This article undertakes a critical exploration of the current relationship between ecclesiology and 'ecclesial ethnography'. It begins by proposing that ecclesiology should be a realistic, critical and practical discipline and that in these respects it can learn from ethnographical principles. It goes on to raise some questions about how the relationship between ecclesial ethnography and ecclesiology is presented in some recent literature, pointing out instances of over-drawn distinctions, exaggerated claims and methodological naivety. It concludes by affirming the vital role of ethnographical study to the overall theological investigation of the church and suggests that this would be strengthened if the weaknesses mentioned above were addressed. This article undertakes a critical exploration of the current relationship between ecclesiology and 'ecclesial ethnography'. It begins by proposing that ecclesiology should be a realistic, critical and practical discipline and that in these respects it can learn from ethnographical principles. It goes on to raise some questions about how the relationship between ecclesial ethnography and ecclesiology is presented in some recent literature, pointing out instances of over-drawn distinctions, exaggerated claims and methodological naivety. It concludes by affirming the vital role of ethnographical study to the overall theological investigation of the church and suggests that this would be strengthened if the weaknesses mentioned above were addressed.