Think about this with me, please. I dont have the answers yet but think perhaps we need to start first with the right questions, perhaps like these thoughts: *More and more we hear/read about how short-term missions should be reconsidered and the money raised instead be sent to the mission field instead for support of missionaries, national pastors, and the needs there. Wasnt that the system the church had in place for decades that led to abuses, misappropriated funds, lack of accountability, and the Church in the USA being out of touch with the Church everywhere else? How can going back to that system now see different results? *In that same system of old, while the giving from America transformed people across the globe, the transformation tended to be primarily across the seas, not in the local churches of America. How many churches in the USA today have a greater partnership and awareness of what being on mission truly is because of their experiences in short-term missions? *How can it be said, on one hand, that short-term missions have not led to greater missions giving and, on the other hand, criticize the same outreach for spending millions in connecting with the Church outside our own borders? *How can we say, on one hand, that short-term missions have not led to more people involved in missions and, on the other hand, still criticize the fact that so many go? How do we deal with the statistic that the great majority of current full-time missionaries attribute their surrender to missions to a short-term missions experience? Waddayathink?
Posted on: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:53:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015