Good stuff on ecclesiology! You see, I’m not that cynical!
I believe that ecclessiology is our most flexible of doctrines. In
other words when it comes to the mission of the church, in making
disciples, that the structures we make, the places we do church have to
be formed contextually. So missionaries rather than exporting a form of
church to new countries, environments, form the churches indigenously,
or rather some do once they see the disasters of importing church from
previous missional movements.
So for post-modern people connecting to Jesus and forming church
communities, what does church look like without forcing them to do
church in modern ways, with modern music, modern clothes.
Much of the emerging church movement/conversation within all
denominations (and by that I mean the expression of church that is
shared around the same question of how do we do church in our emerging
culture and context?), is sometimes finding expression in new forms of
church and new ecclessiolgies. If we are going to be missional we have
to have flexible ecclessiologies.
But, here is the big but, I have noticed how so many of us when we
change our ecclessiology due to being missional, can become instantly
dogmatic about our new forms. I have in many conversations, at many
events, and reading many blogs and books, been given the dogmatic
advice about the correct forms of church for our emerging culture.
Lets not mistake the freedoms we find and the new ways we prefer
church, as the new correct and only valid ways of doing church. We need
all the old ecclessiologies, and many more new ones. A deep, broad,
diverse ecclessiology, not a new and just as exclusive one.