What Mission Strategy Is and Does

by Gordon MacDonald

The effectiveness of newly discovered techniques, advanced and specialized tools, and highly educated personnel is totally dependent upon the strategy devised to use them. Problems of strategy are frequently at the root of personnel dropouts, sloppy, subpar work, unusual degrees of conflict between field leaders, and field programs that are achieving little if any success.

The effectiveness of newly discovered techniques, advanced and specialized tools, and highly educated personnel is totally dependent upon the strategy devised to use them. Problems of strategy are frequently at the root of personnel dropouts, sloppy, subpar work, unusual degrees of conflict between field leaders, and field programs that are achieving little if any success.

Strategy—something like the football player’s game plan centers on principles of ministry. Some of these are unchangeable because of their doctrinal base. Others are in a constant state of flux because they are related to the changing characteristics of the mission, the culture of the field, and the development of tools to do the job. Determining the difference between the changeable and the unchangeable is a matter of current debate in church and missionary renewal.By definition, a missionary strategy is a long- and short-range plan for evangelizing a given area of the world: the planting of the church or the carrying on of support activity to other missions. It is a "contract" under which a group of people agree to work. Until it is changed, it is the highest authority to which each member of the group can appeal. In that strategy, one will find the definition of activities to be done, the geographical boundaries, the necessary personnel descriptions, what the level of success and failure is, and finally who directs the effort and determines when it is completed. A copy of the strategy should be in the hands of everyone connected with the mission board’s task.

In order to achieve maximum success, a statement of mission strategy has to be exhaustive in content. Beginning with its broadest level, it should set forth clearly what the organization is seeking to do on a given field. This opening statement should help the reader to know why the mission went there in the first place and what it hopes to have accomplished when the day comes to say that the work is complete. This preamble can then give way to a sharp focus on the field itself.

In order to understand the statement of strategy, there should be an initial attempt to define the field geographically. Climate, topography, major concentrations of population, the flow of the area’s transportation routes are all part of understanding what is there. Add to this a cultural description identifying the people-groupings by tribe, race or class, their style of living in broad terms. Finally, a breakdown of linguistic and dialect contrasts, a map showing urban and provincial delineations, and graphs showing the basic economic indicators of the area will round out the background knowledge needed.

The second major aspect of a strategy document includes a history of the field which notes the original sources of population, the religious development of the people, the establishment of a national church, and the political and social mentality of the area. Third, the strategy should include a survey of the present situation, noting various possibilities of change in the` near future. If there is potential upheaval in an area, this should be noted in the best of taste. (There are certain situations in which the predictions or opinions of missionaries might fall into hands which are sensitive to alien comments, or which will use information out of context to hurt the legal standing of the mission. Discretion in certain situations is necessary.)

The strategy should next state fundamental objectives what the mission believes it should be doing – for the field. Placed in plain language, these ought to be the heart of every missionary’s consciousness of what he is doing. These objectives should be cast in words that no one can misjudge or misunderstand. Leading from the theological basis to the actual objectives of accomplishment, they should serve as a sharp defining fence. They will serve as the missionary’s positive-negative authority; what the mission organization is going to do and what it is not going to do. They answer the question "Why?" behind each specific field activity and help to avoid the first point of morale breakdown on a field: when missionaries do not understand the significance of what they are doing.

Moving from theory to actual activities, a strategy document uses these objectives as its base and weaves a plan by which field personnel will attack the objectives. The "game plan" will define the order of the "wedge" that cuts into an area, what thrusts will come first, and then second, and then third. It should show how each activity aids another, who will be out in the field doing what, and who will perform the supportive roles.

The most helpful part of the field plan is setting phases. A schedule of phases always telly the field conference where it stands in terms of overall success. When one phase is completed, another phase in the planned sequence is begun. In actual practice, the phases may flow into each other, but there should be little difficulty knowing in what phase a given missionary, or any particular segment of the team, is working.

The phase plan ought to be worked out in the field strategy for each individual missionary. This he will do in consultation with his senior officers and advisors. Phase one might include, for example, his time spent in field orientation, to whom he is accountable, how he is to train, and what he is to learn. The second phase might describe his settling into an area and what initial actions will help him become acquainted with the local populace.

Phase three might define his opening thrusts of missionary labor, his literature distribution, open air meetings, Bible studies, teaching situations in a school, types of personal contact. Beyond these, final phases might include the training of national workers and the actual conditions under which the work might be turned over to a totally nationally-supervised endeavor while the missionary moves on to new works.

It might be helpful to pause here and observe that the two most serious problems that many missionaries seem to face are centered in a feeling of directionlessness and bewilderment in terms of success. A field strategy that measures individual activity gives the missionary an opportunity to gauge his own success, to turn on within himself the positive powers of ambition and the desire for specific achievement. Knowing that each phase represents a level of ongoing success is a point of remarkable security and morale for a man in the Christian ministry.

A fifth segment of field strategy should include a description of the necessary manpower to get the job done. The whole question of missions administration arises here. What are the levels of authority from top to bottom? In what areas may an individual missionary make his own decisions and direct his own activities? At what point must he consult with his immediate superior? Finally, at what point in the phase development might the home board want to make an inspection of progress?

Thought ought to be given to the creation of a sliding scale of authority. The flow of power from the board of directors at home ought to move more in the direction of the field conference as it grows larger in terms of personnel and years of experience. A field conference numbering three couples is much too small to have a high degree of administrative autonomy. There is too much room for personality conflict, for politicking, for damaged morale over dominate personalities "bulldozing" the less aggressive individuals. Once a conference has moved to a point of eight or nine working units, more responsibility ought to be shifted from home to field. A field strategy ought to show a schedule for this kind of planning.

One major aspect of missions administration that has not been explored to a reasonable extent is that of job descriptions, standards of performance, and periodic appraisals and reviews.

The first of these, a position description, defines the work load of any individual. A field strategy ought to include a basic statement of any designated job a missionary undertakes. It avoids the perennial condition in so many field situations where everyone is wondering what someone else is doing. The missionary has all the goals set out before him in terms of job requirements when he begins his term. His activities are set in proper balance for him.

His standard of performance is a changing document that he renews every year in conjunction with his field superior. It shows how he intends to do the job and what he expects to have accomplished by the end of the year in order to have achieved a satisfactory level of achievement in his area of work.

Finally, the missionary’s appraisal and review ought to come annually when he sits down with his administrative superior and evaluates his work in terms of the position description and standards of performance.

If a strategy is laid out for each man including his responsibilities, his standards and an appraisal at the end of a year’s labor, mission executives are going to save themselves from enormous problems that accrue over a period of years when no one faces the facts of sloppy work or inadequate staffing. This part of a strategy forces the right people to deal with problems of low achievement levels, misunderstanding of job priorities, and conflicting relationships. Caught at this level, major field conflicts are not allowed to arise.

The conclusion of a field strategy ought to be written for the potential recruit. It will tell him how he fits into the overall situation, up-to-date information about support levels on that field, the current problems of housing, schooling, and health. He ought to be able to understand the exact educational requirements for each job situation and how he can prepare for it.

How does a field strategy work in terms of the mission? Look for a moment to the board of directors, the final seat of appeal for matters of mission life. Made up of men whose engagement in the mission is at best part-time, the board is in need of more clear and concise information than ever before. Most significantly, it needs information that helps it measure progress, success, and the worth of new ideas. A well-defined strategy gives this needed tool. The board can side-step personalities, high-pitched persuasion attempts, and use the strategy to measure the authenticity of each problem before it.

The strategy document shows the individual missionary how he fits into the overall plan; he is not an unnoticed cog on a wheel. He sees a series of projects before him and he will enjoy the satisfaction of moving from level to level in the game plan. His success or failure will no longer be dependent upon the whim of someone’s pat on the back. His place on the mission’s team and the distance to full accomplishment are all on paper. In terms of the missionary field conference, the strategy is of immense value. It helps to avoid perennial debates and personality conflicts over direction. It is a security binder on the field itself.

Finally, the strategy has implications at home. There are serious gaps between missions and supporters in terms of hard information. What businessman will not be impressed with a strategy paper placed on his desk, complete with maps, graphs, plans for personnel deployment, estimated costs and long range objectives? Now someone is speaking his language. He sees where his dollar is going, what it will ultimately achieve.

A field strategy ought to be drawn up for every natural area in a mission’s sphere of ministry. Inexpensively bound, frequently updated, it can be mass-produced and distributed widely: on the field, in the missions administrations area, among potential missionary recruits, potential supporters, and in supporting churches.

Recent studies in the business world have shown that the highest form of motivation among workers is the sense of achievement. Among its many virtues, the spelling out of levels of achievement ranks among the highest in the need for better field strategies in missions today. This among other needs better dollar investment, more efficient use of personnel, and more accurate work schedules – dictate the need for serious study toward more accurate definitions of missionary strategy.

——-

Copyright © 1971 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.