Doing Short-Terms Missions without Doing Long-Term Harm

I ran across this good article from the Chalmers Center, part of which I excerpt here:

Doing Short-Terms Missions without Doing Long-Term Harm
by Chalmers Center Staff

Given the explosion of Short-Terms Missions (STM) trips to minister to low-income communities, it would appear that STM is the most effective way to minister to poor people. Right? Wrong! In fact, most STM trips violate basic principles of effective poverty-alleviation and have the potential to do considerable harm both to low-income people and to ourselves. However, by being cognizant of these principles and more intentional about our actions, the downsides of STMs can be reduced and there can be greater hope of long-term benefit for all involved.

PROVIDING RELIEF INAPPROPRIATELY DOES HARM
As discussed in the previous issue of Mandate, one of the key principles for effective ministry in low-income communities is discerning whether the context calls for
“relief,”—short-term handouts to people in an emergency situation—or “development”—walking with people over time in a way that brings reconciliation of foundational relationships with God, self, others, and creation. Relief and development are very different sorts of interventions, requiring different skills, approaches, human and financial resources, and time. It is not always easy to discern which intervention is appropriate, but a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself the following question: Are the people in this community capable of helping themselves? If the answer is “yes,” then relief is not the right intervention. For example, the Good Samaritan appropriately provided relief to the man who was bleeding on the side of the road and completely helpless. But most low-income people are not in this situation and are suffering from chronic issues that affect their self-image and sense of purpose. Such feelings of inferiority, hopelessness, and meaninglessness cannot be overcome by handouts from a STM team or anybody else.

Unfortunately, STM trips often make the serious mistake of providing relief in contexts in which development is the appropriate intervention. Providing handouts of goods and services in such a situation can do enormous damage by undermining the willingness and capacity of low-income communities to be stewards of their own human and physical assets. Doing relief in a development context isn’t just ineffective; it’s damaging!

EMPHASIZING NEEDS INSTEAD OF ASSETS DOES HARM
STM trips also tend to use “needs-based” rather than “asset-based” approaches. Instead of focusing on the gifts and abilities that God has placed in low-income communities, the implicit assumption of many STM trips can be, “We must come in and build houses for you, because you don’t have the materials or know-how to do so yourselves. You need us to show you how to run Vacation Bible Schools in your community because we know more than you do.” This “needs-based” approach exacerbates the feelings of inferiority that are rampant in many low-income communities and can inflate the sense of superiority of the STM teams. In addition, these assumptions are not always true! There really are gifts and assets in low-income communities that the poor can use to improve both their lives and ours!

For example, when we send in our pastors on STMs to train churches in low-income communities, we should allow the churches in those communities to share with our pastors the ways they have seen God working in their midst. Churches that are dealing daily with issues such as witchcraft, demon possession, starvation, AIDS, and ethnic cleansing have often experienced God’s work in ways that are different from our experiences, and we need allow these churches to share with us what they have learned about God so that the entire body can be built up.

Indeed, the key asset that God has placed in many low-income communities is His body, bride, and fullness: the local church! Every STM team should ask itself: What are we doing to the testimony of the local church that already exists in this community? The reality is that often the local churches in poor communities cannot compete on the same stage with U.S. suburban churches in terms of their ability to put on a glitzy program. When STM teams come in with an abundance of resources and glossy Vacation Bible School materials, they look better and are often more attractive than the local church. STM teams need to ask: How can we be less on the front stage and more supportive of the local church and its ministry?