The Church in Mission

The whole issue of what is appropriate and what is not for Short Term Mission Trips (STM) continues to generate a number of suggestions. The following are some thoughts by Sherron George, missiologist and educator with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in Brazil. I sympathize with many of her comments. I do not think, however, that the first observation in her second list below, is necessary and may provoke misunderstanding among well-intentioned STMs. It states:

Frame the experience less on an emphasis on the “great commission” and more on Biblical texts which talk about servanthood. By engaging in projects of manual labor in such a manner that we are serving in a subordinate position, traditional roles can be reversed, stereotypes can be corrected, and humility can help overcome our ingrained spirit of triumphalism (Birth). We go and work as servants and followers, not as leaders.

I do not think it is necessary to de-emphasize the “great commission” since that is one of the greatest biblical motivations of many STMs. Rather, one simply needs to teach the “great commission” properly; in other words, remember that making disciples of Jesus (Matthew 28.19) and “teaching them all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28.20) entails being sent as Jesus himself was sent (John 20.21), above all, as a servant (John 12.26; Romans 1.1). Sherron and I are saying the same thing here. I’m simply clarifying that the “great commission” does not need to be emphasized any less in the process.

Sherron suggests two lists, one which presents problems or cautions and the other which offers ways to correct some of them. Here go Sherron’s reflections based on an article by Robert Priest in the periodical, Missiology, 34/4 (2006), a special issue devoted to Short-Term Missions (STM’s):

Yellow Lights for Reflection: Concerns and Cautions with STM groups and workers:
Questions for STM groups and workers to ask themselves in reflecting on their experience

“It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.”
Proverbs 19:2 (NIV)

1. Does (did) the experience increase our natural ethnocentrism or decrease it? “When individuals internalize the culturally contingent values of their own social group and develop a preferential loyalty to their own ‘in-group’ and its culture, along with negative opinions and attitudes towards out-groups-those from other ethnicities-this ethnocentrism is a contributor to inter-ethnic prejudice and conflict. Does the enormous phenomenon of STM help American Christians to become less ethnocentric?” (Priest, et al:443-444).
2. Do we follow touristic patterns and ethics in STMs? One important aspect of this is the way we support the local economy and community. What do we take with us? Adeney asks: Who gains and who loses? Another is the question of local ownership and sustainability of their future. Tourists aren’t concerned with these issues. Rodrigo Maslucan, a pastor from our partner church in Peru, has written a paper on STMs and questions them when the motive is more tourism than mission or service. Do we go to see and enjoy exotic places or to authentically and respectfully engage the local people? Are our motives altruistic or status-seeking? Travel gives status.
3. Do STMs contribute to the increase or decrease of long-term mission personnel and support for mission? “It is possible that more money is now supporting short-term missionaries than career missionaries” (Priest, et al:434). STMs divert resources from support of career missionaries. If we could calculate all the STM groups from the PC(USA), this is probably true. People lament that the number of our denominational mission workers continues to diminish. The grassroots movement of direct involvement and STMs is irreversible and not bad, but it probably does affect the total number of long-term missionaries we have. As Priest comments, the cure can become part of the cause of funding problems which displace long-term personnel. Obviously, the PC(USA) needs and wants both short-term and long-term mission workers.
4. Does (did) the experience decrease materialism and produce lives of simplicity and sacrificial stewardship in the STM participants or temporarily increase our “gratefulness”?
5. In terms of “status-bridging” (vertical connections across marked differentials of wealth and power), does STM “serve the interest of the privileged rather than the marginalized”? (Priest, et al:442). The poverty/wealth gap usually shocks U.S. Christians. How do we deal with this?
6. Does (did) the experience increase our interethnic social relationships at home? The majority of STMs come to Latin America. How does this affect our interaction and treatment of the Latinos/as in the U.S. (who number is greater than the total of 7 countries in Latin America.) How do our partnerships in Africa and Asia affect our relationships with Afro-Americans and Asian-Americans at home?
7. We usually say that our STM experiences are transformational for those who go. Is our learning or transformation long-lasting? “The problem comes when the ‘raising of awareness’ results in no action and people only feel connected to mission, or that they have performed their duty but continue in normal cultural patterns without a nod toward new directions for service and mission” (Linhart:454).
8. Do we truly get to know and understand the people we meet and see or do we simply construct stereotypes? Here the advantages of language skills and long-term church-to-church or presbytery-to-presbytery partnerships is obvious.
9. While STMers want to get close to people, “trying to achieve predefined goals quickly-ten houses built-can trample on culture. Individual drive can become more important than respect for local elders, courtesies, or time frames. Projects can become more important than people” (Adeney:468).
10. Were there missed opportunities to build stronger relationships through more contact and an attitude of openness and missed opportunities for authentic mutuality of experience? (Van Beek)
11. How do our hosts perceive and evaluate American spirituality? We may not be prepared to hear the answer to this provocative question. Birth suggests that it might change the focus of our work from evangelistic pretensions to humble service.
12. Have we heard and heeded the “the missing voices”? Have we heard the opinions, perspectives, evaluations, and suggestions of our host churches? Zehner records some of those voices which speak of “Americans’ rush to take action without considering the long-term effects on local churches” and say that “Americans seem unaware of the cultural influences in their own readings and perceptions of the Bible” (510). He further cites “the missing voices” which speak of cross-cultural insensitivity, arrogance, domineering attitudes, overstepping boundaries. “North Americans tend to ’step in and take control’” (511). Rodrigo Maslucan is one of the “the missing voices” who presented his paper on STMs to the Peru Mission Network. I know that the PC(USA) took intentional steps to hear the voices of leaders from our partner churches in the preparation of the “Gathering for God’s Future” approved by the General Assembly in 2003.

Conditions Which Foster Positive Outcomes and Help Do STM “The Right Way”

In his “Introduction to Theme Issue on Short-Term Missions,” Robert J. Priest mentions some of the problematic issues I (Sherron) have listed above, then he states that “positive outcomes are possible if done in the right way. By itself, for example, a short-term missions experience is as likely to increase ethnocentrism as decrease it. But when accompanied by appropriate coaching and culture learning exercises, then ethnocentrism decreases” (427). He goes on to say that in the first article he and others provide research on “the conditions which foster positive or negative outcomes.”

In my second list I (Sherron) would like to list some of the “the conditions which foster positive outcomes” which I gleaned from the articles in Missiology. However, I would like to preface it with some comments about the PC(USA). The policy statement “Presbyterians Do Mission in Partnership” which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2003 concisely points to “another way” of engaging in mission. If we follow this policy, I think we are on the way to avoiding most of the problems in my first list. The greater context for this policy resides in the fact that for over 150 years the PC(USA) has developed and nurtured long-term relationships which have become mutual church-to-church relationships with 163 churches around the world. World Mission Area Coordinators, Regional Liaisons, and long-term mission personnel cultivate and maintain these partnerships. Presbytery-to-presbytery and congregation-to-congregation partnerships and mission networks fit into and reenforce the denominational partnerships. A good number of long-term mission workers on the field are trained to orient and receive STMs. Mission to the U.S.A. brings the voices of our partner churches to the U.S. to teach us. Thanks to our partnership policy and practice, as well as our educational materials, such as When God’s People Travel Together, Vol. I, II, and III (available through Presbyterian Distribution Service) and my book Called as Partners in Christ’s Service: the Practice of God’s Mission (Geneva Press), the PC(USA) is able to help congregations understand and practice partnership, which mitigates many of the problematic aspects in my former list.

Conditions Which Foster Positive Outcomes and Help Do STM “The Right Way”

1. Frame the experience less on an emphasis on the “great commission” and more on Biblical texts which talk about servanthood. By engaging in projects of manual labor in such a manner that we are serving in a subordinate position, traditional roles can be reversed, stereotypes can be corrected, and humility can help overcome our ingrained spirit of triumphalism (Birth). We go and work as servants and followers, not as leaders.
2. This role reversal implies that the “receiving local church must be respected as a source of authority and as the key to any long-term ministry gains” (Priest on Zehner: 429). The initiative, invitation, and leadership of the “receiving local church” are essential.
3. Engage in profound and honest reflections, using questions like those I pose in my first list, which “call into question participants’ taken-for-granted assumptions and habits” and consequently “create dissonance” which Johnstone suggests is the path to learning and transformation (429). Leaders must not only evoke these reflections and dissonance, but also model new habits of thought and practice. Leadership is essential.
4. Be intentional concerning stewardship outcomes. I think we need to be open and define ways that STMs can help the overall denominational mission program rather than undercut it.
5. Hold training sessions to learn about culture, the national churches and members, and God’s perspective on race, differences, and world mission.
6. “Short-term teams do best when they work under long-term missionaries or locals, and when they are part of a multi-year series of exchanges” (Adeney:468). The World Mission program unit of PC(USA) tries to follow and facilitate this approach.
7. View short-term missionaries as “trainee” subordinates rather than as “helpers” and put their supervision and spiritual formation directly in the hands of the overseas churches they serve making the partner church the teacher. Here Zehner goes a step farther than Adeney. The interesting suggestion here is the image of “trainee.” I have suggested in an earlier article that we need to rethink our images and roles as mission workers, both short-term and long-term. Desire more “culturally egalitarian forms of work and relationships” (Zehner:512). Obviously, as Arch Woodruff suggests, we need to have these missiological discussions with our partner churches and negotiate with them the role they want to play. I would add to this the importance of having invitations from partner churches and that they should be the ones to define the nature of the “work” to be done. The national leadership Independent Presbyterian Church of Brazil has asked to be included as the first ones who receive groups and give them orientation to the country and church and are accompanying groups who visit them. Their orientation includes a brief history of their denomination. The “trainee” image perhaps is not the best one for typical STM groups who stay 7-14 days. It works better with our Young Adult Volunteer (YAV) program which takes youth to sites for a year and places them under local programs and churches. Perhaps the best image for groups is that of “learners.”
8. Take the time to acknowledge and articulate what you learned from the host culture in their presence, so they will not feel the learning is merely one-sided. You may have learned a lot from the host culture and church, but they may not know that.
9. Be intentional about reflection and internalization (processing) after a STM experience with a trained facilitator.

Technorati: Short Term Mission Trips, Partnership in Mission, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Great Commissionmission partnerships,

Trackback URI | Comments RSS