Edward wrote:

[The resurrection] is the crowning event of the
new creation that has consequences for the whole world and most certainly for followers of Jesus.

Yes for the followers of Jesus; not so sure about the whole world -
at least, I think this aspect of it needs to be thought through more carefully.
If we are going to speak of the resurrection as inaugurating a ‘new creation’,
how exactly are we using the term? Is it simply a metaphor for the renewal of
the people of God (cf. Ezek.36:33-36)? Or does it refer to something more
‘real’, some sort of change in the cosmic order? If we mean the latter, how
are we to speak about it meaningfully and publicly? Where is the evidence for
it?

Certainly we must say that the resurrection is critical for faith,
but I am still inclined to think that it remains primarily something that God
has done for Israel and for the sake of his own honour. If Jesus’ resurrection
is fundamentally about vindication, the renewal of the covenant community in
him, and the justification of a God who did not abandon his servant to death, I
wonder whether we are right to suppose that it has immediate cosmological
implications - such that we might draw from it particular political and
environmental conclusions. Colossians 1:15-20 is interesting in this regard:
Christ is ‘first-born of all creation’, the one through whom all things were
created; but by virtue of the resurrection he is ‘first-born from the
dead’, which suggests that the resurrection is more an anticipation of a
general resurrection (cf. 1 Cor.15:22-23) than a turning-point in the present
creation.

So what does it mean to proclaim that Jesus has been raised from the
dead? It means that God really has acted to rescue his people from the
consequences of their rebellion; it means that God really has defeated Israel’s
enemies, supremely satan and death; it means that those who are ‘in’ this
crucified and resurrected messiah do not need to fear death; it means that
Christ and not Caesar or the principalities and powers rules over the church and
will rule over the whole world.

Does it have practical implications? i) It is crucial to the
story-line that accounts for the renewal of Israel. ii) It means that Christ has
become determinative for, sets the agenda for, defines the boundaries
of the disciple’s relationship to the Father. iii) We as the people of God
have the Spirit of the risen Lord - a major practical consequence! iv)
We are in a position to take very seriously the prospect of a future collective
resurrection.

I have a hunch, though, that these will still not be practical enough
for you. If so, what exactly are you looking for? What do you feel is inadequate
about the emerging church’s understanding of the resurrection? Do we need to see
the resurrection as being somehow a bigger event than this sort of
language implies?

Edward, you wrote:

I remain with my view that unless the emerging church reconsiders its theology of salvation - highlighting the resurrection alongside and at least equal too if not more significant than the cross and the suffering of Jesus - then the cause is lost and the emerging church remains in exile.

I don’t know that I can track fully with you on this. I agree that the emerging church does not place much on the resurrection, but “lost in exile” seems to be an overly strong statement, historically. The Eastern churches have place quite a bit of emphasis on the Resurrection with the West staying at the cross. I would suggest digging into some Eastern writers for more “worked-out” thoughts on the Res. But “lost in exile” would imply that the Western churches have been in exile since the East-West split. I’m not going to deny that idea, necessarily. Only point out the implications of your statement. I’m curious to know if you think it goes that far.

However!, after reading your posts I have found that I read my Bible differently these days. I did not pay much attention to early Acts having the Apostles preaching “the Res. of Jesus” (Acts. 3ff). Thanks for tuning my eyes to see this!

I don’t know that I’d agree with Andrew’s idea of God vindicating Himself with/for Israel. Mainly because I don’t think they understood that it was coming, as evidenced by their lack of Messiah-death theologies (as seen in the Bible texts as well as their Midrash and other writings). Not that their expectation(s) is all that matters. But I think that God understood He was doing something unique, albeit, hinted at in the Prophets (much easier to see it post Resurrection!). But I put a different emphasis on Israel than Andrew does.

Practical implications: most Western Christians, I would fear, are afraid of the mystical/fairy-tale feeling of the Resurrection. I think they are ashamed of how un-natural it is, compared to the universal experience of death. Further, I think the Cross allows us (Western Christians) to continue to emphasize the negative, sin-induced aspects of humans. It allows us to concurrently down-judge others while non-directly highlighting our own rise. Maybe that’s part of why there is so little celebration, but much rewarding in our culture at-large (also in the churches). Personally, I think on of the immediate applications of the Res. is that (1) God is to be the source of my attention (whereas the Cross, by way of contrast, looks at me-in-my-sin) and (2) I can (it only makes sense!!) CELEBRATE God Himself. He is to be the Subject and Honored-One of the deepest parts of my soul/heart (I need a better word for “parts” - ugh). I know that this is not as practical to my system of theology, but it IS practical to my living. I do not think it is a stretch to say that, as I add this to my daily life (and once again, thank you for starting this thread!!), I and my community will begin to see the theological impact as well.

This babelling has led me to a question: are you looking for daily-life implications or system-wide, theological implications of the Res.?

David