August 14, 2008

Reflections on things that could be improved

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Living in Cobán, Guatemala, gives me the chance to write about a lot of things—especially now since I have three broken molars in my mouth and am having three crowns put in over the next few days. One down, one to go today.  My dental anxiety is not usually high, but I'm beginning to believe the third one may be a challenge.

Short-term mission trips

My work is not usually as a host to U.S. groups who come to Guatemala on mission trips, but the nature of mission these days, particularly factoring in itineration and the constant need to either raise money or make folks in the United States aware of our need for it here, keeps me in contact with many individuals and churches in the United States—especially people who work with the indigenous Kekchi of Guatemala.

U.S. groups are like most others; they want to “do” something when they come here—give kids fluoride treatments, do Bible schools, build a church, dig a well, put on medical clinics—something. That is the nature of short-term mission trips. The idea incorporating partnership, long-term involvement, and relationship-building into the trip makes sense to some, but soon the work devolves to satisfying some immediate needs (usually of the missioners) and the feel-good sensation that comes from that. These kinds of things stand alone and make good pictures and help promote the trips back home—a kid gets a lip fixed, toothbrushes are distributed, people work up a sweat hammering nails. And most missioners leave happy. But as we all know, the indigenous are still here, still poor, still struggling, and nothing was done to build a sense of community among them to encourage them to care for themselves and one another. And, sometimes worse, a sense of competition has been created since some people or villages got more than others.

We read things in newsletters other publications (like the current Presbyterian Outlook), or receive things from various Presbyterian offices talking about the need to build relationships and the possible harm done in poorly planned short-term trips. (I’d mention the positive statement that came out of the conference in Dallas in January, but I'm not sure John and Jane Presbyterian saw it or paid much attention to it.)  But it does seem to me that the PC(USA) is too often at odds with itself and sends messages that are not clear.

Clarity on fundraising and PC(USA) relationship with NGOs

Consider our most recent effort to raise awareness of money needs for mission workers. Some information was distributed that spoke of the generosity of Presbyterians—that even though they are giving more money than ever, they just aren’t giving it to the church for the work of the PC(USA).  This means our churches are either giving it to NGOs or spending it themselves on their own mission efforts. NGOs have an advantage in that they usually have a clear focus and are easier to promote. One NGO in the Petén, Concern America, teaches health promoters and has a small clinic staffed by two U.S. family physicians in a little town. Folks from my presbytery have gotten teary-eyed over this group and have sent them thousands of dollars because they “do” something.

The PC(USA) may compound the confusion for individual Presbyterians who try to listen to what the PC(USA) has to say about being connectional and Reformed since at the same time the PC(USA). in its desire to be ecumenical, supports a variety of NGOs and institutions around the world  that have nothing to do with the Presbyterian church, or if they do, only marginally so. Here in Guatemala the PC(USA) supports Cedepca—one of hundreds of NGOs—a fine organization with a good and deserved reputation, with three mission workers, money, and its own network in the United States. Still, it is an NGO not beholding to the PC(USA) in any way except, of course, for the resources. Since the PC(USA) supports NGOs, why should individual Presbyterians or Presbyterian churches not do likewise? Many, it seems, are choosing to do just that, frequently at the expense of Presbyterian World Mission.

The article I referred to in Presbyterian Outlook quoted the director of The Outreach Foundation, Rob Weingartner, many times. I believe it would be advantageous for all of us, mission workers and members of particular churches, to know how World Mission and the Outreach Foundation work together and how they complement one another. I don’t believe this is clear because of questions I’ve been asked about it. The Outreach Foundation does contribute millions of dollars to World Mission annually. The criteria used and the sources of those funds should be clearly indicated in readily accessible locations on both the World Mission Web site and the Outreach Foundation Web site in order to eliminate any confusion about the two partner organizations. The same would also be helpful for the Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and the Medical Benevolence Foundation. The point here is clarification so the work of the church can be magnified.

Building community or performing acts of charity?

In order not to lose the point of this memo: I have been trying to focus on the sense of community that we talk of building in our efforts at mission, especially with short-term groups. Yet we do not appear to do a good job at that within the PC(USA), or even within groups of mission workers. Too often it seems Presbyterian churches—and maybe even mission workers—go it alone, each doing their own thing, and proudly proclaiming it, while mission workers may become territorial and, at times, inadvertently promote the kind of distrust they seek to overcome.

One case in point is the Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study. I use this book almost daily, having become acquainted with it when I came into the mission field. But I wonder if anyone has taken a critical look at it recently? Too often the anecdotes in it refer to the type of mission experience we seek to avoid. Over the years I recall many stories of people distributing toys, candy, or shoes to children somewhere and how good the children's smiles and gratitude made them feel. The last couple of years have seen a raft of stories about mission trips to the Gulf Coast in the wake of Katrina. These are all good, useful, things to do, and in these cases community was probably built, especially within the mission group itself, which may even be more important. But if the Yearbook is an instrument of PC(USA) mission policy, the stories in it should reflect World Mission’s understanding of what mission is and not just be a recitation of the good works all have done, works that don't lead to community but are stand-alone experiences.

I find as well that very few short-term missioners are familiar with the book. If I recall correctly, it has a distribution of 30,000 copies (I don't recall where I got that information and it may be totally incorrect. It doesn't seem like many, though, for a church with 2.5 million members.) Usually, a publication has a readership of two or three times its distribution. I don't know if that's the case here, but I have gotten the sense that the Yearbook’s readership is not great. I would suggest that the format be changed to something that truly represents what World Mission is striving to do in mission even if it means all the articles are written within World Mission. Maybe something in the form of a devotional booklet or a thought for the day—something that reflects and promotes World Mission’s understanding and not anecdotes that reflect one-time events, no matter how good we feel about them. Disclaimer: I admit to having written the Guatemala page the last two years even though my words were edited somewhat.

Training for mission workers

While I'm at it, I'll mention that I think mission workers should be trained in community development. Since we talk of building up the community in order that the community may prosper, take care of itself, or at least survive, we should have some idea of how to do that. Traveling infrequently to many distant spots in a country, giving one- or two-day seminars on a variety of topics, in our case primarily bookkeeping, may not be the most efficient use of limited resources. Although the initial mission training includes a little about cultural understanding, the need for that doesn't become clear until one has been in the business for some time.

One idea would be to have periodic training sessions in this topic for long-term mission workers instead of having the occasional retreat. I think that would be a better use of limited funds. The same would be true of anthropological training. Most short-term missioners—and maybe even mission workers—come here believing that the folks here are exactly like folks in the United States, the only difference being that the Guatemalans don't have any money. But we must factor in this that most short-term missioners represent the flower of U.S. society, and a huge gulf is immediately apparent since the flower of U.S. society may not have a very good understanding of the needs of those at the bottom rung in the United States. 

I have written this anticipating my next drilling, and my teeth are beginning to hurt. I do hope some of you can respond and tell me where I may be missing something or if there is any merit in any of this.

Peace,

Roger

The 2008 Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study, p. 258