Andrew, if a critical realist epistemology asks us to be transported back and look forward (rather than merely looking backward), does it really matter how ‘literally’ Paul and John’s visions are fulfilled?

There’s an obvious sense in which, yes, if the Spirit was on them, we’d expect there to be some correlation between what happened and what they imagined/foresaw looking to the future.  However, if it’s in the very nature of prophecy to be, to an extent, indeterministic, could we not say that the ‘fulfillment’ of Paul and John’s vision is ‘up for grabs’?

So, if we take this narrative approach seriously, our question is: what story are we going to tell about the imperialization of Christianity?  Could I not, in a prophetic spirit, announce that this was a stroke of Satanic brilliance, that Satan (the accuser of the people of God) saw his downfall and pre-emptively corrupted the agent of his downfall, lest he be permanently destroyed?  How firm are the walls to this narrative? 

For the sake of the narrative you see Paul and John (the NT writers) constructing, you look for a ‘fulfillment’ as early as possible.  Paul (Hartigan) and Peter (Wilkinson) sense a disconnect from historical reality: the ‘Israel of God’ survived, but at what price? Could one not say that Satan in fact got the best of the Church (this is their theological judgment about Christendom under Constantine), and that the narrative has been thrown off track?  God’s Kingdom failed to burst on the world as effectively as had been anticipated—should we then formulate new hopes?  Or should we stick to the old story, hoping for a bigger and better fulfillment?

In other words, what’s the best story?  The story that makes the most sense, both of the past and of the present (as well as the future, of course)?