NT Wright came to Calvin and I was as privileged enough to see him. He talked about how we get the Gospels wrong because we think that there about going to heaven when we die or building an earthly utopia. Instead, the Gospels are about "God becoming King." What this means is that in Jesus God has rescued us from sin and so we are now free to implement God's kingdom program by helping the less fortunate and reforming society in other ways. This of course, he points out, does not destroy the necessity of the second coming. NT eschatology (as his Doktor Vater George Caird and his C.H. Dodd would say) is inaugurated eschatology. The second coming completes the implementation of the kingdom begun in the Church by the power of the Spirit. Implementing the kingdom, it would appear, is about implementing a special divine law revealed in Jesus.
There is of course much good in this, but I find the language of "God becoming king" problematic. Moreover, I also think it strikes at what's fundamentally wrong with Wright's approach. For one thing: Why does God need to become king? As Luther notes, his kingdom will come- but we pray that it will come to us in grace. This is the difficulty. God already rules in his power and glory, but in a way that will destroy us insofar as we are sinful. Wright seems to attribute our situation of wrath to an absence of God's presence and rule. When God's kingship is absent (it would seem) things go haywire. Better use the law to implement his authority and then everything will be put right (excuse the pun)! But that's not the problem. God is already applying the law. He did so with Israel in the form of exile, and, (as Wright likes to emphasize) its continuing exile in the Second Temple period. So, the story of the Gospels is not about God applying is sovereignty (after he's taken a time out) but rather is power condescending to humanity in the form of grace. It's not about the application of God's rule, but rather about God's rule in grace.