Short Term Missions - Who Benefits Most?

I was reading an article by Paul Borthwick (among other pursuits, a missions prof at Gordon College) entitled, "In Defense of Short-Term Missions" at RoundTripMissions.com. Paul shares a cautious defense of short-term missions. I was struck by the following observation:

When speaking to a group of short-term mission leaders about my concerns regarding the short-term mission trend, I commented that the short-term mission movement was “arguably the first time in Christian mission history where the mission is being is being done for the benefit of the missionary.”

After my observation, I re-read the encounter of Peter with Cornelius in Acts 10. For the first time I realized that my comment was wrong. Peter's “short-term mission” to Cornelius is arguably more life-changing for Peter than it was for Cornelius. (Will Willimon calls this Peter’s “second conversion.”)

I don't remember ever making the connection with Peter and Cornelius before. But it is worth pondering. Did you notice that statement "is arguably more life-changing for Peter"? Though I appreciate his insight and intent (and article in general), I wonder if Mr. Borthwick isn't wrong again in his conclusion at this point. It seemed profoundly life-changing for both -- Peter's world-view and ministry philosophy shattered; Cornelius's life (and household) transformed for now and eternity.

It reminds of my youngest son's experience on the Hungarian Speak Out '07 project. The experience was profound in his life--stepping out in faith and seeing God use him. And yet, by the grace of God, he was also used profoundly in the lives of some Hungarian youth--so much so that I heard unsolicited stories of his impact again last month.

Who benefits most in short-term missions? My genuine hope and prayer is that the answer is "both...and", not "either...or". That is the end we should seek.