First a few comments about the CT articles. I think that the articles were written with a bias against most short-term volunteer teams. I am sure that his research is good but from reading the larger study (available online but I can't find it now), it is obvious the position he is coming from even prior to the research.
I believe that much that he said in the articles are true but many people just do not want to hear it. We are in a pickle because on the one hand we want to use the absolute best ways to transform a culture but on the other hand we have pressure from short-term teams to do non-strategic things. I understand that many are willing to be taught how to do it differently, but I have real questions of how do you use someone who does not speak the language or understand the culture to present a contextualized Gospel? Contextualization is not an easy thing to do and it takes much longer than the typical hour or so of orientation to make that happen.
Career missionaries go through weeks (if not months or years) of training and orientation and we still do not get it right much of the time. How do we expect short-termers to get without language and cultural understanding.
MY CRAZY IDEA
I believe that short-termers can be used as part of a much larger strategy. One example I thought of recently. As you drive through Mexico City you see street vendors everywhere. When there is a traffic jam, people will sell everything from windshield wiper blades to satellite dishes to those little annoying dogs with their heads bobbing. People are giving away home depot ads, invitation to motels, and even samples of flu medication (are we supposed to drive after taking that?) We have people juggling, breathing fire, and walking on stilts. This is all while walking up and down the stalled traffic.
Why not produce a very culturalized comic book (or whatever other form of Gospel presentation you choose) that explains the Gospel with a contact info for more information. You could literally distributed 10,000-15,000 per day on a street corner without walking more than half a block. You could do this at the metro rail depots where over 4,000,000 people per day take the rail in Mexico City. You have a captive audience of people who would actually read something that was produced well. What else do they have to do? I find myself reading all of the Home Depot ads that I am given while waiting in traffic.
Now, if I were designing the ideal strategy for evangelizing the city, this would probably not be in my plan. I would rather use a mentoring evangelism/discipleship to reach people but if I am strugging with how to use volunteers, this might just be a way to use them.
Let's examine this particular strategy.
- Does it create dependency? Nope, it is just a saturation project.
- Is it something that can be reproduced, sure. This is saturation, anyone can do it. The cost of the saturation material can be quite small if it is produced locally.
- Is it something that will result in deep relationships with Christ? Maybe, this depends upon the follow-up which is crucial.
- Does it create the 1253 decisions and 21 new churches started in a week that so many teams like to see? Probably not, but I question anyone who says that they see that many decisions without knowing the language or culture.
This is just one crazy idea. What is your crazy idea?
Check back soon for a discussion about another issue with Short-Term workers. What is their purpose? How are they best used?
3 comments:
Saturation projects like you describe can be used as part of an overall strategy for reaching a mega-city if tied directly with intentional church planting.
My own experience with media saturation projects over the past 20+ years is that they create many contacts with people, but few lasting results unless there is a clear way to follow-up people. I would rather use volunteers to directly impact church planting.
My latest blog entry here is our own attempt to use volunteers strategically for church planting. Five days and 13 volunteers to try and plant 2 new churches. The coming weeks will reveal whether or not the strategy was successful.
I agree with you completely. I think that this type of an idea is a way to do a saturation with heavy use of volunteers. That is the purpose... trying to find a good way to use volunteers without creating dependency. It is just one idea. I am not trying to make a case for the use of volunteers, our use of them is extremely small.
The key to any of saturation project is GOOD FOLLOW-UP. Without follow-up, it is really not worth doing.
One of my concerns as I listen to missionaries is the shear number of volunteers and teams that they are using. I often ask myself, how are they able to do follow-up with teams taking up so much of their time?
Granted, if there is a network of existing churches or church planters that are working the follow-up, that is great but too often that is not the case.
Thanks for your comments. I had already read your blog today :) I look forward to seeing what happens.
From my experience, I can say that short-term mission have long-term effects. I have received several short-term teams in Portugal. Some have started ministries in church (which were continued by locals), some have helped building infrastructures, some have made some interesting evangelism campaigns.
Some other have instead had some good vacations, but the problem is not with short-term missions. The problem is when that mission is not well prepared (locally or by the missionary agency/ sending church).
Post a Comment