Ecclesiology: An Editorial Introduction
Justin L. McLendon
Justin L. McLendon is Professor of Theology and a Department Chair at Grand Canyon University and Grand Canyon Theological Seminary. He serves as a Managing Editor for JBTS.
Introduction
This special issue of the Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies features articles exploring current issues in ecclesiology. In keeping with the mission of JBTS—to relay content that is original and yet accessible—this issue contains articles intentionally written to speak to seminary students, busy ministers, and scholars academically engaged in the broad field of ecclesiology. Our rationale for addressing issues in ecclesiology emerges from biblical, theological, and practical causes. The biblical record confounds our full appropriation of our Lord’s intentional interaction in the Church’s existence, sustainability, and mission, for our Lord has promised to build his church, issuing with certainty that she will prevail against all foes (Matt. 16:18). As for wider New Testament witness, Paul alerts us that “he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). As such, Paul insists, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Careful to locate the cause behind the church’s explosion of growth, Luke notes, “and the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). As we sojourn in our earthly callings, we take comfort that our Lord continues to reveal those who are his, adding saints to churches the world over through the ongoing proclamation of the gospel.
While we could include more textual references, at this point we can admit there is a density to the biblical portrait of Christ’s ministry to and protection of his Church. But these texts, coupled with dogmatic reflection, compel us to seek clarity to the lingering questions that often emerge from any sustained inquiry, especially when our experiences reinforce or challenge our intrinsic views of the Church. Ecclesiological focus requires a recognition that any accounting of the Church eventually exposes the nagging reminder that we are investigating ourselves. Or as Ephraim Radner admits, “If we want to think and talk about the Church, we will in a basic way always be talking about ourselves, about something we cannot grasp ‘from the outside,’ but that which we must struggle to know and articulate as a given that already makes and defines us as who we are.”[1] Any thoughtful Christian accepts Radner’s concession: Sustained biblical and theological reflection regarding the Church, and most certainly any level of critique, is a deeply personal exercise, for we are insiders—saints (Rom. 8:27) who comprise God’s people. Thus, ecclesiology requires biblical and theological fidelity to make sense of divine revelation, but it also includes a recognition of the vast diversity of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic body.
Interests and Reconstruction
Due in part to its late arrival within systematic theological categorization, ecclesiology remains fertile soil for wide-ranging investigative inquiries from academic scholars and thoughtful clergy.[2] Writing in 2019, Paul Avis positions ecclesiology at the forefront of modern theological attention, even claiming, “During the past couple of centuries, ecclesiology became a major theological discipline; today, at the beginning of the twenty-first century of the Christian era, it is at the heart of theological research and debate.”[3] This frontline positioning is in one sense doctrinal, as the identity, purpose, and power of the Church are inextricably connected to all other biblical and theological emphases.[4] But rampant ecclesiological interest is equally existential as the Church contends with its inherent discontent and its adversarial challengers. Further, as research progresses to analyze global ecclesiological phenomena or specific issues within any longstanding Church tradition, academic debates will persist as interlocutors grapple with multiform critiques and proposals.[5]
The dogmatic elevation of ecclesiology is not without criticism, however. John Webster warns against our current ecclesiological inebriation, for we can mistakenly advance an “inflation of ecclesiology so that it becomes the doctrinal substratum of all Christian teaching.”[6] This reductionist error inevitably leads to a diminishing of theology proper, Webster warns, because “a doctrine of the church is only as good as the doctrine of God which underlies it.”[7] We can imagine the ease with which a Christian could err in elevating the Church, whether in a local or global sense, to the degree that the doctrine of God, for example, becomes derivative of their ecclesiological concerns or experiences. Perhaps our proneness to this misstep is because we resonate with Tom Greggs’s recent lamentation: “I do not know how to be negative enough about the situation in which the church finds itself.”[8] Or perhaps the obscuring of our theological priorities emerges from pastoral busyness or denominational strife. In any case, Webster’s caution should stabilize our conversations and encourage us to approach these interests without unmooring the Church from its doctrinal roots.
In current academic treatments on ecclesiology, specific topics remain mainstays in monographs, journals, and conference presentations: methodological questions pertaining to the biblical story and its historic and systematic development throughout church history; the Church’s mission in a complex, ever shifting global context where lines are often blurred between ethics and (social) justice; the emergence of and the challenges and opportunities associated with Christianity’s rise within the global south; the relationship and metrics of church and state citizenry; and, of course, sustained interest in ecumenical boundaries and goals.[9]
One conventional tactic, at least in the sense of articulating the local expressions of the Church, is to observe and assess the Church through the lens of its theological and organizational architecture. In doing so, we can explore the terrain of the Christian tradition and locate the ways in which we address the complexities of the Church’s identity, leadership, worship, and pilgrimage responsibilities. Avery Dulles describes this exercise as “the discipline of comparative ecclesiology.”[10] When we include his later revision, Dulles offers six Church models: (1) the institutional model, with priorities over order, roles, and practices of the Church; (2) the mystical model, with emphases on the Church’s participation in God’s Spirit through Christ; (3) the sacramental model, with priorities in the Church’s embodiment of God’s grace in the world; (4) the Church as herald model, with priorities on proclaiming the apostolic gospel with Great Commission fervor; (5) the Church as servant model, which heightens the Church’s outward servanthood irrespective of geographical borders or discrimination, and finally; (6) the Church as a community of disciples, which seeks to make whole the various parts of the previous five models. While there are obvious areas of overlap across his constructive proposal, we can admit the difficulty of mapping many of the Church’s concerns to the confines of these borders. Perhaps we could also admit that Dulles’s modeling appears more aspirational than reality, and further, we may cautiously wonder if these models are dated, perhaps the fossils of a foregone American ecclesiological existence.
In a provocative essay, Stanko Jambreck suggests that contemporary Christians have jettisoned these older models in toto, only to replace them with an assortment of options that, for better or worse, match the actual reality of what has become commonplace.[11] David Emerton’s recent work, Types of Ecclesiology, summarizes five common approaches: empirical ecclesiology, performative ecclesiology, communion ecclesiology, ideal ecclesiology, and ecclesiological ecclesiology.[12] Emerton judges the first four of these constructions as “theologically deficient,” before offering “ecclesiological ecclesiology” as the antidote to the methodological blunders inherent in the other approaches.[13]
Neil Ormerod’s constructive work has drawn considerable interest in making sense of ecclesiological modeling, especially when our focus is upon an ecclesiological structure that can attest to the Church’s activities and purposes, while also carrying the weight of the Church’s past fragmentation. Ormerod describes his proposal as “systematic ecclesiology,” insisting that ecclesiology must be empirical, critical, normative, practical, and dialectical.[14]These constituent parts mandate honest evaluations of church history, a critical examination of the Church’s activities through the ages, an analysis of the Church’s normative practices, which shapes the ways in which Christians pursue their earthly mission, a practical evaluation of the Church’s liturgical formation, which binds the community of faith together, and finally, a dialectical approach, at least in the sense that the church must maintain these five commitments in tension to maintain any one in isolation.
On the practical side of ecclesiological discourse, considerable interest centers upon the Church’s engagement in and with a seemingly hostile world. To borrow from Zach Eswine, we now live and move and have our being in a “post-everything world.”[15] This dizzying cultural landscape often frustrates ministerial engagement, especially as we consider the rise of those leaving the faith and the Church. While there have always been whispers, we can hardly ignore the shouts of attention to the plethora of deconstruction stories so prevalent in both secular and religious conversation. Definitions abound, but Alisa Childers captures the primary ways in which this term is often employed,
Deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way to atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.[16]
Whether the outcome is atheism or a reconstructed version of Christianity, the Church must recognize that when the Bible’s authority is discarded, and when the Church and her ministers are ignored, those meandering on the pathways of deconstruction have endless options from which to exert their own authoritative agenda. To complicate matters, we are reminded that ministers and churches are often a lone voice in a crowd of cultural noise. For example, Andrew Kerbs has twenty-four thousand followers on his Instagram platform, @deconstruct_everything.[17] Certainly, this online hangout is one of many such places where deconstructors seek refuge.
We must be careful to acknowledge that deconstruction is not only an examination and rejection of belief, but some of its motivation is reactionary to the church’s real and perceived failures. “Dechurching,” the term authors Jim Davis and Michael Graham employ to account for those leaving the church, conveys the perilous rate with which these trends are present in the American ecclesial ecosystem. The results of their investigation led to the following conclusion, “The size, pace, and scope of dechurching in America is at such historic levels that there is no better phrase to describe this phenomenon than the Great Dechurching.”[18] This rise stems, at least in part, from a perceived disconnect between ecclesiastical structures and contemporary life, as practical demands rearrange our priorities or the apparent irrelevance of preaching alienates individuals from regular attendance. Others depart due to their disillusionment with or their perception of the Church’s inflexible dogmatism. Surely there are other causes, but these challenges force everyone engaged in ecclesiology to provide careful responses.
I am convinced these shifts are opportunities for the Church to listen well and rediscover what it means to be the body of Christ in a fractured world. When someone unravels their theology, piece by piece, it is not always a rejection of God. In some cases, Christians and our Churches are rightly to blame for our irrelevance, especially when it results from our reckless and pragmatic zeal to be relevant. For some, underneath this struggle is a hunger for something that holds up under the weight of life’s questions. Whatever the cause, honest questions should never be met as a scarlet letter but as an opportunity for the Church to listen well and shepherd carefully.[19] Interestingly, in Davis and Graham’s book on dechurching, they note that “the concept of shepherding the flock is one of the most neglected in the rise of American evangelicalism.”[20] And this neglect must be met with repentance and renewal. The former because the collateral damage of ministerial negligence inflicts a thousand wounds, but the latter because our calling remains unchanged. In seeking renewal, we can attend to Herman Bavinck’s wise counsel regarding the Church’s need for theological reformation.
The church requires theology, presses for theology, cries out for theology, without which the church would languish—even as theology would die without the church. Theology, and especially dogmatics whose essence must be systematic, has a glorious task; namely, to lead the church in understanding and knowing itself, in order to bring the church to awareness of its own life and treasures.[21]
To be sure, these terms (deconstruction and dechurching) and their corresponding conversations inspire critical questions (for example, “Are these terms merely replacements for the older term ‘apostacy?’”) and seem to require a multidisciplinary approach to comprehend. But our ministerial curiosity to the causes and explanations of these trends should never resort to cynicism, which is hardly a pastoral virtue, nor should they inspire an isolationist posture. Instead, these present challenges create opportunities for academic and ministerial efforts to reclaim the fragmented pieces of our ecclesial witness. This JBTS issue serves as effort to inspire more attention to the academic and ministerial opportunities ecclesiology affords.
An Introduction to the Contents
This issue contains five articles written by those from the academic guild as well as those involved in weekly pastoral ministry. In the first article, J. V. Fesko examines the historical transition from a hierarchical structure that dominated medieval society to the more democratized social structures of today. Fesko explores the pervasive influence of hierarchy in ecclesiology, particularly within Roman Catholicism, tracing its roots to the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. Fesko further discusses Martin Luther’s challenge to this hierarchical model, emphasizing his contributions to Protestant ecclesiology, including the doctrines of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers. Fesko concludes by reflecting on the significance of the Protestant rejection of hierarchy in shaping contemporary understandings of the Church.
In the second article, Jonathan Leeman contends that church polity is not just a theological or ecclesiological issue but fundamentally an ethical one. He asserts that the New Testament prescribes a specific form of church government that applies to all times and places. Leeman observes that contemporary Christian ethics texts and discussions often neglect church polity, focusing instead on individual moral issues while ignoring the ethical dimensions of church structure, membership, and governance. This tendency reflects a broader evangelical posture toward individualism and anti-institutionalism. Church polity is inherently ethical because it governs how Christians relate to one another as a corporate body. Further, church polity provides the framework where faith is lived out corporately, protecting doctrine and fostering obedience, thus linking ethics inseparably to church structure.
In the third article, Paul Nimmo addresses the tension between the biblical call for the Church’s unity and the observable divisions present in contemporary Christianity. He aims to explore how this dichotomy can be understood and what actions faithful members of various churches can take in their discipleship. Nimmo frames his work by reflecting on the unity of the Church as articulated in the Nicene Creed, while also considering the eternal aspect of this unity grounded in the triune nature of God. Considering the Church’s divisions, Nimmo concludes by examining how we can affirm the Church’s unity and the future efforts needed toward achieving greater unity.
In the fourth article, Daniel Cameron investigates the connection between the visible unity of the Church and its ontological unity as the reconciled Body of Christ, emphasizing the importance of the shared celebration of the Eucharist. Cameron argues that the Church’s ecumenical life stems from this inherent unity, rather than its efforts in striving toward unity. Cameron engages primarily with the work of T. F. Torrance, aiming to reintroduce his insights from the World Council of Churches and his thoughts on intercommunion into the current ecumenical dialogue. While Torrance is often associated with Christology, Cameron asserts that his work is also deeply relevant to ecclesiology and ecumenism, positioning him as a theologian whose insights benefit the life of the Church.
In the fifth article, John Carpenter argues that American Baptists originated from Puritanism, challenging the common narrative that pits them as distinct or opposed. He defines Puritanism broadly as a Reformed evangelical movement within and beyond the Church of England, encompassing all “hot Protestants,” and traces Baptist beginnings to Puritan figures like Henry Jacob and John Spilsbury, whose congregational churches in England evolved into Particular (Calvinist) Baptist churches by the mid seventeenth-century. These “baptistic congregationalists” carried Puritan theology and polity to America and grew significantly through the Great Awakening. Carpenter contends that despite persecution by Puritan authorities, Baptists shared a theological kinship with Puritans, inheriting practices like regenerate church membership and local autonomy, thus making them “Puritan Baptists” rather than a separate tradition.
[1] Ephraim Radner, Church (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 1.
[2] Scholars frequently attribute the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century Conciliar Movement and the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation as the genesis of modern ecclesiology as its own systematic field. This claim, however, does not suggest ecclesiological constructions and formulations were absent in previous generations or traditions. For further study, see Paul Avis, Beyond the Reformation: Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2006); Norman Tanner, “Medieval Ecclesiology and the Conciliar Movement,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology, ed. Paul Avis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 199-216.
[3] Paul Avis, “Introduction to Ecclesiology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology, ed. Paul Avis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 1.
[4] Gerald Bray’s opening chapter, “The Origins of the Church,” aptly describes many of these biblical and historical features. See Bray, The Church: A Theological and Historical Account (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016).
[5] See, especially, chapter five in Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Stephen T. Pardue, Why Evangelical Theology Needs the Global Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2023).
[6] John Webster, Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics II (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 155.
[7] Webster, Confessing God, 156.
[8] Tom Greggs, Dogmatic Ecclesiology: The Priestly Catholicity of the Church (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2019), 1:xxix.
[9] In addition to volumes mentioned throughout the footnotes, see the following for treatments on these topics: Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012); Terry Cross, The People of God’s Presence: An Introduction to Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2019); Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016); Michael Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011); Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976); Andrew Root, Churches and the Crisis of Decline: A Hopeful, Practical Ecclesiology for a Secular Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2022); Craig Bartholomew, Contours of the Kuyperian Tradition: A Systematic Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017); Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995); Ephraim Radner, Hope Among the Fragments: The Broken Church and Its Engagement of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2004); Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011); Robert Chao Romero, Brown Church: Five Centuries of Latina/O Social Justice, Theology, and Identity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2020); Timothy Keller, Center Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012); Irwyn Ince, Jr., The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at its Best (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2020); John P. Burgess, Jerry Andrews, and Joseph D. Small, A Pastoral Rule for Today: Reviving an Ancient Practice (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2019); Dennis Okholm, Learning Theology through the Church’s Worship (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2018); and Joseph H. Hellerman, When the Church was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009).
[10] Avery Dulles, Models of the Church, Expanded ed. (New York: Image, 2000), 1.
[11] Stanko Jambreck, “Church Models for the 21st Century,” Kairos: Evangelical Journal of Theology 13, no. 1 (2019): 37-91. Jambreck offers no less than seven options on the contemporary ecclesiological menu: 1. Religious Repair Shop; 2. Religious Corporation; 3. Religious Theatre; 4. Religious Classroom; 5. Tour Bus; 6. Christian on Sunday, Atheist on Monday; 7. iGod App Church Model. I addressed the rise of some “virtual church” approaches in, “The Means of Grace and the Virtual Church: Friend or Foe?” in Technology and Theology, edited by Bill Anderson (Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press, 2020), 127-48.
[12] David Emerton, Types of Ecclesiology: Five Theological Approaches (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2024).
[13] Emerton, Types of Ecclesiology, 157.
[14] Neil Ormerod, Re-visioning the Church: An Experiment in Systematic-Historical Ecclesiology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014). See, also, Kristin Colberg, “Ecclesiology Today and its Potential to Serve a Missionary Church,” Missiology: An International Review 46, no. 1 (2018): 23-26.
[15] Zach Eswine, Preaching to a Post-Everything World: Crafting Biblical Sermons that Connect with our Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008).
[16] Alisa Childers, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2000), 24.
[17] See Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett, The Deconstruction of Christianity: What it is, Why it’s Destructive, and How to Respond (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2024); also, see, Ivan Mesa, ed. Before You Lose Your Faith: Deconstructing Doubt in the Church (Austin, TX: The Gospel Coalition, 2021).
[18] Jim Davis, Michael Graham, and Ryan P. Burge, The Great Dechurching (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023), xxi.
[19] For analysis and instruction on these and other points, see Ian Harber, Walking Through Deconstruction: How to Be a Companion in a Crisis of Faith ((Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2025).
[20] Davis and Graham, Great Dechurching, 234.
[21] Herman Bavinck, “The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System,” trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman The Bavinck Review 5 (2014): 101.