We need to reunite concepts of mission, evangelism

For many years, I have been concerned about the way we institutionally and ideologically separate missions and evangelism. Unlinked from each other, these concepts have moved in opposite directions in actual practice.
Consider this de-facto definition of mission:
The disinterested distribution of material resources to those who are less fortunate.
If we are disinterested, we don’t invite the “client” or recipient of our help to make any response to us, our faith or our church. Such an invitation would be sectarian and interested, potentially alienating the needy person from seeking help.
The resources are material, consisting of food and clothing, housing, medicine, financial assistance, and free services. These are distributed freely to those we perceive to be less fortunate than ourselves.
Let us examine what happens when we reverse this statement.
The interested investment of spiritual resources in those who are more fortunate.
Sadly, that’s a de-facto description of modern evangelism. We invest spiritual resources (pastors, evangelists) to do outreach in areas more fortunate than the average neighborhoods served by our churches with interest of reaping numerical dividends in growth and revenue.
A superficial peace exists between mission and evangelism because mission, the dominant of the two concepts, necessarily depends on evangelism to provide access to the material resources it will freely distribute.
Aside from that dependence, the current practices of evangelism and mission have become the logical antitheses of each other.
It should not surprise us that work in these areas is institutionally segregated or that our ranks are divided between these two incompatible visions of God’s kingdom.
Historically, however, these two words were very similar in meaning. A mission was a place where evangelism took place, and evangelism advanced the mission of Christ. If we are to join them again, we need alternatives.
An alternative to apathetic disinterest and selfish interest would be love, an expression of charity that seeks, welcomes and cherishes new relationships.
An alternative to distribution and investment would be sharing, recognizing our need for grace in giving and receiving.
An alternative to offering either material or spiritual resources would be sharing what is most precious to us: our lives and the life of Christ.
An alternative to serving only the more or less fortunate—seeing them as clients or targets and as objects of our pity or interest—would be to honor all our neighbors, love them as friends and encourage them to become our sisters and brothers in Christ.
What would that look like put into practice?