Greek and other mythological narratives (Van Eck 2004:564-565), the resurrection of a crucified messiah - and especially the life-changing effects of Jesus' resurrection - was shockingly and surprisingly new to the Mediterranean symbolic world.Because the resurrection faith of the early Jesus followers was rooted in paradox, it created an urgent need for interpretation. Continuous experiences of God's life-giving Spirit in the present - in diverse and changing social contexts - would constantly challenge them to interpret and reinterpret inherited traditions, and to imagine, re-imagine and reconstruct the future. Any interpretation, including the interpretation of religious experience, obviously happens in the light of available symbols. This was also the case with the early Jesus followers. They were forced to interpret new experiences and changing circumstances in the light of a pluralistic first-century Mediterranean symbolic world, constituted by diverse and complex combinations inter alia of Roman rule, Greco-Roman (specifically Hellenistic) culture, and the religious symbols of Judaism (torah, prophets and "writings"). The rapid spread of the movement by many messengers further required flexible adjustment to new settings. In the process they did not so much invent a new language, but rather reinterpreted, rearranged and reappropriated available symbols and traditions, particularly from the symbolic world of the torah (Johnson 1999:35-38). The New Testament radicalised inherited images from the very roots - particularly those related to power and authority - by describing the early Christian communities as being recreated by God in Jesus Christ, with a new identity and ethos.Similar processes of experience and interpretation continued during the collection, selection and canonisation of these documents by the early church. This process was determined fundamentally by the sensus ecclesiae, the sense of the church - by its communal discernment and awareness of being inspired and guided by a living God. Through these processes the early church affirmed that tho se writings - particularly in their being addressed to, and conditioned by, specific historical contexts - possessed enduring authority and relevance for the church. The relevance of these writings would, however, not (necessarily) be the same in every time and place. It is specifically in their diversity of settings, genre and style (witnessing of the dynamic relationship between a living God and people in the everyday concrete reality of their lives) that these texts would be able to address different contexts through the ages. For this reason, the whole collection of writings - in all its diversity and even divergence, complexity and coherence - must be kept alive if the church and Christian Theology are to affirm their identity in every time and place.Such an interactive dynamic provides Christian Theology with a useful framework - that is to act in continuation with those interpretive processes of the early church, while accounting critically for its own acts of interpretation in different times and places. Thus, because of its very roots, and its ability to reinterpret from within its basic Christological orientation, Theology should be in a good position to welcome, even embrace, a plurality of cultures, ideas and religions, without being threatened by it.What could Christian Theology's unique contribution