I'm just going
to lay my cards on the table.
I'm beginning to wonder if short-term mission work
is any more effective than if you put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
Think about how we go about doing mission work in
third world countries - or anywhere really. We are trying to bridge a gap
between what is and what should be, and I think those intentions can be
good. On paper, everything seems like a
good idea. This one could even be philanthropic. But I think when
we break it down, we see the logic is pretty lacking. Let me show you the
steps I believe we take when doing "mission work".
1. We go to a place we decide is in need.
2. We figure out what their deficits are.
3. We rank their deficits by what's most
important to address.
4. We raise money to fund initiatives to fix
their problems.
Read those steps again. See how this is a
little ridiculous?
At first glance, I think #3 seems the most
outrageous, but the more I think about it, I think #2 is pretty awful.
Who am I to tell you what your deficits are? Especially in a
culture that is completely different from mine, and when I have no vested
interest in your community. Why does my culture's priorities trump what
yours may be?
Even worse, did anyone even ask you if you wanted
help? And if so, did we ask what you thought the vital issues were?
Did we engage your community in helping to work towards sustainable
change? Or did we just fix your gutters and paint your house?
When I was in Belize, I met a little boy named
Iverson. I was smitten. His ivory smile contrasted with his ebony
skin in the most beautiful way. He wore the same striped polo shirt with
holes in it the whole week. Each time I saw him, his shirt was adorned
with a new layer of dirt from playing soccer with garbage in the road. I
was willing to do whatever it took to get him out of this situation.
Seriously. I wanted so badly for him to get out of there and come
home with me. I would buy him a race car bed and make him hot pancakes
for breakfast each morning.
On my last day in the country, I asked Iverson
about his family and where he lived. He told me he lived in one big room
with his grandmother and 5 siblings and some other family members. He
told me he had a hot dog for lunch. I cried and kissed his head. I told
him Jesus loved him and would take care of him. He hugged me and snuggled
his sweet 5-year-old head under my chin.
I knew he was exactly where he should be.
I don't know how much good it necessarily would
have done to take this sweet boy back home with me. Iverson has a family.
He is fed. Not like I'd like to see him fed, but he has more than
many children in his country. Would bringing him home have made his life
better, or just more American? Why is my way what is acceptable?
Why do I measure progress by the way our culture does things?
Like I said, I'm beginning to wonder if we haven't
been going about this all wrong. Before you start throwing stones and casting
lots for my things, take a second to seriously think about it. How many
people that go on trips are invested in the community they're working in?
How many mission trips have you youth pastors taken your students on
where the agency you worked with has planted any roots with the community it's
serving? Have you involved them in anything? Have we focused only
on their deficits, rather than drawing off of what the community has to offer?
You know everyone has something to offer, don't
you?
Change is incremental. Small. Gradual.
Grueling. It takes commitment. Not for a year or two. It
takes more than the junk drawer language of just “loving on people”. Hitting the denominator takes investment.
And if we aren't willing to commit to the duration,
maybe it's better if we just stay out of the way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've always believed that mission trips were more for the ones going on the trip and less for the recipients of the mission. I would argue that short term mission trips is more about the visitor meeting God in struggling places. Youth seeing God when a homeless person allows us to eat a meal with them in a soup kitchen in a strange city. Them seeing God when a family opens their homes to strangers and we get a glimpse of how someone is blessed despite having so little. Short term missions is more about inspiring the visitor to become long term witnesses at home. The lasting impressions, like the one you had in Belize with the child, is on the heart of the visitor and not the one "in need."
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Ed. My question then becomes, is our doing "mission work" selfish? What is our true motivation? Because it's more for us and less for the recipients? Does that compromise the ethics of the whole philosophy of mission work?
ReplyDeleteI've often thought about this too Lindsay. I think there is some merit in short term mission in allowing space for missionaries to get a taste of what God is doing in other countries, how they can be a part of Gods work, and serve as a time to ignite a passion and a heart for people beyond their own church walls, community and nation. there does however need to be greater engagement with the communities that church groups and mission groups seek to serve. I would suggest this would best be done with an organisation that's already on the ground and seeking to work alongside them rather than trying to outdo them. Of course churches need to first seek God on where and more importantly HOW they should serve others. Any church group that thinks they know all the answers, is fooling themselves. I think short term mission. Is something that is very attractive to Gen Y. Of requires only a short attention span, makes us feel good and requires no commitment. Try floating a new mission endeavour to help the homeless in your own community and you'd encounter more opposition than doing it in a sunny tropical location. Because the people are more real, they love near you, and will hold bitterness if we loose interest on their plight. Wow. Long post. :)
ReplyDeleteSandy - I appreciate your insight!
ReplyDelete