I don’t agree that, as you say, the non-appearance of a”full physical” kingdom entails a “sign of really problems, even errors, in traditional theology”. To speak of the already and the not-yet of God’s kingdom is simply to echo Jesus’ own teaching on this point and to reiterate that just as God chose the time of the Kingdom’s inauguration in Jesus so he choses the time of its consummation in Christ’s return. There is no failure here nor the waning of hope for a very physical kingdom indeed.

2) Which means in turn, that the non-appearance of a full physical kingdom, is a very, very serious shortfall; a sign of really problems, even errors, in traditional theology.

3) And finally, if there are many such errors, then it would not be honest for preachers to present traditional theology, as the true word of God.

As a common attempt at a solution to this: our preachers are often very modest and hesitant, very oblique, and non-dogmatic about what they say. At the very least, preachers should always hesitate to preface their remarks with any statement to the effect that “the Lord said” this or that.

(As indeed, parts of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah began to suggest?).

Generally theologians are fairly good at this; televangelists are not.

Here, we commonly excuse the non-appearance of a timely material kingdom -”soon”; at hand; “quickly” – by invoking a transcendental God. Suggesting among dozens of other things, that 1) God’s time is not the same as ours (as did Peter). Or that 2) we already have a kingdom of the spirit.

Or you could say in other words, as many have, we have a kingdom of sorts, in a transcendent way; in a vague participation in transcendence. Yet transcendence is almost by definition, indefinable. So that our participation in transcendence, per se … ? Is problematic. And not quite therefore a solid explanation for … the non-appearance of a physical kingdom.

In many ways, of course, Jesus is said to be spirit meeting “flesh,” and “reconciling” all this; the material and transcendental kingdoms. Yet at the same time, many agree that this reconciliation neverthess, whatever its other virtues might be (salvation, etc), did not quite produce the promised full material kingdom after all. So that a sort of “Second Coming” will be necessary, before the full promise of God is realized.

Which means that the kingdom of “transcendence,” is however, not quite a viable apologetic, for the “not yet.”

To be sure, transcendence has some usefulness on its own; I might disagree with you here and suggest it is the final grounds of human freedom. Though for now we are constrained in our freedom, by other practical considerations, “covenants,” and so forth. (Q.v., Kyle’s parallel discussion).

In any case though, while I rather like transcendence in general – its philosophicality, its evocation of ineluctiblity and inscrutibility (SP?) – at the same time, again, I’m not sure its a valid apologetic, for the not-yet. Or that it is even a realistic, “here already.”

Unless perhaps, we use it as an evocation of very, very great freedom, from dogmatisms.

Both are equally present in the scriptural narrative and, in my opinion, it has only been with the shrinking of our biblical imagination by the constraints of certain notions of causality that we find it difficult to talk about divine and human freedom in this register. These thoughts are certainly not new to me (see, Aquinas, Barth and more recently, J. Webster, W. Placher, K. Tanner, R. Hutter).

Theology should not be a perpetual deferment of responsiblity. No matter how comfortable that is.

The key, for me, is placing the proper stress on God’s agency in bringing the Kingdom to completion. This is not to say that human cooperation is superfluous. Rather, when God’s freedom and his power to grant creatures a freedom of their own is marked out according to the Biblical testimony a particular picture comes into view: creaturely freedom is given to humanity, properly their own as creatures, and therefore not in competition with divine operations in the world. To accept such a view of divine/human cooperation is, in my view, to allow the biblical testimony to have sway rather than scientific or philosophical accounts of causality (this framework sometimes called “transcendence agency”). We can talk then about grace and impatience without conflict: Yes, God will consumate his Kingdom and, yes, God has created such a world in which he invites the cooperation of his people.

“How long oh Lord,” before God honors his covenant obligation, to bring the kingdom of God to this physical earth, “soon,” “at hand,” “quickly,” in a “generation.” As was promised two and even three thousand years ago.

For that reason, I’m very interested in … seeing to it that the kingdom discover a very real, physical, and far more effective presence here on this material earth.

Simply negating the old covenants (cf. Kyle on Wright?) does not necessarily seem the right way to go, fully. For me, linking Christianity to real science and technology, seems far more effective.

I’m interested in the covenant relationship that places obligations on two parties, not just one, as all covenants and contracts do: if not on God himself, then his ministers. As well as believers.

Thoughts?

Oh, no a different note, I sent you a package in the mail and it should arrive on Saturday – enjoy the goodies.