Andy Griffiths has recently written a fascinating Grove booklet on The Hope of Seeing God: The Beatific Vision and Formation. Rather than look at the past of our creation, or the present of the work of the Spirit in effective transformation as disciples of Jesus, is raises the question of whether we should think more about our future, when we see God face to face. I had the chance to ask Andy about his thinking.
IP: The title of your booklet refers to ‘The Beatific Vision’—but people might not know what that means!
AG: If I ask you ‘why is that tree so tall?’ you would naturally respond in the past tense (‘it evolved over millions of years by natural selection’) or in the present (‘it has unshaded access to the sun for photosynthesis’). In the ancient Mediterranean and Christian medieval world, to go with these two answers there was often a third, called the teleological cause (from telos, a goal or end) using a future tense: ‘the tree is so tall because we’re going to make the mast of a ship from it’. So the question of a human being’s teleological cause naturally arose, and the standard answer related to the beatific vision: the future vision of the face of God that will be the means by which Christians will be transformed. I am who am I am because I will see God-in-Christ face to face.
IP: Where does this idea come from? Is it present in scripture?
AG: I think the easiest way to approach the Beatific Vision is via 1 John 3:1-3:
See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.
These verses tell us that the Christian self is rooted in the past gift of God (‘the father has lavished…’) and a present status (‘we are children of God’). But it is also an eschatological self that exists in the mode of anticipation. Such a self cannot be made into a commodity, possessed, or sold.
This is what we mean by the beatific vision. I am who am I am because I will see God-in-Christ face to face. To hope for this is to be purified even now.
IP: You mention in your booklet that this idea was of importance to many thinkers in the early church, the so-called Fathers of the church. What was their interest, and why did they think it was important?
AG: It was a key part of theological thought from Irenaeus to John Donne. A massive range of thinkers shared that hope, but they differed in what they thought it meant for the present.
Some of them (like Gregory Palamas) believed that we could share frequently, perhaps even daily, right here and now, in something that in principle (though not in intensity) resembles the beatific vision; an overwhelming experiential participation in light, love and joy, beyond words, beyond discursive thought, that re-enchants the world, takes us out of ourselves and makes us holy.
Others (like Thomas Aquinas and John Donne) insisted that we do not now see God, and that far from hope allowing us proleptically to experience the future, hope makes us all the more aware that what there is an unjust world system that we are not to love. It’s called contemptus mundi, contempt for the world. The hope of the beatific vision creates ‘an utter disdain for what does not fully share in divine perfection’. Peter Damian puts it most starkly: ‘if it is visible now, it is to be scorned.’
IP: You go on to make a specific connection with the idea of the ‘Beatific Vision’ and the question of formation—the shaping of us as disciples of Jesus as we grow in maturity. What is the connection between the two?
AG: In July 2023 I became Lead Adviser for Formation and Wellbeing for the Diocese of Chelmsford. Wellbeing, I had some sense of. But formation? What does formation mean when someone else had responsibility for ministerial training, and someone else again led the vocations team? I asked Rob Merchant, who is my line manager, and he responded with a question: ‘What if you saw formation as eschatological?’
So I started to see formation as rooted in the future. I noticed how often conversations about vocation are rooted in the past—in the doctrine of creation. ‘Finding my calling’ is about finding what shape I am. This is entirely right. And yet formation, understood in terms of our future transformation, could bring something enlivening and surprising to the conversation. Although God calls us to be who we are, SURPRISE!—God also calls us to become something we are not yet.
Meanwhile, our conversations about ministerial training are often exclusively connected to the present, as if ministerial usefulness, rather than God, was ultimate. The more ministerial training is about present usefulness, the more difficult trainees find standing firm for convictions not in line with programmatic goals. And anyway ministry is joyless, when we forget that we are all pilgrims on a road towards endless bliss. The antidote is formation that surprises us with tomorrow’s freshness, helping us distinguish what is ultimate from what is not. God is not useful, and ministers are not supposed merely to be useful, either.
This approach has real results in how we do formation—for example we’re looking at Ministerial Development Review at the moment, wondering how, as well as exploring our shape and how the last year or so has been, it could enliven us by helping us look forward.
IP: What does this all mean in practice? What difference does the question of the Beatific Vision make for disciples of Jesus today from day to day?
AG: Discipleship is following Jesus. And (to choose one example) thinking about Gregory of Nyssa’s Moses helps me do that.
Moses asks that he might see God. ‘You cannot see my face and live,’ says God, ‘but you can see my back.’ Gregory links this with Jesus’ instruction to ‘come, follow me.’ You might not see the face of a person you are following, until at journey’s end they turn towards you. So seeing Jesus’ back now as we follow, and hoping, longing to see his face in the hereafter, is a matter of ‘never stopping growing towards what is better’ as ‘one who… never ceases in this desire.’ Desire is so important—and so integral to true bliss—and God is so inexhaustible—that we will not cease to continue to desire, and receive, more and more even in eternity.
In this life we progress from being ‘small-souled’ to ‘large-hearted’, as God enlarges our longing heart; and there will never be a moment in eternity when God is not continuing to grow our hearts, and hence our desire, joy, wonder and satisfaction. A discipleship that doesn’t have this kind of hope and longing is not likely to transform us now.
IP: It is no secret that we are in something of a crisis in the C of E at the moment, and much of the problem here seems to centre on the senior leadership of the Church. What does the issue of the Beatific Vision offer us at such a time as this?
AG: Can I highlight two things?
The first is about relationships. If I exist to see a Face, formation-rooted-in-the-future will entail learning to see faces now. The more formed I am, in this sense, the more relationally and humanely I will act, and the less bound I will be by programmes, institutional goals and a need to measure my worth in relation to my status and productivity.
Meanwhile, the other children of God I relate to also have a destiny—they are not just made in the image of the One I long for (though they are that), but also exist teleologically to see God and be transformed by doing so. I will appreciate them, even if the world does not. To paraphrase CS Lewis, the dullest person you talk to today, may one day be so transformed by the beatific vision that, if you saw them as they will be, you would be strongly tempted to worship them:
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, someone on the way to the beatific vision is the holiest object presented to your senses.
The second thing is contemptus mundi, which I referred to above. Perhaps our formation-rooted-in-the-present, by its embeddedness in what is not ultimate, does not always help God’s people resist anxious systems. 1 John was written to encourage God’s unappreciated children that they were right to say ‘no’ to the super apostles who mistreated them.
We need the resistant playfulness that contemptus mundi at its best makes possible—‘a metaphysical optimism coupled with a historical pessimism.’ Aquinas refers to eutrapelia, which can be translated as godly playfulness or gracious good humour. The eutrapelos is neither a bomolochos (a buffoon without moral seriousness) nor an agroikos (a humourless person that treats their present situation as if were of ultimate significance). If the lunch I provide for you is sad, stale and lettuce-based, you will understandably feel disappointed. If you’re a bomolochos you might slap me round the head with the radicchio. If you’re an agroikos you might suffer in silent, withering self-pity. But if you know a 3-star Michelin meal awaits you this evening, you will be a eutrapelos and bear it with resignation, and perhaps even joy. If you think that just one more thing will make you happy, you will always be unfulfilled; there will always be a next thing. But if you say to yourself ‘I exist in order to see the wounded God-in-Christ face to face in unmediated endless joy. Meanwhile I do not expect this world to satisfy me…’ Well, paradoxically, a desire for the beatific vision, unsatisfied in what Donne calls the World System’s Fragmentary Rubbidge, can help you live cheerfully as an injustice-resistant child of God.
I reckon what is needed right now in the Church of England is a combination of these two things: on the one hand, the beatific vision implies that relationality is fundamental to God’s children, who exist to see a Person face-to-face; and on the other, contemptus mundi helps us resist the World. This combination yields a distinctive Christian approach characterized by both valuing good-humoured relationship, and staying distinct, not having our reactions and behaviour determined by the systems and communities of which we are a part. And there are many connections with thinking about this in the past and present.
- It’s like the apatheia the desert fathers and mothers spoke of. Apatheia is my attitude when I know I exist for a future telos, and am resigned that I will not be fully satisfied now, and hence can detach myself without ceasing to love others. Evagrius calls apatheia ‘the mother of love.’
- It’s like the early Jesuits’ active indifference.
- Family Systems and conflict transformation theorists speak of differentiation. Differentiation is the ability to be a non-anxious presence, taking principled stands not coopted by ‘togetherness forces’, while remaining empathetic. I can only flourish if I am able to separate myself from, as well as be warmly connected to, my immediate relational world. Only a well-differentiated leader can resist doing for others what they could do for themselves, without abandoning their people.
- Some process- and feminist- theologies speak of connective selves. Catherine Keller develops this concept of a personhood that is ‘relational’ but not ‘soluble’, ‘independent’ but not ‘separative,’ ‘radically relational’ without ‘homogenising’. Connective selves practise apartness from structures that conflate, coerce or oppress, but never practise emotional withdrawal. In Elizabeth Johnson’s words, ‘The vision is one of relational autonomy, which honors the inviolable personal mystery of the person who is constituted essentially by community with others’.
Put it this way: you and I need to resist being coopted by unjust structures or tribal loyalties as God disorganises and reorganises the Church of England. If ever principled stands were required, they are needed now. But you and I also need to keep emotional contact with our siblings, including senior leaders, including those with whom we disagree, who are the holiest object presented to our senses until we see Jesus face to face. Regularly reminding ourselves that we live in hope of seeing God will help us do both these things.
IP: Andy, thanks for your time, and for your fascinating and challenging reflections!
You can buy Andy’s booklet The Hope of Seeing God on the Grove website here, either as a printed booklet post-free in the UK or as a PDF e-booklet.
After being Director of Studies for a theological college in Hungary and a Vicar in Essex, Andy Griffiths has worked for the Diocese of Chelmsford since 2017, where he has been Head of Training and Interim Director of Mission and Ministry. He is now Lead Adviser for Formation and Wellbeing. He is the author of four Grove booklets: Church Merger, Refusing to be Indispensable, Schools Shaping Ministers (with Lallie Godfrey), and most recently The Hope of Seeing God: The Beatific Vision and Formation.
Does the author believe in a heavenly, conscious existence after death but before the resurrection? Or does this ‘vision’ only apply once people are physically resurrected?
Yes — this is an intriguing question. Although Scripture at times seems ambivalent the account in John 11 seems clear.
Martha affirms her belief that Lazarus “will rise again in the resurrection on the last day” — and at that point Jesus could have comforted her by saying Lazarus is already in paradise, but instead, states that “he is dead.”
I think on balance Scripture suggests that on death, our next conscious experience will be the resurrection.
AMEN! Preach, brother!
Assertion, based on one Scriptural text (about bodily death) isn’t preaching, Ian.
Colin, there are numerous other passages in Scripture which make this position less definitive. There is no text of which we can say with certainly reveal “consciousness” of the soul after death, or a belief in a “particular judgement.” However, there are several which taken together strongly indicate this to be so.
A lot rests on our understanding of whether theosis, or “divinisation” is an process in life that continues after bodily death for all who have not realised the full beatific vision in bodily life- and how. And whether heaven and hell has an intermediate/middle process for the soul are ‘locations’ or ‘states of being’ before our body and soul are reunited and transformed into a glorified state.
HJ/ I am inclined to agree with you.
I dont think John 11 clarifies the matter at all.
The only reason Jesus said plainly that Lazarus had died was because the disciples were confused by his words that he had ‘fallen asleep’ so he had to be clear to them. The fact that he calls death ‘falling asleep’ may indicate continued existence, though it could also refer to the fact that physical death is temporary in nature, just as sleep is.
Regarding ‘rising’, again Martha’s response is only because Jesus refers to Lazarus rising, ie the temporary resurrection that was about to take place. It is not therefore surprising she responds as she does and says nothing about a possible intermediary state. He also says ‘whoever lives by believing in me will never die.’ That kinda negates the idea that a believer really does ‘die’ but is then resurrected thousands of years later.
So unlike Ian, I would say this is NOT a passage to preach on what happens after death.
Although we have to be careful about parables, Ive always found it odd that Jesus would use the parable of the rich man and (another) Lazarus if there was no truth at all in the picture being painted. You could argue this was a commonly understood scenario which is why he used it, but would he perpetuate such an idea if he knew it was completely false?
What a good question! I don’t mention it in the booklet, but my view on balance is that when we die, we rest in peace until the great resurrection – but of course, we will not be aware of that time passing, so it will feel as if only a moment has passed (for the thief on the cross, it was/is/will be “today”). Other views are possible, though, and if you believe in a pre-resurrection disembodied consciousness, your hope would be for the beatific vision to start then. I think what counts is the hope, not the timescale!
Yes, overall, I agree with you on this.
I’ve been “banging on” about this for decades… . Great to hear it.
I’ve also presumed that death takes us outside time… those remaining will inevitably still have a different perspective. The two arcs being congruent in some way.
Though, in God’s presence will “time” still need to be a thing or not?
Answers on a postcard please.
except the Bible isnt at all clear, so Im not sure why you’ve been banging on about it.
Try harder… 🙂
Andy, yes, it’s one way of resolving the complexity in the Scriptural texts. Whilst we are here physically on earth we exist in “time.” Once we die, we enter an eternal “now” with God. There is no perception of any “waiting time” because “time” no longer exists once we are in God.
However, does this rule out a conscious state of purification after bodily death (rather than “resting in peace”) before entry to this timeless, eternal, beatific vision? Nor does it follow that a belief in a “pre-resurrection disembodied consciousness” and “hope … for the beatific vision” means believing we are ready after bodily death to meet meet God “face-to-face.” We may not retain an awareness of this, but that’s not the same thing.
We can agree the Bible is not explicit about what happens “in the meantime” as we await Final Judgment and the full revelation of the Kingdom of God. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches accept the Apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees as Scripture, so we understand other passages through a different lens. The Bible is very clear, though, on our final destiny – either life with God or life without Him.
And I meant to add Hebrews 12:1 and the “great cloud of witnesses” that surround us, and Revelation 5:8 where saints in Heaven offer “the prayers of God’s people.”
Heb 12… is that what it’s often taken to be though. Is it necessary to see them as “watching from heaven”?
We are surrounded by these witnesses to faithful living, examples we are called to emulate. Earlier they are described as not having received what they looked for without us.
Rev 8 might best be responded to by Ian Paul.
Ian H, Hebrews 12:1 is referencing the great saints of the Old Testament, their faith and struggles in the world.
Hebrews 11: 32-40 lists many and it is these men and women who form the “great cloud of witnesses,” who, together with us, are “made perfect.” A multitude of saints in heaven watching over us, encouraging, and inspiring us by their faith to persevere by keeping our eyes on Jesus. The imagery is inescapable: we on earth are running the race of faith, cheered on by a “great cloud of witnesses” observing us from the heavenly stands.
Revelation gives us insight into those in heaven. We learn that the angels bring the prayers of those on earth to God (Revelation 8:3-4). On departed Christians, we learn that they are with Christ and are being comforted by Him for their struggles on earth (Revelation 7:13). We also learn that they have an awareness of what is happening on earth: in Revelation 6:9-11 they ask for judgment to be poured out on their oppressors, and in Revelation 16:4-7 they exult after the judgment has been poured out. It is clear from this that they know what is happening on earth while they are in heaven.
I think we may conclude from these texts that it was part of the Church’s faith in the first century that those in heaven were in communion with Christians on earth.
This unity of the saints in heaven with saints still on earth increased through the Resurrection of Christ. He abolished death. Death cannot separate us from Christ. It means that death can no longer separate Christians from one another. If the living and departed are both united in Christ, they are also united to one another through Christ.
Yes – “not explicit” puts it well. And there’s a danger that we give too much attention to what we cannot be sure of, and too little attention to what is clear.
Andy, but not being explicit is not the same as its mysteries being incomprehensible or too difficult to-understand by the Church community over time through prayer, study and discussion. There is much that is clear. The issues of “soul sleep” versus conscious awareness after death and a “particular judgement” before the Final Judgement is far easier to understand than the Trinity and Incarnation.
‘resting in peace’ and ‘we will not be aware of time passing’ indicates to me continued existence but not conscious existence?
Re the thief on the cross, I know there is debate about the correct understanding of the Greek: ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’ or ‘I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise’, if the former traditional translation is correct then I dont think that you can necessarily argue ‘today’ is from the pov of a future time as the thief wont experience the intervening thousands of years. If Peter was right to say that upon his own death, Jesus descended to ‘Hades’ for a time, the picture I see being painted is that the thief upon death went in the opposite direction!
Hello and thanks for psephizo. Dont know if this will get tgrough but you never know! Andy has mentioned in this interview an idea that has long intrigued me, apatheia. My version of it is sort of “we need (as believers, as church, as passers-through/pilgrims) both closeness and distance”. Theres no one size formula for developing this, its the recognition of fellowship, belonging, yet remaining “hid with christ in god”. If He moves the furniture and shakes the foundations, we’ll still be standing. If thats any use, hallelujah
Yes – closeness and distance, that’s it exactly. Principled stands plus emotional connection. Loving the world while not loving the world (the Bible calls us to both).
Can i just add here – i know i’ve picked the wrong “venue” for this comment – but ian your comment on the rainbow fabric “shawl”(?) which was used recently at a church altar
– was, i think, as good as it gets. In the present atmosphere of having to get our meaning across in a pressure cooker atmosphere,it was spot on. The communion table needs no enhancement as to inclusivity. Any such effort only reduces its applicability.
But John, I’m advised by the parishioners at ‘Thinking Anglicans’ that the Church is bigoted, homophobic, and misogynistic. Is this not so? The chorus is growing for a woman Archbishop of Canterbury as a necessity so these ills can be finally exorcised from the Anglican communion.
Thanks Ian. I enjoyed this. I have being listening to and reading some of Harvey Kwiyani’s work and have been challenged by the Milawian (and wider African) proverb ‘I am because we are.’ So in place of the the phrase ‘I am who am…’ when I envisage ‘we are who we are because we will see God-in-Christ face to face’ it gives me a strong sense of community and working together in Christ.
Fabulous stuff. Preparing for a good deathbed is an extremely simple but not simplistic way of understanding life.
My hope is in the Resurrection, when Jesus comes again. That hope gets all the stronger as I witness civilisation and its Christian foundations collapsing. If I thought that the Earth was billions of years ago, I would be inclined to think that the Resurrection was yet millions of years in the future. That would dampen my hope quite considerably. I would also struggle with the idea of an instantaneous new heaven and earth. If the old heaven and earth took millions of years to come into existence, it would be inconsistent to believe that the old will simply cease to exist and be immediately replaced (Rev 20:11, 21:1).
If I ask you ‘why is that tree so tall?’ you would naturally respond in the past tense (‘it evolved over millions of years by natural selection’).
If you did, I would have to say, you have not only absorbed a godless and entirely false understanding of the history and origin of life, but in your desire to believe it to be true, you are telling a story that not even Darwinian palaeontologists would advance. Plants did not become taller little by little, and consequently ‘natural selection’ does not feature in the story. How trees evolved from the low-lying vascular plants that preceded them remains unknown.
Hi Stephen…
“That would dampen my hope quite considerably.”
Why? I don’t think you would be aware of time passing… we’re not middle-earth elves.
But also..
“If I thought that the Earth was billions of years ago, I would be inclined to think that the Resurrection was yet millions of years in the future. ”
Maybe “inclination ” is not correct… a non-sequiter?
I fear the non-sequitur (sic) is yours. The reason I gave for fervently hoping that the Resurrection (the return of Jesus as the Christ, the Kingdom of God) would be soon was my distress at seeing civilisation and its Christian foundations collapsing, seeing faith in God collapsing.
But we know that he is coming soon. Hence the title of my commentary, When the Towers Fall: A Prophecy of What Must Happen Soon.
I Cor 16:22, Rev 22:20
I dont see civilisation collapsing, what we see today has been going on since whenever. The only difference is because of world-wide communication which was lacking previously, we can see it all over the place.
Thank you. I think get your meaning better now. I share that hope and waiting. “Come quickly Lord Jesus”.
I still don’t see why, with God, the new heaven and earth would of necessity take billions of years. God’s his own time setter?
Scripture is clear that the new heaven and earth will be created instantly, in the same way as the old earth was created by God instantly, the heaven (= solar system) in four days. My point is that it is inconsistent to attribute a natural, multi-billion-year origin to the old heaven and earth while accepting that the new heaven and earth will be created in the proper sense.
Christian civilisation is collapsing. It has turned decisively against God the Saviour and Creator. The failure of many Christians to recognise this is symptomatic, because in large part the collapse is due to the unfaithfulness of the Church itself. A few discerning unbelievers can see that (Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray are well-known examples), but few believers can. God has raised up men like them to shame the Church for the lack of a prophetic voice.
God’s call to his people is to come out of the ungodly city, lest they share in its plagues (Rev 18:4, echoing Jer 51:45). He expects them to be sighing and groaning because of the abominations committed in the city (Ezek 9:4), and we ignore Revelation at our peril.
Steven, I think you are misunderstanding how language works in communication. ‘In four days’ is *not* ‘instantly’ and ‘the proper sense’ is not particularly helpful.
When Jesus comes again? Jesus has already been resurrected. It is the corner stone of Christianity. That’s how we know Jesus Christ was God. He returned from the dead, appeared to many and ascended into Heaven.
Im pretty sure he’s referring to the future resurrection of other humans, not Jesus’ resurrection which has already happened.
As our mutual friend recently reminded us, quoting the Orthodox St Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia:
Jesus taught us the Kingdom of God is experienced among and by people who are united with Him – He’s alive and He’s with us now!
Steven Robinson, why do dogmatic?
In Eden we see no suffering; we see harmony between man, animals, the heavens, and the earth; we see communion with God – but not union. We were material beings with a soul/spirit infused by God. Why couldn’t God have brought the material universe to a point in time and development where He was able to raise human flesh above the banal material?
What if man had not rebelled? We see his potential in Jesus Christ. We await the “new heaven and new earth” at Jesus’ return – where we learn we will be transformed in a “twinkling” – all the earth and all created matter; when the material world, with all the struggles, from natural processes will end, and with it the war between the “flesh, the world, and the devil.”
Paul writes about a sudden transformation happening “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” where “the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”
Evolution and this sudden transformation of the universe at the return of Christ do not stand in contraction. Creation itself was a miraculous act of God – time itself and our physical laws were created. The “new heaven and new earth” will be a miracle of God too when “the first heaven and the first earth ….. the old order of things has passed away.””
re relationships and “formation-rooted-in-the-future will entail learning to see faces now” – there is a good example of this in 2 Samuel 15:19-20. King David was fleeing from Absalom and, humanly speaking, needed all the help he could get. But despite that he insisted that Ittai and his team should be free to follow their own vision. [As a happy consequence, their loyalty to him probably increased, when they realised that he was so un-control-freak like.]
What a helpful example – thank you.
Does the booklet expound the importance of this passage:
“2 Corinthians 3:17-18
[17] Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. [18] But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Is this not part of the beatific vision enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit now? Jesus was transformed on the Mount of Transfiguration while sharing our human flesh.
The trouble is, there are strict word limits! So there wasn’t space. Sorry. But yes, I believe next Sunday’s readings (if you’re following the lectionary) relate to the beatific vision. There’s a good section on this in Tom Wright’s Simply Jesus (pp140ff).
Palamas’s whole approach to prayer could be called a transfiguration spirituality – daily we may reach the top of the mountain, where we participate by the Spirit in Jesus’ divine splendour, and then descend into the valley, where the presence of Jesus encounters human brokenness. Whereas Aquinas is more cautious – in this world, we are not likely to have a Mount Tabor-like experience, but we can be sure it awaits us in the future, and longing for it can enlarge our hearts and detach our affections from what is not God. We walk for the moment by faith, not by sight, but faith (“listen to him”, says God, Luke 9:35), will in itself transform us now, and one day faith will give way to sight.
Thanks, Andy!
Andy, except for Aquinas we can have a “transfiguration moment” in this world now, when we participate in the Eucharist liturgy and receive Christ. The transfiguration foreshadows the Eucharistic meal.
Yes – there’s a whole section of the booklet on sacramental ontology, which I didn’t have space to cover in the interview.
Peter, quite so. Christ’s inner glory and His strength shines through; the disciples enter a cloud and see the Glory of God through both the Divine and the human Jesus Christ; the created, material, human flesh of Christ is seen united with the uncreated Divine. the uncreated light and glory of the Divinity is manifested and communicated through the created medium of the material body of Jesus. The glory of God can enter into the darkness of our own body and soul too
and shine from within us – if we let Him, if we humbly approach Him as He calls us to a fuller life.