For instance, in his blog on the Centre for Public Christianity he says:
Furthermore, the plethora of scallywag accounts of Jesus' life is allowed to grow because theologians have said 'it doesn't matter'. No - it does matter, theologically, that we can go Israel and see with our own eyes the ground on which Jesus walked. He was not a fantasy, or a principle. He was a man of flesh and blood and bone, and as far as any man of flesh and blood and bone may be traced in history so we should expect and in fact rejoice that traces of Jesus' presence among us are there to be found.
Well, Michael, for the Holy Spirit's revelation of creation as for Jesus (is there a hint that we are backing away from Barth here?). It does matter, theologically, and for the same reasons as it matters for Jesus: the scene is set for the grand covenant between God and his creation in concrete terms, in terms congruent with the manner in which the setting and scene interact and play out. If not, then the God merges with the demiurge, or something worse. See my earlier post, and my comment upon same.