One of the frustrations I (personally) have in evangelism is the lack of separation between sharing God’s message and sharing one’s denominational message. Not only do Christian witnesses connect these two but often:

• don’t see the two messages as being different.  And relatedly…
• don’t see the inappropriateness of linking the two messages.

As I have noted in a previous post, I have had people share Christ’s message with me. But as soon as they realize that I am already a Christian, their message instantly changes to their own denomination’s message. The mild disappointment they exude upon learning that I am already a Christian switches to frustration and unhappiness  that I have no interest in becoming their type of Christian. Because I did not respond, they feel like failures.

One might assume that the linking together of God’s message and one’s denominational message is normal… even necessary.  Most Christian evangelistic methods target those who are a “different type of Christian”. For example “The Romans Road” and the “Bridge Illustration” target people who were raised in a “Christian” culture, already believe in Christ, value the Bible, and may even be active in a church. But they focus on Christians who are nominal (or perhaps lacking) in faith, or are in a Christian tradition that does not utilize the Sinner’s Prayer as a demonstration for conversion.

But can Christians point people to Christ without NECESSARILY pointing to their own church?  I would like to give an example of one such group.

I was raised in Upstate New York very close to a large Amish (Old Order Mennonite) community. While Amish communities vary, this one is quite conservative. They do not use cars or tractors, and they do not use electricity. They wear blue or black clothes of a 19^th century rural design. Their livelihood is farming or providing services for the farming community. They seek to minimize dependency on the outside world.

The Amish are a fairly closed society, and one might assume that, like many closed Christian societies in the world, they have no interest in sharing the Christian faith. I cannot speak for all Amish groups, and I can’t speak for all the members of this particular community. However, some do share faith, particularly through written word.

One might assume that if one read such evangelistic literature, one would see long arguments why outsiders (sometimes labeled the “English”) should become Amish. Actually, that is not what this literature says. Often their writings explain who the Amish are, what their history is, and why they act differently than others. However, when they give the gospel message, there is no call to become Amish.

The reasons for this are simple.

1. Amish Christians realize that their subculture is extremely different from the surrounding culture.
2. Amish Christians realize that it would be very difficult for people to gain the life skills and priorities shift to make the cultural leap.
3. Amish Christians understand that there is a difference between God’s universal call and message to all peoples and the basis for their own subculture and denomination.

Therefore, these Amish believers who shared their faith did not ask people to become Amish… but to become faithful followers of Christ within their own cultural context.

The Amish example is difficult in practice; if a person comes to Christ through their ministry, it is hard for them to do discipleship. Another problem is that linking Christ and denomination is so rampant. Here in the Philippines, American, Australian, and Korean churches send missionaries here to reach out to (mostly nominal) Christians. What type of churches do they start?  They make American, Australian, and Korean churches (in terms of culture/style). And that is what the Philippines mostly has… poorly run American, Australian, and Korean-style churches that mimic the home denominations. Very few churches make an honest attempt to contextualize to the Filipino culture. Most of the ones who have culturally adapted end up with deeply flawed theology.

Why is this? Does contextualization necessarily produce heterodoxy?  I don’t believe so.  If the denominational message and God’s message are given mixed, how does one know which is which?  It is challenging to tell. People accept the full message… producing uncontextualized churches. Others reject the denominational message but, confusing it with God’s message, end up rejecting much of God’s message… creating their own message instead.

I think we need to learn from the Amish here. By separating God’s message from their own denominational message, people are more open to accepting God’s message. Additionally, people are less likely to be confused about what God’s message is.

As Christians come into greater contact with people of other faith cultures…

-Buddhists            -Hindus                        -Muslims            -Secularists

-Neo-Pagans            -Post-Christians            -Atheists            -New Agers

…we need to remove the confusion between God’s message and our own. If we have trouble knowing the difference, so will they.

An article that speaks more specifically about Amish Missions can be found HERE.