the church , as a transnational body, must necessarily both transcend the boundaries of the state and also be a fractive force within the state precisely because it asserts difference — an antithesis.

IRO, p.134

Cavanaugh, and to some degree, Hauerwas, is concerned about the church ceding politics to the state, such as :

New Christendom ecclesiology (of Jacques Maritain) did nothing to subvert the state’s soteriological pretensions.

IRO, p.135

And who is known for this today, in Washington, and among those sounding just these type concerns? I would say that Jim Wallis does just that, making known a very RO political approach.

I would say that the problem of communicating this problem of the “state’s soteriological pretensions” is definitely one of extreme importance to the task of the church to be an alternative and prophetic voice. To use the language of “state” to appeal to the “real principles” that are most truthfully realized in a Christian view of society and history, the “people” must be brought to awareness through accessible language. As walls come down as Christ transforms, eyes are opened, and the realizations of the miracle that is the Kingdom are recognized. A miracle in which we are all invited to participate.