This little gem is one which sits well with me.

Hauerwas has discovered a dirty little secret Anabaptists who reject historical Christendom may not actually be rejecting the vision of Christendom as a society in which all life is integrated under the Lordship of Christ. On this reading, Christendom may in fact be a vision of shalom, and our argument with Constantinians is not over the vision so much as the sinful effort to grasp at its fullness through violence, before its eschatological time. Hauerwas is quite consistent once you see that he does want to create a Christian Society (polis, societas); a community and way of life shaped fully by Christian convictions. He rejects Constantinianism because “the world” cannot be this society and we only distract ourselves from building a truly Christian society by trying to make or nation into that society, rather than be content with living as a community in exile. So Hauerwas wants, Catholics to be more Anabaptist, and Anabaptists to be more Catholic, and Protestants its be both, and the only way he can put this together in terms of his own ecclesial location is to be a “Catholic” Methodist in roughly the same way that some Episcopalian, are Anglo Catholic

Schlabach, quoted in A Better Hope, p.44

Hauerwas concurs:

Schlabach’s presentation of my own position says what I have been trying to say better than how I have said it. More important, I hope, his suggestion points a way forward if we are not only to survive but to find ways to resist global capitalism. It should surprise no one to discover that I believe any response Christians have to the challenge of the global market will be ecclesial.

A Better Hope, p.44

Violence and capitalism (whom violence serves) are the principalities which we face. I see this a pretty darn good summary and “set of basics” for a church-world relationship/status

On the “we only distract ourselves from building a truly Christian society by trying to make or nation into that society, rather than be content with living as a community in exile”, I say amen, but I also can’t bring myself to paint as “deluded” or “compromising” those who feel that some of this ought to be tried, and try to persuade others. It may be a form of delusion, but I also don’t want to be guilty of covering what could be proven to be an escapism. This is not to say that “being content to live as community-in-exile” neccessarily means ignoring the world. In fact, Hauerwas often stresses that the exile can be a way of framing the context around which that community exists and how it derives its loyalties. In my book, anybody who opposes with all their known gifts and energies the forces of capitalism as they are, and the resort to violence to protect things “as they are” is a much kinder, gentler, and more “Christ-like” try, and the life efforts to do so may well be misplaced or insufficient in comparsion to more ecclesial-based alternatives, but can certainly be revered as someone trying to do their best. What I’m trying to say but sucking at saying, is that I think Hauerwas and RO are closer to what I would identify with as ultimate goal and the call to pursue, but that these “lesser” more “mainstream” and “liberal political” movments are not all that “deluded” or “in bed with state”. They may be unwittingly or unifittingly appropriating language that is less than distinctive, but in light of the idea of “transforming” or “fulfilling” the aim which “state ideals” purport to fulfill, and point us instead to a better way, and a better hope, I remain hopeful that a good portion of these folks can continue to grow in the realization that the people of God called together in the church are really the movement we seek.