3 comments

• 

  Georganna Hancock

  3 years ago

  I guess I'm really out of touch with the mission movement. I remember shivering in the basement of Bethlehem Lutheran listening to the visiting missionaries describe their work in Africa. They'd tell all about the needs of the natives and little about themselves. When did mission work become all about what it can do for the missionary? I thought the point is to help others. And don't give me a "yes, but ..." response.
  reply
• 

  LakeNeuron

  3 years ago

  benefit. No one would deny that the needs of the people being served come first, period.
  
  In the case of short-term mission teams (as opposed to career missionaries), it is a legitimate secondary goal to have the attitudes and behavior of the participants changed -- to make them more aware of how their lives and actions back home affect the people abroad. This is not about "benefitting" -- it's about turning two weeks of service into a lifetime of better stewardship and awareness back home.
  
  The goal of this stewardship and awareness is to better serve those in need -- exactly the same goal as the mission trip itself. The study to which I was responding claims that short-term trips do not produce this secondary result, at least not to the extent advertised.
  
  Short-term mission trips are a relatively recent phenomenon, and that's really the key here. The people you heard speak while shivering in the basement were longer-term missionaries (if not career missionaries, than at least people wo worked for months or years at a time). Short-term and long-term trips are like apples and oranges. You would think that a short-term trip would make the participant more aware of, and more willing to support, the work of long-term missionaries. But the study claims this is not the case.
  
  I am not, let me make it clear, disputing the problems revealed by this study. I am, however, saying that you can't paint every short-term missions project with the same brush. I believe the group in which I am active is aware of some of these problems and works to address them.
  reply
• 

  Georganna Hancock

  3 years ago

  Good response, John. The study cited bolsters the position I think I stated to you in private correspondence about probability that the money being spent for these "short term missions" would go a lot farther (do more good) if spent at the site of the needs. It is difficult for me to believe that there aren't Africans who already know how to make soap who could teach other Africans to do the same. Also, they'd know local sources for needed materials, obviating the need to drag pots and pans halfway across the world. I am NOT slamming your good intentions and desire to help others, more like exploring my own understanding of the situation and checking out assumptions. Thanks!
  reply