Operation Christmas Child

[tribpot]

I found out on Friday that someone from my team at work had been prevented from sending out an email to the office at large, letting them know she was organising the shoebox collection for Operation Christmas child .

She was told that people in the office might be offended to be informed of a Christian charity, doing charitable work. At Christmas.

I am completely appalled; to be honest, had I known about this beforehand I would have sent out an email myself, and let them sack me for it if deemed appropriate. (This the NHS we're talking about).

Why would a non-Christian be offended by this? I am a non-Christian (an atheist) and I see absolutely nothing wrong in it. The organisation, Samaritan's Purse, might be slightly dodgy in some way, i.e. they have a Christian agenda (hardly unreasonable for them)? But this seems to have been a knee-jerk reaction to ensure the non-Christian members of staff were not offended. I obviously don't know them all, but the ones I do would not have given two hoots about this and would probably have been happy to contribute.

All I can say is that this is not my experience of Operation Christmas Child. I know some people involved in it here and there is no evangelism as part of the shoebox appeal. The boxes are given out with the permission of the country that the children are in and contain no evangelistic material at all.
It just seems motivated by people who want to do something nice and if they themselves are motivated by their beliefs that's OK by me.
Have you checked it out first hand? Because there really does seem to be a lot of misinformation out there.
Of course, if you object to Christianity full stop then I guess that nothing done in its name will have your support.

The whole premise of Operation Christmas Child is so ridiculous that it can only have been conceived with some ulterior motive in mind. Why on earth would you contribute to something that must cost hunderds of thousands in resources, let alone carbon footprint, to transport thousands of tonnes of cheap short lasting knick knacks half way across the globe, where they will give a few hours pleasure at most, to communities who have scant food, no clean water and no infrastructure?

People often say it gives their children a feeling of giving. So teach them about effective giving. Otherwise it is simply self-indulgent, and about the self satisfaction of the giver.

Serious experienced aid agencies do not operate like this. Haven't SP been refused the equivalent of being a registered charity in the U.S? Charitable giving should never involve giving out religious tracts.

I would not ban a Christian Aid charity from the workplace, but I would ban this. On the basis of our Eco Policy alone!

But the religious aspect aside, to be argued ad infinitum, why would you spend money transporting tonnes of bubble mix and crayons (to children who haven't got pencil sharpeners) and plastic tat to children whose life expectancy is threatened by clean water? If they are not Christian children why give them a Christmas present? Give them vaccines and clean water and a means to produce sustainable protein.

Hi Blu
I don't find it hard to imagine that there are some people who do nice things just for the sake of being nice. I don't think there always has to be an ulterior motive.
I don't think it matters that much that the contents of the boxes aren't valuable or precious stuff; if a kid is never given a present it stands to reason to me that whatever it is would be a treat.
I've got two small children and I can never predict what things in their Christmas stockings they're going to treasure. Quite often it's the tat that they find fascinating. Even more often it's the box things come in.
I can't comment on the carbon footprint thing. If I put crayons in a box for someone in a third world country I'd put a pencil sharpener in. I don't suppose they always get it right.
Check out this clip (hope it's ok to post a link).
This is why I like Operation Christmas Child.

...and that little lad hadn't even opened his box yet.

I have no trouble at all imagining people doing something nice just for the sake of doing something nice. I don't have to imagine it: I am surrounded by people among close friends and family as well as in my wider community who do wonderful things out of generosity, altruism and all sorts of other reasons.

I see that the copy at the end of those clips (the follow-on one shows a child in Belarus receiveing a hat - fine - and a massive bag of cheap lollies) describes SP as 'meeting the critical needs' of victims of disaster etc 'while sharing the good news of Jesus Christ'

If people's needs are critical then use the resources to send medicine, food, etc , not 500g bags of lollies, and do it for it's own sake. A reputabel charitable, and genuinely generous relief organisation meets critical needs without using the act and p[eoople's vulnerability to spread your own religion. The charitable aid organisations specifically preclude evangelising alongside relief work. It is exploiiting people's hour of need to preach to them.

And it's right there in SP's own PR as a major publicised aim: 'while spreading the good news'. Fancy using boxes of cheap lollies to encourage highly vulnerable and impressionable children to hear 'the good news'.

Surely there's a dual thing going on here though. It's clear from the pictures that the children who are jumping about with delight on receiving their boxes aren't in immediate need of medicine or life saving food, though they might be poor; it's not as if Operation Christmas Child volunteers are climbing over the dying to hand a plastic trinket to a child who obviously needs something more immediate.
I'm sure that critical needs are being addressed by this organisation but I thought what we were talking about was the shoebox appeal, which has a different focus. you're right in saying that a bag of lollies or a woolly hat won't save a child's life, but surely it makes it happier?
I know people involved in this, and they are like the people you are surrounded by who do wonderful things out of generosity, altruism, and other reasons. One of those reasons is their faith, which tells them to care about whether or not a poor kid in another country experiences the joy of being given a gift.
Again, the shoebox appeal is unconditional; they are not given on the condition that a child/family whatever will listen to bible readings/sermons/a religious message.
I am guessing that sometimes someone might question why people go to so much trouble to deliver these boxes, (as you did) and then, the volunteer might explain that they do it from a Christian motive. I imagine that depends on the individual who's asked.
I can understand that not everyone has a faith like these people. I can understand that not everyone wants to hear about people's faith.
I don't understand why people begrudge kids who have little or nothing a bit of joy.

smallpenguin - the following is a quote taken from the Samaritan's Purse website, from a piece about a minister distributing the Christmas boxes in Tbilisi:

?We are always trying to expand our ministry to children,? he said. ?The boxes give us an opportunity to reach out to them in a way that would not be possible otherwise. They are a good tool for explaining to them who Jesus is and to share the Gospel with them.?

His church began offering the 10-lesson Bible course through the Operation Christmas Child follow-up discipleship program. Over 100 children enrolled in the program at first, and the pastor requested lessons for 500 children afterward.

----------

From reading this (and other similar stories and promotional material - eg this) on the organisation's own website, it seems very clear that the primary motivation in distributing the boxes is to recruit as many children as possible to Franklin Graham's particular brand of evangelical Christianity.

I have no problem with people supporting this if that is what they believe in. But I really do think that schools collecting boxes for OCC should make it clear to families that this is the context in which the boxes are distributed, so that non-evangelical Christians (and Muslims, Hindus and anyone belonging to any of the other religions Franklin Graham has denigrated in the past) are not unwittingly supporting a missionary campaign they do not believe in. There are plenty of other ways of helping needy children in this country and abroad using less controversial charities.

Oh, and welcome to MN, smallpenguin. Interesting that your first two posts are both defending Operation Christmas Child. Am I the only one who thinks it's funny how we get lots of new posters only interested in this one subject about this time of year - it happened last year as well....

Hi exexpat

I've been a member of MN since 2005, when I was expecting my first baby. I used it to find local stuff to do when I needed baby groups etc.

I usually just scan the emails I get but I admit that I found Babycentre much more my cup of tea.

You're right that I haven't posted on these discussions before. I haven't even looked at these boards since the real nastiness there was about Gina Ford back in 2006? was it, maybe?

A friend who is more in touch with MN told me that OCC was the subject of much negative press here and so here I am. I make no apology about defending Operation Christmas Child; yes, that's why I came here. I am not involved in any way with OCC or Samaritan's Purse, but I have friends that do help with the shoebox appeal and I feel sad that there is such misdirected unpleasantness.

Nothing funny about it.

But thanks for the welcome. :-)

Is there an alternative then to OCC? My DD's school does this and I would like to suggest an alternative to them if possible.

When we had the OCC debate at school last year someone mentioned the Round Table do a year round box scheme, and allegedly there was no religious element. Can't guarantee it as I didn't get further than a cursory visit to the website, but worth looking into.

Given the demonstrable dishonesty of Samaritan;s Purse, the more threads there are exposing them (and their fuckwitted or indeed actively dishonest defenders) the better.

smallpenguin - sorry if my comment offended you. It is just that when there is a sudden influx of apparently new people posting very similar things on a handful of threads on the same topic, it starts to look like a coordinated PR campaign.

I've just been having a look at both the US and UK websites for OCC, and was struck by how little there was about the religious element on the UK site, compared to the US one. As they are both part of the same organisation, I presume the boxes get distributed in the same way. Perhaps the US version is toned down a little for the less evangelical UK market?

I know several people have emphasized that the shoeboxes do not have any Christian literature in them, or they do not contain any religious material - but it seems fairly clear from the US website (though not from the UK one) that in nearly all cases a booklet of bible stories is handed out with the boxes, and the event at which the boxes are distributed has an overtly Christian theme. All of which is fine, if people are aware of it.

My objection is mainly to the way OCC seems to operate in the UK, which is to encourage schools to get involved and get children excited about packing a box full of gifts for an underprivileged child - without mentioning the fact that this is part of an evangelical program.

Like most people, if someone asked me if I wanted to bring a smile to the face of a child living in poverty, I would say yes. But if they added that it the boxes were
a way to bring that child into an evangelical church and interest them in a 12-step discipleship program (see SP newsletter featuring Franklin Graham here), I would say no, even though I am happy to accept that there is no coercion involved. I would not 'begrudge' the children the pleasure of the boxes - I am just not willing to support the perpetuation of religious views I do not share.

People are not being told about the missionary activity accompanying the boxes, and I believe it is wrong for schools to get involved in this without giving parents a full and informed choice in the matter.

Can any of those who are defending OCC on this thread give me any good reasons why schools should support this charity when many or most pupils do not come from an evangelical Christian background?

well put small penguin. I get that people don't agree with OCC's evangelical ambitions but then I would say don't do it?

in response to exexpat, I have done OCC and work for them at the moment. I have one of their leaflets in front of me (and these go out to all the kids in the UK) and it does clearly state 'where appropriate our local partners will also freely distribute a booklet of bible stories - including the story of Christmas, the birth of Jesus - to children receiving shoeboxes'. They also say OCC is about 'reminding a child in need that God loves them and they have not been forgotten this Christmas.'

I myself have been on a distribution trip and seen how they hand out boxes to hospitals and orphanages and where the local people don't want to they don't hand out the leaflets.

They aren't hiding their aims. My kids love doing it and I think the more kids that get these shoeboxes the better. If you agree then join in! But I completely understand people who don't agree with their beliefs... do something else then!

Haven't read whole thread, but didn't a Mumsnetter's DC receive one of these boxes at school one year? the mum was appalled because she is not "in need" at all, and was saddened to think of the family who put the box together for someone who "needed" it when it was given out to her DC in a relatively well off but not Christian area?

OCC are very dodgy and some countries have asked that they stop operating in them.

They proselytis, they put Bibles and Christian pamphlets in the boxes and subject the children recieving them to long lectures on Christianity before they hand them their boxes.

When they started they used to give the boses to orphanages in Christian countries, now they give them to non Christian children the world over. How would you feel if your child was sat down and preached at for a few hours to recieve something at Eid or Passover or Wesak.

I used to do this every year until I found out what they are really like.

here

I think non-religious people have a very hard time understanding that you can do something for nothing.

There is nothing to stop anyone from organising relief/aid - but it is usually the Christian groups who do. Why is that?

Easy to criticise - but harder to get off your backside.

MmeBlueberry, as an atheist I find your comment very insulting.

As I do not believe in any kind of afterlife, I think that this life is the only chance any of us get - there is no reward in heaven for a life lived in poverty and sickness. So I do my best to support charities which try to help those living in the worst possible circumstances without any religious motives: Oxfam, Medicins sans Frontieres, Plan, Unicef etc. Yes, I know that many major charities were set up by people with religious beliefs, but by no means all of them.

Just because I choose not to support a charity which seems to tie its relief efforts rather too closely to its religious aims, it does not mean I have 'a hard time understanding that you can do something for nothing'.

Bumping to see if Mme Blueberry will come back and justify her incredibly arrogant and ill-informed generalisation....

Do you really believe that just because someone has no religious beliefs they must also be lacking any empathy for or desire to help their fellow human beings?

Perhaps there is some survey data somewhere to show that every doctor and nurse flying out to war zones and disaster areas with Medicins sans Frontieres is a practising Christian? And every Oxfam field worker. And every volunteer dishing up meals and giving haircuts for Crisis at Christmas. And every volunteer in hospices, charity shops, children's projects and so on around the world. But I somehow think not.

I think perhaps you need to talk to a few more non-religious people - you might find it enlightening.

There are loads of charities that you can support - don't be so offended by Christian ones. If you want to do a shoe box thing, then set it up yourself!

I'm not sure what I said that was so arrogant and that it should lead you to list all your good deeds. I do believe there is a problem in our post-Christian society of reacting non-suspiciously when someone does you a favour. There is always this notion is that they can't possibly be giving something for nothing. There has to be a catch.

Well, actually, there doesn't have to be a catch. People can do something for nothing in return. Grace is free!

Um, I think the statement 'I think non-religious people have a very hard time understanding that you can do something for nothing' is very arrogant and/or smug, coming (I presume) from a Christian.

And your suggestion that it is always Christians who provide aid and relief is also untrue and rather arrogant, which is why I mentioned some of the non-Christian charities doing precisely that (I wasn't listing my own 'good deeds' and don't see how my post could be read that way).

Yes, you are right, people can do something for nothing - whether they are Christians, atheists or anything else. Being a Christian does not necessarily make you morally superior.

I am not offended by Christian charities in general, they do a lot of good work and I have donated to some of them in the past. My only problem is with one particular charity (OCC/SP) which unlike most other Christian charities, appears to combine its relief activities with promoting its beliefs, and does not make that sufficiently clear to people.

St Francis said, "preach the gospel at all times.... .....and, if necessary, use words".

According to OCC the reason the UK website is different is because the UK shoeboxes aren't used for proselytising. The US ones are, because that's what most people want there, but here they don't do that because they recognise it's off-putting to many people.