I felt I ought to flesh out my earlier comments to Michal in response to this post. I don't want it to seem like I'm being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
I disagree with that.
Everything goes round the Resurrection.
In fact, some fathers say there would be the union of human nature and divine nature in Christ and therefore the deification of human nature that is the resurrection, even if we had not sinned.
As I said in my earlier post, and as others have noted, I don't think it is theologically sound to separate the Crucifixion and the Resurrection as if they are separate things. I believe, even in these words, and throughout your post, that you are separating them so much as to distort their meaning.
The Resurrection is not identical to the deification of human nature. Through the Incarnation, the Son assumes human nature. Human nature is deified through the Son's Incarnation, and the Incarnation is not simply the conception in the womb of the Theotokos, but is more dynamic. Christ enters every stage of human life, including death and resurrection, and endows it with his divine grace. You don't "need" a Resurrection to accomplish the deification of human nature if sin and death
are not part of the picture, so even if the Fathers teach that Christ would've become man without sin, how does the Resurrection factor in? The Fathers teach that Christ would've become man, but whence Resurrection without death?
The Crucifiction is a necessary remedial action to a problem that should not have happened: sin and death. But its preparatory. The relation of the Crucifiction to the Resurrection is the same to that of St. John, the Baptist, and Christ: one prepares the road for the other, one shouts contrition and humility *because* we have sinned (and wouldn't be there if we had not), the other is the Good News itself, that God so loves us that He even shares His own glory through us, making us co-sons with His Son. And like St. John before Christ, the Crucifiction must become a thing of the past for the Resurrection to come forward. The old things are left behind to give way to the new ones. There is a time when the Cross must decrease so the Eternal Light may shine.
The comparison of the Crucifixion/Resurrection to John the Baptist/Christ is a distortion. The Crucifixion is not simply a necessary remedial action whose time has come and gone (or, for that matter, some didactic example encouraging us to contrition and humility). It is only that if you accept the "Western" distortion that it is simply the required paying of a debt. The Scriptures speak of the idea of debt and ransom, so they are not absent from our teaching on the Crucifixion, but this is not exclusively its importance.
St Paul "preaches Christ crucified" (I Cor. 1.23), glories "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6.14), has himself "been crucified with Christ" and lives by faith in the Son of God "who gave himself up" for him (cf. Gal. 2.20). Christ is the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13.8 ), who offered one sacrifice
for sins perpetually/continuously
(cf. Heb. 10.12). When he is raised from death, he retains the wounds of his Crucifixion, and it is through these that he is known to us (cf. Jn 20.27). The NT is always talking about the Crucifixion, and in ways that exceed the importance you appear to assign to it. If you accept as a given the distorted idea of the Crucifixion as the bloody victimisation of a substitute, then sure, an emphasis on the Resurrection may help correct for this. But don't emasculate the Crucifixion. Really, it can't be understood without the Resurrection, nor can the Resurrection be understood or accomplished without the Crucifixion.
Frankly, the idea that "the Cross must decrease so that the Eternal Light may shine" is ludicrous:
Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only sinless One. We venerate your Cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify your holy Resurrection; for you are our God and we know no other than you and we call upon your Name. Come all you faithful, let us venerate Christ's holy Resurrection, for behold through the Cross joy has come into all the world. Let us ever bless the Lord, praising his Resurrection, for enduring the Cross for us, he has destroyed death by death.
It is precisely upon seeing Christ die on the Cross that the centurion confesses him to be the Son of God (cf. Mt. 27.54). The titulus above the Cross in icons of the Crucifixion reads "The King of Glory" not simply in light of the Resurrection, but because Christ's divinity, his kingdom, his power, his glory are all revealed on the Cross. That is why it is the sign of the Son of Man that will appear in the heavens at his Second Coming. The Crucifixion is not just a prelude to the Resurrection: the Resurrection confirms the message of the Cross. They can't be properly understood apart from each other.
That's why they are always linked in the Church's liturgy. The Sunday commemoration of the Resurrection is not separated from the Cross, either on the day itself or in the context of the week, because every Friday is the commemoration of the Cross. The Cross and Resurrection are obviously linked closely together in Holy Week and the Paschal season, and were once celebrated together on Pascha itself, and not separately. Even our celebration of the feast of the Transfiguration is such that its dating occurs not within the "life of Christ" cycle of feasts, but forty days before September's feast of the Cross, so that neither the Cross nor the glory of deified humanity is considered "on its own", but in relation to each other.
The Evangelium, the Good News is this: Christ resurrected with all the implications about that, and not that Christ was crucified. The Crucification can *never* be the Good News, and much of the problem with vicarial soteriology is that it cultivates in us one of the pettiest, ugliest feelings ever: "Better him than me".
But again, one of those implications is his death. If you insist on identifying the Crucifixion with "vicarial soteriology", then you may be right; but the Church, following Scripture, doesn't do it the way you're doing it.
I chose not to respond to the rest of that post because I thought I'd be repeating myself too much, and I fear I may have already done so.