Worse than "Old Liberalism"

I am listening to a round table on the emerging church. A fellow comes up who disbelieves the resurrection. (I will keep him nameless since I have not heard him actually say this.) When questioned on the empty tomb, he said, "The tomb wasn't empty or there was no tomb." However, a few minutes later he said that this in no way undermines the confession of the early church that Jesus lives and Jesus is Lord. He believes in that confession and confesses it along with the early church. The round table had two people remembering these statements. The person who shared the second statement, that the confession is not undermined by the full or non-existent (or, irrelevant) tomb, said, "This isn't old liberalism."

Barf.

But, it's right. It's worse than old liberalism. At least old liberalism admitted that the early church thought Jesus really rose from the dead.

But here's a question: If Jesus didn't rise from the dead...and defeat death; show himself stronger than the Romans; overcome the temple and the law...then what, exactly, is he Lord over? After the confession, "Jesus is Lord!", the early church had an explosion of preaching. I think this gentleman's interpretation of the confession, however, we only have an explosion of cricket chirping after the announcement of Jesus' reign, signifying those (lack of) things over which he rules: "Jesus is Lord........." (of nothing).