Ten Ways to Guide a Missile
Posted in: Strategize
Immensely powerful missiles surround us. No. I am not referring to the recent UFO sightings in Stephenville, Texas, but to those missiles preparing to launch during Spring Break or the summer months. Some passengers of the fast flying missiles are merely along for the adventure, and minimally equipped for the journey. Many missile launchers bemoan its expense and remain oblivious to its intended result. And the inhabitants of where the projectiles land may be apprehensive of its arrival. What is this missile? Short-term missions (STM).
Short-term missions (STM). Bill O’Brien—former mission executive, director of Samford University’s Global Center, and past president of the American Society of Missiology —is renowned for his way with words. While encouraged by the zeal behind short-term missions, O’Brien is cautious about its implementation. He pithily remarks, “I’d much rather try to guide a missile than resurrect a corpse.”
Short-term missions (STM) is indeed alive. As David Mays notes the trend has increased dramatically over the past few decades. The prevailing issue concerning short-term missions is conducting them in a healthy way for all involved: (1) The Senders (the church) (2) The Goer-Guests; and (3) The Host-Receivers. How can the fast-flying often out of control projectile of short-term missions be guided? Here are ten recommendations.
The initial suggestions have to do with church missions strategy. Build your trips based on your church’s focus. If your church doesn’t have a strategic focus, what is the purpose of the STM trip? For example, if your church has adopted an unreached people group (UPG) and traveling overseas is not feasible, then go to an urban area where a concentration of your UPG lives.
1. Short-term involvement must not become an excuse for long-term missions commitment. Steve Hawthorne minces no words in explaining this possibility. He believes that if the church accepts the legitimacy of short-term missions that it might become a rite of passage similar to the Mormons’ “tour of duty.” He says that, “If it’s just a stage, then it’s something you do, get it over with, and go on with life. Missions, then, instead of being central to Christian life, becomes a side show, something to do when convenient.”[1]
2. Short-termers should consider repeated involvement in the same locale. A one-time approach to STM must be examined. Robert Priest describes one short-termer that had traveled to nearly 40 countries, adding a new country every year. Priest advises that a longer-term big picture approach should be considered: “I’ve encountered teams from congregations that decided to renounce the ‘shotgun’ approach to STM, instead adopting a stable commitment to a single congregation or ministry… In such cases, the team returns year after year, slowly building stable, enduring, and reciprocal ties.”[2]
3. Feeling good should not be the primary motivation of the goer. Although there is and will continue to be tremendous need throughout the world, volunteering because it feels good is counter-productive. Service should be for God’s glory, not for self-edification. Take a vacation, not a mission trip, to be a tourist.
4. Recruitment and selection of short-term goers is critical. To achieve the most touted benefit of STMs—gateway to long-term service—short-termers must be encouraged early on to become long-termers. They must be chosen with this outcome in mind. An apprenticeship program at Abilene Christian University is one example of this type of thinking. It recognizes certain factors that will encourage short-term workers to consider long-term commitments.
(a) Choose candidates that could later qualify for long-term service; (b) Select competent field supervisors; (c) Inform both the short-term worker and the field supervisor of their respective responsibilities; (d) Assign the short-termer meaningful tasks that he or she is able to perform; (e) Require the short-termer to bond with the local people and make a genuine effort to begin learning the local language; (f) Do post-field debriefing with each short-termer to deal with negative feelings and experiences; and (g) Stay in touch with short-termers after they have completed their mission experience.[3]
5. Pre-field preparation and post-field follow-up of short-termers should not be overlooked. Jim Reapsome, former editor of Evangelical Missions Quarterly and World Pulse newsletter, wisely warns that, “The primary cause of failure often is lack of pre-field preparation. The whole episode becomes a colossal waste of time… One reason for not converting more short-termers to career workers is simply that some agencies do not adequately follow up their short-term people."[4]
Today’s North Americans need some type of structure and encouragement to keep on track after the short-term experience. Kurt Ver Beek hits the mark with his call for accountability. Some of the factors that he recommends are, “Monthly meetings with our groups after returning to the U.S., newsletters about the progress and needs of the people we visited, Bible studies on the country or theme of our trip, are just a few of the ideas that can translate a one-week experience into life-lasting changes in prayer, giving, and lifestyle.”[5]
6. Short-termers must prioritize people above projects. One long-term worker along the Texas-Mexico border wisely remarked that, “The Mexicans will forget most of what you do but they will remember you.” Kurt Ver Beek’s closing comment in his online dialogue with Robert Priest[6] rightly focuses on the importance of year round relationships, not a one-off occurrence.
I would like to conclude this note with a call for all STMs to pay much more attention, not to the concrete work they do (how many teeth they pulled, bricks they laid, or tracts they handed out), but to how the families, churches, and communities feel about themselves when they leave. And the best way to make sure that the families, churches, and communities will feel motivated and empowered by a one-week visit is to think seriously about it beforehand, and to work with organizations, missionaries, and others who are concerned and making this happen year round.
7. Short-termers must encourage the receiving church to exhibit ownership. A sense of ownership by the receiving field is vital, as one veteran missionary vividly illustrates.
Upon the arrival of a US church to a small border town the leaders of the visiting church, after looking around, wanted to meet with me immediately. This visiting US church had come the year before and almost completed a significant building project. To their amazement a year later the project had not been completed. In fact, the hammers and nails were in the exact same place where they had left them the year before. They could not believe that the Mexicans had done nothing at all to complete the project during the year. In talking to the leaders of the Mexican church the picture became clear. The Mexican church never had a vision for the project in the first place. The US church conceived the idea from the start. The project was funded by the visiting church and the construction was designed and done by the US church… The Mexican church was equally amazed that the US church expected them to continue their work…The problem is that the Mexican church had no ownership in the building and therefore felt no obligation to work on it.[7]
Another important aspect of ownership is that the sending church and the receiving church must minister together. If, for example, Vacation Bible School is planned, the receiving church should be the one to take the lead in teaching. Opening and closing times should be led by the indigenous church. The rationale is clear: If the children return, they see many of the same faces they did the week before. Or when they receive a follow-up visitation it is by the same person that taught the lesson. This increases the chances that they will begin attending on a regular basis.
Another value that can be added by short-termers is to leave resources for use by the receiving church. However, the sending church must adequately train the host-church in use of the resource (e.g., puppets). Many groups are guilty of bringing expensive props to attract a crowd, yet that same crowd returning once the group (and their props) are gone becomes disillusioned.
8. The sending church must be called to greater involvement. The congregation back home should integrally be involved. Steve Hawthorne succinctly states the desired result: “Every short-termer should leave home prepared to not just report the travelogue and say a dutiful thank you, but also to agitate on the grassroots level in the church for greater commitment to missions. Anything less, to put it mildly, is indecent exposure.”[8]
9. Lone ranger short-termers are not welcome. Short-termers must be sent under the auspices of an established entity. This problem is highlighted by personnel in Pakistan who expressed concern over missionaries arriving independently of an established mission or without a local church to which they are accountable. “With some notable exceptions, people coming apart from a mission board have a high dropout rate. Sadly, without the kind of support provided by the mission agency, most of them are soon overcome with discouragement. Lack of fellowship, encouragement and field accountability have caused many to abort their mission.”[9]
10. North American short-term teams must step back and allow other countries to lead the way. Philip Jenkins’ The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity documents well the shifting of Christianity toward the south. The future will involve nations such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia that were once hosts becoming senders. The benefit is that these non-Westerners can represent Christ in a way that no first world missionary can. James Engel and William Dyrness express this well:
It cannot be denied that the initiative for world missions today is carried more often by Pentecostal churches in Latin America or independent churches in Africa than by North American or European agencies. This new missions force, by and large, has the courage to break out of modernity’s trap and forsake strategies that were duly taught to them by their Western missionary forefathers. The reality is that we in the West are now in the position of becoming learners rather than teachers; partners rather than leaders.[10]
The trend of short-term missions is not likely to wane any time soon. The missile is launched. It may possibly fly faster and farther than before, but it will no doubt remain in orbit. The missile must not leave a destructive path as it seeks to penetrate the heart of a lost world. The fallout caused along its wake must be minimized. Guiding the STM missile is critical.
by Karen Hatley
International Connector
WorldconneX
References
1. Holzmann, John. “Short Terms: Factors Not Often Considered.” Mission Frontiers Mar. 1988.
2. Priest, Robert and Kurt Ver Beek. “Who Gets ‘Socially Rich’ from Short-Term Missions?” Christianity Today 8 July 2005.
3. Palmatier, Aaron. “Spring Break Mission Trips: A Blessing or a Curse?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly April 2002: 228-32.
4. Loobi, Susan. “Short-Term Missions: Is It Worth It?” Latin America Mission News Service. 19 Jan. 2000.
5. Ver Beek, Kurt. “Do Short-term Missions Change Anyone?” Christianity Today 6 July 2005.
6. Ver Beek, Kurt. “Do Young People Make Poor Short-Term Missionaries?” Christianity Today. 11 July 2005.
7. Palmatier, Aaron. “Spring Break Mission Trips: A Blessing or a Curse?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly April 2002: 228-32.
8. Holzmann, John. “Short Terms: Factors Not Often Considered.” Mission Frontiers Mar. 1988.
9. Bush, Luis. “The Long and Short of Mission Terms.” Mission Frontiers Jan. 2000.
10. Engel, James F. and William A. Dyrness. Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2000.