ams on short-term missions projects to different parts of the globe? Objections include the idea that short-term teams often create more problems for the local missionary/church than they solve; that, given language and cultural differences, they really can't accomplish much; they consume a great amount of funding that could be used in other (more productive?) ways; that short-term participation gives the mistaken idea that this is all that is necessary for missions; and there is little long-term life change in those who go. There is (or can be) a kernel of truth in each of these arguments. When teams are not done well, there's always the possibility of ineffectiveness or negative results. And we must seriously consider each objection to make sure we don't make the same kinds of errors.
So, if issues such as these are real, and we could be in danger of doing something we never intended, why do we continue to send teams? Wouldn't we be better off to take the money spent on sending a group (and it can be a lot of money) and use it directly in those areas we would otherwise visit? Some thoughts in response to this are coming next, so don't go away...
No comments:
Post a Comment