I think I misjudged you, you know. But you have to understand my suspicion of anyone who (a) gets published in the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation and (b) is a Tennessee Vols football fan.

You seem to be otherwise remarkably intelligent and thoughtful. But anyone who writes,

"Here is the prediction. Here is the future. Tennessee will beat Alabama today."

is no prophet. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvoBDKrA8yM for reality)

Readers,

Matthew's blog is actually pretty good (for a Tennessee fan, you know).

If these trips are not effective for those we seek to serve, but are effective for those doing the serving, it would seem that we should do no more than is necessary for the edification of our children.

For example, if our kids can receive similar edification close to home, leaving money available to do real mission work, we should do that.

Or if we can get the same benefit sending the same kids but fewer times, we should do that.

Or if we can get the same benefit waiting until the kids are older. For example, in my church, the college group does an annual mission trip for which they spend months in training. Not only do they gain many converts for Jesus, many of those kids have gone into full-time mission work. Now, that works at every level — it's the best kind of short-term mission there can be.

But teenagers have never done genuine mission work. Their trips are service projects. Now, my kids have all gone on these trips and they've benefited from them. They've seen poverty far beyond anything that exists in the US, which has been good for them. But I don't know that they have to go on the same trip 4 times apiece to get that benefit.

My own preference would be that for every foreign or even out-of-town service project they do, they do 3 or 4 projects right here in Tuscaloosa. I mean, as valuable as it is to see how people live in foreign lands, it would be even better to see how some people live 3 miles away.

And I worry about the implied message that to do good we have to leave town, even the country.

And wouldn't it make a huge impact on racial and economic division in this community if churches raised their children to serve the poor in their own community?

Now, it's not strictly either-or. You can do both. I just think we have things far too heavily weighted toward exotic trips far away and not nearly enough toward our neighbors here in town.

But that's just me.

P.S. I really like your blog, even though you wrote me up once.

It's my fear that our culture has influenced us by (1) making us focus on material things rather than spiritual; and (2) making us unwilling to share what we believe with others.

"Lifestyle evangelism" only works when accompanied by teaching (Samuel Shoemaker's great Extraordinary Living for Ordinary Men still expresses it better than most). We need to teach our people service and evangelism, not one or the other.

Back on the specific topic, the best short-term tool I've seen is Let's Start Talking. Speaking as a former missionary who received such groups, I can say that they truly had a lasting impact.

Grace and peace,
Tim

That's the key question. Is it worth, in the example, 9 houses to gain that experience?

The Christianity Today articles researched that very question, taking polls to determine if people who, as teens, had gone on short term mission trips were more supportive of foreign missions than those who had not.

The answer is those who'd been on trips were more inclined to indicate support for missions on the form. But the the number who actually gave to missions was the same for those who'd gone and those who hadn't.

Therefore, from a financial standpoint, people do not give more because they've been on short-term missions. Which means, as these teens get older, they won't give more money, which means the 9 houses won't get built.

Now, I readily admit that giving to missions is not the only benefit that might be realized from short-term missions, but it is disappointing to learn that the trips don't build a better financial base for missions.

My only point is that we should evaluate these things realistically, with the best information available. And while I don't think the research means we stop all short-term missions, I do think it should affect which short-term missions we do.

For example, if we are looking for faith building, rather than foreign mission support building, we can often do that in our home towns, which would also build our communities and build our congregation's reputation among the poor and social service agencies locally. I mean, I just see so many opportunities to serve Jesus in our home towns that we miss in order to travel across the world.