I’m going on a short-term mission trip to Costa Rica. That fact still surprises me, given my ambivalent feelings toward such trips. There’s a lot to like about this trip. On a personal level, I’m getting to go with my wife and kids. This is the first time that we’ll do something like this together.
On an organizational level, I like the way the trip is set up. There’s a service aspect and an evangelistic aspect. Though not set up this way intentionally, almost all of those going speak Spanish, which will allow us to do some things other groups may not. The bulk of the group is made up by family units, parents traveling with their adolescent (and up) children. Three couples on our time have worked as long-term missionaries in the past. And our activities are being planned by the local church, rather than us imposing a plan on them.
Still, I can see how easy it is to get caught up in “doing good” and not think about some of the effects your actions might have. Dan Bouchelle wrote an excellent article about this yesterday. It’s easy to overwhelm the local church with an infusion of “foreign things,” be that money, supplies, or even the ways of carrying out church activities.
I’ve seen a lot of good done by individuals on short-term trips. I’ve seen a lot of waste. I’ve even seen some harm done. I don’t have all the answers as to what’s right and what’s wrong.
I do know that if we ever allow short-term missions to replace long-term missions, the end result will be a weakening of the church, both here and abroad.
On that happy note, I need to go pack for Costa Rica!
Perhaps, with your previous experience as a missionary and now with your upcoming short-term mission trip, this will equip you with the ability to inform churches, universities, etc… how they might make a short-term mission trip better for both them and the host culture.
Rex,
Your observation is very timely!
In the past 2 or 3 months I have become aware of a couple of mission points in Latin America that seem to have their programs organized around a continual stream of short-term mission groups coming. Things are well organized – but I wonder how much of what happens is missional and how much is “slumming” by the Gringos.
Dan Bouchelle’s post (link in Tim’s article) are spot on. We need to be careful we do not do more harm than good. For a long time I have had my qualms about short-term missions, especially in places where the mission team does not speak the language. And I say this even though I am a fund-raiser for EEM, which sponsors and organizes teams to teach Bible in camps in Eastern Europe. Our lack of language skill is partially compensated for by the fact that English is a required course of study in most of the places we take teams – and the kids in the camps like to practice their English. But we still have to provide translators for our teams – 1 translator to 2 team members.
It is a conundrum! Undoubtedly some good is done – but its an expensive way to get some houses painted or even some small homes built. What good is done for one family this way could be done for many families if we sent the money it costs instead of sending people to do the work. But, of course, the money probably would not be forthcoming IF we were raising it to send money instead of for someone to actually go.
Tim is absolutely right that to allow short-term mission to replace long-term mission would damage the church at home and abroad. Perhaps the greatest benefit of short-term missions is that a few of the short-term people may become interested in long-term mission commitments for their life-work.