Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

seekingsister: So I admit to scratching my head at the idea of sending someone a box of items for Christmas but finding it repellent to include some explanation of what Christmas is or what it means.

---

I don't know what texts OCC puts in our boxes. There is a difference between writing "We are sending you this box because we celebrate that Jesus was born on Christmas Day, and this inspires us to share some of our stuff with people around the world" and "Say the sinner's prayer". I wouldn't have a problem with the first version.

---

Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]

I'd have no problem with what you're describing - Christians sharing the love of Christ with others at Christmas by sharing gifts to help others. That's what OCC started out wanting to do. This, however ...! Jack Chick would be so proud. OTH, if they don't bother to translate it, it's pointless!

It's worth noting that some of the local aid organisations working in countries where Christains are in the minority concentrate on charity work, but don't do overt preaching or conversation attempts.

Tubbs

[ 24. October 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posted                      

quote:

---

Tubbs: Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Tubbs: Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]

---

Ah. I wouldn't support a charity that would put this in their Christmas boxes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
That’s essentially what OCC is. You don’t get the OCC present unless you accept the literature and sit through the Gospel presentation. Which is often in English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
I can’t support a charity headed up by someone who uses hate speech to talk about others and propagates a message that I disagree with. And, maybe if OCC gets enough push back on this, it might have an impact on both the way they work and encourage Graham to STFU.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
That doesn’t excuse me from helping the needy. It just means that I need to find another way to do it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not about the recipient knowing or not knowing it comes from a Christian organisation; it's about that Christian organisation giving the distinct impression that it only gives these gifts as a cynical cover for proselytism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As I suggested above, it would probably be simpler just to support a secular charity like Oxfam - although I notice that churches seem to prefer religious charities when it comes to sending stuff to poor people abroad. When supporting cures for cancer or heart disease there doesn't seem to be the same urge to include an evangelistic element....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: I read somewhere that when Christian Aid has sent non-believing staff abroad there's sometimes been dismay and confusion when recipients have expected these workers from Christian Aid to lead or participate in Christian worship and they've declined to do so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Mormons or JWs or whatever bunch turned up at the kids' school and handed them all a prezzie, but slipped their propaganda into it, I'd be absolutely bloody livid. I think parents in developing countries deserve the same respect I'd demand.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
First, there is the problem with bribing people into the Kingdom by giving them material things, even if these are small things. I don't think we're supposed to do that. The way I read the Gospels, it's not what Jesus seems to want from us.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Mormons or JWs or whatever bunch turned up at the kids' school and handed them all a prezzie, but slipped their propaganda into it, I'd be absolutely bloody livid. I think parents in developing countries deserve the same respect I'd demand.

---

Maybe because you don't have much else of import to worry about?

Sorry to be harsh, but I spend a lot of time in developing countries - for work and family reasons - and people will gladly take aid from the Catholics, Muslims, Mormons or whoever, listen to a spiel, ignore it, and go about their lives. They don't feel violated by it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

seekingsister: I seem to recall a miracle...something about bread and fish...and another with wine...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Should children in faraway lands be deliberately protected from outside influences when Western children are not?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Listening to a spiel is one thing. Having material thrust at one's children is something else. I'd not like it, so I won't do it to others.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: The implication is that children being given material that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Is it okay to be given magazines and videos by your peers, but not by your teacher? From an official perspective, yes. But your peers might be far more influential when it comes to your developing morality and your world view than your teacher is.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: I suppose it might also be true that a leaflet left in a goodie box given by a rich Western visitor is likely to have more heft than a 'spiel' heard in passing.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Twilight: Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty?

---

Posted                          

It’s very difficult to know exactly what happens as accounts vary from site to site. But some did say that you had to sit through the presentation and accept the leaflet in order to get the shoebox. There must be some truth in that as all the other UK sites doing shoebox appeals made a point of saying that they didn’t do this. And Samaritan’s Purse don’t seem to be being entirely candid.

There was also some confusion about who paid for what. I did find references to the fact that OCC charged the local agencies to receive the gifts. Given that the churches giving the gifts paid for delivery, if that's true it's a . They are effectively charging twice.

The UK branch of OCC is a part of Samaritan’s Purse. The same Samaritan’s Purse that’s operates in USA. The one that’s headed up by Franklyn Graham. That Samaritan’s Purse. The only reason that OCC in the UK operates differently to the one in the USA, downplays their Christianity and keeps Graham locked in a cupboard is that they’ve had push back here. People are uneasy about presents being given alongside presentations and leaflets. And Graham is a complete liability. Samaritan’s Purse has said that they’d prefer all the bits of OCC operated in the same way. And that’s not the way the UK one operates!

LeRoc is spot on:

quote:

---

Second, whenever you do charity, give aid, or involve in development cooperation, there is always the power imbalance to take into account. To put it bluntly: they are poor and you are giving something to them. To me the only way to overcome this is to engage in real partnership. One-sided proselytasion (I'll get this word right one day) doesn't fit into this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sigh. I don't believe giving material to children that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable in all cases. Neither I think does Karl.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: As I said above, I think the safest thing for you and many others to do would be to avoid religious charities altogether.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Because any religious charity that associates itself with giving to the poor runs the risk of associating the gospel with giving gifts, even if it tries hard to avoid mentioning Christianity directly.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: It might be wise to allow people from the receiving communities to decide whether or not they want religious leaflets included in the packages.

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: I wonder if Christian Aid is likely to change its name at some point.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Sigh. I don't believe giving material to children that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable in all cases. Neither I think does Karl.

---

As I said above, I think the safest thing for you and many others to do would be to avoid religious charities altogether. Because any religious charity that associates itself with giving to the poor runs the risk of associating the gospel with giving gifts, even if it tries hard to avoid mentioning Christianity directly. Such an association may have undesirable evangelistic implications.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
If a charity is operating aboard and someone asks why, then there's no problem with them sharing their faith. What people are objecting to is people using aid as conversion bait in the way that OCC and others are doing. Particularly when the audience targeted is young.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: But both of these things could have the same consequences: children getting to hear about Christianity and being 'led astray' by foreigners. If the parents disapprove of Christianity they won't really care whether their children are evangelised by a piece of paper or by a Christian who answers a child's direct questions. Indeed, the latter is probably worse, because it would involve personal interaction, which is a far more effective form of evangelism and probably always has been.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]Exactly. Whenever you engage in aid, charity or development cooperation (I prefer the latter term), the power imbalance is always there. There's no way to completely avoid it, it's an illusion to think that you can.

But the question is: what do you do with that? Do you try actively to seek ways to reduce this imbalance as much as you can, even if you know you can't succeed completely? Or do you try to use this power imbalance to get someone to believe what you want them to believe?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

By the way, who is Franklyn Graham? I don't think he's a heard-of person here, yet alone a controversial one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Twilight: Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty?

---

The paternalism, it hurts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

By the way, who is Franklyn Graham? I don't think he's a heard-of person here, yet alone a controversial one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Twilight: All right then. You think my belief that faith in Christ is the way to eternal life and my wanting that for other people is "paternalism."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Enoch:

quote:

---

By the way, who is Franklyn Graham? I don't think he's a heard-of person here, yet alone a controversial one.

---

Ever heard of Billy Graham, legendary revival leader and friend of U.S. presidents? Franklin is Billy Graham's son.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Billy Graham was very famous here. I for one, have never until now heard of either Franklyn or Anne Graham.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

In light of recent events .. terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in body our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Enoch:

quote:

---

By the way, who is Franklyn Graham? I don't think he's a heard-of person here, yet alone a controversial one.

---

Ever heard of Billy Graham, legendary revival leader and friend of U.S. presidents? Franklin is Billy Graham's son.

---

In genetics only. This is one of those cases where the apple really does fall far from the tree. The fact that Franklin was given the family mantle in lieu of his far more thoughtful and talented sister Anne is all the evidence anyone needs of the evils of sexism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Anne's blog where she explains why she is against gay marriage. I actually think I like Franklin better. At least he sticks to his fundamentalist script all the way. Anne tries to sneak around it when it comes to her own desire to preach. As a Southern Baptist she says women shouldn't be pastors but it's okay for her to preach so long as it's in a giant stadium and not in a church.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Anne's blog where she explains why she is against gay marriage. I actually think I like Franklin better. At least he sticks to his fundamentalist script all the way. Anne tries to sneak around it when it comes to her own desire to preach. As a Southern Baptist she says women shouldn't be pastors but it's okay for her to preach so long as it's in a giant stadium and not in a church.

---

Good point. Yes, they are both prone to making the sort of awful statements in the name of Christ that make one want to bury their head and hide from the shame of it all. With Franklin it's a constant-- any time anything is in the news he feels the need to pop his head up and produce some ill-adviced, theologically problematic, ignorant, homophobic, right-wing blather. With Anne is less frequent, and I have heard her give some lovely sermons from time to time. But as you say, maybe that just makes her rhetorical sins all the more subversive. At least with Franklin we can all see what we're getting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Graham children would be more famous in the UK if they came over here to do some evangelism, as their dad did. That would draw more attention than talking about the End Times. The daily hustle has to go on until Jesus gets back here, End Times or not!

As for Westerners offering evangelism alongside material benefits to the developing world, I think that by now the evangelism has probably served its purpose. The Global South is already on track to become the centre of worldwide Christianity. Perhaps the OCC should be sending its offensive tracts to Wolverhampton and Antwerp instead!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OCCs original focus was Eastern Europe post-1989, specifically Rumania which was probably in more trouble than other countries. I don't think the need for evangelism has lessened there, nor the need to relief the dull lives of millions of children.

---