Fundraising gone wild...

[21stamps]

That. That right there. That is why so many of these mission trips can be so very negative. And the potential negativity just gets compounded when the people who drop down from the sky for a week also don't understand the culture (and usually the language) or society where they are working. (And of course, add in a host of race and power dynamics....)

I understand the intentions are good. I understand they can be transformative for the people who go on them. And I understand that some mission trips, done in the right manner with the right partners, can be incredibly effective.
But they can also leave devastation in their wake long after the volunteers are gone.
For those who do these trips, I really encourage you to read this article (and there are about a zillion other similar ones) and pray about it. And really try to discern what you're feeling called to do and how you can best accomplish that.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/rej...ells-you-about-going-short-term-mission-trips

ETA: It's important to note that none of these concerns center around people lounging around on the beach. I'm sure there are some folks who totally take advantage and do things like that, but I think what a lot of us are trying to say is that mission trips may not be a good use of resources even when there are sincere and hardworking people involved.

I didn't see the article as discouraging the trips. More as a guideline. The groups that put together these trips are long term partners, the people who visit are short term.

Is it really better to not go at all than to go for only two weeks? I just can't see that.

I know I've mentioned Haiti a few times, but after the devastation they faced and the amount of people who went Short Term to help- I can't imagine saying "Don't go. The Haitians will be better off without your 2 week efforts."

 

[21stamps]

This is a great example of why this is a problem.

There are reports of the buildings put together by volunteers having to be practically dismantled and done over again by the local residents because they were so badly done. Someone asked "how would sending money give someone a job?" - perhaps instead of teen volunteers, local adults who have some skills could be hired to build the school or other building with that money. Seems obvious to me!

Habitat for Humanity is rather different. Yes, many of the volunteers are unskilled, but they do have some training, work under trained supervisors, and the homes are inspected and must meet building codes.

There are lots of people close to home needing help. Why not help them? And send the money you would have spent on airfare directly to organizations on the ground in those countries. You will accomplish much more.

The teens aren't designing and building the school. They are 'helpers' they also assist the students, they don't actually teach them.

The "close to home" is a separate debate. Some people say feed/build/help the USA only. That's fine. Others are interested in our world population outside of our own country, and that doesn't mean they do not help locally as well.

There isn't a 'right or wrong' here. I just wanted to express what these trips are, not what they are being portrayed as on this thread.

 

[DopeyDame]

I didn't see the article as discouraging the trips. More as a guideline. The groups that put together these trips are long term partners, the people who visit are short term.

Is it really better to not go at all than to go for only two weeks? I just can't see that.

I know I've mentioned Haiti a few times, but after the devastation they faced and the amount of people who went Short Term to help- I can't imagine saying "Don't go. The Haitians will be better off without your 2 week efforts."

Yes, there definitely are times when it's better to not go at all. Like I said, there are absolutely ways that a trip can be effective. And working with long term partners to meet *genuine* needs that *can't* be met by the local population can certainly be very effective.
But sadly, too few groups actually think about the guidelines in the article at all, and many fly in for a week or two to do what they decide needs to be done, without appropriate training, guidance, or understanding. And very very frequently without any true understanding oft he local history and culture.

 

[SirDuff]

I know I've mentioned Haiti a few times, but after the devastation they faced and the amount of people who went Short Term to help- I can't imagine saying "Don't go. The Haitians will be better off without your 2 week efforts."

I absolutely can see saying that. Don't go, but use your resources (i.e. the money you are collecting) to help the many agencies already on the ground who are (a) trained, (b) already there (so no need for more of the precious few resources used for "volunteers", (c) working with locals to increase capacity for future, and (d) working with limited funds.

 

[21stamps]

Yes, there definitely are times when it's better to not go at all. Like I said, there are absolutely ways that a trip can be effective. And working with long term partners to meet *genuine* needs that *can't* be met by the local population can certainly be very effective.
But sadly, too few groups actually think about the guidelines in the article at all, and many fly in for a week or two to do what they decide needs to be done, without appropriate training, guidance, or understanding. And very very frequently without any true understanding oft he local history and culture.

I absolutely can see saying that. Don't go, but use your resources (i.e. the money you are collecting) to help the many agencies already on the ground who are (a) trained, (b) already there (so no need for more of the precious few resources used for "volunteers", (c) working with locals to increase capacity for future, and (d) working with limited funds.

I'll agree to have different views on this. People are needed to hand out water, clothing, direct where to go, to do the 'grunt work'. I've lived thru a few major hurricanes and am thankful that volunteers came to assist in every aspect. Nothing even close to what Haiti experienced though. When you donate to the Red Cross for example, your donation can go anywhere. Maybe someone specifically wanted to help with that country, and they took time out of their life to do so. I truly believe that the people they met held no resentment or thought they were 'wasting their time' there. The same with all of the volunteers for Katrina etc.

And I feel the same about any poverty stricken country and what volunteers can bring to them.

Again, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[luvsJack]

The article link is in no way saying these trips do not do good things. In fact quite the opposite. And the churches that we have been associated with do follow these guidelines. When going to other countries, they have a missionary or a church member living or who has lived in that country. Someone who knows the language, the culture, etc.

Copied from the article: "all of this isn't meant to discourage missions work. On the contrary, the act of going is important" "Please don’t stop taking short-term missing trips, but do consider helping your team understand that how we do short-term mission trips may, in fact, matter more than what we do."

 

[keri125]

As someone who is not a church-goer, I am asking a genuine question here... and I tried to read through all the responses but didn't see this addressed (if it was, I missed it and I apologize). I really am puzzled and not being sarcastic... with regards to the mission and church trips - how come the churches don't pay for those? Most (not all) of the churches around here are of the large to mega variety and I see all kinds of huge, expensive buildings with huge parking lots, gyms on the inside, massive theaters for the sermons, massive expensive sound systems, etc., and in my experience those churches tend to be the ones that send their kiddos out for fund raising purposes. Is there some reason (insurance liability or something) that the church can't pay for it themselves?

 

[sk!mom]

I've also seem some pretty ridiculous mission trips. One was a group at Disney World who was trying to give park goers free bottles of water. They had shirts on every day that said their church name and Mission Orlando Water. I thought they would be ministering to the Orlando homeless population or something but after 3 days of seeing them I asked a leader what was up. They said they were just there to give water to other park goers who look like they may need it and to spread the message of Jesus. I was kind of shocked to hear that was their mission!

Several years ago DH and I were remodeling our house and listed our fridge and microwave on Craig's List. A friendly Australian couple came to purchase it. We ended up visiting for quite a while. As it turned out, they had been sent out from their Church/Denomination/Organization (not sure of the correct term) in Australia to serve as missionaries in our community. They planned to establish a church.

No, I do not live in an impoverished area. Nor are we unchurched unless we choose to be. Literally, I could walk to 5 or 6 churches easily from my house. And many churches in my community offer free transportation.

This really pointed out to me that people are donating money for others to carry out "unnecessary" missions. If this couple felt "called" they could have ministered in their own country. Just as the many Americans who travel overseas could do their work here.

I apologize to those offended but I can't help but see it as people who want to do good works but combine it with travel. I'm not OK with that and when you combine it with asking others to do the paying(by selling empty envelopes, mailing fundraising letters, starting a crowd funding page, or whatever someone thinks of next) it becomes offensive to me.

 

[luvsJack]

As someone who is not a church-goer, I am asking a genuine question here... and I tried to read through all the responses but didn't see this addressed (if it was, I missed it and I apologize). I really am puzzled and not being sarcastic... with regards to the mission and church trips - how come the churches don't pay for those? Most (not all) of the churches around here are of the large to mega variety and I see all kinds of huge, expensive buildings with huge parking lots, gyms on the inside, massive theaters for the sermons, massive expensive sound systems, etc., and in my experience those churches tend to be the ones that send their kiddos out for fund raising purposes. Is there some reason (insurance liability or something) that the church can't pay for it themselves?

Some can, some can't. The church we attend is a mega church and most things are paid for by the church with just a small amount paid by the people going. The amount varies on which of the trips a person feels called to take. Sometimes the money the church would pay to send people is needed in another way so they ask those going to pay or fund raise their own costs. The church is so large though that organized fund raising is hard, so mostly its people within the church sponsor someone to go on the trip. The church that we used to attend (the one that goes to Peru) is much smaller and there is no way they can afford to pay for something like that.

 

[luvsJack]

Several years ago DH and I were remodeling our house and listed our fridge and microwave on Craig's List. A friendly Australian couple came to purchase it. We ended up visiting for quite a while. As it turned out, they had been sent out from their Church/Denomination/Organization (not sure of the correct term) in Australia to serve as missionaries in our community. They planned to establish a church.

No, I do not live in an impoverished area. Nor are we unchurched unless we choose to be. Literally, I could walk to 5 or 6 churches easily from my house. And many churches in my community offer free transportation.

This really pointed out to me that people are donating money for others to carry out "unnecessary" missions. If this couple felt "called" they could have ministered in their own country. Just as the many Americans who travel overseas could do their work here.

I apologize to those offended but I can't help but see it as people who want to do good works but combine it with travel. I'm not OK with that and when you combine it with asking others to do the paying(by selling empty envelopes, mailing fundraising letters, starting a crowd funding page, or whatever someone thinks of next) it becomes offensive to me.

Without getting into religion too much, there is more to it than good works and perhaps that is what this couple is called to do. If they truly felt called to come to the US, ministering in their own country wouldn't cut it. Missionaries go where they are called, no matter the reason.

 

[NYDisGuy]

I absolutely can see saying that. Don't go, but use your resources (i.e. the money you are collecting) to help the many agencies already on the ground who are (a) trained, (b) already there (so no need for more of the precious few resources used for "volunteers", (c) working with locals to increase capacity for future, and (d) working with limited funds.

Not to mention the Haitian's didn't like the idea that America needed to save the day. I remember all the flack Sean Penn got because he had to have his publicist take pictures of him every two seconds and make it about him and his charity.

 

[21stamps]

Several years ago DH and I were remodeling our house and listed our fridge and microwave on Craig's List. A friendly Australian couple came to purchase it. We ended up visiting for quite a while. As it turned out, they had been sent out from their Church/Denomination/Organization (not sure of the correct term) in Australia to serve as missionaries in our community. They planned to establish a church.

No, I do not live in an impoverished area. Nor are we unchurched unless we choose to be. Literally, I could walk to 5 or 6 churches easily from my house. And many churches in my community offer free transportation.

This really pointed out to me that people are donating money for others to carry out "unnecessary" missions. If this couple felt "called" they could have ministered in their own country. Just as the many Americans who travel overseas could do their work here.

I apologize to those offended but I can't help but see it as people who want to do good works but combine it with travel. I'm not OK with that and when you combine it with asking others to do the paying(by selling empty envelopes, mailing fundraising letters, starting a crowd funding page, or whatever someone thinks of next) it becomes offensive to me.

I am not talking about religious groups only. I'm talking about college kids who go on these trips as well. To do the 'good works' they need to 'combine it with travel', they can't bring the people here.

Most of these people do go with reputable foundations, I think we are talking about two very different things. I'm definitely not referring to people trying to start a church somewhere.

Not to mention the Haitian's didn't like the idea that America needed to save the day. I remember all the flack Sean Penn got because he had to have his publicist take pictures of him every two seconds and make it about him and his charity.

I don't think the average Haitian would agree. I think most were shocked, devastated, and needed all the help that they could get.

Hopefully we will never live thru something like that, and we are fortunate that we do not live in a country with an absolute horrid government, horribly built buildings and homes etc.-When those crumble someone needs to help pick up the debris and provide food and water to people without. I'm glad to know that I do live in a world where people are willing to go and do just that.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

As someone who is not a church-goer, I am asking a genuine question here... and I tried to read through all the responses but didn't see this addressed (if it was, I missed it and I apologize). I really am puzzled and not being sarcastic... with regards to the mission and church trips - how come the churches don't pay for those? Most (not all) of the churches around here are of the large to mega variety and I see all kinds of huge, expensive buildings with huge parking lots, gyms on the inside, massive theaters for the sermons, massive expensive sound systems, etc., and in my experience those churches tend to be the ones that send their kiddos out for fund raising purposes. Is there some reason (insurance liability or something) that the church can't pay for it themselves?

Because most churches aren't mega churches.

 

[21stamps]

As someone who is not a church-goer, I am asking a genuine question here... and I tried to read through all the responses but didn't see this addressed (if it was, I missed it and I apologize). I really am puzzled and not being sarcastic... with regards to the mission and church trips - how come the churches don't pay for those? Most (not all) of the churches around here are of the large to mega variety and I see all kinds of huge, expensive buildings with huge parking lots, gyms on the inside, massive theaters for the sermons, massive expensive sound systems, etc., and in my experience those churches tend to be the ones that send their kiddos out for fund raising purposes. Is there some reason (insurance liability or something) that the church can't pay for it themselves?

Oops, I meant to quote your post with my above statement.

I want to add this though- I'm Catholic. Like I previously mentioned my school/church is constantly asking for money, don't get me wrong on that!lol. But not from people outside of the church/school. Sure we have festivals and sell travel mugs/wrapping paper. But we do not have the things you mentioned, not even close! We rely on parishioners, parents of of students, alumni, and private contributions.
Most of the high school girl's sports need to rent field time from the public schools in the area.

Also, like I said above- most of the 'gofundme' accounts that I am talking about are for people who are in college, their trips not related to a church, and most of the people donating are friends/family. It just gives them one place to be able to pay and keeps all of the funds together.