Effective Engagement in Short-Term Missions: Doing It Right!

By Robert J. Priest

Effective Engagement in Short-term Missions represents the single most ambitious effort to date to understand and improve upon patterns of ministry in STM. In six sections, the authors explore topics such as the links between STM and older patterns of long-term missions; engagement with people of other cultures; international partnerships; specialized ministries such as medical missions; legal and financial liabilities; and last but not least, the impact of STM on participants. The goal of this book is to improve the ways in which STM is carried out and to improve the understandings needed on the part of all who engage in the ministry. In short, this book attempts to provide a knowledge base for those who provide leadership within the short term missions movement. Youth pastors, mission pastors, lay leaders, college and seminary students, and missiologists will all find information that is helpful and relevant to their concerns.

• Language: English
• Publisher: William Carey Library
• Release date: Sep 15, 2008
• ISBN: 9780878086948

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

SHORT-TERM MISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF MISSIONS, INC.

A. SCOTT MOREAU

Introduction

What does short-term missions look like among the agencies found in North America? We hope to provide a partial answer to that question in this chapter. To set the stage for the chapter, several introductory comments and explanations are in order.

First, the information provided in this chapter comes from data collected through several surveys taken at roughly three year intervals from 1992 to 2005 of approximately 700 U.S. and 120 Canadian Protestant mission agencies. The surveys were conducted in preparation for the ongoing editions of the Mission Handbook, now in its 20th edition. While the Handbook (under various names) started in 1953, standardization of questions currently used was initiated in 1992, and (for STM) finalized in 1996. Thus, I limit this discussion to the five surveys conducted between 1992 and 2005 (1992, 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2005). It should be noted that most of the data presented in this chapter is found in the 2007 to 2009 edition of the Mission Handbook (Moreau 2007, 11-75).

Second, it must be noted that while the list of agencies surveyed was as exhaustive as possible, it did not include every known agency. For example, some did not submit a completed questionnaire; others were so new that we were not aware of them yet when the survey was sent out; still others were not formal agencies but more informal sending bodies situated in the context of local churches. Additionally, for each of the surveys sent over the years, some agencies were dropped from the list because they were disbanded, merged into another agency, or did not return a survey while others were added.

Third, the short-term focus of North American Protestant agencies takes place in the larger context of the whole of their work. While several agencies focus exclusively on STM, the vast majority do not give this component of contemporary missions their sole focus. To better understand what is happening in Protestant agency sponsored STM, it will be necessary to see what has happened over the time frame of available information in the larger picture of the agencies.

Fourth, I divide the chapter into two major sections. The first section examines the U.S. scene, and the second focuses on Canada. Within each of these sections, I will start with the broader picture and then narrow the focus down to STM. To further nuance the discussion in each section, I will distinguish two terms in the discussion of the changes seen, namely trend and shift. By trend I refer to a change that has been consistent over ten years or more. By shift I refer to a change that is seen in the 2005 survey but that was not consistent over the previous ten-year period. While somewhat arbitrary, this distinction makes it easier to distinguish changes that are long-term from those that are relatively new.

Finally, one caveat is in order. It must be noted that the tables and charts that follow have a necessary softness as a result of three factors. First, the actual numbers requested in the survey, such as the number of long-term missionaries serving in a particular country, are not steady through the year. Second, agencies use different methods for reporting their information in the survey. Some are extremely careful to report exact numbers for the time in which the survey is filled out, while others give highs (or lows) or perhaps even estimates over the year. We followed up with agencies whenever numbers appeared to be soft, but the data reported here was the best that could be obtained. This is especially true for certain categories, such as volunteers, part-time staff, and associates. Third, not all agencies interpret the survey questions in the same way. Indeed, responses vary even within the same agency from survey to survey. This will be seen, for example, in tables that are labeled as adjusted numbers. In most cases, the adjustment was made because there was such a large discrepancy between the 2001 and 2005 surveys that both sets of numbers had to be discarded.

U.S. Protestant Mission Agencies

U.S. Missions, Inc. Changes

The first trend seen was an increase in the reported number of U.S. citizens working for U.S. agencies (see Figure 1). Altogether, when we add the number of full-time U.S. citizens serving as residential missionaries, non-residential missionaries, tentmakers, and administrative or home-based staff, 86,461 U.S. citizens were reported to be fully engaged in the missionary task through U.S. agencies, a 20% increase over the number reported for these categories in the 2001 survey. While career and middle-term missionary numbers were down, the number of U.S. citizens working as tentmakers or non-residential missionaries, and the number of those working in the United States (whether as administrative staff or on home assignments), had risen enough to result in a net increase.

ch1-fig1

Figure 1: U.S. Missionary Force Mobilized by U.S. Protestant Agencies

The second trend discovered was an increase in the reported number of non-U.S. citizens working for U.S. agencies (see Figure 2). The total number of non-U.S. citizens directly supported by U.S. agencies rose from 1,898 in 1992 to 86,262 in 2005, an increase of 4445%. It is important to point out that there was significant volatility in the numbers reported from 2001 to 2005. For example, eight of the organizations in the top twenty for 2005 reported zero non-U.S. citizens in 2001.

Just over 93% of the non-U.S. citizens reported in 2005 are working in their home countries. The total number of non-U.S. citizens serving U.S. agencies in their home countries has grown by more than 183% since 1996 (when this question was first asked). The gains seen between 2001 and 2005 were broadly-based; 26 agencies reported 500 or more non-U.S. citizens in 2005, up from 18 in the 2001 survey. At the same time, non-U.S. citizens serving under U.S. agencies in a country other than their own increased by 203% since 1992. The latter number is perhaps more significant, since it is more likely that those serving outside of their home country are serving cross-culturally. However, since the survey does not distinguish non-U.S. citizens serving same-culture pockets in different countries (e.g., Korean citizens under U.S. agencies working among Koreans in Japan), we do not know with certainty how many of the 5,428 people reported in this category have crossed cultural boundaries in their ministry work.

ch1-fig2

Figure 2: Non-U.S. Citizens Directly Supported by U.S. Agencies

There are at least two issues that may be raised concerning the ultimate impact of the significant increase in non-U.S. citizens working for U.S. agencies. First, it is an indication of a more globalized approach to missions. Hopefully this would include an increasingly internationalized upper leadership structure among the agencies that have employed more non-U.S. citizens, but the survey data does not include leadership composition and anecdotal evidence is spotty at best.

Second, it is likely that the longer-term stability, as well as the access to funding that U.S. agencies offer, makes working for them more attractive than for local agencies. One concern with this would be the possible extent to which U.S. agencies hiring non-U.S. citizens could potentially stifle the development of indigenous agencies as well as the creativity necessary to develop new funding models for economies that do not have as much discretionary income as in the U.S.

A third trend was the ongoing increase in the proportion of non-U.S. versus U.S. citizens working for U.S. agencies as residential workers (Figure 3). Not only did the number of non-U.S. citizens working for U.S. agencies increase, so did the ratio of non-U.S. citizens to U.S. citizens. In 1996, the first survey for which full data is available, the ratio was 0.76 to 1. As indicated in Figure 3, that ratio consistently grew until 2005, when it had reached almost 2.1 to 1.

ch1-fig3

Figure 3: Shares of U.S. Full-Time and Non-U.S. Citizens Supported by U.S. Agencies

The portion of this chart representing U.S. citizens includes all full-time residential missionaries but not non-residential missionaries, tentmakers, or short-term missionaries. Eleven organizations reported 1,000 or more non-U.S. citizens (e.g., Gospel for Asia, Campus Crusade for Christ, AMG International, Partners International, Christian Aid Mission, etc.), which accounts for 60.7% of the total. This data must be seen as more soft, as several agencies reported dramatic changes from 2001 to 2005 (e.g., one organization went from 322 to 8,284; three others went from 0 to over 1,000).

A fourth trend revealed was the ongoing inflation-adjusted increase in the income reported for overseas ministries (Figure 4).The total reported income for overseas missions for the U.S. Protestant agencies in 2005 was $5,241,632,384.39. This is not the sum of the agencies total budgets; it is only what they reported as income being spent overseas. The total reported in 2005 was up 26.7% from 2001 after adjusting for inflation. The 6.7% annual growth rate is the largest seen between surveys since 1992. Altogether, since 1992, the total income for overseas ministries of U.S. Protestant agencies increased by a healthy inflation-adjusted 84.6%.

Further analysis (see Moreau 2007, 21-22), however, reveals the growth between 2001 and 2005, while large, was confined to the agencies with the largest incomes whose primary activities were related to relief and development. This make sense in light of 1) the mega-relief situations of the world context during those years (e.g., the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Indian Ocean tsunami, the earthquake in Pakistan, and so on), and 2) the change in U.S. policy to allow government funding for faith-based organizations engaged in relief and development work.

ch1-fig4

Figure 4: Income for U.S. Agency Overseas Ministries

In addition to these trends, there were two shifts that also took place among U.S. Protestant mission agencies that are important to note in setting the stage for the changes in STM.

The first shift was that from 2001 to 2005 the number of U.S. long-term missionaries decreased (Figure 5). While there was a 5.5% increase in long-term missionaries (four years or more) in the three-year span from 1998 to 2001, from 2001 to 2005 (a four-year span) there was a 3.0% decrease. This parallels the 3.4% drop in the reported number of U.S. citizens deployed full-time in overseas service for one year or longer by U.S. agencies, which was the biggest decline seen since 1992.

ch1-fig5

Figure 5: Long-Term U.S. Missionaries

While the reported numbers require us to note this decline, we should point out that it might not be as severe as the reporting appears to indicate. There were 69 agencies that are newly listed in the 2005 survey, and the inclusion of those agencies to replace agencies that were previously listed but did not fill out the survey accounts for 92.5% of the decline. The agencies that did not respond to the 2005 survey, and were thus dropped, are still active and sending long-term missionaries. The fact that they were dropped makes this shift look worse than it is. In fact, if their 2001 numbers are added into the totals, there is actually a small increase in the number of long-term missionaries sent. Further, but less significant, is the fact that 353 agencies (50.4% of the total U.S. agencies) reported at least one long-term worker in 2005, while 316 agencies (45.6%) did so in the 2001 survey. This increase, however, was still not enough to offset the losses from the agencies that did not respond to the survey in 2005.

The second shift reported by U.S. Protestant mission agencies from 2001 to 2005 was a decrease in the reported number of middle-term U.S. missionaries (1 to 4 years; Figure 6).The decline was 5.2% and was the first decrease in this category since 1992. Unlike the long-term decrease, this decrease is actually more severe than indicated, as the agencies that are newly listed in 2005 accounted for 158 more of these middle-term mission workers than the agencies that were dropped in 2005; without the newly listed agencies the drop would be even greater. In addition, 199 agencies (28.4%) reported at least one middle-term missionary in 2005, compared to 188 agencies (27.1%) in the 2001 survey. Even with eleven additional agencies reporting at least one middle-term missionary than in 2001, the total dropped.

ch1-fig6

Figure 6: Middle-Term U.S. Missionaries

U.S. Missions, Inc. Short-Term Changes

The first trend in STM was an increase in the number of support staff giving time to STM for the agencies (Figure 7).Starting in 1996, agencies were asked to indicate the number of part- and full-time support personnel they dedicate to STM service. In every survey since then, there was an increase in this category from the previous survey. Three hundred sixty-three agencies (51.9% of the total) reported at least one support person (whether part- or full-time). The total number of support staff for STM has grown by almost 218% since 1996 (with full-time support staff increasing by almost 325%). Agencies are putting more and more of their resources into ensuring that STM are adequately supported. The number of regular personnel (whether in the U.S. or overseas) who had at least 10% of their time focused on STM support grew by 1,134 (60.7%) from 2001 to 2005. Even more dramatically, those giving full-time support to STM increased by 858, a 147.4% increase.

The top five agencies (Assemblies of God World Missions; Adventures in Missions; InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA−Missions Department; Teen Missions International, Inc.; and Missionary Ventures International) accounted for almost three-quarters of the increase (going from a total of 46 support staff of all types in 2001, to 891 in 2005, 74.5% of the total gain).

Finally, there were 51 agencies that indicated at least one staff member giving part-time or greater focus on STM but with zero short-term missionaries sent. We assume that this is because their trips were shorter than the survey question’s minimum two week time requirement, a strong indication that the number of short-term missionaries reported by the agencies is smaller than the actual number they sent.

ch1-fig7

Figure 7: U.S. Short-Term Mission Support Personnel

The second trend seen was an increase of all methods used for STM recruitment (Figure 8). Nearly half (46.79%) of the U.S. Protestant agencies reported that they contact potential short-term missionaries through churches—the largest number of agencies ever. An increasing number of agencies are also using conferences to recruit for short-term trips. However, the most dramatic increase from 2001 to 2005 was in the number of agencies recruiting through schools. This number grew from 41 to 131, a gain of almost 220% (the category school was added in the 1999 survey, and thus no number is available for 1996). Even though it was not offered as a choice in the survey for 2005, 67 agencies indicated as a write-in that they use the Internet as a contact method. In the next survey this will be included, and that number is sure to jump significantly, as the Internet is clearly a major mobilization tool being used by agencies. In sum, it can be said with confidence that agencies are more actively recruiting for short-term trips than ever before and are using a broader variety of contact methods in their mobilization efforts.

ch1-fig8

Figure 8: Contact Methods for U.S. Agency Short-Term Recruitment

For the first time since the surveys began, there was a shift seen in the decrease in the reported number of short-term missionaries (Figure 9). In the 2001 survey, the agencies reported 346,270 short-term missionaries sent in contrast to 144,132 being reported in the 2005 survey; however, the main issue is clearly a reporting one. In this case, two agencies alone accounted for 97.5% of the total short-term losses. As a result, I adjusted the graph by dropping the 2001 and 2005 numbers of both agencies (Figure 9). Even so, there still was a loss in short-term missionaries going on two-week to one-year trips as reported by the agencies represented in this survey. Twenty agencies reported sending out 1,000 or more short-term missionaries, compared to twenty-two agencies in the previous survey. The organizations that were surveyed in 2005 for the first time accounted for 1,764 more short-term workers than those that were removed from the 2005 survey. The resulting gain was not enough to offset the overall loss, though it moderated the severity of it.

At least two possible reasons for this drop may be noted. First, as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, agencies pulled back from short-term trips to more dangerous areas and (at least in part because of ongoing conflicts in some countries) these have not yet recovered. A second possible reason is that agencies may be changing their efforts towards trips of shorter duration than the minimum two weeks required for reporting in the survey. We anticipate adding a question to the next survey that will capture the numbers of people going on shorter trips.

Because the survey asked agencies to report only those people who went on trips of at least two weeks duration, the results show only a partial proportion of those doing STM trips. Several facts support that this is only a partial picture. First, as noted above, there were fifty-one agencies which reported short-term staff support but no short-term personnel shows this is not the total number being sent by the agencies themselves. Second, a recent survey of college students, seminary students and members of adult Sunday school classes reported that more than two-thirds (67.6%) of the short-term trips they had taken were a duration of two weeks or less (Priest, et al. 2006, 433). Finally, the survey did not cover people sent on STM through churches or through Christian colleges (with the total number of US church members annually going on STM trips abroad estimated to be 1.6 million for 2005; Priest, et al., 432). While there is an overlap among short-terms sent by agencies, churches, and schools, each also sent out short-termers not connected to either of the other two.

When the short-term numbers are graphed together with the long-term numbers (Figure 10), there is no apparent correlation between the number of short-term people sent (showing a strong increase) and the number of middle- or long-term people sent (showing a slight increase until the 2005 survey, which showed a moderate decline). It may be mentioned that it is possible that the strong short-term increase has helped keep the decline as small as it was (contrast the U.S. number with the Canadian numbers see in Figure 21). There are several other reasons for the apparent lack of correlation.

ch1-fig9

Figure 9: Short-Term U.S. Missionaries

First, it might be that STM experiences simply do not result in enough long-term interest for people to pursue missions as a career. Second, it could be that the shift in generations from one focused on career to one focused on shorter-term life objectives is impacting the number of career missionaries. Related to this, perhaps those taking multiple short-term trips become somehow immune to long-term commitment for any of a number of reasons. Finally, another possibility is that the budget of churches has shifted towards STM to such an extent that new missionaries who want to go long-term are finding it more difficult to raise and maintain their support.

ch1-fig10

Figure 10: Short-Term and Long-Term U.S. Missionaries Compared

The final shift seen was that from 2001 to 2005 a larger percentage of all short-term workers went with agencies whose primary activities were related to relief/development and education/training and a smaller percentage went with agencies whose primary activities were focused on evangelism and discipleship. (Figure 11). In the survey, each agency was asked to choose from a list of sixty-one activities, six activities on which they focus their energy. After that, each agency was asked to indicate which of these six activities would be most commonly associated with their organization. In analyzing the survey, the activities were combined into five categories: evangelism/discipleship, education/training, mission agency support, relief and development, and other (see Table 1).

To develop Figure 11, we sorted agencies in the 2001 and 2005 surveys by the major category of their primary activity. For example, if an agency chose as its primary activity Church establishing/planting the number of short-term workers from that agency were counted in the Evangelism and Discipleship category. It must be noted that such an agency would not necessarily devote all of its activities to this category; it may also be involved in relief and development. However, for the sake of contrasting the major categories, we assumed that the primary activity of the agency was where the majority of its resources were directed.

ch1-table1

Table 1: Activities Arranged by Category

With that methodology in mind, we saw a shift in the number of short-term workers away from agencies whose primary activity was in the evangelism and discipleship category and towards those agencies whose primary activity was in the relief and development category. This appears to parallel the shift seen in giving for overseas missions towards those agencies that focus their efforts on relief and development (Moreau 2007, 45).

Summary of U.S. Missions, Inc. and Short-Term Missions

In summary, the larger picture of U.S. Protestant agencies continues to look relatively healthy, but is not without possible warning signs. Positively, the total number of people deployed in missionary service has increased for more than a decade, as has the inflation-adjusted income for overseas ministries. While it appears that the number of long-term missionaries may have declined, and the number of middle-term missionaries has definitely declined, U.S. agencies are utilizing more non-U.S. citizens to engage the missionary task. In future surveys, it will be important to keep an eye on the number of long-term missionaries, as well as the changes of funding in the direction of the agencies with the largest budgets and those focused on relief and development.

ch1-fig11

Figure 11: Short-Term Workers Sent by U.S. Agency Primary Activity

In this larger context, I presented two trends and two shifts in STM seen through U.S. Protestant mission agencies. The first trend was a significant increase in the number of support staff (both part-time and full-time) focused on STM recruitment. The second trend was an increase of all methods used for STM recruitment, and especially use of schools and the Internet. U.S. agencies are putting significant resources into mobilizing and administering short-term efforts, though there is no corresponding increase in long-term missionaries seen yet as a result of these efforts.

In addition to these trends, I also reported a shift seen in the decrease in the reported number of short-term (two weeks to one year) missionaries and noted possible reasons behind this reported decrease. Finally, the second shift uncovered was that a larger percentage of all short-term workers went with agencies whose primary activities were related to relief/development and education/training and a smaller percentage went with agencies whose primary activities were focused on evangelism and discipleship. With the shift in funding changing in a parallel direction, it will be important to follow this shift in the coming years to discern whether it is a trend or an anomaly.

Canadian Protestant Mission Agencies

As with the U.S. picture, changes in the short-term focus of Canadian Protestant agencies takes place in the larger context of the whole of their work. To understand what is happening in Canadian STM, it will be necessary to see what is happening in the larger picture of the agencies. Again, as with the U.S. discussion, we split our presentation here into Canadian agency trends (10 years or more) and shifts (less than 10 years). I offer fewer conjectures on reasons behind the changes seen on the Canadian side since I am not enough aware of the shifts in Canadian society and church to offer substantive comments.

Canadian Missions, Inc. Changes

The first trend seen among Canadian Protestant missionary agencies was a decrease in the reported number of fully-supported Canadians serving overseas (this includes all full-time Canadians serving for one year or more; Figure 12).

Canadian agencies mobilized a fully-supported Canadian residential missionary force that was 9.2% smaller in 2005, than they did in 2001. This continues a trend from 1992, in which the fully-supported residential Canadian missionary force working under Canadian agencies dropped by 23.9%.

ch1-fig12

Figure 12: Canadians Serving as Full-Time Missionaries (1 Year or More)

The second trend found was a decrease in the reported number of Canadian citizens serving as full-time, long-term missionaries (those serving 4 years or more; Figure 13).The most significant decrease for Canadian agencies has been in the number of long-term Canadian missionaries, which has dropped 33% (from 3,075 to 2,079) since 1992. The decline accelerated from 2001 to 2005, during which the long-term missionaries being reported dropped by 17.4%. The decline, and especially its acceleration from 2001 to 2005, is alarming; it is perhaps the greatest challenge facing Canadian Protestant mission agencies in the 21st century.

ch1-fig13

Figure 13: Long-Term Canadian Missionaries

The third trend seen was a modest increase in the total number of non-Canadians serving under Canadian agencies (Figure 14). Paralleling the U.S., the number of non-Canadian citizens under the support of Canadian agencies increased more than 185% since 1996. The vast majority of that increase took place during the period from 1996 to 1998 (151%). While still growing since 1998, the growth rate has significantly slowed (13.7% from 1998 to 2005). While the number of non-Canadians working in a country other than their own declined from 2001 to 2005 by 16.6%, they still increased overall from 1996 by 845%. If the current growth rates of non-Canadians working for Canadian agencies continues, we expect that Canadian agencies will have more non-Canadians than Canadians within their ranks by the time of the next survey.

ch1-fig14

Figure 14: Non-Canadian Citizens Directly Supported by Canadian Agencies

Related to the third trend was an increase in the ratio of non-Canadian versus Canadian citizens working for Canadian agencies (Figure 15). Overall, there was growth of 44.8% in the total full-time on-location Canadian missionary force from 1992 to 2005, though the 2001 to 2005 period saw a decline of 3.9%. The overall growth is directly attributable to the number of non-Canadians working for Canadian agencies. The current ratio of non-Canadians to Canadians is .87 to 1, up from .26 to 1 in 1996.

ch1-fig15

Figure 15: Shares of Canadian and Non-Canadian Citizens Supported by Canadian Agencies

The fourth and final trend seen was an increase in the reported income for overseas missions (Figure 16).Canadian agencies reported $638,142,812 in income for overseas ministries, an inflation-adjusted increase of 123.1% since 1992 (and an increase of 36.9% over the 2001 survey). In this case, the increase in income reported by the top three agencies was almost 95% of the total gain reported. Thus, the solid growth experiences in aggregate was actually confined to the top three agencies, each of which lists their primary activity as one related to relief and development.

Further, the top ten agencies received 72.6% of the total income, up from 66.7% in the 2001 survey. The top twenty agencies received 84.5% of the total income, up from 82.5%. It is clear that a larger portion of the total income for overseas work among Canadian Protestant agencies is being concentrated among fewer agencies.

ch1-fig16

Figure 16: Income for Canadian Agency Overseas Ministries

Organizations which reported a primary activity focused on relief and development received 73.6% ($469,491,505) of the total income, and 93% of the inflation-adjusted gain. Thus, parallel to the U.S. Protestant agencies, the majority of the gains in income for overseas ministries among Canadian Protestant agencies was concentrated among agencies whose primary focus was relief and development activities.

In addition to these trends, one positive shift was an increase in the number of middle-term Canadian missionaries being sent by Canadian agencies (Figure 17). While the 33% decline in long-term missionaries is sobering, the fact that the number of middle-termers (serving from 1 to 4 years) rose by 68.1% between the 2001 and 2005 surveys, offers some hope for the recovery of Canadian long-term personnel.

ch1-fig17

Figure 17: Middle-Term Canadian Missionaries

Canadian Missions, Inc. Short-term Changes

What about short-term changes from Canadian Protestant mission agencies? First, there was a trend seen in the continuing increase in the reported number of short-term missionaries being sent by Canadian agencies (Figure 18).

Since 1996, the year the terminology for this question in the survey was stabilized, the number of short-term missionaries of two weeks to one year going through Canadian agencies increased by 43.1%. In the 2005 survey, seventeen agencies reported 50 or more short-term missionaries. Canadian mission agencies reported a total of 3,534 such short-term workers, a modest increase of 4.1% over the numbers reported in the 2001 survey.

ch1-fig18

Figure 18; Short-Term Canadian Missionaries

The second trend seen was an increase of all methods used for STM recruitment (Figure 19).How did the agencies find people for their STM projects? Figure 19 depicts the primary methods of initial contact as well as the changes from 1996 to 2005. Almost half the Canadian agencies contacted people through churches (45.9%) and more than one-third used individual contacts (38.5%). The 222.2% increase in contacts through schools reflects a surge in number of Canadian agencies (23.8% of the total) that are now using this method. Even though it was not provided as an option, seventeen Canadian agencies indicated that they used the Internet as a contact method. This will be incorporated into the next survey and we anticipate that the number indicating that they use the Internet for STM recruitment will jump dramatically.

ch1-fig19

Figure 19: Contact Methods for Canadian Agency Short-Term Recruitment

Additionally, while the aggregate number of reported short-term support personnel remained the same as in the 2001 survey (after adjusting for discrepancies) there was a shift towards more full-time staff support (Figure 20). While there was only a modest increase in the number of short-term workers, there was a 71.5% drop in the reported number of regular staff in Canada or overseas who have full-time responsibilities related to STM programs (from 158 to 45) and a more moderate drop in the number of part-time (10 to 49%) short-term support staff (from 130 to 86, or 33.8%) from the numbers originally reported for the 2001 survey.

However, two agencies changed reporting methods between the reports that significantly affected the results. One reported 125 full-time short-term support personnel in 2001, but 0 in 2005; another reported 30 part-time (10 to 49%) short-term support personnel in 2001 and only 4 in 2005. When the reporting of these two agencies is factored out, the resulting adjusted numbers (Figure 20) show no loss from the 2001 in the aggregate number of short-term support personnel, though we see a small shift from part-time staff (adjusted: 136 to 126) to more full-time staff (adjusted: 33 to 45).

ch1-fig20

Figure 20: Canadian Short-Term Mission Support Personnel

When the short-term and long-term numbers are charted, we see that there is either no correlation or perhaps a slight negative correlation between short-term and long-term Canadian missionaries (Figure 21). At best, it seems that after a decade of growth in short-term missionaries, there appears to have been no impact on long-term recruitment. It could be argued that the curve for long-term drop would be even steeper if not for short-term impact, but (as with the U.S. Protestant agencies) there is no evidence from our survey data to justify such a claim.

ch1-fig21

Figure 21: Short-Term and Long-Term Canadian Missionaries Compared

The final shift seen was that from 2001 to 2005 a larger percentage of all short-term workers went with agencies whose primary activities were related to evangelism/discipleship and relief/development and a smaller percentage went with agencies whose primary activities were focused on mission agency support. (Figure 22). As noted in the U.S. section, each agency was asked to choose from a list of sixty-one activities, six activities on which they focus their energy. After that, each agency was asked to indicate which of these six activities would be most commonly associated with their organization. In analyzing the survey, the activities were combined into five categories: evangelism and discipleship, education and training, mission agency support, relief and development, and other (see Table 1 above).

To develop Figure 22, we sorted agencies in the 2001 and 2005 surveys by major category of their primary activity. For example, if an agency chose as its primary activity Church establishing/planting the number of short-term workers from that agency were counted in the Evangelism and Discipleship category. It must be noted that such an agency would not necessarily devote all of its activities in this category; it may also be involved in relief and development. However, for the sake of contrasting the major categories, we assumed that the primary activities of the agency was where the majority of its resources were directed.

With that methodology in mind, among Canadian agencies (and in contrast to U.S. agencies) we see a shift in the number of short-term workers away from agencies whose primary activity was in the mission agency support category and towards those agencies whose primary activity was in the evangelism/discipleship and relief/development categories.

ch1-fig22

Figure 22: Short-Term Workers Sent by Canadian Agency Primary Activity

Summary of Canadian Missions, Inc. and Short-Term Missions

While Canadian mission agencies have seen some positive changes in the past several years, most notably the increase in middle-term Canadian missionaries and the increase in non-Canadians working for Canadian agencies, the overall picture is not as encouraging as one might hope. The trend of the decease in the reported number of Canadian citizens serving as full-time, long-term missionaries is especially troubling. While there is some encouragement that the trend of increasing income for overseas missions continues, the fact that the increase was concentrated among the largest agencies suggests we should exercise caution in drawing too optimistic a conclusion.

In terms of short-term work, it is encouraging that the trend of increasing numbers of short-term missionaries continues, and that the energy of Canadian agencies in recruiting and administratively supporting these efforts is also increasing. However, the fact that this does not seem to result in a higher number of long-term missionaries may be discouraging for those agencies who are hoping short-term recruitment will result in more long-term workers. In contrast to the U.S. picture, the fact that a larger percentage of all short-term workers went with agencies whose primary activities were related to relief/development and evangelism/discipleship and a smaller percentage went with agencies whose primary activities were focused on mission agency support can also be seen as a source of encouragement for Canadian agencies.

Conclusion

There can be no doubt that U.S. and Canadian Protestant mission agencies are giving increased attention to STM recruitment, support and sending. What is yet to be clearly seen is the net impact this focus has had on long-term missions. To date, no direct correlation can be drawn between the massive increase in STM and long-term sending in either country.

It is tempting to infer that without short-term missions, long-term commitments would not have held steady in the U.S. or would have dropped even more sharply in Canada, but that cannot be supported by the data collected in the survey. It is obvious that continued research into this phenomena of STM is of increasingly critical importance to the long-term health of the U.S. and Canadian Protestant agencies.

References

Moreau, A. Scott. 2007. Putting the Survey in Perspective. Mission Handbook 2007-2009: U.S. and Canadian Protestant Ministries Overseas, ed. Linda Weber and Dotsey J. Welliver, 11-75. Wheaton, IL: Evangelism and Missions Information Service.

Robert J. Priest, Terry Dischinger, Steve Rasmussen and C. M. Brown. 2006. Researching the Short-Term Mission Movement. Missiology: An International Review 34: 431-50.

CHAPTER 2

EVALUATING SHORT TERM MISSIONS: MISSIOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

ALEX G. SMITH

A Potent Analysis

A respected missionary practitioner and colleague recently provided increased impetus for this article when he wrote, Short-term missions have such a profound effect on what we are doing around the world. I think it is time to make an adjustment to our course so that the whole missionary endeavor does not break up on the rocks of superficial pragmatism. They have done much to inform and involve the church in the Great Commission. I sense a lot more excitement about missions because of the sheer numbers of people who have seen first hand the needs of the field. On the other hand, a well-thought-through strategy that helps utilize this interest to the greatest benefit of the people we are trying to reach is often lacking. Missiologists observe a shift in the purpose of short-term missions from reaching the lost to pleasing the goers, giving them an experience to remember (Niphakis 2006:1).

Considerable exaggeration accompanies the claim that STM experiences are increasing the numbers of new workers that go into long-term missionary service. Some claim that 80% (of career missionaries) previously had short-term exposure (Nicholson 2006:4). David Mays says, Some estimate that a minimum of one million Americans go on mission trips annually at a cost of one billion dollars(2006:312). Today some researchers say that number has doubled! But the career long-term mission force has not increased by the tens of thousands! Mission Handbook cites statistics of the numbers going into career missions (Welliver 2004:13). Mays reports, The latest figures from 2001 show that the number has changed little over the last dozen years (2006:313).

Churches have put a tremendous investment of time, money and energy into STM. Rick Warren’s PEACE plan is almost exclusively based on STM. If successful, this could perpetuate the short-term missionary model. Is it not time for churches and mission agencies to look carefully at this trend and analyze the pros and cons, before drowning the world with American enthusiasm for touchy, feely experiences? (Niphakis 2006:1).

Several missiological issues arise. Can STM become more effective through curtailing the volume of participants and increasing the quality? Does this warrant a more careful screening of STM volunteers? How can a closer working together of agencies, churches and STM applicants foster interest in a more developmental approach? In what ways can this be focused on short-term participants so as to enhance their spiritual growth and still provide effective approaches to the peoples whom they hope to reach? What is the best use of STM workers in helping the establishment of indigenous churches, serving the long-term missionary, and maturing the volunteers themselves? What upgrades in STM training could enhance effectiveness? Is there a danger of making long-term missionaries ineffective by using them to manage large numbers of short-termers?

Another concern relates to decision making. Many short-term candidates have already been on multiple mission trips, but still say they are looking for the right sphere of ministry. Could churches and mission agencies work more with them beforehand to help them identify the most suitable opportunities? Why are all the decisions left up to the short-term volunteers as if they were customers? Why ask short-term volunteers what they want to do and then create ministries for them to fulfill their needs? "Should not the short-term model be a mirror of the long-term process where the agency (or church) decides what is needed and then recruits suitable candidates for that task? (Niphakis 2006:1). The large University Presbyterian Church in Seattle has run an effective short-term program for many years, where the church recruits, screens and selects university students, trains them, decides where they are to go, what team they are to serve on, and what their responsibilities will be. The short-term participants simply comply. The choice is not theirs to make in that church’s program.

Niphakis notes that Churches need to look at short-term service as a microcosm of long-term missions (2006:1). Churches and agencies should invest time and energy helping volunteers think through their suitability, best placement, contribution to ministry and valid reasons for going. STM participants should go primarily as learners rather than as ministers, servers rather than receivers. Short-term programs become apprenticeships rather than field trips, training opportunities more than holiday outlets.

Patterns from History

Biblical Examples

STM is as old as the early Church, and even predates it. God often sent Old Testament prophets for brief periods to declare His word to the nations, like Jonah to Nineveh. Other Israelite captives witnessed in foreign lands such as Daniel to Babylon, and the Jewish slave girl at Naaman’s house in Syria. Even Jesus’ ministry on earth was only three years! The persecution following the stoning of Stephen dispersed believers into mission opportunities throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, followed by efforts in Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch and elsewhere throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 8:1, 9:31,11:19). Admittedly many of these ventures were outcomes from involuntary scattering for the disciples’ preservation. But evangelism and mission were normal full-time expressions of believers. Priscilla and Aquila and others shared the faith as they traveled on business.

Surprisingly the great missionary church of Acts 13 that sent out Paul and Barnabas on their first and subsequent missions to the Gentiles was not planted by the Apostles. This church arose out of the efforts of short-term volunteer outreaches from Phoenicia, Cyprus and Cyrene in Libya (Acts 11:19-20). At first these efforts were narrow home missions to the Jews only. However, at Antioch some of these likely entrepreneurs, from Cyrene and Cyprus started mission outreach to the Greeks. These Gentiles were quite receptive, and a large number of Greeks believed and turned to the Lord (Acts 11:21).

Mission Illustrations

Andy Smith illustrates short-term mission exposures from the time of Hudson Taylor in the 1800s. Englishman Robert Landale had completed his MA at Oxford but sensed a call to China. In 1876 his barrister (lawyer) father encouraged him to go first as a traveler to China so he could learn on site what the life of a missionary entailed, before committing to career service.

American William Borden of the celebrated wealthy dairy family had just completed high school. On a trip around the world in the early 1900s, he saw people across Asia bound in idolatry. This experience deeply burdened him and led eventually to his joining the China Inland Mission (2000:150-151).

Personal Experiences

In 1958 at age 21 I left Australia on a freighter, the SS Lakemba, for missionary training in Canada. I had never heard of STM. When we landed in Fiji, I had time on my hands. The ship was to load raw sugar over the next three weeks. I found an Australian missionary working nearby. He encouraged me to do mission among the local Tamil Indians. So I began to work in youth camps, visit in Indian homes and in the Christian hospital, play my trumpet, sing solos, pray, give testimonies and preach the Gospel. I befriended a young Tamil believer. We bonded and he later followed me to do theological education. He became a career missionary and is still serving the Lord today.

During the summer breaks at college I went on STM twice. First in 1959 I teamed up with a Scottish fellow-student. After working at a sawmill for a couple of months we took time off to sail to Britain, where we did a six-week evangelistic preaching tour of Scotland, England and Wales, which my friend’s pastor had arranged. Our E-1 evangelism resulted in several being converted or revived, including some passengers from the ships on which we sailed.

The next summer of 1960 I teamed up with a South African student and the college’s English mission professor for a six-week short mission in Mexico and Guatemala. We went under Harvesters International. They had an orientation and training course near the eastern border with Mexico and directed the programs of several STM teams. Our group was the only one to go into Guatemala where, with inadequate, poor Spanish we sang and played trumpet over radio broadcasts, preached and evangelized using English with interpreters, an E-2 experience. At the end of that time a communist coupe took place, which made things a bit exciting for our exit and return to Canada. Only God knows what lasting fruit came of these efforts. But those experiences are still vivid memories today.

Practical Encouragement

Four years later my wife and I, with our two infant children, were in Asia on long-term mission with OMF. During that era new missionaries first committed their lives to mission and sailed to Asia, where OMF directors then designated them to a field of service! Assigned to Buddhist Thailand with its beautiful people, difficult language, complicated culture, and intricate Folk Buddhist worldview, we realized our inadequacy to proclaim Christ effectively without divine help in that E-3 context, in spite of our previous STM experiences.

Multiplying Effort by STM

By the beginning of our second term in 1970, we had better cultural understanding and linguistic facility. Mission and evangelism were high priorities across those hot plains of central Thailand. God was doing some new things in that pioneer situation. Our resources and manpower were stretched. But I saw the strategic use of an indigenous model that battery and medicine sellers used to advantage. Day by day they drove their film vans from village to village selling their wares and showing films. Thousands came out to watch them through the night. It was a dynamic, entertaining and festive atmosphere. Our application of their model used Land Rovers to drive circuits of villages and towns to show Gospel films with Thai sound tracks, to sell Bible portions cheaply, and to proclaim Christ to the masses, particularly during the hot dry season when everyone was free after harvesting (Smith 1976: 167-169).

In order to increase the coverage for outreach in 1970, I invited a New Zealand film evangelist, who worked briefly in India, to come for several months to manage a second Land Rover film team. Usually several national believers helped on each team. Primarily the STM worker ran the technical side, maintained the equipment, drove from place to place, prayed and encouraged the indigenous Christians to evangelize. For the next few years we increased these helping hands until we had three evangelistic film teams operating simultaneously along with two larger Thai Bible College teams. Through these combined efforts the beginnings of a score of pioneer churches arose.

Investment in STM

In 1984 when I was assigned back to USA for mobilization as Northwest Director, the concept of STM was just beginning to become a mode of operation among many American mission agencies. Over the next two decades I recruited, prepared, led and debriefed many teams for STM in Asia. Usually they went for four to eight weeks. Some were teams comprised of Bible College students. Others were gathered from area churches, while a few were teams from a single church. In some cases the churches kept running their own mission teams year after year, using former experienced STM members to lead them. During these years, OMF developed several levels of short-term service: 1) Serve Asia Program for times less than a year, 2) Apprenticeship Program for two years on the Field and 3) Short-Term Associates Program for working in professional service overseas from one to three years.

From personal experience with STM programs for many years, this writer learned some key lessons. Furthermore, to get a wider view for this paper he sent a questionnaire to the main organizers and operators of STM in OMF, which works in a score of countries of Asia, where the Church is a small minority among largely folk Buddhist peoples. From that perspective, the following suggestions and evaluations may seem narrow, but the replies and responses from mission leaders and STM coordinators have shown surprising consistency. Many of those responses from thirteen home-side and field perspectives were selected for reflection below.

Pragmatic Evaluation

Value and Strengths

Over the past decade many agencies have multiplied STM programs while the number of churches involved in STM has grown considerably. This combination gives church members and young people a multitude of choices today. A variegated smorgasbord of opportunities provides an attractive market for youth, who look for exciting offerings that give instant involvement in today’s intercultural global village. This volatile climate challenges mission agencies with questions like: Can they be trusted with the churches’ young people? Do they have a history of experience in this STM world? Can they provide adequate care for youth? How do they provide a favorable stimulus for the appetites of the current generation’s youth culture? In what ways do they