Post-Christendom,Post-Constantinian,Post-Christian … Does the Label Matter?

The demise of Christendom is of fundamental significance in understanding the present and future relationship between the churches and European culture. Attempts to develop post-Christendom perspectives are hindered by linguistic and conceptual confusion. This article explores misleading implications of the terms ‘post-Constantinian’ and ‘post-Christian’ and argues for the consistent use of the term ‘post-Christendom’. Use of the terms ‘Christendom’ and ‘post-Christendom’ has been criticised for failing to differentiate between different kinds of Church–state partnerships, some of which may be less problematic than others. This article acknowledges such historical differences but argues that there is an underlying ideological unity susceptible of being described and investigated under these labels. It argues further that attempts to promote a benign expression of Christendom as a possible future for Europe are unwise. It summarises the transitions occurring as Europe journeys beyond Christendom and argues for creative engagement with post-Christendom as an opportunity for ecclesial renewal.     

The Church in the World: Shifting Notions of Ecclesial Identity among North American Mennonites

Abstract : At mid‐century, Harold S. Bender's “The Anabaptist Vision” provided a definition of sixteenth‐century Anabaptist tradition that clarified the self‐understanding of its contemporary Mennonite heirs and by which their faithfulness to the tradition might be judged. Critics of the vision, such as J. Lawrence Burkholder, sought reformulations of the vision's central tension between separation from and integration into “the world,” calling for greater social responsibility and for a recognition that the ambiguities of human existence extend to the church, of necessity qualifying its lived expressions of radical discipleship.     

Bonhoeffer's Non‐Commitment to Nonviolence: A Response to Stanley Hauerwas

Stanley Hauerwas's claim that Bonhoeffer had a “commitment to nonviolence” runs aground on Bonhoeffer's own statements about peace, war, violence, and nonviolence. The fact that Hauerwas and others have asserted Bonhoeffer's commitment to nonviolence despite abundant evidence to the contrary reveals a blind spot that develops from reading Bonhoeffer's thinking in general and his statements about peace in particular as if they were part of an Anabaptist theological framework rather than his own Lutheran one. This essay shows that Bonhoeffer's understanding of peace as “concrete commandment” and “order of preservation” relies on Lutheran concepts and is articulated with explicit contrast to an Anabaptist account of peace. The interpretation developed here can account for the range of statements Bonhoeffer makes about peace, war, violence, and nonviolence, many of which must be misconstrued or ignored to claim his “commitment to nonviolence.”