The warmest discussion in ecclesiology is occurring among pastors in what is called the emergent church community. These pastors are heavily reliant on work done by Leslie Newbigin and reflective of contributions from various philosophical streams. Running like a scarlet thread throughout these emergent discussions is the complaint that the modern church has reduced its proclamation to individualism, in particular, individual salvation, and this reduction is part of its sell-out to modernity.

While I have found this complaint a bit difficult to unpack I recognize that, having a self-identity as a missional church, the discussion of the organic relationship between the church and evangelism is absolutely critical for us in the Alliance.

In spite of the strong rhetoric against the emphasis on individual salvation, at the outset it is fairly clear that individuals and their salvation are still important to the emergent pastors. This becomes clear when various stories are told, and then analyzed, of how people have come to be Christ-followers. I note that they are all individuals who follow one or another pathway to authentic faith.[1]

However, there is also vague talk in some of their works which seems to conflate salvation with social transformation. At first glance, it may seem like we are back in nineteenth century liberalism. The liberal project dreamed of transforming society into the Kingdom of God by redeeming the structures of society. In liberalism, these structures (such as, for example, the economic structure of capitalism) were seen as the locus of sin, and people – who are in reality good, as opposed to depraved – needed liberation from these structures. Once liberated from the oppression of these sinful structures, people would quickly recognize their true spiritual home in the church and peace and brotherhood would emerge as regnant over the whole earth. It was a millennial dream, as has been noted by more than one twentieth century theologian, that died in the trenches of World War I, but whose ghost lingered in various motifs and manifestations through the twentieth century.

While there may be some emergent church writers who seem to wish for a revitalization of the liberal project, this does not appear to be what the better of them are talking about when they decry the focus on individual salvation. Thus I think we should cast aside the accusation of liberalism and move to the heart of their concern.

From my reading, what seems to concern these writers is the modern evangelical focus on an individual being saved in isolation from the believing community. They note several indicators of this problem.

For example, there is the emphasis on evangelism by parachurch organizations that looks for a person to accept Christ and then, as a sort of add on, be encouraged to join a church. Joining the church seems, or is actually presented as, optional. Having prayed the prayer, you are for sure going to heaven. Everything else is a bonus, or a good idea – highly recommended of course. As an example think of the classic yellow Four Spiritual Laws booklet.

My synopsis of what the emergent church writers are saying is that when we evangelize this way, we are putting the gospel forward as a commodity. We have a marketing strategy, and we establish easy pathways to buy in. And we should note that the popularity of marketing/business/buy-in lingo among evangelicals is a sign of our capitulation to modernity and its marketing project.

These concerns of the emergent writers beg our attention. Certainly, the program of somehow getting people to pray a prayer and then assuring them that now all is well with their soul has led to many spiritual abortions.

Perhaps one part of this is a loosening of our grip on the truth that the church is a living organism, and as such, is part of God’s redemptive action in the world. We are surrounded by social structures that are creations of people. The corporation, for example, is sometimes spoken of in law as a fictional person. But governments, companies and social classes, are not living, even though the people who comprise them are living. In powerful contrast, the church actually is an organism because it is united and made alive by the Holy Spirit who unites her with Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the church is not simply a means in God’s program, but an end. Jesus said: “I will build my church…” It is not God’s intention to simply have a bunch of people in eternity. No, it is to have people in eternity who are united together and with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit – an eternal redeemed community inhabited by the communal life of the Holy Trinity. Thus we should begin our thinking by contemplating implications of this foundational truth.

One aspect to consider is the insistence by older churches that there is no salvation outside of the church. Fearing no one knows what – sacramentalism, legalism, or something – evangelicals have run from such a concept. Perhaps it is time for us to drop by, so to speak, and have a cup of tea with the older churches and hear what they have to say. As a brief theological experiment, let us try to approach the question with fresh eyes. Is there salvation outside of the church?[2]

It is the church that was given the mandate to preach the gospel to the whole world. Even when Philip was by the roadside with the Ethiopian eunuch, the church was present and was the conduit of the message of salvation. Present, even though Philip was without even an evangelistic partner, and at the end of the day, the convert rides off, by himself, into the sunset (so to speak).

The church is the repository of the Word of God. The eunuch was reading the word, specifically Isaiah, and was hearing the gospel. The church was the sending agent, so Philip was there, as are all evangelists and missionaries, on behalf of the church, and it is the church that is explaining the Word to the seeker.

It is the church that receives the convert, ushering her into acts which symbolize inner faith and brings that faith into actual expression, that is, from belief in the heart to confession with the mouth. This is done by the sinner calling upon God with words expressing faith, but also by going into the waters of baptism. Philip baptized the new convert and in so doing brought him into the church, into the believing community.[3] I note that we are not told all that Philip said, but when they come across water, the Ethiopian by then knows that he should be baptized, and requests it. It is also worthy of note that there are traditions that the Ethiopian brought Christianity to Ethiopia, and was the founder of the church there. I think it is fair to at least surmise that Philip also gave him basic instruction in regards to the church.

Note, I chose this story because it seems to be the opposite of my point. An individual Christian witnessed on a lonely road. Other stories bring out my point more clearly, such as the account of the planting and discipling of the church in Antioch, Acts 11:19-26. What I want to stress is that one on one, or in groups, conversion is occurring within the context of the believing community.

From the emergent church discussion, we can glean a huge concern for conversion to occur in the context of the believing community, and for this communal reality to be understood by all those involved. The evangelist, be it the pastor, concerned neighbour or Alpha table leader, needs to communicate that in being converted, a person is not being sold a product, not even a ticket to heaven, but is radically leaving individualistic isolation that has been manifest in self-centered living and alienation from God, and is now joining a family to which they are bound forever. This community, the church, is a concrete reality, not a sociological abstraction, for it is truly a living organism, filled with the fullness of the Triune God forever and ever.

Be faithful in evangelism, and be faithful and intentional in doing your evangelism within the context of the church so that in calling people to Christ you call them to a life in Christ within the church, the holy community.