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.
I think the reasons are more than miscommunication. It is also in the networks, the relationships we have, the websites we read, the people we follow, etc. That said, certainly language is a big part of this as well. There are judgements happening (on both sides). These often come from real observations about behavior. So, it runs a bit deeper than miscommunication in my view. These things don't need to be pitted against each other, but they unfortunately are.
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!
Cynthia, the bottom line is that BAM'ers, unless the business type is selected for ministry purposes, spend most of their time getting a business up and running. It is hard to start a business monoculturally and in business-friendly environments. Think about the number of church planters that are also doing business startups (btw, you can find them in the African American church at a much higher rate than in the white church). It happens, for sure, but it is not common. There are some stellar examples of BAM work that does integrate church planting. For the most part, though, this model has not been widely adopted with success in both spheres.
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.
I think the reasons are more than miscommunication. It is also in the networks, the relationships we have, the websites we read, the people we follow, etc. That said, certainly language is a big part of this as well. There are judgements happening (on both sides). These often come from real observations about behavior. So, it runs a bit deeper than miscommunication in my view. These things don't need to be pitted against each other, but they unfortunately are.
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!
Cynthia, the bottom line is that BAM'ers, unless the business type is selected for ministry purposes, spend most of their time getting a business up and running. It is hard to start a business monoculturally and in business-friendly environments. Think about the number of church planters that are also doing business startups (btw, you can find them in the African American church at a much higher rate than in the white church). It happens, for sure, but it is not common. There are some stellar examples of BAM work that does integrate church planting. For the most part, though, this model has not been widely adopted with success in both spheres.