Thread: Operation Christmas Child Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027811
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
My kids school is doing the shoebox appeal, and having looked into it I'm not particularly happy about supporting it.
Ignoring whether it is a good and effective way of distributing aid (I would generally say not), is tying evangelism in with such giving appropriate? Is it fair game to tell people why you are giving them things in the hope of conversions?
A lot of missionary and aid work go hand in hand, and in general I'm comfortable with the programmes I know about and support (e.g. World Vision). But OCC seems different somehow - it seems like bribery, and focusing on children in particular feels wrong. I must also admit I'm really not a fan of Franklin Graham so that may cloud my thinking.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think the UK operation is different from the US operation - from something I recall from years ago. The UK operations behaves in a less bribey way.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I still use OCC with the kids at our church, even though I share many of the reservations in the OP, particularly the reservations about Franklin himself and the awful statements he is so prone to making.
As a regular participant (our church has been doing this for years) who gets their regular newsletters/flyers, I have trouble getting a clear idea of what actually happens when the boxes are distributed. It is clear that an evangelistic booklet is inserted into each box, and that distribution may happen in some sort of Xmas party where some version of a gospel message is presented. I imagine that varies greatly depending on the staff member doing it. (I'd like to say it varies greatly depending on the cultural context, but I have zero confidence that is the case).
The reason I keep doing that is for the kids in our program as much as anything else. Certainly there would be more efficient and less culturally questionable ways to help support families in refugee camps-- our church does that through our denominational aid agency. The reason I use OCC is that it's such an effective tool in teaching children about giving-- hands-on, tangible, visual. They are able to engage in good empathy-building skills as they imagine what a child in a refugee camp might want in their box. I have (so far) decided to put up with the other questions I have about Samaritan's Purse in order to provide this important teaching tool for our kids. After 5th grade our kids participate in other sorts of programs that provide aid in more efficient and effective and culturally appropriate ways.
There's where I've landed for now, but it's always an open question for me.
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on
:
Our church supports Smile. They do add any literature to the boxes.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm not a devotee of Mumsnet (wrong gender, for a start) ... but there has been a lot of discussion there about whether Samaritan's Purse is trying to "silence" its critics. I have no idea how much is true and how much is hearsay ...
Anyway, here's the link.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Cliffdweller, the benefit for the children giving things is what makes me think there is some worth in this sort of project. Are there not alternative charities who do similar without the proselytising?
S Cat, I think they have bowed to pressure in the UK a while back and tried to make it seem less in your face. So the leaflets and delivered 'alongside' the boxes rather than in them.They aren't exactly clear about what happens when they are distributed but their website says:
"They give local churches the opportunity to show God’s love to children in a tangible way and, during the distribution event, to share the Good News of Jesus Christ, perhaps through age-appropriate music, dance and puppet shows, or through a little book of Bible stories The Greatest Gift, distributed with the shoebox, not inside it." and "In some cases, after the shoebox distribution, children may be invited to attend a discipleship programme called The Greatest Journey." (The Greatest Gift incidentally is very much a conevo pamphlet, with PSA and 'sinner's prayer').
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
Cliffdweller, the benefit for the children giving things is what makes me think there is some worth in this sort of project. Are there not alternative charities who do similar without the proselytising?
Not in the same way, at least here in So. Cal. And they've made it very easy to participate (local distribution centers, ample online resources, etc.). All of which goes to the point I acknowledge: that our participation is more about us (the benefit to our kids) than it is about them. At this point I don't think the boxes are causing any real harm (I suspect the evangelistic efforts are handled the way pretty much every con-evo outreach is-- an annoyance to sit through to get to the stuff you want/need). And I'm a con-evo myself so I'm not quite as offended by it as others might be (tho the methodology I am sure is flawed and culturally inappropriate). So I'm OK with doing this one thing that I hope/pray/think provides some small blessing to children in need but provides a greater benefit to our kids (in teaching them empathy and giving). But I limit it to those young kids who need a tangible, visible means of giving. Once they're old enough for abstract reasoning, our charitable drives need to be much more discerning.
But again, I may decide differently at any point in time-- most likely the next time Franklin opens his mouth.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I avoid this appeal like the plague.
Children can be more helped by regular, sustained, gift-aided giving by standing order.
Action Aid for sponsoring individual children or Christian Aid/CAFOD/TEARfund for communities/villages as a whole.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
As I am not actually part of a church anymore, I don't actually have any involvement in this. But when I did, a few years ago, the impression I was given was that the boxes were distributed, and there was a presentation around why people wanted to do this - that was the limit of the Christian input.
It sounds like it is actually much harder than this, which worries me - especially as children from local schools and other such places are often encouraged to contribute. I like the idea of giving children something to brighten their lives up - it is meaningful to them, and for them, at the time, it is more significant than long-term support. I am happy for this to be alongside, say, a video of why they do it.
But making it like time-share sales is wrong. They are given by people freely, and out of a spirit of generosity and openness. To take such gifts and make them tools for pressured evangelism is wrong.
It is no substitute for long-term, committed giving, but then, it is not intended to be. It is a way of children (often) giving to others, and making them aware that others are not so well off.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
SC wrote:- quote:
As I am not actually part of a church anymore, I don't actually have any involvement in this. But when I did, a few years ago, the impression I was given was that the boxes were distributed, and there was a presentation around why people wanted to do this - that was the limit of the Christian input.
SC - where are you?
In the UK there are quite a few "Christmas Box" type charity operations that do exactly as you say. I can't imagine there would not be similar ventures in parts of the US/Canada etc. Coverage may be patchy of course.
The particular charge is levelled at this particular charity, which admittedly seems huge.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
What OCC say is quote:
We have never put Christian literature into shoeboxes before they are shipped, nor do we ever intend to do so. Where appropriate, the local church or Christian partner distributing the shoeboxes may issue a free copy of a Christian booklet
The linked page also allows you to view the booklet that may be given out.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
Does it make a difference whether the booklet is in the box or on top of it? Also, that is the UK version. The US one says, "When children unwrap a shoe box gift, they receive more than coloring books, toys, and toothbrushes. They are also given “The Greatest Gift,” a booklet in the local language filled with scriptures, colorful pictures, and a simple presentation of the Gospel."
And yes the booklet does give a very good presentation of the conevo gospel. I doubt other Christians would be that keen on it though.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
@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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Sometimes I really would prefer to remain ignorant. It seems that Blythswood, who organise a shoe box appeal here, are similarly leveraging the gifts people give to support their evangelistic efforts. They are active in a selection of eastern European countries, most of which are Catholic or Orthodox. I don't know what the material they add to the boxes (yes, it is added) is like but I'm not hopeful.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
What OCC say is quote:
We have never put Christian literature into shoeboxes before they are shipped, nor do we ever intend to do so. Where appropriate, the local church or Christian partner distributing the shoeboxes may issue a free copy of a Christian booklet
The linked page also allows you to view the booklet that may be given out.
'The true meaning of Christmas'.
What is truth?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
SC wrote:- quote:
As I am not actually part of a church anymore, I don't actually have any involvement in this. But when I did, a few years ago, the impression I was given was that the boxes were distributed, and there was a presentation around why people wanted to do this - that was the limit of the Christian input.
SC - where are you?
In the UK there are quite a few "Christmas Box" type charity operations that do exactly as you say. I can't imagine there would not be similar ventures in parts of the US/Canada etc. Coverage may be patchy of course.
The particular charge is levelled at this particular charity, which admittedly seems huge.
I am in the UK, and the local churches do support OCC. How happy they would be with their tactics, if they were clearly aware of them, varies between churches.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
In the UK there are quite a few "Christmas Box" type charity operations that do exactly as you say. I can't imagine there would not be similar ventures in parts of the US/Canada etc. Coverage may be patchy of course.
The particular charge is levelled at this particular charity, which admittedly seems huge.
I'm not aware of any other "Christmas box" charities in my part of the US (and believe me, I've looked)-- probably precisely because this one is so big it would dwarf all competitors. And, again, admittedly that's part of the appeal-- the size means that they are able to make it very user-friendly-- there are, for example, a half dozen drop-off sites w/in a 5-10 mile radius of our church.
I do know some churches who essentially use the idea to do their own Christmas shoebox thing-- either working with ministry partners overseas to put together and ship boxes to them with items those partners deem useful; or working with a local agency to put together shoeboxes that will be given to local homeless kids. At some point that's probably the way I'll go at my church (the latter being logistically easier than the former). I just haven't gotten fed up enough with Franklin to invest the time/effort it would take to do that yet-- but I'm sure the day is coming, and soon.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Try Mary's Meals instead if you are in the UK
http://www.marysmeals.org.uk/
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The shoe box appeal/ distributor I'm aware of (and which is supported by our local WI) is for children in Romania and was started by Olivia Harrison, widow of George.
It has nothing at all to do with any brand of religion: rather it is about getting these children some of what our own offspring would consider the necessities of life but which children in Romanian orphanages cannot access.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
As mission partners we are linked with a number of parish churches back in the UK.
We receive their weekly pew-sheets via email.
Two of them, one Anglo-Catholic and one the higher end of the spectrum, do Christmas boxes. I've visited the websites of the organisations they work through and the links are below. As far as I can see from their "about us" pages their Christianity is their motivation rather than their goal!But I could be wrong.....
http://www.msrm.org.uk/index.html
http://linktohope.co.uk/
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
The boxes I have seen come with instructions not to include anything of a religious nature. I'm wondering if some countries handle this differently.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The boxes I have seen come with instructions not to include anything of a religious nature. I'm wondering if some countries handle this differently.
That doesn't sound like Operation Christmas Child (Samaritan's Purse), but some other organization.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
But it is Samaritan's Purse - Operation Christmas Child. That's how it operates where I live anyway. However, I'll investigate it further before our church paricipates next year. As I said the instructions may be different in other countries.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
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?
What's so nice about telling children that their religion is wrong and they and their parents are going to hell unless they change religion?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I know some Methodists who get involved in Samaritan's Purse and Christmas shoeboxes, and I doubt they'd approve of any leaflets that threatened children or parents with hell.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
It helps our children to think of others, at a time when they get so much for themselves,and they enjoy doing it. My wife and I have made boxes up for quite a few years, but have given up now because of age and disability. But don't see anything wrong with telling people the good news of Jesus.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
I can see the benefit for children putting the boxes together that it is something tangible they can do to help others. I don't think they are a great way of distributing aid - logistically it is very inefficient and it doesn't support local economies.
What I have asked the school is whether they would consider switching to a different shoe box appeal, that doesn't come with the ties.
I am interested in what is considered reasonable when doing this sort of thing though. Reading discussions on non-faith forums, it is very split with some people saying they are doing something nice and so what if they want to preach a bit, to others saying they are trying to indoctrinate children using toys in a sneaky manner. I haven't heard anything from the communities where they send the parcels and whether they care or not. I'm not sure if I am just uneasy in a overly hand-wringing type way, concerned too much about how these things look to others.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
... I haven't heard anything from the communities where they send the parcels and whether they care or not. I'm not sure if I am just uneasy in a overly hand-wringing type way, concerned too much about how these things look to others.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Thank you for that. I think you've pinpointing the one fundamental question that matters, and which everyone who's been arguing either way on this has missed. Without knowing an objective answer to it, all the agonising is just hand-wringing nonsense.
[ 20. October 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Our church has a relationship with the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, where the poverty is very stark. In addition to sending things for the children at Christmas, we send necessary items throughout the year.
We used to send shoeboxes to the children, but we now send backpacks, which they can use later. In late November we have a 'Party with a Purpose', where the children of the parish help pack the backpacks.
We are fortunate in having a direct link to this needy community. We know enough about them that we feel personal concern. I suspect that this type of one-on-one relationship distributes aid much more efficiently than larger organizations.
Moo
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Our vicar is keen on it but during his recent sabbatical in Peru he saw that many of the boxes contained material suitable for girls and many of the boy recipients and their mothers were quite upset ...
They opened the boxes with anticipation and were disappointed with the contents.
Now that's an interesting conundrum.
That said, others were delighted.
The concept doesn't sit well with me, I must admit but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. I'm sure it brightens up some of the recipients' lives - but it seems quite a token thing. The real relief and development work goes on in projects that empower people ... not trickles of gifts of coloured pencils ...
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar is keen on it but during his recent sabbatical in Peru he saw that many of the boxes contained material suitable for girls and many of the boy recipients and their mothers were quite upset ...
They opened the boxes with anticipation and were disappointed with the contents.
I'm a bit puzzled by that. In my last parish, there was a strong support of OCC (despite the parish being highly wary of ANYTHING evangelical). Our boxes were always clearly labelled "boy" or "girl", as well as an indication of the appropriate age range.
But then, the UK boxes go to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as far as I can remember. If your vicar was in Peru, I suspect he was looking at American originated boxes. Perhaps they don't have the same labelling system as exists in the UK?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The concept doesn't sit well with me, I must admit but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. I'm sure it brightens up some of the recipients' lives - but it seems quite a token thing. The real relief and development work goes on in projects that empower people ... not trickles of gifts of coloured pencils ...
I agree completely that "real relief" is something very different from these boxes. But I wouldn't be so quick to minimise the impact that they have - both for the giver and the recipient. The problem with "real relief and development" work is that it is inevitably large scale and impersonal. I think that there is something very attractive about a system whereby someone in the UK (or the US or wherever) thinks about a box of small gifts to give to someone in a less well-off country, whose life will (hopefully) be brightened immensely in receiving small tokens of love and generosity.
I have concerns about some aspects of this project, but at its heart is a simple and effective idea about how one person can actually make a difference to someone living in a desperate situation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our vicar is keen on it but during his recent sabbatical in Peru he saw that many of the boxes contained material suitable for girls and many of the boy recipients and their mothers were quite upset ...
They opened the boxes with anticipation and were disappointed with the contents.
I'm a bit puzzled by that. In my last parish, there was a strong support of OCC (despite the parish being highly wary of ANYTHING evangelical). Our boxes were always clearly labelled "boy" or "girl", as well as an indication of the appropriate age range.
But then, the UK boxes go to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as far as I can remember. If your vicar was in Peru, I suspect he was looking at American originated boxes. Perhaps they don't have the same labelling system as exists in the UK?
We have that exact same color-coded labeling system. I think there are certain demographics that are just more appealing to recipients (e.g. younger kids, possibly girls over boys) and some that are more challenging and so just don't get as many boxes made. I've always heard they get the least number of boxes for older boys, so I've always tried to steer our families towards making boxes for that group.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My understanding of it is that whilst the organisers do their best to provide boy/girl labels and so on, for some reason most of the donors veer towards the female side when choosing gifts - so there are more female boxes than male ones.
As it's a voluntary thing, the organisers can't dictate what donors are going to provide and have to work with what they're given ...
As Cliffdweller says, it's particularly an issue for older boys.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
This is a general problem with this kind of appeal, I think. A few years ago my workplace organised a collection of toys at Christmas (for children in France) and it was noticeable that people brought more stuff suitable for girls than boys unless they were reminded. I purposely brought a toy suitable for a boy (a lovely red fire engine ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) but I was definitely in the minority.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
This is a general problem with this kind of appeal, I think. A few years ago my workplace organised a collection of toys at Christmas (for children in France) and it was noticeable that people brought more stuff suitable for girls than boys unless they were reminded. I purposely brought a toy suitable for a boy (a lovely red fire engine ) but I was definitely in the minority.
That's probably because more of the people who participate tend to be women. In a school, I bet more boxes are packed by mothers than fathers. Since, when they were children, they were little girls, I suspect that means they are more likely to choose presents suitable for who they once were.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think if the gifts are going to be wrapped then labeling by age/gender is only sensible.
Once my three nieces were in town for Xmas, and we went to the children's Christmas Eve service. It is elaborate (wreaths, candles, living Nativity, animals etc.) and the donated gifts are mounded up by the altar in a very impressive stack. I had carefully organized three of them so that each girl could carry a gift up and add it to the pile. Then the youngest turned to me and said, "And now we get one, right?"
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
This is a general problem with this kind of appeal, I think. A few years ago my workplace organised a collection of toys at Christmas (for children in France) and it was noticeable that people brought more stuff suitable for girls than boys unless they were reminded. I purposely brought a toy suitable for a boy (a lovely red fire engine ) but I was definitely in the minority.
That's probably because more of the people who participate tend to be women. In a school, I bet more boxes are packed by mothers than fathers. Since, when they were children, they were little girls, I suspect that means they are more likely to choose presents suitable for who they once were.
I think this is the case. Whereas, as mentioned above, the whole point of the somewhat fraught exercise is to teach children empathy and compassion. As has been discussed, there are better ways for an adult to give charitably-- more cost-effective & culturally appropriate, not giving a platform to a loudmouthed buffoon. The only reason IMHO for supporting this particular ministry is that it's so effective in teaching children those empathy skills. All of which is wasted if the parents are doing the shopping.
Whereas, if parents would take each of their children to the local store, give them a budget and some guidelines, and let the kids pick out the items (particularly the toys) one would assume the boxes would fall into a nice demographic representation, since girls would most likely pick out things that appeal to girls and boys pick out things that would appeal to boys.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
There's something else people can do as well. If, like my last parish, the boxes are being piled up at the back of the church, it only takes a moment to skim through and calculate how many boxes there are of each category. Our organiser used to do this and then make a plea for later boxes to be focused on the categories which really needed them. We found that some people would specifically ask where the need was greatest.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It might help not to send ostentatiously gendered stuff in the first place of course.
Salvation Army used to do presents for our mental health clients with no family, in our area. But that has largely stopped now - though I think some organisations still do hospital wards.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
This is a general problem with this kind of appeal, I think. A few years ago my workplace organised a collection of toys at Christmas (for children in France) and it was noticeable that people brought more stuff suitable for girls than boys unless they were reminded. I purposely brought a toy suitable for a boy (a lovely red fire engine ) but I was definitely in the minority.
That's probably because more of the people who participate tend to be women. In a school, I bet more boxes are packed by mothers than fathers. Since, when they were children, they were little girls, I suspect that means they are more likely to choose presents suitable for who they once were.
I think this is the case. Whereas, as mentioned above, the whole point of the somewhat fraught exercise is to teach children empathy and compassion. As has been discussed, there are better ways for an adult to give charitably-- more cost-effective & culturally appropriate, not giving a platform to a loudmouthed buffoon. The only reason IMHO for supporting this particular ministry is that it's so effective in teaching children those empathy skills. All of which is wasted if the parents are doing the shopping.
Whereas, if parents would take each of their children to the local store, give them a budget and some guidelines, and let the kids pick out the items (particularly the toys) one would assume the boxes would fall into a nice demographic representation, since girls would most likely pick out things that appeal to girls and boys pick out things that would appeal to boys.
Yes, this what we do, we get our 2 boys to choose items for their own age group.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Since my only child was a boy, I always do a boy box -- and then since my child was a boy, I do a girl box. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sorry, Doublethink, if I don't get to buy a few dolls each Christmas (Toys for Tots, too) baby Santa cries.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think the saddest thing about gender is the assumption that certain kids wouldn't like certain toys. Say take boys and dolls*. My oldest boy is admittedly only two, but he very much likes dolls and such. He'll probably like them right up until he figures out that he's not "supposed to." Guess my job is to delay that as much as possible.
*Not at all to pick on you, Twilight, that is the way the world is, and if you gave a boy a few cute dolls through that charity, he would probably not be happy at all.
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
I've supported OCC in the past in was intending to do so again.
I think it's weird that they tell us not to put anything of a religious nature into the box if they are then going to add relgious stuff to it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I've supported OCC in the past in was intending to do so again.
I think it's weird that they tell us not to put anything of a religious nature into the box if they are then going to add relgious stuff to it.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that they want a monopoly for their brand of conservative Christianity.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I've supported OCC in the past in was intending to do so again.
I think it's weird that they tell us not to put anything of a religious nature into the box if they are then going to add relgious stuff to it.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that they want a monopoly for their brand of conservative Christianity.
I gather the reason is because they only give out leaflets when 'culturally appropriate' so they don't want religious things sneaking in undisclosed, or so their website said the last time I was on a thread discussing this (it was a very anti-Christian discussion on a parenting website).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
I've supported OCC in the past in was intending to do so again.
I think it's weird that they tell us not to put anything of a religious nature into the box if they are then going to add relgious stuff to it.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that they want a monopoly for their brand of conservative Christianity.
I gather the reason is because they only give out leaflets when 'culturally appropriate' so they don't want religious things sneaking in undisclosed, or so their website said the last time I was on a thread discussing this (it was a very anti-Christian discussion on a parenting website).
fwiw, the US directions do not contain that provision. So apparently it's only you Brits who can't be trusted to share the gospel in culturally appropriate ways (*cough *cough). Um.... riiiiight...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
But it is Samaritan's Purse - Operation Christmas Child. That's how it operates where I live anyway. However, I'll investigate it further before our church paricipates next year. As I said the instructions may be different in other countries.
It's also how this scheme was operated by a few churches I knew off in England. The specific instructions included nothing religious to be included in the boxes. It would be explicitly obvious that the distributors were a Christian organization, but within the boxes themselves nothing evangelistic or overtly Christian was to be included, simply because of the possibility of offence to people of other faiths (should they be recipients), or a confusion of motive for the generosity.
I suppose, too, that the fact it's a CHRISTMAS gift scheme does rather give the game away if any recipients are struggling with the idea of what kind of people might be involved with it.
I suppose it's a little like the idea that it was very nice of the local mission to offer soup and a bed, but not so nice when the 'price' was having to listen to someone preaching you at while you ate your food, and you were compelled to attend prayer before you slept and when you woke. Otherwise you were chucked out.
It'll always divide opinion whether such 'gifts' should be free or have a kind of imposition attached. Whether it's right that other religions should see it as an imposition is out of our hands.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
When we did it, not only were we told not to include anything religious, we were also told not to include e.g. Marks & Spencer "Percy Pig" sweets, as these would be offensive to Muslim recipients.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Cliffdweller ... but don't you realise? Sharing the Gospel in a British kind of way IS culturally appropriate ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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?
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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
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).
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on
:
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!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Tubbs, cliffdweller, quantpole (in reverse order), thank you, that clarifies a few niggles, and sets a few hares running for me.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
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!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Tubbs: Here's the booklet. [Opens PDF]
Ah. I wouldn't support a charity that would put this in their Christmas boxes.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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 by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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....
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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 by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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??
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Twilight: Should we only worry that they are poor in material ways and not about the spiritual poverty?
The paternalism, it hurts.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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.
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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 by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Billy Graham was very famous here. I for one, have never until now heard of either Franklyn or Anne Graham.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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!
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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 ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0