"Famine, affluence, and morality" (2008 post, UMD summary) has informed my thought process on the necessity of philanthropy and aid. We are bound by morality to care for those that need. I would further stipulate that Christians have a greater call not based in morality, but grace. Echos of a divine gift. Given the myriad need, painfully evident, how do we balance global and local efforts?
Is that a question worth asking? Each community has its own needs and its own resources. Some have more than others. This wealth/poverty gradient tends to guide giving. If everyone carried out the conclusion that Singer comes to, we wouldn't need to have this decidedly capitalist conversation. Be that as it may, missions organizations must consider opportunity costs.
And suddenly we are met with a value question. Who is most worth it?
Placing effort and resources in developing nations seems like it would be the obvious choice because of the larger gap in standard of living. But how effective and efficient is this? Do foreign organizations properly understand the needs at the local level? How important is it to be part of the community being served?
On the other hand, we know much more about the needs in our communities we live in, but the cause may not seem as mighty or desperate.
In striking a balance there really can't be a right answer. I think local and global missions serve different purposes.
Global (or efforts outside of one's own community) mission tends to have a huge impact on the folks who leave their environment to enter into another community to give. It leaves a mark. People change after these experiences. Whatever value they may impart to the new community in service is dwarfed by the person they become after seeing realities that are raw, broken or harsh. It gives perspective. Many come back and explain it this way: "they blessed me more than I blessed them." Cliche phrases aside, perspectives shift.
Local mission on the other hand is done in one's own community, a known place. It might not be sexy, you probably won't fly thousands of miles to face culture shock. One doesn't need to go far to find people that need Jesus. No matter how far you go though, mission validates another human being--it assures that something isn't right in that place. Proximity is powerful. How valuable is an assurance from a neighbor? Very, I think.
I don't think balance is something to worry about. Local and global mission drive each other and reinforce both efforts--something I've observed and been involved in directly. In fact, David Mathis at desiringGod.org describes it as a seamless garment.
The garment is worth it.
What's your perspective? Is there a balance to be struck?
In striking a balance there really can't be a right answer. I think local and global missions serve different purposes.
Global (or efforts outside of one's own community) mission tends to have a huge impact on the folks who leave their environment to enter into another community to give. It leaves a mark. People change after these experiences. Whatever value they may impart to the new community in service is dwarfed by the person they become after seeing realities that are raw, broken or harsh. It gives perspective. Many come back and explain it this way: "they blessed me more than I blessed them." Cliche phrases aside, perspectives shift.
Local mission on the other hand is done in one's own community, a known place. It might not be sexy, you probably won't fly thousands of miles to face culture shock. One doesn't need to go far to find people that need Jesus. No matter how far you go though, mission validates another human being--it assures that something isn't right in that place. Proximity is powerful. How valuable is an assurance from a neighbor? Very, I think.
I don't think balance is something to worry about. Local and global mission drive each other and reinforce both efforts--something I've observed and been involved in directly. In fact, David Mathis at desiringGod.org describes it as a seamless garment.
The garment is worth it.
What's your perspective? Is there a balance to be struck?
No comments:
Post a Comment