The missions team is responsible for guiding the local
church body in making their outreach as effective as it can in the task of the
Great Commission. One project that
is very popular among North American churches today is supporting and sending
short-term teams. With limited
resources that are available in the church, what role does and should be in
funding short-term missions projects?
By way of definition, a broad description of short-term
missions is a person or group who goes to countries for from ten days to two
weeks.
The activities of these
short-term projects range from building churches, working in orphanages,
evangelism, medical work and youth camps.
These projects certainly can help the national church in their growth
and outreach.
The question before
the missions committee is one of priority, not necessarily its strategic
impact.
For the most part, short-term missions are beneficial (a) to
those who go on these trips and (b) to help the local national church. As to the first part, the question
should be asked is “how” does it help the short-termer? For those who go on
short-term trips, do they come back more engaged in world outreach through
prayer or giving? It’s hard to
quantify these results, but there should be some measure of accountability when
designing a short-term trip. I
have heard the argument that many career missionaries today are a result of
them taking a short-term trip to the mission field. While I do believe this has merit, throughout the history of
missions most people who gave their lives to missions did so without visiting
the field first. For every one
person who commits to becoming a career missionary after a short-term trip, a
hundred, or more, do not.
It is true that short-term projects do help the national
church as the western team provides funds and encouragement to the local people. The flip side of this help, however,
can lead to apathy on the part of the local Christians. If the church in the west provides
support for the local church, does that take away the incentive of the national
Christian to be involved? Why
should a struggling, poor African church member support missions or their
pastor if they know that the Americans are doing it? It’s a delicate issue not easily resolved.
Caring for orphans or giving medicine to the sick might be
humanitarian, but how do these well-intended programs advance the Kingdom? If social projects are not directly
tied to the outreach of the local church then does it violate the core purpose
of missions?
These are philosophical issues the missions team in the
local church must wrestle with.
However, the main thing a missions team must determine is, again, with
the limited resources that is available for missions, what percentage of the
budget should be allocated to short-term projects. Of course my bias is that a greater portion of support
should go to those who are living on the field, learning the language,
struggling with culture and planting churches among the most unreached peoples
of the world.
It is my belief that short-termer’s should pay for their own
trips and it not be a part of the few missions dollars that is in the mission
fund. Sending out letters by
short-term missionaries to fund a ten-day trip to other members in the congregation
often take away from long term mission projects. Bottom line, I do believe short-term projects can be helpful,
but for the missions team, funding these activities should further down the
list of priorities.
