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.