Josh, the point is well taken. My way of dealing with the danger of a cosmic triumphalism (it sounds rather absurd when put that way) would probably be to emphasize that this is in the first place a prophetic notion, expressed through the character and loyalty of the people of God as a microcosm of creation. I do not think the calling of the church is to dominate or assimilate everything into itself. I think it is to embody an alternative ‘reality’ or world, in the midst of and distinct from the nations, as a sign that the God whom we worship, who dwells at the centre of our reality, is the Creator of all things.

I would keep in mind also the fact that our small world is safeguarded or ruled over by the one who died and rose again: being new creation is still only an extension of the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection. I think that it is primarily this seminal ‘faithfulness’, rather than the historically determined context of Jesus’ life, that ensures that we are new creation as recipients of the gift of grace. My eschatological argument is merely that we arrive at this by way of the story of the Son of man, which is the story of the suffering and vindication of the early community.

Then perhaps finally, I would stress that in a fragmented, pluralistic postmodern world we should be much less inclined towards cultural imperialism. I hope we have learned some lessons here. As ‘new creation’ we must somehow embrace the full scope of authentic God-given existence – worship, creativity, community-based justice and compassion, ecological integrity. But we should be able to choose to do that with contextual sensitivity rather than as a matter of global assimilation into a new cultural orthodoxy.