“I’m going to Egypt to preach the gospel!” “Last summer I went to Bolivia and saved thirteen children in jungle tribes there for Christ!” “I just got back from China where we did a short-term missions trip and fifty people were saved!”
We hear stories like this from our peers all the time and even tell them ourselves when we have the opportunity to experience a trip like one of these. At first, it may seem that stories like these are cause for rejoicing. That we should be praising God for the wonderful work that these people are doing.
I should start with my short-term missions background. In 2001, I went to visit a missionary family from our church whose father was working as a contractor for an orphanage in Uganda. I was there for two months and mostly helped supervise the younger kids. I felt frustrated with what I was doing because I wasn’t entirely sure what my role was.
In 2005 I went on a trip with YWAM, an organization dedicated to giving young people a chance to share their faith with others. We went to Sweden, Finland, Norway and northwest Russia. We did street performances and evangelism. The group was tallying the amount of people who had “accepted” Christ and there was much rejoicing every time someone did so. We were on a roll.
But I felt something was off. We would cruise into a little Russian town, do a performance, and save people afterward – simple, right? What I’ve realized since then is that those many people we came in contact with rarely had the opportunity to get connected with a church and even less of an opportunity to have a mentoring relationships with a mature Christian.
When I think about my walk, the two things that I couldn’t have done without are my church family and my mentors. Without them, I wouldn’t be where I am today – and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be a Christian. When I think about how we went through Russia in a SWAT team mentality, I doubt any real difference was made in the lives of those people.
The problem is with short-term missions. Too often is a team of Americans sent halfway around the world at the cost of $3000+ per person, rushed through evangelism the local people giving them serious doubts about your commitments to them and their culture, and flown back home in time for Tim and Sarah’s wedding (wouldn’t miss it for the world).
At some point along that line, we have to realize that if there’s any benefit in short-term missions, it’s for the person going, not the person they’re going to. The person in that other country is giving up his or her time and money to facilitate you in hopes that someday you’ll care enough to commit to them on a greater level.
Our last stop on the YWAM trip was Visby, Sweden. I met church leaders there that I really desired to work with and ended up moving there for a year to do youth outreach. While the time there was more effective, having time to actually build relationships with the people I met, a year still isn’t long enough. That year was mostly about me learning one of the most important lessons of my life – be involved in ministry, no matter where I am or what I’m doing.
Any type of ministry, whether in the states or overseas, requires commitment. It’s a full-time gig, and God expects our all. The next time you consider heading off to Thailand for a month to preach the gospel, think seriously about how that trip is going to help your heart for missions, and what the benefit will or won’t be for the people there. Then decide if you want to spend $4000 on that, or on sponsoring ten children through Compassion International for a year. What is needed more?
Here is the article. I imagine Pardeep's comment in the first part of the fourth paragraph will be edited before production.
Over fall break I had the opportunity to see Wes Anderson’s latest venture, The Darjeeling Limited, in Chicago with former Page Editor, Pardeep Toor. Afterward, we sat down to share our thoughts.
MJM: "After watching The Darjeeling Limited, I was in awe - the word I used to describe it to people was "superb." In the past, I've always been a bit confused by Wes Anderson's films. The Royal Tenenbaums left me thinking, but more conflicted. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou seemed so outlandish that I had a harder time appreciating it's message. Everything really came together in TDL. The dialogue was eloquently crafted between the three Whitman brothers and I've never seen a filmmaker portray the concept of brotherhood better than Anderson did."
PT: "Although the film accurately depicts and centers around the idea of brotherhood, Anderson's artistic message remains consistent with his other exceptional films (RT, LASZ) and that's the simple fact that we as people are products of our parents. Like other Anderson characters, in TDL, the Whitman brothers are obsessively immersed in avoiding the destiny and of their parents - a struggle that wreaks havoc within all of us. The exotic back drop of rural India (filmed in the state of Rajasthan) provides a metaphoric setting that is open to interpretation by each member of the audience.”
MJM: "Aesthetically, the film is amazing. There are many trucking shots that make the whole story visually consistent with a train ride. The many slow-motion side-views of the brothers trying to catch their trains really add a lot of visual continuity to the movie. There is a scene where the three boys and their mother decide to communicate without speaking to each other. Anderson shows a view of people in different rooms passing by the Indian landscape very much symbolizing the "train of thought" the family experiences. All of this intentional filmmaking technique is wonderfully augmented by the beautiful scenery of Rajasthan. It's hard not to sound gushy talking about this movie.”
PT: “Despite the overwhelmingly orgasmic feeling that this movie elicits (yes, there are many ways to have an orgasm), it's worth noting that the movie isn't necessarily destined to be loved and adored by all. The artistic style is unique and hard to describe without using words that commonly have a negative connotation (i.e. slow, drawn-out scenes) even though there's nothing negative about this film. To accurately describe the film, I suggest you picture the "Die-Hard Series'- Bruce Willis flying and flaunting on the screen while saving the world - action - cut - cut- action - cut - action - well TDL is the exact opposite of that. It's low-key, conversational, profound and has a lingering impact on the audience, an impact that leaves a person desiring more not only in their own life but also in the lives of the Whitman brothers. Also, there is no "world-saving" with a last second bomb detonation, but rather, there's just relationship-saving, perhaps a more manageable task than saving the world.”
MJM: "I think that's the key to this film's success in my mind. In the dialogue between the brothers is really slow to develop, but it best displays Anderson's strong points in character development - blatantly showing the flaws of the characters. This is why TDL affected me so much. I could relate. I'm the middle child between my two brothers and I've had that same argument about "borrowing" my older brother's belongings and I'm the more emotionally reactive of the three - just like Peter. I saw so much of myself in this movie - and so much of humanity. That's why it's earned a spot on my shelf, and why my brothers and I will be enjoying it for years to come."
PT: “The level of nostalgia in the movie not only holds true for members of the audience but also for actors in the movie itself. Popular Wes Anderson characters from past films (Bill Murray, Natalie Portman) make brief cameos that make Wes Andersons' entire crew feel like a small fraternity. Regardless of your prior feelings about Anderson's films, this one is a real gem and if you hate it, at the very least, you'll get a small taste of India.”
