Get Adobe Flash player
By Leslie M. Frazier Perhaps the greatest change in mission history since World War II is the explosion of what is called short-term missions. This is described by missiologists as project mis- sions in contrast to process missions (or long-term mis- sions). It is estimated that lay people in the United States involved in short-term projects increased from 22,000 in 1979 to 450,000 in 1998. This number has continued to increase since then. Some churches are concerned that a large part of their mission budget is being used up by short-term missions projects. The fact that this is a reality brings the acknowledgement that short-term missions is here to stay. Yet, can the great commission be accomplished in this manner? How can project missions be balanced with process missions to become more effective? I. Short-term or Project Missions Short-term missions can be from a few days to one or two years. The criticism of this approach is that the participants do not learn the language or culture of the country in which they serve. It was at first hoped that this exposure to missions would increase the number of process missionaries. However, though short- termers have increased, process missionaries have not. Because short-termers do not have time to learn the language and culture, the results appear superficial. Some process missionaries have even described some short-term missions as disruptive. In contrast to such criticisms, there are some benefits that should not be over- looked. Short-term missions does expose young people to the needs throughout the world today. Without exposure to needs, the call does not develop to a surrender of the will to a mission call. Project missions has focused largely on the 10/40 Window, Jesus Film or specific projects. Churches and mobi- lization organizations 22 BIMI WORLD – Number 3, 2010