"why is the suggestion that

"why is the suggestion that the people of God as descendants of Abraham should see itself as a creational microcosm any worse than more traditional conceptions of the church as a ’chosen people’ or ’elect’ or ’saved’ or destined to live with God for ever?"

It’s a good question, but my response might be of little use to you or to your other readers. All these terms you mention — new creation, chosen, etc. — sound a lot better from one side of the divide than from the other. As someone who doesn’t identify himself as a Christian, would I rather that Christians regard me as un-chosen, rejected, damned, destined to be dead outside the presence of God forever, or part of the old corrupted creation? Tough choices.

I suppose if I were the one designing a theology premised on "new creation," I’d explore a couple other options. One, I’d make the new creation all-inclusive: neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Christian nor non-Christian. Or two, I’d make the new creation an alternate reality rather than a replacement for the old reality. The church, or maybe only this particular version of the church, is open to those with eyes to see it, perhaps to those who have been chosen to see it. But there are also other new creations besides this one, other alternative realities that are visible to other eyes and that beckon with a different call. But none of the various alternative realities currently in view is the "real" reality, nor is any one of them destined to destroy and replace all the rest. Maybe even the same God stands at the center of all these alternate realities, working with all of them in parallel.

Both the universalist and the alternate-realities variants of a new creation theology pose their own problems. But for my tastes both of them are less elitist and, more importantly, less dismissive and destructive in their orientation to those who, for whatever reason, can’t see and don’t find themselves called to one particular way of making sense of life.

Of course this is going about things the wrong way, designing universes according to specifications rather than discerning what the universe really is. Maybe it really is ruled by a God who sets apart one group of people as a kind of new humanity destined eventually to live in a new world from which all the rest of humanity has been systematically eradicated. I believe that the situation is different from that, which seems to put me in the crowd that’s going to be eliminated. It’s an uncomfortable feeling to be regarded by intelligent and kind people as being subject to a future final genocide unless I join them. And so I register my objection. As you suggested, my objection isn’t limited to your unique formulation of Christianity but to the way the church has usually regarded itself throughout most of its history.

Here briefly is what I believe, for what it’s worth. We’re all part of the same human species, all of us limited in vision, all prone to making mistakes and to acting badly, all of us living in the same universe. But we all see the universe a little bit differently, and if some of us can see things similarly enough maybe we can find our way forward together. Others might converge on seeing something else together, some other way of being that you and I don’t see as clearly. I wish them well on their distinct path toward an indistinct future. And maybe down the road our paths will converge in a place we can neither see nor imagine from where we’re walking today.

Anyhow, the idea of a new creation certainly can be found in the New Testament. I think I’ll take advantage of your continued hospitality to open up an OST post looking at those specific NT passages which make explicit reference to new creation, new creature, new man, and new self. You’ve probably already done this in your own explorations, but I’m still curious about what further light can be shed by these texts.