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?

[sleeton]

To anyone still with this...how much of all this would have to change for it to win your support?

I was about to try to answer this, when I realised that the dozen or so who had posted immediately following your question already had answered. (Along with dozens and dozens who, preceding that particular question, had tried to give you good advice and information. Advice and information which - it seemed to me - you didn't want to hear.)

For me, as already said by Jinsei above "it would have to change almost beyond recognition before I could support it".

[MidniteScribbler]

midnite: Thanks and I do understand that. But it's not as simple as keeping it to themselves. How do they share their faith with their own children and avoid the others when they are quite literally opening their home? How do they explain their motivation without referring to their faith (without which they would very definitely not be there)? Even more difficult- what if they promoted themselves to the rest of the world as a secular agency and then the rest of the world discovered they were closet Christians? Can they actually win here? And what can they say to an orphaned child that is carefully drained of any personal faith? 'We don't know where Mummy is' would not be true for them. 'People like you believe Mummy is in...' likewise doesn't seem right.

It is entirely possible to keep it to themselves. I work in a faith based school now, but I did my early teaching years in a secular state funded school. No one would have even known of my religion, and I couldn't tell you the religion of any other staff members. We were quite capable of providing education and even pastoral care without including religion. Your friends can quietly worship with their own children without requiring any participation of the other children in this facility. As soon as you start expecting the children to sing about Jesus and pray before meals then you've crossed the line. And if your friends can't answer the questions about why parents have died or other difficult questions without bringing religion in to it, then I would genuinely question their level of training and knowledge of education and child development is not suitable for undertaking this project and providing pastoral care to children with very significant trauma and needs.

[Devora]

What a strangely antagonistic thread, on both sides.

OP, I personally wouldn't give money to your friends' work. Not because I doubt their commitment, not even because it's a faith-based venture, but because there's no quality control. How do any potential donors know that they are doing a good job? Good intentions and honest commitment aren't always enough, and I prefer to invest my charitable giving with places where I can more clearly understand what is being done and how it is being monitored and evaluated.

[manicinsomniac]

some posters are being unnecesarily harsh about this imo.

We're talking about babies and toddlers here - the 'evangelising' going on is going to be pretty minimal and it will be almost all about primary care. It's not a case of 'come here independent thinking adult and, if you listen to and subscribe to my religious views, I will feed and clothe you', it's more like 'bring us deeply damaged and physically ill children with almost no language or thinking skills and we will love and rehabilitate them. But we will pray for and sing to them.' Big deal. The Christian component of this project won't damage these tiny children but the love and care they receive might well save them.

It's not the only way to help. It may well not be the best way to help. But it is help and some people are just being so cruel about it (not those who wouldn't contribute financially, nobody can or should contribute to everything, but those who are insulting the couple's motives and effectiveness).

[starfield]

Unis yes to all except possibly the corruption one.

[starfield]

jinsei: The answer to a lot of your questions about accountability is the government, because the children are placed there and have a social worker of their own from there. Thinking about what would happen to the project if my friends weren't there to run it, I agree that's an issue but partly because the strength of the project is that it's relational and person specific. We can't have it all ways; children need reliable care figures. It would be devastating to lose them. That's partly why my friends have spent over a decade getting ready to do this, often in thankless circumstances. I don't know that you could pay anyone else, local or otherwise, to do this the way they'll do it, because it's such a mix of professional skill and personal commitment.

dontshout: If I suggested that my friends swoop in during holidays to give advice, there would be howls of derision. The word 'paternalistic' has been used...

[starfield]

Cory and Jinsei: This is not a patronising or colonial venture. Some posters on this thread have suggested that my friends 'train' locals and visit from time to time with advice (presumably sharing from our superior Western pool of knowledge). That isn't what's being suggested and I think you should read more carefully. The idea is developed with local government and it so happens that the principles underlying the policy are in line with what's considered to be best practice here. Great. But
some posters on this thread still think big orphanages make a big impact and they have suggested my friends devote themselves to funding these or giving specialist 'institutional' help. To them, I responded that this is not a model that would be supported and rightly so. However, when explaining why it's not straightforward to get local support, I had to explain that there is still a mindset that children without families go into orphanages. My friends can't step back and watch local families do this because local families aren't stepping forward. Also (and this is true in the UK too but perhaps not so acutely) fostercare needs support and community to work. But there is a real likelihood that if they spend a lifetime on this (as they plan to), things will change.

Not breath-takingly arrogant I don't think.

[starfield]

devora I see that point of view. If you had time to plumb this venture it would certainly have all the hallmarks of accountability and would have been required to work harder to be accountable as a result of not having the backing of an established charity (where accountability often isn't all that it seems) but I appreciate that takes time and you'd have to know what you were doing.

[Mimishimi]

I wouldn't fund it but I do admire those who do this sort of thing out of their own pocket and on top of their usual work commitments. I would rather fund larger , more accountable organizations that help the local communities from which the children have come to look after their own ( and there are kind people who will take on orphans in most communities). I've only ever met one missionary family that I've really liked and who seemed to enjoy it... all the rest have seemed very hostile to the culture in which they've hoped to gain converts and the wives usually just look plain miserable.

[MichelleRooJnr]

My 'friends' recently felt a similar calling (well - 26 yrs ago but who's counting) and have spent their entire marriage doing very similar work as and when they can afford to.
They are not christians - I'm not sure what their religious leaning is. Because it doesn't matter. It has absolutely no bearing on the wonderful work they are doing .
They find it possible to carry out their admirable and unenviable work without brining their religion into it. at all.
They can provide care without preaching/ evangilising.
It can be - and is - done.
Don't come on here telling us that in order to help poor orphaned children your friends must sing jesus songs - no they mustn't!
Do it or don't do it. Leave preaching out of it, it is entirely unnecessary.

[starfield]

midnite: Interesting. But six hours a day isn't the same thing as raising a child, is it? Teachers are not at the mercy of children following them about saying 'Yes, but why?' Not in the way that parents are. That's what I meant. When children are forming an attachment they need to know what you believe and it's not realistic to suppose they won't know when other children in the house know... I didn't mean to say that it was impossible to talk about big issues without discussing religion. But it's going to come up, isn't it.

Are you saying that only people who have training in traumatised children should try to offer this kind of fostercare? I think that's very unrealistic, given that most posters don't want to see the children removed from local settings in the first place. But yes, they do have the training, because they wanted to have something to bring to this beyond woolly optimism. Believe it or not...

[Mimishimi]

Do they speak the language Starfield?

[starfield]

michelle: welcome! I didn't say it is essential to sing Jesus songs when you minister to a child. I said I didn't know how realistic it was for this couple to drain their lives of explicitly religious content, given that they have children of their own and are very 'hearts on their sleeves'. And I didn't know also how necessary or reasonable it was, as I'm of the opinion that religion is not a nasty form of cancer. However I understand there are circumstances it which it would not be appropriate to evangelise.

[starfield]

mimi: It's not a culture where only one language exists and nobody speaks every language. They're not limited to one language but I wouldn't call them fluent.

[Mimishimi]

Just out of curiosity, where exactly is it? Is it the country that they were located in previously?

[starfield]

I'm sorry Mimi I can't say.

[Mimishimi]

I'd be very cautious about donating to a cause where even one of their biggest supporters and friends were unwilling to disclose more specific information then. How would disclosing the country identify them? Just yesterday, one of my friends was asking for donations to help a Facebook friend who is partially through through making documentary about a famous flamenco dancer who she said 'suddenly disappeared off the dancing scene' after reaching the pinnacle of her career in the 80s/90s. It turned out that she had been a victim of domestic abuse for years and the females in her family told her to keep it quiet because they didn't want to start a blood feud between her brothers and her husband's family. Then my friend said "it's basically a women's lib documentary" and because of the economic situation in Spain, her friend could not get more arts funding. So later I just casually asked "so how old is this dancer now?" and she said in her seventies. So she would have been in her late fifties when she 'disappeared' - that's not mysterious, that's called retirement!! There is probably no chance that any monies made from the documentary could be recouped and since it sounds like a solo effort, there's a good chance it won't be picked up from a TV channel. With YouTube clips of her dances and also of short news articles detailing the domestic abuse revelations, there is not much that is new to the story and fairly sure the person has no personal connection ( particularly as if she did, she would not exactly be encouraged to make a documentary about it!!). My point is lots of people seem to latch on to 'good causes' but think that they have to go it alone because they are the only ones who can make a 'real difference'. You say that their previous effort ended through no fault of their own but usually that is jargon for that they couldn't get more funding. They would be better off seeing how to best support Christian churches in that country to do this sort of work, particularly if the exchange rates are such that their pound would go so much further.

[MidniteScribbler]

midnite: Interesting. But six hours a day isn't the same thing as raising a child, is it? Teachers are not at the mercy of children following them about saying 'Yes, but why?' Not in the way that parents are. That's what I meant. When children are forming an attachment they need to know what you believe and it's not realistic to suppose they won't know when other children in the house know... I didn't mean to say that it was impossible to talk about big issues without discussing religion. But it's going to come up, isn't it.

Haha, you don't know much about teaching. My entire day is spent with hearing "but miss, whhhhhhy?". Of course you can discuss big issues without discussing religion. How do you think atheists do it? Or do you think they don't discuss any big issues with their children? How do you think teachers at non denominational schools administer pastoral care to their students? How do you think we deal with at-risk children, children who have been abused, children who have lost close family,

I am genuinely concerned that your friends are doing this purely because they feel they have a calling to spread their faith, without any real thought as to the long term implications for the communities they are going to. I have worked with indigenous at risk children, and it is vital that they remain linked to their local culture and connections and that time is taken to ensure those connections. Taking children who have already suffered extreme trauma, cutting them off from their local culture and community, forcing them in to an unfamiliar lifestyle and expections of behaviour, and then forcing them to convert to another religion foreign to them is cruelty beyond measure. If they want to minister, then go right ahead, but to adults who are not in serious at risk situations and who choose to listen. They're plucking the youngest, most vulnerable people they can find, because they know they can do their "job" easily and without opposition, all in the name of "helping".

If your friends want to genuinely help these communities, there are many, many ways that they can do this, without selecting a "chosen" few to "save". Have you ever heard the phrase: "Catch a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime"? Your friends should put their efforts in to helping the local communities care for the children in those communities and to develop strategies and long term achievable goals for them.

[sandberry]

I don't think it matters at all about the religion (though I do have some objections to evangelicals sharing their religion as part of a charitable endeavour, especially with vulnerable children)

I don't think it matters what country it is, although from your previous remarks I can narrow it down to a few.

I just think what your friends are doing is wrong. That it will harm the children in the community they are working in. That they could instead imitate more successful models of local foster care which many charities both religious and otherwise have implemented in many different countries thus meeting their stated objectives of high quality care for parentless children.

But I doubt this is about parentless children, this is about your friends feeling good, doing something they enjoy (caring for children) and looking good to others. I doubt they would feel so good working in a central base supporting local families to provide foster care to children or remaining at home, providing financial and practical support to a scheme which did this.

[sashh]

Something I said when people seemed to just be driving to Romania and picking any child they wanted.

If you really cared about that child you could do far more by sending funds to a local orphanage.

The plumbers who went over and installed toilets and modern plumbing - they were heroes to me.

There are homeless children in this country, there are children in need of foster homes.

Why are they going elsewhere?

[Jinsei]

Thinking about what would happen to the project if my friends weren't there to run it, I agree that's an issue but partly because the strength of the project is that it's relational and person specific. We can't have it all ways; children need reliable care figures. It would be devastating to lose them.

Yes indeed. All the more reason for the care to be given by local carers who are deeply rooted within that community.

I don't know that you could pay anyone else, local or otherwise, to do this the way they'll do it, because it's such a mix of professional skill and personal commitment

Really? I find this extremely hard to believe. There are plenty of committed people the world over, and if local foster families arent coming forward at the moment, the answer is to look at the barriers to that, rather than sending in outsiders to do the job instead. What professional skills do they have that don't exist in the community and couldn't be passed on?

Saying that "it's not patronising" is fine, but it still isn't clear to me why your friends need to go in and provide the primary care for these children, over and above the local people. Unless evangelising is a key aspect of their purpose.

If that's what they want to do, it's their choice, but I wouldn't support it financially and I would assume that their motives were more about their own needs and less about the children they were trying to help.

[Jinsei]

And yes, why is it that you can't tell us the country? What's the big secret? If your friends need to fundraise, they'll have to go public anyway. And if they're confident that they are doing the right thing, what's to hide? (Not asking this in a confrontational way btw, but genuinely curious).

[manicinsomniac]

sashh - because different people feel called to different countries. British children aren't more deserving of our time, attention and money just because they're British are they?!

I have worked on projects in the UK, Brazil, Southern Africa, India and Eastern Europe. But it was only in Brazil that it felt totally right and what I was meant to be doing. My heart is for Brazil even though I am British and I can't see why that would be wrong.

[MrsHoarder]

Asking what would happen to the project if your friends left is doubly important because they have their own children who should be their first priority and they should be willing to do the best for them.

What happens if after 5 years the needs of their children are such that they need to return to the UK? It will damage the children who have had a parent-like relationship with them further. You didn't mention why they couldn't be full time foster parents in the UK, it can't be for the benefit of their own children because what they're planning is far more disruptive than foster caring in the UK would be.

Finally, are your friends big fans of George Muller?

[FasterStronger]

Satrfield have your friends fund raised here successfully for other charities working in the same country?

how much did they raise?
how much will they need every year for their proposed venture?