Missions: Why a Short Term Missions Trip?
In browsing the web the other day, I came across a post in which Bill the Reasoner claims Short Term Missions is No Missions. The author relies, in part, on an article about Band-Aid Approaches to Complex Problems from a site recruiting military personnel into full-time missions. While I agree with some of the premises to the article that he relies on, I still believe that there is a purpose to short term missions, with the right emphasis.
In short, Bill states that short term missions is a drain on funding, and that the primary effect of short-term missions is to entertain those who go on the trips. He concludes by claiming that because the people on those trips are not committed to the long-term effort and to church planting, that they are largely ineffective.
The article that Bill relies on states that the following are misconceptions about short term missions:
Misconception
Short term mission experiences lead large numbers of participants to get involved in supporting long term solutions.
REALITY
While 52 percent of respondents claimed to have increased their giving to the sending organization after the trip… 70 percent of the participants in their short-term missions trip to Honduras didn’t send in a single direct donation in the three years after the trip. (Christianity Today, June 2005)
There are two problems with this alleged misconception. First, the report indicates that more than half of those who participated have increased their giving. The second statistic is that most of them did not increase their giving through direct donation to the sending organization. First, note that worst-case scenario 30 percent have given to the sending organization. Also, the statistic fails to account for indirect giving, i.e. people giving more to missions through their church rather than the short term missions organization. The statistic also fails to account for the fact that some who go with one agency, may in turn increase their giving to a different agency.
The fact is that short term missions does serve as an introduction to missions for many people. Some of them increase their giving to missions. Some increase their prayer. Some encourage others to go, give and/or pray. Others are not affected. It seems to me that impacting and changing some Americans to be more global in their faith is still a good thing. At least if it is done in the right ways.
Assumption: Short term missions and relief/aid projects are an effective way to present the message of salvation to people in foreign countries.
REALITY: “Cross-cultural evangelization will hardly occur when the time frame is a 2 or 3-week visit into and out of a society, with little knowledge or understanding of local language and culture.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, Spring 2004, p. 29)
In large part, I agree with this assessment, however with the caveat that short term workers side by side with nationals are likely to be more effective in evangelism than without the nationals. In this context, frequently the incoming missionary is an excuse for the national to speak to people about Christ in a way they might not otherwise, and an icebreaker. Also, in this context the nationals can help steer the short term missionary through the society and culture to aid them in their evangelism.
This statement also misses one of the short comings of many short term missions trips. One of my first missions trips was to a conference center in Honduras. I traveled with a group and we painted the outside of the center. Our only exposure to the Hondurans was the family that oversaw operations of the center, and a couple of meetings with a denominational leader in the country. Oh, yeah, and we had to rush one of our group to the not-so-local hospital when she fell and hurt herself. There was no evangelism, little relationship building, and I am convinced that the center could have gotten painted for less money than it cost to fly our team from the US. The question, is where would they have gotten the money? Would Americans have given money for a paint job? It doesn’t sound very exciting to give to. The primary value of that trip is that I know that several people grew in their faith, and many of those people have increased giving, and have been more active in missions since then.
Misconception: Short term missions and relief/aid projects are an adequate substitute for long term missionary presence.
REALITY: Such activities are valid expressions of love… but in the strict sense, they do not qualify as missionary work. The distinction is vitally important if we are to keep gospel proclamation, evangelism, church planting, and discipleship at the heart of what we are supposed to do. (Jim Reapsome, Mission Maker Magazine–2005, p.26)
Again, I agree with this premise. The best solution is long term presences. However, short term missions serve two purposes in connection with the long-term presence. First, they provide short term assistance on a particular project. Second, it serves as a recruiting tool for people to consider serving in long term missions after gaining a passion for missions in a short term setting.
A long term presence is absolutely necessary. Ideally, that presence will be primarily led by nationals, and not foreigners. The foreigners can begin a new work and provide training once the nationals have enough established to take charge.
Assumption: Short term efforts lead to vast numbers coming to Christ and are better investment of our dollars in missions.
REALITY: Decades of time, hundreds of thousands of workers and millions of dollars have been poured into countless projects. Instant evangelism? A growing number of national pastors and long term missionaries report finding few real followers resulting from such efforts. These popular ministry efforts may be considered a failure. (Rick Johnson, Missions Frontiers, June 2000)
I agree with this assessment. The primary value of short term missions is exposure. People become aware of the need and gain a desire to fill that need. There are certainly roles for project-based missions.
In summary, I think that short term missions is a valid missions expenditure. I think that the spending on short term missions should not exceed the giving toward church planting and the training of nationals for leadership. The emphasis in short term missions should be to support these purposes primarily. (Although, I am willing to support the idea of health care and disaster relief in the scope of missions as well.) The primary purpose of sending short term missionaries should be creating connections between believers and missionaries, and to introduce believers to missions with goal of encouraging them to focus more on missions, whether for them to fund long term missions, to pray for missionaries, or to eventually go into the missions field on a long-term basis.
No comments yet.
