Missions are manipulative and prey upon power imbalances between cultures/communities.

That said, if there is zero religious element and it is purely to work on a project that needs doing (like the hurricane cleanup mentioned above) that seems less of an issue.

I'd support the trip to Detroit more than the one to Guatemala. I'm conservative protestant too, and have seen many mission trips. The ones that seem most useful are the ones that send people with actual trades/skills to do storm cleanup here in the US. Costs to get there tend to be low (buses, usually that the sending church already owns), volunteers sleep in the church basement, local church members might cook for them in the church kitchen OR someone makes a Costco-type run and cooks for the group.

Youth going to teach Bible School at a local church, doing odd jobs for elderly/poor people, doing "heavy work" storm cleanup also seems useful.

The "hey we get to go to Guatemala" and while we're there we'll help some people trips, while usualy paid for by participants and fundraising, seem excessive. As others have pointed out even just donating the cost of the airfare to a local organization could be more useful. As my parents once asked - isn't there someone a lot closer you could be helping instead? It does open participants' eyes to poverty, but there's parts of the US that could do the same. But a trip to Appalachia (or Detroit) doesn't sound nearly as cool, so recruitment could be tough.

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp that the volunteers benefit more than those receiving the services and while it gives me heartburn, I wonder what the alternative is? The teens from our church (very liberal not proselytizing at all) go to build homes and relationships, and they come back changed people. They aren't as self centered (in general) and many of them express their desire to care for people and the environment after their trips. Is there another way to achieve this result?

+1 The system is not perfect but how else would these impressionable young people understand that other peoples' circumstances are different? These are young people who will have the ability to change lives when they get older. Our church does MT both in the US and abroad. They go to different villages and never to orphanages. They basically pay the villagers to have the kids build a project, which they could have done themselves if only they had infrastructure, which they dont.
As for the ones in the US -- these teens need to understand that we have poverty RIGHT HERE IN THE US.

They are great way to really up your Facebook profile photo!

http://www.theonion.com/article/6-day-visit-to-rural-african-village-completely-ch-35083

Pointless and dumb. Everyone involved in these lives in a community in which people exist who could use the exact same help. But no, it's just more fun to go to Guatemala and wear matching t shirts to do what you could do for others in your own backyard. I get especially annoyed at the adults who want you to fund their mission trip to Brazil/England/Honduras, wherever. Pay your own damn way.

Anonymous wrote:TO the doctors without borders poster aren't you doing a mission trip too?? Who's to say what your doing isn't disruptive and unsettling?

NP, you can't be serious with trying to make international medical help analogous to proselytizing Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would you think it's ethically questionable to spread the word of God to those willing to listen?

It's not like they are forcing the message on anyone agains their will.

Well, because they'll build a school but force you to listen to jesus prayers to get it. The help comes at a religious cost.

+1

It's manipulative, condescending, and highly dangerously disruptive to local populations.

Related: Barbie Savior, spreading the Jesus in Africa https://www.instagram.com/barbiesavior/

I have been on 2 mission trips to Guatamala, The Church I went with was not my Church but does a trip every summer. There was no actual religious aspect to it, we helped communities in the mountains build stoves in their homes, purchased computers for the local school, spent time in the local school and learned some things about their culture. We also purchased hand made goods from the women which enables them to better support themselves. It helps their community but is also eye opening for the people who go from this country. I had never been anywhere like this before and it changed the way I think in a lot of ways. The way they live is so different from the way we live.
I think you have to find a good organization to go with, maybe some arent as good as others, but my experience was positive and I would support people going to help others and see a place in the world they may not otherwise see.

What is better for a community - paying a local laborer to build a school, or building it for them?

Unless you have a concrete skill that is unavailable in a local community (like fixing a cleft palate or designing an irrigation system), the answer is ALWAYS that it is better to empower locals to fix their own problems than to fly down and fix it for them - particularly when the folks doing the volunteering are unlikely to have a background in construction or any understanding of the community's needs.

The absolute worst kind of "mission" trip is the kind where volunteers go "hold babies" in orphanages, as it disrupts the childrens' lives and damages their relationships with caregivers. The second worst kind is probably the kind where unskilled kids come in and try to build something.

Frank Bruni of the New York Times recently blasted mission trips:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-harvard-go-to-haiti.html

I find them ethically questionable. They ask for money to send AIDS to other countries tries and then spend that money sending people that will preach religion. Send a doctor, a nurse, an engineer. Anyone who could actually help.

My only complaint is that all the money spent on flights and other costs on getting over there to pound a few boards could be better used by giving that money to an organization already doing work there. It's so inefficient.

But I agree about the other non-quantifiable benefits of having people go over there. Many people are unaware of what goes on outside of their bubble, so the impact of going over there does seem worth it on a lot of levels.

Conservative Protestant Christian here. What I've been told by missionaries I know is that these one week groups coming in and out aren't that helpful. They end up spending all summer hosting these groups and use up a ton of their time teaching them how to do these "projects" and it's just not efficient. The money it took to send the group would be more useful. Mission trips where the group is actually there to serve the missionaries are more helpful. For example, coming to complete administrative tasks, provide childcare for missionary kids so the parents can attend a conference or whatever...

But there's nothing unethical about mission trips in general.

TO the doctors without borders poster aren't you doing a mission trip too?? Who's to say what your doing isn't disruptive and unsettling?

Anonymous wrote:Would the community the trip is going to "serve" be better off if the full cost of the trip was donated instead? Then that's your answer.

The purpose of sending the children is to give them a firsthand experience with global poverty, one that they hope will last a lifetime. Because the average Christian does not share Jesus' attitude toward the poor, nor do we follow his commands toward the poor. Mission trips help to counter the prevailing opinion that the poor are where they are because of their personal failings, and that they are not deserving of help. This is antithetical to the words of Jesus.