Cinderella and the Singular

Stuart Damon and Lesley Ann Warren in TV's 1965 adaption of Rogers and Hammerstein's Cinderella

Sometimes the best way to hear one story anew is by way of another, even one that, at first glance, seems quite disparate.  So, as you ponder the Transfiguration of Christ, consider Cinderella.  Yes, one is evangelical witness; the other, only fable.  But, as fairytales often convey deep truths, they’re not a bad approach that singular truth, which we call Gospel.

Ask yourself this.  What did the Fairy Godmother really do for Cinderella?  Yes, a pumpkin coach, with four white mice for horsemen, is grand, but, walking into the ball, she was still Cinderella, just cleaned-up, coiffed, and corseted.  Yet that was all it took for the world see her in a new way, see her for who she truly was.  It’d be fair to say that her Fairy Godmother didn’t really change Cinderella.  She reset her, as one does a jewel, or, to use our Latinate phrase, she transfigured her.  Yet she was always the same girl: at the fireplace, at the ball, and in front of the prince, proffering that slipper.  Fairy magic did no more than help folk to see what always was, right in front of them.

Advertisement

I have no intention of deflating the Transfiguration of Christ into a reality-show make-over.  Indeed, we should be on our guard against reductionism of any sort in approaching the event.  We know only what the evangelists tell us: 

He was transfigured before them;

his face shone like the sun

and his clothes became white as light.

And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them,

conversing with him (Mt 17: 2-3).

Don’t belittle the story with blinders—say, for example, pseudo-scientific ones.  It doesn’t help to say that such things don’t happen, that the Transfiguration isn’t scientific.  Why not?

One of the first presuppositions of scientific methodology is repeatability.  Science can’t study the truly singular, because the singular is, by definition, unrepeatable.  Science is predicated upon finding patterns in the periodic.  That’s why most of history is closed to science, at least the parts that matter most, because history doesn’t really repeat itself, only its patterns return.  No one of us has passed through history before.  We are as fully distinct as our forebears.  Aunt Ellen may act like a wicked stepsister, yet she’s still quite singular. 

We do know this about the Transfiguration.  Three apostles were given an utterly unique experience of the Christ, one which, they admit, was not truly intelligible until the event of Resurrection.  Like the Prince and Cinderella at the ball, it was a moment to savor.  A night of profound intimacy and beauty—Remember that great line from the Rogers and Hammerstein’s adaptation?  “Do I love you because you’re beautiful?  Or are you beautiful, because I love you?—but comprehension came later, when the glass slipper fit and everything fell into place. 

It’s the same in our lives.  The future has a way of rewriting the past.  The young man who had to attend his college of second choice doesn’t even recall his first selection, not when he meets the girl of his dreams on campus.  A grief transfigures to gladness, yet the past didn’t change.  A parent laments the toll, that a child with special needs exacts, until those very needs prove their worth, becoming a source of blessing for all who know the adult.  History regularly rewrites itself.  To use our odd word, it “transfigures” in significance, and it will do so until its close.

In his Transfiguration the disciples saw the glory of Christ. That revelation was so singular, it filled them with fright.  “When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid” (Mt 17:6).  His deepest identity was revealed to them—“This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (17:5)—but truly adequate comprehension had to await the Resurrection, when history really, really rewrote itself. 

Bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God” (2 Tim 1: 8B).  A Christian claims that all of human history is translated into, transfigured by the Christ.  The meaning of the end has been revealed, yet we need the rest of time to comprehend the clue, which is

the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began,

but now made manifest

through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus,

who destroyed death and brought life and immortality

to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1: 9-10)

Yes, it’s true.  At present we wander through our woes like the prince savoring his one poor slipper.  But we know the one whom we love was here, that he will yet be found, and that all shall be well.

Genesis 12: 1-4a   2 Timothy 1: 8B-10   Matthew 17:1-9

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018