Field missionaries describe extra work generated by short-term teams and fear the consequences of some inappropriate conduct by "prayer walk" teams.

The AD2000 and Beyond Movement reports progress toward church-planting movements among the unreached, while missiologists track increasing resistance among Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.

Such trends, among others, point to a significant division among mission mobilizers and strategists, perhaps one of the most important shifts since the end of World War II. The increased emphasis on the challenge of unreached peoples has highlighted two major streams of action.

1. Missions as process. This is the ongoing activity of traditional agencies, churches, and training institutions. They focus on fulfilling the Great Commission in every nation and among every people group.

2. Missions as project. This is the new outreach of mobilization organizations, churches, and individuals. They focus primarily on the unreached, or the least reached, people groups.

Where did these streams originate?
Ralph Winter has described three major eras of Protestant missionary endeavor: the coastlands era (1792-1865), pioneered by William Carey; the inland era (1865-1935), pioneered by Hudson Taylor; and the people group era (1935-present), pioneered by Cameron Townsend and Donald McGavran. This movement nurtured (and was nurtured by) the missions as process stream.

At the 1974 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, Winter presented his vision for world missions. Having studied the church growth movement, he said that 2.7 billion people were beyond the reach of Christian witness because they lacked a viable, indigenous, evangelizing church in their culture.

Winter himself was part of the missions as process stream, having served as a Presbyterian missionary in Guatemala. He was an enthusiastic proponent of mission agencies as the channel through which the gospel should be taken to the unreached (or "hidden peoples," as he then called them). His paper, "The Two Structures of GodØs Redemptive Program," was a compelling argument for mission agencies to accomplish the cross-cultural dimension of the Great Commission.

However, while Winter was identifying the unfinished task, several other movements arose that influenced mission mobilizers. Christian Baby Boomers sought to renew the churches in terms of vision and purpose. They wanted to release the laity to accomplish ministry tasks.

Finishing the task of world evangelization caught their attention. The charismatic movement led to the establishment of tens of thousands of independent charismatic churches. National churches grew significantly in many parts of the world and started to reach the unreached in their own countries. These new resources for world evangelization did not fit easily into the existing mission structures and strategies.

So, by the middle of the 1980s, mission mobilizers were confronted by a number of powerful new influences:

• The can-do spirit of evangelical Baby Boomers looking for a cause.
   
• The renewed church refocused on its purposes and effective ministry.
   
• The laity equipped with spiritual gifts, empowered and released for ministry.
   
• The new emphasis on God's power manifested in signs and wonders.
   
• The increasing focus on experiential intimacy with God in worship.
• The influence of the approaching turn of the century and the new millennium.
• The growing movement of national churches doing cross-cultural ministry.

The existing structures in the missions as process stream were not readily able to assimilate these new people and new ideas. Therefore, at least two things happened: (1) new organizations sprang up to accommodate them; and (2) some churches started to see world missions as they saw the other ministries in the church, as something they should and can do themselves. These grassroots developments gave birth to the new missions as project stream.

Of course, this does not mean the missions as process stream dried up. Some agencies and churches within this stream continued to thrive and drew their resources from their traditional supporters, but others struggled to keep going, and some did not make it.

The current situation
Both streams are mobilizing people and churches today. While there is some overlap, many people mobilizing within their stream are largely unaware of the other. When they do become aware of each other, often there is criticism, annoyance, and even disdain. This is unfortunate, since both streams make significant contributions. However, the result often is both inefficiency (because of duplication and competition) and ineffectiveness (because they seldom share wisdom and tools).

The missions as project stream shows great vitality and enthusiasm, with new strategies, new resources, and new structures growing steadily.

However, it is too soon to judge this stream's overall effectiveness. Most fruit is still years away. The bulk of the resources invested in world evangelization is still under the direction of agencies in the missions as process stream. They are seeing the fruit of new churches planted around the world over the past 100 years.

Communication between mobilizers in the two streams often takes the form of complaints and accusations. Such a spirit does not lead to constructive dialogue, greater understanding, and cooperation.

Of course, some mobilizers work in both streams, making serious attempts to bring understanding, healing, and cooperation.

Examining the streams
These are the major features of missions as process and missions as project. Keep in mind that these are not airtight compartments. Some elements are present in both streams. For example, many agencies in the missions as process stream make serious attempts to reach people in the 10/40 Window.

The chart below shows how people in the two streams understand and describe their own work. For example: People in the missions as process stream can understand that when people in the missions as project stream talk about their goal of "a church for every people by the year 2000," they are not ignorant of the years it takes to establish a church-planting movement. They are talking about starting a project.

People in the missions as project stream can understand why traditional agencies, planning to be on the scene for decades and thus spending money on infrastructure and administration, are not wasting resources.

People in the missions as project stream can grasp why those in the missions as process stream are not convinced that the panaceas offered by power evangelism and spiritual warfare will necessarily bring the needed breakthroughs in resistant areas.

At the same time, with tens of thousands of people in the missions as project stream, it would be helpful if the MARC Mission Handbook could find a way to document this development, since it only covers the agencies.

Suggestions for the future
By far the most positive change would be if those in both streams would acknowledge that their counterparts not only exist but are a legitimate part of world evangelization. We sorely need mutual appreciation and respect, which would provide the foundation for more constructive communication.

Agencies in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Western Pacific should not consider the 10/40 Window focus a repudiation of their work. Rather, they should mobilize the established churches in those regions to reach the least reached. The churches, of course, should provide the bulk of the resources, but they sometimes need help in training, for example.

Agencies in the missions as process stream should cultivate churches eager to pursue new missions strategies. They must train their people how to relate to this growing movement.

Since new workers in the missions as project stream often benefit from the infrastructures provided by traditional agencies, they should be willing to reimburse the providers for services rendered. They should also help to develop new funding for the benefit of those who will follow them. Unfortunately, sometimes missions as project people criticize traditional agencies' support figures while blithely using their language schools, MK schools, and medical services—without helping to pay for them.

The unfinished task is too great for mission mobilizers to be divided. It is time to draw together in humility and prayer, thanking God for the giftedness and contributions of those in both streams.

Our demonstration of unity, humility, and cooperation will do much more to draw unbelievers to Christ than will our self-promotion and defensiveness.

E. DAVID DOUGHERTY has served on the headquarters staff of OMF International since 1988, and is active in a number of cooperative missions-mobilizing and missions-training initiatives. Before that he spent 17 years in pastoral ministry, including 14 years as founding pastor of Bible Fellowship of Riverside (California).

Copyright © 1998 Evangelism and Missions Information Service. This article originally appeared in July, 1998 issue of EMQ. All rights reserved.