Thread: Short term missions for reformed churches

What do you think about them?

Is the trend Good, bad? Is it biblical?


How do you maximize their impact?

Who should go? What agenda should be laid down for the trip? What should the trippes do BEFORE the triip, DURING the trip, and AFTER the trip.


Any stories? Good or bad examples?

My personal take is that sending overweight unqualified adults and children to swing hammers or any other work that could obtained locally at a tiny fraction of the cost is an arrogant waste of resources. Our South American or African brothers and sisters don't need a bunch of teeny bopper or golf enthusiast great white 'saviors' waltzing in and helping them build a block Church bldg that they could build much cheaper AND give work to locals as well as perhaps present the gospel to those workers. The hilarious part is that the "missionaries" usually don't even have the slightest concept of how arrogant and spoiled they appear to the locals, who for the most part are snickering in their sleeves, and would be agog to ever see how much these all-thumbs carpenters have spent to come "help". Just send the money, and if you want to take a vacation, do that on your own, but don't insult your brothers by making a pretense of 'missions' out of it. If you care about missions, then give. Don't go seeking "experiences" by making a gazingstock of your less prosperous brothers.

You asked for examples, so here's one that sticks in my mind. A PCA Church that I was once a member of (no longer for reasons such as this) sends a bunch of teenagers to Tokyo every year to provide childcare during an annual Church conference. Seems to me that childcare for a week could be had for far less than the $2000 per teen they are spending. That's just sick. SEND THE MONEY, not the kids in dog collars and spiked hair. What a joke.

My personal take is that sending overweight unqualified adults and children to swing hammers or any other work that could obtained locally at a tiny fraction of the cost is an arrogant waste of resources.

That's been a pet peeve of mine for years. Small examples was using a good chunk of the Deacon's fund to send young men and women to work at another PCA church in LA after Katrina, where their labor probably cost 50-60bucks an hour after you do the math.

A much bigger source of hair pulling was running into American missionaries in Southern Africa. For the price of one of those, you could fund 4 better educated Afrikaners who already speak the language and understand the culture, and pump valuable resources into the Reformed Afrikaner community, which needs it.

I don't know whether my understanding of the term 'short term missions' is the same as those responding previously. I would not consider a building/childcare project a short term mission as this can be done by local Christians.

For me 'short term missions' is a person giving up anything from a whole summer to a two year period or so to help a local church in evangelism or development.

When we were on the missionfield we benefitted greatly from short term teams (over a summer) or short term workers (up to 2 years). The advantge in a church planting situation were:-

-so much more ground could be covered in a shorter time.
-the gifts of the team members combined making it more effective.
-it was hard for one person to come to a bible study with one person whereas with a short term team people are coming to a group where they have perhaps befriended one of the team.
-after the short term team/worker leaves there is always plenty of follow-up.
-people can pray more effectively for the work when they return home and indeed correspond and encourage some of the people they have contacted..

Advantages to the short termer are:-
-helps them to realise how their gifts and abilities fit in.
-helps them to assess whether they are suitable candidates for long term missionaries.
-the resident missionary can assess them and give practical advice. Some of the ones who came to us have in fact gone on to be full-time missionaries whilst others realised it was not for them. Others were just unsuitable.

Disadvantages (to the resident missionary)
-time is spent initially giving cultural orientation
-when a short termer makes some mistake, he can go home after the summer. The resident missionary however has to pick up the pieces.

I believe it is a good trend provided the short term worker does not think of it as his national service where he does his bit for the kingdom then does nothing afterwards. Also it is wrong when people just go out because it is expected of them or they want some sort of an adventure holiday.

Although the apostle Paul was a full time missionary, he was "short term" in various cities (Ephesus, Coinith, Philippi etc) planting churches and appointing elders before moving on. The short term work was important to the long term objective. I feel a lot of churches have been established by one missionary using teams of short term workers.

There are countless examples of benefits and pitfalls, and we experienced many more benefits than pitfalls, but the church I was connected with in Clonmel in the Irish Republic came about from a two year Operation Mobilisation team.

Would black africans hear the Gospel from white Afrikaners with a history of apartheid?

How about short term medical trips, such as dental clinics, cleft palate repair, cataract surgery in places where local healthcare cannot provide these things? Even if fat American doctors came and helped blind catact-ridden people, I am sure that this would be appreciated.

If I could play "devil's advocate" (probably a poor choice of words on the PB!!), I have had this conversation before and have raised the same concerns with short-term mission trips that are being raised here. More often than not, I am told that short-term missions serve more than one purpose. Yes, a church building in Trinidad gets built, which is good even if the cost is high, but a bunch of spoilt suburban kids also get exposed to poverty and want (maybe they won't be quite as spoilt when they get home) as well as getting to interact with their brothers and sisters in Christ in a foreign country (maybe when the get home they won't visualize the saved only as mirror images of themselves). What do you think of that reasoning?

Would black africans hear the Gospel from white Afrikaners with a history of apartheid?

That was always the excuse I heard from English speaker South Africans, but as an American a bit more non-partisan I came to the same conclusion most other European non English speaking South Africans did, that Black Southern Africans get along better with Afrikaners than with just about any other White people.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How about short term medical trips, such as dental clinics, cleft palate repair, cataract surgery in places where local healthcare cannot provide these things? Even if fat American doctors came and helped blind catact-ridden people, I am sure that this would be appreciated.

Those sound like real ministries to me, Pergs, something that in most cases cannot be provided locally and less expensively. My personal (and unimportant) view is that those are excellent works for the Church to be engaged in.

Here is a link to a whole issue of Missions Frontiers about the topic:

Mission Frontiers January 2000

If we changed the wording from short term missions to "Summer Internship" would this matter?

If we chose only those people considering missions to go and placed on them a study and retreat focus so that the kids or young adults come out, do a spiritual journal, engage in hard study and prayer, and then go back and give a report to the churches, what do you think?


Most long term missionaries have done at least 2-3 short term trips BEFORE their long term entrance into missions.

Here is a link: Mission Frontiers January 2000

Originally Posted by ericfromcowtown

If I could play "devil's advocate" (probably a poor choice of words on the PB!!), I have had this conversation before and have raised the same concerns with short-term mission trips that are being raised here. More often than not, I am told that short-term missions serve more than one purpose. Yes, a church building in Trinidad gets built, which is good even if the cost is high, but a bunch of spoilt suburban kids also get exposed to poverty and want (maybe they won't be quite as spoilt when they get home) as well as getting to interact with their brothers and sisters in Christ in a foreign country (maybe when the get home they won't visualize the saved only as mirror images of themselves). What do you think of that reasoning?

I don't find this to be a devil's advocate position by any means. Short-term mission trips are often as advantageous for the missionaries as it is for those who are being ministered to. People return from these trips with a new (or renewed) vision for God's world mission and sometimes return to the field full-time years later.

but a bunch of spoilt suburban kids also get exposed to poverty and want (maybe they won't be quite as spoilt when they get home)

So our brothers' difficulties should be used to correct the bad parenting that we are guilty of that produces "spoilt" children? Is that not making a gazingstock of our poorer brothers?

Originally Posted by Brad

but a bunch of spoilt suburban kids also get exposed to poverty and want (maybe they won't be quite as spoilt when they get home)

So our brothers' difficulties should be used to correct the bad parenting that we are guilty of that produces "spoilt" children? Is that not making a gazingstock of our poorer brothers?

You could also phrase this as reaching out in love and mutually learning from our overseas brothers. The motivation is not to gawk but to help.

I certainly agree that short term trips by those with scare skills such as doctors, nurses, and dentists are extremely valuable. But the typical short term mission trips we often see around here are 7-10 day trips where there is some building project going on combined with perhaps a VBS for the local children.

I pretty much strongly agree with Brad that the local labor should be used for building and the money (often $1000-2000 a person) sent instead. This brings to mind the (works-based) "mission" trip to Mexico that my 81 year old father-in-law went on with his PCUSA church a couple of weeks ago. He knows a LOT and used to be able to do almost anything related to building or mechanics, but lets get real. The cost of his trip could have paid for 10 local men to have worked on that project. Yes, it might be good for one contractor-type person to go to coordinate, but I'm just not buying that our men are needed for the labor part.

Mostly what I see is people go and feel really good about themselves for going. It has not been my personal experience that they end up going back for long-term trips.

I think that there is a legitimate use to what is refered to as "short term missions", and also an abuse of it.

As a younger boy (about middle school age), our church "youth group" took a "short term missions" trip to Arizona to an Indian school. Our job was to spread gravel by hand (with wheel barrows and shovels) that dump trucks had dumped into piles around the dirt parking lot. Looking back, this almost angers me that we would be sent to do this work as it was completely USELESS. I can't think of any other reason than it was to make us feel good about ourselves. If the dump trucks had only drove slowly as they dumped out the gravel (the normal way of spreading gravel), there would have been no work to do.

That being said, I don't think that always "sending money" is the right thing to do. I think that us Americans don't like to get our hands dirty, and that we think that we can buy our way out of doing just that. I think that people NEED things everywhere. You don't have to look far. A perfect example of a legitimate "missions trip" in my mind is a young woman from our church who is currently helping clean up after the hurricane in Louisianna. That is fulfilling a NEED.

So I think that there is a balance in these "missions". We should imitate Christ in fulfilling needs around us, and even other parts of the country/world. But at the same time, I believe that we are called to be good stewards of the time/resources God has given us, and that to squander them on useless activities is vain IMHO.

Depends on the nature of the mission. Make sure its not for little kids so they don't get in the way of hard work if thats the nature. However, being apart of L'église reformée st. mark here in québec city we have an «english bible camp» for 3 weeks in the summer in which we reach out to the community and we invite native english speakers to come and help out for 1 week. They can see Québec in the evenings and help with 30 + kids during the day in their own language just doing VBS basically. I love it and I think it is great. When it comes to emergencies given Canada is socialist if your canadian they will work with your provincial insurance and if your American its very easy. Show them the evidence and they will automatically bill your insurance company and you don't have to worry about it there. Forewarning if you come make sure you ask for someone who speaks french to come to the hospital with you because chances are there are not many doctors so the nurses and the employes' english is terrible generally. We had this problem this year. And be prepared to wait a long time depending on the nature of the problem. Ear infection =7-8 hours! But I encourage you if your Church is interested next year to contact our pastor. I know someone on the board has visited the church before to do a evangelization project at english cafés before.

website: ERQ

another thought... these short term trips may be means by which God uses to call full time real biblical missionaries. They can give men and women tastes of the calling and God can (and does often) use them like that.

Originally Posted by raekwon

I don't find this to be a devil's advocate position by any means. Short-term mission trips are often as advantageous for the missionaries as it is for those who are being ministered to. People return from these trips with a new (or renewed) vision for God's world mission and sometimes return to the field full-time years later.

I agree completely, Rae - you beat me to it!

Originally Posted by Brad

My personal take is that sending overweight unqualified adults and children to swing hammers or any other work that could obtained locally at a tiny fraction of the cost is an arrogant waste of resources. Our South American or African brothers and sisters don't need a bunch of teeny bopper or golf enthusiast great white 'saviors' waltzing in and helping them build a block Church bldg that they could build much cheaper AND give work to locals as well as perhaps present the gospel to those workers. The hilarious part is that the "missionaries" usually don't even have the slightest concept of how arrogant and spoiled they appear to the locals, who for the most part are snickering in their sleeves, and would be agog to ever see how much these all-thumbs carpenters have spent to come "help". Just send the money, and if you want to take a vacation, do that on your own, but don't insult your brothers by making a pretense of 'missions' out of it. If you care about missions, then give. Don't go seeking "experiences" by making a gazingstock of your less prosperous brothers.

While I understand the point you're making, Brad, in reality it has no Scriptural basis at all, and comes across as very condescending to those who sacrifice their time and money to make very worthy short-term mission trips. Several points:

1. The "locals'" perception really has very little basis in missions in general, including short term missions. Please show me some Scripture reference that qualifies mission work so as not to appear silly to the local culture. So what if they snicker at the "overweight unqualified adults" or "teeny boppers?" Does that make their work any less valid? It is very pretentious of you to judge people who sincerely work to further the Gospel in a sacrificial and Christ-centered fashion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to labor for the Kingdom only if you are "qualified" or are not white.

2. Your entire post smacks of class envy and frankly, racism. Your characterization of all short-term missionaries as vacationing white folk who are lazy, incompetent, overweight, spoiled golfers is absurd, superficial, and offensive. Maybe those wealthy upper class people really want to help and serve their missionary brothers overseas. Who are you to judge their intent and their effort? Undoubtedly there are those who vacation under the guise of short-term missions, but there are also many who do not. To characterize all short-term missions work as "a joke" is shameful.

3. Please show me some evidence from the Bible that short-term missions are bad. Otherwise, I would encourage to support those called to spread the Gospel, in whatever capacity and in whatever time frame that may be, rather than making snide remarks and unfair caricatures.

1. The "locals'" perception really has very little basis in missions in general, including short term missions. Please show me some Scripture reference that qualifies mission work so as not to appear silly to the local culture. So what if they snicker at the "overweight unqualified adults" or "teeny boppers?" Does that make their work any less valid? It is very pretentious of you to judge people who sincerely work to further the Gospel in a sacrificial and Christ-centered fashion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to labor for the Kingdom only if you are "qualified" or are not white.

It not only makes it less valid, it makes it completely INVALID, friend. If these folks really care about helping the indigenous Christians in expanding their ministry... SEND THE MONEY... not the useless fat kids and dads at 10 times the cost. This is silly to even have to point out. You might call it pretentious, but I've been on the other side and seen the loud, pasty American "missionary" brats arrive en masse complaining of the heat, the smells, and the bugs, and accomplishing 1/10 the work at, again, 10 times the cost, so they can have an "experience" that makes a gazingstock of those they call their brothers. You may not like that assessment, perhaps because you or folks you love have in the past been on of those pasty "missionaries", but the facts are the facts. The local Christians put on a happy face to be able to recieve what help they can, but I can assure you from experience they are by and large not impressed to have to play caretaker while their families and culture are used as zoo exhibits for spoiled American kids.

2. Your entire post smacks of class envy and frankly, racism. Your characterization of all short-term missionaries as vacationing white folk who are lazy, incompetent, overweight, spoiled golfers is absurd, superficial, and offensive. Maybe those wealthy upper class people really want to help and serve their missionary brothers overseas. Who are you to judge their intent and their effort? Undoubtedly there are those who vacation under the guise of short-term missions, but there are also many who do not. To characterize all short-term missions work as "a joke" is shameful.

Dude, the last thing you should be accusing me of is racism... you have no idea of what you speak, and I'm not going to honor your accusation with an explanation, I'll just tell you you're wrong and leave it at that. My characterization is very much factual in regards to the silly "mission/vacation" garbage that I am addressing, and I will judge whether you like it or not, because I have seen it many times, and it is a joke, and a sad, arrogant waste of the Church's resources.

3. Please show me some evidence from the Bible that short-term missions are bad. Otherwise, I would encourage to support those called to spread the Gospel, in whatever capacity and in whatever time frame that may be, rather than making snide remarks and unfair caricatures.

If you really need scripture proofs that would show that a waste of resources and time used to make a gazingstock of your poorer brothers and pamper spoiled American children and their myopic parents, then I think you may have missed a few aspects of scripture by a long shot already, and pointing them out would seem futile.

Agreed Brad. I have been the recipient of short-term missionaries in West Virginia when I lived in the "boonies" and we had some preppy kids from Fallston, MD come "fix our stuff". Made me feel like I lived in a Zoo.

Originally Posted by Brad

So our brothers' difficulties should be used to correct the bad parenting that we are guilty of that produces "spoilt" children? Is that not making a gazingstock of our poorer brothers?

No, but it's easier to have empathy for the plight of others when you've experienced it first hand, even if only for a couple of weeks. My point was that it might be over-simplifying things to determine the worth of a short-term mission trip only in terms of $ / square feet of construction.

*Mod reminder* Let's keep the conversation civil and on-track everybody!

Brad, while I agree that many times money is the answer, would you not agree that there are legitamate needs that we can help others with? Christ helped feed the poor, and heal the sick did he not? I think I understand your point, but I question if you have not thrown out the baby with the bath water.

I think also a definition of "short term missions" could be helpful here. I believe that the office of "misssionary" has passed away, but still believe in the abiding responsability to feed the poor, and help those in need. If this meaning is used, one could help out in the local soup kitchen, or lend aid to your neighbor.

Just as an example, the median income in Haiti is $270 annually. A roundtrip ticket from Dulles Airport is around $600. I would be ashamed to stand next to a Haitian brother swinging a hammer knowing that just the transport costs for me to get there to help like that was costing more than he will make in two years. I would rather send him the check.

The reason real missionaries support this kind of travesty is because they know it is the only way they'll get their selfish and arrogant countrymen to do anything to help. They'll only give if they're gonna get something in return like an "experience" that will make them appreciate their prosperity more. This is a sick joke.

Brad, while I agree that many times money is the answer, would you not agree that there are legitamate needs that we can help others with? Christ helped feed the poor, and heal the sick did he not? I think I understand your point, but I question if you have not thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Brother, there are short-term missions that are quite valid... Doctors going in to perform surgeries and procedures that the locals would never be able to get except through that is one, and there are many others of similar vein. But what I am addressing is the common summer "mission trip" of teens and parents who go to someplace like Haiti and help build something or put on an outreach that is ridiculously wasteful and by and large ineffective due to expense, lack of qualification, and bereft of linguistic training.

My apologies for the intensity of my posts, but this is one subject that really gets my goat.

Brad may be using some hyperbole, but the point it sound, and there's no racism there that I can see, but rather the contrary, since he is advocating more money to local non-Whites.

Instead of 12 middle class young Americans, one grizzled contractor matched with someone who speaks the lingo and understands the culture would get a lot more done.

Not to say short term missions aren't valuable; they are. But they should all be overseen by very wise, older men, and not enthusiastic "youth pastors".

Is the bottom line financially really the main focus here?

The US has a LOT of money. It is the American way to throw money at the problem and leave it for others to fix. Let's not let this thinking affectmissions too. We need to get involved.

We need to send PEOPLE too. If not just for their sakes, for OUR sakes as well so that the US churches are taking part in the Great Commission.


So concerning costs, this shouldn't be the final factor in condemning short term missions. Long term missionary families also cost 10 times per year more than a local evangelist as well... should we eliminate long-term missionaries too and merely send money overseas like KP Yohanan thinks?



If done right, short term missions can be very beneficial:

It can be beneficial for locals if a clear and reachable objective is planned. Medical clinics, dental clinics, well digging.

For those that take the trips it can be beneficial as a first step towards long term missions. These trips can be life changing, if done right. I suggest pre-reading, a spiritual journal, concentrated prayer times and post-trip reading and discussion, almost like a course of study.


Brad, you seem to over-speak very often. Are you trying to be offensive? Have you ever been on a short term mission or out of the country. What were your experiences?

Brad, you seem to over-speak very often.

Hmmm... I was unaware of this. I apologize.

Are you trying to be offensive?

Not knowingly. Again I apologize.

Have you ever been on a short term mission or out of the country.

Never. Wouldn't waste the resources like that. I don't have anything to offer that couldn't be purchased locally for far less.

What were your experiences?

Grew up in the far east, 5 years Thailand, one year Taiwan, 3 years Philippines. Parents also later worked in Nepal, Ghana, Indonesia, Uganda, Russia and Grenada. Saw many come and waste resources and embarass their local brethren. Had many friends and neighbors that were missionaries and their dependents. Been a member of Churches that engaged in these extravagant practices, and saw the blind arrogance that enables them. It may be that none of that qualifies me to comment on this subject, and if that is so, then again I apologize.

Originally Posted by Brad

Just as an example, the median income in Haiti is $270 annually. A roundtrip ticket from Dulles Airport is around $600. I would be ashamed to stand next to a Haitian brother swinging a hammer knowing that just the transport costs for me to get there to help like that was costing more than he will make in two years. I would rather send him the check.

The reason real missionaries support this kind of travesty is because they know it is the only way they'll get their selfish and arrogant countrymen to do anything to help. They'll only give if they're gonna get something in return like an "experience" that will make them appreciate their prosperity more. This is a sick joke.

My supporters are anything but selfish and they regularly give self-sacrificingly.

I really think that a lot of Stateside church members really want to help and they are looking for the best way to do so.

Impugning them for good intentions seems wrong. The solution is to use the existing trend of short term missions for good and channel it to productive ends.

Short term missions does seem to be the current trend and why not....you can hop on a plane and in several day get almost anymore. This sort of freedom to travel I think if a positive thing to tie the global church together.


Personal note:
I am having locals build my house right now for just that reason, it is cheaper and they can last longer and they know how to termite proof better. Plus, I can put a local foremen in charge and demand more accountability.


But I do welcome any short termers out here, because merely them seeing the place and reporting what they see back to their home churches is worth the cost of the trip. It would be a time for those open to missions who want to come out, do some soul searching, pray and think and see the world, and record some things and report what they saw back to their churches.

Just a few points, Brad:

- If you're saying ALL short-term missions aren't worth the money, well-intentioned or not, I would argue that you have no Biblical or financial basis for that belief, and would invite you to provide evidence to the contrary.

- If you are saying that all people who embark on short-term missions are lazy, spoiled, upper-middle class white people, then I would say that statement is unfounded and borderline racist against white people, or at the very least an extreme caricature.

- If you're saying some short-term mission projects are poorly planned and executed and a waste of money, I would agree. But if you believe we should abandon all short term missions because a few are bad then I would again disagree.

- However, if your point is that in some instances the short term projects are wasteful and accomplish little, and that those should be refined as much as possible, but without doing away with short-term missions altogether, I would agree with you 100%.

Anything we do in life should have some sort of Biblical directive, or at the very least precedent, especially when concerning something so important to the life of the church as missions. So again, if you can provide any Scriptural basis whatsoever that short-term missions are generally bad, I would invite you to share it with us. Otherwise, your opinions are just that - opinions with no basis at all, and which multiple people on this forum perceive has hyperbole at the least, and offensive bigotry at the worst. I think I understand the gist of your post, but it is difficult to wade through the unfair generalizations, exaggerations, and baseless assumptions.

I agree with Brad for the most part. This trend has driven me crazy. It's not only a huge waste of scarce money for missions but also, on the field, the care and maintenance of these short-termers is a major headache for real missionaries who must sacrifice real ministry for taking care of them. It's utterly draining. For a long time it was impossible for us to find mission housing in Addis at all during the early and late summer time because the guest house was full of short-termers with their paint brushes. The guest house management laid down the law and now we can't even have a relative or single short-termer who comes at our invitation stay a night there with us. What is worse is that these people are inappropriately generous and/or easy rip-offs so they are hounded and "befriended" by any locals who speak any English and can give a sob story or deceive them. It's a waste of money as well as morally corrupting for the locals.

That being said, real ministry is done by those with specific skills that are needed. The local hospital has a team of cataract surgeons once a year. My clinics are enhanced by my being able to promise the patients, "Next October you come with 100 birr (about 11 bucks) and then you will be able to see again." Likewise, I currently have a teenager, education major, who has totally taken over my school program for the summer. She's a HUGE asset to the kids, with major spiritual input to those who know English, and absolutely no problem whatsoever in terms of consuming my resources or time. It has freed me up tremendously. I'd welcome others to come likewise--to fill a niche that cannot be locally hired and/or that requires specialized expertise.

It's true that some of the useless short-termers end up coming long-term but it's only a very small percentage at most. Those screened by church missions committees, mature, and really interested in long-term service should perhaps go, one or two at a time, for longer periods as in 3 months, not weeks.

As an MK myself, I can understand where Brad is coming from. We had a lot of visitors come through, and some of them were helpful and some were not. Fortunately my dad refused to have organized missions teams, so we were spared a lot of grief. Here are several ways that short-term missions trips can be helpful:
1. Someone coming to be a mother's helper or to help with tutoring kids in some particular subject in the homeschooling. There are situations where no local is both qualified and trustworthy,and it can be a big help to the long-term missionary family. Try not to be a financial burden to the missionary family.
2. Missionaries sometimes get lonely and having fellowship with people who are familiar can be helpful (though this can be exaggerated). Bring them good books! We were delighted to have Laura come visit us (and she brought us some things Heidi needed and some good books).
3. Missionaries sometimes need a break or have to return to the States for a while, but the congregations are not always in a good situation to be left alone. Having someone come in as a replacement for the time they're away can be a feasible option. This is what I did in Mexico and Panama, and it seems to have gone well; the people in Mexico would tell you it was worthwhile (I've been able to stay in touch with them far more than with the people in Panama).

But the perspective I developed on it is that short-term missions trips are an investment, hoping that the people who come will be sobered, profited and perhaps give their lives to spreading the Gospel. Whether that investment is warranted will depend on many variables. But if there weren't the hope of recruitment I think a lot of long-term missionaries would prefer not to have such groups come down.

Very often the long-term missionaries and the local Christians bear a massive burden from these trips that the short-termers never imagine because everyone is so gracious and unobtrusively self-denying. And as Brad has remarked, there certainly are times where sending money is far kinder than going yourself. There is no point in me going to the remote tribes in Lapland, and if I went I'd probably be more of a burden than anything else; ditto on a construction project, or a medical missions trip. We should be unselfish AND realistic in our assessment of what we can contribute.

And ditto to Mary's excellent suggestions.

- If you're saying ALL short-term missions aren't worth the money, well-intentioned or not, I would argue that you have no Biblical or financial basis for that belief, and would invite you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Never said that.

- If you are saying that all people who embark on short-term missions are lazy, spoiled, upper-middle class white people, then I would say that statement is unfounded and borderline racist against white people, or at the very least an extreme caricature.

Never said that.

- If you're saying some short-term mission projects are poorly planned and executed and a waste of money, I would agree. But if you believe we should abandon all short term missions because a few are bad then I would again disagree.

Agree with the first sentence, never said anything akin to the second.

- However, if your point is that in some instances the short term projects are wasteful and accomplish little, and that those should be refined as much as possible, but without doing away with short-term missions altogether, I would agree with you 100%.

Then we are in agreement.

Anything we do in life should have some sort of Biblical directive, or at the very least precedent, especially when concerning something so important to the life of the church as missions. So again, if you can provide any Scriptural basis whatsoever that short-term missions are generally bad, I would invite you to share it with us.

Do you really need a prooftext to support the idea that foolishly wasting the Church's resources is a bad thing? I am not indicting all short-term missions, and I think you know that.

Otherwise, your opinions are just that - opinions with no basis at all, and which multiple people on this forum perceive has hyperbole at the least, and offensive bigotry at the worst.

You are the only person here who has accused me of bigotry or racism, and the one who mentioned hyperbole agreed with my position. This is an argumentum ad populum undergirded by your own unsupported assertions. That's pretty tricky debate there, but it holds no water.

I think I understand the gist of your post, but it is difficult to wade through the unfair generalizations, exaggerations, and baseless assumptions.

If you'd ever set eyes, from at least an expat's perspective, on a crowd of American teens and their keepers arriving in a third world country to "help" the locals, you wouldn't say that. It is an embarassing and nauseating sight.

I am addressing one particular type of short term missions that I think you and everone else on this board is quite familiar with; that of teens and accountants going to do construction or some other such silly thing that they are unqualified to do, or that can be done locally far cheaper, mainly for the purpose of exposing the little darlings to the 'harder' side of life by making a gazingstock of their foreign brothers. I tell my children explictly about the suffering of their brothers in other countries, we see videos and pictures of the horrid living conditions, and read accounts of the hardships they endure, and they have great compassion for them. I don't need to spend $2000 to have them experience it firsthand to gain for them a clearer picture of that when that brother they would be perusing needs real help. And if after all that they don't have a good grasp of the severity of it, it would indicate they are not yet spiritually mature enough to understand, so why would I send a spiritually immature Christian out to do missions?

If you really think what I've described are "unfair generalizations, exaggerations, and baseless assumptions", then neighbor, you have your head firmly implanted in the sand, and nothing anyone says will remedy that. Enjoy your "mission" trips. Put 'em on your Visa card. But please stop falsely accusing me of sin.

Some suggestions:


--Turn any short term trip into an internship.
--Select a small manageable group or 1 at a time
--Select only folks open to coming long term
--Require pre-reading (Piper's let the nations be glad, Thomas Hale's On being a missionary)
--They keep a prayer journal and use the trip's down times as a spiritual retreat
--They come with a list of solid questions to answer and subjects to read up on (such as depedancy, culture shock/stress, language learning, marital and family stress on the mission field, interacting with nationals, contextualization, indigenous missions, etc)
---They bring the long-term missionary some stuff, like books or needed medicine(I like the sound of this one)
--The carry mail back to the US after the trip,
---They don't engage in meaningless "ministry" or spend time building a building, but use the time themselves to learn.
--They agree not to give anyone money without your permission.
---They agree to dress and act in accordance with the long term missionar's instructions
---The long term missionary is the top in the chain of command and if there is an issue, all orders come from him.
---They record or document the trip and when they return they are debriefed by the elders
---They use themselves as a means to send word to other churches or supporters about what they saw, so that the missionary (who might be a poor communicator or in a place where it is hard to communicate) can get news back to his churches in the US. They committ to calling the pastors of the long term missionary's other supporting churches to give a quick report, "Hello my name is so and so and I just saw your missionary for 2 weeks in Timbuktu and this is what I saw and what he would like to report to you..."


Or,

Select a group with specialized skills (cleft palate repair, cataracts, etc) and give them a task and an area and make sure they are supplied.




One thing I would love is for pastors and elders to choose many of their missions locations to come to and vacation at, talking to their missionaries in the meantime. Lots of folks like to visit SE Asia anyway, why not visit a missionary. Most missionary locations are NOT 2 days walk from the nearest airstrip but most are in or near large 3rd world cities. I know folks in Chang Mai Thailand, in pretty parts of other countries and in other postcard perfect locations.

[you have an open invitation gentlemen!]. Celebrate that 20th wedding anniversary at the same time as devoting a day or two to seeing a missionary, who can probably help you find the best place to spend your honeymoon.

Originally Posted by Brad

Do you really need a prooftext to support the idea that foolishly wasting the Church's resources is a bad thing? I am not indicting all short-term missions, and I think you know that.

Actually we don't know that, which is the problem. You blasted away at all things short-term missions in your original post, and said that you would "never" go on one because you wouldn't want to "waste resources."

OK, so we're in agreement that some short-term missions aren't well-planned and are a waste of resources, but that in general they should be continued. I suppose we should leave it at that. But please re-read your original posts and consider whether any reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that is what you believe. A straight forward, reasonable post would have saved us all many unnecessary posts and off-topic discussion....

I have seen good and bad short term missions trips and have to admit most of what I have seen isn't that great. We were attending a church where we sent kids to Japan to babysit during a conference and that seems a little over the top. We were paying at least $2000 per kid and having host families take care of the rest. I don't think that is a wise use of resources for the church. The other trip we often saw them take was a trip to NC where the youth group was going down to lead VBS. The problem was that these kids, at least most of them didn't know the gospel themselves, how could they possibly explain it to someone else? It was a very sad experience and we were appalled to see so much money wasted on "fruitless" endeavors. We also sent a boy to do construction work in Chile and he broke his thumb the first day on the job and got the rest of the time off. He came back laughing and joking about it and our congregation thought it was cute. Brad and I have been in a couple of churches where it was just a glorified vacation. When you spoke to the kids, they didn't learn anything except they didn't have a local Bible book store and they felt sorry for the locals.

On the other hand, our family doctor does go to Africa once a year for three weeks to do short term missions trips. We think that is great, we love that he does that and are thankful that he does it. We also have a young man from our church that goes to Uganda every year to help the locals learn about agriculture and his stories are incredible. I think short term missions trips are great if they are well planned and if the people are trained on some level. The young man going to Uganda is studying agriculture so he can go to Africa and help them.

Brad speaks from his own experiences from being overseas and he has seen first hand some of the poverty that I have not. This is a topic close to his heart and always has been. His father was involved with helping third world countries get on their feet. His dad's conclusion was this; get these people drinkable water, give them jobs and help them become productive members of society. He said when we go in and do all of the work for them they never learn to stand on their own and that most of the locals he dealt with were frustrated that we would come and do all of the work. Most of these people are poverty stricken, the best thing we could do is give them the jobs and improve their lives, and let them feel like they have accomplished something. I think most people want to be taught, they just don't want us doing the work for them.