2 of 3

A case could be made that many American congregations and youth ministry programs have discovered a way to fund programs that benefit their own congregations' memberships much more consistently than those they ostensibly serve (while in the process making the challenge of funding the career missionary enterprise more difficult). It raises uncomfortable questions about whose interests are truly being served when the rhetoric justifying the funding of STM stresses results in the lives of those being served, while virtually all research by STM leaders has focused on the benefits to the short-term missionaries and their congregations.

We must follow your example and exhortation to redirect our attention to the results of STM on receiving communities. Perhaps next time around we can focus on this.

Back to you,

Robert

* * *

Dear Robert,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you are right. What happens before and during the trip is important; but the argument I want to make more strongly is that if we want to see the experience of STM translate into significant changes in participant's lifestyles afterward—then follow-up is the key to making that happen. I also like your idea that it matters where the money for STMs is coming from. If it is from individuals' vacation funds or their travel budgets, I would also hold the results to a different standard than if the participants are taking a part of their tithe or what their family, friends, or church would have given to long-term missions to fund a one-week trip to Kenya. Good things to think about.

Now I would like to turn our attention to the impact of STMs on the communities where the groups are going to serve. I would like to make a few points, and you can respond.

I think it is disturbing that nearly all of the research on STM focuses on the North Americans. I know of no guidebooks to prepare communities for receiving short-term missionaries, but there are dozens to prepare North Americans who go on such trips. Discussion of STM (including ours so far) often focus on the North Americans. During a STM trip, the groups often meet regularly before the experience to prepare and plan, they meet each night to evaluate the day's work, and they carry out a full evaluation at the end. The communities ministered to often have little or no such experiences. Why do you think this is?

In my research, I compared families in Honduras whose homes were built by STM groups to families whose homes were built by local Christian organizations in Honduras. The new homeowners in both groups were almost unanimously very happy and motivated, felt closer to God, and felt more secure in general, regardless of who built their home. The effect of having homes built by short-term mission groups versus Honduran builders seemed to have no noteworthy impact on Honduran families or communities—either positive or negative. What did have a large impact on their spiritual life, motivation, or loan repayment was the two to three years of good or not so good work done by the local organization, not the one- or two-week visit by a short-term missionary. As a result it seems to me that if we want to see long-lasting change in communities we should invest most of our limited resources in high-quality, longer-term work and often to work done by local Christians.

That said, I recognize that occasionally a single event/encounter in our lives can make a large impact. And while we are called to be good stewards of the resources God has given us, it is dangerous to overly monetarize life experiences. When we asked Honduran families which they would choose—a STM group coming to build one house or that the group would send the money they were going to spend on the trip and so could build 10 houses—the families had a hard time choosing. They value the relationships, enjoyed meeting new people, and were often encouraged and motivated by the group's visit (though about 80 percent of those surveyed said they had not stayed in contact with the communities). We cannot put a price tag on relationships. But I think that just like for North Americans, the Hondurans' motivation and excitement after a visit is difficult to translate into long-lasting and life-changing change unless there is intentional and proper follow-up that encourages them and holds them accountable. So while I do think a one-week STM experience may sow seeds of change in both North Americans and Hondurans, in the end we all need follow-up to turn our good intentions into long-lasting change and actions. What do you think?

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

July (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49