I know I will be roundly rebuked for this thought, but my first impression of the The World Ruled by a Death-proof King was reminiscence of some form of esoteric gnostacism.

Perhaps I just have enough trouble figuring out things for myself personally--as well as my personal relationship to Jesus Christ, without having to think about all the implications and subtle manifestations that a "Biblical Cosmology" might present to me. I guess I'm just a theological weenie.

Joseph, the only thing I'd rebuke you for is saying something without really saying anything.

It's not gnosticism because Jesus was God incarnate in a real live flesh and blood man, and he rose with a real live physical body.

I also see no disconnect between a personal relationship with Jesus and "implications and subtle manifestations of a biblical cosmology," and that's sort of the point of the post. If Jesus is really and truly risen, if he died and rose again, our daily life should be changed in the incredible light of that historic fact.

My response probably plays right into your preemptive defensiveness but I figured I'd clarify anyway and hope it helps.

If Jesus is really and truly risen, if he died and rose again, our daily life should be changed in the incredible light of that historic fact.

Ah, that's the language i'm used to. All this metaphysical talk about new heavens and earth existing alongside old heavens and earth; students of science and history applying Christian Cosmology in their daily work (presumably to chart a course to Mars?); rapidly gradual invasions of some kingdom reality. To me, it sounds more like the ridiculous radical feminism's ideas of a 'feminist theory of newtonian physics' or afrocentric theories of economics. To me, reality is reality and there is no dual existence of some non-christian science or non-biblical reality, existing alongside another kingdom reality that is accessed through some platonic gnosis--it's all one singular reality to me.

I imagine myself to be not-much-different from those disciples of old who didn't quite 'get it' until Christ flatly said something like "Lazarus is Dead. I'm going to raise him from the dead; then the same thing will happen to me, and I'll raise myself from the dead; and when you all die, I'll raise all of you from the dead too."

Mostly, I just don't buy into the doctrine of the 'gradual' comming of the Kingdom of Heaven, unless you DON'T think that the Kingdom Jesus prayed for in John 17 has partially arrived, or, if that isn't referring to an individual experience, but a collective experience that non-believers and believers alike acknowledge? As for me, I think the latter is the case (that the Kingdom hasn't come--and hence still pray "thy Kingdom Come, on Earth as it is in Heaven") and find the metaphysical language confusing.

If you're talking, on the other hand, about the Kingdom of God, well; that's an individual experience of conversion and I think that's a valid point, but I think it's incorrect to apply it generally to the whole world, and furthermore it doesn't really represent a different reality (does it?)-- but just a more accurate personal interpretation of reality (when one enters the Kingdom of God, i.e. becomes saved). Being justified or saved from one's sins absolutely causes one to treat work, play, relationships, etc. differently, but I took your post to refer to the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e. Heaven) not the Kingdom of God (i.e. salvation) because of you're use of words like cosmology, reality, history, Science, etc.

sorry for the stream-of-consciencness comment. I don't really have too much time to proofread or clarify in fewer words.

To me, reality is reality and there is no dual existence of some non-christian science or non-biblical reality, existing alongside another kingdom reality that is accessed through some platonic gnosis--it's all one singular reality to me.

Well, right. But that doesn't mean all are awakened to see it.
What to make of the biblical differentiation between the blind and the sighted, the spiritually dead and the spiritually alive?

Where Jesus is worshiped as King and God's will is done -- that is real reality. Everything else is just broken images and distortions.
What I'm talking about is people being born again, being spiritually regenerated so that they are citizens of this reality ("citizens of heaven," the NT says) and live in this world but not of it (as Jesus suggests in his high priestly prayer).

This isn't Platonism or gnosticism. It's biblical language that I'm using.

Mostly, I just don't buy into the doctrine of the 'gradual' comming of the Kingdom of Heaven

You should read some scholarly work on biblical eschatology. Check out George Eldon Ladd's stuff on the kingdom or N.T. Wright.

What I believe is that Jesus came to usher in the expected kingdom of God ("kingdom of heaven" in Matthew's circumlocution) and that he did so by his life, death, and resurrection.
I believe in an inaugurated eschatology -- so this means that Jesus' work begins the "end times," it was the apex of human history and we're now on the downslope to the second coming when there will be a final judgment, no more grief or tears, and we will be physically present with Jesus in a new heavens and new earth.

I don't believe heaven is best defined as some pie in the sky place where God and the angels hang out on the clouds but more like "the place where God is and his will is fully done."
I believe the bleeding of that more real reality (meaning, untainted by sin) into this less real reality (meaning, we are still beset by sin) is gradually taking place. I say "rapidly gradual" to compensate for how slowly it seems to take place for us but how it is not slow, according to the Bible ("Dear friends, he is not slow in keeping his promises . . .").

This inaugurated kingdom awaiting consummation mirrors the process of personal sanctification. It's not platonic dualism or whatever you want to call it; it's stuff the Bible talks about.

If you're talking, on the other hand, about the Kingdom of God, well; that's an individual experience of conversion and I think that's a valid point, but I think it's incorrect to apply it generally to the whole world

What does the kingdom coming mean, then? What does the new heavens and new earth mean?
What does this earth being destroyed by fire mean then?
Why heaven and hell and a final judgment if the whole world will not experience the ramifications of the coming of the kingdom of God?

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I do believe our radically different approaches to Christian theology (yours LDS, mine orthodox) are heavily influential in how we're gonna treat this subject.

Thanks for the clarification. I should amend my statement about the Kingdom of God saying that I believe it referrs to individuals, and doesn't apply generally to the whole world right now. In short, I believe what Daniel 2 says about the Kingdom of God (the spread of gospel truth to those who become sanctified throughout the world), but that the cleansing and sanctification of the world is different (reception of the Kingdom of Heaven) and will take place in an instant--not gradually (i.e. the second coming and the baptism of the earth by fire--the descent of the Kingdom of Heaven to the earth to be recieved by the people of the Kingdom of God). It is the great and terrible 'day' of the Lord when he comes, right? not necessarilly the great and terrible gradual 2,000 years of the Lord's second coming. I do this so that I can talk intelligently to people who don't have the same terminology as I do (so that I can understand what people mean e.g. when they say "the kingdom of God will be raptured up to heaven" etc., a phrase that is foreign to me; frankly--'rapture' not appearing in the Bible; as well as doctrines that are interpreted differently within sects of christianity like free will, original sin, etc.). It's helpful for me, when discussing medical ethics or moral agency in society to know what Catholics and Calvinist think so that I can speak their language.

Obviously your comments show me that you really don't believe in gnostic reality--a theme I've come across in some charasmatic churchs; or in some kind of postmodern relativistic objectivism (e.g. christians have one reality, non-christians have another reality)--a theme I've come across in the writings of other 'emerging' churchists. I know that my orthodoxy is radically different from your orthodoxy, and ocassionally I make errors because of different terminology, but I do this so that I can say e.g. "well, I don't believe in the extrabiblical term 'rapture' per se, but I suppose the raising up of the kingdom of God to meet Christ in the heavens as he descends to earth during his second coming is kinda like rapture--so that must be what those southern baptist are talking about." But don't think I'm here to discuss my own brand of Orthodoxy; I'm not. I'm only here to discover the nuances of other Christian thinkers. So sorry about my misunderstanding and occasional obstinance. I think you've already discovered that I'm not a cheerleader commentator here or anywhere else.