At the beginning of every evangelistic series the evangelist, with the conference supporting him, is faced with the problem of bringing together an adequate company of capable workers, varying according to the size of the effort. The fact is we do not have enough evangelistic associates to provide a balanced team for every public evangelistic effort which we are willing and longing to hold. The temptation is to go ahead anyway, sometimes without the minimum force necessary for efficiency, not to mention respectability. But is this wise? Are we honoring God and giving the public the right impression of our great God-given message if widely advertised public efforts are not supported by suitable talent?
We often speak of keeping our efforts within our means financially. We may spend money for evangelism if it is available for the purpose, but we cannot spend what we do not have, and we must often limit our plans accordingly. But workers of talent and consecration are exceedingly more important to soul winning than money. We would not think of attempting a campaign which we know would require an expenditure of funds not available to us, but is it not worse folly to be less scrupulous in providing proper talent—a much greater asset?
As long ago as 1857 Ellen White wrote: "It would be better, and accomplish more good, if there were fewer tent meetings, and a stronger force, or company, with different gifts to labor."—Evangelism, p. 83. This has no doubt been the conviction of nearly every man who is engaging in evangelistic work in our ranks today.
In 1857 an evangelist would be sure of a crowd if the word got around that a tent was going up. If he was his own tent master and slept in the tent, if he had no song leader or soloist, or even a piano, he could still secure a crowd. As long as he had an acceptable tent, a suitable location, some fairly good charts, and was not a poor speaker, he could have an evangelistic meeting. Even if he had no Bible instructor he had all day for his own visiting, since he was not the pastor of a district with all its modern, varied responsibilities and routines, distracting problems and administrative details. And in most cases there was no Adventist church in the town where he held his meetings.
And yet, even in 1857 the Lord sent the counsel that it would be better to have fewer meetings and provide with each effort "a stronger force or company." If that counsel was needed in 1857, how much more today ! The public can enjoy the best of music at any time, even at home. The large public gatherings they are accustomed to attending always have an attractive program to present. If a good name is worth anything to our evangelistic program, we simply cannot afford to hold a single mediocre meeting. One of our union conference presidents recently said something like this: "Today a minister must be more interesting than the radio, more attractive than the theater, and more thrilling than a baseball game." How true we are finding that to be ! It is worth noting that the directors of all the successful attractions realize the importance of a variety of the best talent.
To meet the need of the time we cannot risk the "one-horse" methods of long ago. It takes a team. No city effort can hope for much without sufficient talent to provide an interesting program, or with less than two personal workers in addition to the preacher. Where the interest is very large, more workers are needed.
Surely it is folly to attempt to attract the public in America without good music. It takes more than poise to be a successful song leader, soloist, or pianist ! Those who attempt to do these things publicly in the name of Adventism should be qualified, or it might be better not to hold a meeting at all.
It is impossible, of course, for our conferences to supply an evangelistic company for everyone who opuld make good use of it. Yet evangelism is a "must" on every man's program. Our ingenuity as a denomination has not yet solved this perplexing problem. The most common solution is a helpless shrug, a sigh of resignation, and the declaration, "We'll go ahead with it anyway, and just do the best we can." But I hold that to risk the reputation of this message with a mediocre public effort in this sophisticated age is equally as irresponsible as going ahead with a public effort without a sufficient budget. In fact, it is more so, for money lost can be more easily regained than public respect.
Most of us will have to adapt ourselves to some kind of aggressive evangelism on a scale in keeping with our assets in the way of associate workers. It is here that we are in need of wise counsel. Perhaps we need a new emphasis. There are methods we might call semi-public. A high-grade community Bible school or an old-fashioned cottage meeting will sometimes, in some places, actually bring out more people these days, and invariably make a more favorable impression, than a mediocre public effort that has been widely advertised.
Everyone concerned is hurt by a heavily advertised public effort that is not staffed adequately enough to give what the advertising has led the public to expect. The public is soon disillusioned, and the attendance is poor. The evangelist may not survive many repetitions of frustration without being stunted and having his usefulness as an evangelist impaired.
