|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Operation Christmas Child
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
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 ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . 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.
It’s an unequal relationship. That’s not a good dynamic.
It’s worth noting that some of the local Christian agencies operating in the places that OCC visit don’t overtly proselytise, they concentrate on charity work. They’re aware of the risks that conversation from one faith to another carry and want people to make a very informed choice. They’re particularly scathing about organisations that target children.
Tubbs
[ 24. October 2014, 19:26: 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
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.
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.
[ 24. October 2014, 19:24: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
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.
I have worked for religious charities for years. As in: I was their employee, I received salary from them, I helped to formulate and execute their policies. I have nothing against religious charities in principle.
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.
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?
[ 24. October 2014, 19:31: 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It might be wise to allow people from the receiving communities to decide whether or not they want religious leaflets included in the packages. Presumably if the parents of the 'shoebox children' spoke with one voice they could discourage OCC from including Christian leaflets. (It might then make more sense for the parcels not to be given at Christmas, but at a less 'religious' time of year.)
Some charities decide of their own accord to move quietly away from their religious connotations, which may involve a change of name. I presume this partly depends on the sources of their funding; if evangelical churches are still important donors then it makes little sense to downplay the Christian angle. I wonder if Christian Aid is likely to change its name at some point.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
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.
This is something I agree with. And for me, it wouldn't be the only I'd like to discuss with the communities.
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I wonder if Christian Aid is likely to change its name at some point.
I have some problems with the second part of the name, not with the first.
--------------------
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 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.
I don't think anyone has said that at all. 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.
Tubbs
[ 24. October 2014, 20:02: 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
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.
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.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
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.
Again, more effective = worse? That's not what this is about.
I don't always have a problem if a church founds a school in a developing country. (In fact, I have helped religious organisations found schools.) I guess it depends on how it's done. Of course, at least they should be clear that this is a Christian school.
But even in this case, parents don't always have a choice. What if they are the only school around? This gives them power. I personally would be very careful about how to use this power.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of curiosity, at the receiving end, are the boxes given out by foreign missionaries, e.g. from the donor country or are they given to local churches to distribute? Does anyone know? If the latter, then one should let them decide whether they put leaflets with the gifts or not, and how the leaflets express Christian basics.
By the way, who is Franklyn Graham? I don't think he's a heard-of person here, yet alone a controversial one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
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?
spot on.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
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.
I'll be arriving on the next plane, then.
--------------------
"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 LeRoc:
quote:
Twilight: Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty?
The paternalism, it hurts.
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." Then why are you interested in Christian charity at all? In fact, isn't any desire to send food or medicine to other countries paternalism? Can't you leave them alone to take care of themselves?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
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."
And you don't understand what I'm saying.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Billy Graham was very famous here. I for one, have never until now heard of either Franklyn or Anne Graham.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
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.
Too bad about Anne-- she's a magnificent preacher. But probably worth the loss if it facilitates blissful ignorance of Franklin's intemperate rants.
--------------------
"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
Anne Graham Lotz writes books declaring that we are in the End Times as evidenced by our decadent morals and things like Katrina and 9/11. She thinks we're being punished. In a television interview she said: 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.
I heard this speech paraphrased by a local, preacher and thought WTH? First of all Dr. Spock was not particularly permissive, he just thought it was better to explain things to children than to whip them with belts, but I knew he didn't have a child who committed suicide. He does have a grandson who killed himself while having a psychotic episode due to schizophrenia. She was fairly gloating over the thought of the young man's death as well as O'Hare's murder.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
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.
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
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.
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.
--------------------
"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 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.
Neither of them would be of much interest if they had a different dad.
Tubbs
[ 26. October 2014, 12:27: 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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
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!
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.
There are far worse evils than dogmatic and offensive tracts. Just think what they get used for in places where everyday necessities are missing!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I agree with Tubbs about the young Grahams. I really wasn't crazy about Billy and some of his doings with the Presidents, either.
I just wouldn't give up a charity that I thought was doing some good because of something said by one of the charity's leaders. For all I know there are people on the business end of Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, cancer research, whatever, who have views with which I'm not in agreement. I'm much more interested in how much of the contribution reaches the intended purpose compared to admin costs, etc. The things you can research on Charity Navigator. Of course this little OCC is not intended for such great things, so all the more reason not to inspect everyone up the chain for flaws.
ETA: What Sioni said.
[ 26. October 2014, 14:44: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
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.
Yes, the British shoebox appeals seem to focus on Eastern Europe quite a bit, and on Romania particularly.
I'd assumed, though, that Romania was a country with a largely Christian heritage. A quick visit to Wiki tells me that 99.5% of Romanians identify as Christians, which appears to be one of the highest percentage rates in the world! This doesn't mean that they're all believers, of course (and the figure is probably inaccurate), but neither does it suggest that the need for evangelism there is distinctively high. It would surely be higher in the UK or Belgium, with 59.3% and 64.1% respectively.
Most Romanians are Eastern Orthodox, according to Wiki. Maybe foreign evangelists like the OCC folk have difficulties in recognising this as a 'sound' form of Christianity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
As someone with a Romanian partner, I can certainly confirm that it is a very religious country. Even during Communist times, religion still featured heavily.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
