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

Abstract

This article focuses on the viewpoint and activities of Japanese cultural liaisons who host short-term mission (STM) groups from the United States to Japan. The hosts' description of their experiences in planning, financing, orienting, and ministering with STM groups shows a willingness of some Japanese to work with STM but also a frustration when their contributions in these areas are minimized by their STM guests. Based on my interviews with Japanese liaisons, I suggest that movement toward a host-directed approach to STM built upon listening to the hosts, thinking long-term, developing cultural awareness, and emphasizing relationships can promote a more missiologically responsible and effective partnership between STM guests and their hosts.Global connections of local congregations with congregations and ministries in different cultures have grown to include not just financial support and the sending of specialists, but direct, hands-on participation by increasing numbers of members-at-large. In the case of North America (NA), nearly two million people participate annually (Priest, 2010: 86) in short-term missions outside of NA at a cost of billions of dollars. 1 These trips create host-guest relations that are facilitated by cultural liaisons and, because the

Globalization, contextualization, and indigeneity: Local approaches to indigenous Christianity

“…In my study of Japanese hosts who helped short-term missionaries (STM) from North America serve in various ministries in Japan (Barber, 2015), I found a variety of Japanese churches and ministries that did not view these outside influences as hindrances to true Japanese Christianity. Instead, they were willing to host North American volunteers and to promote these activities as a part of their own ministry.…”

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).…”

“…In terms of gains for the hosts, some researchers point out that STM teams are desired by hosts not necessarily for the financial resources the STM team may bring with them, but for other reasons such as greater evangelistic impact (Barber, 2015; Cerrón, 2007; Priest, 2007), the possibility of friendship development between participants and hosts (Eitzen, 2007; Farrell, 2007; Paredes, 2007) and altering cultural perceptions among hosts (Birth, 2006; Offutt, 2011). Despite Offutt’s (2011: 804) depiction of STM as a “foreign social product that intrudes upon ongoing local world-building activities” he affirms that STM can also be a mechanism for people from distant places to “partner in joint world-building activities.” Making new meanings, appropriating new perspectives, and forging relationships are natural outcomes for the hosts.…”

“…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.…”

“…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).…”