Andrew,

An emerging theology connotes emerging from something. In this case it means a new theology emerging from the old.

On this site, the reexamination of the metanarrative of Scripture is sometimes discussed in view of this emerging theology. And, as you suggest, an emerging eschatology is part and parcel of an emerging theology. However, it appears to me that Duncan has demonstrated the relevance of his article with the stated purpose of this website. If we are examining the metanarrative of Scripture and of the Gospel to arrive at an emerging theology, the narrative of Revelation and what it means certainly will be part of that equation.

But, whether anyone likes it or not, preterism is also necessarily going to be part of this equation as well. Preterism is one the main ideas needed to reexamine the historical world of Scripture and it has helped us make great gains in forming an emerging theology (The Coming of the Son of Man owes much to preterism even if its author knew nothing of it when he wrote it). As far as descriptions go, preterism is simply theological archaeology in practice. And, as emerging theologians we must have a healthy respect for preterism, and not simply decry it because it has carries some personnel baggage.

Preterism isn’t going anywhere, it will always be part of any quest for authentic Christian theology. Duncan’s article is well within the pale of this website’s stated purpose. And Duncan’s “preterist” assertions are only as aggresive any other thought put forward here.

As you can see, I am frustrated by what appears to be an emerging prejudice against preterism here on this site. I feel this is a sad turn of events, because an honest assessment of the emerging conversation will reveal that (whether stated or not) preterism is as much a part that conversation as anything else.