Quite amazingly, Preterists seem to be very willing let their opposition define them and manipulate them by letting themselves get caught into a vicious circle or arguments, counter-arguments, book responses and debates. For one minute, let me share with you the story of the fly and the elephant, which is quite relevant to this topic:

"An elephant was standing and picking leaves from a tree. A small fly came, flying and buzzing near his ear. The elephant waved it away with his long ears. Then the fly came again, and the elephant waved it away once more.

This was repeated several times. Then the elephant asked the fly:
"Why are you so restless and noisy? Why can't you stay for a while in one place?"

The fly answered: "I am attracted to whatever I see, hear or smell. My five senses pull me constantly in all directions and I cannot resist them. What is your secret? How can you stay so calm and still?"

The elephant stopped eating and said:
"My five senses do not rule my attention. Whatever I do, I get immersed in it. Now that I am eating, I am completely immersed in eating. In this way I can enjoy my food and chew it better. I rule and control my attention, and not the other way around."

If Preterism does not move beyond being just an apologetic movement, which it is today, it will never break out of the small box we neatly label "Preterism." Being always on the defense with vast resources spent on writing apologies as if we have something to defend is hardly productive. Furthermore, people like Mathison and R.C. Sproul Jr. have huge numbers of followers ready to fall on the sword for them. In simpler words, Mathison and Sproul will acknowledge Preterism to be a valid construct when every single donor and subscriber to Table Talk becomes a Preterist or more accurately "when pigs fly."

Now, let’s assume that this book is written for the benefit of the vast masses of futurists out there. The problem is that this is a theological approach, taken to solve a practical problem. The problem is not that the masses of futurists are uneducated on the issue of theology because education simply does not bring one to a valid position on a certain topic, especially when we discuss theology. Take people like N.T. Wright, R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, etc. They are the giants of contemporary theology, great men who show great respect for God’s word, yet they continue to reject the obvious truths of Covenant Eschatology. And if lessons in theology do not bring one closer to truth then we can very well conclude that the fight over Preterism cannot be won between the generals, but in the trenches, where average Christians read their Bibles and go "aha!" when they simply get it.

I am not a pessimist by nature, but can I at least ask how this tremendous effort will benefit "the whole Preterist movement for all generations to come?" Preterism will not make strides in this supposed "war" by winning over its vocal critics. Preterism will win this theoretical war in the pews, where the masses of believers read their Bibles and e-mail their friends, where they carry out conversations with their Sunday school teachers and students. Furthermore these back-and-forth attacks do not help either. We reinforce the idea that we are indeed "at war" with the non-Preterists which is certainly not the case. I have always said that all futurists are future Preterists. Reinforcing the idea of "war" only creates more bad blood between us and it makes it even harder to share fulfilled prophecy with others.

I trust that this project will be successful, but I also hope that all of us Preterists can eventually move beyond apologies onto solid ground where we can get a better grip on what needs to be done for the kingdom of Christ. Without someone to fight, there is no war, and without a war of words, there is no need for us to be on the defense. Solid Preterist apologies have been already written many times before. James Stuart Russell’s "Parousia" is one of the best known early works on Preterism. Max King’s magnum opus "The Cross and the Parousia" is the most solid and comprehensive defense of Preterism written to date and it is unlikely anyone can even come close to matching it. Many other noted scholars like Sam Frost and Don Preston have already written dozens of defenses on many topics including the resurrection of the dead which seems to be the biggest concern of Mathison & Co.

If our chief critics were so concerned with truth, they would have already read, analyzed and offered responses to some of these most awesome Preterist works already in existence. Instead, they often resort to name-calling and the use of the "h" word as much as possible in order to easily portray us as some nut jobs spending too much time on the Internet. So fellow preterists, the problem is not lack of theology, but lack of application. This fight can only be won in the pews, and the people in the pews are the ones filling up the deep pockets of Sproul and Mathison. But even deep pockets have bottoms, and when the flies stop buzzing and start focusing on God’s word, the elephant will start paying attention and will have nobody left to converse with and sell magazines to.