An order of obligations

Are Christians responsible for everyone in the world? Everyone in society? I would argue there is an obligation first to our family (1 Tim. 5:8) and then to our brothers in the church (1 John 3:17; Gal. 6:10). Also, we should respond to urgent needs right in front of us when our assistance will be helpful (Luke 10:29-37). Finally, we should do good to everyone as we have opportunity as shaped by our vocation and calling (Gal. 6:10).

 

From <http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/03/03/seven-passages-on-social-justice-2/

I too believe that there is an order of obligations.

1 Tim 5:8 says that "but if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
This is an instance of a "responsibility" classed provision. You must do it.

Then there are those conditional or "opportune" sort. Like in Gal 6:10.
So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

So here's the hierarchy:
1. your family
2. the church
3. everyone else.

And if I think about it, it's pretty logical. Some people look at their church and say, "well these lazy bums are always feeding themselves, unlike them, I'mma go out and do good to people outside and evangelise to them."
Sure enough, many of us have taken to the comfort of feeding ourselves in church and some of us really do this because we dread evangelising,
But if I may, I would ask:
You evangelise and to which church will you bring them? Why, which sort of person will start evangelising without thinking of where to bring the convert? Why unless this person evangelizes out of guilt or obligation, concerned only to the point of conversion. This is quite unloving evangelism.

Or maybe this person intends to introduce these converts to other "better" churches. What sort of antagonism is this with his/her own church?
Better yet, they intend to introduce the converts to a church they are barely satisfied with themselves.

Now this is all just madness.

I am thus not convinced when people who care little for the church care for the poor.

well what if they never intended to evangelise to them? Well...
That's also unacceptable isn't it?