And, yes, I don’t pick up such sentiments from what I’ve read from either Yoder or Hauerwas, but I feel it all the time from his so-called devotees.

If you really think that Yoder and Hauerwas (even though there’s no such entity as “Yoder and Hauerwas” but that’s another matter) advocate Christianity as primarily intending to serve the purpose of transforming society, I’ve got to say that I think you haven’t really read them. That’s almost exactly the opposite of what argue for. I’m quite confused that you could really have that impression from any sustained reading of their work.

In regard to your comments about the two kingdoms doctrine, I find these sorts of rhetorical ploys to be rather annoying. Do you actually want to claim that no one who actually understands it could ever disagree with it or have a legitimate critique of it? I’m pretty sure I understand it just fine, thanks. And I have good reasons for rejecting it. Can we talk to each other like adults here?

Also, it’s impossible to truly understand 2k and go on holding it responsible “for quite a bit of the slipping up we see in the church throughout history.” ;-)

The Catholic doctrine of the “two swords” is not exactly 2k. The magisterial Reformers did not hold their teachings on this score consistently. What was practiced during the early to mid 20th cent. in Germany was not consistently 2k (note too that many of the leaders in the resistant, confessional church in Germany were adamantly 2k). What evangelicals practice in America today is diametrically opposed to 2k.

From where I’m standing the closest thing to it can be seen in anabaptistic thought (Yoder, Hauerwas, et al.). But then they get all confused sounding when they start talking about the transforming of society, as if Christianity itself was primarily intended to serve that purpose. How does that not lead to Münster? Or the Moral Majority? The Christian Coalition? The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ? The Episcopal Church (USA) [taking shots at my own church here]?

And to my mind it is getting “two kingdoms down” that is responsible for quite a bit of the slipping up we see in the church throughout history. And that’s not, despite your initial comment, due to a lack of understanding it, either on my part, or I expect, on Ward’s.

@Halden, I did allude to what I thought he was getting at with respect to what you say: what sort of cultural transformation is the church to be oriented toward? And if Ward is saying what you’ve said (“Whatever it is…,” etc.), then I agree with him/you. But everywhere we look we see Christians trying to create some sort of homogeneous cultural whole. To my mind, if you ain’t got two kingdoms down, you’re gonna slip up on this score.

Question for you: what would you say if somebody quipped that Anabapistic views on this point inevitably lead to Münster (and thus become the object of Ward’s derision)?

I think his point really goes to what sort of cultural transformation the church is supposed to be oriented towards. Whatever it is it shouldn’t be trying to create some sort of homogeneous cultural whole. Its never been able to do that, nor should it.

Now, personally, the only way I make sense of the church in the world is through the filter Ward proffers here, but I have a few dogmatically Catholic pals who simply will not (cannot) accept this premise. And they make a good case too.

Moreover, why does Ward punt over the first 1000 years of the church. Up until the time of the East-West split (which includes the 7 ecumenical councils, of course), there seemed to be something akin to a “universal kingdom of Christ.” And maybe Ward is confused about what the church’s vocation is in this time between the times (2 kingdoms and all that)? If its cultural influence that’s the church’s aim (“Christendom was an ideology only partly realized and internally contested”), then yes, so much for the institution. But let’s assume cultural transformation is not part and parcel of the church’s calling, then what? Does that affect his description of the church as perpetually disunified?