The Third Call

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Dear fellow executives of frontier mission agencies around the world,

We now finally have a date, costs, and a clear path to move forward: Amsterdam YWAM headquarters, April 18-21, 2005, all delegates, near or far, paying the same (covering travel and all conference costs), namely something under $850 US.

Lest you waste time trying to dig up previous letters I will attach all four previous letters. But to save you time I will also give here an overview of events, quoting from some of the earlier letters.

Overview of the Three Calls

It is possible to see three world-level frontier mission events as parallel.

The First Call: In 1910, for the first time in history, mission leaders and missionaries were called together to consider how best to finish the global task of missions. The conference was called The World Missionary Conference. That was the First Call . No one was invited. The only people attending were delegates chosen by legitimate mission agencies. Great things came out of that conference. A Continuation Committee was formed. Then the International Review of Missions and the International Missionary Council (which served effectively for forty years) derived from that committee. This famous 1910 conference also, and unexpectedly, inspired dreams of both Christian unity and a number of other successive but unconnected conferences, some liberal, eventually resulting in the World Council of Churches. However, none of those later conferences had the distinctive composition of exclusively mission people as had the 1910 meeting.

The Second Call: In 1972 a Southern Baptist professor of mission proposed a repetition of the 1910 conference. In 1974, a group of missiologists under the banner of the newly formed American Society of Missiology, meeting at Wheaton College, hammered out the wording of a Call for a second 1910 type conference to meet on the world level in 1980. As reported in the July 31, 2003 letter (See attached), here is the exact wording of that Second Call.

It is suggested that a World Missionary Conference be convened in 1980 to confront contemporary issues in Christian world missions. The conference should be constituted by persons committed to cross-cultural missions, broadly representative of the missionary agencies of the various Christian traditions on a world basis.

When that 1980 meeting took place in Edinburgh in November of 1980, it was called The World Consultation on Frontier Missions. More agencies were represented than in 1910, and notably one third of all agencies were now from the Third World (none in 1910). The compendium of that conference is the book Seeds of Promise , Edited by Alan Starling (William Carey Library, 1981).

In 1980 the slogan adopted was “A Church for Every People By the Year 2000.” Thomas Wang was one of the plenary speakers, and he carried it into the AD2000 movement with a clarifying addition, “A Church for Every People and the Gospel for Every Person by the Year 2000.” Problem: the 1980 “Continuation Committee” failed to function. No ongoing structure survived.

The THIRD CALL: Clarifying and updating the wording of the Second Call, here is what was proposed in the July 31, 2003 letter for a "Third Call” meeting:

It is suggested that a global level conference be convened in 2004 or 2005 to confront contemporary issues in Christian world missions with the purpose of establishing an on-going global network of mission agencies. The conference should be constituted by formal delegates of frontier active cross-cultural missions broadly representative of the mission agencies of the various Christian traditions on a world basis. The delegates need to be from appropriate agencies which have delegated them to speak for the agencies in regard to the plans for a global network of mission agencies.

The Sequence of Events Thus Far

At the Singapore ‘02 Conference the formal discussion highlighted the highest concern of the delegates as being the achievement of global level networking. That fact, it seemed to me, simply as one of the delegates, could readily be considered a “motion” for the establishment of such an entity. The question I then posed in a letter May 15, 2003 to those who attended the meeting (See first letter attached) asked if there existed a “second” to that motion. A flurry of positive responses resulted, effectively indicating that a “seconding” of the motion would be quite possible.

In the May 2003 letter I suggested a face-to-face meeting for the purpose of seconding the motion and sent out a call for a “second.” It soon appeared to be true that rather than to meet at a world level merely to “second” the motion, the second was something that could actually be done by email.

Thus, in July of 2003, a second letter went out, asking for a “second.” It included the following wording (on p. 2, paragraphs 2, 3, and 6):

Those appropriate agencies responding to the Third Call, which will agree to send delegates to the founding meeting should then 1) email in their formal, organizational decision to back the Third Call, 2) indicate their intention of sending a delegate to the founding meeting and 3) suggest dates when that would be preferable.

Note: an “appropriate” agency for this founding purpose ought to be, as before: An agency that has had at least five cross-cultural missionaries for at least three years, and is “frontier active,” that is either now involved with outreach to, or mobilization for, reaching unreached people groups, or has definite plans to do so.

Any agency in substantial agreement with this Call, and which clearly qualifies under the “appropriate” definition above, is thus hereby invited to affirm their qualifications and “second” this motion by email, and plan to attend the founding meeting at a date and place to be determined.

Once again, the replies to the July ‘03 letter, during August and September of 2003, were enthusiastic. Thus it seemed reasonable to consider the “motion” of Singapore ‘02 now to be seconded!

Meanwhile, however, one response came from the Great Commission Roundtable, a global-level entity representing the Lausanne Committee and the World Evangelical Fellowship (now Association). They asked that we sit down with their executive committee and discuss the Third Call proposal from their point of view. As a result of this very reasonable request, a third letter, October 3, 2003 (See attached) then was sent out putting things on hold until after the expected meeting with the GRC in January of 2004. This third letter asked for definitive formal, official organizational replies to the Call.

Okay, that January meeting took place. Following the meeting the GRC formally responded:

Dear Dr. Winter:

Blessings in the name of the Almighty!

On behalf of Great Commission Roundtable, I want to express our deep gratitude for accepting our invitation to be part of the Roundtable in Sierra Madre last week, a valuable exchange of ideas and clarifying questions about “The Third Call for Global Networking”.

As you requested, please find the statement from the participants of this Roundtable as follows:

“The dialogue between the GCR roundtable participants and Ralph Winter offered a valuable exchange of ideas as well as an opportunity to clarify issues through questions. In the spirit of this conversation, we request that the Third Call process and leadership be sensitive to existing grass-roots, national and regional mission structures. We also ask that the proposed Third Call meeting take place some time after the October 2004 Lausanne Forum.

On a personal level, we reaffirm our appreciation to Ralph, for his life and profound contribution to the global mission movement. His legacy will last a long time.”

May the Lord continue blessing your lives and ministry for the advance of Global Evangelization

[Signed] David D. Ruiz M., International Coordinator, Great Commission Roundtable

Following that very friendly meeting with the GCR, a fourth letter went out dated March 12 (but not mailed until about June—I was recovering from a severe illness). That Fourth letter is attached with its original date, March 12, 2004. It is the source of the quote from the GCR.

Moving Ahead

At this point we approached the YWAM base in Amsterdam as a possible place to meet. Note that the total cost of flying people in from all over the world is probably less to Amsterdam than to any other point. (We did not choose that location because it was in the West.) The YWAM consent and sample dates came through a few days ago, just as I was leaving for the Lausanne meeting in Thailand

Nothing now stands between us and the founding meeting of a Global Network of Mission Structures. It is time to renew our perspective. The Lausanne Forum that is just past is a good place to start.

Renewing Our Perspective

The Lausanne Forum of 2004 (which occurred just a few days ago) was a major Lausanne meeting, thirty years after the first in 1974. Interestingly, I gave a plenary presentation in 1974, “The Highest Priority: Cross-Cultural Evangelism.” Now, thirty years later I believe I was the only plenary speaker from 1974 present at the Third Lausanne meeting.

All of the Lausanne meetings (including dozens of regional and national meetings) during these thirty years have had marvelous results. This time 1,700 people from 136 countries attended, speaking something like 50 languages. Lausanne meetings have consistently introduced the churches of West and Non-West to the multiple challenges of the Christian faith, and they have always invited a broader representation of Christian believers from around the world than are represented by the World Evangelical Association or any other existing global entity of which I know.

However, the focus of all of the Lausanne meetings has been primarily 1) the reaffirmation of our basic theology and 2) the reexamination of the multiple responsibilities and opportunities of existing churches world over. The latter, of course, logically includes cross-cultural mission to peoples within which there is as yet no witness (e.g. “Classical Mission,” that is, “Unreached Peoples” outreach). However, the unreached peoples dimension at Lausanne gatherings has always been a relatively small percentage of the various “tracks” or “issue groups,” since churches do indeed have a wide variety of obligations under God.

Thus, at Thailand there were 31 “Issue” groups, such as, #4 Holistic mission, #8 Transformation of Cities and Slums, #16 Religious and Non-Religious Spirituality, #18 Evangelization of Children, #20 Understanding Muslims, #23 Reaching the Youth Generation, #24 Empowering Women and Men, #26 Discipling Oral Learners. Only #6 specifically focused on the remaining outreach to unreached peoples.

Even then the task in #6 was divided as #6a and #6b. The latter covered the need for outreach to “disabled” peoples cross cultural or not. It was said that disabled people number 650 million and constitute the third largest “country” in the world, an “Unreached People.” These issue groups mentioned could have all included some reference to peoples without a viable church among them (not just to unreached individuals), but with the exception of #6a, most all groups focused on what existing churches within reached groups might do in their immediate locality . Even the one on Islam was substantially on the need for church people to understand Islam, not on doing pioneer mission work within the culture of Islam. In fact, in important matters, the church people in the Muslim Issue group could not agree with the handful of missiologists present.

But, all told, it was an inspirational conference, located in marvelous facilities with world-class, lavish food arrangements. It was in no significant way a meeting of mission leaders concerned to penetrate the last frontiers. But, it was not supposed to be. To point this out is not to be critical but to acknowledge its real function.

Furthermore, it was not the intent of the conference to establish any sort of an on-going global structure to facilitate mission agencies networking in the area of frontier missions. That remains to be done. That will happen, Lord willing, April 18-21.

What Can We Envision in Amsterdam?

What is envisioned is not a conference costing millions of dollars of subsidy, as have the Lausanne conferences. The very opposite. We don't expect to rely on a single penny of subsidy. A global networking function is the goal of the meeting , not the discussion of mission strategies. Today, with email, a great deal can be done without any face-to-face global meetings. The purpose of our expected April ‘05 “founding meeting” in Amsterdam is simply to set up the essential ongoing structure of coordination and mutual edification between mission structures focused on the “classical mission” of going where Christ is not named.

As the result of this quite unique purpose, it is proposed that no money be spent on anything but room and board and travel, and that the latter be spread out so no agency sending a delegate will pay more than any other (See the hypothetical table at the end of this cover letter). If these economizing plans do not turn out ideally, later meetings can do things differently. But minimizing cost is a hallmark of the mission tradition. Since missions are an “out of sight, out of mind” operation, donations are always hard to secure, and agencies need to conserve every penny they get.

Practicalities

1. Due to the increased delays in getting visas these days of heightened security against terrorists, we need to move quickly to confirm who is coming. See page 8 and 9 where travel details are mentioned. Note the Nov 20th deadline below.

2. This founding meeting need not require delegates from more than 30 agencies, one delegate per approved agency. To be neutral we need to accept agencies in the order in which they apply and are approved. Those which respond last may not be able to be accepted. A number of agencies have already applied. If they are approved by the credentials committee (see next paragraph) they will be the first to be included. However, no one is going to pick and choose which agency sends a delegate. That will be determined by the order of application.

3. A credentials committee has been assembled, simply to review the basic facts about the agencies wanting to send a delegate. An appropriate agency, as mentioned earlier, must have at least five cross-culturally-experienced members for a minimum of three years of operation, and the agency must be concerned seriously with unreached peoples . Unless your agency is given the go-ahead signal by this credentials committee, you must not plan to send a delegate. Also, if your definitive reply comes later than November 20 it may be too late to be counted in.

4. In addition to agencies approved by the credentials committee, that same committee will accept applications from a maximum of a single official delegate from ten national (or regional) associations of missions, such as NEMA of Nigeria, the IFMA in the USA, and the IMA of India. These delegates will be considered consultants , non-voting, unless they also represent a specific approved sending structure.

5. What will be the actual cost for each and every delegate, one from each agency?

a. Room and board (nine meals, three nights) 65 Euros(about $81.25 US)

b. Travel pool, about 614 Euros ($767 US)

c. Registration, $0

Where did these figures come from? We do not expect there to be any expenses other than costs incurred by the delegates themselves, which means travel, food, space. We have been given a firm cost for room and board of sixty-five Euro dollars, which at the moment is US $81.25 for the evening meal the 18th through lunch the 21st, including overnight the three nights 18-20. The travel pool is an estimate, hopefully high. Exact travel pool costs will be worked out by December 1st if we have prompt replies for our credentials committee to consider .

Once we know precisely from where delegates will be coming, an agency in the Netherlands will ascertain the lowest possible round trip air fare from all those places. If this should turn out anything like what I outlined hypothetically in my 2nd (July 31, ‘03) letter, each delegate (no matter whether they are near to Amsterdam or far) will pay $767 US into the travel pool (See the last page). I don't think that amount will be higher and it may well be lower. On top of that, the amazingly economical board and room will be added.

What will be the Global Network of Mission Structures?

It seems very strange that while global level meetings of like-minded people are common, and church people often gather to discuss theology and/or many different kinds of ministries, it seems sometimes that people are less enthusiastic when mission people want to gather on the global level, even on the national level.

In the United States, the Foreign Mission Conference of North America did not start until 1891, which was 90 years after mission agencies (denominational or interdenominational) began to emerge. After a few years the FMCNA decided that only denominational agencies were legitimate, asking interdenominational agencies not to vote. This, in 1917, virtually forced into being the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, when the CIM, SIM, AIM etc. were still fairly young. Hudson Taylor, founder of the China Inland Mission, was present at the 1910 meeting but there were in those days far fewer interdenominational agencies. In 1925, 75% of American missionaries were sent out by the mainline denominations. This dominance had dropped to 5% by 1980.

By the 1980 meeting in Edinburgh, no such distinctions were raised (denominational or interdenominational), and any entity functioning as a sending mission structure that had five cross-cultural missionaries for at least three years was welcome to send delegates. That 1980 meeting became a large gathering of 146 agencies or so, all paying their own travel. The proposed GNMS may in the future hold large meetings, too. But in an age of email, that need and frequency will be far less.

What will the GNMS do? It will do whatever the member agencies decide. The founding meeting will elect a board. That board, governed by the members, will do whatever the member agencies decide. Many of the things a global office will do will parallel and supplement what is being done on a national and regional level. We recall that the follow-through of the 1910 meeting created a periodical with a global perspective. The GNMS office can maintain close ties to the Lausanne Committee, the World Evangelical Association, and the Great Commission Roundtable, etc.

One specific thing that needs to be done is to collect, on the world level a list of email and postal addresses for all the agencies in the world which are seriously involved in what can be called frontier missions. Thousands of agencies are doing good things all around the world. But the hardest and most complex task is frontier missions to unreached peoples . The relatively fewer frontier mission agencies have every reason to be in touch with each other. Phill Butler has done a marvelous job of fostering collaboration in regional areas. This needs to be done on the world level.

Note also that the very phenomenon of migration forces consideration of global level collaboration. It is a concern that can best be dealt with effectively on the world level. It is the growing phenomenon of more and more major people groups spreading all over the world by the millions. These are called national “diasporas” (the Greek word for dispersion ). Note that national and regional groups by their very geographical confines are not well equipped to track intercontinental migrations.

A substantial book entitled Scattered was given out to all participants at the Lausanne meeting in Thailand earlier this month. This superb book may be the first serious study of the diaspora of a given nation from the standpoint of missions. Millions of Filipino workers are all over the world, just like the ancient diaspora of Jewish believers. Just as Paul sought to minister in and to Jewish synagogues around the Roman empire, hundreds of Filipino pastors are out across the world doing the same for Filipine believers in foreign countries. The millions of Filipinos out there are both a mission field and a remarkably strategic mission base . Indeed, the book has a whole chapter which agonizes over whether to call these pastors in foreign countries missionaries or not.

We are concerned for the Gospel to reach to all “Unreached Peoples,” that is, remaining ethnic groups within which there is not yet any culturally relevant church movement. The Filipino diaspora and other diasporas from other nations are very crucial. Whatever we call the pastors who are out there in foreign lands ministering to their own countrymen, whether they are called missionaries or not, the really challenging task is for them and their church members to learn enough of the language and culture of the host country to be able to penetrate the unreached groups in that country if there are any.

What is a Missionary as Distinct from an Evangelist?

Just for the record, and in light of our upcoming meeting in Amsterdam, it may be helpful to make a purely pragmatic distinction, namely, 1) an evangelist is someone who is reaching souls without having to puzzle through into a foreign language and culture. 2) the word missionary then , means those who work cross culturally within a people group where there is not yet a viable, indigenous, evangelizing church movement—that is, they work within a group in which no one has ever been able effectively to explain the Gospel in that situation.

The latter work is not more important, for the angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who comes to repentance. But the latter work is clearly more urgent , both because people in such groups have no access to the Gospel, and, furthermore, the task of reaching into such groups from the outside is incredibly more demanding, perplexing, and difficult to accomplish. In other words, a missionary is one who a) crosses into a different culture, and 2) needs to do so because in that other culture there is not yet a “viable, indigenous, evangelizing church movement.”

To be able to send a delegate to Amsterdam, an agency does not even have to be involved as yet in an unreached people. If the agency has five people who have had at least three years of cross-cultural ministry, and, is intending to assist in reaching the unreached peoples, that is the minimal test for at least this first meeting.

We rejoice in the many agencies which are serving the various church constituencies around the world even though they may not be focused on unreached peoples. However, at this stage we are convinced some agencies must be focused seriously on outreach to the truly unreached peoples.

Your agency does not need to attend the founding meeting in April of 2005 to become a member of the resulting GNMS. However, if you wish to send a delegate to that meeting these are the essential elements:

1. Your agency must be one of the kind the credentials committee will approve, see page 2.
2. Your agency must be able to afford the necessary US $850.
3. We cannot guarantee translation from English into other languages,
4. You must reply by Nov 20 so we can confirm your delegate by Dec 1st See travel details on next sheet.
5. You must be able to secure a visa in time.

If your agency can fullfill these conditions and does not apply too late for there still to be room, we will welcome your delegate to the founding meeting of the Global Network of Mission Structures!

Blessings on you as you consider this,

Ralph D. Winter, provisional convener

[Note: While this document is here to provide a perspective on the process of launchin a new global entity, the reader may wonder what actually happened at the meeting in Amsterdam April 19-20, 2005. The meeting turned out beyond all expectations! A good deal of information is now on the website, www.gnms.net and more will be added from time to time.]