When I was involved in a fellowship group in college, I was continually reminded of God's heart for missions.  While not entirely sure what this meant for me, at the very least I knew it meant I should go on a short-term mission trip.

On October 10, 2008, Evan Sparks published an article in the Wall Street Journal (“The ‘Great Commission’ or Glorified Sightseeing?”), questioning the value of short term mission trips.  His chief critiques include: the tendency of some trips to include large sight-seeing components (creating “vacationaries”); that capital spent on short term mission trips could be used more effectively as direct investment in the local communities (e.g., local home builders rather than 6 week trips to rebuild disaster areas, or supporting longer-term missionaries); and that such trips rarely have any measurable, lasting impact on those who go (the “service learning” justification). 

As to the final critique: 

Calvin College sociologist Kurt Ver Beek surveyed U.S. missionaries who built homes in Honduras after Hurricane Mitch in 1998. After coming down from a post-trip ‘high,’ the short-termers did not evince much change in their lives. Only 16% reported ‘significant positive impact,’ including in prayer, friendships and financial giving. Then Mr. Ver Beek surveyed those whose homes were rebuilt by missionaries and those whose homes were rebuilt by local nongovernmental organizations. He found that there was ‘little or no difference’ in the spiritual response of the beneficiaries.

The critique is troubling, but it is also consistent with my own experience, and my own questions.  I have personally been on a number of such trips, some more satisfying than others.  Some were geared toward raising up missionaries (trial run).  I knew this wasn’t my aim, so I felt pretty out of place.  Others were geared toward service – e.g., rebuilding homes.  These trips were great, but I am no carpenter and felt a bit odd pretending to be one.

The most satisfying trips were those organized by my own church through its partnership with a church in another country.  These were intentionally designed as “vision” trips – allowing those going to be exposed to various endeavors with the opportunity to “think outside the box” on how they could help next time.  These trips led to lawyers connecting with the work of International Justice Mission, doctors connecting with medical clinics, and teachers volunteering to serve in schools in the slums for one year engagements.  This is the best model for short-term missions I have experienced. 

At bottom, then, I think the article treats well this “elephant in the room” question.  Even so, I do want to push back on the assessed value of these trips.  Specifically, and even with their flaws and inefficiencies, these trips are often the best avenue for Christians to be exposed to the world.  Backpacking trips through Europe or Southeast Asia do not provide the exposure to multiple cultural layers that are seen on a short-term mission trip.  Such post-college journeys affirm the value of history and friendship, but not necessarily of people (made in God’s image) at every strata of life.  Family trips can skip over the slums to hit only the hot-spots on journeys to the less-developed world (land in Nairobi, private plane to the Mara, jet off to Vic Falls and then down to Cape Town).  (Disclaimer:  having done most of this trip myself, these are some of my favorite places in the world, and I am not judging).      

The challenge is knowing how the world would be different if short term mission trips did not take place.  Let me posit three possible test cases:  Darfur, debt forgiveness (Jubilee 2000), and the shift in political priorities of the next generation of Christians in the U.S. beyond abortion and gay marriage and to embrace the broader issues of  global justice and the environment.  The measurables of Mr. Ver Beek do not capture the simmering culture changes created by the exposure of such trips.  When Christians have tasted poverty and suffering, they can connect with – and rally around – Darfur and debt forgiveness. They can picture what it means.  They can shoulder the responsibility and opportunity of citizenship in a new way.  When they have seen injustice, they can see what it means to be engaged in the work of justice.   

So while largely agreeing with the critique, I still wonder if the article misses at least some of the value of such trips, and specifically how the world would be different in their absence.  Thoughts?