to think that a looking after six orphans is a full-time job and a constitutes a worthy cause?

[starfield]

My friends, both with relevant degrees, are moving themselves and their two small children to another country in order to run a tiny home-from-home orphanage with the aim of providing disadvantaged babies and toddlers with a safe place in which to emotionally and physically heal. The shelter would be a home for up to six children at any one time.

They consider that a sustainable venture requires two additional local carers besides themselves, as some of the children are emotionally troubled and physically very ill and need nursing through the night.

My friends would work hand in hand with local authorities who leave the children with them, then collect them when a local adoption placement or similar has been identified (and the child in question is well enough to go).

They've successfully run an almost identical project before with twice as many children. That came to an end through no fault of their own. Without question, they were instrumental in saving children's lives, especially children who were on some last-chance medications which proved incredibly demanding to administer. I could say a great deal more about this but don't want to give identifying details.

The difference now is that they're starting their own project from scratch.

My friends have a christian faith and would be sharing that with the children where appropriate. However this has not detracted from their professionalism in any way and they're held in respect by government agencies. Their 'home' church here has helped significantly but is not in a position to fund this venture. Nor do they belong to a wealthy religious denomination.

Having seen a project like this in practice, I cannot think of a more worthy cause. But DH tells me that many people (his family included) see missionary work as a lifestyle choice for those who like the sun and dislike the 9-5 grind.

He thinks it will be very difficult to persuade anyone to fund a venture that's trying to make at least three full-time jobs out of caring for six children. After all, many people in the UK have six children and manage to work.

Am I being unreasonable to think that most right-thinking people should consider this venture a worthy cause? If not, could you tell me what would make it a worthy cause?

I think that what your friends are doing is a wonderful, selfless thing, but I do see people's points that your friends' project probably won't appeal to non-Christians, if part of what they're doing is to share some of their beliefs with the children.

I imagine most of their funding will probably come from Christians - I know I would be happy to contribute to something like this.

Wow indeed, Annie. I can see how it could be wrong, yes. But not always. Not when done well. We don't need to agree on this and we're not going to agree. We obviously have very different experiences of faith and what sharing faith looks like. I'm saddened at the gulf in outlook, but long as we're able to collaborate in giving and serving, let's just get on with it.

My Catholic adoptive mother delights in telling me God and Catholic church are the reason I am here today.

.... It's very wearing.

I don't believe but I am still full of 'Christian' guilt.

I don't think they should mention religion at all, and if the children ask then the respond should be 'because we care about you and love you and want to help you' rather than 'our faith says... or 'God sent us...' etc etc

If your friends feel a moral obligation to go help needy children in another country, whether its motivation is religious or not, that is very admirable. My only word of caution is that they should research very carefully the needs of the children and the existing provisions so that their contribution can be as effective as possible.

If however they want to spread their religion and share their religious values to others they should do so with adults who have a choice and completely separately from any aid they wish to offer. Otherwise the admirable wish to help gets mixed up with the dubious desire to proselytise.

notyomomma thanks for that, I will remember it. Off to care for my own DD, a chastened, wiser momma.

You say that the project has local govt agency support. Really? How exactly? Are they committing funds?

Local govt agencies in really resource-poor countries are often desperate for cash, and will provide warm words of support for external projects just to get some money into the system. Problem is, of course, that their own funding is then diverted from the services the external project is funding...and when the external funds dry up, there's a gap in service provision for people (here, vulnerable children) who really need it.

And that's ignoring the religious dimension which is indefensible really.

Your friends mean well op. but as someone said up thread, no decent external funder will touch this. A church might, but not one with development expertise. Your mates mean well but are misguided; your DH is right.

But why couldn't your friends help the children in their care whilst teaching them about their own local/native religion - whichever one that is? Surely the last thing that dying children need is a new religious ideal being taught to them rather than the security of the one they have known from birth.

If your friends are dedicated to helping children in a specific area then they could learn themselves the local traditions and customs, children's songs and stories and maintain a cultural norm for them within a loving household. There is no need for them tho be teaching Christianity in order for them to be successful and they can continue to observe their own religion themselves

I know a couple here who adopted 6 kids from a very troubled background. They have to support these kids and work just like everyone else. I think they actually do deserve help and financial help considering what they have taken on. i wish your friends well but I am in awe of the couple i know who just quietly got on with suddenly going from having none to having 6 troubled kids.

OP, I have to ask, are you actually one of the "friends"?

It's just that your response to NotYoMamma's very sensible post was as though she had directly criticised you.

Not that it makes any difference - I'm just curious.

I have friends who are committed evangelical Christians, they have fostered 35 children and babies over 40 years in this county - WITHOUT ever feeling the need to sing a few little song about Jesus or pray for the children before bedtime.

Hi OP, I have no problem with what your friends are planning to do based on what you have written. I think its commendable. The West is becoming aggressively anti christainity/religion hence the very hostile response even at the prospect of children dying. People claim to understand but the lives you talk about are so far removed that their secular ideology matters more.

Good luck and all the best

A colleague of my mum's is from Zimbabwe. She funds a small orphanage back in Zimbabwe along with a couple of other people. It's small about 10 children I think and is entirety staffed by local women who have lost their own families or are destitute. Many of the children have life limiting illnesses. I believe 6 women live and work there. My mum has asked her colleague how we can support or help the project. C has said she doesn't need anything (except for some big sized bras!) as the project is running well and is supported by the local community. The children are growing up in what is the closest to an extended family, local women have homes and jobs and the children's cultural identity is being supported. So yes, it is possible for locals to do 24/7 child care.

It all seems a bit white man's burden and not very sustainable.

No we understand that you feel the need to push your faith on to helpless and incredibly vulnerable children. It is possible to stop people dying without singing about Jesus to them - I know its a shocking revelation to you but Its true honest it is !

Just for fun I will tell you a story about missionaries. It is not a representative sample, I'm sure the friends in this example would act differently.

I was in a raft going down an African river. It tipped first one way, then the other. The mixture of people aboard found themselves in the water. I was left in there with one of the missionaries. She cowered in the bottom of the boat and I got up to look for the missing rafters. I turned to her and said, "what should we do", she said, "GET BACK DOWN". I ignored her and managed to drag the others back on board.

When asked what she was doing by someone else during the time they were in the crocodile-infested, white water danger, she replied, "praying".

I'm an atheist, but support the Christian Aid model. Projects are instigated and run by local people, who understand their local communities and are committed to helping them. They give help to people of all faiths and none. There is no proselytizing - it's about helping people on the ground.

Parachuting in well-meaning people from a completely different culture doesn't work in the long run, and takes resources away from local projects. And preaching Christianity to those children is not what they need.

If they feel they want to help they should offer themselves to an established organisation for overseas aid. That would be the best way forward. And then they would get proper training before they go and support whilst they were there.

sleeton: I find it strange that you respond to a question about caring for child, knowing they will die, to the point that they die, with an anecdote about a gap year. I thought everyone knew that gap years were popular. The question raised was about something that would require so much more experience and commitment (and therefore much bigger sacrifice). That was why I thought you didn't grasp what was required. I'm sorry to have offended you, it was rather patronising.

I find it strange that you continue to misunderstand which question I was answering. How many people would be prepared to ......

I also find it strange that you would view young graduates (that is, already qualified with appropriate hospital experience), spending a year of their time providing front-line first-response medical care, for sufferers of a horrific disease, under appalling conditions, as "an interesting gap year" .

I continue to find you patronising.

People claim to understand but the lives you talk about are so far removed that their secular ideology matters more..

That's quite a sweeping statement. If I have understood correctly, you seem to be saying that anyone who argues for a secular approach is too far removed from the problem to be able to make a valid judgement. On what evidence do you base this claim?

It amazes me how many people on this thread claim to be Christians but then disagree with sharing their faith! That is the whole point of being a Christian, practically! A Christian has a responsibility to share about Jesus as well as card for others. Why would a supposed Christian not want to do that?

Pendipidy, I am not a Christian, so can't ask directly, but perhaps some people choose to find different ways of sharing their faith - not through forcing it on the vulnerable who have little choice but to accept it, but rather by living a life that exemplifies the teachings of their faith without asking for anything in return?

Because its incredibly offensive and WRONG to wrap it up in a charity wrapper and then give it to children who have no say. Talk to as many adults as you like about your faith.

Well, Pendipity, because it's supremely arrogant to assume that Your Religion is Right and impose it on others who were managing just fine without it, thanks very much. Thankfully some Christians have the humility to recognise that.

The fact that you and the OP do not get this is why missionaries should not be allowed to leave the country.

How do they explain their motivation without referring to their faith (without which they would very definitely not be there)?

You said the above,

To which I posted my previous post about my own Christian adoptive mother and my opinion on the matter (which I believe was a fair comment to make given what you had just posted earlier)

Which you then dismissed as being unwise...

I have come to the conclusion that you are:

1. either one of the missionaries And/or
2. a bit of a knobber

I do not and will not give to faith-based causes. I do and will continue to give to equitable non-faith based causes. I also give preference to causes which train/use local people so that they are more sustainable and have more of an impact.

It does rather sound like this is something your 'friends' have decided they want to do, worthy as it is, may not necessarily be the best use of resources. Why did they not want the previous veenture to expand?