Re-thinking-short-term-mission-trips

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Re-thinking Short Term Mission Trips

If I were the Grand Poobah of world missions, mission trips would continue, but I would not pass around sign-up sheets and send as many laypeople as possible; I would carefully and prayerfully approve selected specialists who had skills that could make a difference to the people living overseas. My goal is not to abolish mission trips, but to make them more worthwhile to the Great Commission and the Kingdom of God.
Click to expand...

Good thoughts.
 
I agree that too often "mission trips" are really just glorified vacations. We need more real missionaries and less tourists.
 
I agree, generally. I hate to make a hardfast rule, but we do have too much missions tourism. And specialists are valuable while others often get in the way more than they help, not to mention how there are much better ways to get bang for your buck.

Suppose I add a caveat: Some sending churches want to invest heavily in connecting with a particular mission effort, long-term and in multiple ways. It's truly a congregation-wide effort. For example, most likely the missionaries are supported solely or mostly by that one sending church. Well, there can be benefits to both sides when a church is all-in like that.

In such cases, it's often good to establish multiple connections between the two sides. This might include people from the sending church travelling to the mission field to do little more than get better aquainted with the work and the people. They don't know yet what those connections will lead to, but they go with the mindset that while their trip is short-term their investment in the work is significant and long-term. In a situation like that, I could see value in sending non-specialists on occasion. Limiting the trips to those who're specialists just doesn't fit the model of that missions effort.

Thoughts?
 
Jack,

Yes, I agree. Screening is essential, but this doesn't mean that 100% need to be specialists.

Also, I see a value in short-term trips used as internships and surveys for folks investigating missions.
 
Having had no experience, it's my observation that short term mission work best when there is a short term project that could use extra hands.

Our denom (OPC) has short term workers go to Quebec to help with VBS. I guess they get a handful of teens/young adults for a week or two. I can see that as being a real help, assuming those sent are mature believers ready to go.

We have also had contractors or very handy men sent to Africa for 2-4 week times for specific building projects. I could see that working.

Am I correct in observing that if there is a specific short term need that qualified workers are sent for, it is helpful?
 
Miss Marple, my problem is that I know there are teens capable of helping with VBS living in Quebec and tradesmen capable of completing building projects living in Africa who can perform these tasks at a tiny fraction of the cost of flying non-seminarians to those locales to work in areas and with materials with which they are unfamiliar. As a contractor, I can attest to the difficulty of doing work in different areas of even just this country in terms of different vernacular, methods, and materials. These amount to feel-good vacations for those who participate, and the assumption that the 'natives' aren't aware that the price of one person's airfare to Africa is several times their average annual income is insulting. Our 'poor little brown brothers' don't need a bunch of spoiled, pasty Americans coming over to make a gazingstock of them while on an adventure to see 'how the other half lives'. They are Christians. They are our brothers. They deserve our respect and real love, not our arrogant condescension.
 
I have mixed feelings about this, and I have sometimes been very vocally against short-term missions, but a statement from a missionary really pulled me up short: that the short-term missions are ministries primarily to the people on them, not really ministries to the people in Africa (or wherever). I have since come (very grudgingly at first) to see a point in that. And we do that sort of ministry even in our church on a smaller scale. I put together the bulletin at my church, print it, and then I give it to one of five people on a rotating schedule to fold it for me. When I first started, I proclaimed that the stupidest system EVER. It took me 15 minutes to fold the bulletin, and it took me 20 minutes or more to run around town dropping off bulletins for someone else to fold them.

My pastor told me (although more politely than this) to just shut up and drop off the bulletins, because this was about giving people a chance to contribute who otherwise couldn't. And I've come to see his point. If it makes a little old lady or six-year-old kid happy to fold bulletins and feel like she is doing something important to serve God, then that is a good thing.

I do think that many short-term missions need to be better directed. And I think some of them are way too hard on the local missionaries. But there is something to be said for giving teens (and others) a chance to serve, even if it is kind of ridiculous financially and not really needed. We complain that they need to think of others more, especially the poor in Africa, but when they don't ever see them, that is hard to do. So I think there is something to be said for short-term missions, but they need to be well-managed so that, minimally, they don't do any damage. If they don't really HELP the locals... well, people don't really 'help' me fold bulletins either. But perhaps our African brothers don't mind staring at a few pasty Americans once in a while. They can consider it a ministry.
 
I suspect that if short term missions were abolished, you'd see, over time, a drop in folks becoming career missionaries and over a shorter period of time in giving for world missions.

It would be interesting to see total foreign missions giving from churches which actively participate in short term missions compared with foreign missions giving from churches that don't. I suspect that MTW has the data from which that could be calculated, but probably doesn't have the resources to slice and dice the numbers.
 
Short-term missions among the church should not be to go and "do." The mindset should be to send people out (young or old) to go and listen, learn, and ask questions. Take a spiritual journal and allow God to show the person his/her role in the pursuit of mission. The issue I find as a missionary is that churches are not involved as they should be in the short-term process. The person/team going should report back to the local church and the local church should be preparing them. They should have the mindset that through the sending out of short-termer's that local church will send someone/pairs for long-term service. The local church needs to step up and see who has gifting in these areas for long-term service and encourage them for service. I believe short trips are needed, but only going and saying, "Will I Go (long-term) or Give (long-term)?" The other choice is disobey! Press on with short-term trips with the goal that through this we want to send out long-termer's.
 
"Our 'poor little brown brothers' don't need a bunch of spoiled, pasty Americans coming over to make a gazingstock of them "

Wow Brad, that's harsh.

I don't think our covenant high schoolers and college youth are spoiled and pasty, necessarily. Actually all races of men are represented at our particular church. Does that matter? And I doubt they are heading to Quebec to mock the little people or what have you.

Also, I doubt the Quebec pastor would be asking for these workers if they could pull them from the community. I think the church is small and this is a temporary yet large need that is well suited for covenant youth and young adults to fill. It's a yearly outreach that brings a number of young kids in. I haven't talked to him about it directly or anything, but it does make sense to me.

As for the African building needs, I know even less, but looking at photos from the areas where we work, good architecture and skills seem to be in short supply. Our missionaries are trying to build level buildings with drainage and plumb walls and such that will last for a long time and be serviceable. I don't think it's bizarre that they could use an experienced contractor or electrician or plumber.

I have less of a vision for vague notions of "spending the summer in Africa" to "help missionaries" with no specific short term needs mentioned.
 
As for Quebec, Miss M, I'd be surprised to find that the price of flying kids from SF wouldn't be adequate and then some to hire locals to babysit, but I digress.
Miss Marple said:
As for the African building needs, I know even less, but looking at photos from the areas where we work, good architecture and skills seem to be in short supply. Our missionaries are trying to build level buildings with drainage and plumb walls and such that will last for a long time and be serviceable. I don't think it's bizarre that they could use an experienced contractor or electrician or plumber.
Click to expand...
The thing in short supply, sister, is MONEY. And sending a bunch of American construction workers is probably only surpassed in wastefulness by sending a bunch of teens to do that work. The round trip price of airfare for one person is at least twice the average annual earnings for a man in Kenya. To send several men unfamiliar with methods and materials that require quartering in a level of luxury unknown to the average Kenyan (try to house Americans in Kenya without air-conditioning and hot showers and see how productive they are) would likely cost enough to have built far larger and better accomodations if local labor were used. It's just a feel-good working vacation that makes a gazingstock of our brethren.

I've seen it while living overseas, and it's embarrassing. If the aim is really to help, rather than give themselves the warm fuzzies and see another part of the world at great expense - ​send the money instead.
 
That may be true (about money being in short supply), but I would contend that it is my money, and if I prefer to spend it to send my teen to gain a better understanding of the world and the needs of the international community, that is really up to me. I do not owe anyone. I have spent large amounts of money assisting people in other countries, but I am not really obligated to use every cent that way. In fact, I have an obligation to the education of my children, and it may be that I decide that my child's education requires that they travel, see various mission works, etc, in the hope that it will be a lifelong lesson about the importance of supporting missionaries.

It can also be said that money is sometimes in too much supply. Pouring money into poverty is not always the answer. I have seen Americans throw money at problems that really required more personal management, and the end result was that the situation got worse instead of better. There are all kinds of difficulties involved in missions. And I do not doubt for a moment that some short-term missions are embarrassing. But, hey, the last time I brought a family of Ugandans to the USA for medical treatment, they ran a scam on my friends, so I'd say the embarrassment goes both ways.

There are certainly things that can be said on both sides of this, and there are certainly stories that can be told on both sides of it also. But it was a big surprise to me when one missionary that I knew said that she LOVED short term missionaries because they provided much-needed fellowship and also often continued to support the mission, as well as being a ministry to the people who were on the mission. It was a perspective I hadn't considered, and made me realize that not every short-term mission is bad.
 
Sure, we're free to use our money as we see fit, and to use it in the pursuit of educating our children is certainly commendable. But to use our brothers who are enduring grinding poverty as teaching aids may not be as commendable. They are members of the Body of Christ, and deserve the same level of respect and love that we show the poorer members of our own Churches. The admonishments in 1 Cor 11 regarding behavior at communion may be applicable here; it is inappropriate to humiliate those who have nothing, and sending a bunch of spoiled kids at immense expense wearing tennis shoes the price of which would feed a family for a month to 'help' starving fellow Christians is pretty humiliating if you ask me.

They are our brothers, not zoo animals on display for us to 'tsk tsk' about their suffering.
 
Well, my kids are not spoiled. :) So I think we're good. I lived overseas for extended periods myself. It's a complicated question. But on the whole, it seemed to me that people in other countries enjoyed showing Americans around, and they were often eager to share. To say they have nothing is generally an overstatement. In fact, I have found them often to be very generous with me, worrying over a hole in the sleeve of my shirt and whether I had adequate clothing, etc. Vietnamese refugee children made me a lovely scarf and a bead necklace when I taught a class at their camp. It depends a lot on ones attitude toward them. If it is superior and obnoxious, then of course they may feel humiliated. If someone is there eager to learn about their culture and participating with them, then they are often quite flattered.

I'm not saying short term missions don't have problems. They DO have problems. So often that I have said myself that they ought to be stopped. But I've reconsidered that the problems are not always terminal, and when I think of it in a balanced way, I do remember some really obnoxious Americans sailing through, but I also remember some very helpful souls who were much loved by all.

I've endured grinding poverty at certain phases of my life as well, so I'm not insensitive about it. But it's not such a humiliating situation that we all ought to go about with our heads covered to avoid seeing it. They are people first, and often very sweet people, who sometimes like visits and opportunities to share their culture and tell their stories. Offering the same respect as to the members of our own congregation (as you mentioned) is actually an excellent way to do it. And I visit the elderly poor widows in our congregation. They serve me tea and tell me about their lives. It's sweet and I take my children along to learn to minister to others, and I don't think the elderly widows believe I'm there to stare at them.

PS However, that being said, problems do arise in short term missions when people are primarily tourists--staying in missionary homes and making a pretense of 'ministry' just to get a good deal on a vacation. Like I said, there are problems with those missions. But not ALL the time, and not everybody.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your perspective, Caroline. I think I understand it, and can agree with it on some level. Perhaps if short-term missions are done with that kind of care they could be beneficial. My prejudice arises from having seen so much of the problematic kind.
 
Anecdotes are not evidence, but since this is fresh, I'll share it.

A older man in our church went on a short term trip to a country that is generally considered to be closed. While there, he was presenting the gospel to a group of male students. A woman was listening in, and the Holy Spirit was regenerating her. She later made a profession of faith. She has now been sent to this country for some advanced studies, and Sunday she was at our church and Sunday school class.

So, was this a bad thing because no professional missionaries were involved in the process?
 
" not zoo animals on display for us to 'tsk tsk' about their suffering."

I think your view of those who volunteer their time and efforts is pretty bad.

I am sure some volunteers are terrible, but, can we not trust the missionary making the call as to what he needs at any given time, and whether it is cost effective?

In re: Quebec, it is a wealthy and beautiful place, so I don't think there is much derision of the ugly poor going on by the pasty affluent.

As for Uganda to be precise, if there really is no local trustworthy and capable man to build the barns, it seems to me to be cost ineffective to hire one who is not qualified, wastes the resources, and ends up building the barn which rapidly becomes useless. This is a "for instance," not a direct story of a particular need.

I suppose the missionaries could look for and recruit a likely local, and get him all trained in long term construction, which would require a trainer, but I don't see why that would be cheaper than flying a fellow in for a couple of weeks who donates his time and know-how.

I think you need to be more charitable to the missionaries if they are the ones defining their needs or desires, and assume that they generally know what they need. Also as I have mentioned you need to be more charitable to those who go. Why assume such negative attributes of your fellow Christians?

As for missions boards randomly sending some vacationing snobs who aren't wanted, I don't think anyone on this thread is defending that.
 
Most on-the-field missionaries are also conflicted about short-term missions as well. We see some benefits but also see the effort expanded for possibly minimal gains.

But then again, most long-term missionaries have had at least one short-term trip....most of us have started out as short-termers,

Also, I am very thankful for the old baptist preacher in the Amazon that allowed me to preach and treat the sick fresh out of college. I delivered a baby on the banks of the Amazon and cut the cord with a Wilkerson shaving razor and the dog lapped up the drippings....a surreal experience to say the least.
 
Miss Marple said:
As for missions boards randomly sending some vacationing snobs who aren't wanted, I don't think anyone on this thread is defending that.
Click to expand...
Oh, they're wanted, or to be more precise, their money is NEEDED, and real missionaries and indigent Pastors have surrendered to the sad fact that those snobs are less willing to financially assist their brethren if they're not entertained and made to feel important.

I would find it easier to be more charitable towards these types of endeavors if 1) the participants and organizers actually had Christian respect for our foreign brothers instead of assuming them to be intellectual and theological children, and 2) they would take into account the vapidity involved in spending vast sums of money to arrange a 'trip' whose cost, if spent on these peoples' behalf, would have real life-changing effect rather than just fresh paint on the playground equipment (an actual event which my own Church funded to send teens to Kenya).
 
Yes. my confirmation for long-term missions was sealed on a short-term trip. However, it must be stated that people who go on short-term trips do not have to be professionals. What Pastor going into a pastorate is considered a professional? If that is the case then no one is worthy to go. The first missionary's to be sent out in Luke 10 had no special qualifications that made them sendable. The local church has the responsibility to nurture, groom, and prepare the person for this task.
 
Edward said:
I suspect that if short term missions were abolished, you'd see, over time, a drop in folks becoming career missionaries and over a shorter period of time in giving for world missions.

It would be interesting to see total foreign missions giving from churches which actively participate in short term missions compared with foreign missions giving from churches that don't. I suspect that MTW has the data from which that could be calculated, but probably doesn't have the resources to slice and dice the numbers.
Click to expand...

That would be very interesting to see.
 
Three short-term trips in my youth are a part of what God used to develop a passion for missions (promoting and going) in me as well. I think that short-term trips can be done well.

The potential for something to be done badly and even sinfully shouldn't keep us from doing that thing at all...it should just remind us to be intentional, careful, and prayerful.
 
There are places, like Karamoja in Uganda, into which the OPC has gone, where there is nothing remotely Christian. We bring in ministers to preach the gospel, contractors to build a hospital, doctors and nurses to staff the hospital, etc. The deacon contractor lives there and coordinates vulunteers who come in to help with a number of things, including securing safe water for villagers. Villagers are herdsmen lacking building skills but the deacon begins to teach them as well. Much more could be said to fill this out, but I think that you all get the drill.

There's not some local base in Karamoja from which to draw, or "Christian brothers there" to send money. It is not the case that missions simply need, or even primarily need, "Americans to send money." I certainly agree that there is waste and abuse in short-term missions but there is also, as has been noted here, a lot of good done if properly managed and done in the right context and not simply for a holiday.

There has been some very solid short-term service on a number of fields, opening hearts, eyes, wallets, etc. and leading to prayer and service that would not be so intelligently rendered otherwise. I'll leave it here. I appreciate the questions raised here: we do need to be good stewards of our mission resources. May the Lord give us the wisdom and love to use them well.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Constantlyreforming
  • Locked
Short Term Mission Trips - Should churches sponsor them?
Replies
29
Views
12K
Kevin
Kevin
Mushroom
  • Locked
Short-term Mission Vacations
Replies
14
Views
4K
Hemustincrease
H
P
  • Locked
Short term missions for reformed churches
2 3
Replies
65
Views
11K
Mushroom
Mushroom
matthew11v25
  • Locked
short-term missions opportunities in Thailand
Replies
3
Views
2K
blhowes
blhowes
P
  • Locked
Do "mission trips" prepare you for what the field is really like?
Replies
15
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Back
Top