Where do you draw the line on short term mission trips where side trips are concerned?

[Merry]

For several years, my youth/church groups have been going on short term missions trips but lately, the trips seem to have become not just for missions but also for fun excursions.  For instance, the latest group is now in eastern Europe for two weeks to teach English there.  They posted a picture of themselves at a Swan Lake production at this really elaborate and gorgeous theater.  I admit that I do envy their fantastic opportunity to see the ballet but it sort of bugs me that the group had raised funds from the church and friends and so on to go to an impoverished country so that they could teach English; and then they take the opportunity to go to a ballet which can't be that cheap, can it?  It just doesn't feel right to me but am I overreacting?  Also on another trip that my son went on which was to Mexico to work with the children there doing Bible camp, the youth leaders took the youth after the camp was over to a hotel by the ocean for a few days.  It was a fun addition to the missions trip but again, it did cost some extra money.  The group did pay for the hotel and food with their own money but I feel that if they had the money for the hotel and food, then they should have used the money for the missions trip itself so that the sponsors wouldn't have had to contribute as much as they did. I was thrilled for my son that he had the great experience of staying by the beach but what kind of a moral lesson did he learn through the leaders' example?  I wonder.  Where do you draw the line between devoting all the money and time to working on the missions while on the trip and spending some money on the extras for themselves that could have gone toward the cost of the trip itself?  And it's not only my church.  Another son of mine who goes to another church is right now in Brazil on a ten day long mission to teach the kids the Bible had told me that they were to have about one day to explore and to bring money, about fifty dollars, to spend at a lavish restaurant.  To me, that seems more reasonable than going to a hotel for a few days but still?

I realize that companies do the same thing when they send their people to conferences out of town and while there, the people can spend as much money as they want eating out and on fun things in addition to showing up at the meetings but that's a different situation, isn't it?  The companies spend their own money sending their employees in order to improve production from the employees, not like the church groups who raise funds from the others for the trips to make possible for the people to go and serve the others in less privileged areas. But is it okay for the people to go on and spend money on themselves on eating out and fun things?  What do you think?

 

[Catwoman]

If they are using their own money to pay for the side trips and a little entertainment, I don't know why you would be resentful about them trying to enjoy themselves a bit, especially considering that they had donated their time, effort, expertise, and hard work to help others. They could have stayed at home and done nothing, right?

 

Why do you think they should get no free time or spend any of their own money on recreation while on the mission trips? I think you are being unreasonable.

[LucyStoner]

On the one hand one of the best things they can do for the local economy is to spend money. On the other, I can see why the fundraising seems somewhat of a misrepresentation of the trip's purpose.

[Laurie4b]

Adjusting to another culture is a great experience, but also a stressful one. Building time in for recreation is wise. It can also help the team to gel. When you support a missionary overseas, you are likely also paying for them to have some recreation, some trips for R&R, etc.

 

I think if it bothers you, that you should give your money elsewhere. But unless it's really elaborate, I personally wouldn't worry about it. Follow your own conscience but don't make an issue of it.

[8circles]

I do see your point but I don't totally agree.  Unless you feel they've misrepresented their trips during fundraising.

 

& depending on which country they are in, a night at the ballet could be quite cheap by our standards.

[plansrme]

Well, if you're gonna be all that way about it, the most efficient use of the money isn't to ship a boatload of American spring breakers to Timbuktu to teach English/run a soccer camp/erect a church for ten days; it is often to spend that money to employ a local teacher/coach/brick layer for two years.

 

So yeah, I agree in a broader sense that many, many church mission trips are boondoggles.  If one of them isn't a boondoggle, and the crew is meeting a genuine need that can most efficiently be met by a boatload of American teenagers, then I don't begrudge them a night at the ballet.  My experience, however, is that few of these teen spring break trips are doing a whole lot for the population they are supposed to serve and are, instead, doing a lot for the population taking the trip.  Not that that isn't a worthy goal, of course, but I would never ask family and friends to support such an endeavor.

 

In the interests of full disclosure, my daughter went on two weeklong but small mission trips to run ballet camps as an outreach for a church in a largely unchurched city.  We paid her entire trip, though, and other than an hour at a tourist destination that was literally on their way, they worked the entire time.

 

 

 

[Mergath]

The thing that gets me when I read this post is, how in the world is a group of untrained teenagers going to teach someone any amount of useful English in just two weeks?  Honestly, if someone gave me that line trying to get me to donate money, I would think it was an excuse to go on vacation.  

[catz]

If they are using their own funds, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  If they are using funds raised under the guise of a mission trip, then I do agree that is obnoxious.  It is actually really healthy to throw some money at these economies.  Mission trips really aren't necessarily awesome for receiving countries (I won't get into that here), but I do think this type of travel can change a young person's mind set for a lifetime.  It did for me, although I was not on a mission trip.  So I'm not opposed to opening a young person's eyes to a different culture and lifestyle. 

[Artichoke]

I'm okay with a night or two out or a fun all day excursion, but several days of play in a fancy place at the end is a trip that I wouldn't like to support.

[Garga]

If they are using their own money to pay for the side trips and a little entertainment, I don't know why you would be resentful about them trying to enjoy themselves a bit, especially considering that they had donated their time, effort, expertise, and hard work to help others. They could have stayed at home and done nothing, right?

 

Why do you think they should get no free time or spend any of their own money on recreation while on the mission trips? I think you are being unreasonable.

But it isn't really their money.

 

They tell the church: We need $2800 per person for 8 students to go on this mission trip to help the poor people of Poorland. Will you donate??

 

The church members give money so all 8 students can go. The kids didn't have $2800 to go on the trip, but now that the church paid, they can go!

 

But then, they end up staying a few nights at a beachside hotel to relax? As a church member I wouldn't be happy to think that all of my money didn't go toward the missions trip, but that it partly went to fund a bunch of kids' vacations. If the kids are footing the entire $2800 themselves, then go for it. But when I'm paying for part of it, I want all of it to go to the mission's trip. I'm not here to pay for a vacation for you, especially since we only get a vacation every couple of years.

 

No. You don't ask the little old ladies at church and the single moms and the single income homeschooling family for help if you're going to use even a small portion of the money on expensive side trips.

 

I would be ok with a $50 fun night out. But if it's more than $50, no.

 

I do not donate to short term missions trips. I will donate to full time missionaries who live in the country for years at a time. I am skeptical of the short term trips.

[Tsuga]

I share your feelings about side trips on mission trips, having been on a mission trip for 2+ months, we had no such thing.

 

However, in many countries, the ballet is not expensive at all--cheaper than a movie and popcorn in the US. In some countries, they subsidize the arts, not cheap entertainment, just imagine! So I can see exposing the kids to that.

 

So, for a short mission trip (<2 weeks) I'd be very leery. For a couple of months, meh, they do need R&R, so a couple of nights in a hotel and the local culture is no biggie.

 

However ultimately I'm in the camp of, untrained teens are hardly what most countries need. If you care, send the money to a local NGO or via Kiva microfinance. If you care about the kids working, set them up locally. If you want the kid to travel, pay for a language learning trip already.

 

Don't send a kid overseas on the pretense that they are helping unless they are working for real--such as many do, as unskilled labor that would otherwise not have been paid labor in the target country, and which is a witness to what you want to represent, be it Jesus, socialism, whatever. Nobody's buying that, you know? Nobody converts because a 15-year-old came for two weeks and babysat.

[Reefgazer]

As long as the students pay their own side trip freight, I don't see a problem.

[Okra]

Well, if you're gonna be all that way about it, the most efficient use of the money isn't to ship a boatload of American spring breakers to Timbuktu to teach English/run a soccer camp/erect a church for ten days; it is often to spend that money to employ a local teacher/coach/brick layer for two years.

 

So yeah, I agree in a broader sense that many, many church mission trips are boondoggles.  If one of them isn't a boondoggle, and the crew is meeting a genuine need that can most efficiently be met by a boatload of American teenagers, then I don't begrudge them a night at the ballet.  My experience, however, is that few of these teen spring break trips are doing a whole lot for the population they are supposed to serve and are, instead, doing a lot for the population taking the trip.  Not that that isn't a worthy goal, of course, but I would never ask family and friends to support such an endeavor.

 

 

 

This......exactly.......I think that the majority of "short-term" mission trips are not really all that helpful.  It seems to help the American teenager more than the country that needs to be helped....

 

I don't know, I guess it's a hard to find a balance.  But, it certainly seems to me that "helping" teach English or the bible or mostly helps the American teen feel "good" that they "helped", and then they get to go and do something fun.  When, in reality all that money spent to send teens over to help would be better off spent on long-term solutions.

[Catwoman]

But it isn't really their money.

 

They tell the church: We need $2800 per person for 8 students to go on this mission trip to help the poor people of Poorland. Will you donate??

 

The church members give money so all 8 students can go. The kids didn't have $2800 to go on the trip, but now that the church paid, they can go!

 

But then, they end up staying a few nights at a beachside hotel to relax? As a church member I wouldn't be happy to think that all of my money didn't go toward the missions trip, but that it partly went to fund a bunch of kids' vacations. If the kids are footing the entire $2800 themselves, then go for it. But when I'm paying for part of it, I want all of it to go to the mission's trip. I'm not here to pay for a vacation for you, especially since we only get a vacation every couple of years.

 

No. You don't ask the little old ladies at church and the single moms and the single income homeschooling family for help if you're going to use even a small portion of the money on expensive side trips.

 

I would be ok with a $50 fun night out. But if it's more than $50, no.

 

I do not donate to short term missions trips. I will donate to full time missionaries who live in the country for years at a time. I am skeptical of the short term trips.

I may have misunderstood Merry, but I thought she said the group had paid for their side trips and entertainment with their own money, not with the donations they had received.

 

I would have objected to using donated money to pay for the fun vacation-type stuff, too.

[datgh]

We are not big fans of short term mission trips for teens out of the country. Most of the time they seem more like over glorified vacation trips. There is a wide open mission field in this country that really could use more of our time and energy many times right in our own neighborhoods..

[QueenCat]

Supporting the local economy is a good thing.

[J-rap]

I'd have a problem with that.  If the kids can afford to pay for a nice restaurant and show and days at a nice beach hotel, it seems like they shouldn't have asked the church to support them on the missions trip.  Personally I think the kids should have earned and used their own money for the entire missions trip (if they want to do it through fundraisers, fine).  Then, they most likely wouldn't have had extra money for fun, but the point of the missions trip isn't to take a vacation.

 

Generally I'm not a fan of short-term, international missions trips.

 

 

[Merry]

I'd have a problem with that.  If the kids can afford to pay for a nice restaurant and show and days at a nice beach hotel, it seems like they shouldn't have asked the church to support them on the missions trip.  Personally I think the kids should have earned and used their own money for the entire missions trip (if they want to do it through fundraisers, fine).  Then, they most likely wouldn't have had extra money for fun, but the point of the missions trip isn't to take a vacation.

 

Generally I'm not a fan of short-term, international missions trips.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say in my original post.  

[chiguirre]

There are service alternatives. In my local RC parish, high schoolers go to Shine Work Camp where they pay $300 to go 25 miles from home and work painting and doing minor repairs for a week. There's not much glitz, but it does tend to achieve the goal of making them very grateful for all their material comforts and aware that lots of people live precariously in our own neighborhood. There must be similar organizations for other denominations.

[Guest]

I agree 100%. We feel the same way.

 

But it isn't really their money.

 

They tell the church: We need $2800 per person for 8 students to go on this mission trip to help the poor people of Poorland. Will you donate??

 

The church members give money so all 8 students can go. The kids didn't have $2800 to go on the trip, but now that the church paid, they can go!

 

But then, they end up staying a few nights at a beachside hotel to relax? As a church member I wouldn't be happy to think that all of my money didn't go toward the missions trip, but that it partly went to fund a bunch of kids' vacations. If the kids are footing the entire $2800 themselves, then go for it. But when I'm paying for part of it, I want all of it to go to the mission's trip. I'm not here to pay for a vacation for you, especially since we only get a vacation every couple of years.

 

No. You don't ask the little old ladies at church and the single moms and the single income homeschooling family for help if you're going to use even a small portion of the money on expensive side trips.

 

I would be ok with a $50 fun night out. But if it's more than $50, no.

 

I do not donate to short term missions trips. I will donate to full time missionaries who live in the country for years at a time. I am skeptical of the short term trips.

[Seasider]

I think this is, in part, why I really want to see folks who take such trips do so on earned money, as opposed to funds donated from folks who've been solicited by an announcement or direct mail campaign.

 

I'm not against such trips being made - I believe it benefits a young adult to experience other cultures, especially those which open their eyes to life vastly different than ours in privileged America. But IMO, it should involve sweat equity. My older kids have all traveled internationally on mission and service trips, and they each worked hard to bear the cost.

[Tap]

When ever I have contributed to a mission trip, I expect that the student will have a bit of down time.  I also ask for specific details of the entire trip, so I know what I am contributing to.  Mission trips are mostly about the person going.  It does help the community, but the majority of the trip is about the student.  I do not see anything wrong with teaching a student that if you devote time to helping someone, that you can have a day or two to swim or take a field trip to enjoy some of the culture in the area.  

 

My son and his friends have been on mission trips.  I know that for one trip, there was a day at a hotel for swimming and eating.  Swimming and the expensive lunch were  at an expensive hotel, not because it was a nice place to visit, but because it was the only safe option to do so.   The food was safe for them to eat and the water was safe to swim in.   I have also heard of groups  spending a day or two at a nice hotel as part of the travel plans because it was safe and economical compared to other options that worked with the time line.  

 

 

My son helped to build duplexes in Haiti and rode out a hurricane while he was there.  The details of the trip weren't life changing for him in the way you would expect (aside from confirming that he doesn't want to do mission work). Since locals could have been hired to do the same work, the duplexes he helped to build, would still be built without his help.  BUT, the experience has affected him.....and will absolutely affect others.  

 

At the time, no one knew, that my son would become a pastor some day. And his experience on that trip, and those trips of his best friend on his mission trips, would sculpt the leaders in his church. The money that I invested toward his friends trip to Mexico at 16 is not only sculpting that one boy, but also a congregation.....that 16yo boy is now a married man, and a Worship Pastor.  When you invest into a teen, you are investing into their life, where ever it may lead them. There are plenty of permanent missionaries who got started as 2 week missionaries over a spring break or summer trip.  

 

So, yes, sometimes showing a teen that hard work, doesn't just have to only have to be hard work.....absolutely pays off in my experience.  

[diplomum]

I just want to chime in and say that yes, the ballet really probably is that cheap. I don't know where your group is, but most former Soviet republics have beautiful theaters and opera houses that are very inexpensive to go to. Also big circus buildings with amazing (cheap) circus performances. We lived in the Republic of Georgia a few years ago and frequently went to the opera or ballet for a few dollars per ticket. One of the national ballerinas came to our house to give a group of little girls lessons for about $20 an hour (for the whole group). She was thrilled and we were, of course, also thrilled. The girls loved seeing her in The Nutcracker. To me, the cultural exchange is as important as anything, as those experiences stay with a person forever and often have a profound impact on their worldview. I say let them enjoy an amazing opportunity.

[DawnM]

I don't have too much of a problem with it.

 

This summer my son is going to Mexico on a mission's trip.  They will spend one day at a small water park, but the purpose of the excursion is to take about 25 kids from an orphanage with them and hang out with them and give them an opportunity to get out and have fun and build trust/relationship with the students from our church. 

 

It may look like a vacation, but it is a really cheap day compared to water parks here.

 

Also, the trip is $850 for each person, total, so it isn't too extravagant.  In fact, they found flights for $150 cheaper than they thought, but instead of making the trip less expensive for the kids, they are pouring that extra $$ into the orphanage.

[Pawz4me]

We are not big fans of short term mission trips for teens out of the country. Most of the time they seem more like over glorified vacation trips. There is a wide open mission field in this country that really could use more of our time and energy many times right in our own neighborhoods..

 

:iagree: :iagree:

 

The continual asking for donations to send the youth on glorified vacations was one reason we left our former church.  There was no lack of service opportunities within the congregation -- lots of older folks who could've used help with yard work or maintenance on their homes.

[creekland]

To me it totally depends upon the mission trip, but in general, I'm in favor of kids doing these and we do donate to them fairly often.

 

The reason is only partially helping the people there (because the trips my guys have gone on have all done this - from medical to assisting locals with building projects/money - assisting - not replacing).  The more important reason is giving kids a view of their planet.

 

Way too many kids only see a small part of the planet.  It may be their territory or it may be their socioeconomic class in various territories.  The planet is vast.  The socio-economic classes vary considerably.

 

I want mine to see Haiti, Jamaica, Cote D'Ivoire, etc, and I want them to see more than the resorts in any of these places.  However, they don't need to just see the poor and think ALL of the people are poor.  By doing some of the middle class things, they can see that there's a variety elsewhere as well.  Spending money in the local economy by doing things, buying things, or seeing things beats giving money any day IMO.  It allows others the dignity of jobs rather than handouts.  Working alongside others (native to the place) gives them a camaraderie that can last years (or has with my guys).

 

My guys are world citizens first and US citizens by selection of the birth lottery.  I want them to understand their world or as much of it as they can.

 

AND I don't feel this is just a privilege of those wealthy enough to pay for it - hence - we donate often to those who don't have the money for such an experience.

 

We don't donate for ____ to go to a resort anywhere, but we donate for _____ to learn more about their planet and people who live in it.

 

And for those who mentioned doing things locally too.  Yes.  It doesn't have to be either/or.  It can be both.  Mine regularly did both.

 

For those who have read When Helping Hurts (a great book about "right" vs "wrong" helping - very Christian based, so don't go there if that's offensive), the author talks about the "bad" of short term missions.  I agree with much of what he/they - coauthored - wrote, but in speaking with one of the authors in person he told us he would adjust that chapter in a future edition as there is far more value to short term missions than he originally thought along the lines of what I wrote - IF they were done correctly.  I haven't read the 2nd edition to see what changed.

 

Most groups my guys have gone with use that book to try to align their short term trips for the most benefit to all.

 

A few days at the beach?  That sounds a bit like vacation.  A day at the market or at the local favorite activity?  Great exposure to what life is like in that location.

 

The chance to see more of their home planet and the people on it.  Priceless.

[Katy]

We have a family friend who used to be a missionary.  He's told us most short term trips are far more about tourism than actually helping anyone.  95% of the "missions" trips that came to "help" him actually didn't help anyone.  There are short term trips that do help - often times they involve something like construction or medical care.  No one is learning much English from a group of high schoolers.  A trip to the beach is probably mostly vacation.  But my issue with it would be more the group leaders and their choice to go to a different place each year rather than cultivating a relationship with one mission where they can go and do service projects repeatedly.  It smacks of tourism to me.  Now maybe the tourism has benefits of its own (it probably does), but it's not the sort of thing that we choose to donate to.  I have been involved in churches that sponsor two orphanages, one in Africa, one in Central America, and twice a year there are missions trips to each orphanage, where there are actually work projects to be done.  Sometimes it's fixing a roof.  Sometimes it's building another building.   But there is always legitimate work to be done, without a vacation tacked on to the end.

 

I think carefully chosen missions trips can be remarkable in terms of the change they bring about in kids.  They can wipe away entitlement and make them sincerely think about what actually matters in life.  But reinforcing entitlement with luxuries while on the trip?  I don't know what lesson that teaches, but I wouldn't like it either.  I don't know how I would address it though.  It might depend on the size of the church, whether I would openly question the benefit of such a trip.  Honestly I probably wouldn't have to.  It would annoy DH so much he'd talk to several elders about it and make sure the issue was addressed.

[Daria]

I may have misunderstood Merry, but I thought she said the group had paid for their side trips and entertainment with their own money, not with the donations they had received.

 

I would have objected to using donated money to pay for the fun vacation-type stuff, too.

 

I see community service type trips (mission or otherwise) for teenagers as an opportunity for the kids to learn and grow and experience a different culture.  I don't think that they help the communities that host them, although I do think that they can impact a teenager's long term view of the developing world, which can lead to differences in that teenager's behavior as an adult (giving patterns, voting patterns, possibly choice of career) that can have a positive impact.   

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with donating to community service trips because I think that helping teenagers grow and learn is a great goal, and I know that some teens and parents can't afford the trips on their own.  I donate every year for the scholarship fund that sends kids on my son's football team to the team overnight camp, because I think that's a great growing/learning experience for kids and I know some families wouldn't be able to afford it.  

 

But as the head of a family who doesn't take a vacation most years because of expenses like football camp, if I contributed to your child's football camp, on the premise that you couldn't afford it, and then found out that you had enough money to send your kid on a swanky beach vacation immediately afterwards, I'd feel like I was swindled.  

[Daria]

I just want to add that I do think that something like a cultural performance typical of that country (e.g. a ballet if you're in Eastern Europe), or a few hours spent engaging in a recreational activity that's typical for the region you're visiting, along side people from that region (e.g. a day at a local beach) is a very appropriate part of an educational/service trip, and something I'd be happy to support.  Extending the trip for a vacation would not seem appropriate to me. 

[Guest]

The college I went to had a group that went to Florida every spring break to evangelize on the beach. Riiiiiight.

[TechWife]

Our church has a long term relationship with a church in another country. We have been sending students there for 15 years. The students have training before they leave. While there, they teach the equivalent of VBS out in the community (the local church has arranged neighborhood locations for them ahead of time). They also teach sports skills clinics that include a Bible Study. The local church has a follow up plan in place for both of these ministries and also has ongoing ministries to these neighborhoods. On occasion, they have done light construction work on the church building. They live with host families (they are split into pairs to do this). On the last day, they go to the beach for 1/2 day. While there, they have a debriefing meeting to help prepare them for their return home. 

 

We also send teens through the World Changers mission organization. We've only been doing that for a couple of years, so I don't know much about it. 

 

I am in favor of real mission trips for youth. It not only exposes them to other cultures, it helps them get a small taste of what real life missionary work is like. Our church has sent out hundreds of missionaries through the years and I think it is, in part, due to exposure to missions through the short term trips our church does (we have several trips a year for people of all ages - all are real working trips). Mission trips need to be well designed to be effective for everyone involved, though. 

 

ETA: About fundraising - We don't raise funds outside of our local church. Letters are sent to the membership that list the financial needs and people donate as they are led. There are no other solicitations of funds. We believe it is the job of the church to fund the work of the church. The student families themselves give the bulk of the funds. Funding is really at a minimum due to the generosity of host families, with transportation being the bulk of the expense.  

[JustEm]

When I was a teen, my youth group fundraised to go to a workcamp program in Ohio where we spent the week doing various projects in a poor neighborhood. My group painted rooms in a domestic violence shelter. Other groups helped repair people's houses after weather damage. One group spent the entire week babysitting the kids in thee dv shelter so the mom's could have some downtime, get help with their resume and tutoring. It was an awesome experience and we helped a relatively local neighborhood( a few states away.) But when we got home we quickly decided to spend the raised money doing things like that locally. It just made more sense that we could be more useful locally doing it short term. Longer trips can certainly be very helpful outside of the country but a bigger impact can be done locally in that time frame

[Jann in TX]

I've just signed up for another short-term mission trip to Uganda.

 

On my previous trips I have stayed in comfortable accomodations and have eaten in upscale (for Uganda) restaurants, this after serving some of the poorest people in the world. The accomodations were 'inexpensive' by US standards-- but that is not why we stayed there.  We stayed there because they were SAFE.  We ate at the upscale restaurants or hired a private chef because eating local food is NOT a good thing for non-locals (very high chance of illness). 

 

I've chosen my trips carefully-- I'm not opposed to 'voluntourism' but it is not what I've wanted to do. 

 

After my first trip I was not sure if my 2 weeks made any impact (other than a HUGE impact in my life).  When I returned a few years later I noticed a change, and on my third trip I noticed a HUGE change (for the good!).   Change is not always immediate.  One simple conversation or well-timed hug CAN make a difference, but it is not always obvious or even 'known'.

 

On my previous trips (2-4 weeks each) I served at a school/childrens home in rural Uganda.  At first the school was unorganized (chaos) and now it is one of the top 7% of primary schools in all of Uganda!  I have relationsips with the teachers AND the students.  This time I'm branching out-- I'll still be working with teachers in rural (impoverished) schools --potential for noticable impact--but I will also be spending time observing what the new organization does (probably minimal impact on the children served but most likely a HUGE impact on ME.)

 

I've been saving for this trip but my church will also support my efforts.  There is an opportunity for a 'fun day'-- and I will most likely need it to decompress after serving/observing in dire situations.

 

I have mixed feelings about giving to others for 'voluntourism' opportunities.  I give if I want to (or if I feel led to).  It is my choice.  I do not judge the 'worth' of the trip as I have absolutely no way of knowing if something good will come out of it.

 

The ministry organization I'm going with this summer is making a HUGE impact (postive) in thousands of children and their families/communities.  It all began with one person on a short-term mission trip who looked around and saw a need then decided to DO SOMETHING. 

 

If you never look around you may never see the possibilities-- this includes opportunities in your local community AND in the world!

 

 

 

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

Of COURSE it's OK. You have a group willing to work for free for a set amount of time. Once their time is up and their goals are achieved, it would be silly to not experience the local sites or culture. Otherwise, why travel at all. There are impoverished regions in the US that could use the help. The idea that a teenager on a missions trip should not only donate their time and effort, but every additional dime they have is a weird one.

[bettyandbob]

Are these mission trips made to places where you have an ongoing work program? A random trip to a different place every year doesn't sound like it could accomplish much.

 

In my old church:

 

1. teens travel to a city about 4 hours away and run a day camp at a homeless shelter a week. They spend a day seeing the important sights in that city and on the way back spend two days a the beach. It's a pretty cheap trip.

 

2. middle to older teens and adults travel yearly to a very poor rural, coal mining area. They spend the week building and repairing homes. This trip is coordinated with several other churches in our area. One of the things I like about this program is the kids learn a bit about home repair, which is just a good life skill.

 

3. older teens and adults travel to the Dominican Republic every year. They have had ongoing projects building a church/school and other buildings over a two week period.

 

4. for several years after Katrina (I'm not a member of the church anymore, so I don't know if they still do it), there was an adults only trip to do rebuilding work in New Orleans.

 

When they go on these trips the agenda is tightly planned ahead. Since the relationships are established people get right in and work. There are always some people who are returning who show the new people how to get started.

 

They have car washes, suppers and other fundraisers to cover the costs of these trip.

 

I do agree spending money in the local economy is a good thing, but I'd also start examining whether the trips are accomplishing real goals for both the people who go on the trips and for the recipients of the mission.

[Anne in CA]

Make no mistake, I have never been to a foreign country and not seen UNICEF employees driving Hummers and drinking beer and eating in the best restaurants,(I have yet to figure out what UNICEF is other than a giant boondoggle) so I wouldn't be too upset over a some ballet tickets or a nice hotel for a couple of days. Every charity of every kind allows some use of money that would not be just for the charity. Usually religious work comes with less of that from what I have observed, but there is always some "waste" and I think people who give are mostly aware of this.

[shawthorne44]

I would never donate to send someone else on a mission trip.  I've known adults that have gone on them, and I've inquired about the trips.   The expense was always huge and the benefit was small.  For example, one friend always had fairly long fingernails, couldn't lift anything even mildly heavy and was naturally prissy.   Her husband is extremely overweight with an office job.  They each went on a construction trip and spent $2600 each to work for a week.  I wouldn't be surprised if more work wouldn't have been done without them.  

 

But, if I were footing the bill for my kid I wouldn't particularly mind a ballet to be included.  I'd explain to my child that they were two different things and that the side excursions were "while we are here" things then part of the trip.  Although my child wouldn't be fund-raising for the trip regardless.  

[Carol in Cal.]

The thing that gets me when I read this post is, how in the world is a group of untrained teenagers going to teach someone any amount of useful English in just two weeks?  Honestly, if someone gave me that line trying to get me to donate money, I would think it was an excuse to go on vacation.  

 

Here's how it has worked for our church.  We have a sister congregation in the Czech Republic that offers VBS with English lessons every year.  I think it is a residential program, and it is extremely popular because speaking English is a valuable skill there.  So they asked churches here in the States to send helpers over to teach English and to create an immersive experience by conversing in English as well.  

 

We sent some people over every year for 5 years.  The rule was that each attendee had to pay 50% of the cost of the trip on his own.  The rest could be fundraised or covered by the congregation.  Attendees stayed in dorms and ate local food, no AC, not luxurious or exclusive quarters.  Since they are all native speakers of English they were inherently helpful, and there was a fairly simple curriculum to allow explicit teaching of grammar as well as vocabulary.  No one under 16 was allowed to volunteer or to go on the trip at all.

 

Having said that, in general I think that short term mission trips are inefficient financially and so I don't contribute to them.  I have friends right now who are travelling to India, Kenya, and one other place doing VBS type camps, and blogging as they go, with their two children (one teen and one preteen) ATTENDING the camps (not even helping with them, so taking spots away from the locals) and I literally can't believe that people are sending them money.  Cannot. believe. it.  Basically they are having a world tour with a little volunteer work, it's costing a fortune, and that money could have been far better spent by the local missionaries in situ.  

[Lisa R.]

 

 

 

At the time, no one knew, that my son would become a pastor some day. And his experience on that trip, and those trips of his best friend on his mission trips, would sculpt the leaders in his church. The money that I invested toward his friends trip to Mexico at 16 is not only sculpting that one boy, but also a congregation.....that 16yo boy is now a married man, and a Worship Pastor.  When you invest into a teen, you are investing into their life, where ever it may lead them. There are plenty of permanent missionaries who got started as 2 week missionaries over a spring break or summer trip.  

 

 

I agree with the above post. Well said.

 

When you donate money, particularly to a teen, you are also investing in the teen himself/herself. I think it would be great if every mature teen or young adult go on at least one short term  mission trip. It's my opinion that they will likely donate more money over the course of their lifetime that the cost of that one trip as a result of going. 

 

I used to have discomfort with the idea of short term mission trips and viewed this as an ineffective way to help the particular county in need.

 

Now that I've learned more and gone on a short term mission trip myself (paid for myself), I see a different perspective.

 

First, typically part of the money raised goes directly to the mission they are going to help. I went to Guatemala. This trip cost $1700. I believe over $500 from each person went to this mission. It paid for our food on the compound but it mostly went for materials for the construction project being built on the property. People say, "Wouldn't it be more effective if that $1700 was sent directly to the mission?" That would be great! However, the reality is that the 25 people that went probably wouldn't have raised the $500 each that went to the mission. Multiply this out for the number of people that came and helped the mission. It's a lot of support they are getting in addition to the free labor the teams are providing.

 

Second, the point of a mission trip isn't solely to help the mission while the group is there. Hopefully, they will see the great need in the country and want to help partner with what the mission is doing. This could mean, as it did in our case, that we spread the word back home about the work this mission is doing. To put it bluntly, these mission organizations need money. With regards to the mission organization we went to help, most all of their donations came from the U.S. Former short term mission teams spreading the word back home helps the organization in the foreign country reach more people about their cause. This results in more prayer and financial support.

 

Third, after seeing firsthand the work the mission organization is doing, hopefully the people that went on the short term mission will go back home and continue to support the organization financially. We went to a home that cares for girls brought out of homes that suffered abuse. What we saw was so compelling, almost every person in our group went back home and sponsored a girl from the home. This is long term money this organization is seeing from just ONE mission group that came over the summer.

 

Fourth, while most of us will not be full time missionaries, seeing missions work in person in a developing country give a perspective one wouldn't have otherwise. This trip was a life-changing experience for me. My two teenage children also went with us. They are changed by this experience and want to further help with missions in the future. What does this look like? We're still figuring it out. Financial help, for sure. Maybe leading a mission trip there in the future to introduce more people to the organization? We're considering this.

 

As far as recreation on a mission trip, I can see the discomfort in that for supporters. I feel that any recreation should be funded solely by the person going on the trip. Yes, this does help the local economy. However, I feel that the person going should work and donate that portion themselves and make that clear. 

[Five More Minutes]

I'll just front-end load this with sharing that I personally choose not to support short-term mission trips that involve teens. I have lived in developing countries where I was working with local groups to alleviate poverty, and thus was on the receiving end of some of those short-term visits. Typically it takes a lot of effort to organize for a sustained visit with even one expatriate, let alone multiple teens, however responsible and well-prepared they are. There are concerns that the visitors could be taking away income-earning opportunities for local people. And then afterwards there *can* be fall-out because team members have unwittingly and unintentionally offended people. The offenders have left, and it's difficult to make amends. So from a practical standpoint, I am very leery of the benefit of short-term teams.

 

I also have a dear friend who has organized dozens of teen mission trips, and she was up front with me that the true benefit is for those going. That rings true for me. So *if* I were to support a teen mission, I would accept that the main goal is to invest in the lives of the team members going, and would want to explore what I would hope that would look like. I think that as a donor or member of a supporting church, you should absolutely be able to ask questions about the entire trip ahead of time: How much is each person contributing themselves? How are they ensuring that this does not take jobs away from people who need them? What side trips are planned and how are those being funded? What will the team members learn? How clearly are goals defined and how realistic are they? How are they being prepared for their trip? I have a list ... :001_smile:

 

If any of the responses made me uncomfortable, then I would not support the trip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeachyDoodle]

Given that the teens at our church raise money twice a year to go skiing and to the beach for a week with NO work involved, I'm less than concerned about this. :glare:

 

I do think there should be full disclosure up front about how the money will be used. I don't have a major problem with allowing a day or two of downtime and the chance to explore the sights (which it's likely they will never see again) as part of a trip that's otherwise mostly focused on evangelism/service. I think, when supporting short-term missions for teenagers, that I'm investing in both the work and the experience for the teen.

[Clear Creek]

 

I realize that companies do the same thing when they send their people to conferences out of town and while there, the people can spend as much money as they want eating out and on fun things in addition to showing up at the meetings but that's a different situation, isn't it?  The companies spend their own money sending their employees in order to improve production from the employees, not like the church groups who raise funds from the others for the trips to make possible for the people to go and serve the others in less privileged areas. But is it okay for the people to go on and spend money on themselves on eating out and fun things?  What do you think?

 

Um...compared to people in impoverished countries, isn't their entire life like that?  What difference does it make if they take in a show in the country they are temporarily serving in or here in the USA?  If they went to the movies two weeks before the mission trip and spend $20 on a ticket and snacks, couldn't they have spent that on the mission trip? What about buying Christmas gifts last December, couldn't they have spent that money on the mission trip? How does it make any difference for them to amend their lifestyle for two weeks? The rest of their ~80 years is spent eating three meals a day and enjoying luxuries like restaurant meals, theme parks, and movies; not to mention things like regular healthcare (government subsidized healthcare is unheard of in many impoverished countries) and easy access to clean drinking water.

 

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have a dirt floor in your house, you live in a house with a roof and solid walls, you eat three meals a day, you have had access to healthcare at some point in your life, and you may have even been to a restaurant or movie theater without having to forego meals for weeks in order to afford it. Do you feel guilty for any of that? If not, then why do you expect a mission group to feel guilty for the same thing?

 

Just in case I am not being clear, I am not saying that we should be happy with our lifestyle of luxuries that millions of people can't even imagine; on the contrary, I think it should make us feel guilty to some extent. But I don't think it is our place to point at the person who is attempting to help the impoverished by traveling to their country and providing some sort of physical care or relief and impose a standard of living on them during their trip that we ourselves are not living in our regular lives. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to require an individual on a mission trip to live like they are poor while we sit drowning in luxury.

 

[Susan in TN]

Supporting the local economy is a good thing.

I also think it can be valuable, especially when in unfamiliar parts of the world, to be able to experience other cultures and environments. God made these places and people as well, and I am not opposed to finding enjoyment in them. I have no problem with it as long as they are paid by the individuals or the donors were aware of this aspect of the trip.

[Dmmetler]

It kind of reminds me of fundraising for school trips. We had a lot of band competitions/festivals where we marched one parade and did one afternoon competition, but spend 3-4 days away from school total, with much more time spent touring Niagara falls or Disney World or wherever we were going. All told, it was more a vacation than anything educational. And it wasn't that we were urban low income kids who didn't have such experience with our families. 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sending unskilled teens as part of a poverty tourism tour so that they can appreciate what they have better seems pretty obnoxious.  Whether or not they go to a ballet while there is moot.

[vonfirmath]

Our church has a long term relationship with a church in another country. We have been sending students there for 15 years. The students have training before they leave. While there, they teach the equivalent of VBS out in the community (the local church has arranged neighborhood locations for them ahead of time). They also teach sports skills clinics that include a Bible Study. The local church has a follow up plan in place for both of these ministries and also has ongoing ministries to these neighborhoods. On occasion, they have done light construction work on the church building. They live with host families (they are split into pairs to do this). On the last day, they go to the beach for 1/2 day. While there, they have a debriefing meeting to help prepare them for their return home.

This sounds very similar to what our church does.  They train the teens to help out in the VBS our church is running, then the teens go to another church (in a different state in the US. Not sure how they are chosen yet because my kids are not that age) and run the SAME VBS for a church there, as well as doing some other activities as needed/directed by the church they are working with.  Its a big deal and they plan the summer schedule of the church around when the teens are going to be available.

[Lisa R.]

Sending unskilled teens as part of a poverty tourism tour so that they can appreciate what they have better seems pretty obnoxious. Whether or not they go to a ballet while there is moot.

I heard of dozens and dozens of mission trips and none of them come close to this description. This is an insulting (and to use your word, obnoxious) way to characterize them.

[Mergath]

Sending unskilled teens as part of a poverty tourism tour so that they can appreciate what they have better seems pretty obnoxious. Whether or not they go to a ballet while there is moot.

This is how I feel about it. And they often get an article in the local paper about how heroic they are for doing it, too. *gag*

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I heard of dozens and dozens of mission trips and none of them come close to this description. This is an insulting (and to use your word, obnoxious) way to characterize them.

 

That is exactly what it is.  Spending money to send unskilled labor accomplishes absolutely nothing to help those communities.  More could be done with much less by using the funds to hire work that needs done locally.  And if the excuse is that churches won't just donate money unless it is to send the teens...well that says a LOT about the church in question.

 

Excusing sending unskilled teens by saying they will learn to appreciate what they have (and etc) and then sending them off to a beach for a night or two makes the issue of poverty tourism even clearer.

 

With that said, when the money is used to send those with skills that locals may not have (example: medical care) then my opinion is very different.

[Bluegoat]

I just don't really think that mission trips like this are very useful from the point of view of providing workers, so I don't think I would really tend to supprt them anyway.  A lot of the kind of work they often have kids doing would be better off done in or near their home communities for an extended period.

 

I do think that there can be great things that can come out of exchange programs for young people, but they are really more similar to what an exchange student would expect to get out of it.  How do Christians live in other parts of the world?  How do other cultures think about God, what do they do better than we do, and what are their challenges?  What are the assumptions we might have about society, or religion, that we thought came from religion but really are from culture?

 

I also think some sight-seeing could be entirely appropriate within those goals, especially if the trip is in an area that has historical connections to religion.

 

I would tend to want to treat shorter trips more like pilgrimiges, or like retreats, not like mission work.  And then look at possible longer trips for a few people.  A good friend of mine spent the year after high school living with a minister's family in Africa. and it was one of the life-experiences that really formed her as a person and as a Christian.  She did 'work", but mostly it was just living as part of the community that was important.