The previous chapter described and critically analyzed some of the methodological characteristics of modern ecclesiology. These characteristics make it significantly more difficult than it need be for theologians who focus upon the church to carry out one of their chief responsibilities, namely to reflect critically and practically upon the church's concrete identity. As a consequence, contemporary ecclesiology does not contribute as much as it could to the church's task of glorying in Jesus Christ alone and of aiding the church's disciples to embody their witness as truthfully as possible within particular ecclesiological contexts. Indeed, blueprint ecclesiologies sometimes obstruct the church's efforts. The chapter also began to note some of the elements of an alternative approach. The contextual criterion supports the principle that ecclesiology should be as explicit as possible about the many judgments it must make, including its construal of the ecclesiological context. Every theological proposal should be assessed not only with regard to its conformity to Scripture and the tradition of its interpretation, but also with regard to its fittingness for a particular ecclesiological context. All ecclesiological judgments are made within an ecclesiological context, and all should serve the church's work within that context.

Later chapters will present further analysis of modern ecclesiology in relation to the ecclesiological context. The concern of the present chapter is to consider one of the most significant of the background elements of ecclesiology, namely the horizon or metanarrative. This, we recall, provides the over-arching framework within which other judgments are made, judgments about how to interpret Scripture and tradition, and how to construe the mode of God's presence, the church's past and present identity, and the ecclesiological context.