Andrew,

Excellent post. 

One question I had in relation to the Temple destruction and especially N.T. Wright.

I don't have this thought fully formulated and certainly not to the point of a detailed argument, but do you ever get the sense that Wright has supersessionist leanings—or maybe crypto-supersessionist?

The Gospels are certainly all dealing with the massive upheveal of a post-temple world.  Mark is writing to argue that the Temple was destroyed because "the Jews" killed Jesus.   

Paul however is not it seems to me particularly—focused on the temple.  He's more interested in the in-gathering of the Gentiles as sign of the End Times.  When he references the Temple he seems to be repeating fairly standard Jewish piety and love of it. 

To the degree that the issue of Rome comes up for Paul I think he saw Rome as the prophets did earlier imperial powers:  they are agents of God's working/vengeance but they themselves will overstep the proper role and God will redeem/restore the people.

I raise the issue because I think among many other things, an emerging theology (or theologies) should be consciously engaged with an eye to the Jewish-Christian dialogue post-Holocaust.  

It's a fine line because as you correctly point out we want not to say it's an entirely different covenant or worse a different God as a lot modern liberal (esp. Lutheran) exegesis leaned towards.  So we want to emphasize the organic unity motif and the deep and abiding notion of covenant/election (Wriight's more Calvinist leanings show through here) while at the same time I think NOT go down a supersessionist road. 

One way might be to see Pharisaic Judiasm and Christianity as two branches growing out of the same root of the earlier (pre-Temple destruction) Judaism.  

Peace.  Chris