This one also seems really important. It says something about this issue of “embodiment” (though, like many of the “hints” of this about what this might mean, it begs for elaboration). BTW, who wrote/said this? Is this from Jamie’s book, or is it something David Fitch said? Since it is in italics in the post below, I wonder whom or what is being attributed there. Anyway, here it is:

the church and postmodern culture: conversation: Postmodernity vs. the Gospel?
To think that the person and work of Jesus Christ demands that we ourselves embody a politic in the form of the church with given social practices that engage society as an embodied presence, is completely alien to the evangelical mind.

Very important, or “to be highlighted” in this, for me, is the “given social practices that engage society as an embodied presence” . Isee little to no examples of this “out there”. I do not oppose “bishops statements or letters, or encyclicals, or any of that; they fall in closely with the above statement, but are only “announcements” in contrast to “embodied prescence”, and the church laity seem excluded, or somehow implied as “giving their support” by letting the bishops, or the pope say it for them. Again, it seems that the quote above suggests a good deal more than papers and announcements. Does “speaking the truth to power” involve such an “embodiment” by a community called church (I believe it does) that accompanies such “announcements” in uninmity? It should do this in such a way that the “announcements” themselves are only articulations of what is already being embodied, rendering them less “radical” and simply “affirming”.

To “engage society” with “given social practices”. Seems to be referring to such a bigger deal than the “relevance” which churches seek.