Some of you have heard me blather on about short term mission trips (especially the youth kind).
Some questions for me remain:
Are we meeting actual needs with these projects?
If we are, is the way in which we meet the perceived needs actually beneficial for the people we are seeking to serve?
Are we actually designing these trips/projects more for the impact they will have on the missionaries? If so is that selfish and arrogant? Or is actually wise?
Here’s a quote from an article from the Christian Science Monitor I found surfing this morning
“As these missions flourish, however, the faithful are debating the wisdom of tailoring outreach programs to suit the needs and wants of missionaries in search of a peak, transformational experience.”
I know a lot of you have either led, participated, or are going to lead, plan or participate in a short term project in the near future. I would be interested to know how you would answer these questions.
ht: MarkO
13 comments:
I took a group on a short-term trip last year. This was the first time I had done this. I struggled with all these questions. Here is how we handled it:
- we never told the participants that they would be gain the greatest benefit (even though we knew that would be true). We felt that even acknowledging that would make the focus selfish as opposed to outward.
- we focused on what we could offer the people who are doing ministry in Mexico, as opposed to what would impact us the most.
- we worked with missionaries whose only role in Mexico was to support Mexican Pastors as they do ministry in their way.
- we tried to do things that would be a lasting help to the people.
- we talked, and continue to talk, about how what we did and saw can and should change how we live.
The maybes that plague:
- maybe we went to Mexico and showed them how much money we have and what money can accomplish.
- Maybe we went to Mexico and packaged some lessons that taught the kids that North Americans have the corner on the market of God.
- Maybe we impacted the culture so that the Mexicans we met now think they have to worship like Canadians, in Canadian style buildings, with Canadian style clothes on.
The results I know about:
- the ongoing ministry to children in a very poor area has a place to meet that is not dangerous.
- the Pastor's told us they were encouraged by us.
- the youth have displayed a deepened sense of their role as a servant of God.
- they have changed the way they interact with people who are "on the fringes" of the group.
- they have grown to have an interest in reaching out and helping people in need both spiritually and physically.
This does not answer the questions by any stretch, but in the end we felt it made it worth the money, time and energy. I still don't know if the impact we had in Mexico is the kind of impact that was needed. We were definitely impacted more then we had an impact, but we were changed in such a way that we can be more effective in ministering to people. So, is that selfish? Maybe it is...
Off topic I know - but what happened to your site? Are you trying to be too MCC (simplistic)?
I struggle with this one. Prior to coming to Bethany I was (surprise!) quite cynical about the value of missions trips but I have been on a few since starting here and I do see them having value for students (any myself!).
I think the quote from the article you linked to asks a good question. Who are missions trips 'tailored' for? Is their purpose primarily the enrichment of the participants or the service of others? I know the two are not mutually exclusive but it seems that we are pretty heavily geared toward making it a 'good experience' for the people going.
That's not necessarily wrong. Here at Bethany I look at them as having strong 'educational value' because they open students up to new ideas and experiences. Exposure to poverty, for example, is an experience that most of us need because it could help us become more compassionate and sacrificial people.
Maybe the issue is the name we use. I think the term 'missions trip' gives the impression that the focus is on others when in reality it is a much more in-house experience. The key, as I see it, is evaluating the result of these trips. Are they accomplishing the goal of producing more 'mission-focused' people or are they giving us 'experiences' that serve no other purpose than entertainment and travel?
maybe we could benefit from a name change. I remeber hearing the term 'exposure' used in connection with these things in the past. I can also clearly remember my own parents frustration at having to babysit short term 'missionaries' who seemed to be more taxing on missionary efforts than they were a benefit.
I think they put up with those short term people becuase they hoped that it could lead to more long term missionaries in the 'feild'.
I think the name chage might make it hard to raise money for these excursions which might be a big reason for most organizations not to change the name.
But intrisically, I wonder how we justify educational value no matter how strong it is against using needy people as lab rats. To there is something exploitive in that. Plus like this article says there doesn't seem to be a marked difference in the students as a result of these trips. And THAT I can confirm in my own setting.
I think what is tough is the area of responsibility. We do have vast resources that need to be utilized in helping 'needy' contexts. It is wrong to hoard our wealth. But it is also incumbent on us to use our resources wisely so that the maximum benefit is achieved for the people we are claiming to serve. I think mission trips have to be evaluated on that basis.Serving is hard and often looks like failure. Would we ever plan a missions trip that would seem to fail to meet the objectives of the 'changed lives' of our young people?
I think whatever benefit WE get out of these projects needs to be secondary. Otherwise it seems like a basically selfish proposition.
The incarnational model of Jesus seems to deny the importance of exposure and sorta centers on indentification.
A lot of great questions, Dale. Some I've kicked around the block a time or two. From a purely 'purse' perspective, it's hard to imagine that any appreciable 'mission' is achieved through short term mission trips (and I'm not only referring to the "youth" trips). The money it takes to recruit, send, supply and sustain a group going to a third world to build a building for a church, hospital, school, etc. is generally in levels of magnitude more than it would take to hire local tradespeople to erect the same structure. Not only is the structure erected for a fraction of the cost, the entire cost of the project goes into the nations economy (product and labour). That said, something you state in your reply to Gil's comments sparked something in my brain.
"I think whatever benefit WE get out of these projects needs to be secondary. Otherwise it seems like a basically selfish proposition."
I think one needs to be cautious in looking at this in a 'we vs they' paradigm. While we do need to be exceedinlg careful not to use others as guineau pigs (be that locally or abroad), if we believe that we are 'a body' and that what benefits one part of the body benefits the whole body, then it becomes impossible to distinguish between what 'we' get out of the project and what 'they' get out. If, in fact, I get something out of an experience the entire body will benefit from that experience. If the body does not realize a benefit from my experience, it could be argued that there was no benefit for me either.
I go around the block on these sort of things all the time. Short term mission trips, Operation Christmas Chid (Shoe Box) and the like. The frugal menno in me says, get the best bang for the buck or it's a waste of time and resources. I'm slowly, recently coming to realize that the way God measures 'value' and the way I measure value doesn't always fit into the same ledger sheet. It makes the whole concept of being a good steward with my time and resources a whole lot more difficult to figure out.
Good comments Clinton. I find myself "going around the block" on this one too. I would ask this question though. What constitutes short and long term? Is a life time of dedication to a mission productive if no one follows Christ? Is seven and a half years in the field long-term when churches are planted and the local church is launched into existence? I like your comment on God using a different ledger sheet then ours. One of the biggest mistakes is that we waste this "mission" experience on only the "young people" when they are old enough to swing a hammer but young enough to be ignorant of their own manipulation. And then when the adults go - it is the 50+ group and the single adults that go. I think the process of teaching our children the values of sacrifice, service, generousity, must begin when they are young. They need to work beside us from early on.
I guess I find it somewhat sad that the apparent act of serving others is actually done to benefit ourselves. That might not be the direct intention, but as they are saying, organizers are planning these trips to do so. And thats sad to me.
Justifying it by saying it gives people an exposure to poverty etc. just rubs me the wrong way. People aren't a field trip. And this attitude can do them more harm than any good that is accomplished.
I know our youth group has done RASKs a couple of times and I know that I don't like it very much. It gives me the wrong feeling, like 'Oh here's a bag of chips and a can of pop. I am so nice and kind so you should love Jesus and get a real job, so you can hand out stuff like me.' i guess I feel arrogant doing that and it's uncomfortable to me. These people have seen this before and it doesn't seem to be working.
I know these might be sort of jumbled, but just wanted to throw them out there.
Not jumbled at all.
I think i might drag your challenge about the RASKS into my next post...
A comment that a national brother and leader said at the end of a 2 week missions experience in Nicaragua a year ago seems to be relevant to this topic. here is some background...A group of 9 people went to do some construction on a facility for children at risk. Our team provided the funds for the project as well as the labour for it. Yes, national people could have been hired with the money spent on plane fares, but it would have meant taking people away from jobs they already had and that only for a short period of time. The whole emphasis for the group prior to leaving was to keep in mind that the Nicarguans were the ones who knew how the project should be done and that we were merely coming to work alongside them, doing things the way they wanted it done. It was also emphasized that we were there to learn from our brothers and sisters. At the end of the 2 weeks and after participating in services in many churches, one of the national leaders made this comment:
"it is clear to me that as believers we need each other. We here Nicaragua need the encouragement your contribution and your physical presence gives us and you from North America need us, to be reminded that true happiness and joy in our christian lives does not depend on the material things we accumulate."
However, uncomfortable it is for to walk beside a fellow believer who lives in a mud hut and hardly has enough food to give to feed his children, it is good for us to do so, provided we go with a spirit of humility and a desire to learn from them. Too often we go with the attitude that we in North America have it all together financially and spiritually and when that happens, I suggest little if any benefit is received by anyone. It's not a matter of who benefits, rather is the body of Christ built up.
Good points being made. Nice to see discussion happening - sometimes people simply do or support these types of activites because someone decides to organize them, and we often don't ask the bigger questions. Momentum builds, fundraising happens - all so that kids can go and do ministry in some far off place. Some place where people REALLY need God's grace. Some place, usually, where the participants themselves don't live and are quite unlikely to run into anyone they know while they are 'doing their good deeds'. Some place where they have no ongoing connection to the people, etc. It is an adventure with a ministry component. And, they go, they do, they have a blast. They learn some very good things; they see life from a new perspective. That can all be good - even very good. Problem is, they come home, they tell their stories, still on a high, and then... life goes on. What's next? Have they really been changed long term, or was it simply a spiritual 'experience', lived in isolation from real life? A high? Have they learned anything about compassion to the people they see day-in day-out in their own communities? Or, are their attitudes towards those who are down and out in their own communities never impacted?
I believe that these types of activities can have tremendous life-changing value, especially since many of us have grown up with so much. We have no concept of how different life would be if we had to deal with the things that are harsh reality for many.
For organizers and participants, the key, in my mind, is whether or not they are challenged to apply what they learned in this experience to their day-to-day lives, after the excitement has worn off. Are participants challenged to reflect on a regular basis about what was learned, how that shaped them, how that continues to shape them? How are they following up in their own communities? Perhaps this type of followup happens individually, but I really think some local service should precede and follow such events, so that participants can't just sign up for a #-day adventure somewhere else, but realize that it is part of something more long term and local.
It's sort of like going to an awesome conference or retreat - the event itself can be a tremendous turning point, but at times, it can also lead to serious depression afterwards, when the reality of day-to-day life sets back in. The key is whether or not people feel that they can put into practice whatever it is they have learned - within their own settings. If so, the event has tremendous value. If not, it loses its impact, becomes only an event, to be either forgotten or outdone by another spiritual high experience down the road.
till next time...
thanks for the tag in Rita
Good points.
The follow up for these things is a crucial component for sure.
To me the fact that follow is so crucial is further evidence that the focal point of these trips is not the people we are serving but ourselves.
I think you point out how this false dichotomy (btwn spiritual and secualr life) is causing problems - even depression.
Are we setting kids up for spiritual failure by even letting them go to these events?
The answer is probably NO. But it does make me wonder.
Dale - although we sometimes do things without asking any questions, it is also possible to get into the 'paralysis by analysis' trap. I think that could happen here if we decide that we have to determine who benefits more (giver or givee) prior to doing anything. I have received gifts (of time, concern, food most recently) and have been blessed tremendously by the generosity and consideration of another human being. I am quite sure that they may have been blessed in giving the help that they did to me, although it cost them something - time, money, etc. I have also been in the situation where I have given something so minor that I barely noticed, and had it appreciated so much that it blew me away. Was I wrong to have given because I was blessed in so doing? The fact that both the giver and the recipient can be blessed by the same act should make us more willing to love eachother's socks off, rather than to question 'should I or shouldn't I?' Maybe God's plan is that both giver and givee be blessed by the same act.
What concerns me more about these mission trips is that they become such a big deal, and that they are sometimes isolated from the rest of life. Here's a story: when I was still single, I struggled with attitudes within my home church at the time, and decided that I needed to get away. I also felt it was time for a career change, but had no idea what to do next. I quit my job and went on a short term (3 months) adventure working with an organization in the southern US, helping some 'missionaries'. There was tremendous poverty in the area, and tremendous wealth. I worked with other people - some had come as part of a Bible college practicum, others had volunteered from within the area. I doubt if the kids that we were working with questioned our various motivations - they loved the program we were running and were thrilled with what they gained through it. They gained; so did we.
In the town where I was staying, there were huge elaborate beautiful church buildings with choreographed worship services, etc. Whites only. They sent their kids on missions projects to other places. And, other areas sent their kids on mission trips to this area. That's what struck me... all these 'churches' were sending their youth groups for service projects in other places, rather than encouraging them to see the struggling human beings in their own communities, and to reach out to them. Of course, that would have been more difficult, since they would have asked some very tough questions, so it was probably easier to do the distant stuff rather than get messy in real life. I had struggled with this 'attitude' back at home, and rather than find out that it was the exception, if found that it was quite the norm. Not a pleasant learning, but a necessary one.
I guess my point is that I'd like to see the church encourage eachother, including our kids, to serve, not only in the adventures, but also, and more importantly, in our own congregations and communities. The local stuff isn't nearly as exciting; it won't get noticed the way major events do, but I think this is far more necessary, and in some ways, far more reflective of what Christ challenges us to. Perhaps it happens far more than I realize - that would be awesome.
paralysis indeed
I agree that we can talk ourselves out of doing anything at all.
I guess when I read Jesus' challenge to take up the cross - I think any motivation or benefit that I, the giver, may recieve in the equation is secondary. Unfortunately we have built our 'service' around what will benefit us the most. Little consideration is given to those who are recieving.
I listened to the story of a former inmate who on the road to recovery was validated by the Helen Fry Foundation. She said that at one point the most meaningful thing that one of the volunteers did for her was to pick her up and take her to the laundry mat to wash HER OWN clothes instead of giving her the hand-me downs like so many other relief organizations did. These were clothes she had picked out and couldn't wear becuase she could not afford to wash them.
To me it illustrates the need for us to stop imposing our solutions on people becuase it either satisfies our guilt or is convenient to for us to give.
I think you are bang on when you say that the focus needs to be way less out there and way more right here right now...
Post a Comment