Comments for STM Network

Comment on Common Excuses for Not Getting Involved – #2 by Raki Robert

Raki Robert — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:04:20 +0000

Yes this was my reason that kept me thinking twice.

I had aeroplan miles that I was able to use for the mission trip that I have signed up for through APC.

Guess what? I didn’t find valid flights to get me there by the aeroplan, so I decided that no matter what happens I am still going …

Im sure I’ll be able to pay it off somehow with the help of our GREAT GOD! Silver and Gold are His anyhow

Thanks for the training Matt!

Comment on Dangerous STM question #4 by Rob Manktelow

Rob Manktelow — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:25:34 +0000

One of the things that we have found with STM teams our church is sending out is that those picked for the teams already have had some experience serving. It may be in one or more of several areas but in my mind it is an absolutely critical part of putting together a good team that represents Christ with passion and integrity.
I have witnessed team from other places actually using STM trips as a way of reaching the unsaved in their church by hoping they will be converted by going on the trip. The results I have seen have been less then successful.

Comment on Dangerous STM question #3 by Jai Reid

Jai Reid — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:32:49 +0000

Instanbul is in a RAN. Sending short-term missionaries to RAN is risky. The amount of training required would be much higher, the potential for unintended negative consequences enormous.
I think that in general short-term opportunities should be in “get your feet wet” territory, not “in over your head” territory. Just because someone goes to Mexico on a short-term missions trip doesn’t mean they’ll end up there. The idea is to get them thinking about missions in a new way (that includes going). Then it’s up to God to direct their steps to the mission field—and if we’re doing our job of presenting the unreached people groups to people, then some of them will end up in RANs.
That doesn’t mean we could never send a short-term team to restricted/hostile nations, but I don’t see it happening for the average team.

Comment on Dangerous STM question #2 by What in the World is Going On? Dangerous STM question #2

What in the World is Going On? Dangerous STM question #2 — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:48:52 +0000

[...] What in the World is Going On? » Blog Archive » Dangerous STM question #2 [...]

Comment on Dangerous STM question #2 by Mark Crocker

Mark Crocker — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:43:34 +0000

Mark Crocker
http://www.stopover.ca

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.

Comment on 6 Dangerous Questions re: STM by hraragon

hraragon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:24:42 +0000

Good para-church work!

i am so excited about re-conecting again.

Keep it up man
Hec

Comment on 6 Dangerous Questions re: STM by DiAnne

DiAnne — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:10:29 +0000

I agree and disagree
I agree because it’s true it does great in the goer but at the same time, it does great in the receiver also.
When you see the flame ignited because God was with you in sharing the Word, when you see the people receiving his love, grace, when you see deliverance of evil spirit. I tend to believe it also benefit the receiver.

I have very little experience in STM, may be I’ll be more logical after a lot of trip although I want to keep my simplicity to see Him at work in every good things.

DiAnne

Comment on 6 Dangerous Questions re: STM by Jai Reid

Jai Reid — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:10:19 +0000

While I think his article makes a good point, I think that when short-term missions includes a partnership with a local missionary, there is greater potential for long-term benefit to the mission field. The local missionary can use the short-term missions project to jump-start new initiatives, for instance. Also, the impact of the encouragement for the missionary cannot be underestimated. Lastly, when a work project creates new facilities that last for years to come (or repairs that were desperately needed), there may be greater benefit to the mission field than the workers (who in some cases have limited exposure to the mission field due to the nature of their work).

Comment on to go or not to go, but is that the question? by Ben Capsuyen

Ben Capsuyen — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:50:33 +0000

Good, sensible, arguments from both sides. At the end, it all boils down to the realization that “Revolution in World Missions” as espoused by K.P. Yohanan of Gospel For Asia is the best and most effective way of reaching the world for Christ. His ideas are tried and tested. I personally recommend that we adopt it. It works to the best interest of the losts, not to the missionaries, long or short termers.

Comment on another one of those “guilt” videos by Rob S

Rob S — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:58:57 +0000

I agree that this is a great video and makes us think.
However, I have been in a church that did not do short-term missions and their giving to the poor was next to zero. Nothing will change in our giving until something is changed in us. The problem is that most of us never see poverty or have a relationship with someone who lives in extreme poverty. A STM trip can be a life changing experience that transforms us in to missional Christians which includes a biblical response to the poor.