|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Operation Christmas Child
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I love this little charity. I don't care if Franklin Graham, who I don't like, is involved or whether or not there are other, more serious charities for feeding the children. It's a fun, heart warming thing for children, and me, to do each year. Sure I give money to other charities but I don't get the same warm fuzzies thinking about a bag of rice that I do thinking of a child opening that box and finding toys and crayons. Don't we all need a little fun in our lives?
As for the brochures -- again, why not? What's so awful about telling someone about Jesus? Does it have to be "propaganda?" Can't it be a ray of hope in a miserable life?
Except that these children are actual people and not there for your fun. Are your 'warm fuzzies' worth it if it's not actually a helpful scheme?
I was talking about the children as needing a little fun in their lives (not me) and it wouldn't give me warm fuzzies if I didn't think they were going to enjoy it. Your implication that I'm deliberately harming children for my own pleasure by sending them a few toys is a bit strong.
Where is your evidence that this is harmful to children?
Why do you assume that the Christmas boxes and other charities that provide, food, clean water, and medical supplies are in an either/or competition. I give to both types and I imagine most churches do, too.
If you think it's the brochures that are in some boxes are doing the harm, then how exactly? I've read the brochure and nowhere does it say the child's parents are going to Hell. It says nothing against any other religion. It does imply that Jesus is the only way but I think it's subtle enough that most kids would ignore it if they have even read that far.
Why would it be harmful to a child to hear about a loving, rather than punishing God? Why are you assuming that the child is pleased with a religion that tells it his suffering is because he was bad in a previous life or that his mission in life will be to kill those who disagree with him?
Why do you think that children should be satisfied with bread alone and never have a moment of play?
Why do you think that all other religions are superior to Christianity and that it's best to keep the gospel and it's message of love and eternal life a secret from children?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Cliffdweller ... but don't you realise? Sharing the Gospel in a British kind of way IS culturally appropriate ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Twilight, there is a fair amount about 'punishment' in the pamphlet. There is also a sinners prayer that it encourages the kids to pray. I have no idea how these pamphlets are used in practice. Given some of the reports about Samaritans Purse I do not trust that they conduct themselves appropriately.
I disagree with the type of Christianity they espouse, so wouldn't choose to support them. And I'm not sure how you can totally separate Franklin Graham from his charity. His views are bound to come through in how they operate.
I am also uncomfortable that many people don't have a clue that they are supporting an evangelical christian charity, whose aim is to convert those they help. Now a lot of that may not be the charity's fault. My kids school didn't say anything about it being a christian charity at all. And people go along with it but are put out to discover the purpose of the charity.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Cliffdweller ... but don't you realise? Sharing the Gospel in a British kind of way IS culturally appropriate ...
Honestly, I would bet on the average Brit's ability to share the gospel in a culturally appropriate way over Franklin's every day of the week.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Twilight, there is a fair amount about 'punishment' in the pamphlet.
<snip>
I disagree with the type of Christianity they espouse, so wouldn't choose to support them.
at all.
Yes, it does say that people do wrong things and it is right that they be punished for those things, but that Jesus rescued them from the punishment.
Is this the type of Christianity with which you disagree?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
No, I don't hold to PSA. And I don't think a pamphlet aimed at children should be encouraging them to say a sinners prayer.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe this charity is relying on the fact that few Christians today have an awareness of the theological issues, and therefore won't ask too many questions about the charity's doctrinal position.
OTOH, the more tolerant churches may well have members who share the charity's stance as well as others who don't, so it would be difficult for them to disassociate themselves from this charity without also passing judgement on some of the people in the pews.
There must be secular or doctrinally neutral charities that run similar Christmas appeals. Perhaps churches ought to take more care over which charities they support, rather than just going for the easiest or most famous options.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
No, I don't hold to PSA.
I'm sorry, I don't know what PSA stands for or what the sinner's prayer is.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
You've done well to miss them on the Ship - they must be in danger of hitting Dead Horse territory with their cyclical re-occurrence ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
PSA: Penal Substitutionary Atonement. A view of "what happened on the cross" that says Christ died to take the punishment for sin that was due to us. Common fare and largely unremarkable in an Evangelical setting; red rag to a bull to others who view it as painting a distorted picture of a hateful God. (Personally I tend towards the view that all models and metaphors are limited, and that PSA can help explain some stuff, but needs to be leavened with the other understandings of the atonement. But I have an evo background, and probably still am one).
Sinner's prayer: standard Evangelical "prayer of commitment" made when you go from being a wretched sinner-sinner to a Believer. In the UK the classic example from my era is the last page of "Journey Into Life". Again, personally I think it's helpful in context, but is open to both mis-use and mis-understanding (say the magic words and be saved, be-all and end-all etc.).
FWIW I'm mildly baffled about the ire to OCC, as from a UK perspective it comes across as actually a relatively low-key way to Do Something Good and partner that with presenting a simple view of the Gospel to folk. To some extent I'm left with the impression (again, from a UK-centric experience of the whole thing) that most of the foaming ire is aimed at perceived shortcomings amongst Those Hateful Loony Evangelicals which a) are not universal and b) are not applicable - there are enough apparent straw men being brought into play (from my limited experience) that November 5th must be approaching.
I'm also left wondering whether those that don't like OCC because of the Evangelical element (for good or ill, covering a range of degrees based on country, it would seem) think that Jesus is worth telling people about at all. It sometimes reads like it's just another opportunity to engage in endless arguing over finer points of theology for our own amusement.
The above written as someone who is involved with Street Pastors precisely because it doesn't require a proselytising approach (quite the opposite, you get given the order of the boot if you gob off about faith un-asked for).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Thank you, Snags! All I could find on Google was something about the prostate. I also appreciate your voice of reason about the OCC.
This thread is helping me understand what my new pastor is talking about. My church is Lutheran but we have recently decided to share pastors with the local Episcopalian church. I thought our churchs' theology was about the same, but I'm finding her to be very different from anything I'm used to.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Snags, I don't have anger about them, just uncomfortable, and was trying to work out what made me uncomfortable.
The ire that I have seen tends to be because it is not well publicised by participating groups that the ultimate purpose is evangelism. And I think that is pretty understandable. Some people are very put out as they thought they were just doing something nice for an orphan in Romania, and then they discover they are supporting evangelism. Now that may not be the fault of the charity necessarily (though I do find them vague on exactly what they do).
Twilight, sorry for the confusion, I thought everyone on the ship who's been here a while would know what PSA was!
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
FWIW I'm mildly baffled about the ire to OCC, as from a UK perspective it comes across as actually a relatively low-key way to Do Something Good and partner that with presenting a simple view of the Gospel to folk. To some extent I'm left with the impression (again, from a UK-centric experience of the whole thing) that most of the foaming ire is aimed at perceived shortcomings amongst Those Hateful Loony Evangelicals which a) are not universal and b) are not applicable - there are enough apparent straw men being brought into play (from my limited experience) that November 5th must be approaching.
I'm also left wondering whether those that don't like OCC because of the Evangelical element (for good or ill, covering a range of degrees based on country, it would seem) think that Jesus is worth telling people about at all. It sometimes reads like it's just another opportunity to engage in endless arguing over finer points of theology for our own amusement.
I'm probably the most ambivalent poster so far on this thread. As an American evangelical, obviously it's not the evangelical connection that's irking me. I would agree that Jesus is Good News and that's something to be shared and celebrated.
My concerns are pretty much entirely centered around the guy at the top: Franklin Graham. He is so prone to making public statements that are so incredibly problematic and often hateful, that I am reluctant to do anything that gives him more of a platform or influence than he has already. The version of evangelical Christianity he's presenting to the world is only dimly similar to the version that I find so compelling in my own spiritual life.
The other concerns really flow from those grave concerns about Franklin. Because his public comments can be so culturally insensitive, I find myself doubting his ability to present the gospel in culturally sensitive ways. Because his comments can be so hateful, I find myself doubting his ability to present the gospel in a way that actually sounds like good news. That's a problem because if what is presented is a false gospel that preaches hate instead of love, imperialism and power rather than sacrifice and justice, then it's apt to inoculate people against the real thing.
That being said, as noted above, there have been lots of criticisms leveled at Samaritan's Purse, but to my knowledge none that have come from the actual recipients. That may be because the recipients are mostly families in refugee camps who have bigger fish to fry that grumbling over a tone-deaf Xmas party, or it may be that the way things are actually handled isn't as bad as many fear. It may be that the people down the line from Franklin-- particularly those on the front lines who are doing the actually work with these families-- are far more culturally aware and thoughtful in their ministry than the head guy. I have actually seen that up close and personal in another prominent evangelical enterprise run by an ignorant loud-mouthed buffoon.
Hence my ambivalence.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
@quantpole
We have very recently worked through this issue at my church and the leadership team were very uncomfortable about how the whole business had developed into what it has.
In the end we decided not to continue, partly because we do a number of other things at Christmas (many that have started since we agreed to the shoeboxes) for local and international mission anyway.
If Mrs Tubbs feels like contributing on this thread she maybe able to direct you to various resources as she did a lot of research on it.
Ignoring for a moment that Franklyn Graham is a homophobic bigot, there were other issues as well.
Shoeboxes aren’t necessarily the best way to deliver aid, but if you want to do that, there are lots of UK based charities who operate them without the side order of Christian literature. (And, having seen the Christian literature that OCC include, it’s a bit meh). Most parents in “the developed world” wouldn’t want strangers trying to convert their children to a religion that they don’t follow. Why should parents elsewhere be any different?! The UK has said that they no longer do this because there have been complaints about it. But the US head office have said that they hope to change this policy at some point so all the OCC groups operate in the same way.
OCC don’t always take into account where the gifts are going to. Your scarves and knitted hats may end up in Africa. Which might not be the best place for them! Some of the smaller charities only deliver to specific countries, so you can pack things that would be suitable. Children in Eastern Europe want hats and scarves!
The deal breaker for our church was, IIRC, the fact that OCC charge the churches for the parcels and then charge the aid agencies in the country that receives them as well. Information about this was really hard to come by, but I did some quotes from an Aid agency in Mexico saying that they wouldn’t work with OCC again because of that. The shoeboxes were expensive for what they were and they could have done more with the money if they’d spent directly on the children themselves.
Oh, and Franklyn Graham is a homophobic bigot … If you Google Franklyn Graham and Huffington Post, they have footage of an interview with him that is jaw dropping in its terribleness. For me, one of the key things about asking our church to consider not supporting OCC was the feeling that this is not a ministry that we should be legitimising by supporting it. And, yes, I do think that by not challenging OCC over this, the UK church is guilty of letting Graham get away with behaviour and attitudes that are unchristian and unbiblical.
Ironically, I believe that OCC started off as a small UK charity. They became part of Samaritan’s Purse because they wanted to reach a wider audience. Ho hum.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Your scarves and knitted hats may end up in Africa. Which might not be the best place for them!
Separate from the main discussion about OCC about which I too have a number of reservations, I'd just like to say that here in the North Rift when we reach the cold season in July and August our Kenyan friends wear full-on winter garb: coats, boots, woolly hats and scarves and gloves.
They are always asking us if we aren't cold as we tend to layer on rather strange combinations of our lighter weight clothing!
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Actually, I think it would be best if we were informed by the recipients themselves (or by their parents) that the messages in these parcels were unwanted or offensive. There's something a little patronising in right-on Westerners taking offence on someone else's behalf.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, I think it would be best if we were informed by the recipients themselves (or by their parents) that the messages in these parcels were unwanted or offensive. There's something a little patronising in right-on Westerners taking offence on someone else's behalf.
It's less the content offending me so much as being deeply uneasy about tying evangelism to charitable works.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, I think it would be best if we were informed by the recipients themselves (or by their parents) that the messages in these parcels were unwanted or offensive. There's something a little patronising in right-on Westerners taking offence on someone else's behalf.
fyi: this point, like your criticism of this thread earlier, has been made a couple of times already upthread. fwiw.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, just skip my posts if you find them repetitive! But I think it's worth repeating that the work of charities needs to be seen from the experience of the recipients and not just from the givers and the charities. Recipients' voices are rarely heard directly; their messages are often filtered through agencies from outside who have a vested interest in promoting a particular view of the work, whether for or against. This strikes me as disempowering.
In the absence of more information, ISTM that any child who has been trained to hope for presents at Christmas has already been influenced by Western Christian cultural expectations. A leaflet promoting baby Jesus as the 'Saviour of the world' is hardly going to be a shock to them; Christmas carols promote the same message, and many atheists are happy to sing them. But perhaps problems may arise in parts of Eastern Europe where there has been significant religious conflict and transformation in recent decades.
Are shoeboxes sent to Muslim countries? I find it hard to believe that families in these places are particularly focused on Christmas presents. In any case, most Muslims have a strong sense of their religious identity, and I doubt that a leaflet about Jesus (whom they respect) is likely to throw them into great anguish. British Muslims know that Christmas is a Christian festival, but many of them celebrate the generosity of the season without anxiety that it's an opportunity for Christian proselytising.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Recipients' voices are rarely heard directly
It's rather ironic to read this in a post that mostly consists of you filling in their voices for them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Worth repeating, definitely. I just heard a tinge of judgment in your post and the prior one that seemed out of place given that both comments had already been made more than once. But perhaps I was being overly sensitive/ defensive.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Recipients' voices are rarely heard directly
It's rather ironic to read this in a post that mostly consists of you filling in their voices for them.
Well, I was careful to say 'In the absence of more information...'!
I live in a heavily Muslim part of the UK, and some Muslims here have spoken out about their wish not to be labelled as anti-Christmas. I know of one local church that was attended by some Muslim families on Christmas Day! But I admit that I don't know how Muslims in Somalia or Bosnia, etc. would react to being given Christmas shoeboxes that urged them to 'follow Jesus'. I was extrapolating based on what Muslims say and do here.
I hope there are Christians who are doing research into the reception of this kind of charity and evangelism.
[ 24. October 2014, 01:58: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I hope there are Christians who are doing research into the reception of this kind of charity and evangelism.
Well, we could just ask.
But I also agree with some posters on this thread saying that it isn't just about how it is received, but also about whether combining charity with evangelism in this way is a good idea in the first place.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I hope there are Christians who are doing research into the reception of this kind of charity and evangelism.
Well, we could just ask.
But I also agree with some posters on this thread saying that it isn't just about how it is received, but also about whether combining charity with evangelism in this way is a good idea in the first place.
Unease about the type of Christian mission work that comes with gifts in one hand and a Bible in the other from the point of view of both the giver and the receiver is well documented. 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. Hopefully there’s more to it than shouting, “DO YOU LOVE JESUS?” at the audience. All the UK based shoebox appeals made a point of saying that their boxes went to the needy and didn’t come with strings. This suggests that this is a much bigger deal in the UK than it is elsewhere,
It’s going to be difficult to find more than that. Small, local Aid agencies are unlikely to criticise larger, international ones in case that makes it more difficult to attract support from elsewhere. Or, if they do, it’s likely to be in local media. Which most of us aren’t going to have access to.
But all the guff about “what the recipients feel” ignores my responsibility as a giver. 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.
That doesn’t excuse me from helping the needy. It just means that I need to find another way to do it. When I first raised this at my church, I suggested that we find another shoebox charity to support. It was decided that because of the other ministries that the church had taken on, it wasn’t appropriate for us to do that. Which is fair enough. We give to BMS, are just about to open a food bank, do a Christmas gift collection for local children in care etc.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Growing up in the home of African parents, it was inevitable that come December there would be rage in response to "Do They Know It's Christmas." "YES WE BLOODY WELL KNEW IT WAS CHRISTMAS" or similar responses shouted at the radio.
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. If they live in a country with any sizable Christian population, they will already know. If they don't, then they will learn.
If I'd received a Ramadan "breaking fast" box or a Hanukkah gift box as a kid, I and my parents would sure as heck want to know the logic behind it and why their religion celebrates that holiday in that fashion.
I had a very religious Jewish friend growing up whose parents (unlike many other Jewish families) refused to allow the kids to have a Christmas tree in the house. Their logic was that those subtle creepings-in of Christian religious practice are the most dangerous as they condition the children towards, at the very least, downplaying their own faith practice in public. I would suggest that a Christmas box without any explanation of Christmas or Jesus might be more problematic as kids will associate Christmas and therefore Christians with nice treats and gifts, with no other context.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
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 ...! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) 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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Tubbs: Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]
Ah. I wouldn't support a charity that would put this in their Christmas boxes.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
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.
Charity shouldn't come with strings. Let alone fire and brimestone.
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
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]
OK - having seen it I don't agree with sending that around either.
But I think the other side of "I'm sending you a box because of Christ's love" without explaining who Christ is and why his birthday is such a big deal would seem lacking to me as well.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I think charity without strings is a fine idea, but maybe a little bit too fine for most practical purposes. As Seekinsister says, don't the recipients have a natural curiosity about where things are coming from? I've heard all my life about American aid in the form of food or wells, being intercepted by the local tyrant with, "A gift from Mobutosese-whoever," printed on the trucks. It goes with the territory, so if someone occasionally realizes that a gift comes from Christians I don't see that as a bad thing. These boxes don't drop out of the sky onto individual houses. Don't the recipients usually go to the local Christian mission to pick things like this up? Wouldn't the parents have the option of keeping their children at home?
Do hospitals and orphanages around the world need to hide the fact that they are Christian based from the surrounding community? I appreciate the idea, but I guess I don't know where the line should be drawn. Christ wanted us to feed the poor and to spread the gospel so doing it at the same time doesn't strike me as a bad thing, whether it's a Salvation Army soup kitchen or this.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
It would appear that the UK operation remains somewhat distinct from the US one.
For the UK OCC they state that each shoebox is an unconditional gift and that the booklet is a) optional and distributed with not in the shoebox and b) is not the same booklet that Tubbs has linked to (which is presumably the US version??).
Now, the UK booklet does still contain an element of PSA (sin must be punished, Jesus took the punishment) and it does end with an example prayer of commitment. But it's a long way from the other one, and majors on grace, love etc.
All of which means my twitches about OCC from a UK perspective are at least a little reduced (the above found out whilst checking I wouldn't look a complete tool if I discretely took concerns to the powers that be). Obviously with one's cynical head on, all the bits about "no strings" and so on could be disregarded, as the degree to which there are really no strings, implicit or explicit, will depend on delivery on the ground. But you don't get to know that without going and observing, I guess. And there will still be stuff in the UK operation that not everyone would be happy with anyway (the element of PSA, the fact that whilst the gift might be free of strings it is still used as an opportunity to get the gospel in, the nature of the optional booklet and optional follow-on course* and so on) but it all sounds a lot less alarming than Mr Franklin Graham and the US arm.
*Although the fact that there is follow-up for anyone who's interested strikes me as a good thing. It's not just "Here's Jesus, say the prayer, ace you're in!" but an acknowledgement that some further explanation, encouragement, support, teaching etc. is a good idea. Doubtless we could quibble on the content, mind!
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
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.
Do you know that that's the case with OCC? I haven't been able to find any place that says that. In the US OCC implies they don't engage in those sorts of tactics. But again, Franklin doesn't exactly inspire trust...
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.
Can't argue with that. Although my personal experience of similar large evangelical organizations headed by loud-mouthed buffoons is that:
1. If said buffoon is the founder, there's no getting him out or shutting him up. For him, it's all about the platform, and once you get a taste of that nectar, there's no stopping
2. What actually happens on the grassroots level is often much better than the founder would make it appear. The actual boots-on-ground staff can be much more thoughtful and careful and respectful in their work than the founder. (Whether that is the case with OCC, again, I'm finding it hard to find any data whatsoever)
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.
Good point.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
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.
You may be right. I suppose some might hope that the recipients are smart enough to spot the cynicism, take the gift and forget the message!
There are Christian charities that avoid evangelising, though. Christian Aid comes to mind. But avoiding a religious element can create problems of its own. 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. I don't know how Christian Aid has resolved this issue.
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....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
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....
But what about people who - gasp! - think that the best gift to give a child is the knowledge of Christ's love for them and the possibility of a relationship with him?
I can't tell if some people on this thread are totally opposed to proselytizing period, or just to children, or just alongside charity.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm opposed to using charity as a cover for worming my way into a community to proselytise children, knowing that children are the easiest to convert because they're the least critical thinkers.
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.
[ 24. October 2014, 15:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
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.
Having worked together with them often, I know quite a number of Christian Aid staff, both Christians and non-Christians. Both kinds would probably get into a laughing fit if you'd ask them to lead a service.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
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.
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Let me try to put into words a bit better what my problem is in combining charity with proselysation (is that the right word?)
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.
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
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.
I seem to recall a miracle...something about bread and fish...and another with wine...
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
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.
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I lack detailed knwoeldge of OCC.
Are the children and/or their parents who receive these boxes aware that Christian promotional material is included?
If the answer is yes - then I have a hard time being concerned about this, even though I don't agree with the content of the tracts (even the UK version). I don't like the idea of a kid with no Christian family or church network being told to say the Sinner's Prayer randomly.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: I seem to recall a miracle...something about bread and fish...and another with wine...
In the first case, bread and fish was distributed to people who were already listening to Jesus. They didn't go there on the promise of being fed and oh yeah, there's also Someone telling us things. In the second case, Jesus didn't tell people that it was Him who gave people the wine.
Bribing people into the Kingdom by giving them material things? Really??
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As I see it, everyone is trying to convince everyone else of something or other. From a young age many Western children are surrounded by ideas and views that contradict what their parents believe. The parents are expected to be tolerant whatever the outcome - which in many cases is increasing religious indifference, not conversion to Mormonism, or whatever.
Should children in faraway lands be deliberately protected from outside influences when Western children are not?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Should children in faraway lands be deliberately protected from outside influences when Western children are not?
Who's saying anything about protecting anyone from outside influences?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Karl: Liberal Backslider said this:
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.
The implication is that children being given material that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable. But I don't know how most children in modern Britain would avoid being given material that challenged their or their parents' Christian faith.
Maybe the difference is in who provides the material. 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.
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. But maybe not. I don't think the difference is necessarily between spoken and written forms of communication. In many cultures oral transmission is still valued. And a large part of communication doesn't involve words at all.
BTW, how many of these children actually end up trying to convert to Christianity? Is this a problem that's been highlighted in local communities? And where are the charities then, if this happens? Do they mediate between parents and children?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: The implication is that children being given material that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable.
Sigh. I don't believe giving material to children that contradicts their parents' beliefs is unacceptable in all cases. Neither I think does Karl.
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.
I agree that this kind of material shouldn't be given to children by their teacher (except when the teacher is of an explicitly Christian school the parents agreed to send their children to). My objections aren't about how effective this would be though, they would be about what the role of a 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.
It isn't about what has more 'heft'.
[ 24. October 2014, 18:30: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Viewing any charity that comes with a prayer or pamphlet or (gasp) sermon as a cynical, underhanded, scheme -- seems kind of cynical in itself to me. Can't it be -- here is a material gift and, also, here is a spiritual gift alongside it? Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty? That's like saying that man should actually live by bread alone. We always have a grace before the local food pantry meals and no one has ever seemed to mind although some people talk through it.
We're supposed to be fishers of men and if we use bait in order to get them into the boat, I don't see that as the same thing as using steak knives to sell time shares, but rather as giving a child a sweet to get him to sit still for a polio shot. Hearing about Jesus is supposed to be a good, life saving thing, isn't it?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Twilight: Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty?
The paternalism, it hurts.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
