The call to missions can't be an ambiguous impulse for the theological elites - the Christian lifestyle expects that we all take it heart. It's a simple as aligning the desire of our hearts with the desire of God's heart. Like you've mentioned in the past, we probably spend too much time justifying what we think we should or shouldn't do than actually doing it.
I worked within a missions org that was clearly in the GMC 'camp', to a fault. They wouldn't cooperate with organizations who's literal mission statement wasn't explicitly tied to the Great Commision. Missions-minded companies don't always have the luxury of fitting the mold. Virtually any ministry or missional business in the unreached world won't fit the mold. Even when their work could have a tangible Kingdom impact, the ideological divide proves to be a barrier. They would classify as a ministry unwilling to 'innovate' - perhaps redefined here as working alongside those in the FWM camp you described.
Do you think that part of this divide comes from an inherent miscommunication in ministry strategy rather than missiological disagreements? It appears that different strategies work differently in different places. Assuming we're all working towards the same goal, why does cooperation have to be so difficult? Perhaps there are practical reasons (non-profit status, physical capital, etc) that carry a little too much weight.
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!
The call to missions can't be an ambiguous impulse for the theological elites - the Christian lifestyle expects that we all take it heart. It's a simple as aligning the desire of our hearts with the desire of God's heart. Like you've mentioned in the past, we probably spend too much time justifying what we think we should or shouldn't do than actually doing it.
I worked within a missions org that was clearly in the GMC 'camp', to a fault. They wouldn't cooperate with organizations who's literal mission statement wasn't explicitly tied to the Great Commision. Missions-minded companies don't always have the luxury of fitting the mold. Virtually any ministry or missional business in the unreached world won't fit the mold. Even when their work could have a tangible Kingdom impact, the ideological divide proves to be a barrier. They would classify as a ministry unwilling to 'innovate' - perhaps redefined here as working alongside those in the FWM camp you described.
Do you think that part of this divide comes from an inherent miscommunication in ministry strategy rather than missiological disagreements? It appears that different strategies work differently in different places. Assuming we're all working towards the same goal, why does cooperation have to be so difficult? Perhaps there are practical reasons (non-profit status, physical capital, etc) that carry a little too much weight.
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!