The case for short-term missions, Pt. 2

Continued from The case for short-term missions

Let’s dissect each of our flawed models in order to gain a better understanding of how to better design your next STM team:

1. No Preparation

Sometimes STM teams produce unintended consequences. However, unintended consequences are particularly prevalent for those using a model of STM which involves little screening, preparation, or follow-up. These are essential aspects of any successful missions model. The first car ever made was full of imperfections and bugs. Did its producers scrap it? No, they kept on improving it by making new models (and they continue to do so even today). So it is with STMs. Many models with successful track records exist. Some of the original models don’t work too well. However, models such as those developed by the Center for Student Missions, Frontiers, or the organization for which I work, Adventures In Missions, produce spectacular results with regularity. If you hold up an outdated model and say, “This is representative of STMs,” I suggest that you are putting a straw man forward. Look at the latest models (which incorporate heavy doses of preparation) before judging the worth of the concept.

2. No Prayer

Why is it in evangelical circles that we spend so much time organizing our work and so little time praying about it? I’d like to propose that we work toward a goal of spending an hour in prayer for every two hours we spend planning a mission project. Our Adventures In Missions teams, working in tandem with existing churches, saw thousands of converts and disciples last year. We also built many churches and homes. I point to our emphasis on prayer as the primary reason for the fruit.

The fruit produced in the home churches back in the U.S. is also noteworthy. A while back, STEM Ministries surveyed its project participants after they had returned home. They found that both giving to and prayer for missions doubled after people went on a mission trip. Prayer increases because people see in very practical ways that it works. It is an essential ingredient of STM projects.

3. No Jerusalem

Jesus said, “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem…and unto the ends of the earth.” Jerusalem represents our own back yard. If the Church neglects its own local community in its pell-mell rush to get to the ends of the earth, then it has probably romanticized the Great Commission. You often hear people say, “Why bother flying somewhere to help others when we have needy people right here in America?” Rather than brush off such criticism, we ought to deflect it through our involvement in local ministry. The group that gears up every year for another glorious trip beyond our borders but which slides back into the rut of feel-good ministry-to-self during the rest of the year gives us all a black eye. In fact, here’s a categorical statement to chew on: Unless your missions team is willing to first invest in a local ministry, it has no business going overseas.

Begin with Jerusalem. See people through Jesus’ eyes in your own back yard and then you’ve earned the right to hop a flight somewhere. Compassion for the lost begins with those who you see and touch every day.

4. No Ends-of-the-earth

At the other end of the spectrum are those who are so comfortable with regular nearby service projects that they have never experienced the incredible blessing of cross-cultural evangelism and church planting. The fact that, when you scan the world, so many full-time Christian workers are in the U.S., highlights the disproportionate resources expended on an increasingly cynical populace here in America.

U.S.-based ministry projects are a good starting point for further involvement in Christ’s kingdom around the globe, but after our first ministry project, we should ask, “How can I further challenge these participants?” People ask why I prefer ministering in Latin America as opposed to the U.S. and I tell them it’s because the fruit is so much greater there. Perhaps it’s because the poor in places like Mexico are so absolutely destitute that they more readily embrace the gospel.

Often a strong overseas project will result in a renewed emphasis on local outreach. Back when I was starting AIM, Third Presbyterian and West End Assemblies of God Church in Richmond, Virginia used to jointly sponsoring STM projects. Adults and youth from both churches joined forces to minister in various countries. Both churches became missionary-sending bodies as veterans of STM projects answer God’s call by pursuing careers as long-term missionaries. Both churches became leaders in developing local outreach projects in inner-city Richmond as a direct result of their STM programs.

5. No Stewardship

I suggest we do a cost/benefit analysis on STM teams. Of course the previously mentioned benefits of higher giving to missions and greater prayer must be considered in evaluating the return realized by investing in short-term missionaries. Beyond that, what is the value of developing a new generation of missionaries? Our organization has found that by giving young people the opportunity to see God’s power working through them to bring hope to hopeless situations, they can’t return to their old self-centered dreams. Over time, they start to become Great Commission Christians. STM experiences can generate vision for career missions- most new missionaries have been on an STM before.

That said, more STM groups need to set their sights on projects which demonstrate a stewardship of funds. Until leaders in our nation’s wealthier churches can stop spending money on mission trips just because it’s available, this criticism is always going to have some validity. Only groups that have demonstrated their stewardship through past projects that have born long-term fruit should be given the opportunity to invest the kind of money which is required to fly to more expensive locations. Those high school groups scheduling large teams to exotic locals in Asia, Russia, Africa, and the Far East should be subjected to greater scrutiny. I can think of very few situations in which I as a member of a missions committee would help fund such extravaganzas. Most young people are far too distracted and ill-prepared to justify that kind of expenditure. Those churches which have allowed the funding pendulum to swing so far in the direction of STMs that long-term funding suffers need to take a hard look at the fruit they are producing.

Given a proper concern for long-term fruit, church leaders should not be apologetic about the fact that short-term projects can be costly. It is always going to cost much more to do an overseas missions project than it would cost a comparable group of national Christians to do the same ministry. If we were faced with a situation in which both groups competed for the same pool of money, this criticism would be a profound one. However, in most cases, short-term missionaries are tapping into a completely different pool of money. Whether the monies are raised through fund-raising events or simply come from money already budgeted for a vacation, they tend to be over-and-above the funds otherwise given to missions. A good way to counter criticism of their stewardship is for missions committees to place the primary responsibility for raising funds on short-term candidates.

6. No Perspective

Often STM teams have little understanding of the big picture. A great gulf of perspective isolates them from the long-term workers with whom they work. This perspective may be imparted through a commitment by a missions agency or missionary to help prepare the group. STM groups certainly can be a distraction and an inconvenience to those missionaries who have teams thrust upon them, particularly if the teams are unprepared for the field. If a missionary does not have a vision for how short-term missionaries can minister cross-culturally, then perhaps it is better for him to “just say no” to an STM group rather than to run the risk of incurring unintended consequences in accommodating groups out of a sense of obligation or duty.

I have been a long-term missionary in the Dominican Republic and in Indonesia – I’ve seen how intrusive people from back home can be who come primarily to observe “mission life.” I’ve also led thousands on short-term teams around the world. I’ve seen their incredible promise both as an instrument to facilitate missions work and as a tool to mobilize missionaries to go to the field for longer periods.

Conclusion

In truth, both the long-term missionary and the STM team bring a gift to the throne of our Lord. Long-term missionaries bring direction. Short-term missionaries bring velocity. Often our long-term partners are greatly encouraged by the infusion of life and resources into their ministry. For example, I led a project where the Haitian pastor was thrilled with the injection of growth and life that our short-term team brought to his congregation. He implored us to come back with even more help next year. We did so and saw even greater fruit result. We have the kind of partnership in the gospel which enriches all involved. It is the person with a long-term commitment to a community who plants a church and disciples its members. The relationships and vision they provide are essential. They are like the rudder on the ship, providing direction, steering the course. Short-term missionaries can be the wind in the sails which give velocity and thrust to the enterprise. They bring with them resources, a prayer base, and tremendous enthusiasm.

History has always been on the side of those who were able to adapt to the changes which shook their world. The turbulence of the changes may have swept them aside, but their ideas persisted.

The world is changing at an incredible pace as we hurtle toward the future. Missions too must change. STM teams certainly have their drawbacks when they adopt a flawed model. However, at their best, they have proven to be a tremendous tool in the hands of the church – a tool which simultaneously helps disciple participants and helps reach the world for Christ.

To read the blog that started it all, check out: Are short-term missions becoming faddish?