So What?
An anthropological reading of this
text produces further evidence that the linkage between a theology of the
cross and the mimetic theory can help us see the mistakes of our propensity
to desire a theology of glory, to preach such a vision of Christ and to succumb
to the mimetic powers.
The ‘critical’ world has
long had trouble with a theology of glory. Luther despised its medieval form;
Kierkegaard lamented it in Hegel and Nietzsche lambasted it as a ‘slave
morality.’ Barth equated it with the anti-Christ and Bonhoeffer deplored
it. Unfortunately, the current popular view of Jesus is still fueled by a
theology of glory. That is why this current version of Jesus is so powerless
in this world until he comes again riding the waves of God’s fury. This
Jesus is exclusivist and resembles Zeus more than the Creator. The fact that
Jesus has nothing to do with wrath or a wrathful God rarely seems to cross
the modern mind. Even at the beginning of the twenty-first century, for all
of our modern achievements, many are still “primordial” in their
religious views. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We believe that our repentance must include
turning from portraits of Jesus that align him with theologies of glory. The
author of the Markan gospel evidently felt similarly. Unless we repent of
these false Christologies and turn to the Living Lord who has rejected violence
and transformed mimesis we cannot begin to find our way to a gospel of real
peace.
In our current situation in which God,
more specifically the Judeo-Christian God of American civil religion, is invoked
with more and more frequency, it is doubly important that those charged with
preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ continue courageously in their affirmation
of the God of Peace. America, once again, is seeing a mingling of theology
and politics that is reminiscent of Europe before World War II. As the religious
rhetoric is ratcheted up on all sides (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu et
al.) we can expect a competition of the gods worthy of a modern Olympics.
The God of Peace does not play in these games. Neither should we.
2006
Some sermon thoughts: Mark, always in
a narrative rush, takes time to link the story of the Transfiguration with
Jesus' first prediction of the Passion. "Six days after this.."
This sort of connector between pericopes is rare for Mark, whose favorites
seem to be "And" or "And immediately." That Mark intends
us to see this glorification of Jesus as incomplete can be seen in the number
of days he cites. Six days are incomplete, lacking the perfection of the number
seven or the days in a week. This is no misplaced resurrection appearance,
but a foretaste linked specifically to the predictions of Jesus' death.
We do well, as preachers, to pay careful
attention to the introduction of our reading for today. "Six days after
what?" is the first question to answer for our hearers. Without this,
the Transfiguration collapses in a heap of glitter and shouts of joy. Instead,
only eight words are needed. "This is my beloved son. Listen to him."
Until we can see, and help our hearers see that the Cross is Jesus'
glory (as the Fourth Gospel insists, over and over again) we will have no
real alternatives to offer the church from the ways of death and violence
(hidden beneath myths of glory) that their world holds out to them.
Anthropological Reading
In our reflections on Mark so far this
year we’ve seen that the theology of the cross permeates the gospel
narrative beginning with the foreshadowed death of John the Baptist. We’ve
talked about the importance of seeing Jesus’ baptism ‘from below’
and setting the recognition of Christ’s identity within a context of
conflict with the “powers” and the struggle for their destruction.
Here, in the story of the Transfiguration
(a narrative which does not appear in the Fourth Gospel), the same principle
can be applied. This narrative is sandwiched between two passion predictions.
This seems an apt signal to employ a theology of the cross when we preach
this narrative, too.
As we observe in the Historical/Cultural
section, this text has been said to be a resurrection narrative '‘in
disguise.' We do not think so, but even if it is, since it is framed by the
passion predictions, it surely reflects on the vindication of the innocent
victim who will suffer at the hands of humanity.
This ‘proleptic’ story of
glorification forms an inclusio with the First Sunday in Epiphany, the story
of Jesus’ baptism. In neither narrative does Jesus speak, in both narratives
it is the ‘Bat Qol’, the voice of God, which speaks. In the baptism
story, God speaks to Jesus (“You are my Son”), here to the disciples
(“This is my Son”). In both cases, it is the Son “whom I
love.” In the baptism comes the affirmation to Jesus that with him God
is well pleased, and to the disciples in the transfiguration narrative comes
the admonition to “Listen to Him.”
Listen to what? To what he says before
and after this story about the suffering Son of Man! Since Jesus does not
say anything here, we can safely conclude that the ‘Bat Qol’ is
admonishing the disciples/readers for their failure to hear and accept what
Jesus was talking about. We suspect Mark’s “disciples” were
too caught up in their theologies of glory and exclusivist apocalyptic orientation.
Ched Myers (Binding
The Strong Man), with his usual wit, points out that Peter refers to Jesus
as ‘Rabbi’ and that “at two later points in Mark’s
story in which ‘Rabbi’ occurs, the disciples are standing over
against Jesus: (1) their lament over Jesus’ repudiation of the Temple
(11.21) and (2) Judas’ greeting even as he betrays Jesus to the high
priests (14:45). Is this also such a moment? It seems so, for again instead
of understanding the way of the cross Peter proposes a cult of adulation.
Peter is not alone at seeing the transfiguration
event from the perspective that Myers attributes to him. William Lane (Commentary
on the Gospel of Mark, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), e.g., sees the transfiguration
as “a manifestation of the sovereignty of God in a triumphal unveiling
of Jesus’ dignity.” This interpretation conceals the radical character
of the revelation of the victim and sounds more like Calvinism than Mark.
And again, “The transfiguration constituted a warning to all others
that the ambiguity which permits the humiliation of Jesus and of those faithful
to him will be resolved in the decisive intervention of God promised in Ch.
8:38.” What might be this intervention of which Lane speaks? In the
typical Augustinian-influenced Christianity, it would be the deus ex machina
who is coming to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, (Do not
pass GO, do not collect $200!). If this is what Lane means then we must part
company.
We do not need to go that route however.
Robert Hamerton-Kelly (The
Gospel and the Sacred) puts it this way: “The disciples are represented
by Peter, James, and John, and the message they hear is the message Jesus
heard at the moment of his baptism. It links his messianic identity with the
servant of Is. 42:1, and, by implication, with the whole of the portrait of
the suffering servant (Mk 9:7). The glory of the Messiah, while unequivocal
in heaven, is dialectical on earth, mediated through its opposite. The meanings
of the titles ‘Christ,’ ‘Son of Man,’ and ‘Son
of God’ coalesce into the figure of the humble servant of God willing
to undergo the suffering required for the success of his mission. The transfiguration
story, however, like the miracle stories, keeps vivid before the reader the
true dignity of this humiliated one.”
Historical/Cultural Reading
Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social
Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels) observe several important
aspects of our text that we would like to expand upon. In a brief paragraph
they state: “The assertion of Jesus’ sonship, stated programmatically
in Mark’s opening words (1.1) and affirmed by the voice from heaven
(1:11) is here (v. 7) recapitulated in a preview of the resurrected Lord.
This is the ultimate honor status of Jesus, witnessed to by spirit beings
(3.11; 5.7) and Gentiles (15.39) but questioned and denied by Jesus’
own people (14.61). The title is stated at the very beginning (by the author)
and at the end (by the centurion) of the gospel story. Its assertion at the
baptism, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, is recapitulated as Jesus’
career draws to a close. The retrojected resurrection appearance functions
to give the reader a preview of the final vindication of the claim.”
Several questions emerge:
1. What is meant by a ‘retrojected
resurrection appearance?’
2. What is the relation of the title Son of God and Son of Man in Mark? (For
Jesus?)
3. Why are the disciples and Jesus’ people so unable to see?
Since the advent of form criticism it
has been thought that the transfiguration story is actually a papered over
version of a resurrection appearance. It is a ‘legend.’ We grant
this possibility, though we find scant evidence for it aside from traditional
academic dis-ease with any image of Jesus that does not conform to certain
minimalist standards. But even if this is so, it is all the more crucial that
we do not ignore the Markan framework. Otherwise we shall have to account
for this narrative in terms of an apocalyptic theology of glory. Commentators
are divided not by exegesis but by their philosophical presuppositions. We
do not believe that the transfiguration narrative is a retrojected resurrection
story, although it most certainly is to be connected to the resurrection,
either narratively or historically, as the vindication of the innocent messenger
of God.
The excellent study of Jack Dean Kingsbury
(The
Christology of Mark’s Gospel) is extremely helpful to understanding
the relationship of the titles Son of God and Son of Man in Mark. One of the
major assets of Kingsbury’s work is to work within the problem of the
so-called messianic secret and to observe that “the Son of God and Son
of Man aspects of Mark’s christology also complement each other by treating
such fundamental topics as the public activity, death, and vindication of
Jesus from different perspectives.”
That is, (we would say) both titles can
be seen in the light of mimetic theory. Regarding Son of Man, Kingsbury says,
“the overall impact of this title upon Mark’s story is that it
underlines the twin elements of conflict with the ‘world’ and
of vindication in the sight of the ‘world’ at the Parousia.”
This theme of vindication fits comfortabely within a Christian understanding
of the resurrection.
And this connects us, according to Kingsbury,
with our final question regarding the obtuseness of the disciples. The disciples
do not “comprehend what they are taught or what is revealed to them.
Nor could they in Mark’s conception of reality. For according to Mark,
Jesus identity as the royal Son of God is inseparably bound up with Jesus’
destiny of the cross. Not until one sees the cross to be the ultimate goal
of Jesus’ ministry can one see Jesus to be the royal Son of God (15.39).
And not until one sees Jesus to be the royal Son of God can one ‘think’
about him normatively, that is, as God ‘thinks’ about him (1.11;
9.7; 15.39).”
We would also note Wolfgang Roth’s
(Hebrew
Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark) observation that the ‘vision-audition’
stories may have as their background the similar visionary tales about Elijah
and Elisha. This may well be true and Roth has shown many reasons to consider
the influence of the Elijah-Elisha narratives on the Markan gospel. However
one should deal with this, it is important to see that while the visions of
Elijah and Elisha are both connected in some fashion with violence in the
heavenly sphere, in Jesus vision, there is only the peace of God, violence
has been expelled.
If, indeed, Jesus comes as a different
figure than is expected it is little wonder that his person caused such confusion
and consternation. Is it really any different today?
Either this page has not yet been completed, or we have not found any significant textual issues in the lectionary texts for this Sunday.
Introductory Articles
We will add articles as we are able,
or as users of the site request them, so if you have suggestions for additional
pieces, please write to us!
"Introduction
to Mimetic Theory"
"Mimesis"
"The
Scapegoat"
"The
Pillars of Culture"
"Jesus"
"The
Four Gospels"
A Brief Introduction
to Luke
What's New:
What's New? on Preaching Peace. (Hover your mouse over to pause cycling) |
2 Kgs 2:1-12
Ps 50:1-6
2 Cor 4:3-6
Mk 9:2-9
(2 Kings 2:1-12)
Now when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah
and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. Elijah said to Elisha, "Stay
here; for the LORD has sent me as far as Bethel." But Elisha said, "As
the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you." So they
went down to Bethel. The company of prophets who were in Bethel came out to
Elisha, and said to him, "Do you know that today the LORD will take your
master away from you?" And he said, "Yes, I know; keep silent."
Elijah said to him, "Elisha, stay here; for the LORD has sent me to Jericho."
But he said, "As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not
leave you." So they came to Jericho. The company of prophets who were
at Jericho drew near to Elisha, and said to him, "Do you know that today
the LORD will take your master away from you?" And he answered, "Yes,
I know; be silent." Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here; for the
LORD has sent me to the Jordan." But he said, "As the LORD lives,
and as you yourself live, I will not leave you." So the two of them went
on. Fifty men of the company of prophets also went, and stood at some distance
from them, as they both were standing by the Jordan. Then Elijah took his
mantle and rolled it up, and struck the water; the water was parted to the
one side and to the other, until the two of them crossed on dry ground. When
they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me what I may do for you,
before I am taken from you." Elisha said, "Please let me inherit
a double share of your spirit." He responded, "You have asked a
hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it will be granted
you; if not, it will not." As they continued walking and talking, a chariot
of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended
in a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha kept watching and crying out, "Father,
father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" But when he could no
longer see him, he grasped his own clothes and tore them in two pieces.
(2 Corinthians 4:3-6)
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,
to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
is the image of God. For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ
as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who
said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ.
(Mark 9:2-9)
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them
up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them,
and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach
them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with
Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here;
let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed
them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved;
listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with
them any more, but only Jesus. As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered
them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had
risen from the dead.
New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright
1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights
reserved.
Occasional Articles
As with the Introductory Articles, we
will add other articles as time permits or as our readers request. If you
have a suggestion for anything, please let us know.
Michael Hardin
Is the Apocalypse Inevitable?: Native American Prophecy and the Mimetic Theory presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
Michael's Essay for a Celebration Volume honoring Rene Girard
Michael's Response to Willard Swartley's Covenent of Peace at the November Colloquium and Violence Meeting
Does
Peace Make A Difference? - Michael's essay in response to Rick
Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan (which somehow never mentions peace).
An Analysis of Rick Warren - Michael's response to "The Purpose Driven Life."
"The
God of Pat Robertson" - a response to Pat Robertson's words
to the people of Dover, PA.
"A
response to Charles Stanley's "A Nation at War"
"Must
God be violent? A Diagnosis and Prescription for Modern Christianity"
The
Scapegoat: Christologies in Conflict - A Study in Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Biblical
Testaments as a Marriage of Convenience: Rene Girard and Biblical Interpretation
Finding
Our Way Home: A Brief Note On The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture
"Does
The Passion of the Christ Preach the Gospel?"
A
sermon for the holiday devoted to Dr. Martin Luther King. (requires
Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
GRASPING
GOD: Philippians 2: 1-11 in the Light of Mimetic Theory
Essay on Brethren Life & Thought to Rene Girard and the Recovery of Early Christian Perspectives (Brethren Life and Thought)
Essay on Mimesis and Dominion to The Dynamics of Violence and the Imitation of Christ in maximus Confessor (St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly)
"EcoSpirituality"
Or What Happens When You Sit Down With A French Literary Critic
Jeff Krantz
Mighty
One or Crucified Messiah? Competing Christologies and the Chiastic
Structure of Mark's Gospel
There's
No Such Thing as the Rapture - A sermon preached at the Church
of the Advent, Westbury (requires Acrobat Reader)
Holy
Scripture and the Consecration of Gene Robinson - a response
to the request of the Windsor Report for a Scriptural rationale. (requires
Adobe's Acrobat Reader)
Worship - The Redemption of Desire by Jeff Krantz
Myth
and Film - a piece written for the City of Angels Film Festival
The Stations of the Cross - Rewritten by Jeff Krantz
A Dramatic Presentation of the Stations of the Cross for Youth by Barb Fabijan-Waddell
Escaping
the Power of "My" - A NonViolent Approach to Stewardship
Preaching
Peace in Hollywood: The Theologies of Terminator, Lord of the Rings, and the
Matrix
V
for Vendetta - The Name Says It All A review of the movie.
Essays, Sermons and Liturgical Pieces by Friends of Preaching Peace
"Jesus and the Gibeonites: Reading the Bible from the Perspective of the Hidden Victim" by James Warren.
Mark Heim's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement
Kate Layzer's "No More of This" - A hymn on Nonviolent Atonement (and inspiration for Mark Heim's hymn!)
Alan Cork, "Transformation" in L'Arche: A Mimetic Account presented to the Colloquium on Violence and Religion 2008
"The Wisdom of God's Peace" a sermon by Jim Amstutz, co-pastor of Michael's church.
Girard's Christology - Per Bjornar Grande
Violence, Anarchy and Scripture: Jacques Ellul and Rene Girard - Matthew Patillo
Comparing
Plato's Understanding of Mimesis to Girard's - Per Bjorner Grande
C. Frank Terhune, an Easter Sermon: "God's Big But" (no kidding!)
Gerald Biesecker-Mast's paper from Theologia Pacis on Pacifist Gospel Epstimology.
An essay by the Rev. John Hill on Mimetic Theory and Catechesis
