Comments on: Questioning short-term missions

By: Lake Neuron » Nothing more than pious tourism?

Lake Neuron » Nothing more than pious tourism? — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:19:29 +0000

[...] The Christian Science Monitor has added to the critique of short-term missions, on the heels of Kurt Ver Beek’s study which I blogged about last year. [...]

By: Lake Neuron » Blog Archive » More about short-term missions

Lake Neuron » Blog Archive » More about short-term missions — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:37:52 +0000

[...] One of my previous posts prompted some debate about the validity of short-term mission trips. Debra Snellen, co-founder of LEAMIS, noted the discussion and responded to it while e-mailing me about some business related to the upcoming trip. I asked Debra if I could share a snippet of her remarks with you. What people don’t seem to understand is that giving to missions, prayer, and other support will be greater in the long run if people truly understand what it is all about. There is no better way to come to this understanding than by personal experience. The passion for missions work that most people will experience can totally change a church’s vision and purpose in missions, and therefore help more people in other countries. How can you put a [dollar] value on that? I certainly understand [a posted] comment about people in other countries knowing how to make soap. I thought that, too. The knowledge is there, but the availability and cost is prohibitive. We found this in Nairobi last year. The knowledge is kept at the university, not in places like the Kibera slums – and the price for a class is beyond the people – especially those living in places like the Kibera slums. One of the things that shocked the community the most was the fact that [LEAMIS’] workshops were being offered free of charge. In a society such as ours that has such free access to knowledge through the Internet, interest clubs, etc – it is almost beyond our comprehension that people can’t (due to lack of resources) learn to do something on their own. As you know, the LEAMIS concept is to train people so they can train others. We would like to “work ourselves out of a job” so to speak. There is no question that the greatest gospel impact in a country will come from those who are part of a given culture. Otherwise, there is always the element of it being a foreign religion. [...]

By: Georganna Hancock

Georganna Hancock — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:46:20 +0000

Good response, John. The study cited bolsters the position I think I stated to you in private correspondence about probability that the money being spent for these “short term missions” would go a lot farther (do more good) if spent at the site of the needs. It is difficult for me to believe that there aren't Africans who already know how to make soap who could teach other Africans to do the same. Also, they'd know local sources for needed materials, obviating the need to drag pots and pans halfway across the world. I am NOT slamming your good intentions and desire to help others, more like exploring my own understanding of the situation and checking out assumptions. Thanks!

By: Georganna Hancock

Georganna Hancock — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:46:20 +0000

Good response, John. The study cited bolsters the position I think I stated to you in private correspondence about probability that the money being spent for these “short term missions” would go a lot farther (do more good) if spent at the site of the needs. It is difficult for me to believe that there aren’t Africans who already know how to make soap who could teach other Africans to do the same. Also, they’d know local sources for needed materials, obviating the need to drag pots and pans halfway across the world. I am NOT slamming your good intentions and desire to help others, more like exploring my own understanding of the situation and checking out assumptions. Thanks!

By: LakeNeuron

LakeNeuron — Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:40:24 +0000

benefit. No one would deny that the needs of the people being served come first, period.

In the case of short-term mission teams (as opposed to career missionaries), it is a legitimate secondary goal to have the attitudes and behavior of the participants changed -- to make them more aware of how their lives and actions back home affect the people abroad. This is not about "benefitting" -- it's about turning two weeks of service into a lifetime of better stewardship and awareness back home.

The goal of this stewardship and awareness is to better serve those in need -- exactly the same goal as the mission trip itself. The study to which I was responding claims that short-term trips do not produce this secondary result, at least not to the extent advertised.

Short-term mission trips are a relatively recent phenomenon, and that's really the key here. The people you heard speak while shivering in the basement were longer-term missionaries (if not career missionaries, than at least people wo worked for months or years at a time). Short-term and long-term trips are like apples and oranges. You would think that a short-term trip would make the participant more aware of, and more willing to support, the work of long-term missionaries. But the study claims this is not the case.

I am not, let me make it clear, disputing the problems revealed by this study. I am, however, saying that you can't paint every short-term missions project with the same brush. I believe the group in which I am active is aware of some of these problems and works to address them.