Short Term Missions: Are they Worth It?
There are a lot of Chrisitan leaders that I admire. There are also a few that I just don't understand. The folks who worked on this study about short term missions are a good example of the latter.
There is a lot of talk, it seems, among professional mission-minded people about the effects of short-term missions. Some are touting short-term missions as an experience that will increase the level of giving by mission participants, or even recruit long-term missionaries. Others, it seems, disagree.
This type of dialog is very baffling because it strikes me that the purpose of short-term missions is, well, to do mission work. If mission work is done as a result of the mission trip, then why can't we call it a success without factoring in all of these other issues?
I guess that it is a good thing if the short-term missionaries give more or experience an increase in their spirituality or think about becoming long-term missionaries. But none of those things are the point. The point is for a group of believers to get together and go bring the Kingdom of God into the world.
I'm pretty sure that this is what Jesus teaches us to do.
And I'm stumped by people who try to critize these efforts. As an example, take the study that I referenced above. In 1998, 127 American Christians went to the Honduras and built new homes for the native population after a devastating hurricane. After their return, the short-term missionaries were surveyed, and it was discovered that they apparently didn't change their giving habits after the trip. Nor did they experience notable "life changes", whatever that means.
Curiously, the article also notes that the Hondurans did not report any life changes. I say this is curious because, apparently, as a result of the mission effort either the population that was surveyed or other people in their community had new homes. How any sociological measurement of "life change" can fail to account for the impact of the newly constructed homes is beyond me.
There also seems to be some hand-wringing over whether short-term mission money is being spent in the most efficient way, what with all of the travel expenses involved and such. I suppose that, in some instances, concern over whether more cost-efficient ways of accomplishing mission objectives are available is a viable question, but I wonder about whether spreadsheet formulas are really the best way to decide whether a group's desire to do short-term mission work, often borne of much prayer and spiritual reflection, ought to be approved by the powers that be.
I guess that I'm just a little frustrated because there are apparently those among our leaders who want to criticize short-term mission efforts using sociological data that measures things like giving and "life changes," and I don't think that you can measure that type of thing very well.
Why criticize efforts such as this? Like I said, I just don't get it.
There is a lot of talk, it seems, among professional mission-minded people about the effects of short-term missions. Some are touting short-term missions as an experience that will increase the level of giving by mission participants, or even recruit long-term missionaries. Others, it seems, disagree.
This type of dialog is very baffling because it strikes me that the purpose of short-term missions is, well, to do mission work. If mission work is done as a result of the mission trip, then why can't we call it a success without factoring in all of these other issues?
I guess that it is a good thing if the short-term missionaries give more or experience an increase in their spirituality or think about becoming long-term missionaries. But none of those things are the point. The point is for a group of believers to get together and go bring the Kingdom of God into the world.
I'm pretty sure that this is what Jesus teaches us to do.
And I'm stumped by people who try to critize these efforts. As an example, take the study that I referenced above. In 1998, 127 American Christians went to the Honduras and built new homes for the native population after a devastating hurricane. After their return, the short-term missionaries were surveyed, and it was discovered that they apparently didn't change their giving habits after the trip. Nor did they experience notable "life changes", whatever that means.
Curiously, the article also notes that the Hondurans did not report any life changes. I say this is curious because, apparently, as a result of the mission effort either the population that was surveyed or other people in their community had new homes. How any sociological measurement of "life change" can fail to account for the impact of the newly constructed homes is beyond me.
There also seems to be some hand-wringing over whether short-term mission money is being spent in the most efficient way, what with all of the travel expenses involved and such. I suppose that, in some instances, concern over whether more cost-efficient ways of accomplishing mission objectives are available is a viable question, but I wonder about whether spreadsheet formulas are really the best way to decide whether a group's desire to do short-term mission work, often borne of much prayer and spiritual reflection, ought to be approved by the powers that be.
I guess that I'm just a little frustrated because there are apparently those among our leaders who want to criticize short-term mission efforts using sociological data that measures things like giving and "life changes," and I don't think that you can measure that type of thing very well.
Why criticize efforts such as this? Like I said, I just don't get it.
posted by Matt at Friday, July 01, 2005
3 Comments:
I don't get it either.....the thing that really changes for me is just an attitude adjustment. It's like seeing something for the first time I can really appreciate it more. And whether I change my monetary giving habits or not, my heart has changed. And isn't that just as important?
Matt
What a great post. I'm sitting here thinking that these same people would probably say the trip that the sixth, seventh and eight grade boys from Highland take to Impact each year would fall into their category of irrevelant mission efforts. But I see every year how these predominately white middle class boys travel to an entirely different world than most have ever seen and they seem to turn into young men right before our eyes as they see first hand how the poor really live. These young men always seem to embrace these people right where they are yet in such a different world than most have ever experienced. What is really cool to see, and one of my favorite times of the entire trip, is when Les takes these guys to the nearby projects and we go door to door asking occupants if we can pray with them and invite them to attend church at the Impact congregation. I've seen this trip be life changing for many young men and in almost every instance a move from childhood to manhood. I get goosebumps just thinking about some of the "red letter" moments I have experienced on this trip. I am sooooo glad Levi was a part of our trip this year. He was a true leader in all ways throughout our time in Impact. In fact he actually was singled out and rewarded for his leadership. I know it must have been very difficult to see us drive off to Houston this year. I am so proud of you and Sheila for trusting God to lead us and protect us. OK......thats about all I have to say about that ! Rob
Rob-
Thanks for the comment. It was the presence of guys like you and David that made it possible for us to turn loose of Levi that day. And it was the fact that YOU were going that made Levi want to go.
We count it an incredibly huge blessing for Levi to have a relationship with you.
Post a Comment
<< Home