I like Tennents thoughts, here are a few of my own.

While it is true that the money spent on a STM team trip is also the same amount that could support a Long-Term Missionary for a year, or 10 nationals for 10 years … this is an argument from a consumer society, an answer first-and-foremost dealing with money issues as the chief principle in determining our engagement. It is occasionally used simply as a distraction from the harder question of how do we engage appropriately and healthily? Holistic engagement costs money and reputation, it should personally cost us a little more than we can bear.

I think the financial responsibility argument also tends to simply serve some people as a way to excuse involvement, and justify their own lack of engagement, after all it is entirely easier to criticize how others do it rather than attempt own own participation. Many suggest that it is better to give the money directly to the on-field work, so in the the past I have expressed my appreciation of their enlightened perspective and requested the cheque from them to send on to the workers … at least to this date, I have had no takers.

My friend Allan also set me to consider the simple thought that although STM is costly and the money might be better served in other ways, in essence – without the STM trip, the money does not actually exist. It would not be used, even in poor ways of engagement.

It is vital that we do this better, that resources are rigorously monitored; that we spend more outside of self-serving, hero-making projects; that we are learners together … but lets not ignore the question with some statements about financial stewardship that allow us out of our responsibility to complex international engagement.