I happen to get facebook updates of certain high-profile American preachers.
One preacher in particular is currently in Haiti. He’s reporting on what he is doing there & on the devastation and needs that he sees during his time.
It’s been interesting to see his perspective, but I have to ask the question (who knows, maybe unfairly?) “Why did he go there in the first place?”
I wonder which option would have been for the greater good for people, to go himself, or to give up his spot for an extra doctor or aid worker?
Of course, there are two sides to the scenario.
On one side, by virtue of the fact that thousands of people follow him on facebook & millions of people listen to his online sermons, maybe he is opening up a whole new opportunity for people to be informed, for people to be inspired & for people to make donations that will help the haitian people.
On the other side, he could have reported all of this from home, while people who were more skilled in the area of disaster relief were able to make a physical difference in the lives of people that are suffering? COuld he not have had greater ability to mobilise people from home?
Is it a sense of vain glory that says that he, personally, need to be there to make a difference?
Or am I being too harsh? Maybe this man has identified a greater need, and that is for people who are suffering tremendously to know the God who promises that those people who trust in Him have the sure hope of a future that has no weeping, loss or death?
What do you think? Should high profile people go to disaster areas, or send more “useful” people?
Tim Goldsmith 