In regards to an earlier post, I noted that it’s “still unclear to me how one can champion an apocalypsed universe, but want to do without the cosmological baggage that goes with it; such as sacraments, teleology, the natural desire for the supernatural, intermediary powers and yes, the analogia entis.”  I realized this point needs further clarification.
Luckily, Douglas Harink’s lectures at a recent Ekklesia Project gathering are helpful in this regard.  In highlighting chapters from his recent commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Harink mentioned that Protestant thought, as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox tradition, seems to have difficulty in grasping the significance of 2 Peter’s reference to the transfiguration.  Simply put, the Transfiguration doesn’t play the pivotal role in the Western tradition as it does in the Eastern.  Good Westerners that we are, we tend to loose something of what Peter is trying to get at with his language disclosure, dissolving and the apocalyptic transformation of the cosmos.  Harink noted that once he began reading the text with Eastern eyes he was able to see much more clearly into the world of 1 and 2 Peter. 
How is one then to understand the “apocalyptic transformation with the approach of God’s glory” (Harink) without the cosmology of the east?  What are we missing if we leave the imagery of the east behind; better still, what do we actually create in its place with a divisive Protestant version of apocalyptic?