Is Yours a Low-key or a High-key Mission?

by William G. Olson

As a layman who his had a deep interest in missions for many years, I am much concerned about several observations I have made, and I feel that it would be profitable to bring these out into the open for consideration.

As a layman who his had a deep interest in missions for many years, I am much concerned about several observations I have made, and I feel that it would be profitable to bring these out into the open for consideration.

If we were to analyze today’s mission agencies we would find that there are many types of organizations, of which some, as measured by personnel and by income, are very large; others very small. Also, these agencies represent varied ways in which missionaries are sent out and supported, and in which communication is carried on with their financial contributors. It is on the degree of communication with supporters that I wish to devote this article. On this score, it may be said that missionary organizations function anywhere from a "low-key" to a "high-key" plateau.

For example, many missions that traditionally have been geared to operating strictly on the basis of faith are not too inclined to actively solicit support from their constituency. From this point of view we would say that they function on a "low-key" basis. Conversely, there are those missions that, because they are constantly seeking to extend their outreach, have actively sought financial and prayer help ("high-key" missions). This has involved frequent appeals through means of very well prepared and attractive letters, brochures, leaflets and reports of various kinds. Of course, some missions function between "low-key" and "high-key," depending upon how actively they communicate with their supporters. In any event, communication is the all-important measurement.

It should be pointed out that in no way is "high-key" to be construed as meaning high pressure, or methods that border on the sensational. The latter are entirely different areas and have no part in our present consideration. We must be particularly careful, lest we be tempted to classify some missions in the high-key category as being less dependent upon God to supply their needs than those in the low-key areas. I do not believe that active and good communications, or publicity, cancel out faith.

From my own experience, both as a contributor and as chairman of missionary activities in my local church, I get the impression that some mission agencies are less sensitive about the feelings and attitudes of their supporters than are other missions. Too often the gifts they receive are accepted as a matter of course. An acknowledgment is sent and perhaps one’s name is placed on a mailing list to receive some literature or the mission magazine. Frequently this material is very inadequate and the contributor actually has very little idea as to program, plans or needs of the particular mission, let alone learning what is happening to the missionary for whom support is being sent.

No doubt, such an attitude stems from the principle that if the mission is operating on the basis of faith, such gifts are tokens of God’s faithfulness. I wholly subscribe to missionary agencies, as well as contributors, being fully dependent upon Him to supply the need, but nevertheless I am concerned that some missions are so bound by this principle that they are not taking full advantage of the opportunity to build up the image of what they are doing. They do not seem to be extending themselves to the potential needed in order to get Christ’s assignment accomplished. This is not said in the spirit of criticism, but only with the thought of being constructive. Without in any way sacrificing our reliance upon God, I believe that some re-examination and revaluation of policy is needed. If changes are to come about, they should come principally in the very important area of communications.

While a number of missions are doing an outstanding job of keeping their constituency fully informed through excellently prepared leaflets, bulletins, brochures, reports and magazines, I, for one, am not too much impressed with the publications of many other mission groups. More often than not, they are too general and impersonal. Very seldom do they touch on the particular field in which a church or individual has an interest. I know that the rebuttal to this will be that much if anything beyond general articles would be too expensive. As it is, I would suspect that some missions are actually wasting money on what is now being published.

Not only is there much room for improvement in printed communication, but also worthy of consideration is the distribution of films and filmstrips relating to the field. In recent years we have seen a number of instances where mission agencies have suddenly come up with a new image through changes made in their publications and in their relations with their constituency. If missions that have not already done so would adopt new and attractive means to reflect their work and developments in their fields, then churches and others who are interested would receive a new taste and insight as to what is going on. They, in turn, will have added motivation and desire to become more deeply involved in all aspects of this great cause of missions praying, giving and going. This will of course require courage, vision, much prayerful study, imaginative planning and also some gifted personnel in the area of graphic arts and public relations – people who thoroughly understand layouts, color and contents, and then have the ability to effectively present the resulting material to present as well as potential supporters.

Also of concern to me is this. In recent years many reams of printed material have come from the presses concerning the relationship of mission agencies with the churches that they have planted throughout the world. Conferences and seminars are constantly being held to study this association and to consider the problems and victories being experienced. All of this is very essential and worthwhile. Strangely paradoxical, however, is the extreme lack of discussion in the other direction regarding the relationship between the missions and the churches, groups and individuals at home who support them. Basically, these are the ones the missions represent.

Mission leaders and their boards should give much thought these days to taking the initiative in going to the churches to offer their help in planning programs concerning missionary education, annual missionary conferences, seminars, etc. While this could get some missions involved with churches where theretofore there has been no common bond or relationship, I am appalled at the multitude of churches, including evangelical ones, that have no missionary vision whatsoever, and they need to be nurtured in this area. Other churches that have the desire and vision, nevertheless, are struggling along with ineffective missionary programs simply because they need help in building up adequate leadership. As a missionary leader you may say, and properly so, that this is against the traditional pattern of missionary outreach, that even if the merit of such an innovation were accepted, lack of staff and resources would make such a program difficult to tackle.

The only answer to this is that if we are to have a healthy church at home, missions must be a vital part of its program. Without healthy churches, missionary agencies cannot long remain healthy. There is a very real need for church leaders in the homeland and mission leaders to get together to discuss and formulate plans to make missions a paramount part of the overall church program. Vital and effective missionary minded churches and individuals are the means that missionary agencies need in accomplishing the great task ahead of us.

Now, as to ways in which mission agencies might approach their supporting churches or those other churches that need assistance, may I suggest two avenues for consideration. First, the simplest and most effective approach would be to send a sincere, straightforward letter, along with attractive supporting literature, indicating what they are prepared to offer in the area of missionary education, annual conferences, seminars, etc., and then invite inquiry and participation. Above all, do not attempt such a program unless you are in a position to follow through. If done well, this could turn out to be a new way of life for your mission. Yes, just like the previous suggestion to build up rapport with your contributors, this will take much time, planning, personnel and funds. Results? Only God can give the increase.

Second, I have often hoped that there could be, on an annual basis, on a city, county or area level, conferences much like the great Sunday school conventions, where pastors and their church missionary chairmen could meet together with the leaders of the many mission agencies to discuss 61) the broader aspects of missionary advancement throughout the world, and a 2 ) the development of missionary programs and outreach at the local church level. Properly planned and publicized, meetings of this type could, under God’s blessing, build a fire under our whole missionary enterprise. This would be a huge undertaking and would need the constant support and leadership of many missionary and church leaders. High-key? Of necessity. Pray to this end.

In a relatively few years we have seen massive changes in the world scene and in its many culture. All of this has put a tremendous burden upon the Christian church in its program of evangelization and missionary outreach. A century or so ago communication between the missionary and his home church was confined to one source – letters. Because transportation was slow, it often took many months for these letters to reach their destination. Singular as they were, these letters were an important link, and, as we look back on them, they were indeed powerful tools. In the setting of that dad, we would consider them as high-key. They conveyed the need loud and clear ( even if indirectly at times); the congregation prayed; the Holy Spirit touched peoples’ hearts, and, not only were funds released, but men and women were persuaded to give their lives to Christian service.

In keeping with changing times, God has permitted us to have far greater and more effective tools today. I believe that this fits in with his plans to have us step up our efforts to a high-key level in order to fulfill the Great Commission while there is yet time. As of now, we are far behind schedule in getting the good news into all corners of the world. As our methods and appeals to reach a wider constituency materialize, we will be in a position to send the message of salvation to considerably more people in more areas around the world. Our outreach potential can and must be multiplied, and, provided our motives are right, this certainly would be pleasing to God.

Low-key, high-key, or somewhere in between? What plateau would you occupy?

——-

Copyright © 1974 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.