(Please note: An addendum/clarification to this post is available here.)
About ten years ago, my mom was a youth group leader at her church. The church was located in a very affluent community, and the kids in the group were very privileged indeed. The youth leaders decided that the kids needed to learn about the “less fortunate” and asked them if they would like to cook and serve a meal at an inner-city soup kitchen.
The kids were less than delighted at the prospect.
Finally, after a fair amount of cajoling, nagging (and probably tears on my mother’s part), the group decided to play along. They were serving a meal at the soup kitchen when a fight broke out between two of the diners. Things escalated when one of the combatants ran into the kitchen to find a knife. (The youth group girls huddled in a corner, crying hysterically, while all this commotion was taking place.)
After the day’s disastrous events, my mom asked my understandably-traumatized sister (who was in the youth group, and is now a very socially-conscious and kind-hearted adult) if she had learned anything that day. My sister nodded and said:
“I learned that I don’t like poor people.”
This story came to mind when I read a recent post by Pastor Pat Spelling over at Shades of Gray. She posted on well-intended “short term missions”, including a provocative article from the Washington Post entitled “Churches Retool Mission Trips“. The points that both Pastor Spelling and the Post article are good ones:
1. Short-term mission trips are often poorly conceived and executed by those organizing the trips. Youth groups are sent to “help” a community with no real understanding of that community’s needs or culture: In some cases the “help” offered is simply redundant (such as multiple groups painting and repainting a church over the course of the summer), but in other cases it is actually harmful to the community (i.e. putting local laborers out of work).
2. These trips are not cost effective: Participants are usually required to “raise funds” from church members, family and to cover their expenses, which can easy run from $1000-$3000. Thus a ten person youth group (plus chaperones) could easily spend $12 ,000-$30,000 to build a house or a hospital that, in the economy of many third-world countries, might only cost $2000-$10,000 if local labor was employed.
3. Most disturbing of all, however, is the attitude among many that even if such trips aren’t particularly cost-effective (or even necessary to those being “served”) they are justified because, after all, middle -class teenagers need to “learn” about their privilege and about the “less fortunate”. (Apparently the “less fortunate” are to endure these assaults upon their communities and local economies so that privileged youths can get an education. In other words, the poor get to be used as object lessons so that the privileged can engage in a course of self-improvement.)
Um, I don’t think so.
When it comes to serious, systemic poverty (and not just in the third world), “short-term” anything is pointless. Poverty, true poverty, is extremely complex, and people don’t “get it” just by going out and building a house or serving a meal at a homeless shelter. At best, kids on these trips are going to come back with “an appreciation of what they have” (but no real understanding of why they have it or how they got it or why other folks don’t have it), at worst, with attitudes like my sister’s after her visit to the soup kitchen.
If young people truly want to address poverty and its ills, they need to understand that going on an expensive working vacation is not the answer. Ironically, they would do best to take advantage of their privilege and the benefits that it affords them: They could use their social networks to raise cash, not for mission trips, but to send directly to long-standing aid agencies in third world countries. They could go to university to become doctors and nurses and engineers and agriculturalists and then visit a third world country to teach, train, solve problems, and generally do the sorts of specialist work that is actually needed. They could also work to transform social and foreign policy in their own countries or house and befriend students from third-world countries who are trying to bring new knowledge and skills back home.
But none of the above strategies sound as good as “My Johnny just went on a mission trip to help those poor people in South America!”. I just wonder what the “less fortunate” being “missioned” have to say to their friends after each group leaves for home.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I think you are way off base on this one or only know the most shallow individuals. Our senior high church group has been going off on mission trips during the summer for years, mostly to the dakotas to work on reservations. They build houses, community centers, and teach VBS. They are not looking down on the folks they are serving and the folks they are serving have asked them back repeatedly. These kids are providing stewardship to their fellows. They undoubtedly could just send money, however they would miss out on getting to know who they are serving. Since Katrina these kids have given up their Christmas and Spring Vacations to work in Mississippi and New Orleans. Sometimes they go with there families and sometimes with a group of adults and young folks from church. Please don’t dismiss the work they do, the folks they are serving don’t dismiss it. They have come up to tell us how much they appreciate it. We also send money( over $300,000), because we know it is needed. But the work that these young people do helps them to grow as Christians and as responsible caring adults. You sound like a republican lainie, writing a check just doesn’t cut it. Try doing some volunteer work, you maight be enlightened.
Christine:
I don’t dismiss the work that people do on mission trips: I think most of them are very sincere. But like the Washington Post article states, many of these mission programs are poorly constructed, and are not necessarily helping the people that they are supposed to help. I also think that, in some cases, the well-intended people who go on these trips may not be choosing the most effective opportunities to be of help.
You do, however, bring up a good point, namely that there are mission programs that take place closer to home (thus reducing costs of the participants) and in response to emergency/crisis situations where there is a shortage of skilled and unskilled labor. (I know that after Katrina, unlicensed contractors were allowed, even encouraged, to work in affected states. There was and is a need for all-hands-on-deck.) But I think that short-term mission programs should target the needs of communities and should take the time to find out what those needs are. That was the main thrust of my post.
“Cutting a check” as you say, doesn’t cut it if there is no effective way to use the cash or there are not enough people able to do what is needed. But if there *is* local labor that can be paid to do the work, I think that employing those people ought to be the first choice of responsible aid agencies, and that cash spent by churches and individuals is probably most effective if used to hire local labor, and using volunteers when needed.
Another thing that I didn’t mention in my post, but that I think bears consideration, is that it sounds like some of the short-term mission organizations are not connected with the people or communities to which they are sending the teams. This is problematic on a number of levels, particularly because, as you point out, there are a lot of people who are very willing to serve.
In any case, thanks for stopping by and commenting. You have given me a lot to think about, and I’ll probably be revising my post because of it.