Doug Van Pelt

Can I Trust Compassion With My Money? [Uganda.15]

I totally think so. When I previously sponsored a child, I would annually or every once in a while, get a fiscal report from them, showing me how donations were doing and sponsorships and the like. It would break down their income and show in little pie charts how much went to office overhead, how much went to marketing, how much went to children's food, education, and so forth. This was all during the late 80s when the non-profit charity world was reeling with accusations from television evangelists and other such scandals.

I totally feel good about Compassion International. I think they do a good job of balancing being able to do what they do (like pay the electric bill for their offices, paying for staples and paper clips and new versions of MicroSoft Office, for example) and getting much-needed money "out in the field"). I think they're probably in the higher end of other related charities in the ratio of overhead vs. money getting to the projects with children.

It's really neat that they're focusing so much attention on children. It's a cliche that "children are our future," but it also makes real sense. I like what one person told our church once: "Kids are not the church of the future, children are the church" (they're part of it now, not some date in the future when they get more mature). I think that's cool. It's neat how young people have grown more and more involved in our world. Precious people with darker skin that Europeans have been largely freed from a life of slavery. Valuable people of the female gender have (at least in the West) been given equal rights with men in terms of their roles in society, etc. And young people have now been liberated in many ways as well. It was probably sometime in the 50s that the generation sample of 13 to 19 year olds were given a name and given respect as both a market share and a voice in our culture -- the "teenager." In the past 30-40 years children have enjoyed a greater role in our culture. Simple expressions, like television shows (Sesame Street, The Electric Company, Romper Room) have empowered children to take more of a role in our world. It's neat to see that openness.

Children are beautiful. They should be protected and valued. It's like the old adage: be careful who you step on while you are "on the way up," because you'll undoubtadly cross their paths again when you are on the way down. We need to treat those younger than us with respect, because they will be leading us or over us in authority some day. They'll remember who was nice to them.

In an age of terrorism and violence, it's a good thing to rescue children and give them nourishment. Apparently, terrorists feed on unrest and the disenfranchised. If a child is having its needs met, they probably won't be attracted to a drug lord or a warlord that offers them protection, food, and shelter. So, it's not only compassionate to help children in need; it's smart. There are many examples of such provision in life. I think God shows us that lesson. Living a life of sexual purity (like saving sex for marriage, for example) is not only a moral thing, but it has practical and intelligent benefits, too (like avoiding teenage pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases). Keeping a child in a protected environment also helps keep them out of harm's way.

I like Compassion International. I've participated in what they do; and now I'm excited to see a little bit more close-up what they do.

compassion.com/about/financial

Posted by Doug Van Pelt at February 8, 2008 08:49 AM