Levels of Compassion

A bit of thinking out loud....

Is poverty and our response strictly relative? For eight years now I've been involved in Romania, helping out young kids practically, with guidance and hopefully spiritually. It's cost a lot of money, mine and other kind peoples. I've a friend there who spends about £15k per year improving the lives of five severely disabled kids.

But should we be doing that? Wouldn't that money be better spent in South Africa, or Haiti, or Ghana or any one of another 50 countries where lives are on the brink? Where they can't eat, have no homes and don't have water to drink? Or in trying to rescue some of the thousands of human slaves.

Should we just prioritize everything on a basis of strict need? And if we should, should we be spending thousands bringing Franklin Graham to Belfast Odyssey Arena to preach the word to the most evangelised people on the face of the planet? WWJD? Would he have a mission, or would he join Mother Theresa on the front line (if she were still there and not dead!)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way criticising the mission. But this relative need thing it's a very valid question that I think we all have to answer in our own lives. I'm feeling less and less inclined to stay in Romania, feel that I'm now wasting resources of money (and just as importantly time) on children who are not truly in poverty (relatively speaking).

I'd be genuinely interested in your thoughts.....