud_of_unknowing.
[3] Fred Craddock, “Christ is not as we are,” found at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=705.
[4] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment