Ecclesiology more ecclesiastical

My theological work over the past few years has maintained a consistently split personality; while a substantial portion of my personal research and publication has been ecclesiological in nature, this focus is virtually absent from my coursework and indeed from my public self-presentation as a student of theology.  "Ecclesiology" is sufferable as a sub-field of theology (or better, of jurisprudence), but I bristle at the ugly term "ecclesiologist" and the idea that theoretical accounts of the churches should occupy the majority of a theologian's career.

I began my pursuit of theology with a much more "ecclesial" temper.  A fervor for the liturgical basis of the Church's confession and a prioritizing of communio as prolegomenon to dogmatics is much of what allowed me to turn away from intentions of pastoral ministry and toward an academic career in theology.  Once I had realized theology as a churchly discipline and could better appreciate the ministerial function of this particular intellectual work, I was able to feel more at home with my own gifts and not as if I were playing an ill-fitting role (and badly) as someone aspiring to pastoral ministry. 

While I would not say that I now take theology to be any less "ecclesial" or theorizing about the church any less important so far as it goes, these commitments have certainly receded from obvious prominence in my theological work.  Indeed, while I still write about church structures a good deal, I don't hold nearly as many strong theological opinions about "The Church" as I used to, and I think that the popularity of ecclesiology as a theological sub-discipline is in many respects harmful to good theological work.  It too often leads to an unnecessary metaphysics of what is really a pretty mundane (if awe-inspiring) social structure.  And this sort of over-theorized ecclesiology isn't simply my diagnosis of the "ecclesial" camps in theology.  The various event-oriented ecclesiologies are just as concerned with a proper systematic account of "the Church," and therefore just as liable to making too much of the Church as a theoretical entity.

I obviously haven't given up on the theological importance of the churches.  I simply don't think that pursuing a theory of the Church tends to be very worthwhile or interesting.  There is no Ecclesia vera to speak of.  We only really have an Evangelium verum as a workable basis for enduring theological reflection.

Although it sounds counter-intuitive, this is why ecclesiology should be more ecclesiastical.  Not because the ecclesiastical structures of the churches are infused with some metaphysical import... quite the opposite, actually.  Because the churches do not exist on the basis of an ideal ecclesial form, theological reflection upon the churches is best served by an emphasis on the nuts and bolts of the structures of Christian life in community.  I came around to this stance in my work on problems in Anglican canon law.  The specifics of polity are usually absent in more rarefied discussions of ecclesiology, which trade much more in talk of "Spirit" and "unity" and things that somehow, whole cloth, "make the Church".  The problem with codification is that it doesn't make for nearly as dramatic a statement.  A Church doesn't stand or fall on the particularities of ordination rubrics the way that it does in the case of big themes like "Constantinianism" or "Theosis."  The latter will preach.  Quibbling about the former runs the risk of joining those theologians who talk about angels dancing on pinheads.

But pursuing a preachy ecclesiology of grand schemes runs the risk of seeing the churches through the lens of overwrought categories and thereby missing out on the more mundane theoretical work that actually helps the myriad communions of our Gospel to work alongside one another in conscious structural tandem.  I've come to really enjoy picking apart small problems with ecclesial structures and not worrying so much about what it means to "be the Church".  Solving these problems can actually get some real work done.  Offering yet another vision de Ecclesia might inspire or provide a new vocabulary for describing our communal situation, and I don't want to minimize that.  But we have more than enough of such visions at our disposal already, and in any case the practice of this sort of ecclesiology comes pretty naturally to any reader of the Scriptures or hearer of the preached Word.  In contrast, there is a real lack of good technical work of an ecclesiastical bent, and I think that theological reflection on ecclesiology would be best served by tending more toward these ecclesiastical concerns.