June 19, 2009 | Short Term Missions

The Case for STMs: Do Short Term Missions Work?

The Case for Short Term Missions

Do Short Term Missions Work?

AIM founder and Executive Director Seth Barnes expands on a previous answer to the critics of short-term missions and builds a case for the effectiveness of mission trips, explaining why how short term missions work:

A random person recently wrote me saying, “Hey, I am doing a speech opposing short term missions [STMs] today, I was wondering if you have any data or statistics that would work for this?”

The Case for Short Term Missions: Do Short Term Missions Work?

I’m afraid my response wasn’t too encouraging: “You may have mis-read my perspective.” I wrote. “I believe your position is unbiblical. Luke 9 and 10 is a clear biblical precedent. My issue is not STMs, but STMs done poorly, which is most of the time these days. If you’re ‘opposing STMs’ then you’re opposing Jesus.”

Everywhere in life there are examples of excellence contrasted with poverty of imagination and execution, but just because some who have attempted to do STMs in the past didn’t always do them well is no excuse to not go on mission trips.

STMs are a necessary part of discipleship. The people who would do away with it are missing a big chunk of Jesus’ pedagogy. Jesus was big on faith — asking us to do a trust-fall with the Father. How else are you going to learn faith if not by being thrust into unfamiliar territory with an overwhelming assignment, such as a mission project?

STMs are also a necessary part of missions. Paul went on a series of STMs and jump-started the long-term missions movement. Usually when planting a long-term work in a community, those planning it are going to begin to establish relationships in a series of forays that culminate in a long-term commitment.

STM teams work — sometimes, spectacularly. The uneven results they can produce open the door to criticism. Here are the most prevalent criticisms:

They cost too much.
Short-term missionaries can’t do a missionary’s job.
Short-term missionaries should help the needy people in the U.S. first.

Jesus tells us, “Go into all the world spreading the good news.” Christ sounded a clarion call to battle. We’ve been commanded to get out of the malls and into the streets. The questions are: What we should do with the mandate we’ve been given? And, just how far should short-term missionaries go with their mandate? Are there any limits?

Sometimes, the critics score a bullseye. Mission trips too frequently are costly. By definition they can’t incorporate the follow-up work that only someone with a long-term commitment to a particular mission field can. Often they are overly ambitious, aspiring to pierce the darkness in a place like Romania, when the light may be dimmer next door in Philadelphia.

Other criticisms are more easily countered. Some critics dismiss short-term missionaries out of hand with the comment: “They’re not really missionaries.” To which I say, if being a missionary means something other than sharing the love of Jesus cross-culturally, then it is true, short-term missionaries may not measure up. Yes, often they do have a quick-fix mentality in a world where change may be measured at a glacial rate. However, I suggest that labels are a peripheral issue. Jesus called us all to be missionaries (Mark 6:7-13). To judge the validity of the STM movement, we need to dispense with old preconceptions and look at the fruit, not the duration of the term or even the commitment of those involved.

Another criticism in the same vein is that the ministry on a mission trip is more to the short-termer than it is to those to whom they’re ministering. To which I say, “So what?” It’s true that STM leaders may seem more focused on the needs of their group than they are on the ministry they’ve undertaken. Often the changes that occur in their lives are profound. It may frequently be the case that short-term missionaries are the primary beneficiaries of their trip; however, the most successful models of STMs emphasize a partnership in which both participants and nationals benefit equally as they develop relationships with one another.

These kinds of criticisms persist and confusion flourishes when STM leaders embrace questionable models of STMs. Because there are so many flawed models floating around, they inevitably tarnish those models of STMs whose fruit has stood the test of time.

When STM groups come in for criticism, most often it is because they have adopted one or more of the following flawed models of short-term missions. Let’s look at the six worst below.

QUESTIONABLE MODELS

1. No Preparation
2. No Prayer
3. No Jerusalem
4. No “Ends of the earth”
5. No Stewardship
6. No Perspective

An STM team can be a negative experience for both long-term missionary and participant alike if the team is inadequately prepared and is seen as a necessary inconvenience. The same team can have an incredible impact if they are trained and come to the field with the right attitudes. 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

Case for short-term missions - serving food in Africa

Sometimes, STM teams produce unintended consequences. However, unintended consequences are particularly prevalent for those using a model of STM that involves little screening, preparation, or follow-up. These are essential aspects of any successful missions model.

Many STM 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 Adventures In Missions produce spectacular results with regularity.

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? Our Adventures In Missions teams, working in tandem with existing churches, see thousands of converts and disciples each year. We also built many churches and homes. I point to our emphasis on prayer as the primary reason for the fruit.

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 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. 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 whom 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 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?”

5. No Stewardship

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; the fact of the matter is that most new missionaries have been on an STM before.

That said, more STM groups need to set their sights on projects that 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 churches that 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. A good way to counter criticism of their stewardship is for missions committees to place the primary responsibility for raising funds on the short-term candidates instead of on the church.

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 to say no to an STM group rather than 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. and 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. 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.