God speaks to us in many ways. I think most of the time we are so busy with life that we do not hear what is said. Perhaps, this why the Sabbath was given so that we would have time to listen and to live a life in that “cathedral in time” which prepares us for eternity.

If I may quote Abraham Heschel:

“Creation is the language of God, Time is His Song, and things of space the constants in the song. To sanctify time is to sing the vowels in unison with Him.

“There are few ideas in the world of thought which contain so much spiritual power as the idea of the Sabbath. Aeons hence when many of our cherished theories only shreds will remain, that cosmic tapestry will continue to shine. Eternity utters a day.”.

I heard a talk from N.T. Wright about the Christian hope in new creation. He commented on how the Gospels tell the story of God's Kingdom coming on earth and new creation beginning in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. He uses John's Gospel as an example. John begins the same way as the creation narrative "In the beginning..." - Here is how God is recreating the world... "and the Word became flesh and dwelt (or tabernacled) among us..." - here is the true temple, the true tabernacle, Jesus the Messiah, God in flesh coming back to dwell with his people.

Then John's passion narrative. On Good Friday, corresponding to the sixth day of creation where God makes man, Pilate presents Jesus "behold the man".. Here is the true human being, the one who is the image of the invisble God, going to the cross. On the seventh day, Holy Saturday in the Western tradtion, the Great Sabbath in the Eastern tradition, Christ rests in the tomb - corresponding to God's seventh day rest in the Genesis creation. Then "very early in the morning on the first day of the week..." something new is happening.. Christ is risen! New creation has begun!

Great thoughts Jan. Plenty of new creation theology and image theology (i.e. "behold the man") in your blog. This is gold too: "Through the indwelling of the crucified and risen Christ our humanity is united to his divinity. He shares our humanity and we share his divinity, a union created by faith. It is not a union of equals, but one that is possible because he humbled himself as a servant, taking our flesh that we might share his Spirit." This is what St Peter called becoming "partakers of the divine nature", what Paul calls "union with Christ" or "being conformed to the image of Christ". This is what the Eastern Orthodox would call "theosis" or "deification".

I wonder how think see this union of humanity and divinity, through Christ and in the Spirit, in the scheme of our salvation. Also, do you see this faith, this union with Christ as synergistic? Is it necessary for us to struggle through trials and temptation in order to be conformed to the image of Christ?

Btw, concerning Christian spirituality, I have recently discovered some gems from St Isaac the Syrian on another blog. Here is one quote from St Isaac that sort of captures what you are talking about:

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity."

The rest of the blog is highly recommended reading: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/the-audacity-of-mercy-st-isaac-the-syrian/

My age plays a large part in my decision. If I were younger (I'm 56, half way to 57) I would be more inclined toward a Ph.d. Either way I am asking them for a special dispensation, as I only have a BA Hons. from Newbold. Given that the English system is different than the American liberal arts approach, I'm hoping for an allowance on what I and others consider a more advanced BA than what the American system offers.

Another option would be to pursue a European degree, a pure research degree without taught classes. I'm exploring the options. Money is, as usual, a big part of the question. I'm looking for the door God has opened or will open soon, looking without pushing ahead with my own plans.

I still have my black leather RSV from 1975, a Harper Study Bible. Fairly tattered now and heavily marked. Occasionally I take it with me. There is a sort of comfort there, like an old and trusted friend :)

I have been looking at the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy recently. Particularly the Chicago Statement, which seems to endorse divine dictation. They use the term "verbal inspiration". By this do they mean dictation? I think the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as expressed in the Chicago Statement is basically a late (i.e. 19th century) American innovation. Not only is it rejected by so-called "liberal" Protestants, but also by Catholics and Orthodox.

The ESV really is a good translation. It basically modernizes the KJV language, maintaining its poetic and literary quality as well as taking into consideration advances in textual scholarship. Every translation has some flaws however, and I think the ESV's flaw comes from the fact that it was heavily influenced by very conservative Calvinists. This perspective pops up every now and then. But otherwise a very good translation.

What topic do you think you'll study if you choose that option?

I use the ESV most often now, though for years my primary translation was the RSV. Translation is such a difficult work. I have great respect for all those who have accomplished it. I like several other versions as well. I'm thankful to have the choices. So many languages do not.

Much of my thinking centers around the doctrine of revelation, and therefore, the doctrine of inspiration. As that relates to translations, I take the view that it was not the words of the Bible writers that were inspired but the men themselves. They wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, not as dictation, but with inspired thought. God's word comes to us through a union of humanity with divinity, a union that expresses God's being with very limited human "signifiers". Only one Word can contain the fullness of God bodily and that is Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

Just some thoughts to go along with your own. Hope your well. God bless.

There's a couple of things to this statement that I think are profound. Abstraction in Christianity has been a huge problem in the West, particularly from medieval times and it remains so particularly in Protestantism.

And I think we need to rediscover the theology of the image. This has been so neglected in SDA heritage. I even heard the shrill evangelist David Asscherick say in one of his talks that the Bible is always negative in speaking about images after the Genesis account. Well this is simply an untrue statement, because Paul talks about "being conformed to the image of Christ" and Christ being the "image of the invisible God". But deeper than that, the incarnation is really an affirmation of the goodness of God's creation and an identification with humanity. What is a human according to scripture? Humanity is made in the image of God. This is hugely important, and in light of many NT passages on the image and Christ's humanity (especially Hebrews 2), I think there is a need to rediscover the theology of the image. This has obvious implications not only for Biblical anthropology, but also for Christology and atonement theology. Christ is the truly human one. He is the image of the invisible God. Humankind, however, have "sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Sin is missing the mark or fallen short of that which we were created. It is not merely breaking an arbitrary law. It is far more ontological than that. I do recognize that scripture does speak of sin as law breaking, and this is no doubt true, but of course scripture sees the problem of sin as far deeper than this. I think the whole ministry of Jesus brings this out as well as statements in the epistles, particularly the Pauline and Johannine material. That is why Christ took on humanity in its fullness so that he could redeem humanity - see Hebrews 2 for this.

Btw the ESV translation does something very naughty when it chooses to translated "propititiation" here instead of "atonement for sins" (NIV), "sacrfice of atonement" (NRSV), the RSV even has "expitiation", which I think is entirely appropriate in this context. The atonement is many-sided and I do think "propitiation" is appropriate in other passages, but certainly not in Hebrews 2. The ESV has indiscriminately translated "propititiation" for every passage dealing with the atonement despite the context. I think this is because of the Reformed/Calvinist obsession with penal substitution. It's a good translation overall. But I think the main problem is the fact that it was basically created by people of only one theological persuasion. However, the fact that they stuck basically to the KJV interpretation means that sectarian biases were mostly tempered. But we've always got to be mindful of the motivation for the translation and who the translation is for. How did we get into a discussion about translations again?? lol btw I use the NRSV translation for my personal study. This translation has its problems too. The ESV is a very accurate and readable translation. We just have to be mindful of the narrow theological perspective that pops up from time to time in the text. Some have even said that it should be renamed the "Elect Standard Version"!!

I agree that there is a clear eschatological context in scripture. The scriptural teaching of God's Kingdom being inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus does not deny this at all. This is going to be a little ad hoc, but let me list some of my reasons:

1) The work we do in the here an now in no way takes away from the glory when all things put right in the new creation. Indeed the Kingdom work we do in the here and now anticipate the day when God is "all in all". Paul says that our work will not "be in vain". Hope is not static. It points beyond itself to something greater. It's not that we set up the Kingdom ourselves, rather we anticipate the Kingdom in the kind of lives we live, in working for justice etc. This all points toward to something more marvelous than what we achieve now for God by his Spirit (it's not us who do this work btw, we need the Spirit. So this is not corporate Pelagianism). The New Testament does not teach fatalism. When Jesus teaches us to be peacemakers he doesn't mean, "wink wink, but don't you know that the world is going to hell and a hand basket anyway so your efforts will come to nought, but trying is what really matters". No I think he expects us to be people who go about changing the world by being peacemakers, forgiving, being meek, loving our enemies carrying our cross. It simply is not a Biblical teaching that we should sit back and wait for God to do it all in the end. He has called us to be his co-workers, we participate in putting the world to rights.

2) The Incarnation of our Lord was for the express purpose of inaugurating God's Kingdom. That is why Jesus went about saying "the Kingdom of God is at hand". I don't think he meant in 2 or 3 thousand years time. I think he means now. All the healings, miracles he did were not magic tricks to prove that he was the Son of God. Rather these are normal things that happen when God's Kingdom is established. People are healed, storms are calmed, sins are forgiven. And the cross and resurrection is integral to this story. Kingdom and the cross go together, they are not separate independent events as I have been brought up to believe. Jesus goes about preaching the Kingdom of God. He is put to death for this. But in his resurrection he has defeated the powers of sin and death. We are called to announce that God's Kingdom has arrived in Jesus. We have a vocation. Knowing that Jesus is Lord of the world we live in that reality now. This was the sole teaching in Jesus' ministry. The sermon on the mount, even the Olivett discourse that ends with the parable of the sheep and the goats. Why is that parable the conclusion to a sermon about the "end of the age"? Because those who are ultimately welcomed into his Kingdom at the consumation of all things already live the Kingdom life in the present. Christianity is not a strategy of waiting for it all to end. And so evangelism isn't only about saving souls so that they can go to heaven. Indeed if we will all inhabit the new earth, what does "going to heaven" mean? If fact, if evangelism is solely about saving souls from the wicked world so that they can live in heaven forever more, I would suggest that this is half way to Gnosticism. It completely ignores the Kingdom of God stuff Jesus spent all that time talking about in the Gospels. Redemption is about God putting this world right again. All of his creation. It is precisely not about humans leaving and going somewhere else. God redeems us and we are to be part of this grand project launched in Jesus Christ and through the Spirit. We are saved with the world (Romans 8), not from it. If we have this vision it is very clear to me that working for peace and justice go hand in hand with the Gospel pronouncement.

3) The first Advent of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ was an apocalypse itself. This is how it is talked about in the New Testament. The Gospels talk about Jesus being the one who has fulfilled the OT promises to establish God's rule on earth and vindicate his people. Look at Mary's magnificat. The promise made to Abraham was seen to be fulfilled in Christ. This is also clear in Paul. He doesn't merely use Abraham as an example, but as the beginning of God's promise to recreate the world. And this is now fulfilled in Israel's Messiah, Jesus. In fact he uses the Greek word for apocalypse in Galatians 3:23 when he says that now faith has been "revealed" (the Greek for apocalypse) in the coming of Israel's Messiah. He then concludes the chapter by saying we who are in Christ are Abraham's offspring. In other words, the Jewish longing for God to act on his promises, to bless the whole world and vindicate his people (i.e. Abraham's offspring) has been accomplished in Jesus.

Look also at John's Gospel. It begins the same way as Genesis "In the beginning". This is the story about how God is recreating the world. And there other Genesis creation paralell's in John's Gospel.

3) The resurrection. Perhaps this should be the first point. Read the resurrection narratives - particularly Matthew 28. When Jesus gives the Great Commission, right before that he says "all authority in heaven and on earh has been given to me" In other words Jesus is the King of the world already. The one who sits at the right hand of the Father is the one who rules earth. That is why this statement of authority is followed immediately by the Great Commission. Jesus is King and we go about announcing this and living in this reality. The resurrection is not simply another event on a timeline to be ticked off. It is a paradigm changing event. It changes everything. It means, in some sense, that God's Kingdom has arrived. Why is it that we starting counting time again with reference to Jesus? It is precisely because the early Christians believed that the coming age had broken into present age of sin and death because of Israel's Messiah Jesus. Paul says that Christ is the "first fruits of them that have slept". We live in the resurrection age. Christ is the first fruit, we are the harvest yet to come. God's great gift of new creation has come forward to meet us in the resurrection of Christ. And if new creation has begun, then we live like new creatures, as St Paul says. The very political message of Christ's resurrection and Kingship over the world is precisely the motivation for doing justice and loving mercy. We are citizens of heaven - meaning we bring the civilization of heaven into the world in which we are placed. Our King is Jesus. We do not behave and worldly empires behave with violence and force. We go about humbly and gently doing things that make this world a better place just as Jesus taught us.

I'm rambling a bit. It might not make any sense to you. It is very hard to explain to people who are not accustomed to reading the text this way. I hope you get a sense of what I'm talking about. There is, of course so much more to be said about this, and I probably haven't articulated myself very well. Listen to the NT Wright lecture I posted above on How God became King. He puts it much better than I ever could. But I'd be interested in hearing what you think is the impetus for Christian involvement in issues that are really destroying humanity and creation.

I'm an economist, currently doing consulting work in Papua New Guinea for some private companies and government agencies :)

Peace

And thanks for the thoughts. BTW...What do you do for living, Simon?

I don't think Wright has come into conflict with the "fist-in-your-face" Calvinists (why are some of these men so unpleasant?) over election... yet. That doesn't seem to be the issue they have with him. I don't think you could ever describe Wright as a 5 point Calvinist, he does prefer Calvin's continuity between the Old and New Covenants over Luther's apparent disdain for Judaism and covenental discontinuity. What these modern hyper Calvinists seem to object to is Wright's denial of the Reformed notion of imputation, preference for Christus Victor theory of atonement and to the political implications of his Kingdom of God emphasis. That is to say that, if Jesus is raised from the dead and all authority in heaven and on earth has (past tense, not future tense - please take note SDAs) been given to him, then there are very stark political implications of the gospel - like helping the poor, working for social and ecological justice, and so on. If Jesus really is King of the world, then what should the world look like? And of course conservative evangelicals, who are also mostly politically conservative, don't like hearing that stuff. This is why, I think, many expressions of American Protestantism flirts with gnosticism. Where salvation is escape from this world into some place called heaven. It means we don't have to worry about poverty or ecological crisis, because one day God is going to take us all away from here, which, of course, will be next week or the week after that. But the Bible is actually about how God recreates the world - the new earth. This means that God cares very much about his creation and what happens in it and wants to redeem it - and indeed has redeemed all of creation (not only humanity) in Jesus. I think this message has been sorely missing in American Protestantism in general, not least in our own SDA heritage. So there are gems that can be found in Wright even if you don't always agree with him.

I certainly agree with you on Hyper-Calvinism. I think a primary problem the men you mention have with Wright, Dunn, etc. is over election, not only justification. Of course, the two are intimately related. That has been a key issue in disagreements over Barth as well.