The Faith and Work Movement and The Global Missions Community
Fundamental differences may make collaboration and partnership difficult
I have noticed that there is a significant philosophical divide between what I would call the “faith and work movement” and the “global missions community.” Let me start with some definitions of what I mean when referring to these groups.
The Faith and Work Movement (FWM) consists of the folks who are pointing us toward integrating our faith with the workplace. These are the people who help us see work in several different ways:
Work is redemptive in and of itself.
No matter where you go in the world, everybody participates in the workforce. It is a huge opportunity for the Kingdom.
The workplace is where people spend a lot of their time; it needs to be a place where we live out our faith in a meaningful way.
Everybody is on board here. If you have a job, you qualify. Typically, they take the view that there is no clerical “call.” No missionary call, but rather a calling that includes the concept of work (see Os Guinness, The Call).
They do not emphasize cross-cultural boundaries as the primary “crossing over” demarcation of the missionary task. Rather, they may work cross-culturally or mono-culturally and thus do not emphasize unreached people group thinking in what they do.
The Global Missions Community, (GCM) has its own set of assumptions.
Redemption includes proclamation. Work is thus a side issue, affected by redemption but not redemptive on its own.
The workplace is a part of any person’s life, but it is overshadowed by both the family (and extended family) and a faith community called “the church.”
People influence others in social settings. Work is one of many settings, but social dynamics have replaced the anthropological concerns of earlier generations of missiologists (one reason for the emphasis on group conversion and movements).
Some people are particularly called to cross-cultural, Pauline-style ministry. Others are not.
They do not see unsaved people as the same as unreached. They emphasize culture in their view of who is reached and unreached.
The purpose of this post is not to say that one of these approaches is better or worse than the other. Rather, in numerous conversations and ways, this distinction keeps meaningful conversation and collaboration from happening.
I am squarely in the camp of the GMC. When I speak with leaders in the FWM, I find that they are focused on a different set of problems than I am. I care about entire cultures in which no Kingdom representatives are serving, and I find myself prioritizing this over other ministry concerns. Thus, while I am appreciative of outreach in the business community, I also hold a form of “pecking order” in my value system. I am not saying this is right, but I know how my heart leans.
The means are different. The transformation of a workplace happens through intentional evangelism and discipleship. Yet, this does not capture the heart of the FWM. They see the work itself as bringing and uplifting human dignity.
I also find that the FWM tends naturally toward evangelism and discipleship but leans away from church planting. The GMC is concerned with all three, but church planting is often the primary outcome of these two Biblical commands (to evangelize and disciple). Because the FWM does not have this same church planting goal, there is a distinction between the desired outcomes (the ends) of these two wings of the Kingdom.
I do not see the Business as Mission (BAM) practitioners as a meeting point for these two groups. Within the BAM movement, they tend to fall on either side of the same divide.
Yes, both groups need each other. In my experience thus far, however, the relationship is somewhat doomed. If both the means and ends are different, it makes deep collaboration and partnership difficult. The Kingdom is bigger than either of these two movements. I sense that we are not at a meeting point that makes deep collaboration work well.
Please feel free to comment below and tell me how I am wrong (or right!). I certainly do not have all of this figured out. These are just my own ramblings.
[Image made on midjourney with the prompt: a preacher preaching in the middle of a stock market floor in photo realistic style]
That is very well said. I think in many ways, both frameworks are biblical and true, but it seems unlikely or impossible to hold them as equal priorities. So I find this helpful. In addition, it feels like churches in general don't necessarily embrace either framework. So let's assume your distinctions are a good general summary. I wonder what other frameworks are also out there, especially in American local churches and denominations. Yes, some churches embrace one of the two you list, but I feel like many churches are more focused on either surviving, on local outreach where their priority is on that over global missions, or, in some cases, on building their own kingdom. Similarly, I wonder how some compassion / social justice / biblical justice movements and organizations would fall (they probably also have multiple frameworks, not just one).
I'm curious to know more about why you don't see BAM practitioners as bridge people here and if they themselves are aware of these two camps or what they think about it. Great discussion to raise!