Short term mission trips. Are they worth The investment?m

Steve Hayes sent out the wonderful article below on our missiology list. I have participated in, and even organized, short term mission trips with my congregation. They are costly, yet the effect that they have had on the participants directly, and on our whole congregation upon the return of the missioners has been so fruitful. Indeed, each time we have had such a trip our Church has become more involved and invested in local and foreign concerns, sending funding, resources and people to address practical needs in our local community and other places where we have established relationships. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Here is the link from which this study comes at Baylor University.

If Jesus’ Great Commission to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” were viewed as a business, it would be booming — at least in terms of short-term mission trips. The number of United States Christians taking part in trips lasting a year or less has grown from 540 in 1965 to an estimated more than 1.5 million annually, with an estimated $2 billion per year spent on the effort, according to Missiology journal. But is the spiritual profit worth the investment? Researcher Dr. Dennis Horton — an associate professor of religion at Baylor University and principal investigator of a study on the effects that short- term mission trips have on mission team members — gives a qualified “Yes.” Some have suggested the money might be better spent giving directly to a country’s Christian partners for spreading the gospel and offering medical aid, construction assistance or other help. Some long-term missionaries even have complained that culturally insensitive short-term mission participants do more harm than good by damaging relationships that had taken years to build. But the study showed that students who participate in short-term mission trips tend to have lower levels of materialism, greater appreciation for other cultures and a better understanding of missions as a lifestyle. Two-thirds of short-term trips last two weeks or less, with a host of purposes ranging from evangelism to digging wells or teaching English as a second language. The trips would seem to benefit sending agencies, the teams and the host countries. “But I think a lot of churches and groups need more follow-up to help mission team members incorporate what they’ve learned on their trips into their daily lives,” Horton said. “Long-term involvement is where you see transformation taking place.” About 600 students, most from Texas universities, and 48 short-term mission trip leaders participated in the study conducted by Horton, former pastor of a church in Hong Kong, and four Baylor University undergraduate research assistants. For long-term effects on those who go on short-term mission trips, some studies show little difference between those who have participated short-term trips and Christians who have not when it comes to giving, materialism and believing one’s culture is superior to others. What makes a difference is pre- trip training, on-site mentoring and follow-up after the trip, Horton said. “We appreciate the zeal (of students),” he said. “They say, ‘We need to get out there and share the gospel!’ But missionaries are saying ‘Wait a minute.’ In many countries, the best way to reach others is through friendships over time, not quick presentations of the gospel that can endanger long-term missionaries and local Christians.” Short-term mission trips should be “more than spiritual tourism in which participants travel to an exotic place, take a myriad of photos and return to their relatively isolated home environments and pre-trip behavior.” Churches, campus ministries and Christian colleges can play a huge follow-up role. Many people commit at Christian youth camps to become missionaries, Horton said, but “some find out a little bit more and say, ‘Oh, that isn’t for me. I can do this for a few weeks, but I like my technology, my comforts.’ It wasn’t that they didn’t still have an interest or wanted to work with local missions.” In some countries, there are immediate responses, with hundreds of converts, Horton said. In others, “you could work for years and have only one or two converts. Students hoping to see instant results on a two-week trip may become discouraged." Dr. Rosalie Beck, an associate professor of religion at Baylor, served in Vietnam in the 1970s, providing support services to missionaries. “Even if the missionaries love having the short-term team members there, it can be disruptive as far as time and on finances that already may be troubled," she said. But short-term mission team members “will encounter the world in a way they never have before and may never again. It will deepen their commitment in the faith and open their eyes to the reality of life elsewhere in the world.” Matt Lewis, a Baylor sophomore communications major from Jacksonville, Texas, worked with youth on volunteer mission trips to the Czech Republic in 2007 and 2008. Between trips, he said, “I spent a lot of time in prayer and tried to meditate and listen to what God was saying to me. I got to reconnect with some youth there from the previous summer. It was great to see that the decisions they made were still apparent in their lives. Seeing this reinforces my belief that God is calling me into the ministry.” Of the 32 students interviewed after their trips, 29 said the trips had changed the way they see other cultures, with 17 mentioning increased respect and concern. Most said they had greater appreciation for what they have — or even disgust for American greed — but only a few mentioned concrete steps they had taken to lessen their materialism. Horton plans a future study on the effect short-term mission trips have on churches and agencies who sponsor them.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and insights.

Comments

[James Hargrave]

I'm also here from Steve Hayes' rec.

Your post, and the article quoted, both talk about the effect of short-term trips of participants and on the 'sending' congregation.

It seems to me that if the purported reason for short 'mission' trips is to serve or provide some kind of benefit for receiving communities and congregations, then the trips should be evaluated by their effect on receiving communities rather than by their effect on participants.

If the primary goal of a trip is to benefit the participants and the senders, then it would be more honest for their travel to be understood as educational, not marketed as "mission."

[Dr Dion Forster]

Hi James,

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, you make a critical point. I cannot comment with any insight on the true effectiveness of such trips on the recipients. In order to do so would require some careful research - I know of hundreds of trips of this nature each year from Cape Town alone. As such I kept my comments to the area for which I can offer some helpful insight, my congregation.

That being said, I would guess that there would be varied results. Some short term trips are for the purposes of building facilities (we have personally benefited from 'missioners' who have come from the USA for a number of years in a row to help us build Church structures in the townships we serve). These are very helpful! Those who come bring valuable skills, resources and passion.

However, we have also seen 'crusaders' coming to our area from places like the USA, Korea and Nigeria. They 'reach into' our context without much regard for our needs and often leave unhappiness and disarray in their wake.

These are merely two personal perspectives on being a recipient of short term missionary outreaches in our area.

I'm sure that in each case the sending institutions or bodies had both a missionary intention (even if it is misguided - as in the second example cited above), and some 'educational' intention for the participants. I know that the group that comes to build Churches alongside us certainly wants the participants from the USA to go home having learnt some things about poverty, HIV/AIDS and a Christian response to such issues.

My point is simply that we cannot write off the value of such endeavors entirely. However, I do agree that the organisers of such trips would do well to ensure that they understand the 'receiving' context well and do their best to work hand in hand with local communities to address the needs and priorities encountered there in a sensitive and effective manner.

Grace and peace.

[James Hargrave]

Dion,

Thank you for the insightful reply. And I take your point- indeed, we cannot write off the values of such endeavors.

You can't research the hundreds of trips from Cape Town alone. But I hope that you research the trips sponsored by your congregation?

I'm working with a Church that regularly receives short-term teams. Receiving teams well is a LOT of work and a significant expense. (They cover their own expenses, but we provide interpreters and cover the cost of organizing the events where the teams serve). So we do have to consider carefully the value of receiving short-term teams.

Declining to receive teams can seriously damage relationships with congregations or organizations abroad that support us in other ways. If an organization is a valuable partner to our Church, and also sends dysfunctional or harmful short-term teams to us, it would be a difficult decision to say "please stop."

This is not, thankfully, my experience. The organizations that send teams to us do a good job at vetting and training them, and we work very hard to receive them well. It is positive. And were it not, I believe we would have the will to discuss this frankly with our supporting partners overseas- even to refuse to receive teams and suffer the fallout, if it came to that.