by Greg Huteson
A few years ago, fifteen to twenty people travelled from the United States to another country to build a village house for a missionary family. Many of the participants had construction experience. The building project lasted several weeks. By the time these Americans left, the village house was almost complete.
A few years ago, fifteen to twenty people travelled from the United States to another country to build a village house for a missionary family. Many of the participants had construction experience. The building project lasted several weeks. By the time these Americans left, the village house was almost complete.
Another successful short-term missions trip. Or was it? The missionary family has the most modern house in the village. But they don’t stay there often.
The country the village is in is doing well. Until recently, it experienced a building boom. The new buildings are not just in the cities. Construction is a major industry in county seats, even in villages. There are experienced architects, contractors, subcontractors, and manual laborers throughout the country.
The family would have saved money if they had hired a local contractor. They have a house in the village. But the villagers, whom they hope to reach with the gospel, may wonder if they are interested in them or their skills.
During my years outside the United States, I have come to harbor some concerns about short-term missions trips. I wonder if many of these trips are needed. I have come to believe many of them do not benefit local people.
A short-term missions trip entails travel by Christians outside their home culture or subculture, generally for a month or less, to participate in an activity associated with their faith. Participants typically engage in prayer, evangelism, teaching or preaching, construction, maintenance, counseling, or missionary care.
Jesus instructed the Church to spread the gospel. Most short-termers want to obey his commission. Are they succeeding? What are some shortcomings of short-term missions trips? And what are some characteristics of the trips that benefit targeted communities?
Shortcomings of Short-term Missions Trips
There are two common shortcomings in short-term missions: inadequately prepared participants and inappropriate or ineffective methods.
Inadequately Prepared Participants. Many short-termers are not well equipped to live in another culture. Some regard a short-term trip as little more than a vacation. But even short-termers who genuinely desire to serve often provide little benefit to the local population. There are several reasons for this gap between desired outcomes and results. Here are a few:
1. Superficial relationships with local people. Short-termers talk with some local people. They may even work with them. But if they are not where English is a language of wider communication, they are often limited to conversing with those who speak English.
Barriers of time and language ensure that the relationships short-termers have with local people are superficial. They interact with them like strangers. In most cultures, people treat guests with respect and kindness. Short-termers often misinterpret this hospitality as friendship. Friendships in middle-class America require time and effort. The same is true in other countries and cultures.
2. Little understanding of the culture. Short-termers often enter a culture with little understanding. They come with plans to pray, evangelize, or participate in some other activity, but they have little knowledge of the culture. They lack knowledge of the people and their history, local food, local customs, local economy, local transportation, and the local church. Trip organizers often do not provide short-termers with this information, and most short-termers do not research it on their own.
Short-termers also often have little understanding of missionary culture. Career missionaries tend to be a fairly representative sample of the Evangelical population of their home countries, with the same backgrounds, heartaches, foibles, and sins. But few short-termers understand their unique needs, problems, and struggles.
People who live outside their home country for several years deal with homesickness, communication and language acquisition, daily life, and relationships with local people in ways that short-termers are spared or only experience briefly. Perhaps one of the least beneficial purposes of a short-term trip is to provide pastoral care or counseling for career missionaries. Short-termers have not walked in the steps of these missionaries. They usually do not know how to counsel them well.
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, there’s little reason
for foreigners to decide a country’s missions needs.
3. Lack of proficiency in the local language. One reason short-termers have an inadequate understanding of other cultures and develop superficial relationships with people in these cultures is they do not speak the local language. Many do not anticipate the need to speak another language. Some do not think about language differences before they arrive. As I mentioned earlier, short-termers often cannot communicate with local people, except in areas where English is spoken. Many expect bilingual individuals to communicate for them. The inability to communicate well prevents them from ministering effectively.
Inappropriate and Ineffective Methods. Not only do many short-termers go on missions trips poorly prepared to communicate with, work with, and serve people in other cultures, they also often use inappropriate or ineffective methods.
1. Foreign management of short-term trips. Foreigners initiate most short-term trips. Some of these foreigners reside in or near destination areas; others reside in their home country. In either case, local churches and church leaders are typically not consulted.
Most countries have an indigenous church. In the twenty-first century, there’s little reason for foreigners to decide a country’s missions needs. In the history of missions, there are many instances of foreigners and other outsiders who retained leadership positions in churches and other Christian organizations longer than was beneficial. Unfortunately, paternalistic attitudes and behavior continue to mar cross-cultural relations in the Church.
Cultural paternalism occurs when people from one culture decide what the thoughts and practices of people in another culture ought to be. They then attempt to persuade or even coerce these people to conform to their expectations. In the context of missions, Kyeong Sook Park notes that paternalism entails “the dominance of the sending church and its representatives over the partnership churches who receive them” (2008, 508).
Foreign-planned and led short-term trips tend to be ineffective. I have seen many short-term teams return to the United States and other countries excited about their work, but leave no ongoing ministry or fruit. Local people often have no sense of ownership in these trips or their products, because they were not treated as equals.
2. Lack of need. In most cases, local Christians are as capable of common short-term activities as foreigners are if they have the vision. For instance, even non-Christians can participate in construction and maintenance. Because they have local social networks, speak the local language, and know the local culture, local people are often more effective at these and other tasks than outsiders. And they often do them at a lower cost and with greater local initiative and ownership.
Short-termers may have more training and experience in Christian leadership and theology than Christians in some common short-term missions destinations; however, this is not necessarily true. Latin America, Africa, and Asia—all common destinations—have well-established Bible colleges and seminaries. Short-termers may be trained in specific evangelistic, teaching, Bible study, or other skills that are relatively unfamiliar outside Western Evangelical circles, but the opposite is also true. People in destination areas have skills that foreigners and other outsiders lack, and these skills are often more compatible with the local population, culture, and environment.
PEOPLE IN DESTINATION AREAS have skills
that foreigners and other outsiders lack, and these skills are often
more compatible with the local population, culture, and environment.
3. Culturally insensitive use of funds. Accurate estimates of Americans’ annual expenditures on short-term missions are hard to come by, although a figure in the low billions is sometimes cited (Salmon 2008; Gravelle 2012, 1). In 2015, approximately $275 million was contributed for short-term missions trips by ministries associated with the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (based on figures in ECFA 2016). Since many short-termers do not understand destination cultures, these funds often seem to be used unwisely.
It is not uncommon for short-termers to overpay for goods and services. An amount which seems inadequate to them may in fact be a fair payment or charge. Unfortunately, overpayment is not limited to short-termers. Many expatriates, including career missionaries, routinely overpay house help, repairmen, drivers, and others. By doing this, they increase wage and service costs for others and alter the expectations of local people. Those who are overpaid sometimes struggle to find employment once the foreigners leave. They are no longer willing to work for local rates.
It is also not uncommon for short-termers to distribute funds with little accountability. In many short-term trip destinations, people are less wealthy than middle-class Americans. To a typical short-term team participant, it may seem everyone has financial needs; however, the majority of people have no desire to receive money from foreigners. They are as competent at living in their culture as middle-class Americans are at living in the U.S., and they are as little interested in becoming dependent upon outsiders.
Some short-termers and career missionaries give money without investigating actual needs or local resources. They also neglect to establish accountability frameworks or agree on terms of repayment.
It is also common for short-termers to give money to people who are not community leaders. Except in a crisis situation, a community’s problems can rarely be fixed or helped by outside cash. And even when contributions are beneficial, it is best not to funnel money into a community through those who are not leaders. These individuals do not have the authority to make decisions about community funds and they are usually not able to persuade others to participate in common projects.
4. Over-reliance on others. Short-termers require assistance. Local people and career missionaries curtail other work to assist them. This ensures that the short-termers survive and are able to function, but it disrupts the lives of those who assist them. It sometimes also results in delays to long-term projects.
Common Assumptions of Short-termers
Two assumptions are often associated with the shortcomings of short-term missions. It’s these assumptions that lead to the lack of preparedness and the inadequate methodology. One assumption has to do with perceptions of relative worth; the other with perceptions of roles and abilities. Specifically, many short-termers assume they are superior to the people in destination areas. They also assume these individuals and communities should primarily be passive recipients of their efforts.
1. The assumption of superiority. As I noted earlier, paternalism is a motivating force in missions. It is one reason middle-class believers do missions work in poor and minority areas, American believers travel to other countries, and Asian believers travel to Africa. Those who cross cultural boundaries often assume they are better than those they travel to assist.
IT IS HARMFUL WHEN foreigners and other outsiders
treat local people merely as recipients.
I am not suggesting that all short-termers and career missionaries feel superior to people in missions destinations. Many foreigners live as humble learners in their host communities. They treat local people with respect and are willing to listen. If they possess special skills, they train others so that the skills belong to the community. They are willing to work for people in local communities and they make it a priority to hand over the leadership of churches, projects, and organizations to indigenous leaders. But these attitudes are not common as they ought to be.
2. The assumption of passivity. Short-termers often assume local people will not work alongside them as equals. Short-termers typically come to do a project. Local people may be involved, but they are frequently not treated as partners.
Frankly, it is harmful when foreigners and other outsiders treat local people merely as recipients. People outside the United States and in American subcultures are no less competent than middle-class Americans. They are as capable of performing typical short-term missions activities as short-termers. They are certainly capable of being trained in new skills.
Those who are treated as recipients of other’s largesse are taught they lack the competence to take care of their own needs. Some learn to manipulate foreigners and other outsiders into doing their work for them.
Characteristics of Beneficial Short-term Missions Trips
So far, I have reviewed shortcomings of short-term missions trips and noted common assumptions of short-termers. Turning now to the positive, what is needed for these trips to be effective? Is it possible for short-termers to benefit the populations of missions destination areas? The answer is certainly yes. However, at least five criteria must be met for short-term trips to benefit targeted communities. These criteria are
1. The trips should be initiated and led or co-led by indigenous Christian leaders. There are indigenous churches in most missions destinations. Leaders of these churches are more knowledgeable of the needs of their communities and community resources than outsiders are. They are often able to recruit local individuals with the skills needed for a project or the willingness to be trained. As members and often leaders of their communities, they have a clear understanding of community needs.
Indigenous leaders remind members of short-term teams that the people in missions destinations are as capable as they are. They also remind them that they are working alongside local people as Christian brothers and sisters and fellow human beings. Park notes that when participants on short-term teams interact with indigenous leaders, there is a tendency for them to become less paternalistic (2008, 516).
In communities without an indigenous church, it is often feasible to recruit Christian leaders from a nearby area or the national church to lead or co-lead a short-term team. However, there are paternalistic attitudes within countries as well as between countries. Care should be taken by trip organizers not to recruit leaders who believe they are superior to the people in the target community.
2. The local community should provide workers and resources for the project. This includes financial resources. In recent decades, ‘ownership’ has become a catchword in Evangelical circles. There is a desire for the people in missions destination areas to ‘own’ Christian activities and institutions. It is felt they ought to initiate or lead these activities and institutions. Both insiders and outsiders need to acknowledge that Christian efforts belong to local Christians and/or local communities.
However, local Christians and local communities will only own short-term projects if they provide workers and resources. As outsiders, we should not treat them as passive recipients of our people, finances, and planning. Partnering with local Christians requires that they participate in planning projects, recruiting people, and providing or soliciting funds.
As outsiders, particularly as American outsiders, we value speed. But we should not allow this preference to bypass the patience required to allow local Christian communities to access their own resources. “We’re waiting together” is an acceptable update for donors and churches. And once resources are assembled, local Christians should have at least an equal voice in their oversight and use.
3. The short-term team should encourage the local community to interact with regional or national organizations. Team leaders may be aware of a regional or national organization that can provide ongoing accountability or training for the community. The community may already have a relationship with the organization; however, where that is lacking, team leaders can suggest that indigenous leaders consider developing a relationship.
Encouraging communication between community leaders and these organizations can result in the continuation of initiatives that would otherwise falter. For example, after Hurricane Mitch in Honduras in 1998, rebuilding funds were channeled through national development organizations. The people in communities that had clearly defined, transparent relationships with these organizations were more faithful in their loan repayments (Ver Beek 2008, 493).
4. Short-termers should revisit a destination area to continue a project or participate in new projects. A key reason participants value short-term missions trips is they require little commitment. The trips do not require them to commit to disruptive life changes. They resume their daily lives after brief departures from their home culture. This prevents most short-termers from learning much about their destination, its people, and its culture.
For short-termers to relate to people in destination areas as fellow human beings, Christian brothers and sisters, and friends, they must put down roots in some real sense. Friendship and Christian community require time and effort. To create the space for these to develop, short-termers ought to revisit the same area over an extended period of time. It is also beneficial to communicate with people from the area between visits.
Interaction over time through shared work, meals, frustrations, and joys provide the context in which people may come to believe that outsiders are interested in them as more than exotic backdrops to stories of cross-cultural ministry. It is also more likely to foster short-termers’ respect for people in destination areas as fellow human beings. And it allows both groups to have a voice in deciding which community needs are best served by short-term trips.
5. Short-termers should acquire some proficiency in the destination language. It is awkward and time-consuming to communicate through translators. Short-termers should aim to acquire some proficiency in the language spoken in their destination area. This is a priority for those who engage in verbal ministries, such as teaching, preaching, evangelism, and counseling, but it ought to be expected of all short-termers. Only short-termers who learn to speak the local language will develop effective partnerships.
Conclusion
Short-term missions is an industry. As with any industry perceived to be doing well, leaders in America’s short-term missions movement seem reluctant to change their ways. There seems to be a lack of interest in changing the current model. After all, millions of Americans participate in short-term trips each year (Macdonald 2006; Salmon 2008; Gravelle 2012, 1) and Americans allocate millions or perhaps billions of dollars annually to short-term missions.
However, with the notable exceptions of Effective Engagement in Short-term Missions, the 2008 volume edited by Robert J. Priest, and Kurt Ver Beek’s investigation of relief efforts after Hurricane Mitch (Ver Beek 2006, 2008), there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of short-term mission trips. (See Daly [2009] and Guttentag [2009] on the effects of secular volunteer tourism on local populations.)
At present, there appears to be only sporadic recognition that short-term trips often do not benefit those they target. There is a need for a vigorous, but respectful discussion of the viability of short-term missions. It’s my hope that such a discussion improves the way that we as middle-class American Evangelicals interact with our Christian brothers and sisters and others when we cross-cultural boundaries.
References
Daly, Katherine. 2009. “Community Perspectives on North-South Volunteer Programs in El Salvador.” Paper presented at the 2009 Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil June 11-14, 2009.
ECFA. 2016. 2015 ECFA Annual State of Giving Report, December 15, 2015.
Gravelle, Gilles. 2012. “Short-term Missions & Money.“
Guttentag, Daniel A. 2009. “The Possible Negative Impacts of Volunteer Tourism.” International Journal of Tourism Research 11(6): 537-551.
Macdonald, G. Jeffery. 2006. “On a Mission-—a Short-term Mission.” USA Today, June 18.
Park, Kyeong Sook. 2008. “Researching Short-term Missions and Paternalism.” In Effective Engagement in Short-term Missions: Doing It Right! Ed. Robert J. Priest, 504-528. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library.
Priest, Robert J., ed. 2008. Effective Engagement in Short-term Missions: Doing It Right! Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library.
Salmon, Jacqueline L. 2008. “Churches Retool Missions Trips.” Washington Post, Saturday, July 5.
Ver Beek, Kurt. 2006. “The Impact of Short-term Missions: A Case Study of House Construction in Honduras after Hurricane Mitch.” Missiology: An International Review 34(4): 477–496.
______. 2008 “Lessons from the Sapling: Review of Quantitative Research on Short-term Missions,” in Effective Engagement in Short-term Missions: Doing It Right! Ed. Robert J. Priest, 474-497. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library.
. . . .
Greg Huteson is an appointee with OMF International. He and his wife, Bonnie, will serve as new workers supervisors with OMF in Taiwan. They previously served for seventeen years with SIL International in East Asia, primarily in administrative and support roles.
EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 4. Copyright © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism. aAll rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.
