"Own regional terminology" exemplifies the problem. Agencies divide the world up in a multitude of different typologies of continents and regions, arrived at on clearly understood historical grounds. This means that terms like "Africa" and "Asia" have many different and contradictory meanings from one agency to the next. The author's lengthy attempts since 1952 to get agencies to follow the logical United Nations terminology have never borne fruit.

While many of these characteristics of monoliths might well be influenced or affected by larger denominational policies, on the whole the above list is operated by the average agency autonomously and independently. It acts as it sees best. From the standpoint of all the other monoliths, it is in practice a standalone monolith.

The 33 largest monoliths of all (Diagram 4)
Fourthly, our observer realizes that the monoliths are grouped into a pattern of 12 global megamonoliths of enormous size. Make no mistake: many mission monoliths are immense. The global diagram later in this article outlines the existence of 78 global monoliths, mega-agencies defined as each spending over US$100 million on missions during the Decade of Evangelization. And of these, 33 are giga-agencies each spending over %100 million a year and planning to spend over $1 billion each during the decade.

As the outside observer scans the scene, he observes that these 33 immense monoliths between them are producing over 85% of all world evangelization activity in the 1990s. Again, we notice denominational ties, but on the whole these 33 are fully standalone, unaccountable to the rest of the 33 or even to more than one of them. (A full description of each of the 33 and the 78 is given in Seven hundred plans to evangelize the world, New Hope, 1988).

Classifying the monoliths (Global Diagram 47)
Fifthly and lastly, our observer with his binoculars finally perceives the whole structure of organized Christianity and sees how the top 80 global monoliths can be classified into families and traditions. The global diagram (on page 39 opposite) sets out all the descriptive data, together with an overall classification.

A slightly different approach to understanding these monoliths is to image oneself as the outside observer first encountering the Christian world from afar as a single monolithic entity, then walking closer to see the view resolve itself into 7 distinct blocs, then into 80 major global monoliths, then into 23,500 denominations, and so on.

The time is ripe now to do a systematic, objective, descriptive analysis of the whole phenomenon. Global Diagram 47 attempts to do this. The monoliths are there analyzed into the 7 ecclesiastico-cultural blocs (the shaded ovals), 12 global megamonoliths, and 37 of the top 80 global monoliths. Each of these entities is then described by 10 descriptors in the 10 columns of the statistical table.

Monolithic thinking
One would think that with so many global monoliths determined to evangelize the world, at least some of them would succeed. Unfortunately this has not yet happened. Let's examine how these monoliths are thinking in order to determine the reasons for their failure to achieve their goal of global closure.

The rationale of a mission monolith
To understand how a monolith functions, we need to understand its rationale, Call it mission agency A, with a goal to reach the whole world in some sense with the gospel.

The essence of monolithic thinking goes as follows. God loves His world of human beings. God has a plan to save them. God does this through committed believers, especially foreign missionaries. To function effectively, such workers need an organization. (Now it becomes personal). "God clearly called us, agency A, into existence in the year 1800 (or 1850, or 1950, etc) to do just this. He has since called X missionaries and Y staff to join us in A. That call has been confirmed in many ways, especially in our home constituency of Z supporting churches with W thousands of members. They raise and entrust to us a sizable budget of $F million every year. God's plan must be implemented. No one is indispensable, but in His wisdom God has called us to see it implemented. We've been guided and blessed throughout our history. God's work is our work. Our work is God's work. Our work must go on; in practice it is indispensable. We are now, as best we know, doing exactly what God wants us to do. Any criticism of our work is criticism of God's work. We know there are many other mission agencies with God's call; we welcome them because the global task is too big for one organization. The responsibility for seeing that world evangelization reaches closure and for reaching the final frontiers does not therefore lie solely on our shoulders; all agencies must share it."

Monolithic computerization
One can get a clue as to what may have gone wrong by examining current use of computers. On the positive side, internal Christian networking is increasing rapidly due to the meteoric spread of computers. In 1990, 44% of all the Christian monoliths (which together owned or operated 54 million general-purpose computers) had extensive internal computer networks each within itself. One monolith in Washington, D.C. has installed 600 in its new headquarters building alone. Another nearby has 300; and so on. But on the negative side, only 8% of these monoliths were doing computer networking with any other monoliths.

This leads to an ironic situation. The author of this article has been involved with computers since he worked with the world's first massive computer in 1948 on research in aerodynamics for the British Scientific Civil Service. As a foreign missionary then and over the 44 subsequent years, he has worked to harness the full capabilities of computers for Christ's world mission. Yet when he publishes complex computer data analyses of world evangelization today, there are always a handful of agency executive to complain that "Computers appear to be now replacing the Bible." Yet these same agencies install vast computer equipment solely for internal use in the standalone mode.

Use of computers today by mission monoliths is in the early stages. They are used mainly to do routine work faster and cheaper (correspondence, address lists, records, accounts, bookkeeping, stock-keeping, publicity). So far there is hardly any computerized decision- making, relational databasing, research factor analyses, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, modeling, sophisticated statistical analysis of field data, and so on. Without state- of-the-art applications, state-of-the-art hardware and software are an unnecessary extravagance.

Monolithic self-promotion
Many other similar problems have surfaced recently. The bigger the monolith, the greater the apparent temptation to blow one's own trumpet. Most of the global monoliths, and most of the global megamonoliths also, can be easily documented to have taken this position in print many times recently: "We're right. Most of the other monoliths are wrong or have missed the boat." Several of the biggest-on the diagram, Numbers 10, 11, 12, 5a, 6a, and large parts of 1a, and 2b-consider themselves to be the only true church and write off all the rest as little or nothing to do with Christ or his Commission. This is a bewildering situation when one remembers that we have documented countless printed statements on the part of all these monoliths specifically claiming to be Christians following Jesus Christ as Lord and expounding his Great Commission. (This is in fact our definition of a mission monolith). Most monoliths are evidently not prepared to listen, dialogue, admit that they might be in the wrong on such matters, or change their positions vis-a-vis the rest of the monoliths.

Monolithic minimizing and maximizing
Can one be more specific on this monolithic thinking_ Yes. Nowadays charges and counter charges of doctrinal heresy seem to have taken second place to charges of methodological incompetence. A frequent charge is that this other distant monolith or that is guilty of triumphalism, especially if the monolith in question publishes detailed statistics of church growth each year. Some monoliths minimize resources (regarding the total Christian resources available for world evangelization as equal to only their own contribution). Other unfortunate monoliths who carefully report their own massive statistical operations then find themselves branded as maximizing their own significance. A majority of all these monoliths, incredibly, regard a majority of the rest of the monoliths as part of the Target, that is as legitimate targets for sheep-stealing or proselytization. It is easy to document the continuous denunciation of some monoliths by others on a whole variety of similar dubious charges.

Every monolith also seems to genuinely think that it is on the cutting edge of the Christian world mission, the final frontier, the place where the definitive action is. Many of the one thousand missionary magazines today are sprinkled with self-congratulatory assessments, remarks, comments and the like. Many publish as readers' letters only those from supporters which support similar sentiments.

It is remarkable that very few monoliths seem to be engaged in any form of rigorous self- examination. Most react violently to any form of criticism or adverse comment. Outside independent monitoring or analysis is particularly anathema.

Most staggering is the fact that 80% of the monoliths, with the 250 current global plans to evangelize the world that they promote, are each trying to win the world by themselves even as they are ignoring or even denouncing the rest. This is as senseless as if scientists of a small European research laboratory tried to close the globe's huge ozone hole in the stratosphere by themselves without collaborating with other scientists across the world working on the same problem.

Monolithic missiology
What is wrong with the monolithic mentality, from the missiological perspective, seems to be the monolith's mode of autonomy in matters where synergistic cooperation between multiple agencies is essential. This involves (a) an agency's view of what constitutes the legitimate targets of mission; (b) relatively inflated views of their agency's own importance and significance; and (c) the idea that one agency can in practice effectively plan and win the world by itself (though this is scarcely ever expressed as crudely or as absolutely).

The shortcomings of this variety of tunnel vision include: Looking at the world from scratch, and an amateur approach (by the secular world's standards) to tackling the world's most complex human problems. In particular, the targets, target selection, and target selection methodologies of many agencies overlap and duplicate endlessly.

The basic monolithic fallacy
At the heart of the monolithic syndrome is, in many cases, a theological fallacy. It arises as follows. Over the years a large mission agency finds the younger churches in its mission fields becoming increasingly stronger. Reluctant to relocate its personnel in less rewarding non-Christian lands, the mission develops a theology to justify continuing to send its missionaries to work among those heavily-Christian populations. This becomes a clear-cut dichotomy of "saved versus lost". The mission then holds that the only distinction is between true believers (committed Christians, the saved) and all the rest (the lost). This type of theology then claims that the lost (all who are not committed Christians) are all equally situated in their lostness. Whether they are lapsed churchgoers in Europe or Tantric Buddhists in Tibet, all are equally lost and so are equally legitimate targets for foreign missions.

The fallacy here is that no account is taken of how many opportunities to become disciples people have had. This is a fundamental mistake. There is obviously a major difference between lapsed Anglicans in Britain who have sat through several thousand evangelistic sermons but have now renounced Christianity, and Buddhists in Nepal who have never met a Christian or heard of Jesus Christ. By contrast, we emphatically affirm the difference: the former are "evangelized non-Christians" (located in our World B), the latter are "unevangelized non-Christians" (located in our World A). We maintain that the latter should be the primary beneficiaries of the foreign missions enterprise. The former are primarily the responsibility of local churches in their own vicinities.

The argument is certainly not over whether or not disciple-making is essential. Of course it is. The crucial part of the fallacy is ignoring how much or how many "disciple- opportunities" (invitations or offers or opportunities to accept Christ and become his disciples) persons have had. Let's take the USA as an illustration. Each year it generates 280 such offers of all varieties per capita (AD 2000 Global Monitor, No. 15, page 4). Firstly, 21.5 billion new disciple-opportunities a year are addressed to, and absorbed by, the 75 million Pentecostals/Charismatics in the USA. They receive them but they don't need them because they are already disciples. Secondly, the 32 million non-Christians in North America also receive the average 280 per capita per year (and continue to reject them). They do not need them either, because they have all already received multiple opportunities previously. Why saturate them with 279 times more than is our definition for becoming adequately evangelized_ With very limited "offers" to spend (certainly none to squander), when does the church say "Enough is enough"_

The basic monolithic fallacy arises, in our view, out of an elementary methodological error. All churches nowadays routinely enumerate, measure, and count baptisms, church membership, church starts, and so on. But 99% of all monoliths fail to enumerate evangelization, witness, evangelism, or the many varieties of Christian outreach they are engaged in. Hence those activities fail to be regarded as achievements or stepping stones towards goals. So the activities themselves are repeated and duplicated endlessly.

The current monolithic legacy
On the global scene, the world of all Christians, World C, gets an average of 272.9 disciple-opportunities per capita per year. World B (evangelized non-Christians) gets 6.5 per capita per year. But World A (the unevangelized) gets only 0.16 per capita per year. While it would be unjust to hold monolithic thinking wholly responsible for this gross imbalance, objective analysis points in this direction.

Conclusion
Christian missions throughout history have had notable achievements and inspiring successes largely because of the dedication of ordinary Christians. Problems such as the 20th-century monolithic syndrome have not prevented overall achievement. One must also credit the 40 million Christian martyrs over the last 20 centuries whose impact on evangelization has been profound. Nevertheless it should be possible for us to negotiate ways in which the monoliths could support each other's endeavors and synergistically make a far greater impact on world evangelization.