Jun
18
2012
Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips
Editors' Note: We're continuing a series on short-term missions. The first by Darren Carlson dealt with the history and opportunities provided by short-term missions. The subsequent article suggested a way toward better short-term, cross-cultural ministry.
**********
I have seen with my own eyes or know of houses in Latin America that have been painted 20 times by 20 different short-term teams; fake orphanages in Uganda erected to get Westerners to give money; internet centers in India whose primary purpose is to ask Westerners for money; children in African countries purposefully mutilated by their parents so they would solicit sympathy while they beg; a New England-style church built by a Western team in Cameroon that is never used except when the team comes to visit; and slums filled with big-screen TVs and cell phone towers.
I have seen or know of teams of grandmothers who go to African countries and hold baby orphans for a week every year but don't send a dime to help them otherwise; teams who build houses that never get used; teams that bring the best vacation Bible school material for evangelism when the national church can never bring people back to church unless they have the expensive Western material; teams that lead evangelistic crusades claiming commitments to Christ topping 5,000 every year in the same location with the same people attending.
Short-term missions is fraught with problems, and many wish such trips did not exist, at least in the common form today. Writing in his book Toxic Charity, Robert Lupton says, "Contrary to popular belief, most missions trips and service projects do not: empower those being served, engender healthy cross-cultural relationships, improve quality of live, relieve poverty, change the lives of participants [or] increase support for long-term missions work." Ouch!
What follows will surely frustrate many. Each of these headings deserves much study, and I would encourage you to do so before you launch out into cross-cultural ministry.
Money, Power, and Dependency
Let's start with some statistics from Lupton's book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It):
- Africa has received $1 trillion in benevolent aid in the last 50 years, and per capita income is now lower, life expectancy has stagnated, and adult literacy is lower.
- 85 percent of aid money flowing to African countries never reaches the targeted areas of need.
- U.S. missions teams who rushed to Honduras to help rebuild homes destroyed by Hurricane Mitch spent on average $30,000 per home---homes locals could have built for $3,000 each.
- The money spent by one campus ministry to cover the costs of their Central American missions trip to repaint an orphanage would have been enough to hire two local painters and two new full-time teachers and purchase new uniforms for every student in the school.
No one wants to think their generosity hurts people, but books like Dead Aid and When Helping Hurts have alerted us to the problem. So what is going on? The answer is complex and involves issues of basic economics, power, dependency, and bad motives.
Economics
If you have too much of something, the price of the product will drop. An East African country used to have a large clothing industry that employed many people. Then, in our generosity, the West started donating clothing. As a result, people lost their jobs, and if you drive around major cities in Africa, you will see hundreds of vendors selling donated shoes, belts, shirts, and more for less than a dollar.
On one level the issue boils down to relief and development. Relief aid should only last for a few months. The problem with most trips is that we perpetuate relief instead of moving toward development work. Haiti is a perfect example. In the four decades before the 2010 earthquake, $8.3 billion had been given, and yet the country was 25 percent poorer than before the aid began.
Power
How does someone say no to Christians from the world's most powerful country? It is very difficult to create authentic relationships between people with such disparate power. So if the most powerful Christians (in your mind) say they are coming to help you (even if you don't want them to), how are you supposed to respond? Plenty of national leaders I know have been notified by U.S. churches that they are sending teams. The national leaders then have to scramble to create something for them to do. It's normally a disaster. So the New England-style church in Cameroon is never used (and was not asked for), but it sure did make the U.S. team feel good about serving. The American woman who goes to Uganda every year to teach flag dancing to Christian women is only frustrated that no one is making flags and dancing.
Dependency
If you regularly do something for someone that they can do themselves, you create unhealthy dependence. Do not misunderstand: we are not talking about emergency relief situations. I am talking about long-term care. Parents who constantly do things for their kids are blamed for enabling and spoiling them. We rarely think in these terms when it comes to charity work. Construction projects are usually the biggest culprit. I will never forget being on a service project to build a house for a family in West Virginia while I was in high school. The men who lived there watched us do the work.
And it's not just construction. A Westerner is targeted by beggars. Kids have hit me when I didn't give them money. It is heart-wrenching to know their parents force them to not wear clothes, withhold food (when they are usually able to provide), and purposefully injure them so they can make money. That's not what parents are supposed to do, but what they do works, thereby legitimizing such methods in their eyes. One reason this happens is because we are stuck in providing relief instead of moving toward development work.
Motives
The Bahamas receives a short-term missionary for every 15 residents. Our generosity, sad to say, is often tied to a "cool" location and feeling good about what we do. The farther away from home we travel, the more spiritual-seeming the trip. We need to be the ones to paint the church, build the ditch, and put on vacation Bible school. We can't just send money. We have to send people. This is what causes me to question motives. While I believe there is a thoughtful way to be involved in some sort of cross-cultural, short-term ministry, wise partnership and wise use of money (stewardship!) would seem to dictate we cancel many---most?---of our trips.
Cultural Imperialism and Rhetoric
A little knowledge acquired on short-term trips can be dangerous. Just imagine that three short-term teams from China come to the United States and serve in Lincoln, Nebraska, San Francisco, California, and Detroit, Michigan. They then return to their churches and tell everyone what the United States is like, how the people act, how they struggle with their culture, and how Christians are living for Jesus. Would they really have an picture of the United States?
Of course not, but we seem content to tell everyone what Africa is like after visiting Nairobi.
We often have no clue about the cultural expectations that inform the worldview of people around the world. It's hard enough to see our own! So an innocent game like painting the faces of kids who show up to a church outreach in Africa turns into community outrage and child abuse as face painting in the region is associated with the demonic.
The rhetoric of our fundraising appeals for these trips also reveals a problem. "We have to get this done." "They really need our help." "Thousands of people came to Christ in our outreach service for the third year in a row." "The believers there are so content in their poverty." The list goes on. There is temptation to return home with PowerPoint slides, gripping stories, and numerical results.
We want to get things done quickly. We prefer microwave ministry to the slow cooker. Ministry that can be done quickly is not messy and does not cost much.
Effect on Goers, Not Receivers
Imagine a team from France calls your church and says they want to visit. They want to put on VBS (which you have done for years), but the material is in French. They have heard about how the U.S. church has struggled and want to help you fix it. They want to send 20 people, half of them youth. Only two of them speak English. They need a place to stay for free, with cheap food and warm showers if possible. During the trip half of the group's energy will be spent on resolving tension between team members. Two people will get sick. They'd like you to arrange some sightseeing for them on their free day. Do you want them to come?
Most trips I know focus on those who are going, not on those receiving the teams. We send youth so they can have an experience or so God can really grip their heart. You may want your adults to gain a larger heart for the nations. Even if research shows that short-term trips do not affect the lives of participants in the long-term, we still send teams.
Hope
I have only scratched the surface of the problems. But I do not want to leave you completely discouraged. I believe short-term ministry has a place, and if done well can bring about healthy interdependence in the global church. In the next article I will explain how.
Image Credit: Tom Farrell
312 Comments
A good friend of mine is currently engaged in a form of missions via "eco-tourism". Participants raise money as a short-term trip and pay, essentially, for a vacation. The money then goes back into the local economy as the short-termers take various tours, stay with host families, etc.
That seems to be more in line with what the Westerners actually want from the trip and what would benefit the local population. People don't really need expensively produced houses and Westerners need to get out and about, meet people and see the place! If you spend your whole day working on a house (that you could have paid for much cheaply otherwise), you won't necessarily get to meet people and understand the culture on a more profound level during your time in-country.
Just a thought. Great article. Although I've always heard people throw around statistics about the long-term impact of mission trips, I rarely hear people cite them. My understanding is that there was one study done on the subject. Its not necessarily good to make such bold claims based on one study alone -- social science is more of an art than a science and a different study could have a different result, particularly depending on the kind of mission trips surveyed.
My biggest challenge with this article is that the author has done exactly what he says short termers are doing; over generalize, assumption, non-contextualization, etc. Yes at the end you find some short word of encouragement, but this kind of article just gives more people more reasons to be passive and stay at home. An article with examples of effective short term mission strategies would have gone much further... (one such supposedly 'ineffective, unproductive' mission trips is the reason I am today in full-time ministry'.
It is also interesting that he author has on its organizational website numerous short term opportunities for people to partake in... Another contradiction to what he says through the article...
Adriaan.... He has written an article on "effective" strategies for short term trips, as he says at the end of this article. You should read it, it is good. That is why his website has opportunities available... Because he's not arguing to get rid of all of them, just the bad ones that hurt people.
I really do not have much of a problem with young peeople who go on short term trips. I think it can be used as a gtreat learning tool. However I beleive part of the conditions of going is having to serve in a missions term in thier own town when they come back.
As a missionary on the fields in one of the hardest fields that hardly gets teams, let me tell you some of what you said is true but it is taken to the extreme.
I will never discourage someone who really does the Great Comission.
Part of the problem is that the distribution of mission teams is probably uneven. Some locations are very popular with short-termers, while others get scant attention because it's actually difficult work and not fun enough.
I coldn't agree more that our typical westernized missions trip of going to paint a house or feed an ophan needs to drastically change and instead we need to be equipping people to move in the great commission... What use would it be for someone to show up and feed you for two weeks if you were to starve for fifty! We need people to go in and help people establish skills, be able to educate their families, develop relationship with God and know the scripture, move in signs and wonders and start businesses and schools.
We need to stop polishing the apples that have been lying on the floor for years and are rotten to the core and rather plant some new apple trees!
Thanks for the post Darren!
Phil,
Many times, the mission trip is more about the people going than the people receiving. They are forever changed and see the gospel is a new cultural context.
I have been involved in short term missions for many years and would suggest that the phrase you use "forever changed" is optimistic at best. Most, if not all, people come back with a heart for missions which fizzles the very first time their favorite dalliance in western culture appears. I have yet to find someone, as a result of short-term missions, have a change of heart and be moved to a greater view of missions in the long-run. Those who, prior to missions trips were inclined to missions in the long run, are still inclined and those who, prior to the trip were not considering it, still don't consider it.
Is there a way to do them properly? Maybe, but it can't be the current model which is to get more from the trip (spiritually) than what we give on the trip. If it is truly more blessed to give than receive then we most likely need to change the motives for these trips.
David, please see my post below. My family and I are the example you are looking for . . .
I actually know two people who ended up going into full time missionary work because of a short term trip.
I agree with almost everything the author says, but I just want to give you a little hope.
Yeah, my little sister just started full time work at Gospel for Asia (an organization that would agree with a lot of what's said in this article) and her desire to do that started with a short-term missions trip.
Hi david, my name is Trisha and I would love to share with you that my family and I are in full time mission's here in Ensenada, Mexico as a direct result of coming to this specific location every year since I was in 9th grade. I now am 28 and my husband 30. When we got married 7 years ago that had been our every prayer, "when we would go on to the mission field, not if." I understand that that does not happen to everybody.... but I would like to encourage you that being here on the mission field and surrounded by a team... each of us were impacted young for mission's through a short term mission's trip. Now I will say when I first started.. the model used I would say I didn't agree with. But our mission here now does our best to support the local church and growth of it as well. We team with around 30 loal pastor's who are working with their communities. We have an American/Canadian team who live here on the base who are full time mission status, and then we have our local team that is supported through us. Our local team is who we use to reach out to the pastor's, check in on how they are doing in their churches, train in leadership skills within their churchs, and interview the family that our pastors are choosing to receive homes that our then American/Canadian teams come down to build. Some of our American/Canadian team do this too, but we see the importance of locals meeting with locals. We then have our local team lead most of our house builds to be able to directly connect with the families that have been chosen to receive homes. For the American/Canadians we have taken out the roll that the "white" church has been in the past and in stead we have come along as a "help." The daily work is what the pastor's are doing with the families that are chosen, what happens in the week during their house getting built is that the family is always there helping build their own home. We also do extensive research with each family before a house is built so that we know that they legitimately own the land we would be bulding on. That too can be a problem for ministies if they do not do the research. My husband and I are Intern Coordinators down here and we have a two sided internship. Half is our American/Canadian interns and the other half our local Interns. It allows the local youth to be able to give back to the Lord in ways that they have not been able to in the past. It also opens up their eyes to the need in their own country. Many of us alike are blinded by the need on our own land, us Americans too. :) So I would just like to encourage you and Darren that though there are people abusing the priviledge of serving the Lord to this capacity, not all of us are. It's hurtful to those of us who are doing it and have given up all that we have to come and serve in these ways. Awareness is one thing... but sometimes we use negative information to cover up hurt in our own lives. We have a board over our direct minstry sight as there are a couple of other bases throughout Mexico, so we have people that we are accoutable to, and maybe that's the difference. But I will say, know that the Lord is bigger then just our small scope sometimes. I have seen him remove people from places of authority on the Mission field because they were abusing their positions. He is so good and so great to let His spirit run through the ministries that have his name print on them. And please let me tell you that my husband and I are totally in favor of signs and wonders and preaching and evangelism. My husband has the gift of evangelism like no one I have seen. He led me back to the Lord 9 years ago. Believe me we are praying for the work of the Holy Spirit to pour out on people by the word of our testimony. So as far as relationally and spiritually I have seen this ministry go out of it's way to continue submitting to the Lord to see how they could do better for those we minister to to see less of us and more of HIm. I would say if that was our ultimate goal... then short term mission's trips would be able to go so much further. It's when we want the credit that things start to get complicated. ;) Just like in all things. God Bless!
I am now in FT mission work, as a result of (with 7 years in between) of my first ST mission trip in 2003.
Another friend on that trip took less than a year to become a FT missionary.
AMEN TO THAT!
In response to David's comment: "I have yet to find someone, as a result of short-term missions, have a change of heart and be moved to a greater view of missions in the long-run. Those who, prior to missions trips were inclined to missions in the long run, are still inclined and those who, prior to the trip were not considering it, still don't consider it."
You have never met me. I had no intention of going to Kenya, it fell in my lap, and radically changed my life.. I am not in Kenya as a long-term missionary, however- I support organizations that are & am heavily involved in organizations that are working towards sustainable economic opportunities, and education.. I had no intention, or desire to be involved in any of this 3 years ago - however, I came back from the trip - sold the majority of my clothing, and cut my cost of living drastically to pursue this and also be involved financially. am i a "success" for the STM argument - no. have i mastered the ability to scale the tension between 2 drastic cultures and worlds? no.. but for you to say you've never known anyone transformed, I had to say, you have never met me.. I don't disagree with the points mentioned in this - I actually fully agree that we're doing more harm than good in many cases - however. don't make blanket statements about impact. God doesn't fit in that box, and while I fully 100% agree that our awareness of how we've messed this up means we have a responsibility, you can't negate how God's calling people into this by saying it can only be through certain avenues..
I agree - I had no desire to go to Africa, but was compelled by the voice of God - that was 1994. I won't bore you with the details, but that started my supporting / educating a young lady who has now started an orphanage and clinic in her African nation, plus me returning from 2007 to the present for 'short term' (shortest, 5 weeks) medical missions to the same country, plus supporting long term missionaries in that country - and others - and a national preacher in that country, plus educating two more young women and sponoring a couple of orphans in that country, plus 5 in other countries. It can be life changing. It can be a pebble dropped in a pond, with ripples that spread out. It can also be a waste of time and money. You should never go thinking YOU are a blessing - you will GET the blessing. And you should never send your kids thinking they will 'learn to appreciate what they have in the US' - that doesn't work. A heart for God, a heart for the nationals, willingness to establish relationships with the nationals - THAT makes a difference.
I am sure there are many individuals that fall into your description; they are probably too busy serving God to make such a big deal about it though; but I'm one myself.
David,
I agree with your thoughts. I have been on a few short term missions. i think that selection of stm participants can go a long way to improving the chances of the mission being beneficial for both the participants and the receivers.
however i think you are correct, in general, about it not having a defining effect on the life direction of the participants.
I would view STM as a catalyst, in that for the people who are already mission minded, it might push them along in their thinking, however for those who are not all that mission- minded, who haven't already in some way considered their role in mission/ministry at home or abroad, the experience is largely lost down the track.
If people want to go on a holiday to an exotic location, they should do just that (with its own issues). But if they are not considering mission and how they represent Christ, and their sending church, to other locations, then perhaps they shouldn't go as short term missionaries.
Sound harsh? Surely we would expect this for missions run by our own local churches...
Actually, I went on my first short term foreign missions trip in 2007 and it forever changed my view of missions, and incidently of life. We do medical camps in Nepal. In the hills, sometimes walking 8 hours a day just to reach a village. Not on the beaten trekking path. Far from there. Not only have I personally witnessed lives saved because of antibiotics that we offer, we've planted 14 churches and will keep planting them as long as the church is growing. Those churches needed pastors so one of our Nepali friends suggested a ministry education center. With the help of western funds the Nepalis now have Christians knowledgable about the Bible who pastor thier own congregations in those same 14 buildings built with western funds. They are becoming self sufficient, or more accurately, God dependent. We continue to work with the Nepalis on solutions to the larger problems they face like a contaminated water supply and building latrines, while sharing the gospel not only in word but also in action. My husband and I currently sponsor 4 children who were orphaned when their parents died of typhoid. We met them in clinic. They're all recieving an education, getting regular medical care, and last but not least, have daily Bible studies. THEY have been impacted. WE have been impacted. We continue to go back for 2 weeks every year to do our mobile clinics, but a sizable amount our our western income now goes towards the childrens homes, community development projects, church planting and special projects in Nepal.
Please, don't paint all short term missions with one brush. I am interested to see your next article. Lives can be permanently changed by short term missions. I know mine has. I know of a few people in Nepal who would in all liklihood say theirs have too. Not only physically, but spiritually.
God does use short term missions. He can use the imperfect to work his perfect plan. I'm living proof.
David, I am a product of a short-term mission exposure trip. I can also connect you with at least 50 other people who have gone into the long-term because of a short term exposure trip they did in the last 10 years.
I would like to introduce myself. I am also an example of my life being changed by participating in a mission trip experience. Before I made my first trip, I was rather ambivalent about missions even though our church is heavily involved with supporting missions around the world. I was asked to pray about attending a trip to easter Europe. Long story short, my faith, support, love and respect for missionaries is foremost in my Christian life. Beyond that, my wife and children are informed and pray regularly for the people I have met all over the world. It has been about 10 years since my first visit. I am in my sixth year of serving on our churches missions committee, I chair the board of a local faith based ministry in our city. My interest has not fizzled but continues to sizzle for the work we do for our missionaries. I agree that there is a prudent way to organize trips and a wrong way. But to diminish the importance of short term mission trips the way it was done in this article is discouraging at the most. I also feel that the negatives presented in the article are exaggerated. I would suggest that you all discouraged by this article should read these:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/10/celebrating-the-short-term-missions-boom/
and
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/09/16/send-me-your-short-term-missionaries/
Of all the many trips I have made around the world, I have yet to experience one of our missionary families that have been damaged by a short term team!! I would venture to say that those that have are few and far between.
Whether they are forever changed or not, isn't it horribly selfish to do damage to the people on a particular mission field so that it can help the people from the first world country?
Well said, jeremy!
Jeremy, I think that like the author, you take things far to the extreme when you suggest that locals are "damaged" by people taking a missions trip. Can you please point to an example of specific damage that is done by short term missions trips?
Joe... I wish the article were extreme. It's not. Read the book cited in the article, When Helping Hurts. There are a plethora of well-documented examples of the damage done.
and there is a plethora of examples of when damage was not done, but rather people on both sides of the equation benefited.
Damaging people for one's personal gain is always selfish. But sometimes we don't know we're doing harm because all we want to do is help, but we don't know how. Don't be judgemental of those industrial world people who are struggling to understand the developing world and reaching out the only way they know how. Some of them will come to understand poverty. Not all of them, but some of them. Remember the woman who poured perfume on the feet of Jesus? Not everyone understood her gift either.
I was in Tanzania and Kenya from 1984 to 2005 and my impression of the change from a clothing industry to second hand imports was that it made clothing affordable for the poor. The clothing industry was dependant on exports - which weren't affected by second hand imports. The second hand imports on the other hand created a lot of layers of entrepreneurs - the buyer of the bale, and then those who bought from them.
I don't disagree with the main thrust of the article but I think the clothing example is complex.
Hi Max,
I can see the point you are making. The clothing that was and is produced here is also of a terrible quality for the price. There is, however, another cost. What has sprung up around the sales of donated clothing is a criminal syndicate that uses violent methods to protect their goods and chattels. Secondarily, the impression that locals have of foreigners who can donate these goods every season is that they owe this kind of donation to those who would much rather depend upon the cheap clothing than work to pay new prices. They know that second hand means 'used' and that 'cheap' has a double sense - and treat the donation and the (assumed attitude of) donors accordingly.
All this, without mentioning the 500 000 bales of clothes sitting in the warehouse of the global charity.
Shalom in the Lord as you work to care for our brothers and sisters.
Andrew
Hi max,
I agree that it is complex. But I think the problem is one of dependence. What happens when the flow of goods from the affluent west stops? With a clothing market destroyed by "donations," suddenly, clothes become exponentially more expensive than they ever were. Also, there's not only the clothing market, but the entire supply chain that gets undercut by donations... Perhaps a better way to donate would be technical business supply chain expertise, done in a way that if the foreigner leaves, the local capacity to create good products remains.
I have had the privilege of visiting Sierra Leone to teach pastors on several occasions, and Cote d'Ivoire to meet missionaries from our church and help rennovate their church.
One thing I have been told by the local people more than once that it is good to see visitors from (in my case) the UK because it shows that people care in a way just donating money does not. It also gives fellowship for the missionaries there, and in some cases can give them a bit of a break while the visitor does the work.
The key is that the trip is designed by the workers on the ground to benefit them and their mission. However, it also benefits those who go from the experience, and encourages them to pray - people are much more willing to pray for situations they have seen rather than just read about.
Short term mission has its place if it is done well.
I think this is very well said Stephen. People in other countries feel loved and cared about when people come to visit them even for a short trip. I don't think anyone can say for sure if someone was or wasn't saved from a short-term missionary. These teams may have helped plant the seed of the gospel in someones heart and the long-term missionaries may be the ones to help grow the seed.
And I think long-term missionaries really enjoy when people visit. They feel supported and encouraged. A lot of times when people go on short-term trips they give the long-term missionaries a break for a week. Some times this means taking a teachers spot for a week so that they can have time off, or lead a church services for a missionary who does it every week. It helps the long term missionaries stay strong.
I think that this blog should focus on the positives of missions and supporting the people who have a desire to spread the Gospel instead of bashing short-term missions. If Christians start complaining about things other Christians are doing it only holds us back from our real purpose of serving the Lord
Susan,
"long-term missionaries really enjoy when people visit" you are correct the problem is lots of STM do not come to visit they come to be served, as a LTM you have to worry about were they sleep, what activities they are doing, what they are going to eat (and pray they are not rude with the locals), you also have to heard the complain about the food, the culture an so on, I can tell you most of the times it is definitely a chore more than a blessing!
So your suggestion is to cancel short term missions. Because I don't disagree with the author in everything and I think there are people out there who do short term missions with the wrong motives but what about the ones who have that desire to serve? I think the article should be more about how do we fix this problem, how do we make short term missions better and more effective. I just don't think an article about canceling short term missions or putting it completely down is an effective way to be spreading the gospel. I could be wrong but I don't feel that all long term missionaries just get up and decide they want to do missions without ever experiencing even a taste of the mission field. Short term missions has its place and can sprout long term missionaries with a passion to serve later in life.
Susan, this article is part 2 of a 3 part series. There is a link at the top of this article for part one which focuses on some of the good aspects of STM.
Part 3, as is stated at the bottom of this article, will talk about how to do STM well.
If it is only a part of the complete article, then the author is running after attention and uses western marketing skills to draw comments and conversation. My biggest challenge with this article is that the author has done exactly what he says short termers are doing; over generalize, assumption, non-contextualization, etc. Yes at the end you find some short word of encouragement, but this kind of article just gives more people more reasons to be passive and stay at home. An article with examples of effective short term mission strategies would have gone much further... (one such supposedly 'ineffective, unproductive' mission trips is the reason I am today in full-time ministry').
I used to attend a wealthy, upper class, mostly white professionals church in Cape Town. One year - ASTONISHINGLY - an American group arrived to teach us how to do Sunday School. Cape Town has around 12 Theological colleges. Anything we didn't know wasn't taught by the Americans (and I'm not being anti American). Having been involved for some years with a mission organization, I have had input on short term missions.
They are a waste of time and money unless: There is a specific need (relief, labour for building, a specific skill to benefit long-term missionaries); they go to relieve a full-time missionary such as a doctor going on furlough; or they are intending to become involved (ie, become missionaries or mission supporters).
Anything else is a waste, and a hindrance to the real missionaries. To sum up: "Short term mission has its place if it is done well."
Short term mission has its place if it is done well."
Rather extreme to claim those three are the only criteria for STM and that "anything else is a waste".
During my several years on the missions field, our church sent short-term teams every summer and winter that proved to be an incredible blessing to the church and powerfully effective in their work. They weren't there for "a specific need" or to "relieve" us or necessarily "become missionaries/supporters".
So what did they do? Having undergone extensive evangelism training at our home church, they partnered with brothers and sisters from our local church and shared the gospel at a local university, day in and day out.
Isn't that what missions is ultimately about? Making disciples by proclaiming Christ?
I agree, missions, short or long, should be in partership with the local church(es). If none the goal should be to establish one. The church is the fundamental piece in God's 'model'.
And proclamation of the gospel of Christ should be primary, 'social gospel' initiatives should be subservient. People from any culture and any economic condition WILL be changed by it. Hearts will be transformed, they will stop mutilating their kids and repent from laziness, et al by God's power not our money or paint. They need living water more than water.
Isn't this the model of 'missions' in the Bible? Paul goes, proclaims Christ, people are saved, a church is founded, Paul moves on (and checks back in periodically). The locals must take ownership of their church, and they will by the power of God. The financial help comes later. A church can flourish (or flounder) in any circumstances. Not saying ignore needs, but what profit to gain homes, fresh paint, well water, and lose their souls?
Perhaps a reason most giving in the Bible is to the family(Israel and church) is the nature of man (?) He will receive handouts but not often receive Christ. If we lead with free stuff many will respond, then we tack on Jesus afterward and they play along. If we lead with Christ without promise of material help, then work with genuine converts to establish a local church, then ask them (the locals) what they need to reach their people and give it (perhaps it's white people leaving!) This seems a better, and more Biblical model to me.
I'm not an overseas missionary and I'm ignorant of much, but this article does not suprise me although it saddens.
I have to agree with Dennis. As a long-termer in Central Asia, Evangelism and Discipleship should be a huge component of any short term mission trip. A lot of what Americans (or any foreigner) can do and do well is share the good news of Jesus Christ. English is a very commonly spoken language and so many people have just never heard of Jesus, let alone heard a clear gospel presentation.
I also am not a big proponent of one week trips. I think trips should be two-weeks at the shortest. I know this is a "big sacrifice" for people but we are called to the world.
In God's economy NOTHING is ever wasted! By His grace He can even use our mistakes! I was brought to the Lord by a most obnoxious woman, but the Holy Spirit used her powerfully in my life!
I am reading these articles with great interest, having been on both sides of the fence. But I have been leaning towards the fact that we DO need to do STM much differently than we have in the past. I could write a book about my experiences on and with short-term teams and their effect on missionaries and nationals, and even on cities - both pros and cons. Hey, maybe I will!
Can I just say this is my favorite comment ever. I love that an "obnoxious woman" brought you to the Lord. There is room in God's plan even for the most curmudgeonly. Love it!
As a "missionary" in the 10th poorest county in the USA, I can resonate with a lot in this article (and I'm reading the book now). Sometimes, I get a request from others who want to visit, and then they list the stipulations and ideas they have.
But I also do value when people do come, especially if they are focused on building relationships. If I had a choice with someone sending me $100 or visiting for a day or 2, I'll take the visit. But if they want to send $1000, they can just stay home . . . . :)
Why do I think ST missions are valuable?
1. When people spend time here, it validates and encourages the ministry I am in.
2. I think ST missions can be catalytic in the lives of those who go. I hope that when they come here, they grow and learn, and then take that same missional mindset back to their own community.
3. Parents who go on ST missions set a great model for kids, who need to understand what it looks like to sacrifice and leave their comfort zone.
Well, how soon can you publish the second article? This one left me pretty bummed.
I've long since advocated seeking advice of the folks in the field before sending a team. The last thing a ST mission trip team needs to do is undo all the hard work of the missionary(ies) in country. And, we do need to be good stewards of our time, talent, and treasures, and seek to make the most impact for the ministry in the region to which we're going.
I agree that although the Bahamas may need some introduction of the gospel, sending a team of teenagers to share that gospel on the island of Atlantis isn't the best use of resources. And, other analogous locations could be substituted for the Bahamas, but I digress. Very insightful and thought-provoking article.
-Josh
As a full-time missionary living with my family in Kisumu, Kenya, I'm sorry to say that I disagree with the majority of this article. God used my participation in a short-term mission trip rebuilding houses with Samaritan's Purse after Hurricane Katrina to plant the seed for what turned into a call to long term missions overseas. I once held the same pessimistic viewpoint espoused in this article that short term missions do nothing more than "puff up" the rich American adult or teenager participating in the mission trip, but God completely changed my perspective. God used that brief week of "serving" Christ full-time in 2007 to develop the question in my heart, "Lord, what if I could serve you full-time with my occupation?" Over the next three years, the Lord put His plan into motion whereby my wife and I made the decision to become full-time missionaries with Agape Children's Ministry in 2010. After a year of fundraising, I resigned from my job in Corporate America, and my wife, our four kids, and I moved to Kisumu, Kenya to begin work with Agape. God used a week-long short term mission trip to call me to the mission field.
I will comment on some of the other viewpoints in this article in another post. God bless!
Chris -
I'm glad to read this, but I will say the first thing which stands out to me is the organization with which you first encountered the mission field. It is one that is organized and strategic in its focus. I think the tone of the above article, and thereby my comments, is that the short term trips planned by most schools and churches are neither organized nor strategic. If the schools/churches would partner with someone who understands the mission field a bit better, and if they would do a better job of qualifying the scope of the trips in conjunction with those on the mission field already, then these would be wonderful trips which may bring more than a spark but might ignite a fire.
Hi David,
I agree; Samaritan's Purse does a great job. But, does God need a super-organized ministry to plant a seed in someone's life? By no means (to borrow a line from Paul)! We're all imperfect people being used for God's holy purposes.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that most missionaries in the field today started out serving in a short-term capacity at some point. Can short-term mission work be done poorly? Absolutely, but let's not vilify and stereotype the entire institution.
No God does not need anything. Does He use it? Obviously
Would this be the typical preaching where the people who it doesn't apply towards are examining themselves and their programs but those that should will totally ignore it?
Darren, what a great pot-stirring article! You definitely took the extreme side, so balance was lacking. However, I think you achieved the goal of arising interest for the second post. I just pulled up a chair, and personally can’t wait to read about the way forward : )
As someone who has been on four ST mission trips, I think the article points to the flaw in people *doing what they want* on such trips. The most effective trips happen when trusted personnel on the field design a trip and the ST team goes with the intention of serving in whatever way they can. As Joey mentioned above, missionaries can take encouragement from someone simply being there to work alongside them. But more than that, when the Great Commission is in view, working under the direction of local missionaries can create an amazing ministry opportunity. In January of this year, I was able to take the gospel to a village for the first time. It was a joyous privilege, but it only happened because I did what was asked by our missionaries. I served alongside them, at their direction. In my opinion, this is the crux of the issue.
I couldn't agree more - as I mentioned in my comment below - this is key indeed. As a missionary who has received several 'short term' teams and individuals over the years, there needs to be close liaison with the missionary 'on the ground' if there is to be the best outcomes for the benefit to the long term mission work in the area and for the benefit of the team or individual to gain the truest and most value from the trip. Otherwise even though a 'short termer' might have a great time and feel blessed and have a great testimony etc etc it may not have really given an understanding of what 'mission' is really all about and may have been more of a hindrance than a help to the long term missionary. But if done is close communication with the long term missionary, to God's glory the exact opposite can be the case!
A great book along these lines is Steve Saint's, The Great Omission. His organization Itec, does help church's do short term missions, but they do them differently.
Please be in prayer for Steve. An accident last week leaves him facing paralysis. He has done so much in the field of missions to help indigenous people juggle the real world and yet maintain their culture, AND come to Christ...and he has already suffered much in this life, but God has plans!!!
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips – The Gospel Coalition Blog. [...]
I have been on a number of short term mission trips to Uganda and have observed Western aid.
A team of Western people going to Uganda to build a western resource in a Western way.
Personally, I have funded the building of a number of church buildings. All have been built by Ugandans in a Ugandan way with not Western input, other than the funds to buy materials.
I have also seen the way that aid leads to dependency and try the best I know how to ensure that my aid releases people into self-sufficiency. To have sustainable lives that do not require further Western aid.
However, this is an uphill struggle, due the the spirit of dependency that this rife out there. We have to re-educate people not to look for handouts.
I couldn't read this article fast enough! I agree 100% with your premise that Christians can do harm by "giving" in the wrong ways. There are a few missions organizations (such as PIEI) that carefully support only natives in the countries they are involved in.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think that I need to "get back there and do the work" but I KNOW that my Christian brothers and sisters are doing just fine without me! Occasionally I have something to contribute but I try to remember that dependence on me (financial or spiritual) is not good!
STM should be thought through carefully, but as many other programs in the church - many seem to been done without much investigation or heart of real service.(IMHO)
This article showed us a tip of an iceberg that seems to RARELY get seen or considered. Thanks much for the words!(12 yrs on field)
Most of the youth at my old church viewed STMs as nothing more then a check box for Jesus. "serve Jesus, check, now I can get back to normal life" The kids may show no signs of the working of the Spirit in their life for 50 weeks but hey they were "on fire" that week and the week after and that's enough to make the parents (and church) feel good about the job the are doing.
The problem with humans is that we look at numbers. You said "most". So what would make it worth it?
Should Jesus have bothered dying if only one person was saved?
In my opinion, this article is unfair and very unbalanced. It presents a very caricatured view of short-term missions, painting with an extremely broad brush.
First, most of what is characterized in the post's description sounds more like "social gospel" - with heavy social and little gospel. There is little talk of actual Gospel proclamation, except for the exaggerated reports of "thousands" who made decisions for Christ. While some focus their "missions" work on clothing donation and building structures that don't fit the missions context (i.e. the building in Cameroon), MOST of the churches I know that are involved in short-term missions do not.
Second, I am sure some churches call international missionaries telling them what they want to come do for them. In that case, if the missionary receives such a team, they should be seen as much at fault as the sending church. But, again, MOST of the churches I am aware of do not approach short-term missions in this way. They contact the local missionary, asking if they have a need that a short-term team could serve. If there is an agreement about serving, the goal is, whenever possible, to utilize local materials and things that will be available to the people after the team leaves, rather than causing the local people to long for "American" things they may never see again. The goal is always assisting in the normal ministry flow of what is currently being done and being able to step back out at the end of the trip without leaving a gaping, cultural hole. Further, the predominant focus of these teams is always Gospel proclamation, with a view toward intentionally connecting any who indicate a desire to follow Christ with an existing local church where discipleship, growth and accountability can take place. This seems, to me, to be our responsibility as given to us in the Great Commission.
Third, while some may conduct international vacation trips under the label of "missions," MOST of the churches I know of intentionally avoid such a practice. Team members are asked on a potential team-member questionnaire, "Why do you want to go on this trip?" If there is anything that indicates a desire simply to broaden one's horizons, grow in one's individual walk with Christ, etc., they are encouraged not to participate. The participants in such trips should be those who are faithfully walking with Christ in their current context and who simply have a burden and passion to be used by God to make disciples of all nations.
These are just a few examples of the lack of balance in this article. I hardly believe a one-line "hook" for the next blog post constitutes a balanced perspective, even if the balance for which I am calling will come in the next post. Some may take the current post at face value, feeling the heavy tone with which the post is delivered, and consider the whole endeavor of short-term missions a lost cause. In that case, they may not even bother reading the next post. That would be unfortunate indeed, particularly when their caricatured understanding of short-term missions would have originated on a website entitled "The Gospel Coalition."
I wouldn't worry about it Randy, they'll post a pro-short-term-missions article tomorrow probably.
Having lived in Ethiopia for two years and Singapore for five and married to a foreigner, in my opinion this article is excellent and needed.
If you think a question on an impersonal questionnaire is sufficient to avoid the problems, I don't think you're being realistic.
I have been involved in the STM program at our Bible teaching church for years. This article absolutely exemplifies a significant number of church youth group STM programs, including our church. People who are offended by this article are taking it too personally and NOT looking at what the author said. The author is correct about how MOST, NOT all programs work for teens. College programs tend to be different because frankly we are dealing with adults, not minors. High school STM programs do tend to focus on feel good trips and most kids come back unchanged. Not all, most.
Finally, the author has stated he was going to write another article on how to do this well. And detractors from this article should have read it first before complaining. His follow up is very on point and addresses so many of your ignorant to his thinking complaints. You should have gotten all the "facts" before you attacked his opinion - which by the way he is free to have.
I must be running into different set of Christians who as a result of going on Mission trips are forever changed and become on fire for the Great Commission both globally and locally. Certainly the Apostle Paul and the Prophet Jeremiah would not have seen their labors as futile if an economic gain or community development is not the result of short term mission trips. Elders of the church need to shepherd their people in such a way that mission agencies don't become travel agencies and I will say that I've been on trips where the objective was for the ladies to go shopping in a foreign country and give out cheap party city stuff. Leaders have to make sure the goal is sharing the Gospel not some habitat project.
It might not be a stretch to say that Paul, Barnabas, John Mark, and Silas went on "short term" missions trips. The difference is, they were ridiculed, flogged, stoned and thrown into prison. The mindset was to share Christ and Christ only, at any cost. How many missions teams are ready for those consequences? How many long term missionaries, for that matter?
I agree with Roger. Let's call it what it is...if it's service then call it service. Would these people going on STM's send the money they spend getting there to help on the local level? The main point of mission work was that God has called some who still have not heard the Gospel message. It is the message He instructed Paul and others to give out. It is the power of God unto salvation. They went so those God was calling would hear and respond and be saved. They risked their lives to get the Gospel out. This is not what most of these STM's are doing. They share "jesus" through their works...that is not the Gospel. Its service.
I am not sure this statement was substantiated in the article:
".. Even if research shows that short-term trips do not affect the lives of participants in the long-term, we still send teams."
I would be interested in any research that backs up this claim.
I agree with much of what was stated, and our church has established a long term partnership with a church in Africa to avoid many of the issues described. However, I feel that there is a long term affect on the individuals who participate on the team. Yes it may cost $30,000 to send a team and build a house worth $3,000. But if they never go and see for themselves and make friends with the church members from the host church, then the long term interest and support will never take root.
Hey Jim-
I thought I would give you some sources. You can find a lot of the research in Transformission by Michael Wilder and Shane Parker. You can also find a lot of research in the writings of Robert Priest at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Hope that helps.
I certainly agree that caution is warranted in the planning of any short-term trips to not make the mistakes this article points out. I do think there is a problem with the American model of short-term trips if they are not empowering and or serving the nationals to do the work of ministry. There is a way to do short-term mission trips well but I appreciate the caution being issued here - as a rule don't do for others what they can do for themselves but helping them do it better is always a good thing.
For instance, our church has a working partnership with a network of churches in an Africa country. 3 years ago we were invited by the network leader to come help them plant new churches. We sent a team and 4 new churches were planted. The same thing happened the following year in a different area and this year we'll send another team. Our team leads worship, preaches the word, does medical outreach and kids programs. The pastors of these churches have been trained in advance, by local leadership, and prepared for this outreach to respond. The result has been to date 8 new church plants that average about 150 people per church, some as large as 300, that are all still going strong. This was a primarily unreached Muslim area so these are new converts. Our short terms trips served as a catalyst to launch these new churches but the leadership of theses churches is in the hands of the local pastors.
The problem is that most American church leaders have no idea how to plant a new church or how to strategically develop such a partnership and then have the grace to release the work to the locals. New communities of believers is the goal of the Great Commission and church planting must be a major focus of short-term trips. Our prayer now is that these church plants will multiply and reach into others areas we can't go.
And yes we still send youth to paint houses in Latin America, love on orphans in Africa, take exciting trips to China. But that's because we're Americans. I don't know that we'll ever get it perfect but we're thankful for the blessings of God.
A lot of the article makes sense and I would agree with most of it BUT I think it leaves God out.
To forget the miracles that God can work when people step out in faith to try and be obedient would be sad.
Yes Americans can be silly and over privileged with short sight and absolutely no ability to relate to anything different than they are used to. There is no way to know completely though how God uses those trips.
Of course God can use those silly, short-sighted trips to do amazing things for his Kingdom. But does that mean we keep running silly, short-sighted trips even if we know they're silly and short-sighted? Definitely not. It would be like saying, "Well, God can use the lady with pink hair on TBN because even a broken clock is right twice a day, so let's not speak out against the prosperity 'gospel' or try to correct the problems with so-called 'Christian' broadcasting."
If we see the problems, we try to fix them. Trusting that God can use our frailties doesn't mean we knowingly continue in our frailties.
Yeah, but the article isn't suggesting that we "fix the problems", it's suggesting that we give up on the "silly, short-sighted trips." If this was simply an article of warning and recommendation of how to make the trips not so "silly" & "short-sighted" then it would be useful. But instead, it's simply an exaggerated negative indictment of missions trips that more often than not have significant positive impact on both the people going on the trips and the peoples being ministered to.
No, Joe. The article is NOT about giving up the STM. It is about coming up with a better plan. Read part three before rushing to judgment.
Some legitimate concerns. Curious to see what the alternative presented in the follow-up post looks like. I am concerned that essays like this serve as theological and practical cover for the bulk of the church to stay stuck in inaction and passivity, leaving ministry to the "professionals".
I think it is a call to less inactivity and less passivity. The problem is that short-term trips are often done without the hard work of planning, considering economics, and looking at the big picture. There is a lot of inaction surrounding many short-term trips.
This shows what happens when the leadership of the church is put in the hands of unknowledgeable, part-time people, many of whom probably are not called to lead but won't follow either.
having worked with student missions for a number of years, Toxic Charity was a great read and gave me and my team some great filters for missions projects. obviously, there's lots of expressions of short term missions, but i think the book is a great start to think about how our stms can be more effective while not making the charitable projects toxic.
As a missionary in Africa for the past 11 years, married to an MK who grew up in Africa I would like to add that Short Term missions has positives and negatives.
My husband after growing up as an MK did a short term of 6 months in two African nations different to those he grew up in, during which the Lord confirmed to Him to work toward coming back to Africa full-time. Meanwhile we married and came together to one of those countries. However, during our time we have seen some short termers be a wonderful blessing and others ill-informed, wrongly motivated and doing more damage than good that the long term missionaries have to cope with after the short termers go.
This is a great blog with a great deal of content that I would endorse, but we would like to actually recommend short term missions, but for them to come only after close communication with long term missionaries. They need to also only come with the attitude that the size and activity of the team is what the missionaries want not what the team think would be a great idea!
I would also thoroughly recommend the book 'When helping hurts" and would like to recommend any potential short termer or team leader or sending church leadership read it before organising any team or visit.
The costs of funding a short term trip also have to be weighed up, when maybe those funds could be better used to enable a project that the long term missionary needs funds for, but then there is also the factor that seeing ministry with ones own eyes and feeling it with your own hands is forever impacting. Fellowship and encouragement given to the long term missionary by the short termer (if they have a godly attitude and don't end up being a drain) is also a ministry in itself. We have been so, so blessed by some visits we have had from folk back home.
One of the huge benefits that has not been mentioned is the fact that short term visits enable us as missionaries to have folk back home who more fully understand the challenges and joys of our lives - therefore we can share more deeply with these folks in prayer letters and home assignments/furloughs and this normally results in these folks getting more involved in various ways in our ministry. And we would like to recommend one type of visit/short term mission member that there are far too few of.....that is of the missionary's Pastors coming to visit - in our opinion this should be one of the highest priorities for a sending church.
The harvest is ripe and the workers are few and we definitely need more workers, but we need the right workers, at the right time, doing the right tasks and coming for the right reasons, and yes if they are not doing that, then its best for them not to come. Even better, be challenged as to these issues before they come, re-assess the idea and maybe they would end up coming anyhow, but instead they would then come in a way that actually benefits the Kingdom of God.
To add a bit on to my comment above: after continuing to read the myriad of comments and replies that have come in over the past days since I commented, I wonder if terminology is part of our problem. There seems to be one term "Short Term Mission" being used to describe everything from 1 week visits to stays of several months. In the use of this terminology we are maybe making the mistake of categorising something as a short term mission program when it should rather be called a "Vision Trip" or "Partnership Program" or "Missions Exposure" if it is for less than a month and for the purpose of helping out a missionary or helping build a house for example. (see the book "Helping that Hurts")
Short term mission as my husband did was actually 6 months. In our mission context someone doing short term mission can be here for anywhere from 6 weeks up to 2 years. So maybe the phrase 'short term mission' should be left for those who have actually still had to 'move and live' in another cultural setting for a period of 1 month to 2years. No they are not 'long term missionaries' but they are actually living in the place and taking on a mission role, learning some language, getting to know the locals on a day in and day out basis and actually 'dwelling among them', not just 'visiting'.
Maybe part of the 'to and fro' of the comments reflects the fact that we are comparing apples and oranges rather than apples and apples. (although it seems many are talking of trips of 1 or 2 weeks) Of course even within apples and apples there are going to be ways of doing the visit, the partnership trip, or the short term mission 'dwelling' that can be either positive or negative, but it might clarify the discussion a bit more. It may also help to put back into perspective that a 1 to 2 week visit is not a way of doing mission but a way of assisting missionaries do mission or partnering with missionaries doing mission. Mission is all about making disciples and that is a 'long term' process. Maybe the next article will address this?
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Missions Trip The Gospel Coalition, Darren Carlson Short-term missions is fraught with problems, and many wish such trips did not exist, at least in the common form today. [...]
Our organization works with students and adults, and starts with a very basic premise: when you became a Christian, you automatically got the job title of MISSIONARY. It's not an option, and it's also not just about going to far-off, exotic places. It begins at home.
Our participants must already be trying to live like missionaries at home and in their own community. They have to apply to be on one of our teams. We talk to the people that know them. They must also commit to weekly assignments for sixteen weeks leading up to our trip. We reserve the right up until the time the plane leaves the ground to tell them that they can't come with us (we've never had to do this). During the course of our training, we learn about where we are going, it's history, culture, and the people we will work with (they are involved in our planning from the very beginning). We learn about the language. We learn what we can do to help and strengthen the local church and not be a burden.
When we work with a team, we work hand-in-hand with the local church we are going to serve. We never, ever want the people we serve to think "some Americans came and did this and gave us that...", but instead to think "the local church came and served us, and had some American friends with them..."
There are many groups who go for the wrong reasons, many of which are listed in the article. However, there are many who go for the right reasons. I believe Darren understands this, and is advocating going for the right reasons. I'm looking forward to his follow-up.
I find the responses to this article very thought-provoking and would like to respond to a few of the rebuttal arguments with my own thoughts.
1. "Many long-term missionaries seem to have received their sense of calling while on a short-term trip."
This certainly seems to be true and is certainly a good result of short-term trips, but it is still very much focused on those who go rather than those who receive the missionaries. While God can and does use imperfect situations and obedience to do some amazing things, we aren't off the hook for trying to be more faithful and wise in our obedience just because God's grace and wisdom can clean up our messes. Romans 6:1, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" This is not to say that our short-term mission trips are sinful, but simply that we should not use God's mercy as justification for imperfect wisdom and obedience on our own part. Perhaps there are better ways to help expose potential future missionaries to mission work? For instance, any church in the West is not too far from a community in need of the Gospel and service (usually within an hour away, often much closer). Serving locally can offer the same awesome experience of serving others with the Gospel in the name of Christ while decreasing dependency and freeing up more money to serve globally.
2. "Biblical figures went on short-term mission trips."
In the New Testament period, almost the entire world was unreached with the Gospel. So, if you went to Athens for a short-term trip like Paul did, it was because you were likely the first Christian to ever come to the city with the Gospel. It is a different scenario when a certain place, say Nairobi, already has a Christian population better situated to reach their neighbors with the Gospel than foreigners. In such a case, we might expect much more Gospel-effectiveness coming from the financial support of local Christians who are there reaching their neighbors for the long-haul.
3. "The critique in the article is only true if we mistakenly believe that mission trips are for serving people economically and not about making disciples by sharing the Gospel."
This goes back to number 2. Why do we think that foreigners who show up for a week or two are better able to share the Gospel than local Christians who already know the local language, customs, needs, and experiences, and who offer a continuous presence of the Gospel among their neighbors? Of course God can and might use the Gospel proclamation of foreign short-term missionaries, but God also repeatedly tells us to be good stewards of what He has given us. Is our sending of short-term missionaries a better stewardship than supporting native local missionaries? On this regard, I strongly recommend KP Yohannan's "Revolution in World Missions."
Second, while disciple-making through Gospel proclamation is our chief work as disciples, we should not act as if helping others economically is unimportant. Scripture is full of expectations that Christ's disciples will love those in need in very concrete and practical ways.
4. "Short term missions help people in the Western church to care more about people in the rest of the world, to pray for them more often, and to give more financial support."
This might be true, but is this the only way we can get people in our churches to care and commit to helping the spread of the Gospel and the bettering of people's lives around the world? With the technology available in the world today, it would not be at all difficult or cost prohibitive to establish partnerships with churches in other parts of the world in which opportunities were constantly presented to people in both areas to talk with one another, share stories, become pen-pals, share prayer requests, send photos and video, etc. We can also count on the Holy Spirit to stir the hearts of the people in our congregations to faithful obedience in supporting mission work as we pray for that to happen and teach Scripture faithfully.
5. "Short-term missions are encouraging to the local church that receives them and to the community because it shows that others care."
Good financial stewardship that results in more resources being given to the local church's ministry also shows that we care. Consider a team travelling to Nairobi for a two-week mission trip. They may end up spending $30k-$50k simply getting the team there and back again. While they are giving of their own time and money to help, it is also fairly obvious that they are receiving many benefits of excitement, adventure, sight-seeing, etc. Wouldn't sending that same $30k-$50k to help staff an orphanage next to the local church be an even greater symbol of commitment and concern as the Westerners wouldn't be getting the tourism benefits?
Also, I definitely believe that receiving people to help can be encouraging to long-term missionaries, but perhaps it would be a greater help and encouragement if the church banded together to send one or two gifted and equipped people to serve alongside the long-term missionary for 6-months or a year?
Many long-term missionaries are forced to spend a good deal of their time fund-raising and taking furlough to speak at churches while seeking funds. Perhaps we would do well to take some of the money we would have spent on short-term missions to commit to supporting a long-term missionary so that they can devote their time to Gospel work instead of the burden of fundraising?
----
I will say this: I am not utterly opposed to short-term missions, especially as they may be valuable as a one-time event in helping to establish a relationship with a local church in another nation. I also think that some short-term trips are truly beneficial, such as medical missions sent to areas without adequate medical professionals. The real key, though, is that many of the common assumptions and much of the defensiveness of short-term missions is faulty and in need of genuine critique and a radical re-imagining.
I should also say: even given all these considerations, there will likely still be circumstances in which God calls a particular congregation to send a particular group of people to a particular place at a particular time, and it will be used abundantly by God no matter the economics because God has ordained and called for it. God is, of course, powerful and free to do as He likes and we must be open to that. But, perhaps churches and church leadership need to spend more time in prayerful reflection when an opportunity arises to discern whether or not it actually is something that God is calling for.
100% agreement. Thanks, Sam.
It is also disconcerting how much of this discussion comes down to an understanding of missions as lying along the money-comfort spectrum rather than along the relationship-gospel spectrum.
We need to do some deeper analysis of what is driving our philosophy of westernised faith-missions before beginning to reconstruct our practice of short-term service tours. On the whole the mission agencies with which I have experience are doing well in this self-analysis for long-termers, but many seem to fall short in the area of short-termers. Local churches that neglect (?) the experience of these agencies in mounting "mission teams" are certainly nowhere near understanding how to better equip or locate their enthusiasts. Perhaps Darren's next blog will point in the right direction.
Interestingly, as much criticism that fundamentalists have faced at the hands of their Evangelical brethren, this form of missionary malfeasence can be directly traced in its formation, development and prominence to Evangelicals seeing they are so culturally/socially preoccupied from a humanistic standpoint all too willingly and often. Feel-goodism and objectificational arrogance at its finest sustained by sentimental naivety.
A challenging and superior consideration here, great article.
What could be the alternative?
How about support long-term missionaries! I know a lot that are lacking support.
It would seem that for most Americans they serve the Great Commission much more by praying for and funding long-term missionaries. Can't we say being a supporter is a higher calling than going on a short-term trip?
How about building real partnerships with the indigenous church and helping to support their extra-ordinary needs?
Yes, so supporting long-term missionaries who build real partnerships.
As a 29 year ministry veteran as a Student and Missions Pastor, I have long since discovered that the greatest impact of a mission trip is on those who go on the trip. Mission trips are sort of like Summer Camp on steroids! We will probably never change the course of a country or region we visit HOWEVER the lives of everyone we take will probably never be the same. This is NOT a small thing, although it may not be our primary thought or intention, it IS the greatest impact and should be realized up front.
David, I don't think anyone is overlooking the impact upon the participants although there may be some question as to how long or how personally original is that impact. I'll confirm that my short-term experience (of two years) was foundational to my long-term service BUT was only one more step in a God-guided process for which my mother had been praying since I was three years old.
The real question raised here seems to be perception of the negative impact upon the nationals and the national church. Thanks for confirming the 'summer camp' analogy - it's been a long-term suspicion of mine.
I have found that short term missions must have a long term presence. Couple with organizations that have a working knowledge of real need. I have worked with Asian ministries that have full time missionaries in numerous areas and the missionaries are from all over the world. They know the real need. Christian Camping Int. coupled with Russian Christians to establish camps where ministry can be done by locals. Point is they are out there but also there are bad mission trips as you say. I for one was impacted on my first trip very powerfully and went 3 more times till health concerns prevented me from going to 3rd world hygiene. Jesus said to go into all the world but also to be wise.
While the economics of the trip may be as you suggest, the life changing experience of the trip on those who go cannot be measured. Is it important to encourage local people to get involved and work toward a common goal? Sure. But it is also important to impact a person with a limited world view with the great need out there and the great blessing that they enjoy.
How about short-term trips to same-language, close-culture destinations - like the next state?
If faithful preaching of the gospel of Christ for the Gentiles is not motivating an outward-looking concern then can we question what the Spirit of God is doing in that limited-world-view person?
Andrew, I think you are hinting at a great possibility. My home church used to run a VBS program that didn't require pre-registration in a park in a lower-income section of the town for a week each summer, staffed by people from the church (especially youth). It was a pretty significant outreach event, gave youth a great opportunity to serve and have their eyes opened to poverty nearby, and also put in the foundation for continuing ministry as our church was in the same town.
Churches could work with local areas with greater need, but could also even host an in-town mission trip where the youth and leaders could all serve in concrete ways in the town for a solid week (maybe even sleeping in the church sanctuary each night?) and this could be used as a catalyst to spur involvement in everyday and regular ministry to the local area.
Like this article and it looks like not everyone has read the first article (which was good too). It's good for all of us to question our motives prior to spending any of the funds we have been given. One thing that kind of irks me are some of the comments here and elsewhere about "holding orphans in Africa" or "doing the typical orphanage work". It is spoken of like it is second rate work and not worthy of our time. Like I said, we need to question ourselves, but our God in heaven is a father to the fatherless and we are supposed to emulate him and visit orphans and widows in their distress. Can we quit writing it off like it is unworthy? Sure it has to be in the right context, but I would love to see some men step up and start valuing this work.
On the subject of loving orphans meaning going to work for a few weeks/ months in an orphanage, I'm afraid this particular Western obsession is especially irksome. So much of the time the desire to do so stems from
a) The relative ease of the work. Mostly, small children - even relatively damaged ones and especially those abandoned and neglected welcome affection (of which more later)and reciprocate it. Mostly children, unlike adults and older teens, are cute - they love to be loved and visibly return love. The benefit to the adults or teens helping is pretty huge, there is minimal cost or any real sacrificial element to this sort of service.
b) The cuteness and vulnerability of the kids and what a lovely tableau it presents to those at home. Most people at home don't want to see photos, nor do we want to display them, of us cleaning the sores of a leper or cleaning up the vomit of a terminally ill AIDS victim. Whereas what could be cuter than a photo of us hugging and being hugged by some smiley and beautiful black or Cambodian kids?
Perhaps more importantly of all, I can think of few more inappropriate areas for short term work than with kids who have, by definition, already been abandoned either by the desertion, death or destitution of their families. I would love it if people thought, "The last thing these already abandoned children in an orphanage need is a group of strangers (who don't even speak their language) lavishing love and affection and gifts on them for a few weeks just long enough for them to become attached before departing never to be seen again. And actually the last thing they really need is this happening over and over again simply repeating a pattern of abandonment." What these orphans, like all children but especially orphans, must need are people committed to them for the long haul. Praying for and financially resourcing those kinds of amazing people who are willing to love and look after those children for the long term is a much better use of resources than sending a bunch of teens or students or middle aged ladies for that matter at great expense to "love" these kids for a few weeks.
Love always puts the interests of the other first - think of Christ's love for us - and it cannot be in the interest of these children to be picked up and dropped like cuddly toys by a succession of short term "missionaries" no matter how well meaning. Spending 6 weeks in an orphanage in Calcutta or Nairobi is not "showing God's love" to these kids. God's love is steadfast, long term, full time and committed. He loves us as the perfect Father not some fly-by-night part time parent who pops in on a whim with expensive gifts only to breeze off again without warning and at his convenience. If you have a particular heart for unloved young people- which is wonderful thing - why not instead commit prayer, time, money and gospel resources to caring for kids close to home who have been abandoned and neglected? For sure, they will exist within short reach of you. Ironically it's harder to do both emotionally and logistically than going overseas but surely more in tune with God's character, gospel imperatives and eternal priorities.
Just as a side note, when Scripture talks about loving widows and orphans/ fatherless it often refers to doing that first and foremost within the family or God - therefore it's good and biblical to ask before whizzing off to Nairobi, "Are there any families within my church and Christian network who need my support, financially, practically, prayerfully?" If so, serve them - less glamorous, less travel, less recognition, less cute pictures to post on Facebook but more godly. This doesn't exclude loving those outside our locality or God's people, the Lord also commands His people to love the alien and stranger but be wise again as to who we can commit to for the long term, because that's what love really means.
I hope this doesn't come off as cynical or unfair to those who have engaged in this kind of work. However we need to recognise our motives as we seek to serve God. They will never be entirely pure but we need to be honest about the pull of some kinds of work as opposed to others and keep seeking to put Jesus and others first. This doesn't always mean doing the hardest and most personally hateful thing, Christians aren't masochists - if you love kids, God has given you that love so serve kids - but it does mean genuinely seeking to serve their needs not our own. I struggle with this masses.
No doubt other areas of short term mission can be valuable but I just thought it was worth addressing this particularly popular avenue. It sounds so unimpeachable when someone tells you that they are heading off to "work in an orphanage in Africa" (by the way, a continent not a country!) but actually I think it's worth at least thinking these things through before devoting time, energy and resources when (a) they could actually do considerably more harm than good to the orphans involved and (b) these resources could be better employed elsewhere.
R,
Although, I disagree with much of what is said within this original article (as you can read from my other posts), I agree
wholeheartedly with much of what you've said in your post. In working with street children in Kenya, my fellow missionaries and I are finding that we need to lessen our one-on-one involvement with former street boys, because of the unhealthy attachments that are created. Instead, we see our focus as missionaries morphing to lessened involvement with the boys and more involvement in the development of national staff and programs for the ministry.
Unfortunately, I can't point to one instance in the past year where a former street boy's close relationship with an American long-term missionary benefited the boy. One of the goals of the ministry where I serve is to eventually reintegrate former street boys with their families in rural Kenya. Strong attachments to long-term OR short-term missionaries is a risk for our ministry as we look to instead develop attachments between the boys and their families, not to our western-styled institution or its missionaries.
So, as I think through the different arguments presented within the article and the assorted responses, I have to say that I still support STM, but as with long term missions, diligent planning and preparation is critical. God Bless!
I don't have time to respond to every single point you made, but it's amazing to me how we so easily make things black and white as Christians. We are prideful and assume that people aren’t as smart as ourselves and haven’t thought through all of the scenarios that you bring up around orphan care. Are there some people that want to take some photos of themselves with some orphans in Africa to show how awesome they are? Sure, but I would say that is a minority of people. The answer to orphan care isn’t black and white. It’s hard work. People are going to make mistakes? Every situation is different. Working with street kids like the other commenter is different than a sponsorship program. Working with a sponsorship program is different than working with a 24/7 orphanage. They are all different. We shouldn’t sit so high on our thrones and tell everyone how wrong they are for the work they are trying to do. The Spirit will convict them if it is needed. Hopefully, people have a community around them that can call out issues with love and respect. My comment was that we write orphan care off as second rate and that annoys me.
To answer a few of your items:
“Why not instead commit prayer, time, money and gospel resources to caring for kids close to home”.
--This is pretty standard. I hear it every week. The truth is, however, that 99% of people that care for orphans care for them no matter where they live. Most of the time, the people that say care for orphans at home, don’t care for orphans at home. Not saying that you don’t, just what I have seen.
“Just as a side note, when Scripture talks about loving widows and orphans/ fatherless it often refers to doing that first and foremost within the family or God - therefore it's good and biblical to ask before whizzing off to Nairobi, "Are there any families within my church and Christian network who need my support, financially, practically, prayerfully?”
--Not sure I totally agree with you on the what the scripture says about orphan care (widows yes). Orphans don’t have a family of God, they are orphans. You assume people aren’t doing this already. Heavy hearts for orphans usually means heavy burdens for people all around them.
“I hope this doesn't come off as cynical or unfair to those who have engaged in this kind of work. However we need to recognise our motives as we seek to serve God. They will never be entirely pure but we need to be honest about the pull of some kinds of work as opposed to others and keep seeking to put Jesus and others first.”
--It does come of cynical. That is the point in my comment. It always comes off cynical when people write you off as someone who is doing work with the wrong motivation. What if I went to the pastor every week and said, “man you must think you know everything, you love to preach to us”. Again, you assume that people doing orphan care don’t question their motives. There are some that don’t, but it isn’t any less than anyone else doing any kind of mission work. You are correct about putting Jesus first. Orphan care that doesn’t include Gospel proclamation is not Christian based. It’s just a care center. I personally don’t think churches should put their efforts in organizations that don’t proclaim the Good News.
“No doubt other areas of short term mission can be valuable but I just thought it was worth addressing this particularly popular avenue. It sounds so unimpeachable when someone tells you that they are heading off to "work in an orphanage in Africa" (by the way, a continent not a country!) but actually I think it's worth at least thinking these things through before devoting time, energy and resources when (a) they could actually do considerably more harm than good to the orphans involved and (b) these resources could be better employed elsewhere.”
--We should be good stewards, but we won’t be perfect stewards. There have been times where I have given to causes or people because I have felt the spirit leading me to do it. Could I have gotten more bang for my buck elsewhere? Maybe, but the numbers don’t always add up perfectly. Reality is, traveling is almost a necessity to be a good steward. Far too often if traveling doesn’t happen to care centers or orphan houses, accountability is lost.
We do work in a closed country. I recently got a picture of buddhist monastery that had an orphanage attached to it. They took care of around 200 young boys and brought them up in their beliefs. If you take a map of the unreached people of the world and then overlay it with a map that contains the highest % of orphans, there are a lot of similarities. God calls us to take care of orphans, he calls us to the unreached. He knew what he was doing. We can do both.
Oh and if you think orphan work is “easy”, then you have never really done “orphan work”.
You were right though, “What these orphans, like all children but especially orphans, must need are people committed to them for the long haul.”
American Evangelicals need to get over the fact that we aren't God's answer to world evangelization - Jesus is. The fact is that national peoples are often much better at reaching their own peoples, or a similar people, than we are. Missiologist talk about the E scale and P scale but the only scale that seems to matter to many American Evanglicals is the ego-scale - can we feel good about what we're doing.
My challenge to American Evangelicals is this. If you are not willing to live the Gospel in your own city and community you have no business going to a foreign people so stay home. In fact, if you are not willing to build relationships with internationals in your own city and community you certainly have no business going to their homeland.
Paul's first evangelistic journey was to Antioch because it was on his way home to Tarsus. Paul went to Ephusus and Colossea - cities in his homeland. Paul evangelized Galatia first because that was the region he was from. God's mission needs to start at home (see Acts 1:8) however it doesn't stay there but should connect through there.
Today we can take a mission trip to your city to reach the unreached peoples of the world God is bringing to the U.S. Befriend a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Learn about the people and their cultural. Work here before working there and realize we're dealing with people who God loves not evangelism targets.
Sorry Brian, but you are wrong. There is a church on every American corner and you can't turn the channels of TV or the radio without catching a Christian message (not to mention hearing the name of Jesus invoked by the winners of most sporting events). The fact is, there are not many Americans who have not had access to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same can NOT be said for many in the 3rd world. There are huge areas of our world that are still largely untouched by the Gospel.
While I agree that Christians who are not called to full time foreign missions need to do everything possible to be a witness for Jesus wherever their home might be, to say that there isn't a need for Americans or other western missionaries in the 3rd world is off base.
"If you are not willing to live the Gospel in your own city and community you have no business going to a foreign people so stay home. In fact, if you are not willing to build relationships with internationals in your own city and community you certainly have no business going to their homeland."
I partly agree with this. There are plenty of internationals local to most Americans. This is a great way to start cross-cultural ministry. But I do think some people are specifically called to *immersive* cross-cultural ministry over local cross-cultural ministry. These are very different sets of gifting. I don't think we should use the measure of how motivated someone is to do one to discount how effective they may be in the other.
Okay, Post #2 on this article from a full-time missionary in Kenya:
1) This article begins by detailing different anecdotal instances of STM malfeasance, but I have to ask: Does a short list of "bad" STM examples mean that all STM is bad? Couldn't we make the same argument by listing different instances of bad churches in the US claiming to be "Christian" and then draw the conclusion that all Christian churches are bad. Let's stop drawing sweeping conclusion based upon anecdotal evidence!
2) Economics: Another poster said it well; used clothing or mutumba (not to be confused with matumbo or cow intestines) has been a huge boon for microenterprise development in Kenya. A Kenyan can buy a bale of clothing and can then set up a small business selling the clothing at an open market. Very little up-front investment is needed from the individual looking to either supplement their income or to have any income at all. To somehow assert that Western organization (such as Goodwill) have caused indigenous clothing operations to close is off base. Even if true, the overall benefit to the Kenyan population of affordable clothing coupled with microeconomic opportunities for the population would far outweigh the loss of a few factory jobs. Let's put it this way; a middle class Kenyan makes about $100 a month. Can they afford a $10 or $20 new shirt? No. Can they afford a $1 used shirt? Yes.
3) Power: Does the author really know national leaders that have been contacted by US churches asking to do STM? I didn't realize that US churches had such strong international political ties!
4) Dependency: While I agree that dependency is a risk when conducting any type of missions, I have to ask (as other posters have), how can sharing the Gospel creates dependency? If it creates dependency on Christ, then I'm all for it! If I'm able to share Christ by having a STM group conduct a VBS in a village or by building a house, then you know what, the trip was worth it! Let's share the Gospel, the method of delivery is irrelevant!
5) Dependency (cont'd): Also, your assertion seems to indicate that any beggar you see is on the street because their parents sent them there. This "Slumdog Millionaire" example is not reality in my experience. I serve with an organization ministering to street boys and I can only think of one instance where a mother sent her son to beg on the streets, and we deal with hundreds of street boys daily. At least in Kisumu, Kenya, street boys live on the streets for a variety of reasons, but I have yet to meet a street boy that lives on the street because of a dependency upon Western generosity (much less STM).
In summary, I think that caution must be exercised when making wholesale indictments of any institution. Can STM be done poorly? Yes, but so can any other ministry of the Church. Must we exercise caution to avoid creating dependency? Yes, but this argument pertains much more to long term missions; can a STM really create dependency on a 2-week visit? Must we exercise cultural sensitivity when ministering? Yes, but once again this argument pertains just as much to long term missions. Will I allow STM groups visit my organization in the future? Absolutely!
Just to try to clarify for the author on point 3, about national leaders: I believe Darren was saying "national leaders" meaning "church leaders who are nationals of the receiving country."
Hi Sam, I agree that your clarification makes more sense than what my post assumed. Thanks!
No worries, I can see why it made sense in the mind of the author, but it wasn't all that clear.
Chris,
Your summary is a good reminder that we need to be critical of much of our long-term 'mission' goals and methods also.
Two points in response to the body:
1. We do need to be careful about generalising our local experience to other locales - even as we work outside our own cultural context. What you do not see in your location is actually fed by foreign visits and donations in my location with respect to clothing and street-children.
2. Short-term teams can certainly create dependence where long-term relationship building does not. In my context I am constantly asked to bring teams to feed the financial lack of churches, because that's what 'missionaries' have done here. I've been told by various church leaders that the only need they have of missionaries is money. Others have simply shut the door when I tell them that we do not give money or build projects. One church-member was so convinced that 'missionaries' only stay a few days that she asked us after three months why we were still here. Some 'national leaders' have expressed surprise and pleasure that we want to stay and build relationship with them to encourage their gospel ministry. Not to say that this is your experience.
Hi Andrew,
Good point about not generalizing based upon our local experiences; my goal of using my personal experience was to refute the "general" statements made by the author. I can only speak to my first-hand experience, and I make no claims to knowledge about street children or 2nd hand clothing sales outside of western Kenya! :-)
As to your comments about creating dependency . . . because of the issues of the baggage that can be created by my "white" skin, I use my national staff primarily to deal with former street boys' families in the rural areas of Kenya. Sponsorship has become the "S" word in Kenya, and we have to very careful in assisting any family, because of the risk of creating dependency.
As Americans, we are mind-blowingly (not a word, I know) wealthy compared to the families and boys that we minister to in Kenya . . . struggling to avoid creating dependency is an every day struggle!
God Bless!
Glad to hear the different ways in which Agape are thinking through dependence and long-term impact issues by looking to nationals. My point regarding dependence here is that the expectation has been created by short-term teams.
How would you propose that ST visitors put their national staff to use in avoiding this situation?
Just for the record, I'm not against STM and don't believe that Darren is either. We are more concerned that the growing STM 'movement' shape-up to a more gospel model of service to brethren and neighbours.
Andrew, I touched on this topic somewhat in another reply (it's getting tough to find b/c of all the other comments!). When dealing with orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), there is a huge risk for creating dependency by STM teams. Agape has around 90 former street boys resident in our program right now (with an additional 400+ that are now with their families, Praise the Lord!), and some of these children have experienced serious rejection by their families and will latch onto anyone willing to give them personal attention, especially if they are white. In one instance, we had a short-term team that visited our campus just for a day, and one of our boys was devastated when he learned that one of the teenage girls that was visiting failed to tell him goodbye when he left. They were there for one day, and this boy attached himself to this girl!
So, I'm in favor of STM, but with Agape we're learning that we have to be very careful with our short-term teams. If a boy latches onto a short term tripper (which they have a tendency to do), we are instructing team members to immediately find two or three other boys to interact with. The one-on-one attention for a short-term period can have a negative effect on the boy. It's a tough thing to realize, but it's reality on the ground here in Kisumu, Kenya. God Bless!
Thanks Chris for this response. While I think caution is needed, as a long term missionary in South America, I've enjoyed working with the teams that have come down here and have found them to be hard working and a blessing.
Hi Ken, I'm in the same boat as you! I've enjoyed the working with the short-term teams that have visited and worked with us in Kenya. God Bless!
The article brought up some legitimate points that have to be considered. I've been on several ST trips and plan on going on many more, including in the next week.
I'm sure the author will address some of the positives in his next blog, but I really think of three.
1. When God wanted to save the world, did he just send money or did he send someone (Jesus) in whom we could have a relationship with. Good trips are always about relationship and God growing us and using us for His glory.
2. Can God open local doors through our visit. Many times in countries we go to, doors are opened that locals can move through. For whatever reason, the local people "accept" a westerner for ministry and then allow the local pastors to follow up after we are gone.
3. Our long term missionaries are encouraged by us showing up. Several trips have allowed us to encourage missionaries we support and work alongside them and better know how to pray and help them in their ministry.
Ultimately we try to understand the culture in which we are entering and to be courteous and to share the gospel.
Blessings
1. Practically, most of the places people go there is already an evangelical church there. Those people speak the language, know the culture and the needs. A group of teenagers (or adults) who go for a week or two are not going to be able to develop real "relationships", especially if they can't even speak to the locals. The money they spend could often go to meet the needs of the local church and help them do evangelistic work. But even that has to be done carefully.
2. I guess you omitted a "not". But I don't buy it. Normally, I don't think foreigners are going to be able to make many real contacts in a short time.
3. Perhaps the long-term missionaries need to be encouraged to make more relationships with the local church so that they can get their fellowship from them. They can tell you how to pray for them by e-mail.
If you think you can understand a culture in a week or two visit . . . I'm sorry but . . . .
2. I did miss the "not." I'm leaving for a trip on Monday to a country where we will serve in different capacities. Some of these opportunities will be afforded us because we are from the states. The organization we are working with will be able to follow up with these contacts. Being able to enter the culture of different religions and have a chance to be both a witness and to know that follow up will take place is huge. Another trip that I went on in 2005 was to Japan. Our missionary's parents went with us and for the Japanese to see that the missionary's parents came helped the ministry. Why? Because in Japan people in "other" religions are often looked upon as cults. Most cults or cult leaders don't have their parents involved with them. So, by the parents coming, it validated their ministry in the eyes of the Japanese.
3. Long term missionaries that our church supports do need and welcome more encouragement than just sending prayer requests. Seeing their struggles on the field and investing time with them in service allows you to know them better,pray for them better and establish connections. I'm all for going to the fields of missionaries I help support. If they felt it wouldn't do any good,then I wouldn't go. All of ours have welcomed the help and we have been glad to do so.
We will never understand another culture 100 percent. As we prepared for this upcoming ST trip, we had missionaries with us to work us through the cultural process. We had missionaries to help us understand that cultures are not right/wrong and how to share God's values and mission in another culture. It enrichens us to understand other cultures and how to pray for our missionaries.
Thank you for this article. So much of what you have said in the article has been the way I have thought of short-term missions but have afraid to share these thoughts because it would be anti-Chrisitan.
I'm glad I read this post. It's given me a lot to think about. I was on two short term missions trips (to Germany...so, I don't really know if that is a fair assessment since it's also Western and a developed nation) and I know I came back from them changed....to a certain extant. I know that as of right now God isn't calling me back to a field abroad, but I continue to pray for the people I met. I know going was beneficial to me, and I hope some of the work I did was helpful to them.
I do hear the point this post is making though. I've had several discussions with missionaries or missionary kids about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of short-term missions. They definitely ought to be entered into with a lot more care (confession: I went the first time because I wanted to go to Germany and needed a "cross cultural experience" to graduate...so, probably not the best motive though the second time I was genuinely feeling out whether I belonged on the mission field) and maybe with a lot less pride. I know that me in Germany for a week, won't change Germany (and to give credit to our contacts there, they were very explicit about this), but Germany did change me. I might never go back, even as a tourist, but I'll still pray and it was still wonderful to see what God was doing with the city of Berlin.
As so many others have stated this seems to be taking the worst examples and passing it off as the usual with good short term trips being the exception. Faithful and experienced mission organizations plugging churches into the real needs of local missionaries is quite common. And that makes all the difference. This article serves to discourage the people of God from the doing the work of God.
This should not have been posted without way more serious qualification and carefulness. I am leaving for a trip soon. Way to discourage me Mr. Carlson. Nonetheless, we will make the fame of Christ our priority on our trip despite the discouraging cynicism.
@Tim: Did you see this part? "I believe short-term ministry has a place, and if done well can bring about healthy interdependence in the global church. In the next article I will explain how." ~D. Carlson
Heather,
Yes that helps.
Tim, I could be wrong, but I don't think the author was writing here to discourage those who are on track to serve on a short-term mission right now. My take on this is that the article is meant primarily for church leaders who exercise leadership in churches making the decisions about whether or not and how to participate in missions in a faithful manner. This strikes me as more of a prophetic call to pastors than a pastoral lesson for everyone.
I pray (and I am sure the author would as well) that your trip be used by Christ.
Thanks Sam!
if this were facebook Tim, I would like your post haha. I could not agree more. Why write an article that would serve to discourage a Christian when there is so much more we could write about that would encourage them.
Thanks Susan!
I'm assuming he didn't intend to be discouraging. There is plenty there that is helpful. I don't want to totally trash the article or the author. I just wish this would have ended more encouraging for those sincere believers who are going to hard places, even if for a week or two, to increase the fame of Christ among the nations.
The way this article goes unqualified makes it susceptible to be used to encourage undue suspicion and doubt. I hope not. And I sure hope his next article is very clarifying.
agreed. For every negative comment he should work to put something encouraging in. I'm eager to read the next article
What did you think of Carlson's previous article in this series, Susan and Tim?
Colin,
Yes, it is a fine article. If you have links to other articles does that mean the present one is sufficiently qualified? Maybe so.
Again, I found the cautionary elements helpful. Just didn't like how it read. The arguments seemed to be very reactionary to bad mission strategies while not accounting for so many good mission organizations that help execute good short term trips. I wouldn't leave that part to seperate articles.
I think I am responding way too much for a mere difference in opinion over how to communicate! :)
How do you know faithful and effective short-term mission work is common? Do you live on the mission field? Any empirical studies to support this conclusion?
I lived in Ethiopia for two years. I don't see how the "fame" of Christ is spread through foreigners who can't even speak to the local people coming to do what is often a poorly planned or unneeded project. I have seen people coming back boasting of what they've done and making me wonder if the "fame" they are most concerned about is their own.
John,
I don't have any studies or impressive experiences. If that disqualifies my observation so be it. I am drawing from a few organizations I know of and the experience of friends and acquaintances.
Interpreters could help with the language bit for short-term. Also, basic planning with projects picked out and guided by the long-term missionaries would be ideal I'd assume.
I agree with most of what he says, but I don't think all short term mission trips are wrong. If I had never gone to China for a short term Bible/tract smuggling trip I would have never have had the desire to go there for long term in the future.
I totally agree with what he say about them not needing a bunch of Americans coming to do a little "mission work" and then a bunch of touring. We've had people who are interesting in doing some "mission work" there but want to involve a bunch touring as well. They are just an unneeded burden to whoever is living in whatever country their going and is hosting them.
Question: What kind of short term mission trips would you think appropriate?
Short Term Missions is an elephantine industry: North America sends over 1.6 million people on Short-Term Missions annually. Over the past 20 years, the church has utilized STM as a spiritual development program, mostly for its youth, with little understanding of the paternalistic attitudes displayed by and cultivated in the participants. The Gospel and the Great Commission cannot become an arena for consumerism. If we do STM, we must exercise caution in determining who we send where to do what.
Thanks, Darren, for your post. I look forward to reading your subsequent thoughts in the next article.
The main problem is not short-term or long-term mission trips. In the Scripture, we see Paul spending less time in one place and longer in other places. If our main objective is going and feeding the poor or sharing the gospel, then this should be our lifestyle wherever we are. We need to be evangelists all time always filled with the Spirit and ready to serve. Secondly, the question regarding spending, building, etc., do everything with prayers and discernment. Also, seek advice from several missionaries and/or national leaders in the area. You are called to go, but start where you are....
Yes, I completely agree!
Heather & Sam, my objection wasn't that the whole article was botched. My objection was that it is far too pessimistic as a whole. Too much overstatement such as, "Short-term missions is fraught with problems." He also implies that most trips have the wrong focus. My problem is with his balance. I think he is off. Not a fan of the tone of the article. It would have been helpful to not make anyone wait for the next article to explain way some potentially discouraging rhetoric.
As someone who spent a considerable time overseas and remains in close contact with the indigenous church there, the article is not over-stated, wrongly-focused, out of balance, or wrong in tone. To discourage people from being foolish and wasteful is not unkind.
Hey John,
I have spent no time overseas. So I guess you'd know better than I would about missions first-hand. I don't think that disqualifies my impression of the article though. I am not convinced of the alarmist descriptions of the state of short-term missions as a whole, mostly because of some of the great oeganizations out there helping make these trip more effective as they work with missionaries.
Side note, I see a lot of zeal for long-term work in the comments. Praise God!
By the way, I am going on my first trip in a few weeks. It's only for a week. Pray the Lord would help us preach Christ and refresh the missionaries and the orphans with sincere love and service. We want them to feel cared for.
Outstanding article: every word is true (I've lived "on the field" myself - not trying to toot my own horn, just trying to establish a shred of credibility). I completely agree that the Western/American model of short term trips is way off the mark. While intentions may be good, even the best, American culture has too long bred desire for comfort, authority, money, power, leadership, always needing to be "right", etc. India, for example, has a culture that's roughly 10 times as old as America's. Do we really expect to send legions of Justin Bieber'd teenagers there with an expectation of "leading thousands to Christ?"
Of course, there are exceptions, but I don't think the author is trying to say that every short term trip is inherently evil. Why do we expect that there be a happy ending to this article? Most of the OT prophets had very negative prophecies. Kudos to Mr. Carlson for a job well done. When Helping Hurts is a great book too.
@Jared: I know. I'm a little confused by the commenters who expect to be handed something sweet with every negative word. I mean, if something negative is going on, isn't it our job as believers to point it out? What if the news is mainly discouraging? It would be untenable for someone to start masking it with encouraging words.
you're wise!
Let me tell you something, I'm from El Salvador, Central America, and you could never build a house with 3,000 dollars, that's just impossible. I think most of the "facts" in this article are very pessimistic
Martín, I don't claim to know the reality of costs in El Salvador but wonder what standard of housing you have in mind.
I do know that a basic one-room house of the kind that is common here can be built for around US$500 and the exchange rate is fairly similar. This is the kind of house that ST teams come here to build or fund.
Right on. Please check out the work of The Paulos Group in Haiti. http://www.paulosgroup.org
I am not opposed to short term missions in principle, but agree that they need to be done carefully. I think they can easily become the evangelical version of the pilgrimage. Legalism takes many forms.
This is an excellent article. I spent two years in Ethiopia and saw how much money is spent on sending missionaries (especially short-term ones) and how much more that amount of money could do if it were given to local Christians. Just the $2,000 or more for a flight to Ethiopia could employ several Ethiopians for a year.
Then I come back to the US and hear those who do little for evangelism in their local area boasting of how many converts they've made on a short-term mission trip.
In my opinion short-term mission trips, if cross-cultural, should normally be for older teens or young adults, once in a life-time, well coordinated with the local church or missionaries (or church plant). If people really want to be involved in ministry after returning from such a trip, there are likely plenty of opportunities in whatever area it is they live in. Their local church should develop ministry opportunities for them.
The money saved on unnecessary and wasteful mission trips should then often be given to effective evangelical ministries in some nation or people group the church has targeted. If a church is sincere about wanting to reach a particular ethnic group or make a difference in some poor country, then work at partnerships with the local Christians there.
Why not just go somewhere and teach English and while there connect to a church and help with their work? Then from that one can see if they are called to more long-term overseas/cross-cultural work.
In my opinion, short term missions should be for anyone. I'm 16 and I've been going on short term missions trips for years. Since I was probably 10 or so. Obviously you are not gonna bring a young child but to put an age limit on short term missions as for "older teens or young adults" is not good. Also my grandmother went on two missions trips when she was in her 80s. So it goes both ways, ten year olds and eighty year olds! Also I do not agree with "once in a lifetime". For me, I know i'm never gonna (by choice) go and live in Africa for the rest of my life, but to be able to go there almost every year is wonderful to get the experience and imagine and live life like it would be if I did live there for the rest of my life. Your comment seems to be calling short term missions as a check list item which should never be done more than once. Our church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, encourages pre teens, teens, young adults, and adults to go on short term missions trips every year. We have ongoing relationships because of going back every year. I don't think that was time wasted or money wasted.
[...] Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short Term Mission Trips [...]
I am a Messianic Rabbi. These problems only exist because, like everything else, American's want everything easy and quick. However, Yeshua's (Jesus') instructions were not to travel the world, getting everyone saved, or even 'doing good' for people. The commission was to "make disciples". This is not a quick and easy process. In fact, it is very lengthy, it costs a great deal (not just monetarily), and it requires a person to live with the people they are discipling, for years. This is the only way that the motives of people's hearts can be known and the fruit judged. Instead, we want to run in, dump money or materials on people, pass out a few tracts, then rush back home to our comfy life and think we've done a great thing. This is never what we were asked to do.
Excellent points.
However, "rabbi" is not the term the Messiah told us to use of our spiritual leaders. "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers." (Mt. 23:8.) The Messiah gave us Apostles who told us the terms are "pastor", "elder" or "overseer" (Acts 20, Eph. 4:11).
In fact, John, Michael's point is the heart of the matter. Discipleship is entirely other than short-term, event-focused visits.
1) I think the biggest flaw in our understanding and approach to short-term missions is that we define it as a community development effort. This however is not the Biblical approach to missions. We are called to verbally preach the Gospel, not just do good works. When Jesus sends out His disciples they are told to go without anything, no food or extra clothes. This is so that they would have to rely on the spirit and stick to the difficult and scary task of verbally proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
2) I would venture to say that if the number one focus of a short term mission is not preaching the word of God, it is not a missions trip. I would rather call it a Community Development effort. We mask poor community development with missions and paint a bad picture of what Jesus is all about.
3) As we see in Acts 6, the effort for community development was actually focused on the believers (Christian widows) in the community not the unbelievers. The apostles did not want to quit their ministry to the unbelievers for community development and thus a biblical representation of how community development and "missions trips" are differentiated.
4) Paul, in his missionary journey, was focused on preaching the word of God and planting churches, not developing community. Community development is our response as Christians because we are to love and serve the people in this world, but is not our mission as the church. When we get this correct, our short term missions will be more effective.
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips. Rate this:Pass it along:TwitterFacebookStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Published: June 19, 2012 Filed Under: Christian Unity, Church History [...]
I've led short-term mission trips for over 22 years and found them to be one of the best discipleship tools for youth, young adults, and adults. When you take wealthy, comfortable, secure American christians outside of their daily life and happy-clappy christianity to see how the majority of the world lives (hunger, poverty, no government security nets, etc.), God has a chance to slap them with a heavy dose of reality and give a major chiropractic adjustment to their perspective on life.
That said, I agree with just about everything in this article. The way we do short term missions is broken. I've seen first-hand the orphanages with 30 coats of paint, several just across the border in Tijuana. I've seen out of work young adult men sit and watch as we make repairs to their home. I've seen missionaries on the ground scramble to put a short program together with African children so that they had something "tangible" to show the visiting rich donors who want to see ROI on their investments.
I think we would do better if we just sent money to nationals who have proven themselves trustworthy and are demonstrating much fruit according to the Great Commission. If christians want to visit, we should go as tourists and not as saviors. Help the economy, stay in local inns, eat at local eateries, hire drivers, etc. And as we go we should preach the kingdom and heal the sick, just as Jesus commanded. Obeying Jesus in Luke 10 doesn't require an official short term mission trip. It should be a lifestyle.
Short term missions definitely has its place. I think a defining problem with short term missions could be ethnocentrism. Defined as the tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups.
The less ethnocentric and the more humble short term teams are, the more effectual the trips will be for all involved. Another possibility could be to label the current popular short term mission trip as "vision trips" or some other label. I agree with one commentor that if the gospel isn't preached explicitly, it isn't a mission trip. Just a couple cents!
Spot on! I've been to Ethiopia twice for short term trips. The first trip was helpful (2 people), the 2nd trip was frustrating (20 people).
Ways to make a short term trip good: do child sponsorship.
And don't be such an American!
Chris, make sure before anyone does child sponsorship they know exactly what percentage of their support goes to the child and not to the organization's overhead expenses. I've experience many "child sponsorship" programs where the money just went to help pay the bills (buildings, budgets, and salaries) instead of feeding and educating kids.
Gabriel,
Compassion International is not like that. Many? how many?
Once your organization grows so far it is impossible to work with only volunteers. You have to have buildings budgets and salaries. Please remember that. To be good stewards, we should check up on organizations. One of the best ways to check up on organizations is do short term mission trips.
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips – The Gospel Coalition Blog Thought-provoking article here: “Short-term missions is fraught with problems, and many wish such trips did not exist, at least in the common form today. Writing in his book Toxic Charity, Robert Lupton says, “Contrary to popular belief, most missions trips and service projects do not: empower those being served, engender healthy cross-cultural relationships, improve quality of live, relieve poverty, change the lives of participants [or] increase support for long-term missions work.” “ [...]
I think the authors points (as has been said) are to the extreme and have most certainly not been my experience. I would like to add that there are great organizations out there like Food for the Hungry who truly believes in equipping, teaching,walking with and making relationships rather than just being the typical American Santa Clauses. Their whole mission is not to create dependence and to keep The Gospel at the center always.. It's probably hard to comprehend positive STM's if you've seen mostly negative...but I have truly seen the changes in both the communities we have served in and in our own people. Does it change our people forever? Who knows, I don't think that's up for us to judge...because there are all kinds of events/trips/whatever's in our Christian walks that impact us and the impact fades after a while...such is life.
I couldn't agree more within this article. I have attended one international trip almost 8 years ago to Ecuador with my home church and while our team had an amazing time and felt completely blessed by the trip, I almost feel now looking back that we were more of a burden on the long-term missionary hosting us than a help. She had to find activities for us to do, help us navigate the city, and even hire a translator to travel with us in the city because we -of course- didn't speak the language or attempt to learn even minimal phrases in Spanish prior to the trip. Thinking back-it was a very selfish trip on our parts. Furthermore we did construction work building one home in an impoverished area...but we did this with local hired hands who accomplished 99% of the actual work while we (unskillled Americans) attempted simply to not mess anything up. Was it a fun. trip for us? Of course. A true gospel-centered mission trip? I don't think so.
Don't be so quick to say your trip was selfish. Maybe from your point of view it looked like it was troublesome. But you got building done. That was a blessing for them i'm sure. Also you've only gone on one international trip... most trips you do need a translator. Most trips the person hosting does find activities for you to do. Don't base your judgements off of one trip because actually a lot of trips are like that and a lot of people have been blessed by even trips like that.
Excellent assessment no pastor can avoid to think through!
[...] Darren Carlson shares some pointed ideas about short-term mission trips in his blog article, “Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips”. In the article, he states, While I believe there is a thoughtful way to be involved in some sort [...]
I am also a full time missionary and saw short term missionaries come to my country to build a house for another missionary who lives in a community only for "missionaries". The house is on the ocean built by s.t. missionaries instead of going out and sharing the gospel. I agree with you absolutely!
I think that the article really does bring up some important points to consider with short term missions. There are some short term missions that are worth it. I hope that the one I went on was one of them. I went with 5 other guys to Africa to drill water wells for a village. None of the other missions organizations or NGOs could make it to this village, so we purchased portable well drilling equipment and went. While there we drilled two wells, and we taught the missionary and some of the men from the village how to drill additional wells. Everything was planning to be using locally available parts. After we left they went on to drill additional wells for their village, and the government paid them to drill wells for other villages.
I would say that my worldview changed with the trip. I know that I am not called into foreign missions, but I know that I'm called into leadership in the local church. What I learned on that trip has really affected how I view the world, and I hope that I can share some of that with the people in the local church.
Very thought provoking article! I think too many are getting hung up on the title (which is obviously designed as a "catch") and not getting the real point which is to carefully consider the need and the purpose of your stmt. But how many of us would have read an article titled, "Carefully consider your STMT?" Not many I think. I have gone on 3 summer trips. The first two were not with a group, just a few people going to do summer VBS work at the request of the National Pastor. The 3rd was a group trip through an organization, and while I hope very much that we were more help than burden, I can definitely see that some of the work we did was made up to give us something to do. However, even on that trip where I know that *some things were just busy work, there were other locations where we did truly minister to the local missionary, simply by being there.
I've also been on the other end of the spectrum. I was a "long" short term missionary (stayed for one full year to allow a time of transition within the National leadership). We had a few short timers come during that year. One couple, bless their hearts, they meant well, but the cultural aspect was just so hard for them to handle that it felt like we were baby-sitting them the whole time. They did commit some cultural faux-pas that honestly did put the local Pastor in a hard spot. Another family used us as a stopping point on their way to become missionaries in a different part of the same country. They came in a like a whirl-wind, intent of "teaching" the local Pastor and workers the "correct" (American) way of doing things. It was uncomfortable for everyone.
The third group of visitors were AMAZING. They came completely prepared to pay their own way and with extra money to hire help for the local Pastor's wife as she hosted them all. They completed a building project that very much needed to be done and was outside any of our scope of ability. They served as much needed encouragement, and they continued to stay in touch afterwards. Some of them hosted the local Pastor's children years later when they came to the US for study.
Short Term trips CAN be done to the benefit of everyone involved and they can also range from merely annoying to downright harmful for the long-term ministry.
Helpful article ... especially to keep the STM debate going (and to keep us reflecting on this "elephant in the room"). A few points ...
1. I know that we are all called to "full-time ministry" in whatever vocation God has called us, but don't call short-termers "missionaries." Maybe just a pet peeve of mine, but we need to respect the life-term missionaries ... STMers are helpmates (at best) to the missionaries in the field.
2. STM teams should always be connected to the local church/missionaries in the field ... and asked by them to come with all actions directed by them. The local church leaders and missionaries are the ones who will continue the ministry.
3. Shame on churches, and especially Christian colleges (who send a ton of teams each year), who send teams without evaluating impact on the receiving community, the missionaries in the field, the sending community, and the goers. Anyone in education knows that you have to establish objectives and then measure success against those objectives ... Ask the hard questions ... what are you trying to accomplish? what are the goals of the trip? You may find out that sending a STM team may not be the best way to accomplish that goal. Don't just do something.
4. Remember that there are many types of poverty -- material, relational, spiritual to name a few. Americans are not materially poor ... but we are definitely relationally poor (when was the last time you really talked with your neighbor) and it can be argued that we are spiritually poor (yes we have churches on every corner, trained pastors, Bible study materials, but do we have what is truly needed ... a humble realization that we need Christ?). From this frame of reference, many of the places we send STM teams are much higher on the relational and spiritual poverty scale than the U.S. (see When Helping Hurts)
5. Every Christian is called to support missions (see John Piper's admonitions). I would say every Christian is called to pray for missions and then either go yourself or send others. Another helpful point is to think of STM as part of the "send others" side instead of the "go yourself" side. Finally, to address those with a financial frame of reference ... sending a STM team oversees for 10 days does not make sense (cost-benefit analysis), unless it is used from a "send others" perspective and the STMers return to support the receiving mission field for the rest of their life financially (even $5/month), and of course through prayer. Just make sure that it happens because the mission field is quickly forgotten after returning from a STM.
I love the dialogue that is going on because it needs to happen! I have been and led some STM's where for some of the team mates I had to consistently remind them that they were not on a vacation! Where they had to be reminded that there is no 'I' in team!
As well I have witnessed lives changed on both sides as they encountered the living God! My son was one of them. Changed his world when we were able to serve together in Romania.
As of late I find the STM's that I am apart of are focused and consistent. Returning to the same place with a small team and continuing the work of training, working among the women who are highly marginalized and mistreated and the students! As well we have built a solid team of in country translators (in which we pay for their time) and they are growing spiritually and ministering after we leave! One of our American leaders lives there 6 months out of the year and she is able to continue in the work and building relationships! I am looking forward to returning to Ethiopia this summer.
As someone that's life has been impacted by "short term" missions, I would say that doing away with "all" such missions is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Short term missions, when done correctly, ie proper training and preparation is a tremendous tool not only in encouraging the onsite missionaries but also changing the mindset of the Americanized Church. You can talk about it, show Power Points, video, etc but until they see,smell, taste,and experience what the rest of the world is like, hearts are seldom moved. The need for the gospel is great in our world. When the short-term team goes to serve and help the local mission work, lives are impacted for the Kingdom. There are many "full time" missionaries that I know that came to that position because they were changed when they went on a "short-term" trip! Without a doubt indigenous missionaries can reach their local mission field in greater ways, but when you team up "life-long" partnerships through short-term trips, with the local indigenous missionaries great work is done!
I agree bro, and quite frankly STMs are really the only way to expose the majority of American Christians to Foreign Missions...people can take a week or 2 off of work but most cannot go and serve 6months and longer.
Thank you Paul! Agree whole heartedly!
[...] Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Mission Trips. I’ve had too many discussion with friends re: this dilemma. Definitely worth reading. thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/cancelling-your-short-term-mission-trips/ [...]
Some interesting points, but this sounds a lot like the arguments against something that use a couple of the most absurd and extreme examples against a given action (much used by pro-choice propagandists). I also note zero credit is given to the Power of the Gospel. People abused and misused Jesus' work too. Interested to see the next article in this series.
I'm not surprised by this article, but I am interested to see what he means by showing us the 'place' for short term missions. I've seen and been a part of trips that haven't been healthy, but by far my experience has been the other way. I am a Youth Pastor and my church has taken kids to Juarez Mexico to build a house, a reservation in South Dakota to build a rec building, New Orleans to do relief for Katrina, and to Rio Grande to work with orphans and others. This year we are staying local and helping with various needs in our community. Every one of those trips have had commitments for Christ, and most of them have had commitments to go into ministry from some of the kids. Every one of those commitments has been followed up on and made good on, those kids are currently in Bible college. Every one, 100%. That has much less to do with me as a Pastor than it does incredible kids and the power of pulling them out of their comfortable contexts. I would also need a lot of persuading before relenting on belief that homes in Mexico, or rec buildings on a reservation, or Katrina relief, are not helpful ministries for their recipients.
I'm sorry. I think that this article has a great point to make in calling for care in healthy short term missions, but I disagree vehemently that they are in general a bad thing.
Terrific article, Darren. I've linked to it at my blog. Want my audience to read it. Thanks!
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short Term Mission Trips [...]
I truly enjoyed reading this article. It was very eye opening. I'm going on a short term trip this summer and it will be interesting to evaluate the sustainability of the impact that we make.
I wrote a blog post along the same lines of this article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have. http://benjaminarp.com/desire-without-knowledge/
All the same problems exist when you do a short term mission in the United States.
Why is the focus on overseas and third world countries? Could the author be affected by the very cultural imperialism he rails against and can't see it?
I have just returned from my 2nd STM in the last year. I pray that our work and efforts benefit the ones we went to serve, and point them to Christ. I personally compare the two trips to pilgrimages. Time set aside to encounter God, His people, and people of other nationalities. I am not in full time ministry so the opportunity to dedicate 1 week away from outside distractions, emails, cell phones and deadlines has been spiritually refreshing. Additionally it has opened my Americanized eyes in ways that staying home could never have. I am sure that there are things to be improved in STM, but I believe that there is much value in STM.
While I see your point, I have personally been on a short-term trip that was wonderful. My college has been in the same region of Thailand for 7 years, sending teams once or twice a year, working with the long-term missionaries at ITDP. Since we've been going, the infant death rate has been cut in half. All of the villages have clean water. There is a school where children hear the gospel, a medical clinic with a Christian nurse, a church and evangelist, and where there was only one Christian, there are now 24 Christian families. God is moving, both to meet the physical needs of the people as well as their spiritual ones. While it is possible to do short-term missions very very wrong, it is also possible to do them very well.
Additionally, I think exposure to the global church is a very valuable thing. Maybe short-term trips aren't the best way to do that - I don't know. But I know that missions has become so much more of a priority for me, in my prayer life, financially and in my future plans. The Lord used it mightily in my life.
This is only talking about overseas missions from the US. The article doesn't even mention mission trips within our country. Which almost every single point doesn't apply for.
Change the title to overseas mission trips.
AMEN TO THAT! I've been learning more and more about development and am interning for an organization called Light Gives Heat this fall in Uganda. My main project is to learn about development and sustainability while learning from the locals and getting to hear their stories. I've read some amazing books on development my favorite being "The Blue Sweater" and another good one "Damned Nations". Good intentions might be good in our community but in developing countries they can be catastrophic. Take for example a church that has a clothing drive donating hundreds of clothes to a small country that is desperately poor. The church feels great about their good deed but what they don't realize is they have put all the local seamstresses and fabric stores out of business killing whatever small economy they had. Now this community is even more impoverished than before. A great way to look at developing countries is that we are not looking to lessen poverty, but to create wealth, to create an income. Over the last 20-30 years billions of dollars have been raised to "help end poverty in Africa" and yet that's not working. What if the new idea was to create wealth, create sustainability and instead of telling them about Jesus, showing them Jesus through ourselves by realizing that our liberties are bound together. I will not go anywhere to save someone, that is not what "they" want. I go into the world because I recognize that we are all bound together and if you are impoverished then I am impoverished!
Excellent, excellent article! My husband and I have given to kids over the years going on overseas missions projects, which were supposed to do all of the things you mentioned above. Of course, the kids always say what they want most is prayer. When once we had said we would pray and not give financially, but wanted a report when the girl got back, we never heard from her. When we had given financially to help, we rarely heard back from anyone about their trip. Given that there are so many poverty-stricken in the US, places that need painting, children who need VBS, why do youth leaders feel so compelled to take the youth groups overseas? We personally know of no child who has gone abroad for this purpose who felt like he/she should become a fulltime missionary. We also do not give to these kinds of mission trips anymore. I think your article hit the bullseye!
The more I have thought about this article, the more frustrated I have become not only with it in itself, but also in the way it was presented and commented on. Wouldn't it have been more productive to cast a light on the problems that are general problems with our American Consumeristic mentality without basically creating a whipping boy and turning everyone loose on it?
We could basically do the same thing with almost everything that the church does...and we could put true examples of the extremes in there to give credibility to our bent.
Examples- #1 This movement of Life Groups and Small groups in our churches needs to be abandoned because it leads to divisions in the church, power struggles and creates cults of personalities that end up causing people to leave the church (I can provide examples)
#2 We should quit taking our youth to camps, conferences, retreats and events because all that happens is that they have an experience, get all emotional and then forget about it 3 weeks later. (plenty of examples)
#3 Having any kind of parachurch ministry takes people away from serving in the church, which was what God intended in scripture. We don't find parachurch in scripture and we can't get people to serve in ministries at the church because they're over committed in the parachurch (plenty of examples)
(obviously I'm just creating scenarios like the author is doing, I'm not agreeing with them)
Do you see how if I have an axe to grind with any aspect of ministry I can create a template for it to be cast in a negative light and set it up for anyone in my corner to Amen it and pull it down even further?
This article and it's tone has truly disappointed me.
Paul, I think you did a really great job of describing how I feel about this article. Thanks for putting it into words for me.
@Paul Cummings: You know, I have never really understood those comments. The reason the author didn't talk about consumerism is because he...isn't talking about consumerism. If he were there would be a nice long post on consumerism. In fact, I kind of remember a consumerism oriented TGC post a while back.
It's so odd because there will be a post about oh say...how being on time at work is important because otherwise you are stealing from your employer. And someone inevitably goes: WHY are you focusing on THIS sin? WHY is this your personal axe to grind? WHY not talk about gluttony, or theft, or...fill in the blank.
The author chose to take up the topic of Short term missions. He's showing the pitfalls now and he'll show how they can be done well later. Later on in the year, he might post on something entirely different. This isn't his "axe to grind" he's just examining ONE topic.
I think you're hitting on my exact point...going on a mission is never a sin...it's the purpose and heart behind it...whereas cheating is always a sin, stealing is always a sin.
That's my point...you cast the good thing in with the bad motives...rather than talking about the bad motives first.
I can't be hitting your point because I disagree with you. In fact, going on a missions trip can very well be a sin depending on why you are going.
However, the author isn't asking "is this a sin" or "is it not a sin." He's asking is it wise? In this article he's talking about the pitfalls and problems of STM. In the next article he's going to talk about how it CAN be done wisely.
;-) I think we are agreeing then -(your quote)"In fact, going on a missions trip can very well be a sin depending on why you are going"- thats what I mean. It's the motive that is in question.
hopefully the follow up will have some more clear directives and challenges for the motives than this one did.
....
But this one did.
oh well...to me this one shot out the extreme worst examples with some (at best) sketchy facts to back it up.
I have trouble believing that because anyone with remotely any experience with missions (including just being friends with a missionary kid) has seen at least one, if not ALL of these problems being played out. Those seemed extreme to you? And I didn't see any sketchy facts. Strange.
We should consider doing away with soup kitchens. They create a model of dependency. The people just keep coming back and don't feed themselves. Some people start soup kitchens out of selfish motives to make themselves feel better, this is awful. The money could be more more effectively spent with different programs...
you don't see my point?
No, frankly. Because the author never said "We should consider doing away with soup kitchens." He shows one side of an issue (for now...till the next article) so that people (most likely church leaders) can weigh whether or not they think their mission trips are being conducted wisely.
It really isn't my place to say this, but I will in the hope that it helps a bit.
I am quite sure this article was not intended to devalue the work of those who have served or are preparing to serve on short-term missions. It would serve no purpose to simply want to make people feel ashamed of their involvement in short term missions. Instead, I believe the point of the article was to highlight many of the problems that are common to short term missions so that we might consider how in the future we may most faithfully and wisely serve Christ, whether that means fixing missions, scrapping them, or re-imagining them. There may also be a place for repentance of our own past foolishness with missions in some circumstances.
Most of the negative feedback seems (to me) to be coming from those who feel hurt and devalued by the article, like the author has slapped them in the face for their sacrifices of time and money for the sake of short term missions. It is possible that in some instances this is just a sort of defensiveness from people who don't want to have to face their own mistakes, but I don't think that is the root of most objections here. The fact is, this article was not written with a great deal of pastoral sensitivity and that has likely caused many to feel the need to object. In the author's defense, this is one part of a three-part article and the only section that is primarily negative. Also, the author was most likely writing a prophetic call and not considering the pastoral need of those who might come across it. So, feeling hurt or that this is unfair is understandable, but it also makes sense why the author did what he did.
I do think that we can all agree that the problems highlighted by the author are major problems and that whatever we do with short term missions, we should try to avoid those problems and to be wise, loving, and faithful.
thanks Sam, I agree.
Ok, Sam basically is saying what I was saying. Minus the bit about pastoral sensitivity. I didn't see any pastoral insensitivity here, and I've been involved in (and really really really liked and kind of want to do again) many STM trips. Also, I have friends who became full-timers AFTER STM's so I've had a lot of good experiences, but after talking to a lot of full time missionaries who share the same thoughts as the author, I've come to realize that maybe they DO actually have a lot of pitfalls.
So, maybe pastoral sensitivity that is lacking, perhaps it's just generally a thicker skin. I have been involved in STMs too and I didn't feel "slapped in the face." I felt challenged. This is supposed to be a good thing.
Right, Heather. I don't think the author was being insensitive, but I generally use the term "pastoral sensitivity" to mean anticipating possible misinterpretations, misapplications, and misappropriations of the message and dealing with them before anyone gets hurt. This isn't the same thing as "balance" because there is no need to provide a positive point for every negative point when there just aren't as many, and it is more about the "care of souls" than not offending people. For example, by my definition pastoral sensitivity would require a sermon on the sinfulness of fornication to include the consolation of the Gospel message to those who have fornicated as well as the clear statement that sex is good within a loving marriage. It would not mean providing one good thing about fornication for every bad thing.
I believe the pastoral application will come in the third section.
Yes, I'm guessing it will too. However, there are going to be people who just...can't take a challenge, you know? I am not sure if that's the author's fault or our fault as readers. Does that make sense?
You can anticipate SOME misunderstandings and misquotations and misapplications, but to expect someone to anticipate all of them seems a bit of a tall order. I know you weren't saying he should have foreseen ALL of them, I just think that there have been a lot of objections raised that either should have waited for part two or could have been solved by actually....reading the post instead of skimming.
Haha, yes. I don't expect the author to have anticipated all possible objections and I don't necessarily think it was important to anticipate any. There is a place in the world for the prophetic call. That being said, prophetic calls tend to be lightning rods because of what they are. I do think the title sets people up to be upset, though, when in fact the article is not arguing for abandoning short term missions re-designing them for increased faithfulness, love, and wisdom. But, again, the author probably didn't pick the title.
Also, the title of the article is a bit inflammatory, most likely to draw in readers, but it almost certainly wasn't selected by the author.
agreed, it's the title as well.
How about this then-totally from my personal experiences.
I have extensive experience in foreign missions and I've never experienced this.
I work closely with an organization that has child sponsorship and I don't ever see negative or underhanded actions.
I work with a staff that supports and cares for 12 full time missionaries and we never hear what the author talks about.
My ministry directly contributes all of it's funds to an overseas mission that always asks for us to send teams to help and we never hear of this.
So, I have lifestory that is truly the opposite experience than the author and I would venture to say as much cumulative experience in the field.
I'm owning all of my experiences and facts behind them.
Even with that I wouldn't write an article saying "If you don't do short term missions you're basically missing the boat on real discipleship." Because it's narrow and I know it...even when I'm a huge proponent of it.
That's why I must speak up when this comes full-on negative and that has in no way been my experience.
Well, praise God! Seriously, that is wonderful.
I've always been involved in churches that were God honoring and loving and united and so when I hear other people ragging on the church I get really confused. But I don't know if it would be wise for me to say, "WHAT!? I've had great experiences. There is nothing wrong with any local body ever. Anywhere."
yes ma'am, I know what you mean. To me, I take it personally just as I'm sure you would if someone had titled the article "Female Christian Bloggers are a waste of time" and then had filled the article with a lot of "women should be silent", "look at the extreme discord that this lady's blog caused, "The time she spent blogging she could have evangelized 35 people..."
I'm sure you would have jumped on that to say "NO WAY! that's not me!!!" and I would be right there with you! ;-)
Well, it really depended on the content of the blog. Perhaps it was just a "catchy" title and actually had some real things that I (as a female Christian blogger) should hear. If there were and I didn't want to learn from it because I wanted to continue doing my thing unchallenged, that would be me needing to have a thicker skin.
However, in your hypothetical, I'm guessing I'm to assume the post is filled with scriptural misinterpretations and illogical stupidity. In which case, I'd just point out the scriptural misinterpretations and illogical stupidity.
But I highly doubt I would take it personally. Since, how could they personally know me?
I just read your article regarding the value of short-term missions and it is obvious to me that you know very little about effective short-term missions. Instead of reading books or blogs about what other have said, maybe you should become more involved in short-term missions. I have being doing short-term missions in pastoral training for the Maya and Ketchi Indians for over 23 years. We have also conducted VBSs the past eight years. Dozens of youth and young adults have helped during this time. The bottom line is that short-term missions is biblical. The power of short-term missions is seen in Acts 16:1-5. Please read it and rejoice!
Check the arrogance before opening the article. Yikes!
How about "Let's do short term missions better" instead of "let's cancel short term trips." I've received short term trips as a foreign missionary and also sent them. They can be done well and have long term positive effects. No reason to throw the concept away because they are sometimes done poorly.
[...] and aid appeals. However Darren Carlson is looking at a very pertinent issue. The draw backs of short term mission trips and aid initiatives…. I have seen with my own eyes or know of houses in Latin America that have been painted 20 [...]
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips: I have seen with my own eyes or know of houses in Latin America that have been painted 20 times by 20 different short-term teams; fake orphanages in Uganda erected to get Westerners to give money; internet centers in India whose primary purpose is to ask Westerners for money; children in African countries purposefully mutilated by their parents so they would solicit sympathy while they beg; a New England-style church built by a Western team in Cameroon that is never used except when the team comes to visit; and slums filled with big-screen TVs and cell phone towers. [...]
Our church does short term missions to share the gospel. We simply go and share the gospel with people one on one, often teaming up with a local church. 100% evangelism. I think this can be a very effective use of a short term mission trip.
Thanks for writing this informative article. I have been wanting to go to the Ukraine to visit an orphanage (stay for 2 weeks) but have often wondered whether the $2,000 plus that I would need to cover travel, etc.would be better spent as a donation to a Ukrainian orphanage. While it's on my heart to rock, hold and love on these children, there's still a bit of wondering if the team of 10 that go could somehow utilize that pool of money in a more productive way. When I read about other short term trips, I have to honestly say sometimes it just doesnt' sit right. Recently a teenage friend, through her Christian shcool, did a short term trip and when hearing the details it seemed someone dug pretty deep for this "feel-good" 4 days of what seemed, "finding something for these kids to do". I'm glad that someone else, somewhere, is putting logic behind some short-term ideas. Until then, my husband and I will instead serve on a Disaster Recovery Team with our church. We're just getting our feet wet, but from what I understand, we only go when ASKED and it logistically makes sense, we never give out food/meals when there are stores, restaurants in the area that are open, there is absolutely no gurantee of any hot shower, a bed may be your sleeping bag and we are in and out for only the duration of the time needed.
As several people have pointed out, there are plenty of long-term missionaries who felt a call to missions while serving on a short-term trip. While there are many options to give American church members a chance to serve locally and have a similar experience, perhaps one good function of short-term missions would be to chip in as a church to send members who sense a possible call to missions on their lives on short term missions (maybe longer ones though, of a couple months) in order to help them seek clarity and confirmation.
[...] blog. Part one describes the history and the good side of the phenomenon. Part two deals with some of the dangers. And part three will be coming soon, providing some tips for doing short-term trips well. These are [...]
[...] Recently, much has been written calling Short-Term Mission Trip (STMT) phenomenon in Evangelicalism (especially American Evangelicalism) into question. One such example is this week’s post on the Gospel Coalition — “Why You Should Consider Cancel... [...]
The craziest story I ever hear was musical group that put Christian words to the musical Hair and performed it in English in France.
I agree. If the person is not willing to serve and witness in their own town why waste time and money going across country? Its pretty much a glorified vacation.
My husband went to Haiti 37 years ago. We married in 1977 and together we have worked there every since. We are fluent in the culture, diseases and language. We have paid a price in prayer, fasting and sacrifice. None of my children played competive sports, not Little League or soccer. Two of four were born in Haiti at home. Today we have a Creole Christian TV show that is aired on 100 stations from Boston to the South of Haiti. We reach 2,000,000 Haitians everyday. Recently the Haitian government has embraced us.
For the one year anniversary of the earthquake we held a crusade that drew 100,000 Haitians in front of the ruined National Palace. Yet we have not been invited to speak in a US church or missions conference in decades; because first nationals then short term missions eclipsed genuine soul winning missionaries. We are not the trend.
Thank you for writing the truth about short term missions. They are the most expensive, ineffective, inefficent way to "do" missions. Imagine a "group" of visitors coming to your local church and the pastor chauffeuring, translating, housing and feeding them for one week. And when they leave another group arrives on their heels. Thousands and thousands of wasted dollars and time to feed the egos of Americans and perpetrate social welfare programs on foreign fields with few if any genuinely repentant changed lives.
Meanwhile real missionaries cannot meet their daily needs and leave the field discouraged. A sad commentary on American Christianity and Churches.
What ;you say in your article is true. As a missionary I experienced most of what you said and more. Short term missionaries were much needed but they would not do what they were asked to do, did not really have the abilities they said they did, would not take time to really try to understand the culture, were disruptive to the normal flow, did not believe what they were told about peoples motives for western wealth, wanted us to drop everything to cater to them ... the list goes on. It was very discouraging when what we really needed was encouragement and help. What we got was more work. Not one of the short term people I worked with ever continued with giving. One adopted a child, but on the field was the most disruptive. God works despite His people some times. Churches should not send anyone who is not willing to submit to extensive training and is going to visit a specific project that the church has had a long association with and truly understands what motives, goals and outcomes should be.
Good thoughts and concerns, some of which I share after having been on six short term mission trips. However some points are extreme and straw man arguments. Please be careful in not panting every mission trip with the same broad brush (like a recent Youtube video does). I have heard of a Reformed church that went to the same place in Africa every year and preach the Gospel. After years of faithfulness,they saw many converts. Many mission trips do meet needs. Many people are mission trips are self-examining their hearts and their practices in order to be more effective. Many people go because they have a heart for missions and are seeking toe obey the Great Commission. Just because some people use the Lord's Supper as a snack doesn't mean we condemn all people who take the Lord's Supper. I am really grateful for your emphasis on the effect it has on the people. I don't think just sending money is the answer though, because a lot of people become missionaries after going on short-term missions and a lot of organizations and needs are meet in the future because of contacts made on short term mission trips. So telling people just to stay home and send money is not the answer because there will not be anyone to send money to. And just staying home and sending money can be problematic to. "I just sent $20 to my missionary friend, I feel so holy. Now I can go out and spend thousands on clothes, electronics and junk I don't need." Get my point? looking forward to your next installment.
For everyone who commented and read this post, thank you!
I just want to address two issues here in the comments:
1. RE: Where are the statistics and research.
Robert Priest at Trinity is the best resource. In his article on "Researching the Short-Term Mission Movement" he writes "No methodologically sound research we have discovered has yet demonstrated a significant average increase in giving by participants cause by STM experience. In short, one claim about STM, that it helps to create higher levels of financial support for the career missionary enterprise, does not appear to be true." Just consider that there were 40,000 career missionaries and 60,000 short-term missionaries in 1996. In 2001, the number of short-termers increased to about 350,000 (almost a 600% increase) while the number of career missionaries stayed the same. That is not to say that God does not use short-term trips to stir people into long-term service. The issue is that there is really is no difference in the amount of people being sent out long-term.
I'll try to list out the resources in the next post.
2. RE: The issue of balance and taking it to the extreme.
This is one of three posts. If all three posts are read together, I hope you will find pastoral concern (having been a pastor) to go with a confrontation and challenge to those who need to think through this issue more carefully. I wish that the examples I gave were extreme, but I do not think they are. They are more the norm, as some of the missionaries (though not all) that have commented have noted.
Thanks again for your comments. See you at the next post, Lord willing.
Darren, I can tell that you obviously have a heart for reforming missions and making the most for the Kingdom's resources, so thank you for that.
Here are the problems however with this last post:
1. Like most uses of Stats, you use them to back up your point of view and not for a holistic view of STM....for instance with your 40000LTMs vs 60000STMs in 1996 I would be interested to know...How many of the 40000LTMs went on a short term mission prior to their full time calling. That would make more of a rounded view of it.
2. You never provided hard facts for which mission orgs are taking advantage of the system VS which ones are a great blessing to the Kingdom. So in reality it could be that there are 20 really bad ones and 2000 really awesome ones...but we will never know because you simply cast a huge net claiming "those organizations".
3. I read the first article about the "good" of STMs and in my opinion it was only semi-positive in comparison to the full on body slam you gave STMs in this article.
4. In the comparison of general population to those of full time missionaries...hasn't it always been a small fraction of people who are called to LTMs? This is nothing new.
Thanks and again, I appreciate your heart for making missions better.
Paul-
I think I am right there with you on the abuse of statistics, but I think these still tell a story. I do not doubt that STM has an impact on some peoples lives. But, I think the stats show that there has been no increase in LTM or increase in giving to LTM. I am sure that change is hard to quantify on some level, but the wallet is a good starting place.
You are right on #2, but there is limitations to a blog post. My own experience and others is that the majority are bad (as would the authors of the books I site and missionaries I have met).
Maybe post #3 will smooth these issues out.
Thanks for the feedback.
thank you again my brother and again, thanks for your heart to serve and improve.
As long as we're crunching the "effectiveness" numbers, allow me to state here amongst friends with divergent insights and complaints, a few points to ponder:
1. Long-term missions should be indigenous in nature and scope; planting a seed in its natural soil, and working that ground with the cultural sensibilities and sensitivities at hand. Short-term missions should seek out the long-forgotten indigenous missionary if they want to be impacted and changed. They can forget having much of a lasting effect on the conditions and folks they meet while on their trip, but they should be seeking to experience the realities of the Call to missions. Besides, even backwater so-called Third World people know that you will return to your comforts after you've satisfied your curiosity. Those who stay, and live among them in their world are the ones who will have the longest and most meaningful impact.
2. The Good News of salvation is still the goal of a long-term mission work. Your short-term team is likely not going to get that across to a people who have no word for "guilt" or a concept of "the heart" as a spiritual center. Talk to a Wycliffe bible translator for a real concept of the cultural divide amongst the nations.
3. Stop building bigger barns at home. A Ponzi scheme by any other name is still a scam. Seeking new members to support ever-larger "ministry" programs is different from a pyramid, how, exactly? It's a model for eventual collapse. If your vibrant, purpose-driven church is crowded, use that building program money to get rid of the "troublesome zealots" and send them freely and wholeheartedly into their long-term missions, instead of making them beg for support and care.
As a former missionary, how much more far-reaching it would have been to have been free to preach and teach and minister instead of worrying about bare necessities. . . while the home church was at 85% capacity and knew that American churchgoers feel uncomfortable packed into a service and thus began a million-dollar expansion! Heck, that much would've supported enough foreign missionaries to make room for more locals. Indeed, more missionaries would leave their comfy place if they knew they'd be supported, cared for, and not forgotten by their home church.
Just imagine it: instead of bigger barn churches we build a powerful reservoir that powers a propulsion station for the Waters of Life to reach the valleys below!
Um, a shorter version:
When have you ever seen a church having a pledge drive to retire their debt for foreign mission work? Sure, the banks aren't going to back the intangibles of eternal reward, but few and far are the churches who will, either.
Mission work will be important, long or short-term, when the Church starts acting like it really is important.
"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
/jeremiad
I have often wondered if an orphanage or other mission site might not be better helped with the thousands of dollars it takes the volunteers to get there. But the truth is, most (if not all) would never donate even a tenth of their expense.
While I don't know anyone who would not admit that there are plenty of problems with short term trips, I think this article takes some problems that are common to ANY mission endeavor and attributes them to short term trips, and paints an unnecessarily unattractive picture. There will be just as many long-termers having relational discord as short-termers, if not more, and they will want various comforts just as much. That was my observation where I worked. I have always admired the attitude of my friends Paul and Shelley, who invite short termers to come every year, knowing they will be a lot of work. They also know that experience can really light a flame in some, and get them turned on to missions in general and their region in particular. So they cheerfully take on the work and see it as part of their ministry. If any mission takes on short termers as just a way to get cheap help, then they are going to be unhappy. But if they see short termers as possibilities for either future long term work or senders and moblizers, then they can have a very good mutual experience.
[...] Canceling Short-Term Mission Trips? [...]
An excellent use of the short term mission trip could be in cases of natural disaster. After Hurricane Katrina, many college students gave up their spring break week to help clear debris, hand out food and water, etc. Churches/ associations sent relief teams specially trained to respond to such events, and there was a need for unskilled helping hands for many months.
There are some things that short term mission workers are well suited for, but to be good stewards of our resources we need to do a better job of matching the needs with what we offer.
The issue that makes a lot (i would say the majority) of these ST mission trips a problem is not the WHAT but the WHY.
The article does focus somewhat on the idea that much of the work being done is fruitless and harmful. This is certainly important, but it isn't the big problem.
The big problem is WHY we as an American Church culture really go on these trips. We don't go to help people. We go to make ourselves feel better. We don't go for THEM. We go for US.
Even a trip that helped thousands of folks and was productive would be wrong if its over-riding purpose was to enrich the lives of the participants. This is not New Testament Jesus-like servanthood. Its self serving after-school special silliness.
The "Mission Trip" craze began as an add-on or substitute for summer camp in youth ministry. After almost every church with a functioning youth group co-opted the trappings of the summer camp experience (worship band, lights, hip youth minister/communicator) into their every week youth service, the camp experience didn't "Work" anymore. Mission trips took their place.
All that has happened now is that churches are offering the same thing to adults.
It may be a harsh assessment, but for the vast majority of these trips it is true. They are Poverty Tourism...vacations that don't make you feel so guilty. There are some exceptions, but sadly not a lot.
Darren,
While I agree with many of your points, all your article does is relate issues that people have with STM. This is helpful only to a degree because the obvious question that everyone will have is "what type of STM are good ones". Your article only eludes to some of those solutions. I am sure that you don't believes that we should just forget about the Great Commission, so what solutions do you suggest? It appears that you were trying to be thought-provoking, but by doing that - without offering solutions - you open yourself up to unwarranted criticism and emotional responses. Maybe in academia people can just throw out a problem statement and let people chew on it, but in real world situations people want to know how they can reach the world in effective ways. I don't believe that your article met that need.
Eric, did you see the last paragraph where Carlson says,
Also, Carlson does not work in academia. As his bio explains, he is the founder and president of a missions agency that leads short-term mission trips.
This has been my view for years now regarding these mission trips.
It really bothered me that money was raised and used to pay airfare sometimes for ans entire family to go. When they returned I got see pictures that looked suspiously like a family vacation. In fact it was member of my own family, they even extended the stay past the mission trip time. So, they did their backyard VBS work, but then, took a week to travel around Alaska airfare paid.
This article brought out many valid points I didn't even think about esp regarding foreign countries.
I have been involved with short-term missions for 30 years as a missionary in Haiti. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly! I have found that for truly successful short-term missions, there must be a long-term plan. There are in my opinion 6 main ingredients to a successful, biblical, and culturally relevant experience and plan.
1. You MUST go through a reputable what I call a 3rd party agency on the ground in that country. This group will be able to be your's and the national church's buffer culturally if they are doing their job well. This is of great importance. NEVER go directly to a national church or national organization. This sounds harsh, but unfortunately the issues listed above are very true. This happens all the time in Haiti. Many nationals simply view the US teams as "income producers" for them. They need money and this is an easy way to get it. Often the prices charged for projects are wayyy over priced with the overage going for other needs or personal benefit. A 3rd party should be evaluating the project and making sure it is within normal guidelines for the country and area. The 3rd party should be the one "controlling" the partnership - giving guidance and oversight to make sure that all that is done is addressing the needs of both cultures, such as making sure the project is a felt need of the nationals, but providing the accountability for funds, etc. that the US church desires. Unfortunately, few missions are truly equipped to do this.
2. Go with an agency with a long-term partnership program. This should provide you with a church to church partnership that will enable you to have a long-term impact TOGETHER in the church and community. It is not as "exciting" as going to a new spot every year, but this is where-if run well-you will experience "When Helping Helps - not hurts.
3. The partnership program should be geared to what the nationals want NOT what the US wants....while taking into account the limited resources and desires of the US church. It is a partnership, not a one-way dialogue.
4. The US agency should have a good culturally relevant system to engage both churches together - this is similar to number 3 but is more specific.
5. The agency should have a good PRE-TRIP orientation program required for all teams. This makes sure that the cultural issues are addressed before they get there, etc.
6. It is best if the church is a part of a nationally recognized association rather than just an independent church or very small group run by one pastor. In Haiti, what many US churches have found out the hard way, most small groups are run by one pastor who literally owns everything PERSONALLY - all properties that the church, school, orphange, etc. are on as well as the facilities. it is a personal business at the heart of it, even though good ministry might be taking place. However, when a problem arises, the US church has no where to turn. In a true association, there is a Board that governs everything.
These are the things that my agency, Reciprocal Ministries International have found to be essential to a truly helpful, culturally relevant partnership. RMI acts as the 3rd party facilitator for church to church partnerships through the MEBSH church association of 480 churches. We develop the partnerships through our StarFish Strategy of impacting both churches and the national community through 5 Impact Points: Evangelism, Discipleship, Social Compassion, Education, and Community Development. RMI sits with the national church and community leaders to identify the local needs in the above areas, then coordinates with the US church to put together a long term plan to address over time a number of issues in each area so that TRUE HELP is given that is measurable and possible for the US church. This will involve short-term team projects and ministries as well as projects throughout the year that are under the oversight of RMI. Every team that visits their Sister Church Partner sits with the church leadership for an evaluation time together. RMI has an extensive orientation program that all teams must go through before coming to the field. This enables them to have a good understanding of many different subjects before they get to the field.
Our partnerships have seen great impact over the years and as RMI as had more than 30 years of experience in this, we have refined our system to maximize impact and minimize the "hurt". As our name implies, we seek a "reciprocal ministry" together.
If you are a church leader, DON'T do this alone directly to the Nationals. It sounds cool and there are those that advocate this, but it is fraught with dangers.
Agencies that are enabling these types of partnerships to happen are writing the sequel to "When Helping Hurts". RMI is one of these that has been writing the sequel for 30 years now.
Without the above safeguards in place, the "HURTS" are so often the result. There are a number of agencies that can provide the type of partnership described above. For more info on RMI and our partnership program, see our website at http://www.rminet.org or email me directly at dan.shoemaker@rminet.org
Just returned from Russia on Saturday, and I saw nothing like what was mentioned in the above article (third mission trip). I saw a group of Believers who desired to be autonomous. They wanted us to consult with them, NOT do everything for them. I was one female of a three-member team, and the conditions weren't what Americans would consider comfortable - no running water, no electricity, no bath for six days, etc. I would NOT change a thing! I learned "less is more" and was reminded of what I really NEED, not just what I WANT. Though I don't feel called to long-term missions at this time, I do feel led to maintain a relationship with this part of Russia and organize very deliberate teams to do very specific well-organized tasks. Also, while some of the things you say may be true, my view is a bigger picture. Even if I did walk into a situation where I seemed to do more enabling than helping, I know that if even one person was truly brought to Christ through the experience then it was worth it. My prayer is that your article doesn't do harm to God's work that needs to be done throughout the world - at home and abroad.
The idea of "if even one person was truly brought to Christ" being the gauge of what is good or not is, in my opinion, at best very poor reasoning and at worst a flimsy excuse. A child born from unwed teens is certainly a a child loved dearly by God...but it is hardly a reason to support Pre-Marital Sex.
This type of reasoning is dangerous in that it can be used to excuse virtually anything. There is no doubt that the Crusades of the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries brought some people to Christ. What about a Christian brothel...sure its wrong...but what if just one person is saved by it...then its okay right? How about a Christian Crackhouse?
Now, obviously these examples are absurd and what you are suggesting does not come close to these outrageous ideas that nobody would support.
HOWEVER, a culture of ministry in which it is the norm that the entire enterprise revolves around planning things that are far more focused on the participants in the trip and NOT the folks they are there to minister to is WRONG. While it is certainly possible that some good comes out of it somewhere, it doesn't make it less wrong. It should never be an excuse to keep doing it.
Yes, your examples are absurd! Obviously, I do not support premarital sex. However, I will minister to a young lady who is alone and pregnant. Obviously, I do not support drug abuse. However, I will minister to an addict. Obviously, I do not support prostitution. However, I will minister to a prostitute. To be an effective missionary, the needs of the people must first be met and trust must be gained. Do Christians sometimes lose (money, resources, time) along the way? Certainly! This is a fallen world. However, I still believe winning one lost soul is worth it! Read the Gospels - Jesus didn't spend a whole lot of time with who was considered "decent" in that day. Regarding "pleasure mission trips," I do agree that it is easier to get Americans participate and that participants may not be going into the situation with pure motives. I do agree that mission trips need to be well-organized with very specific goals allowing for flexibility/fluidity. As previously stated, I hope this writer has not discouraged some from going. Some of us (like myself) do not feel called to go into full-time missions. However, I can make sure I take teams with pure motives to do meaningful work.
Please do not misunderstand...i was being absurd to make a point. I course i do not believe you would support those things.
Yes, Jesus spent almost all of his time with sinners and the unloved, untouched, unclean. However, he did not do any of these things to make himself feel better. Those that wanted to follow him but not give up anything or had wrong motives...he told them to go away.
That is my point.
Yes there ARE some short term mission trips that are well worth it and do good work. I believe that you are likely one of these people.
My point is that we must confront that MOST of these trips are completely wrong headed and should be cancelled. In addition we must not fall prey to the idea that these kind of trips are still okay if someone is reached during them.
The self centered non servant-like mission trips are wrong. Because of this they should be stopped. There is no worth to excusing them.
[...] Read the rest of the article here. [...]
[...] Finally, the third section of this book deals with practical strategies and one whole chapter is devoted to short-term mission trips. Personally, I had never thought through all of the implications (good and bad) of short-term missions and just assumed that they were good for helping people who go on them to be more passionate about missions. That may or may not be true but regardless, there are many pitfalls to avoid and this book gives some great insight. In short, short-term mission trips can be productive and helpful but much planning and training must be done before, during, and after. [For further reflection on the benefit of short-term mission trips, check out this series] [...]
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! This is SUCH a needed article. Thanks for articulating it and for the additional resources and links etc. We are missionaries in France (one of the most expensive places to live) and we recently asked one of our sending churches for $600. They declined, refused to ask the congregants for any money. We found out later it was because they had already bled the congregation for $40,000 to send the youth group to Peru for one week. Nice.
The church simply has to change.
hi there -- could you please send me the link to the follow-up article to this one?
thanks.
There are several glaring issues overlooked: Unity is the Christian's calling card. Developing relationships cross-culturally is a great thing and sending a check, while makes sense on a thin level, creating bonds and relationships beforehand is far more important. Yes, casual over-spending and miss-spending is something to take very seriously - it probably is the most obvious wrong-headed action.
Maybe building close relationships cross-culturally alone might create the bridge on many of these serious issues.
I agree whole-heartedly that the answer is the building of cross-cultural close relationships is what it is all about. See my comments above. This is the ideal answer for these situations if the 6 elements I list are in place.
amen.
many of these comments are just sheer anger at a perceived "bunch of people" that have yet to be specifically identified.
Having been a career missionary and having served on several teaching ministry teams I whole-heartedly agree with the comments made about the damage short term missions teams can make. I have heard reports from those having made such trips and have long wondered about who served whom. It is much more difficult to get US folk interested in supporting indigenous missionaries than it is to send out folk we know. This article deserves careful study and prayerful follow-up.
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips [...]
[...] to speaking about short-term missions, it’s fair to say I have a platform. And when I read this article by Darren Carlson on why you should cancel your short-term mission trip I felt it might be good to write a [...]
[...] Gospel Coalition challenges to consider cancelling our short term mission trips, while Nathan gives seven good reasons to support missionaries (if you need a missionary to [...]
Darren, I agree with 95 % of what you have said here in your article. As a veteran missionary of almost 24 years in Latin America, I have personally seem many of the examples that you have cited and even worse. But things are changing and can be changed. I have worked with teams over the years and more specifically been in charge of training US churches to think about a deeper commitment. To me that is where change must begin in short-term missions, from a project (one time trip, or once a year) to becoming part of the process of seeing the Kingdom of God extended in these least reached areas.
Many U.S. churches are feeling a call to a people group or a place and they need to be trained in good Biblical principles and solid Missiology. We work hard to train US churches to come and work alongside nationals who already have a call and a vision. Other teams come with the DNA to empower the nationals, which means we as North Americans must humble ourselves and work in a secondary role. We teach them to not cause dependency except the dependency which should naturally develop on Go as the great provider. The truth is most of North American missionaries make the same mistakes as US short term teams, but because of the on-going training and experience they learn to not do the quick fix (which many times includes money), but to build a solid foundation for expansion of the Kingdom work.
I am glad that in your final section you said that you are pro-short term missions, but I would recommend that Churches thinking about this should pray and seek God’s face, look into a deeper partnership relationship, where instead f sending 4o people on a one time trip they send 8 groups of five to build healthy relationships and God's church. Thanks for what you are doing! God Bless you and your ministry.
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Missions Trip – I have never been particularly fond of short-term missions to developing countries. I’m usually misunderstood. I love missions, but not short-term missions trips. This author has captured my sentiments well. [...]
[...] Carlson wrote a provocative post (over 200 comments in the first 5 days), called Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips. Much of his post was based on Toxic [...]
A lot of the rationale that is here to justify short-term missions is that God used a short-term mission to inspire a desire to serve long-term. However, is we believe that He is omnipotent, then we need to accept that He is capable of inspiring that love in any way -- you wouldn't have to go on a mission trip for Him to show you that the mission field is where you belong.
Knowing that short-term missions are often harmful to the people that we should be serving should discourage us from pursuing them. Justification that they will benefit us in the long run is not good, at least in my opinion, because it places a higher priority on us and what we stand to gain than on truly serving others as we are commanded.
You're right. If inspiring LT missions is the primary aim, that may be problematic. But just because it is one of the reasons we should do ST missions, doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Of course God could inspire LT missions in other means, but I also believe that this is one of the ways that He does so.
At least, going on 2 ST mission trips (that were each connected with a specific local leader as a part of a long-term relationship with our church) helped inspire me and my family to become missionaries ourselves.
So much to digest in this article. Many of the things stated I have wondered about, but thought it was just my suspicious mind. I will need to read this over a few times. members of our church are on a mission trip right now, and The expense of just getting there was huge.We know the minister there quite well, but I wonder if the money spent on getting our "team" there might have just as well have been spent on materials and employing the locals to do the work. I realize that manpower, at times is hard to find, but just wondering.
Thanks for this eyeopening article.
It is easy to look at the expense and think of what that could have done locally. There are 2 falsies here that have to be considered. The first is that you would have had the same amount of money to send if the team had NOT gone. People simply don't give that way. They give IF they are involved. The funds you would have are far fewer if you don't go. Secondly, yes, you might have been able to get the project done locally, but the Body of Christ would not have had the opportunity to connect, share, love, enjoy each other, and minister to each other. I call it "the Ministry of Presence". When done well, it is worth far more than money. When we experience the oneness of the Holy Spirit across cultural, language, economic, racial, and social barriers, awesome things happen. Yes, often we feel like the change has been more "for us" than for them, but the national will often say the same thing. Working the project hand in hand together with the nationals is a great encouragement to them and a witness into the community when done appropriately. See my comments above concerning how to do short-term missions well. So realize that there is a great place in the Body of Christ for us to declare together the diversity yet unity we have together.
[...] laid out the history of short-term missions and some of the opportunities it has provided. The second article pointed to some of the problems that surround the enterprise. Now I want to offer a way [...]
[...] to a recent three-part series by Darren Carlson of Training Leaders International on the pros and cons of the short-term mission trip phenomenon, as well as some hints at a better way forward. As it [...]
[...] Really Help?The Gospel Coalition has two recent articles on this very subject. Darren Carlson wrote Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Mission Trips and a follow-up Toward Better Short-Term Missions. They are worth a read.We are glad Darren wrote [...]
It was because of a short- term mission trip that my heart for foreign missions was sparked. Right now I am in medical school with a real sense of purpose and mission about how God wants to use it for HIS purposes. I believe that God creates every one intricately with a certain heart and passion for ways to serve Him. If God plans to spark someone's heart for foreign or local U.S. missions through short term trips and that is how He reveals it to them, then praise Him for how he weaves together the experiences of someone's life to bring about a heart of service to Him! Short term and long term missions are problematic in certain ways because it is a broken world and God is using sinful human beings to accomplish His purposes.... again we can rejoice that He involves us in His kingdom and cause regardless of the trouble we cause :)
The issue not the short-term team as much it is "under what conditions does the team operate"? I would bet that most of the teams referred to above were not under the auspices of a reputable agency that understood both cultures and insisted on controlling the situation so as to NOT allow these type of things to happen. I have seen so many teams come to Haiti with no preparation, and no third party facilitator to guide them in the do's and don'ts of the local culture, etc.. Also they are not a part of an on-going long-term partnership that I believe is essential to have a meaningful and strategic impact. One problem too is that many agencies are very small and in and of themselves don't understand how to minister in a culturally relevant manner. Check out RMINET.ORG for an agency that will provide you with the type of ministry oversight that will promote healthy short term missions.
I believe that the root of all the problems that we are having is that the US Church has largely lost the importance of the Gospel in their own lives, and are thus hopeless when it comes to emphasizing it in the lives of others. The fact that the Church has been so steadfast in these trips shows our overall naivety in ministry, and that we've forgotten one of the key rules when serving, ACTUALLY SERVE.
[...] short-term mission trips. A few weeks back, Darren Carlson summarized my concerns very well in Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Mission Trips. Although he broke things down a little differently, he really had five major areas of [...]
We perhaps should assess what exactly does the word mission mean any more...For instance painting an orphanage is not mission in my mind nor is rebuilding homes or giving food to the hungry. These are all good things but not mission. And so perhaps this article should be titled, "Why you should cancel your short-term relief project and learn what the Bible says about mission". I do not think short-term missions is the problem at all but rather our understanding of mission. Paul rarely spent more than a year in places and today we would classify that at as not being long-term missions. The point is the proclamation of the gospel...you can do that in one week in some places and you can do that in four years as well.
Keeping the main thing the main thing is the priority, i.e. teaching and training nationals to do the work of the ministry. Everything else, although well intended or helpful, may end up undermining that mission.
Sadly, it is the latter that has become much of the focus of "Short Term Trips" that are in vogue now. But we must not cancel "Short Term Trips" that are truly helping the greater body in spiritual endeavor simply because the popular "humanitarian arm" has crept into the church. We should instead, resurrect the "main thing" as the focus of these trips and keep the other activities on the peripheral.
I am leaving next week to minister in Bolivia. No paint, no building project, no food distribution. Simply teaching, training, preaching and encouraging the brothers and sisters in their walk. Still, if there is painting, building or food distribution that they are doing I am certainly not above it.
Everyone here should read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-World-Missions-Journey-Generation/dp/1595890610/ref=pd_sim_b_1
as someone who is on the receiving field of STMs, i have to agree with a lot of what is written and being said in the comments. having said that, though, i feel that it is the responsibility of the mission organization (or receiving field of that org)and the STM's sending church to help STMers develop an appropriate attitude towards long-term involvement in mission as well as the purpose of going.
i'm not an expert on this topic, but i've written a teeny bit more about it here: http://thesarcasticmissionary.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/short-term-missions-the-science-of-zebras-stm-series-pt-1/
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short Term Missions Trip by Darren Carlson. And yet my daughter leaves for Slovakia in a week to teach in Bible (day) camps and to share the gospel working alongside the Slovak church. Mistakes have been made, and unintended consequences are rampant. However, we can be called and used of God in other countries and cultures. [...]
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips [...]
[...] by Darren Carlson on The Gospel Coalition: 1. Celebrating The Short Term Missions Boom 2. Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Missions Trip 3. Toward Better Short-Term [...]
Thank you for this article. I have been on both short term trips as well as living in-country in a couple of places from 1 month to almost 3 years. One of the things that troubles me about teams is the attitude many seem to have that since they are "sacrificing in the name of Jesus" they shouldn't have to be uncomfortable. Or, the workers in-country should be sure that their comforts experienced at home---ie--comfortable beds, good food---you get the point--are maintained. I remember coordinating a trip when I lived in-country in which two of the US visitors threw a fit (yes, they were adults) in the hotel lobby because they were going to have to share a room with a fellow visitor....and they had been given the opportunity months before to choose otherwise, and didn't. They then complained to their debriefer about how much more expensive their hotel rooms were than what they had budgeted for.....or, the complaining about food, toilet facilities, beds, the list go on. And, my favorite----extreme loudness in places which quiet and respect are valued. Goodness... May we all have a heart that is because of Jesus, not ourselves, not a "missions vacation" that we go......
They work it depends on the group. Little by little change happens and nobody wants to give and not see or not be part of the work, the God thing is that Gods words does not come back void. Yes there are issues but let people come, one of ten will remember something and if they want to come young and old - let them come however let them partner with people of like minds - be it a church or individual - the other thing is that the aid conditions are too much pushing thir agenda which is ok if they want to use 80% on them coming and 20% to the needy it is ok.... till they see the reason. But they should work with the locals
So true, but looking at the other side of the coin, Very contrary !!
We need to ask God to bring good people our way,but at the same time we need to know the people we are dealing with.For me I will do my part to reach out to the destitute children.
What about short-term medical mission trips? Do they differ than the normal "short-term" mission trip described in this article? Doctors, physicians, and dentists doing check ups and educating on health awareness? Maybe filling some teeth... checking blood pressure... what do you guys think?
[...] knew immediately this attitude was coming from some recent reading. After reading The Gospel Coalition’s blog on short-term missions, I read When Helping Hurts. Both of these pieces provide convincing evidence in response to this [...]
[...] Carlson writes a TGC blog titled, “Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips“, concerning the detrimental effects of massive waves of apocopated short-term mission trips. [...]
THANK YOU for speaking from my heart. You said it so well!
I think this is a good discussion we need to have, and I will read the next articles, too.
There are some STM that I think are useful and good. Examples would be those with skills that are either helping to training others. Doctors, dentists, nurses doing short term medical trips. Skilled people (seamstresses, carpenters, electrical workers, welders) training others to have skills they can support themselves with. Yet even with those, we are likely looking at "short-term" as a month or so, not a week. And none of those would be teens or college students.
I think there are opportunities for teens and college students to serve a short-term missions and be useful. Long term missionaries are good at what they do - years of language training and cultural adaptation have made them good. Short term teens or young adults could be good at serving the missionaries themselves - freeing the missionaries up to do outreach or more in-depth ministry. An example would be staying with a family with young children and caring for them (babysitting and/or homeschooling) so the missionaries could do a two week conference or a nightly marriage course with the local church. Or a young adult who is good with computers going and helping by working as an IT guy for a local missionary community for a few weeks. Perhaps other skills like data entry or other mundane tasks could be done by teens. Of course, there will be times that the teens interact with the local community, but they will do it as one or two under the guidance of the experienced missionary so cultural mistakes are lessened.
The problem is these type of jobs aren't as glamorous or so exciting since you can't do them with ten of your best friends, but they would give teens a better picture of what missions is about and introduce them to the mission community better. A problem missionaries face is that we come home to churches who think missions is "so exciting" and "such an adventure". It's not. It's a lot of dishes, mopping floors, and repetitive tasks - daily life among those we want to reach.
A better model for a youth group would be to prayerfully choose two to three teens to send out for a summer to be support roles for different missionaries around the world. The rest of the youth group would be responsible for getting summer jobs and pledging to support those they sent out. Those that went out would be responsible for frequent communication with those at home to share what they are learning and things they want them praying for. Those at home would pray for those they sent out. Far better and far more economical to have three airline tickets and three people out for eight weeks than to have ten tickets and ten people out for one week. Also in terms of relationships, eight weeks is time to build a real relationship that can actually influence a life.
But... it is not so exciting... I realize that.
I've been both a MK, a short term tripper, and a long term missionary (coming up on 10 years on the field). My short term was spent like above - two months with a family. I home-schooled, potty-trained, wiped up vomit, and stayed home with crying kids for two weeks so the missionary could have some needed surgery. There weren't any reports of hundreds of kids saved... but as a result of my "VBS" with the three little MKs, the oldest went to his parents one night and asked Jesus to save him. He's grown up now and is a missionary himself. That, while small, is fruit that stays, and I am content with that. I also befriended a local girl who I continued to correspond with for several years and encourage her as she grew and stayed in the church.
Good short term missions can be done, but we have to look at what is best not for us, but for the locals and for the missionary on the field. The problem is that it is hard for missionaries to say to their supporting church, "thanks, but no thanks", to teams of youth. Even harder to say, "we could really use someone who could just serve us so we can be freed to do some ministry." It's just tough to say that to people who you are dependent on.
[...] A week or two ago I read a great article by Chuck Blakeman on how non-profits won’t solve poverty. A long while ago I read a brilliant article by Jamie the Very Worst Missionary about how short term missions tend to be a bad move. And some where in the middle of reading both of those articles I came across one on The Gospel Coalition entitled ‘”Why you should consider cancelling your short-term mission trips.” [...]
[...] Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips – The Gospel Coalition Blog. /* Did you like this? Share it:Tweet This entry was posted in Missions. Bookmark the permalink. ← Life on the road, month two [...]
[...] Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short Term Mission Trip [...]
This is an excellent article. Thank you so much for your well-written insight. We have to re-think the way we "do church", whether at home or in the mission field. Your approach may make some readers mad, but I hope it makes them THINK. I reposted the link to your article on my blog site so that my readers can find it more easily. If they make any really good comments, I'll forward them along to you.
Blessings,
Linda
[...] summer, one of my friends posted an article titled, “Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Mission Trips,” which ultimately led me to the follow-up article, “Toward Better Short-Term Missions.” I [...]
This article is rediculous. It makes some good points that we need to think aboutin regards to our trips. But the overall premise is wrong. It's is full of negativity and finds all the wrong. However you can do the same thing with local church or local outreach in our communities and find reasons to quit. This world is corrupt. There will always be drama even around good. Also the statement that going on a short term mission trip is not life changing is totally unfounded. I have been involved in the management of 21 missions trips and I have seen many lives changed with many going into full time ministry. My own life has also been enriched by being a part of building churches that were needed, drilling water wells and leading medical missions. These were not cheesy trips that the author focused on.
I know there is a push by many in the church for local missions. Local missions are vital too. But our church will continue to do both because short term missions trips are powerful and can help if they are done right.
I hope you took time to read the final article in this series.
It is sad that the author Darren Carlson would put such doubt out there when things are already hard and not mention the many, yes many, organizations that do their due diligence and truthfully make a difference, year after year after year!
I've served as a short term missionary for over 9 years with Mission Discovery and have had the pleasure to visit the small houses we built in years prior, and see the people that were gave their life to Christ and have turned things around because of a Mission Trip. The support to local pastors in the work they are doing in their community and how that affects the entire community.
It is unfair, and mean to generalize and not give specifc PROS.
Perhaps Darrell you were disillusioned with an experience, and scams there are everywhere, even on our own streets.
Fix it! Publish another article with GOOD INFO, on GOOD ORGANIZATIONS! GOOD STORIES!
A place where people can check facts on missions. Don't just throw a story like this out there and walk away. Come back here! Pick up the pieces! and set right what maybe you tried to do in the first place. please.
Swimmer, please read the "Editor's Note." It says that this article is the 2nd in a series of 3 (links are provided). The final article presents exactly what you ask for.
Thanks for the challenge to carefully reconsider our motives for doing short-term trips. Reading this article has been a great stimulant for evaluation of our own trips and their purpose. I look forward to your next article.
[...] Gospel Coalition has two recent articles on this very subject. Darren Carlson wrote Why You Should Consider Canceling Your Short-Term Mission Trips and a follow-up Toward Better Short-Term Missions. They are worth a [...]
[...] was citing some articles about short-term missions. I Googled and found similar, maybe the same, articles. After reading the articles, I read a book: When Helping Hurts. I also read portions of Toxic [...]
[...] At the Sending Church conference in Smyrna, TN I had the great opportunity to sit at a discussion table with men who had spent many years overseas sharing the Gospel, that now are leading churches forward in God’s mission to make His name great among all peoples. One of the topics was the panel discussion on the value and use of short-term trips for the advancement of the mission of God. I have served overseas two times on short-term trips, and as I look back on these experiences, I can’t help but wonder if these trips were confused about the mission of God. We were able to serve different humanitarian needs, but this should not be the only focus of short-term trips. Now don’t misunderstand me here, I believe that serving the physical needs of others is an important part of advancing the Gospel. But I have seen that churches can cause tremendous damage even if they have the best of intentions. In fact, the potential to cause harm has led some churches to consider canceling their short term mission teams. [...]
If short-term mission trips are done right, they can be quite effective. Keyword is "right", so I agree with you on that point.
You should have added "cost" as another reason to consider cancelling a short term mission trip. But then again, there are many ways to raise money for mission trips, one of which is crowdfunding.
Crowdfunding allows you to ask family, friends, and even complete strangers for small donations to support your need. For anyone reading this comment, check out http://www.Charisity.com for free step-by-step crowdfunding information.
I dislike how every mission org. costs so much money.
comforts < commission
If anyone knows a great way to do missions without breaking the bank (I'm a college kid), please email me.
Hard to email you without a link or address. Contact me through my website, and maybe I can help.
missionallendale.wordpress.com
This article is very bias, I'm 17 and i spent my summer in costa rica helping the community and painting sorry but your comment about people receiving the help and not appreciating it is not true at all. we went to countless thank you dinners and many different things and the best part of going to thank you dinners was that ya maybe they only fed us rice and beans or whatever they had to offer and that made us feel extremely appreciative, the fact that they gave us whatever they had to offer they can barely feed thier families but they did whatever they could to show us how much they appreciated our work. and another thing saying that these places arent poor and that they don't need any help is ridiculous i would gladly share my pictures of some of the houses i saw and the schools. anyways i feel very strongly about mission trips and it has changed my life for the positive so i encourage everyone else who is also passionate about mission trips to keep doing what there doing and disregard this article:) "you cant help everyone but everyone can help someone" just remember that.
[...] 3. Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short-Term Missions Trips by Darren Carlson [...]
Appreciated the post. The question we always need to ask is - "Is it biblical?" Great 10 minute video on a biblical view of short term mission trips.
http://scottbrownonline.com/paul-washer-and-scott-brown-with-thoughts-on-short-term-mission-trips/
Having been heavily involved in mission work since 1995, I think I can speak to this. Most of what he says I totally agree with, have experienced and believe that we are inadvertently hurting more than we help. Books have even been written about this.
So why do people keep ignoring these cautions and keep going?
Are we willing to explore possible blindspots?
Does complexity scare us when we are demanding it to be simple?
I believe that the issues with short-term trips exist because many in the American church these days have lost the heart of The Father. Look at what Jesus did - it was all about reaching the lost. Unless we are preaching the Gospel and getting people saved - we are sending people with full stomachs and painted houses straight to hell. I believe humanitarian aid is great - when coupled with the Great Commission.
God told us to GO, we just need to remember WHY. Only half of one percent of all the funds of the church actually go to the front lines of the Harvest Fields overseas where 3 billion people have NEVER heard the Good News of Jesus one time. That is a shame. We as Christians need to carry the Gospel with us around the world and show people through healings and miracles that God's Power is true and His Love is real. And when we are doing that, we never go in vain. :) http://globalventures.tv/
[...] Here’s a good article from The Gospel Coalition about short term missions. Share this:ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestEmailPrint Posted by Craig on Jan 21, 2013 in Methods | 0 comments [...]
Interesting article! I have much more to learn about missions, but I would just offer this: DON'T FORGET GOD. HE is our life. In all our doing let us continue to know HIM. That is what eternal life is (John 17:3)
I myself have found that my greatest mission field is my own family. Then my neighborhood. Although there are churches on every corner people are turning away from God and turning to self, sex, materialism, homosexuality, false doctrines, and all kinds of evil more than I can say. I have heard people say when asked if they would go to heaven when they died, say "Yes, I'm a good person." I am 26 and my heart aches for my generation and my country. If there was ever a time to preach the Gospel it is now!
I'm not against going forth to other countries and preaching the Gospel. I do, however, think that there is a great opportunity to look at our own families, neighborhoods, and cities and witness there.
[...] I kinda have this…thing… As you all know, I’m human, and being human, I can be… judgement. And opinionated. When I know what I think, I’m right. Because, obviously. One of those opinions pertains to short-term missions. I have strong views AGAINST short-term missions, because I, generally, see them as a waste of money and resources. In other words, why should I spend $4,000.00 each to send three short-term missionaries for two weeks when that same amount of money ($12,000.00) would support a missionary for a year? Especially when the long-termer would, in my (right) opinion be more effective? (Here for more info on my opinion.) [...]
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/06/18/why-you-should-consider-cancelling-your-short-ter... [...]
I wouldn’t disagree that, if done recklessly or without training, short-term missions teams can have negative impacts or no impact at all. However, there are ways that these trips can have impact on both the host community, the teams and the missionary. I can tell you that I have seen dozens of people’s lives significantly altered through missions trips. I am one. I was previously a ride-both-sides-of-the-fence lukewarm Christian journalist who was more concerned with seeing my name on the front page of the newspaper than issues worldwide or people in need. One short-term trip to the Dominican Republic changed that. Now I work full-time for a missions organization called Global Passion, and I have see individual after individual come back changed. My co-workers all have the same story. The key is how short-term missions is done. The organization I work for does lead trip to meet with missionaries on the field to see what kinds of needs they have. Our heart is to come alongside them and help them move their ministry forward. Our philosophy is that we don’t want to send teams where they are tolerated or where they are given busy work. We send them where missionaries are asking for them and where they can go share the burden and do effective ministry. We have all of our teams walk through a training manual on missions heart, attitude, travel, culture and other elements. We give them materials on the culture and the missionary. We research it carefully. We have teams attend a training day in which we reiterate all of these things. We send a leader on each of our teams who walks teams through an orientation when they arrive. Everything we teach is to prevent the things you are talking about. When short-term missions is done right, this is what we see. 1. Team members eyes are opened to the fact that they have so much. They come back with a drive and a passion to do something greater than themselves. We had one team member come back and start a ministry for the homeless in their community. Two and a half years later, that ministry is still alive and running. We have seen many homeless accept Jesus, find housing and find a job through that ministry. One trip participant was previously a rebel who went to jail for drug possession and resisting arrest. He came back from his trip with a fire for Jesus and got very involved in the college and 20s ministry at our church. The next year, he led a missions trip. He is now in Bible college. We see many trip participants feel called to full-time ministry or full-time missions during a missions trip. Other people have simply started supporting missions for the first time. One woman told me she would have never started giving if she hadn’t seen the need firsthand. Not every team member is changed. But if even one per team is, then it is worth it. 2. There are impacts on the field. We have seen people be miraculously healed during medical missions trips. There have been 14 Zimbabwe orphans rescued out from near-death at hospitals because of a children’s home that was started there by a missionary. Our teams have gone to assist and now churches who came as team members support him because they saw it first-hand. I led one team that traveled into the Chaco Jungle in Colombia. This is an area where people of indigenous tribes and former slaves were pushed. They are a people who feel looked down on and cast aside. Ten years ago, the pastor said God gave her a prophesy that outsiders would begin to come to the Chaco. At the time, it seemed impossible because of the violence there. But then our missionary began coming and building relationship with the people there. The pastor said she never imagined that an American team would be part of fulfilling that prophesy. The fact that outsiders from thousands of miles away would come in meant the world to a people who live as outsiders and feel like no one cares. 3. Missionaries themselves get burnt out. Being a missionary can be an isolated and tough life. We have had missionaries say that our teams have refreshed them because someone came to carry the load with them. If short term mission is done with poor planning, a forced agenda, little cultural education and poor training, sure, many of the things that you listed will happen. But I would challenge you to come on one of our trips. Maybe the life changed will be your own :)
I have worked at an international agricultural research institute in West Africa and can I concur with the article somewhat. Although well intentioned, short term trip benefits are not sustainable. Its okay for emergency aid. Long term development is what empowers local communities and gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment. Sometimes religion alone is not enough. It needs to be combined with tangible sustenance.
Ibironke Lawal
afrikards.com
[...] mission trips can derail. They can become sight-seeing diversions. They can be self-centered or self-advancing (hegemonic). [...]
[...] When entering another culture, we come with our own cultural baggage. We cannot help this. We take our worldviews with us. But we also come with our own church cultural baggage- some of which are often helpful and not so helpful because the cultural context has changed. Discernment is therefore crucial. Learning culture is, not less, but more than language. It takes time to assimilate, listen, assess, evaluate and bring the power of the Gospel to bear on the culture. We all have a vision of what we would like to see happen in the culture we’re called to serve- short term or long term. This is great. Vision is crucial. But we’re called to “look not only to [our] own interests, but also to the interests of others” (v. 4). Know that your stories or plans are not always more interesting than other people’s stories or vision. Others also have their visions, aspirations and dreams. Be careful not to put on the know it all attitude. “A little knowledge acquired on short-term trips can be dangerous. Just imagine that three short-term teams from China come to the United States and serve in Lincoln, Nebraska, San Francisco, California, and Detroit, Michigan. They then return to their churches and tell everyone what the United States is like, how the people act, how they struggle with their culture, and how Christians are living for Jesus. Would they really have an picture of the United States? Of course not, but we seem content to tell everyone what Africa is like after visiting Nairobi. We often have no clue about the cultural expectations that inform the worldview of people around the world” (Why You Should Consider Cancelling Your Short Term Missions Trip). [...]