The interpretation of the history of theology as the ongoing record of the way in which the church has interpreted the Scriptures is an attractive one to me, especially as it has been put forth by Ebeling. As a postmodern cynic to the core, I would add that this history of interpretation is quite often the history of eisegesis and misappropriation of Scriptures for the purposes of establishing power, authority, and authenticity within the various factions and divisions which have marked Christianity from the outset. With respect to the issue of church polity, Niebuhr's observation is most certainly true:
Opinions as to church polity, varying from denomination to denomination, have been based in theory on New Testament reports of primitive church organization. The episcopal, the presbyterian, and the congregational forms have each been set forth as representing the original and ideal constitution of the Christian church. Yet the relationship of these forms to the political experience and desire of various groups is considerably more pertinent than is their relationship to the New Testament. (The Social Sources of Denominationalism, pp. 14-15.)
It merely remains to be pointed out that "political experience" and "desire of various groups" is also often "considerably more pertinent" to the formation of what is considered (by the various groupings in question) to be a sound, true, authoritative interpretation of the New Testament texts on this and other matters than is a critical, dispassionate attempt at interpretation.
Just sayin'.