Over the past few years, I have noticed that in Christendom there is dichotomy that has occurred. The dichotomy is that of doctrine, the divide is in ecclesiology(the study of the church). One side is that of Calvinistic ecclesiology that tells us we must adhere to the church fathers and their covenants. Then the other side tells us that we need no church doctrine because it does nothing but divide the church. So, they lean on a lack of ecclesiastical doctrine. In short both sides are extreme in their perspectives. Both have tendency to go to their perspective hard in order to protect whatever their position on the church is. In order to sort this issue out we must look at each and see them for what they are, divisive.
Let’s begin with the Calvinistic approach to ecclesiology. This approach is based out of the doctrines of the reformed movement that comes out of the Catholic church in protest to its own understanding of the church. While I whole heartedly understand the need for reforming the ecclesiology of the catholic church, I don’t believe that all of the doctrines that came from it do us a as bible believing Christians any favors. We must ask some questions around the issue. Is Protestantism the beginnings of modern Christianity? Is reformed(from Catholicism) provide the only biblical way forward for our understanding of ecclesiology? Do all of the modern Christian orthodoxies synchronize with reformed(Calvinistic teachings? Ecclesiology from a Calvinistic approach says, “Sola Scriptura”  (Scripture alone) but also follow these manmade confessions and if you don’t, you’re not a real reformed church. Well, no thank you. Many have told me that the confessions of the early church fathers must adhered to as just as important or in some cases more so than scripture. This is extreme and completely antithetical to their own doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”.
Now let’s move to the opposite side of the spectrum. In order to push back against the “tyranny” of strict doctrine many churches have gone with the idea that their church shouldn’t worry about their ecclesiology. They believe there should be an organic feeling to the church, that whoever comes and goes is who the church is at this moment. Some have even replaced the reading of scripture, and its admonishing and exhortation with stories built around a man centered ecclesiastical viewpoint. Where man and his happiness is the only thing that matters. Which makes ask questions of them like “If man and his happiness is all church is about, then why does scripture talk of Christ dying for His church? Why even call yourselves a church at all? In fact, many don’t  because it may have a negative connotation pointing people back to a time when the moral center of the community was the church and the people that belonged to it were a “holy” people. They do not want to bring anything up that might cause anyone to “feel” under “conviction”.
In reality both of these views are extreme, nonsensical, and unbiblical. If we are to be a people bought by the blood of Jesus sacrificial death on the cross, then we must have a biblical understanding of His church. We can not be under the dictates of reformed apostate (Catholic) church, nor can we come under the non-authoritative man centered feeling church that constitute many groups today. We must grounded and rooted in biblical ecclesiology that sees the scripture, the whole counsel of God, not just what we want it say or what we pick and choose to follow. We must learn to discern and be a church driven to serve our master the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
Ephesians 2:8-10  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  (9)  Not of works, lest any man should boast.  (10)  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.(emphasis added)