Mike, that’s not at all a bad way of summarizing the argument. I might quibble over the word “salvation” in the fourth point. We don’t have much to go on, but I’m not not sure anything is “saved” when we get to Revelation 21-22. There is a final judgment and a remaking or renewal of heaven and earth, but I think salvation belongs to the ongoing narrative of history rather than the end of history, so to speak.
The basic claim is that the Bible all the way through tells the story of the troubled existence of the people of God as it struggles to stay true to its vocation under changing and often very difficult historical circumstances. This is easy enough to see in the Old Testament—Egypt, exodus, kingdom, exile, return from exile—but I think we need to read the New Testament in a similar way. The difference is that when we get to the New Testament much of the historical narrative lies in the future—in particular, the destruction of Jerusalem, the colonization of the empire in the name of Jesus, and the eventual annexation of the empire in the name of Jesus for the God of Israel.
It is this whole narrative that primarily determines the significance of the theological content of the New Testament. So the good news, as you highlight, is a public announcement about things that will happen in this narrative. The death and resurrection of Jesus no doubt have cosmic significance—the resurrection, for example, is new creation—but the New Testament is mostly interested in their significance for the political narrative, the story of YHWH and his people in relation to the nations.
Your point 5 highlights the fact that the story of the troubled existence of the people of God continues beyond the confession of Jesus as Lord by the nations, and I think that we would do well to take the whole narrative into account when we ask questions about the purpose and future of the church, particularly in the West.