Short-Term Missions: Some Perspectives from Thailand

Abstract

Recent interviews with congregational leaders in Thailand suggest a need for reframing some of the concerns commonly expressed in missiological writing on short-term missions (STM). North American writers have expressed concern about the ministerial inefficiency of short-term missions, the attendant de-professionalization of foreign missions, and the potential for STM to encourage dependency among recipients. Interviews with Thai pastors in 2007 revealed a different set of concerns. Many expressed an interest in resourcing for stronger congregational life, a concern that is usually missing from North American writing on short-term missions. Short-term missions were also valued most greatly by leaders whose congregations did not have alternative access to the material and relational resources made available by the visitors. Finally, in contrast to concerns that short-term missions promote dependency, the interviews suggest that many Thai leaders were using the relational networks to access moral and material resources that enhanced ministerial vitality and independence.

Host-directed short-term missions: Interviews with Japanese liaisons

“…Leaders perhaps most importantly try to exercise this control through moderating the type of STMs that enter their communities. (2011: 801) After a similar survey of STM literature, Zehner (2013) also acknowledges the gap in host-focused research, especially in Asia: … very little of the literature on STM has drawn directly on fieldwork or interviews intended to assess and report the actual attitudes of those who have hosted short-term missions … Furthermore, almost nothing has been written about short-term missions in Asia, a region that has been sending and receiving increasing numbers of short-termers in recent years. (2013: 131) His own contribution to this area based on fieldwork in Thailand notes that NA churches are interested in evangelism and social action but that Thai pastors are more interested in using STM to "strengthen congregational life" (2013: 141).…”

Contributions, challenges, and emerging patterns of short-term missions

“…Even if the voices are still rather scant 2 (Bahamonde, 2007; Barber, 2015; Birth, 2006; Curtis, 2016; Eitzen, 2007; Farrell, 2007; Livermore, 2004; Ngaruiya, 2008; Priest, 2007; Ver Beek, 2008; Zehner, 2006, 2013), scholarly views regarding the effects of STM upon the hosts tend to vary, having a wide-ranging impact from “enthusiasm” to “ambivalence” to “disdain” (Raines, 2008: 115). Most scholars agree that potential positive outcomes may be an enduring reality, particularly when the experience is carried out in a culturally sensitive way (Priest, 2007).…”

“…A common concern among scholars is the economic impact of labor-intensive projects associated with STM, inadvertently displacing local workers with their well-meaning intention to help (Howell, 2009; Palomino, 2007; Ver Beek, 2006). Another concern stems from the interest that locals have expressed in having the visitors listen to their needs instead of setting their own agenda (Barber, 2015; Livermore, 2004; Zehner, 2006, 2013). For example, in his research, Barber (2015: 313) uncovers some of the expectations Japanese hosts had for STM teams.…”

“…Zehner (2006, 2013) also suggests the necessity of developing a “more field-oriented model” of STM in which short-termers may function as “trainees” rather than “helpers” (Zehner, 2006: 509). In a qualitative research study with congregational leaders in Thailand, Zehner (2013: 130) discovered that many of them expressed their desire for short-termers to equip and strengthen the local church in their ongoing ministries rather than help in evangelistic efforts.…”

“…As the initial wave of STM scholarship surfaced, research centered on measuring the impact of STM on participants (Howell, 2007; Linhart, 2006; Peterson and Peterson, 1991; Priest et al, 2006; Trinitopoli and Vaisey, 2009; Ver Beek, 2006). Later, attention shifted to unraveling the impact upon the host community, seeking to unearth perspectives from the hosts themselves (Barber, 2015; Curtis, 2016; Farrell, 2013; Paredes, 2007; Priest, 2007; Zehner, 2013). More recently, with the exponential growth of partnerships between congregations in the Global North and the South, researchers have focused on analyzing the prevalent dynamics and patterns of relationships that involve STM teams (Bakker, 2014; Brown, 2008; Offutt, 2011, 2015; Reeves, 2004; Wuthnow, 2009).…”