You seemed to be equating Christianity to Christendom to a degree that was uncomfortable for me. For me Christendom is imperialized Christianity, nationalized Christianity, politically partizan Christianity, and the very fact I need to add these adjectives to the word “Christianity” to describe “Christendom” implies that there are and have always been expressions of Christianity that involve none of these things. That is the sort of Christianity I find my home in and I think that sort of Christianity does have something different to offer. Having followed a few religions in my time that has certainly been my experience in any case. At its most authentic, Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than following Christ, so I am uncomfortable with hard distinctions between Christianity and Christ. Instead of challenging Christendom and Christianity in the same breath I am more inclined to challenge Christendom as a “less authentic” and “politically compromised” expression of Christianity. I wouldn’t get down on Christianity as such.

The same goes for what you’ve said about “conversion” and “the gospel” and “apologetics”. The fact that these have been corrupted by Christendom does not lead me to cast them off. On the contrary, I have written extensively on “evangelism beyond Christendom” and “humble apologetics”, seeing these as essential practices for a post-Christendom Christianity. I would disagree that “the primary task of Christian mission is service” as I don’t believe in silent witness (and probably woldn’t be blogging if I did). What I believe in is holistic witness of hands, mouth and feet.
Also, I am also wary of the distinction you make between “renewal of the church” and calls “to reform larger society” because I see the church, when acting authentically as a contrast community, as indeed issuing a call to social transformation by its very existance. Christianity has not erred by being public, it has erred by conforming itself to partizan politics. Christianity has not erred by openly challenging injustice, it has erred by seeing legislation as a spiritual tool.
Part of what I see missing in your critique is a distinction between Christian (spiritual) conversion and Christendom (cultural) conversion. A significant part of my own journey was learning the difference between the two, opting for the former while rejecting the latter. Part of what helped me work through this was Paul’s word to the Galatians, his criticism of Hebrew Christians who sought to circumcise Gentile Christians, his warnings of how deeply that compromised the gospel. So in summary, I still see non-Christians as needing the gospel, but we need to ensure it’s the Christian gospel not the Christendom gospel.

I would tend to say that there’s a difference between Christ having something to offer and Christianity having something to offer, at least in some of the posts and discussions in the data.

I totally agree with your second comment there, especially about being a witness for Christ against an apologist for Christendom. Did you read the opposite in my post?

I would say I engage with more alternative spirituality seekers than most bloggers and I see nothing wrong with ‘respectful’ disagreement. We can learn from them, sure, but they can also learn from us, and do. You don’t have to be an apologist for Christendom to be a witness for Christ.

Good to hear from you.

I think I have some data to support this. If you like I can email you something.

Anyway, I look forward to reading the whole thesis at some point and seeing the data. Should be illuminating.