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!

photo by Penywise on morguefile.com

I have a love-hate relationship with short-term missions. My wife’s family was converted through a campaign which utilized college students on a short trip. I came to know Argentina and missions on a similar trip. I’ve seen groups effectively reach out in limited efforts.

I’ve also seen people go to other countries to do what they never do at home. I’ve seen people spend thousands to deliver hundreds of dollars of relief. I’ve heard nationals talk about “mission” groups that insisted working in the areas that would give them the best photo ops. (“They want to ride canoes and wear feathers on their heads”)

Apparently I’m not the only one with mixed feelings. On the site “Jamie the very worst missionary,” the author stirred up quite a lot of comments by sharing her feelings. She started with a column called “Are we calling this a win-win?” which addressed so-called poverty tourism. She eventually had to shut of comments on that post because of the heat generated.

Later she looked at the four principal defenses given for short term missions and began analyzing those defenses. She’s addressed the first one (Sorry poor people, it’s not about you), the second one (Mmm… no, it’s not “all good”) and the third (Using your poor kid to teach my rich kid a lesson).

It’s interesting stuff. I hope you’ll take the time to read it. I may spend some time analyzing her arguments and others on this issue. Does Jamie have any valid points? Should we just accept that good is being done and leave it at that? Or is it time we took a hard look at short-term missions?

We have a nasty habit in the churches of Christ. As I like to say it, we tend to jump on the bandwagon about the time that everyone else is unhitching the horses. We run 10-20 years behind evangelical churches in most things that we do; sometimes we imitate them consciously, other times it just happens.
One good example is short term missions. It’s all the rage now. Why get involved in a long-term relationship with a missionary when you can send out your own people on once-a-year trips? Less complicated, no commitments down the road, and more of your members are directly involved. What’s not to like?
In 2005, Christianity Today ran a series of articles on short-term missions. Here are the links, for those who want to read further:
Study Questions Whether Short-Term Missions Make a Difference
Are Short-Term Missions Good Stewardship?
Do Short-term Missions Change Anyone?
Mission Trips or Exotic Youth Outings?
Who Gets ‘Socially Rich’ from Short-Term Missions?
Basically, studies have destroyed most of the myths about short-term missions. No, they don’t increase future missions giving. No, they don’t increase the likelihood of participants being involved in missions as a career.
Well-coordinated short-term mission trips can play a part in an overall mission plan. Let’s be honest… how many of our congregations have an overall mission plan? If we can’t see how our efforts fit into the bigger picture of a church-planting strategy in a certain area, then it’s quite possible that they don’t.
Short-term missions trips should be a part of a long-range effort. Local missionaries or local church leaders (depending on the stage the work is in) should have the final say as to what will be done by those that go. There are many good things that can be done, some more effective than others. But those of us on this side of things aren’t the ones to decide what’s best.
[In Honduras, in May, I was talking with a church leader from Panama. He told the horror story of a group from the States that was building a building in Panama City. They hired an architect from the U.S. to design the plans. After spending weeks of work and thousands of dollars, they came to realize that nothing was up to Panamanian code, failure to use local materials and workers had made the project cost twice what it should, etc. Just because someone is an “expert” at home, doesn’t mean they have the same expertise overseas.]
Let’s not end short-term missions. But let’s use them judiciously and be realistic about the results we expect.
(Some of my thinking was inspired by this post by Jay Guin)