Jor-El laid out his purpose for him, told him everything he's supposed to be and sent him off with a mission and a costume. Well into his thirties, the ideals and conviction needed for the full-on Superman were nowhere to be seen and what defined him was an identity crisis and fear of rejection; then Jor-El gives him info and suddenly it's clear. I really don't know how much mileage you can get out of disputing that mere succession of events. Lois gave him confidence that revealing himself wouldn't be the mistake that he feared, which is very cool and much to the film's credit.
The "mere succession of events" to which you are referring do not support your argument. The order of events do not show Cavill's Superman speaking to Jor-El and subsequently becoming Superman. There is most definitely several other catalyzing events that occur after his interaction with Jor-El that influence Clark's decision to come forward to be a hero to humanity. In the film, Clark speaks to Jor-El, tests his powers, returns home to Smallville, speaks to his mother, speaks to Lois at his father's grave, watches the Zod message on television, visits a minister, and then reveals himself to mankind. Along the way, several important things happen. The most important, of course, is meeting Lois at his father's grave. Rather than exploit him, Lois chooses kill her story. She returns to Metropolis to face disciplinary action at work and later federal prosecution because of her decision to ally herself with Clark. You admit that what defined his Superman was a "crisis of fear and rejection" and then later conclude that "Lois gave him confidence that revealing himself wouldn't be the mistake that he feared." If Jor-El's message that conveyed a mission and a purpose was all that was necessary to propel Clark to embrace being a hero, then one speech from Jor-El was not the catalyst for Clark becoming Superman in the DCEU. Furthermore, just to be clear, the assertion that there was nothing in Clark's life prior to meeting with Jor-El that spoke to Clark's capacity for heroism and selflessness is blatantly false. Clark is clearly shown saving people for over a decade. He had a history of heroism before he discovered his biological father. Everything about the film's "succession of events" disproves your thesis.
I go back to my original point, though, the notion there was a right, ideal, morally perfect time for him to do it in, which is what Jonathan's empty philosophy was based on. Is the idea of a Superman relevant/resonant only in the context of an alien invasion? Was he never needed before that? Should altruism be suppressed in favor of the "bigger picture" when that picture, that ideal tailor-made situation, may never come and you don't know for a fact that it will? It's certainly what the film tries to vindicate amidst its hodgepodge of mutually contradictory agendas.
Jonathan's philosophy was about Clark making sure that he came forward when his son was ready and the world needed him most. The Zod invasion provided that opportunity. It wasn't just the alien invasion that encouraged Clark to become Superman. The belief that Lois showed in Clark was presented as vital, too. Clark was needed before that moment, and what the film showed us is that Clark did use his powers for good before he became Superman. He didn't hide in the shadows. He altruistically helped people. It was that story that became the first story Lois Lane wrote for The Daily Planet about Superman. Before he debuted as Superman, his heroic efforts were already getting global coverage. He was, according to the article, a "guardian angel." Clark fully revealed himself to the world when the "bigger picture" most clearly demanded it and experience had shown Clark that among humanity there were those who were ready to accept him.
I'm not a fan of that anymore than you seem to be. But not super relevant when the film being discussed is MOS and I never made a comparison. MOS could have bothered to be different in that regard, what with its mission statement of being modern and distinctive, and it didn't, to the point where the moment of "Supes emerging from the FOS after being educated by alien dad" sees itself repeated.
It is not repeated. In
Superman: The Movie, the succession of events is that Clark is bullied at school, he has some fun with his powers, his father died after telling his son there's a reason Clark was sent to Earth, Clark attends his father's funeral, travels north, creates the Fortress, trains for 12 years essentially via download, and then heads to Metropolis to begin his double life as a reporter and a hero. There is nothing between Jor-El and becoming Superman that shapes Clark and his decision to come forward. There's not even a record of heroism preceding his debut marking him out as a hero.
Man of Steel, by contrast, shows us that Jor-El was not all that was necessary to make Clark into a Superman. Nor was Jor-El responsible for Clark's decade of heroism prior to his debut. Jor-El didn't shape Clark into a guardian angel.
Man of Steel did bother to be different.
