I am a supporter of short-term missions. However, my blog post of the day before yesterday did not make that clear. I have seen at least two people called to long-term missions because they served on a short-term mission team. My problem is not with short-term missions per se. My problem is with under-trained teams who come over and cause multiple problems to the missionaries in residence and who expect the local long-term missionary to be overwhelmingly grateful that they have deigned to come. I saw too many of that type of visitor coming through.
Nevertheless, I do not fully agree with people, such as Tony Campolo, who argue:
Does it ever occur to those leaders who take bright, enthusiastic American young people to Haiti to build hundreds and hundreds of church buildings and schools that Haitians are capable of building them? Do they even consider how many jobs they take away from Haitians because of their well-intentioned construction enterprises? Does it occur to them that when Haitians see an American youth group put up a cinder block school building in just ten days that this could contribute to a sense of inferiority as these Americans do in ten days what seems to Haitians like a miracle?
This an argument that, interestingly enough, is made by some conservative and some liberal Christians. The argument is that there is an incredible amount of money that is spent by short-term mission teams, money that could be better spent if it were given directly to the Haitian churches. And, you know what? There really is a lot of truth to that argument. It is a very idealistic viewpoint, and all the more attractive because it is true. But, as with many idealistic arguments, it is based on people behaving in an idealistic and perfect fashion.
But, in a less than idealistic world, in a world that is full of fallen and damaged people, people do not behave in an idealistic way. In fact, people do not give freely in the way in which they ought to. We can rail away at Christians who will not freely give unless they are personally involved or personally know the people, or we can come up with ways that educate and help recruit world-involved Christians. I prefer going for the honey rather than the vinegar. Short-term missions is a good way to expose Christians with a limited worldview to something bigger, something that can be life-changing for them. And, when they have the life changing experience that turns them into world Christians, they often become personally involved either as missionaries themselves, or as coordinators and supporters of missions.
And, there are a couple of factors that Tony Campolo forgets to take into account. One factor is that there are organizations such as SIFAT that are Christian and provide sustainable technology to needy areas. Their short-term missions activities improve the quality of life of local peoples through sustainable renewable technologies. The other factor is that there are many areas where the local Christians feel isolated and alone. A visit from a properly taught, properly behaving, mission team lets them know that there is more to Christianity than what they experience locally, and lets them know that they are not alone. In other words, in a properly put together short-term mission, both sides can have their worldview enlarged.
But, there is one further argument that Tony Campolo makes that has me seeing red.
===MORE TO COME===
Leave a Reply