doug, thanks for the connection between martyn and these fellows. I thought there was something there, but I wasn't confident to make it.

bryne, great post. I really like the way you raised the issues here. this is slightly off topic, but in our dying-rising in Christ, are we in a sense a zombie people?

well there you go. sounds great. please keep us posted as you go.

jason and alan, as i said before, I definitely love this line of research. and those are the books that I would recommend for Augustine also. I'm just starting through some of them myself. Also, have you all seen William Connolly on Evangelical and Capitalism, and on Augustine. you will probably need to account for his critique in some form. Alan, where are you studying?

he has a book called "tracks and traces" which is what I've read. he doesn't directly deal with the issues of evangelicalism like you are, but he mines the baptist heritage (which is broadly where evangelical came from) and shows the sacramental-ecclesiological roots. for me, he is the antedote to Volf's ecclesiology (which I don't like) in "After Our Likeness."

also, have you read much of Paul Fiddes and his take on sacraments and baptist ecclesiology? its pretty good.

jason, like the others, I definitely support this type of research. I looks great. a missional, evangelical ecclesiology is so important right now. as you said, "Personally I am wanting to remain within a missional evangelical identity and wondering if I can be an anglo-catholic baptist vineyard church pastor/minister, without having to converted to Anglicanism/Catholicism." I feel the same way, and I'm in the midst of a Jesuit university here at Marquette. i would love to figure a communion/eucharistic (political) ecclesiology without becoming Anglican.

adam, i would like to get at you book sometime soon, but current research might not lead through Badiou. but hopefully it will.

Nate, I don't understand how the apocalyptic singularity of the in-breaking Kingdom should "disorient us with regards to how we think 'church' and 'world.'" Indeed, this seems to be exactly the opposite of the case. Before Jesus there was Jew and Gentile as the fundamental distinction, after Jesus, only after his apocalyptic in-breaking, can we know/see/(is disclosed for us) the distinction between the church and the world. This person/work (if I might be allowed such terms) creates the distinction, he doesn't ambiguate it. And it feels like a clear dodge to put on Jamie (and/or myself b/c I agree that clarity is needed) a perverse desire for clarity regarding "world" especially when you then make reference to an "apocalyptic realism." to which world does such realism refer? the phenomenological world? psycho-symbolic? sinful? spiritual? redeemed? socio-political? created? so regarding basic issues, I don't think "religion" creates the church/world distinction, but Jesus' apocalyptic historicity does, and for a good reason.

Liz, yeah, I like what you are saying. yes, the aspect of the "conversation" is that it often doesn't interact with the conversation which has been going on for centuries (which is tradition via practice and theology). of course you can disagree with tradition, but too often the only tradition being conversed with is fundamentalism, and that is not nearly old enough.