In his study of the sacramental shape of Eberhard Jungel’s theology, The Interruptive Word, R. David Nelson suggests that “in many types of ecclesiology, Jesus Christ and the church . . . are conceived as identical” (167).

He offers several examples, mostly Catholic: “Lumen gentium . . . declares that the hierarchically structured church and the body of Christ form ‘one complex reality comprising a human and a divine element.’ Similarly, Tillard comments that the ‘flesh of the church’ and the ‘flesh of Christ’ together constitute a ‘circumincessio (a true mutual inhabiting).’ And Rahner defines the church as ‘the historical continuation of Christ in and through the community of those who believe in him’” (167). Jenson’s effort to recover the Augustinian totus Christus provides another example.

None of these examples is what Nelson claims it is; that is, none treat Jesus Christ and the church as “identical.” If anything, the quotation from Lumen gentium asserts the identity of the church and the “body” of Christ; the church can be a “divine-human” reality without being identified with Christ. To be in a relation of circumincession, the church and Christ have to be distinct; a thing can’t be in a relation of mutual habitation with itself. The prepositions are key in Rahner’s statement - Christ continues “in” and “through” the church, which indicates distinction. It’s possible to have a totus Christus ecclesiology without making head and body identical; union with distinction is the original Augustinian totus Christus doctrine.

Insofar as these ecclesiologies do identify Christ and the church, it seems that they are simply following Pauline hints: “As there is one body and many members, so also is Christ” and “we are one Spirit with Him” and “no one hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ also the church.”