Rethinking Missions Trips: “It Became Too Costly To Justify the Expense of Flying Kids O
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, July 07, 2008
- Viewed 241
- (36) comments so far
PS—What do you think?
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post about churches that are re-thinking missions trips. This is the first I have heard of things like this: a church in Mexico being painted six times in one summer by six different church groups, or a church in Ecuador that was built and never used because the community said it wasn't needed... Does this really happen? And, if so, why?
Then there was this quote in the article by one senior pastor: "It became too hard to justify the expense of flying the kids overseas. "If you're going to paint a church, you can do that in Florida as easily as you can in Mexico." True dat. And I have nothing against domestic missions trips. But I thought that the purpose of an international trip was the whole experience of a different culture; helping people who are less fortunate, and sharing your faith. Sure, you can do that in Florida, but it seems like you'll miss an important things you'd experience on an international trip.
All that said... when my two oldest boys travel to Honduras later this month, I'm hoping they won't be 'repainting' a church!
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
D Purdy on Mon, July 07, 2008
An organization I KNOW doesn’t do what the article lists is World Gospel Mission. It has programs for skilled professionals (Dr’s,dentists,accountants, etc) skilled UNprofessionals (he he he), and college-age people.
http://www.wgm.org
Norm on Mon, July 07, 2008
Wow! Must be a good topic sure got a gambit of responses and all, as usual, contained truth. Oliver, you sure seem angry. Just thought the enemy sure must love this we are arguing over doing the great commission. should we repaint something multiple times, not if it isn’t needed. But should we quibble over the cost of going if we are truly going because the Lord told us to go? Being sensitive to the culture and parterning with the locals is definitely the way to go even if you are coming from a trailer in the south.
Pat on Mon, July 07, 2008
There were a lot of good points made in the article, but I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. However, churches should definitely reevaluate their methods to ensure that they’re making good use of resources and actually helping and not hindering those they’re going to minister to.
1) At my church, and I’m sure we’re not alone, our youth hold fundraising events to help defray the costs of the trip. I think kids value the trips more if they’ve had to earn the money for the trip, rather than being provided with an all-expense paid trip (hopefully no church is doing this).
2)There is validity to doing domestic missions projects and there can still be exposure to different cultures. Today with residential and church communities so widespread apart, those in the suburbs may never have rubbed shoulders with someone in the inner city. Those of one racial group may never have had intimate one-on-one contact with someone from a different race or ethnicity. So, it is possible to have this experience right here in the U.S. Sometimes it has great impact as people are shocked to find out the conditions under which some people live right here in “the land of opportunity”.
3)I would think that proper planning and communication could help churches avoid the mistake of building things that aren’t useful or helpful or recreating the wheel. I mean to paint the same structure 6 times?? Someone did NOT do their homework. If we really want to help those we’re going to, aren’t they worth the time and effort of true quality time to get to know their true needs? I thought the idea of sending people to the Dominican Republic to teach computer skills was excellent. This reminds me of the saying about teaching a person to fish.
Just an in years gone by, missionaries reevaluated their methods, it sounds like we need to do so again, which isn’t bad as long as we learn each time and put that learning to good use.
Pat on Mon, July 07, 2008
AMEN, Wyeth! I’m with ya’ there brother—literally!
D Purdy on Mon, July 07, 2008
Literally? http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
John R on Mon, July 07, 2008
Just a note from a painter. If you are going to paint aluminum siding you can put an additive (I use a product called Seal Crete) into the paint to help it adhere better. Your local paint store can help you with this.
As far as short-term missions are concerned: I do them and enjoy them and don’t feel guilty about enjoying them or about taking in a few of the local sites while I am there. My eyes have been opened to cultural differences, worship style differences, and economic differences. It has made me more aware of the simple message of the gospel and how it impacts people of all races and backgrounds.
I am not a missions hero, just a guy doing what I feel that God wants me to do. I know that there are times that I have blundered but there are also times that I know that I have done the right thing, too.
Ted Esler on Mon, July 07, 2008
As somebody who works in the missions world and in an organization that has a short-term program, let me throw my two-cents worth in this discussion.
Short-term missions involvment has exploded onto the scene and expanded over the past 30 years. Hundreds of thousands have been sent. In the early days of this movement, many mission agencies were not in favor of it. Eventually, this viewpoint changed as agencies felt that the exposure these trips gave to people would mean greater global giving, going, praying, etc. Unfortunately, this has not happened. Despite the millions spent on short-term trips, little impact has been felt in terms of long-term interest.
Churches have had a different perspective. They are often looking for ways for people to be engaged and have seen short-term as a way to do this. While I am sympathetic to that purpose, it is not very focused on the objective within the receiving culture. Is it missions if the greatest contribution is for the short-termer and not the receiving culture?
Another concern is the buliding of structures and institutions. Should this be the goal of our missionary work? If these efforts are not under the control and direction of the local, indigenous people (not necessarily the church because there may not be one) I question their worth. Did Jesus build churches for poor kids in Samaria? I don’t think so.
I think there should be a close look at the way we do short-term missions. For one, let’s stop sending people to the same places. The number of missionary trips into Guatemala, The Domican Republic, Haiti, etc., is incredibly high. Is this good for these cultures and churches? I doubt it. Particularly if, in the meantime, there continues to be thousands of truly unreached people groups left in the world where there is little to no gospel presence. We alse send the same people over and over. One pastor I know calls them “repeat offenders.” Your church might consider letting them go to an “easy” place the first time. The second time, send them to a place with fewer Christians and greater spiritual needs. Help them to grow and not get comfortable by returning to the familiar and easy sites time and time again.
What we need to do is carefully look at the objectives for a particular trip. They need to be examined not only in light of the needs of the “trippers” but also in light of the local culture. As somebody who has lived cross-culturally as a missionary, my perspective is that it is very difficult to understand what those needs might be. Working with national churches is not a “get out of missiology free card.” I have seen short-term teams that were mislead by local people and never knew that they were.
The great benefit of short-term trips is that they democratize missions. It makes it accessible to everybody. Praise God for this but lets be smarter about it than we have been.
Ted Esler on Tue, July 08, 2008
Oliver,
When I use the term “democratizing” I don’t mean it’s evenly distributed. What I mean is that it makes missions more accessible for more people.
I agree with you point that it’s not creating the type of change that would be desired. That’s what I meant when I wrote that we haven’t seen increasing numbers of long-termers as a result of short-term.
You would be wrong, though, to make a blanket statement that it has no effect whatsoever. Our own internal research within Pioneers shows that almost 100% of long-termers have gone short-term first and most indicate that this had an impact on their decision to get involved in missions full-time.
I think it depends on your objectives and how you do short-term. Visiting a team that is working in a very unreached part of the world and seeing the national church suffer and struggle has an impact. Going on a youth trip with 30 other high schoolers to a hotel in Mexico to mix cement for a few hours a day… well, I am not so sure. It’s probably a great experience, but is it a missionary experience?
Jan on Tue, July 08, 2008
I think when we plan a short term missions trip for whatever purpose, be it helping out in physical needs or street evangelism, whatever, we need to broaden our criteria.
A lot of good discussion here by they way.
As a person who has been on the receiving end of short term missions teams, we have at times just said no. Why? Because often times we’ve ended up spending more time training those teams for ministry, then they’ve helped us. And when they leave, we are just plain worn out.
If the missions trips drains the missionaries that these groups are coming to serve, then should they have come at all? We’ve said no to some.
BUT, I don’t think the solution is to say, “Let’s get rid of short term missions.”
I think we need to be very careful when we plan them, looking at real needs and seeking to fulfill them, providing all the necessary tools to make it happen and not expecting the missionaries to come up with what we need to get the job done, and honestly evaluating how much serving and how much vacationing we are doing in the process.
Seth on Tue, July 08, 2008
I think the problem is partially one of semantics: What is the purpose of short-term missions? Do people really need a group of American teens to visit for two weeks and paint their building? I doubt it. Even in the US, short-term serving isn’t very effective. Ongoing service and relationship building is what is needed. It can be debated how much good is done in the country being visited, though at the very least, I’ve heard it can be encouraging for the people there.
That said, we greatly underestimate the power of experiencial education and cross-cultural experiences for those going. There are a number of Western countries that encourage their youth to have Overseas Experiences. In New Zealand, they often go elsewhere for 1-2 years, and that’s the non-Christians. If people want to start debating how much change these really produce in those sent, we could argue that about a number of domestic educational and church programs…
As long as we realize short-term missions are more about providing a learning experience for those sent than they are about doing something good for people overseas, short-term missions definitely have there place. And in today’s world, it’s a lot easier to keep in contact with people we meet overseas.
John R on Tue, July 08, 2008
I am one of those who went on my first missions trip when I was 17 and just out of high school. I am now 55 and continue to go on short term missions trips.
When I was 17 I learned that being a missionary was a high calling. To leave family and friends and go half way around the world was amazing to a kid who was homesick after one week. Over the years when a missionary would come to my home church I would listen closely because I had been there, if only for a short period of time. As an adult missions giving was more important to me because I had seen missions first hand.
No one knows what the impact can be when a teen goes to a foreign field. It may be the catalyst for future serving or future giving.
If God calls you to go, then go! If God calls you to stay home and pray or give then do that.
The trips I go on now are to the same city, working with the same churches and pastors, and building relationships with people to uplift and encourage them.
Right now going to Mexico one of the big things is speaking English to them to help them learn to speak American English because knowing the language qualifies them for better jobs. Maybe that doesn’t sound spiritual but it is a need that we can help meet, even if in a small way.
Oliver on Tue, July 08, 2008
good point by Ted, I can agree completely with your comments. As long as we remain open to criticism. There are trips that are poorly put together, that do more damage than good. There are some trips that are just put together because everybody else is doing it without any though to what is really happening. Kids leave with very wrong american attitudes about the countries they visit and they return with the same prejudices and yes, racism. Even seasoned “missionaries” have gone with pateralistic attitudes towards nationals, and have imposed cultural domination on other countries just because they think differently than americans. Or we have just transported our own sick form of christinaity on other cultures! Sometimes we just convert other countries to our way of doing church, insisting on our form of worship, dress, and cultural behavior. Also, people today are great at compartmentalizing life, so we “go” on mission trips, but we don’t live it back home. real missions is year round it doesn’t happen for one week. Is there no poor in our neighborhoods to feed and clothes? If we go on trips, can we not look into the eyes of the exploited workers and not come back and question are own politics? Can we begin to question capitalism after we see the real affects it has had in parts of the world? Developing real relationship take times, and I just think too many mission trips are more about christian tourism and “experience” than a real engagement with the way the poor live around the world, and how our politics have affected them.
Rick Whitter on Wed, July 09, 2008
Todd,
We just returned from a team trip (10 people) to Nicaragua and Guatemala. We served at two orphanages. We painted, worked on a well, cleaned the buildings and loved on the kids. A great trip!
I have dealt with attitudes similar to the ones expressed in the featured article. My response is generally, “Why don’t you ask the missionaires what they want?” Every time I have done this, they invariably say, “please come! And bring teams!”. This is because of the invaluable interaction and support that results from these trips.
I say, keep going on the trips and. keep serving locally.
Thanks for the post!
Rick Whitter
rickwhitter.com
Rick Whitter on Wed, July 09, 2008
One of the best ways to avoid the misbehavior and cultural insensitivity of missions teams while visiting other countires and cultures is to train and prepare them ahead of time. We have utilized, with good success, materials provided by STEM, out of Minneapolis.
http://www.stemintl.org/about.
There are 7 Standards that have been adopted by churches all around the country and have served us well. We have never had a major issue on a trip and have continually been invited back by our hosts.
Joe on Wed, July 09, 2008
We were looking at a mission trip to Russia but the airfares were somewhere north of $1000. We sent the money instead.
Here in Arkansas, you can find poverty just about everywhere. To kids who have it all in the suburbs, even downtown is a different culture, one where people are going hungry and without medical care.
We just finished hosting a summer camp where the teens do nothing all week but help those who can’t take care of their homes for physical or financial reasons.
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment