| The dissertation analyses the ecclesiologies of Rahner, Tillard, Leonardo Boff and Barth, arguing that, despite material differences, the following common formal pattern can be detected: (a) an initial construal of the identity of Christianity on the part of the individual theologian is basic, and leads, (b) to their theological agenda, namely to promote this construal; to reform the self-understanding of the church in accordance with the construal requires, (c) a conceptual and structuring source, which is constructed either in terms of a general theory of human nature or in terms of a particular centre of Christianity; from this source is drawn, (d) a definition of the essence of the church, which (e) is then used as the basis and principle for a systematic ecclesiology. Thus definitions of the church's essence serve the theologian's agenda rather than being independent of it, and ecclesiology is a largely practical discipline.;It is next argued that, when employed in the context of modern beliefs concerning the universality of salvation, this pattern requires: (a) that the church be bifurcated into an intangible primary reality and secondary empirical 'aspects'; (b) that church and world be at root identical. These requirements distort ecclesiology by fostering theological reductionism and the loss of Christian distinctiveness. Hence the pattern must be changed; not by eliminating general theories, but by abandoning two of its key methodological assumptions, namely that it is possible, (a) adequately to define the essence of the church and, (b) to use this definition to construct an undistorted systematic ecclesiology. Instead, it is argued, it is better to recognize the need for a plurality of ecclesiological perspectives reflecting less systematically the richness of the web of Christian beliefs about the church. Some indications of how this might be done is given using Aquinas as an example of premodern ecclesiological method. |
PDF Full Text Request