SuperMassiveBloghole

Mission trip response from my friend Ben:

I couldn’t see where to leave a comment on your post, so I’ll just use this as the discussion forum.

Having just returned from a mission trip to Bolivia yesterday, I have a fresh perspective to provide with regard to your recent post.

We visited Bolivia of all places due to a personal connection Pastor Joey had with a family that had moved there 6 months ago.  We were told that they were working on a long term health-based ministry  project, and that we could be helpful in providing basic health services to the people in the specific rural area where they were located: Samaipata, Bolivia.

In the lead up and planning phases of this most recent trip, I had some long and productive discussions with the other organizers of the trip pertaining to what the purpose of our trip would be.

I was pretty adamant that I didn’t want to focus on proselytizing because I have grown to believe that my Good News is no better than whatever you’ve believed your whole life particularly if I’ve never met you before and I have absolutely no educated understanding of your family, your culture, or your life.  Others would beg to differ under the pretense of the Great Commission, which you point out as a primary motivation for mission trips.  To them, I would point out that the Great Commission is probably the most oft-used excuse for political and economic colonialism that ever existed.  “Let’s go save (read: rape and pillage) the [insert any under-developed indigenous group] from their evil ways and get them caught up with the modern world (by extracting labor and natural resources at pennies on the dollar).” 

The reason also couldn’t be to provide medical care.  Most of the serious ailments that people in remote areas suffer from cannot be treated by a doctor in a single sitting.  The doctors we took with us repeated the same advice on consultations with patients: eat less fatty foods, drink more water, wash hands regularly – words that could certainly be disseminated by local authorities or anybody else for that matter.  Dentists can extract rotten teeth and perhaps fill a cavity or two, but are not going to be able to perform root canals, construct bridges, or fit dentures – all services Bolivians could have obtained without us if they had the money.  Money, perhaps, that we could have provided in lieu of our travel expenses. 

Lastly, construction work is certainly nice to help with, but when skilled labor in the country is paid $10 a day, how helpful is it to fly 10 American professionals over there with average incomes of $75k+ to lug wheelbarrows for a week?  Your point is well taken; donating $1000 in plane tickets x 10 people plus the vacation time that we used would pay for a half year’s worth of wages for a team of Bolivians.  Instead, we used that money in a week, and we now have less vacation time to frolic in Paris or Kuaui now to show for it. 

The point, though, is that none of these reasons justifies the argument that our efforts were misguided. 

The real reason, and we experienced this on our trip, was to create energy.  Energy at our church, energy at the mission site, energy among donors, energy among volunteers . Energy is created when personal connections are made at a mission site, and it’s very hard to attach a price tag on that.  We drew significant attention in the villages we visited.  The plans of the organization that sponsored us are to create a complex with four orphanages, a wellness center, and an agricultural business that will sustain the whole operation.  We never would have understood the magnitude or scale of their efforts without visiting.  The efforts of our team weren’t so much to assist explicitly with any single task, but to attract attention and to create energy amongst the parties involved in the project itself.

People hiked overnight with newborns in tow to hear an American doctor’s opinion on how they should treat their baby’s chronic fever.  Our dental team screened entire schools and taught basic health principles that will hopefully positively impact the townspeople’s health in current and future generations.  Our construction team energized the Bolivian construction crew and made significant headway in developing the first of four orphanages.  We met the actual people putting steel into the ground on their home turf and walked away with a greater understanding of their goals, obstacles, and motivations.  That understanding only results from working alongside each other, playing futbal in the off hours, breaking bread and hearing stories of each other’s lives.  No amount of money we donated would have created the connection that we now have with this team of long term missionaries in Bolivia. 

From a practical standpoint, what does this understanding provide us?  More importantly, what does it provide them?  For them, they now have a voice in the United States where additional capital is available.  We intend on creating more awareness of the effort in America and try to raise the capital they need to complete the project on time.  We also intend to provide consulting services in executing the agricultural business and the wellness center with the high level of quality needed in order to make it a sustainable operation. 

On our end, the justification is not selfless.  I agree with your dissatisfaction that mission trips are billed as self-help trips rather than true service-oriented sacrifices.  But at some level, all churches, temples, and synagogues are self-help organizations.  What else would you expect?

I would surmise that LAC is no different.  Of course, we’re going to try to leverage the excitement coming from this trip to making our church stronger.  But I expect that the strong-ness will be a by-product of being useful to the Bolivian project rather than the primary motivation for executing a long term relationship.  What if we could take a team of college students who are sick of hearing about medical careers from their parents to Bolivia for a real world 2-week management consulting internship?  Our college students would get real life experience and some perspective on their careers and hopefully provide some value and manpower to the Bolivians.  Sure, it’s self-serving to us as individuals, but if it serves the people of Samaipata as well, isn’t that what open market transactions are all about?

In the end, I agree with your premise that mission trips should be billed more as education regarding the plight of the poor.  What makes it difficult is that it’s not easy to find similarly motivated individuals with the moral fortitude to invest the time and energy it takes to make a trip like this happen.  Very often, it takes people with ‘religious irrationality’ motivated by some ‘Great Commission’ in order to gain the critical mass to execute projects of this magnitude.  Where do you draw the line?  That’s the issue i wrestle with today.

I think it’s time someone much smarter than me did a comprehensive analysis on the economics of short-term evangelical mission trips. As a former pastor and member of the seventh-day adventist church, I have dozens of close friends, mentors, students and acquaintances who place great priority on overseas missions as part of their “journey with God.” This post is equally directed at no one in particular and everyone I know.

I think it’s time we really think long and hard about what short-term missions actually accomplish, who benefits and why we go. Let’s start with the why:

1. Jesus told me to (Matthew 28:16-20)
2. I want to help people (WWJD?)
3. Some external force pressured me into it (all of the above and everything else)

It’s a valid argument that without the Great Commission, the church would not be where it is today. Christianity holds its stake up as the largest religion in the world, and missionaries from various denominations have truly traveled to the ends of the earth to make it so. I’m no theologian, I’m barely a Christian any more, but I do believe Jesus as a person and teacher was pretty revolutionary.

Jesus was local. Dude never hopped on a boat to cross the ocean nor did he ride his donkey to Egypt to proselytize. Even his final instructions to his apostles commanded them to start local: Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). So, it seems it was intended for the majority of the work to be done locally, while a small number of trailblazing believers (like Paul and Barnabas small and trailblazing) are dispatched throughout the land to spread the gospel. Today, an estimated 2 million Americans go on mission trips. More on that later.

The admirable desire to help people may be the purest ideal motivating my missionary friends. Compassion, especially that which is strong enough to spur action, is a trait that should never be discouraged or denied. Wanting to help is a wonderful notion and I’ll allow the benefit of naivete in believing our missionaries’ altruistic hearts. Having said that, there are two qualities inherent in a truly compassionate person: 1) An indiscriminate desire to help and 2) a willingness to do whatever it takes to maximize the benefit to his fellow man regardless of personal cost or sacrifice. Humility, selflessness and love are required, but so is the oft-overlooked factor of pragmatism. Faith and belief in prayer and miracles lead our most humble-hearted compassionate workers to trudge down the path of goodwill in the name of God’s will without adequately examining what is truly best for the foreign communities they wish to serve. An indiscriminate desire to help means there is nothing greater or more noble about helping a homeless man in Zaire as there is in helping a homeless man across the street.

I’ll try not to be presumptuous enough to make a blanket statement about who benefits most from a mission trip (the missionaries or the “less fortunate”), but I think it raises some serious questions about what motivates us and what is actually accomplished. The mutual benefits and positives are easy, but so much of the campaigning for recruiting missionaries seems to focus on the intangible benefits to the individual, and not the resulting good being accomplished by their service: “Have your life changed by serving others!” “Get a new perspective on life by serving the less fortunate!” Some may argue that there is nothing wrong with feeling good for doing good - I would agree, but to market that feeling as the missionary’s raison d’etre is reprehensible as it equates service with a feeling, and not a result. Sometimes, doing the right thing feels crappy. Doing good ≠ feeling good. Picking up and disposing someone else’s used condom in a school playground will not feel good, but it’s a good thing to do. The ultimate result of the service is more important than the servant’s ego.

So, let’s talk numbers. Approximately 2 million Americans go on short-term mission trips, annually. These are only the Christian Americans we’re talking about. Other countries (cough Korea cough) love to send their missionaries here to get us out of Babylon, but I suppose that’s a separate issue. Ok, so 2 million American missionaries. From what I know about mission trips, the average price to the individual falls somewhere between $1,000 - 2,500. Assuming an average cost of $1,700 per missionary, that equates to $3.4 billion in mission funds per year. $3.4 BILLION. This is the cost of traveling to a foreign country, staying for 7-90 days and handing out literature or examining teeth or operating a vacation bible school or delivering babies. This is the cost of “christian charitable service” that raises questionable sustainability and efficacy concerns, at times westernizes and unwittingly eradicates culture and does little to address root, systemic economic problems.

To put it plainly, if there are 2 million people willing to dish out a total of $3.4 billion in aid, why are we using it to [helpfully] fly ourselves overseas for a few weeks? To my charitable friends who are mission trip “regulars,” why not skip a year and donate the $1700 to a responsible charity doing work in the country that you “have a burden for?” In fact, why not do it every year? $3.4 billion in unadulterated aid, going towards sustainable community health initiatives or education programs or even construction projects, can do infinitely more than your puny little arms wheelbarrowing bricks and mortar for a week building a church in Sudan.

This is not a call to stop international travel in the name of compassion and service. There is always a need for people with tactical skills to offer their services to those in need. Physicians, dentists, architects, accountants, teachers, IT professionals, these are just a handful of many job titles that are universally scarce. There is always a job available anywhere in the world for anyone who wants to help, but let’s check our priorities, examine our intentions and really do our best to maximize impact. A $1700 check to a school in Haiti may mean a job for a local teacher or textbooks and supplies for the entire school or new walls for a crumbled classroom. Or it could be your airfare and lodging for a week while your puppet ministry team pantomimes bible stories in Port-au-Prince.

Personally, I’m a big fan of what Bill and Melinda Gates do on their “learning tours” at least once a year. Travel, see the places that break your heart, get a real sense of the needs there, see the progress charities are making, see the world. Perhaps I’d be ranting less if mission trips started marketing themselves as ways to educate the rich about the plight of the poor around the globe. Education is always a net positive. See the world, but don’t kid your conscience into thinking a week of international service is enough to satisfy your good deeds quota.

Religion can do horrible things to our brains if it starts to overtake common sense and reason. We execute our due diligence by thinking through the idea of mission trips critically and objectively, with total disregard for any personal feelings of piety or satisfaction for doing good. Do the right thing.

(photo: charitywater.org donate!!)