stopover.ca

My friend Matt at the STM Network recently put together a few Dangerous STM questions … I responded to this one … #2 in his series …

Dangerous STM question #2

Question #2: What is the cost of short-term missions?

by Dr. Timothy Tennent

It doesn’t take too long looking at church missionary budgets to realize that short-term missions is an expensive endeavor. It is not unusual for the cost of a short-term missionary going overseas for two weeks to spend more than $2,000 for airline tickets, food, lodging, shots, on-field transportation and other costs associated with the trip. That same $2,000 might, in contrast, be sufficient to fund a full time national church planter for an entire year or fund other important projects. As with any allocation of funds, we should be very sober minded about the nature of the investment. On balance, I think the investment is often worth it, but it does need to be appropriately weighed. Indeed, I do not support the position that the best way North Americans can serve the global church is by staying home and writing cheques and letting others get their hands dirty with the hard task of cross-cultural witness. There are well known organizations that raise money in the West based on this premise. This is not my position. One of the real advantages of short-term missions is that we are relocating people to another part of the world who can experience first hand the challenges and hardships of missionary service. I see no Biblical precedent for a church called only to send their e-mails and dollars and not their sons and daughters. The Great Commission is about thrusting forth laborers, not just funding. Nevertheless, we must be cognizant of the costs involved and make certain that our investments are, on balance, wise ones. A more hopeful point is that most of the money raised by short-term missionaries would, in the absence of the person going on a short-term trip, not be available for some of these other needs on the field. However, a church must set strict guidelines on how much money flows into short term projects as compared with other cross-cultural commitments.

Thots? Opinions?

Responses to Dangerous STM question #2

1. Mark Crocker
   May 1st, 2008 at 7:43 pm Mark Crocker
   www.stopover.caI like Tennents thoughts, here are a few of my own.While it is true that the money spent on a STM team trip is also the same amount that could support a Long-Term Missionary for a year, or 10 nationals for 10 years … this is an argument from a consumer society, an answer first-and-foremost dealing with money issues as the chief principle in determining our engagement. It is occasionally used simply as a distraction from the harder question of how do we engage appropriately and healthily? Holistic engagement costs money and reputation, it should personally cost us a little more than we can bear.

   I think the financial responsibility argument also tends to simply serve some people as a way to excuse involvement, and justify their own lack of engagement, after all it is entirely easier to criticize how others do it rather than attempt own own participation. Many suggest that it is better to give the money directly to the on-field work, so in the the past I have expressed my appreciation of their enlightened perspective and requested the cheque from them to send on to the workers … at least to this date, I have had no takers.

   My friend Allan also set me to consider the simple thought that although STM is costly and the money might be better served in other ways, in essence – without the STM trip, the money does not actually exist. It would not be used, even in poor ways of engagement.

   It is vital that we do this better, that resources are rigorously monitored; that we spend more outside of self-serving, hero-making projects; that we are learners together … but lets not ignore the question with some statements about financial stewardship that allow us out of our responsibility to complex international engagement.