What could be the harm in sending a Christmas gift to a child in need? At this time of year, schools all across the country are taking part in the Christmas Box appeal, and the task is superficially noble: ask your child to fill a decorated box with toys and essential items and the charity will deliver them to a child who is living in poverty. It’s a tangible, personal way of giving, and it’s immensely popular.
But Operation Christmas Child is run by Samaritan’s Purse, a huge and zealous organisation led by Franklin Graham, son of the famous evangelist Billy Graham. Not only is the organisation openly homophobic, it seeks to proselytise in a manner that most people, including liberal Christians, find unacceptable. As a humanist, I am naturally disquieted by the idea of people performing evangelical work with the intended purpose of conversion; but I am positively offended when this work is performed at the expense of vulnerable children in desperate situations across the globe.
Several other charitable organisations and reputable businesses, including the Cooperative, have withdrawn their support for Operation Christmas Child.[i] The charity Save The Children has questioned its effectiveness and expressed concerns about the use of evangelism in the context of people in need. Some leading teachers’ Unions, including the NASUWT, have pointed out the difficult position that schools are placing themselves in when they support such charities without giving careful thought to their stated mission. But despite all of this, hundreds of schools will still take part in Operation Christmas Child this year, unwittingly supporting the work of a right-wing evangelical organisation, with little or no idea of what it stands for.[ii]
Homophobia
It is clear from the Samaritan’s Purse website and Franklin Graham’s social media pages that the organisation has a homophobic agenda. Recently Graham has been raising funds to support Aaron and Melissa Klein, who not only refused to provide services for a lesbian couple in their bakery in Oregon but even quoted Leviticus at a member of the couple’s family. It gets worse. Following consumer complaints posted online by the couple and leading to intervention by the Oregon Department of Justice, Aaron Klein sought support from others by publishing the discrimination complaint on his Facebook account, including the names and shared address of the complainants. This led to the couple receiving homophobic verbal attacks and death threats; they were even concerned that they might lose their foster children (whom they have since adopted). The couple pushed ahead with legal action and the Kleins were ultimately ordered to pay $135,000 in damages for the emotional suffering that they caused. Franklin Graham’s version of events is that the Kleins are conscientious objectors who have ‘done nothing wrong’. He uses their story to fuel resentment against equality laws and curry favour for the ridiculous notion that US Christians experience ‘persecution’, something which seems to have become something of an obsession for him.
This is just one example of the organisation’s homophobia as it seeks to uphold ‘the Biblical definition’ of marriage. Samaritan’s Purse has also given considerable financial support to the campaign against marriage equality in the USA and Graham has made his own homophobia abundantly clear both in his words and in his deeds. He’s also got some startlingly ignorant opinions about gender.
Proselytising
Many UK representatives hotly defend Operation Christmas Child and claim to have seen no evidence of evangelism or of the accusation that the boxes are distributed with ‘strings attached’. These people are either disingenuous or incredibly naïve. A cursory glance at the charity’s own website provides a wealth of evidence that the explicit, stated purpose of Operation Christmas Child is to convert the child who receives the gift and to encourage them to convert their families. The mission statement says that ‘every gift-filled shoe box is a powerful tool for evangelism and discipleship – transforming the lives of children around the world through the Good News of Jesus Christ’. As one of the representatives in India puts it in this promotional film, ‘children become the harvesters’ for Jesus. Religious literature is distributed, often in the children’s own language, and this is the charity’s own description of how it is used:
Some of the evangelical literature sent with shoeboxes to impoverished children
‘Through The Greatest Journey discipleship programme, boys and girls can become faithful followers of Jesus Christ. Samaritan’s Purse developed The Greatest Journey as a dynamic, interactive Bible study for use in countries around the world where Operation Christmas Child distributes gift-filled shoeboxes. Wherever possible, children receiving shoeboxes are invited to enrol on The Greatest Journey; 2.8 million children have enrolled on this programme since the curriculum was first developed in 2008.’
Many schools either downplay or indeed appear completely ignorant of this aspect of the charity’s work, and UK representatives of Operation Christmas Child will claim that the spreading of the word extends no further than a small booklet of bible stories that may be handed out with the boxes. This is simply not true, or at least it is not true in all cases. Much of the literature used by Samaritan’s Purse demonstrates a clear and direct attempt to convert the young, and the charity aims to enrol children in their brainwashing programme wherever possible.
Numerous critics have observed that Samaritan’s Purse volunteers overseas are often more interested in conversion than provision. According to the President of Operation USA, an international relief organisation, Samaritan’s Purse organised a religious festival after the hurricane in Nicaragua in 1999 and pressurised local churches into taking thousands of children to a baseball stadium in Managua to hear Graham preach; at a time when resources were scarce and people were in desperate need, the money could have been so much better spent on basic supplies and rebuilding work rather than on proselytising. In 2003 the organisation was criticised in the New York Times for holding prayer meetings before it provided help to the people of El Salvador to build the temporary homes that had been provided by US Government funding; interviews with some of the locals reveal that volunteers had distributed religious literature and asked them to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. Samaritan’s Purse also funded the distribution of Arabic Bibles in Iraq after the war and sent hundreds of volunteers into the country with the mission of bringing Muslims to Christ. In 2008 they compromised both government-funded aid and diplomacy by attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity following the tsunami in Banda Aceh. After the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the organisation was criticised in the liberal press for pouring money into evangelising rather than into aid; Graham claimed that the people of Haiti’s spiritual needs were the most urgent concern for his organisation, and he was supported in his endeavours by the ever-delightful Sarah Palin.
One of the reasons why so many people in the UK are completely oblivious to the extreme agenda of Samaritan’s Purse is that it is deliberately not promoted here, to the extent that many earnest and well-meaning volunteers remain blissfully unaware of its sinister nature. This is an excerpt from one of the organisation’s own statements about their UK-based operation, and it implies that there may well be practices that even those who work for the charity in the UK are completely unaware of:
‘Please be assured that the commitment of Samaritan’s Purse to evangelism is as strong as ever. … However, there is a difference in the way the boxes are processed in the UK for overseas shipment. The UK program removes all religious items … and forwards any Christian literature to our National Leadership Teams working in countries where shoebox gifts are distributed, so the Christian literature can be used with children. … The Gospel is also presented locally as part of the distribution of the gifts, and wherever possible, children are offered a Gospel storybook written in their own language called The Greatest Gift of All. Many children are also invited to enrol in a 10-lesson follow-up Bible study program, and upon completion receive a New Testament as a graduation gift.’
In the USA, where evangelism is broadly accepted and commonplace in many parts of the country, the evangelical message is better understood both by donors and by volunteers. In this country, most volunteers and participants in the scheme cling to the notion that if they haven’t seen it then it doesn’t go on. Do not be fooled – it does.
Suggested alternatives
If your local school is irretrievably wedded to the idea of a Christian shoebox scheme, the BHA advise that Link to Hope don’t distribute any literature with their boxes. The Rotary Club also runs a similar scheme and they at least have a proven track record when it comes to providing worthwhile aid within the developing world. But most charities with a genuine desire to bring change to the developing world and to lift children out of poverty now reject the Christmas box model; donors may well have the best of intentions, but sending a shoe box full of gifts is ultimately a grossly inefficient and environmentally questionable way to give. If your school would like to back a more effective scheme with tangible outcomes you could suggest that they look at those run by Plan UK, Oxfam, Save the Children, Aquabox or Good Gifts.
[i] The delivery service DHL have withdrawn their support, as have the South Wales Fire service. Oxfam have also made it clear that they do not support this organisation. Even some Christian organisations and individual Christian volunteers are detaching themselves from Samaritan’s Purse due to concerns about the extreme nature of the message.
[ii] Many websites state that concerns have been raised by the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACRE). While they offer no national policy on Operation Christmas Child, it has certainly been discussed at local SACREs across the country and some SACREs, for example in Cambridgeshire, have written to their local schools about the concerns. Minutes from the Isle of Wight group describe Operation Christmas Child as “a long-standing issue” yet one that they don’t consider to be their concern, which seems pretty extraordinary. In Surrey, our SACREs have spoken to local representatives of Operation Christmas Child and seem to accept wholesale their reassurances, which they give here. They have not investigated further.
Hello
I am a humanist and am very impressed with the detailed reporting in this article. Hopefully it’ll raise awareness and make very well-meaning, generous donors think for a minute about precisely what they are underpinning. Thing is though – I live in South Africa, where poverty is pretty normal, proper extreme poverty, where soap is a luxury in some parts – there is a ”shoebox” gift project (entirely and completely non-religious and any religious items are removed from the boxes) that are given out at foster facilities and impoverished schools. Yes, these boxes do contain a few treats, but they also contain clothing, toiletries and educational items. I see it’s not totally environmentally-friendly (though it would break your heart to see how so many of the children keep and carefully look after the boxes themselves, for years sometimes), but it definitely does materially and seriously benefit the children concerned, directly, and the cash-strapped homes they live in are benefitted indirectly by not having to scramble find money for various necessities for a little while. I think it very much depends on how ”box gift” systems are set up to be fair. This particular drive allocates specific children (anonymised) to particular people, so they get a gift tailored to them personally. The emotional benefit of this, though hard to quantify, is incredible. Many of the children concerned would never receive any item of new clothing / something just for them ever in any other circumstances, so there is self-esteem value too. Homework, as always, is essential!
Caroline do you know who runs the secular shoe box project? It might be worthwhile to suggest as an alternative to people who do want to send a box.
Oops sorry – missed it below!!
Can’t believe anyone would be opposed to sending soap, toothbrushes, toys, wash clothes, school supplies and other needed items to ‘those in need’. Bibles and other items are not sent to help these children. Your paranoia and pro-gay attitude would rather make some child suffer. Sickening.
I don’t think anyone objects to sending these items to children in need. What many of us ((I am a Christian but that is incidental) object to is Franklin Graham’s islamophobic, homophobic, pro Donald Trump, anti Obamacare, anti gun background checks , anti US police accountability posts on his Facebook page. He also receives 2 very large salaries as CEO of Samaritans Purse and the BGEA and uses Fox News scientologist journalist Greta van Susteren to promote his personal racist right wing political agenda. He has also supported the US Birthers campaign, the Tea Party and fails to correct his largely ill informed and semi literate followers on Facebook that President Obama is a Muslim, a socialist or a communist.
I’m a Christian and believe that if children need help they should receive it regardless of their beliefs. I am always happy to support charities but not one which expresses such intense opposition to anyone who dares disagree with its extreme views.
Hear hear Helen. I too am a Christian but I am also not supportive of extremist views. The Christian message is about love and I certainly am no bigot and also don’t wish to support an organisation which is homophobic in any shape or form. My heart goes out to all in need and where I can my family and I help both pastorally and in a practical way locally to where we live and further afield
Patricia, you using the words homophobia and Islamophobia in the wrong way. homophobia means to hate or fear homosexuals, and Islamophobia means to hate or fear Islam. True followers of Jesus would never hate anyone. Holding a view that homosexual behaviour if not God’s will for mankind is not homophobic, it simply recognises that sexually and anatomically man was not made for man and a woman was not made for a woman. This is hardly controversial. It’s basic human biology.
Secondly, there are many verses in the Quran that promote violence, including one which tells a husband to send his disobedient wife to a separate bed and beat her. Franklin Graham is simply exposing this kind of thing and we should applaud him for it, not use defamatory statements about him. He is not saying all Muslims are the same but that there are some disturbing aspects of this faith.
Please don’t bother replying, I haven’t got the time or inclination to return to this site.
There are many passages in the bible that promote and condone violence, genocide, rape, incest, slavery and murder.
Amazing how many Christians turn a blind eye to those passages.
Quite right Nola. It is sickening.
I agree. Was shocked and saddened by this article. These Christmas boxes go all around the world, Canada, Mexico and even here in the USA. A child does not care if you are black, white, Christian or whatever. They are just grateful for the gift. What a shame some people would try to take that away from the Grahams who are world known for their love of children, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim of have no religious belief at all. Please don’t forget the Samaritans Purse is the first ones with their planes going to people of Tornado, earthquake, flooding or whatever.
Unfortunately it seems that the Grahams love money above everything else.
Well said! Who cares if they’re Christian? They are helping people.
. I agree we send the boxes without any Christian literature at all We Are only to happy to send toys etc to children of any Nationality or religion.Why begrudge a child such joy ?
I am a BORN-AGAIN Christian; I LOVE GOD (and YES, I LOVE
Jesus too)….You think you are being clever in stating that Samaritan’s
purse only wants to evangelize and convert these children. Might I
say that many “humanist” are evangelizing too…the difference is they
are always spouting their views on defending homosexuality, and
so many of their own views. Listen, if you begrudge a child a toy, or
a stuffed animal, or things like bath soap or jump ropes or crayons and
coloring books, then YOU are the ones with the problem. No one
forces us to send along bibles or tools for evangelism. Although they
have a right to encourage that, they do not force it on anyone. We pray
for the children that receive these gifts. All people need prayer, whether
they acknowledge that or not. Sometimes these kids have NO luxuries
of any kind, and may not even have basics such as our children have in
the U.S. Why this bothers you so much says so much about you.
Maybe you feel threatened by the “possibility” that there is a real,
true GOD. Otherwise, why be so afraid of children being “converted”
if this GOD does not exist?
There isn’t anything wring with giving to children in need!!!! If they choose to follow Jesus, that’s their chouce. Nothing wrong with giving someone hope!!!! I enjoy packing boxes and bringing a smile to a childs face, i enjoy giving them the things in life they need. Anyone who has a problem with helping needy children is an IDIOT!!!!
I don’t think brainwashing the most desperate and vulnerable children into religion in exchange for gifts is much of a “choice”. If you enjoy packing boxes and giving to the needy children, then that is fantastic and I hope you continue to do so, but it would be better for the welfare of these children if you did so via an organisation that is committed to helping them rather than converting them to their belief system.
Also, tone it down on the exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well said, Karl. You speak for the rational amongst us.
Please check your spelling before calling someone an idiot.
You noticed too?
Absolutely Michelle. The lady who wrote the article about SP says she doesn’t like people evangelising. That made me laugh. Her website is full of ‘preaching’ the gospel of Humanism. Is she trying to tell me that if I sent her a message saying I had converted to humanism as a result of her website, she wouldn’t be happy. I course she would. Emma C Williams wants to evangelise the message of humanism just as much as any other belief system. Why is it wrong for others to promote their beliefs and not her. As for her use of the word homophobia; she is mistaken. Homophobia is the fear or hatred of homosexual people. True followers of Christ would neither fear nor hate other people. To hold the view that homosexual behaviour is not God’s will for mankind is not homophobic. This word, like the word racism, is being used far too liberally and the use of it by E Williams is itself, defamatory. What lies behind this whole discussion is the appeal to tolerance. But this tolerance doesn’t work both ways. How ironic that the very people arguing for tolerance will not tolerate Christian views. Some of the most aggressively intolerant people belong to the ‘Tolerance Group.’
I wish I had a helicopter because I would like to transport E. Williams to each of those needy children, stand her in front of them and tell the children that they will no longer receive these gift boxes at Christmas because this lady wants to deny you the joy you experience. You should be ashamed of yourself. And so what if children are ‘brainwashed’ by the teachings of Jesus.
Love you neighbour as yourself; treat others as you would want them to treat you; turn the other cheek; go the extra mile; blessed are the peacemakers; blessed are the merciful; bless the children; clothe the naked; feed the hungry. Is this really going to ruin their lives? Huminism has such an obvious agenda. Don’t be deceived by them.
Please don’t bother replying, I haven’t got the time or inclination to return to this site.
Let me tell what goes into these ‘evil’ Samaritan Purse Christmas boxes.
A selection of toys; a small game; a soft cuddly toy; colouring pens; tooth paste and tooth brushes etc. Now unless tooth paste can used as some kind of mind altering drug which causes little children to believe something against their will, I thing they are not in grave danger. In fact, when they open the ‘evil’ package, their eyes light up and their little hearts are filled with joy. (I know, that’s shocking isn’t.)
So if you have a belief which involves you not wanting little children to experience joy, then carry on campaigning. For everyone else, don’t be deceived by one humanist with an agenda.
do you know the name of this charity please? or could you send me a link? this is exactly what ive been looking for…
I read the article and am very grateful for the suggested alternative ways of giving listed at the end of it. I did contribute to OCC last year but felt very uncomfortable, indeed, about the religious proselytising that they go in for and had to find some say of squaring this with my conscience; I hoped the recipients of the boxes would benefit from their contents and ignore the “harvesting for Jesus” demand that goes with them. This year I will not contribute to OCC and will certainly look at the other ways suggested in the article. I agree entirely with the writer of the comment above that ” many of the children concerned would never receive any item of new clothing / something just for them ever in any other circumstances”. Thank you very much, Humanist Life, for posting this article which I have shared on Facebook 🙂
Great article! I definitely recommend looking out for local, secular schemes. Last year, I participated in the local police’s local Christmas gift scheme for children in care which was entirely secular and really well managed. Each donor was allocated a child and given a small amount of information – age and gender usually – as well as a reference number. There was also a price range given for the gifts, a bit like secret Santa. No propaganda and I also liked the fact that the gift requests were tailored to the specific child so to make it easier to pick something age-appropriate.
What an excellent idea the above is. I wonder if my local Police Force has a similar scheme? I have contacted my local Rotary, too, to find out if they do something similar as I believe Rotary, nationally, has such a scheme.
How on earth can a Christmas event be secular? If you don’t believe in Christmas then don’t celebrate it. I respect everyone’s right to have their own beliefs or ideals, but I certainly wouldn’t celebrate something I didn’t believe in.
It’s a Pagan celebration actually.
I’m an atheist and I celebrate christmas, because its all about family and giving and receiving gifts, being together, celebrating being alive really.
In reality there is very little evidence Jesus even existed anyway.
Actually Steve – there is substantial documented evidence in both Roman & Judean chronicles that Jesus of Nazareth did exist ……. whether a person choses to believe in him as The Messiah is a seperate and equally valid discussion point, and very much down to the individual.
The winter festival of Saturnalia was indeed a pagan celebration and has no relevance with the birth of Jesus other than being the date adopted by the early Christian church with which to acknowledge and celebrate his birth. I think you probably already knew that as you are quite correct with the traditions celebrated, however I think it is open to interperatation as to which is being celebrated based on personal belief.
Hop you and yours have a Happy Christmas !
Little evidence Jesus existed – really?! Don’t think I have ever heard someone suggest that Jesus didn’t exist before
“in reality there is very little evidence Jesus even existed anyway” – now that I’m afraid is a very ill-researched statement.
Apart from the huge amount of people that choose to base their life on him, there is also another huge amount of people that follow another religion but still believe in Jesus, just not who he was. Then there is the whole bunch of non-religious writers who speak about him.
Have your opinion about OCC but please do not think that someone who shares about Jesus is wasting their time or indeed forcing views. To receive a gift is amazing, especially if you don’t have much. But to have the possibility of engaging with the creating of the universe and discovering one’s reason for being alive, that is always worth sharing.
Thank you
Your last comment – you are kidding right?
That’s embarrassing.
Wow. That is the most uneducated comment I think I have ever seen. Yes, it was originally a pagan celebration on this date. Christians started an alternative celebration. And if you think the Jesus didn’t even exist…. try reading a book once in a while. wow. Just sad.
More evidence than Julius Caesar existed – as documented by numerous historians a and atheists such as Josephus, Ehrman, Dohgerty and Dawkins to name but a few.
I have yet to find an atheist historian who disputes Jesus’ resistance.
If you believe Jesus did not exist you should explore the evidence – historical fact, then decide who you think he was, before making a sweeping statement of your own unsubstantiated belief.
News flash Helen, Christmas is no longer about some fellah getting nailed to a tree. It’s about a fat fellah handing out presents… welcome to the age of enlightenment 😀
Ummm you’re thinking of Easter….
The clue is in the name, CHRISTmas! For Christians this is an important time of year.
My family is involved in this, including driving lorries of filled shoeboxes to Belarus and Ukraine. No evangelical literature is included in the shoeboxes. The example shown is part of a leaflet given to some churches and church schools to encourage people to donate items. Sorry to rain on your parade but the gifts are given solely in love.
That’s good to know 🙂
That’s interesting. So the pamphlets as shown and described in the original article are only to encourage those actually at the churches to donate and not included in the gifts themselves? I ask because simply going on the one shown, they seem aimed at younger readers or those who may not have English as a first language. Are these pamphlets aimed at adult UK church goers?
You can read one of the pamphlets yourself online – the BHA links to them in its list of alternatives to SP linked to by Emma above. Needless to say they’re emphatically evangelical, teaching children they have sin and that they need Jesus and should try convert their friends to be Christians as well etc etc.
I realise I can read a pamphlet, I have zero interest in doing so, but it was an interesting point made by a previous poster, that these pamphlets are not actually included in the boxes themselves, but rather used to promote within the church itself the idea of the gift box. To my mind, that’s quite different from giving it to children under the guise of ”a gift”. My previous comment just referred to the fact that the pamphlets appear aimed at younger audiences or those who don’t speak English particularly well, which is why it seemed that they must be included in the boxes rather than aimed at actual congregants. Preaching to the converted is very different from trying to convert…
They give out an evangelising leaflet to every child receiving a shoebox gift.
The pamphlet aforementioned is designed to be read by both children and adults, which is why it is simplified to the extent it is. Also, not all Christians speak English as a first language, so yes of course it is translated so everyone can be included.
Every box that is filled, is done so with love and care and thought. To be able to give one child a chance to receive something just for them. To know that they are cared about. There are strict guidelines as to what can not be included, to ensure health and safety standards are met. For instance, no scissors, or open pencil sharpeners or liquids. As for use as a conversion tool, we simply pray that each child that receives a box is blessed by it and happy. As it may be the one thing that gives them something to smile about that year.
So you’re saying that that pamphlet is aimed at young children and people who might not have English as a first language, not the recipients and is not included in the boxes? Interesting. To my mind it’s very different preaching to the already-converted versus trying to influence vulnerable people, especially children.
These booklets are not in English, but in the language of the country they are sent to. These children are not forced into reading the literature but can if they want to. This site does a terrible disservice to Operation Christmas Child and Samaritan’s Purse who not only present the gospel (Christian do this so that children and adults have an opportunity to know about God and His son, Jesus). Their main concern is in always helping children and people in their need; such as fixing homes of those that were destroyed by floods or tornados. If you would take the time to go to Samaritan’s Purse site you could read about the good that they do. Your information is very bais against a good organization.
It sounds like you confirmed that everything the article said is true, so what’s wrong with Emma’s account?
They give out an evangelising leaflet to every child receiving a shoebox gift.
These are US examples of the literature. In the UK we do not include any literature of any persuasion including stories, as certain countries do not like this. Operation Christmas Child UK is a not for profit organisation dedicated to children. If a local church wants to offer the course associated with “The Greatest Journey” that is their choice. Any child who receives a shoebox may be offered a choice to do the course but no-one is forced to do it and nothing is included in the boxes which promotes it.
Actually it is good to know that those boxes had no literature in however I have to show you this https://9d524212-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/occalert/Home/OCCSpecial20Report06.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cpF4KpGYmiOeps15G6fACOD6vn9-yPJRp-a1Th9S1cYhB2FGOfY36BhSGvMgPKH9tvpACbi1MwadpHyE9RDb7rgO_db1L3BioG23x1-_4ikp1lNcFqA2d96q2z84xoZl-5KzK4btIPhhxu9ktuT0YxUUwEpA6bjktH8YLzN6fwwmUQqcjn8ps9kLlvvTpDFMjA4t2RMBz1Lb8REobG8uD4Gw4bqWjgABTjO9LBfSRvKGogjMNY%3D&attredirects=0
I am afraid they DO evangelise along with the boxes. Although I hope they are not allowed to get away with that in the UK. Either way there are plenty of other charities to support for those who do not want to get caught up in this troublesome affair. Not all of the boxes from the USA it would appear simply come with love but with prosletysing.
Thank you Steve. This is what we do here in the USA as well and we do say a prayer as we close our box and send it on its way. It is sent from the heart, and with love.
Actually, while I’m on a roll – so boring – the project I mentioned in my first comment is called Santa’s Shoebox Project and the donations are meant to be in by the end of this week – for anyone with links to South Africa who may have a passing interest, the site is http://www.santashoeboxproject.co.za. Fab initiative, all of what is raised is directly to benefit the children, all logistics and costs are donated and volunteered.
We are aware of the project here in South Africa. There are no brochures I’m aware of included in the boxes, but I’ll double check.
Giving gifts and making an impoverished child happy in the name of “God” – Not OK. (Lest they all become religious fanatics I presume) Giving gifts in the name of Santa – perfectly OK.
Swapping one imaginary, judgement passing , miracle making, man-made fabrication for another… is OK? Hmmm O..K
I guess what im trying to say is ultimately does it really matter?
Am sure the happiness of the child is/should/will be the ultimate priority and outcome. ..?
Besides why should the children that the Samaritans reach out to be penalised due to the founder being a homophobe Or the highly unconsequential risk that they convert to Christianity!?. This article assumes that the impoverished lack the intelligence and inherent human ability for logical and philosophical thinking to make their own conscious decisions about the existence of a higher entity.
Tried the link to South African Santa’s shoe box….. sadly didn’t work. Will do some more research.
Would love to support rather than OCC. (Proudly South African living in Canada!)
Enjoyed article too – THANK YOU! Wish we had some better alternatives here…..
Thank you
J
Humanists who celebrate Christmas in any way are hypocrites. The clue is in the first 6 letters of the word!
True humanists would show goodwill towards others all year round.
a relatively short time ago it was called Belthane, and was a pagan festival that the church couldn’t seem to stamp out… they’d bring green, living trees inside and decorate them and so, conveniently Christ was found to have been born JUST then and it got hijacked.
The point is that it is clearly just a tradition, a widely-participated in tradition that does not require belief and can get those who do not show goodwill at other times, to do so at this one time. To that I say, where is the harm?
Jewish people don’t celebrate, nor do Muslims… they are not humanists either. Some secular people who originate from other faith upbringings DO celebrate because it’s fun. It’s a holiday, it’s gifts and kids have a blast. None of this is harmful. Telling them the Christmas myth is great ”some people think that… ” etc.
How are we being hypocrites?
Celebrate Beltane, the Solstice, Yule, whatever you want – just don’t call it Christmas!
But… that does stray somewhat into crackpot territory and since I’m not a pagan and don’t actually celebrate Beltane or Yule then… does it become ”you know, the public holiday day where people give and receive gifts… you know the one I mean!” day? I don’t believe in the meaning behind Ramadan either, yet I acknowledge it exists and call it by its name.
In this current western society, 25th of December is Christmas day. It just is. I don’t believe the souls of the dead will come out to meet me on Halloween either, and yet it’s still Halloween.
Also, and this is so important, A, one must retain the right to speak as one chooses and B, few of us are 100% consistent in absolutely everything. This does not make us hypocrites. Being a hypocrite would involve professing a belief and then not acting on it in some way. Eating turkey and giving the kids gifts doesn’t appear to do that to any great extent.
So you are saying that someone who believes that say…. homosexuality is wrong according to their worldview and understanding, should act according to this belief or they are being hypocritical….which is one of the criticisms made about Franklin Graham and Samaritans purse above.
Andrew
You’re confusing your pagan festivals, Beltane is the Gaelic/pagan May Day festival – Xmas is Yule.
I’m not pagan, but I do mark the pagan holidays, celebrating Yule, rather than Xmas, I consider myself to be , I don’t know – an interested bystander, perhaps…? First Nations’ beliefs have always fascinated me, and I’m extremely interested in their use of psychedelics. I’m no believer in a god in the accepted sense, but I do feel that there’s summat more to this world than what we can physically see; we know almost nothing about the workings of our own minds, we know far more about space! The psyche and subconscious are real, have no doubts about that!
But deities…? Nah.
I disagree completely. I always refer to Christmas and our local humanist group has a Christmas Party. It’s the name almost everyone in country gives to the mid-winter festival, complete with Yule logs, Christmas trees and all the other stuff that has nothing to do with religion. The name simply reflects our cultural history.
I don’t think we should change the names of days of the weeks because they refer to ancient gods that I don’t believe in, and I don’t hear many Christians saying they ought not to use “Easter” because it’s named after a pagan goddess. Exactly the same applies to Christmas.
Then those who ‘celebrate’ are not necessarily hypocrites but those who call it ‘Christmas’ are? You backtracked on your original comment. I am confused with your comments. Considering this is all appropriated from older holidays as it is Christians are equally hypocrites surely. It should never have been appropriated. You shall see other nations still use Yule/Jul and so on to define the contemporary interpretation of the holiday. It is all far too complex and mixed up to just call humanists hypocrites. Sorry, I do not know why I took you seriously especially with the assumption humanists should have good will all year around as if they only show it at ‘Christmas’. That is an assumption that that is the reason people celebrate Christmas. What if it just an extra special time or a time to get in contact with family who are otherwise usually tied up in work or travel. I prefer not to call it Christmas and I personally prefer to celebrate on the Winter Solstice (whenever that comes around) as that is tied to nothing religious but based on what goes on naturally in my place on the planet (length of daylight) You know what happens when people try to call ‘Christmas’ something different? Tabloids complain, some of the religious complain – they see it as an affront to their culture so you think all humanists should simply celebrate Winter Solstice? But that isn’t when people get time off to see friends and family, celebration is difficult because the 25th is the culturally accepted date, it is not in the Bible, why shouldn’t Christians find another date and remove that name from the cultural holiday? How much of what we do culturally is Christian? The tree? Doubt it. Turkey? Nope. Tinsel and Father Christmas in jolly red and white? Might be based on the Bishop of Myra but I don’t think that is how he dressed and acted. Holly (or should I say Holm?) and Mistletoe? Was that common place in Jesus times and places? I do wonder why Christians do still call it Easter. I celebrate that with eggs and rabbits (a hell of a lot more pre-Christian than Christian – as it should be, being named after a goddess of fertility).
Equally I think Christians who seek medical treatment are hypocrites. It’s clear that their lack of faith in their god is utterly weak when they ditch religion and head for science…
Seeking medical treatment is not lack of faith in God’s healing. He created our intelligence to discover how to use tools and drugs (although I consider the FDA and drug manufacturers to put money first). I believe in natural treatment as much as possible. But some surgeons actually pray with their patients before the surgery begins so they acknowledge that their hands are guided by God.
Dear Sara
There is nothing wrong with Christians turning to Doctors. We do believe Jesus heals today and there are countless testimonies of people who have been healed, some in extraordinary ways. However, if my house was on fire and I prayed to Jesus for help and 5 mins later a fire engine arrived, I wouldn’t tell them to go away because I’m waiting for Jesus to help. God created doctors and fireman.
As an evangelical Christian and a fan of Billy Graham, I am overjoyed to hear that the people who are receiving the boxes are also receiving the good news about God’s only son Jesus Christ. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all now and forever, amen.
Are you also a fan of BG’s son, who has creamed off millions from OCC?
Patricia, I just posted comments about FG, but did not mention anything about his lifestyle years ago. Las Vegas Sun 2008-2009 did a two page “expose” of CC FG.
That’s the problem though, jillianc. You, as an evangelical Christian, can therefore choose to donate to this. I, as an atheist gay woman, will choose not to. But, it is hard to make a choice when the group are not being totally clear and open as to their motives and reasons. They should be MORE clear and obvious so that people can make the right choice for themselves. surely you agree with that?
Thanks for this comprehensive article. I am having this put on the agenda for the next SACRE meeting I attend in my area.
Many thanks for this piece Emma. It prompted us in SW London Humanists to write to the local press (sadly, letter not published) and to send a copy to fellow members of the local “Inter Faith” Forum. One of them replied: “Yes, they are defiantly active in the church I have recently started going to. I think the boxes have to [be] in by 8th November, they seem to have started early October. I cringed when I heard they were doing it but felt too new to say anything, so was delighted when you gave me the opening! Thanks again.” A nice endorsement from a local liberal Christian, but also an important point about timing. We’ve made a note to flag to local schools in September 2016, as it looks like we’re too late for 2015.
Jeremy, do have a copy of the letter I could send to my local newspaper, who have just had an article on a local shop doing OCC as it’s front page headline!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sBlgygEXRqdml4cmR6V1c5SkE/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for this Jeremy
I am truly saddened by this post which was shared by my friend. We have participated in OCC for years and no religious booklets are included. In fact, we are told not to include them.
I am a Christian. I am not a homophobe or someone who wants to go around ‘brainwashing’ others.
Have a look into the life of Jesus who just loved other people. He fought most with the ‘religious’ people of the day.
My children will continue to participate in Operation Christmas Child and I will continue to give them the opportunity to bless other people and look beyond themselves.
Here it is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0sBlgygEXRqdml4cmR6V1c5SkE/view?usp=sharing
Georgia – I am afraid you are being misled. This is from a leter to a supporter of OCC concerned that donations from the UK did not help with evangelism:
“Please be assured that the commitment of Samaritan’s Purse to evangelism is as strong as ever.
Christian literature is not banned from Operation Christmas Child shoeboxes in the United Kingdom or any other sending country. However, there is a difference in the way the boxes are processed in the U.K. for overseas shipment. The U.K. program removes all religious items (Christian as well as other religions) and forwards any Christian literature to our National Leadership Teams working in countries where shoebox gifts are distributed, so the Christian literature can be used with children through the local church.
Samaritan’s Purse staff in the U.K. is dedicated, as we all are, to ensuring that Christian literature given by donors is used in effective ministry outreach to children through Operation Christmas Child.
The Gospel is also presented locally as part of the distribution of the gifts, and wherever possible, children are offered a Gospel storybook written in their own language called The Greatest Gift of All. Many children are also invited to enroll in a 10-lesson follow-up Bible study program, and upon completion receive a New Testament as a graduation gift.
In the United States, Christian literature remains inside the shoebox gifts given by donors. We are developing and implementing standard operating procedures to ensure that this practice is followed in the U.K. and other sending countries.” https://sites.google.com/site/occalert/
Everyone wants to help those in need, especially at this time of year. But it’s extremely unethical to use that to promote an extreme form of any faith or belief, whether it’s Christianity or communism.
The only recourse I have is to pray for you Jeremy. I am deeply saddened by whatever happened to you to cause such jaded feelings, and pray you had the love of Jesus to fill your heart. It was the Christians who began the movement to minister to those in most desperate need so very long ago, not only to provide the essentials – schools, housing, water… But to give them hope, to fulfill our duty as a Christian to spread the word of Jesus’ unconditional love (homosexual or otherwise!) – not hate, and to spread the love and hope to others.
If you want to spread your atheistic views and hate, that’s your perogative, but to do so at the expense of a worthy cause – well, that’s disheartening to say the least. Attemping to use ‘ethics’ in this situation is quite silly, as their is no application for this to make sense.
I pray you see the way Jeremy. Love Jill
I can’t decide if it’s the smug righteousness or the complete lack of evidence for any religious notions being even remotely true factually that irks me most. On reflection, I think it’s the smug sense of righteousness, the absolute conviction with zero evidence, that one is right and correct in all things. Yes, that’s what it is.
People of all religions have done and continue to do the most despicable things to each other (and to other living creatures) in Jesus name. To announce that Christians started the notion of charity and kindness… again, no evidence for that. People have helped each other since there were people, same as most mammals do, in situations that warrant it.
Do not judge atheists to be hate spreaders, that is judgemental at best and arrogant at worst. Atheists have strong moral codes too, they simply do not need a deity to reinforce it. This study may interest you, though from the response so far I suspect I am wasting my time: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-children-are-more-selfish-than-atheist-children-say-us-neuroscientists-a6723596.html
I don’t post it to smugly suggest it is true, it’s a small sample but it shows so far that atheists can be just as moral/unselfish as believers. There is another bigger study that correlates in the comments.
Jill – I appreciate that you hold sincere beliefs and mean well. But it is daft to suggest that Christianity invented charity, or that humanists warning people about the evangelical nature of OCC are somehow promoting “hate” or that there is not a legitimate ethical concern about using charitable gifts to children from non-Christian families in order to convert them.
The point is to ensure that everyone is aware of the nature of the organisation behind OCC, which has a clear proselytism aim of a type of Christianity that the former Canon Chancellor of St.Paul’s Cathedral has branded “toxic”. Knowing that, many will prefer to give to alternative charitable causes, whose work is just as important, but doesn’t have the strings attached.
By all means continue to give to, and support OCC if you want to. But in doing so, please consider how you would feel if there was a charity that ran an identical shoebox scheme and distributed the gifts to deprived children from Christian families along with cartoon-style tracts explaining that god doesn’t exist and Christianity is a man-made creation, or that the true and final word of God is given in the Koran. I suspect you wouldn’t like that very much. And you’d be right.
That’s a ridiculous thing to say to an evangelical Christian. Our children are bombarded with messages that contradict our faith day in and day out as we live in a largely agnostic and overtly utilitarian/hedonistic society. The idea of religion as a man made construct is shared widely in the classroom by teachers who do so in confidence knowing they will not be contradicting the beliefs of 95% of their pupils. We christians know that whatever we do it is highly unlikely that our children will hold the same faith as us because it is anathema to the zeitgeist. As to the spreading of the message of the Koran I, quite honestly, would welcome the talking point! I feel roundly misunderstood but think it highly likely I too will be accused of being smug or self righteous too.
Sorry Beth. I really can’t see in what way what I said is “ridiculous”. The children we’re talking about here are not those in British schools, but those in deprived circumstances in developing countries. They will almost certainly have been brought up in their own faith by their parents. The aim of OCC is to use the gifts as a lever to convert them away from that to Franklin Graham’s form of evangelical Christianity.
If you still think that is a good thing, by all means give to it. Many others will think it’s highly unethical.
Hi Jill,
I hope you seek the help and support of your family and loved ones to let go of this bitterness that had taken hold of you. I’m a Christian and I’m so saddened to hear how troubled your soul is. I pray that whatever unhappiness in your life that has caused you to be so angry, bitter and hateful can be solved. Jesus loves you. Let go of the hate and embrace love. You can be a better person. Don’t give into temptation to do evil. Love not hate.
I understand that religious literature is not encouraged to be put into boxes by the packers and that it is also removed if found but that OCC’s particular brand of literature is indeed delivered with the boxes. There are pictures easily available online of this taking place so to assume that it is not happening because you can’t see it is naive.
Great article. I’ve had a problem with local schools supporting OCC & have highlighted this with my children’s schools, one who stopped, the other continued The local paper continues to publish ‘good news’ stories from this organisation.
It is difficult to argue with the widely distributed video of the joy these boxes bring to a classroom of children, so good to have the facts brought together and, most importantly, alternative ways to give. May give me the push to try again to ask schools to use different ways to give this Christmas.
I have supported this organization for many years. Samaritan’s Purse is a wonderful organization. It is usually the first organization on the scene of major international disasters. They offer aid to people of ALL religions who are suffering. They don’t ask if people are gay before they give them food, water, etc. Samaritan’s Purse is there when the Red Cross and even the people’s own governments are not. They take huge risks to help hurting and suffering people. Operation Christmas Child, a small part of Samaritan’s Purse, is an excellent endeavor. They give hope and happiness to children who have NOTHING. Yes, they share the good news of Jesus (the Gospel) with the kids. They are a missionary organization. That is part of their purpose. Many of these kids have no families, so learning that they are loved by a heavenly father is a good thing. I will triple my efforts/donations to Operation Christmas Child this year to help offset the damage that slanderous articles like this are causing.
The article is not slanderous if it is factually correct, and I do believe that it is. Extending help to those in crisis is a wonderful thing of course, but doing it in hopes of cashing in on the desperation and plight of people -especially young, vulnerable people – in hopes of converting them to what you think is ”right” and ”true” is rotten at its core. There’s an implied reciprocity there, how ever it may be dressed up.
I think you might find the Red Cross, Medicin Sans Frontiers and other organisations often tend to be first on the ground in major crises anyway. Imagine that. Just helping others with no message to impart, just for its own sake, where virtue is in fact its own reward. No promise of anything, just because. Hard to visualise, but there it is.
You believe it is factually correct. So you don’t actually know that is. So in other words you are hoping it is correct? Interesting.
If you had ever been involved in sending a box from the Uk you would have been told that NO literature of any sort is to be included in the box – religious or otherwise because the language may be incorrect & the intention is one of an unconditional gift of love- specifically packed for a child of a particular age and gender. Sexuality, race & religion were not considered in the boxes I have sent – just the good wishes & thoughts of the joy the small items of toys and toiletries.
What a shame such good intentions are challenged by such unknowing propaganda of this humanist author.
To Caroline (and all humanists): Surely the BHA is *also* trying to covert everybody to what the humanists think is “right” and “true”? Virtually all decent people — when they find something they believe to be right and true — want to share that with everybody else. How is that wrong? Why do the humanists think that all religions are nasty and wrong, while they [the humanists] are just decent neutral people? They’re just like anyone else with a belief system. We all [human beings] want to share the good that we find, and we do that because we believe that it is good and true. Just because you don’t agree with my worldview doesn’t make my actions sinister or unethical. How grossly unkind and heartbreaking to hear you call it “cashing in on the desperation and plight of people”. Don’t get me wrong, any charity taking money needs to be properly scrutinised and held to account, but OCC is not a sinister organisation. It is sharing the practical and spiritual ‘stuff’ that they themselves are so humbled/grateful to own already.
But the message that is being shared is one that has no evidence at all to support it. Yes it may be of comfort, and that’s great, but it involves adherence to a set of beliefs with the notion of something ”in the next life”, for which there is no basis. It offers, in effect, an answer to the ”why me?” question so many must ask, and that is ”because God made it that way and ours is not to question”, thus keeping people in their places and being satisfied with that order.
Insofar as humanists believe in something, yes, most of us believe the facts and strongly-evidenced theories that are presented to us about the world and our place in it. We have no ”faith” in magic of any kind. We think that just giving ”the box” or the food or whatever it is, should be done because it’s the right thing to do. It’s not an opportunity to share our thoughts on Darwin.
There is the key difference. Sorry your heart has been broken (try working at one of the facilities these types of endeavours supports, that’ll break your heart for sure, it has mine, many times) but including messages about unsubstantiated myths and presenting them as facts along with gifts looks a lot like marketing.
The “God exists/doesn’t exist” argument is usually pretty arid, with no-one changing their viewpoint. And it’s probably impossible for anyone to respect beliefs that they think are wrong.
But it is possible – and as a humanist I’d say important – to respect good people who hold those beliefs, and to respect the importance of those beliefs in their lives. Actions and behaviour matter more than beliefs.
What I can’t respect is using charity to indoctrinate vulnerable children in a particular set of beliefs. And that’s what Operation Christmas Child explicitly aims to do.
“As a humanist, I am naturally disquieted by the idea of people performing evangelical work with the intended purpose of conversion; but I am positively offended when this work is performed at the expense of vulnerable children in desperate situations across the globe.”
I think the idea that really disquiets the author is the fact that Christians are sharing the gospel. If tolerance really is a trait within humanism, wouldn’t a humanist be tolerant of a Christian sharing the gospel message? Or is the humanist interpretation of tolerance exclusive to a set of criteria one needs to meet before they will be ‘tolerated’? And if that’s the case, the exclusive tolerance provided by humanism is notably hypocritical when chastising Christians for having a set of exclusive values within their worldview. Would it be a problem if a humanist organization was distributing advocacy material with aid? Likely not.
The gospel message is provided in addition to the gift boxes/aid, independent of the child’s reception to this literature. It’s not like upon conversion you get a gift. Children are freely given these boxes, in some cases the only gift they will have ever received, with the addition of the truth found in the gospel message. How is this ‘at the expense’ of Children? Have you seen videos of these kids ecstatic with joy for having received these boxes? They have been given a gift that will tend to their physical needs, as well as their spiritual need for reconciliation.
Let’s not beat around the bush. The root issue is that the author would say that God doesn’t exist and therefore it’s wrong to promote the fact that he does. That’s fine, humanists are free to believe and promote their worldview. Christians believe that God does exist, and only by His grace can we be saved, so sharing this in addition to meeting the physical needs of impoverished children is a natural outworking of Christian faith. As long as there really is tolerance on both sides of the fence, there should be no problem with what Samaritan’s Purse is doing.
The problem as I see it is when donors or participants are misled into the fact that Samaritan’s Purse is affiliated with the Christian message (if they didn’t figure it out by the name). Samaritans Purse should not be duplicitous in the manner in which they promote their program. Yes it’s Christian, yes it shares the life-giving message of Jesus Christ, yes it meets some of the immediate physical needs to poor families, and that’s who we are. This would have the additional benefit of bringing context to the act of helping those in need, a message detailed in the Bible. My point is, I can see where someone who’s humanist who donated to this and later found out it was Christian would be disappointed. Similarly, I would be disappointed if I donated to a group to later find out it was promoting atheism.
Do your homework and learn what you’re contributing to. If you disagree with the Christian message promoted by Samaritans Purse, you’re free to choose not to donate. Ignorance is no reason to oppose the great work of a program like Operation Christmas Child.
Of course Christians are free to express their views and beliefs – humanists would always strongly defend that right. And of course there are many Christian charities that do great work without any religious strings attached.
But the issue here is the deliberate mixing of proselytisation with charity. If a deprived child receives a lovely gift from someone, the giver knows full well that the child will think they are a wonderful person and hence will accept that what they say about Jesus is also wonderful. Using charity as a lever to convert deprived children is manipulation of the worst kind. What would Jesus say?
What Would Jesus say?
Well, Jesus said to proclaim the good news, ie to evangelise
Setting aside the fact that Jesus was a Jewish radical who thought the world was about to end (Christianity didn’t exist), so he wouldn’t have recognised the phenomenon of modern evangelism, he’s billed as a very good man. If he was, presumably that means he wouldn’t approve of using charity to buy the affections of vulnerable children towards any sort of belief, whether religious or political.
We don’t have to ask what Jesus would say, we know. “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” Also Jesus was not just a good man. He told us who he was. You may think him a liar if you like, maybe crazy or he was who he said he was. Just a good man doesn’t fit any narrative. He came here because he loves you so very much, he wants to have a relationship with you. You may not believe in him but he believes in you. He’s came to save us, you may not believe you need rescued but we all do. I pray that you would open your heart and invite him in.
I didn’t say that Jesus was a liar or crazy, nor that he wasn’t keen to spread his message to adults and children alike. From the little we know of him, he was a radical who preached that the world would end within the lifetimes of people he was talking to. (“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew16:28
“Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” Matthew 23:36.)
I respect the fact that your belief that he was the Son of God is important to you. And I thought we are on common ground with his goodness and indeed his rejection of material things (apart from wine!).
What I challenged was what, as a good man (if not more), who defends the poor, he would have made of a multi-million dollar US-based organisation, which pays its CEO/founder Franklin Graham £400,000 a year, using gifts as a means of indoctrinating children into their particular brand of faith.
‘Good news’ is subjective. I’d say, in this context, it is that there is no god, no divine being of any sort. Jesus is a historical figure but was not divine. It’s just that he was one of those who caught on whereas most mystics haven’t.
I am sorry you support such manipulation in the name of your religion.
Better to convert people to Christianity than Islam. Everyone is converted to something.
Really? You could just not have a belief in a deity at all. Why not teach people critical thinking instead? This is no answer. Both Christianity and Islam create hostile environments for certain people, neither are to be encouraged. Let young minds grow, do not bog thme down with fairy tales.
I am always concerned when I hear the term homophobia rushed out by commentators and I wonder about its reality. It seems that if you have any view other than the one that homosexuality is right and to be applauded, you are being homophobic. If you are a humanist and disagree with the Christian ethic, on whatever grounds then on this basis you will have an anti Christian phobia which goes unmentioned. There has to be the right to disagree and hold different opinions and beliefs. I am not referring to the rights and wrongs of whether Christian businesses should have to provide services to all or not … simply the right to hold a different opinion to someone else is not a phobia.
One can criticise Christianity by finding it ethically unsatisfactory (say) and explaining why they feel that way without being unfairly prejudiced – that is the right to an opinion – but to say gay people ‘take children’ and to praise Russia’s laws which make speaking about being gay a thoughtcrime is supporting oppression as well as hideous anti-gay propaganda. Surely you can see why criticising someone’s chosen religion is different to condemning a person’s inborn sexual orientation?
In the FAQ section of Operation Christmas Child –
“Do you put Christian literature into the shoeboxes before they are shipped?
No. 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 Greatest Gift, which contains Bible stories, including an explanation of the true meaning of Christmas. No-one is obliged to take this booklet. It is given to a child with their shoebox, not inside it; the only person opening shoeboxes after UK warehouse checks are completed is the child.”
Hope this clears up some misconceptions.
Thanks for confirming that the local distributors do indeed distribute evangelical literature along with the boxes. This is the booklet: https://9d524212-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/occalert/Home/MostImportantStory.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crdKXznzxxrJEI3ELw6ZnAZuJwiRh2KScvW5xNXixo8-jZ1vosRDQcFJuNfOq3XdDgtQ3GD7A6JhNcKmLT3lT0rpZ6cEkyZEdULk7ZttsOHm_-DrsWn2N6aVSvcHZa7TmuhCrJ-iPUzqSTglxAKQCkfPPCcozTqy4gE2aD8heOPdN2hYmSNSo9m5zyNzdvpPlu7otTVExrCzW0BZKlSwBFfJoVdjIMk-ejdSJdMdU7ae_VhnxY%3D&attredirects=0
No matter what I think or believe – OCC delivers joy to children that may never have received a gift in their life. It really bothers me that this article may have put some people off donating, thus leaving innocent children without a box that may have had one if this article never existed. We should be encouraging people to spread kindness, not question and interrogate it. It’s as simple as that – stop over thinking everything.
That would be true if there were no alternatives. But there are plenty of ways that people can help improve the lives of children at Christmas through charities – including Christian ones – that do not use gifts as a lever to proselytise.
Would you be happy to give to a charity that made gifts to children using a process designed to convert them to Islam?
Jeremy it is that ‘if the boot were on the other foot’ argument you’re making just there that I’m saying is ridiculous. Let me be clear, as an evangelical Christian I would have NO problem with someone distributing prosletysing Muslim material to my children (assuming it isn’t promoting violent jihadi obviously). They already hear continuous messages promoting Godless hedonism, selfishness, Materialism and human/celebrity worship, all of which are a much greater threat to their eternal destiny than Islam. My point is that all children are continually exposed to influences of many kinds. Making those influences intentional is often an act of kindness but I don’t think you would see that
Setting aside the fact that we’re not talking here about your children but rather deprived children in developing countries, I wonder whether you would also support use of gifts to proselytise for Humanism, which provides a basis for living a good life, including caring for others and scepticism about excessive materialism…, but without the need for a deity.
You asked what we would do if it was our children, hence my responding to that. Most school assemblies are essentially what you describe. It’s sounds inoffensive to me. I wouldn’t have an issue with it. It represents no threat to the belief in God as long as we are also free to share our beliefs with people of all ages as well. Implying that we’re abusive for trying to share what we genuinely believe to be true with others, however, is ignorant and unkind. That’s what I object to. But I wouldn’t deny humanists the right to do so obviously. I would just like to put my point of view forward.
I agree. This is the first time I have participated in ths scheme. Call me naieve but I believe I am giving something to a child who has nothing. Simple as that. I hope I am right. My 11 year old granddaughter helped me to pack the boxes and I do not want her to be disillusioned. She used part of her pocket money to buy gifts. She was in tears when she saw the videos. This is nothing to do with any religious beliefs it is , for me, and my granddaughter, reaching out to children to give them love and hope at Christmas. Please someone reassure me that our efforts will be directly beneficial to these children,
Please dont worry.
These boxes bring a great deal of joy and a load of broad faced smilies, and that is all that matters.
People need to lighten up,
Without the good work of the church and well meaning individuals there would be no great ormond street hospital, no hospices, etc.
It should not matter that christians are behind the operation christmas child . And maybe they give a small leaflet about the christmas story, or some info about jesus, is that a big problem. We allow our children to take part in the nativity and sing carols. We also allow them to go trick and treating, and to talk about easter.
Its not exactly hard core brain washing.
I hope you continue in your good works.
The Bible tells us to preach the gospel to all people, that’s what is being done as well as giving children a Christmas gift. Hello, why do you think Christmas is celebrated? It’s the birth of Christ in case you have missed it, now you know too 🙂
Why anyone who isn’t a Christian would want to celebrate the birth of the baby who had no significance for them whatsoever is beyond me.
Most people in the UK don’t celebrate Christmas because it’s a religious festival, but because it has evolved into a our major secular mid-winter festival. Even the Christmas story has been incorporated as a shared myth and even Richard Dawkins enjoys singing carols – they are simply part of our shared cultural heritage. That’s a similar to the way non-Christian mid-winter festivals evolved into, and influenced, Christmas – indeed may of the aspects of Christmas are nothing to do with Christianity (ref Yule logs, Christmas trees). The name reflects our cultural background, just as the names of the days of the week do.
Of course, there are people who continue to mark it as a religious festival associated with the birth of Christ. If that’s your thing, fine.
I did a shoe box appeal. I got the leaflet from school and it said not to send religious gifts. Might offend so thought it ok.
I accidentally went to the Canada shoebox Facebook by mistake.
What I think is admin said that ‘the main function of the OCC shoebox appeal is the introduction to share the gospel. I mean that’s what they do when they share the boxes’ Quote. And goes on to say ‘but sharing the gospel is the focal point’. Then asks ‘ What is unkind about that?.
I question the ethics and say I sent my box so the child could have presents they wouldn’t otherwise get,not to proselytise. I don’t want literature in my box.
Then she rabbits on about the volunteers being Christians and sharing Jesus’s joy and love,as if you could only do charitable work if you were Christian. I point out that I’m not Christian but spent £15 choosing nice gifts.
But she seems to think that’s she’s obliged to spread all this this religious fervour to kids in poor country.
I point out I don’t want my box of gifts to be just used as a way of spreading evangelical literature but this falls on deaf ears.
Instead she goes on about the greatest gift is sharing with them,( note she doesn’t say proselytise) about God’s love and that he died for them and that they will live in eternity if they accept Jesus etc etc. Clearly avery evangelical person who won’t accept that any of this is wrong.
I think next year I will give yo the secular one. As I put in £3 is this for transport or to the leader.
You can also donate online £15 + £3pp and they say they will send a shoebox on your behalf. They say you can do this up to Xmas day. I asked if your cut off date is 18 Nov to send them abroad then how can you get together a box and send it to reach on Xmas day if you donate a day before or a week or whatever. Clearly a box couldn’t be sent so what’s happening to this money? I haven’t had a response yet.
I think a lot of you are so hung up on Franklin Graham that youre missing the point of OCC. And all of the anti messages you are so against are not given to the children anyway. The children are just learning that there is a God and that he loves them. The discipleship program is not mandatory and the kids gets the shoebox regardless. No one is forced into accepting Christ as if that was possible anyway. And the shoebox alone brings such much joy to the kids. A lot of them have never had a gift in their whole life let alone a new gift. And they feel loved by someone who has never even met them. I know when I make my boxes I completely love the recipient and think about them as I hand pick each item. Check out YouTube and watch some of the videos of the kids opening up their boxes. Or watch some of the full circle videos where an adult is talking about how they received one as a child and the positive impact it made on their life. I will keep making shoeboxes for as long as I’m able. It’s my favorite event of the year. And I’m not that religious either. But I do believe in God and there’s nothing wrong with being a good person or allowing someone to have the option of believing in a higher power. We are jaded in the US. We have everything at our fingertips including knowledge. They deserve that option too.
It is simply wrong to teach children something that isn’t true.
What isn’t true ?
I pack boxes for Operation Christmas Child each year. I have done a lot of reading around the issues and believe that these gifts do a lot of good.
I appreciate that some people may be a little wary of donating through a Christian Evangelic charity, but there are issues surrounding some of the alternatives too.
The Rotary Club for example, has very strong masonic links – to which I, personally, would object. Even without these links they have a very poor history as regards equality to women.
Samaritans Purse (Operation Christmas Child) have addressed many of the issues highlighted. Their website makes things very clear.
So Christianity is “sinister”. One wonders if this writer knows anything about Christianity at all.
The gospel is the good news of Almighty God to reconcile the world to Himself, through His Son, Jesus Christ. Anyone who believes will be saved. That means becoming part of the new heavens and new earth which will surely come.
This author insists on villifying Christianity. It is really simple to find our what Samaraitan’s Purse is about. Their website is unambiguous. Writing that people involved in organising Christmas boxes don’t know what’s going on and need to be educated, is plain nonsence.
Thus author insists Christians are not being persecuted, and promptly writes a leading article in order to persecute them.
What has this author done for miliions and millions of children who NEVER get a gift of anykind. But because the gift comes from a Christian, it is better that the children do not receive it! (And then she calls herself a ‘humanist’). Meany would be more appropriate.
This author refers to Billy Grahams attitude towards gender bending. Billy Graham prays for the lost because they are sinners and need to hear the gospel and have the chance to be saved. For this he is villified.
This author’s glaring ommission about what islam says about lesbian, gays etc is shockingly overlooked. Why, one wonders?Does the author islam shows no mercy whatsoever to these people? Just kick the Christians is her mantra.
If you are a humanist, one supposes you have a care for other humans. If that is so, then you want what is best for them. Upside down sex is not good for anyone. Your personality is stunted, your hopes for purity become non existant, and godliness goes out of the window.
If you really care about humans, you do not wish this upon them. You aim to repair their whole life. (Which is in fact impossible as you have now power to do so.). Christ does though, the very author of the faith of Christians.
In my opinion, denigrating Christ opens your family up to misery, not blessing. CHristianity is the hope of the world. What we see in fact is a opening wide gap for the frowth of islam who believe their calling is to kill anyone who does not believe in allah.
This author should spend a long time in meditating on what that means. Maybe that will make her more human.
Incidentally volunteers cover the christmas boxes to look like a present at their own expense. They also buy and fill the boxes at their own expense with age related gifts. They then pay for thr postage of said boxes to the destination.
If it results in the poor hearing about a G-D who loved them enough to replace them and receive G-D’s wrath instead of them, I have no problem at all in taking part in Samaritans purse.
What is a “Liberal Christian”? Is that someone who only accepts those parts of the Bible that suits them? Fascinating to see so much claptrap about a gift to a child. Are the gays and atheists (humanists) rushing out to do anything positive for anyone else? I think not.
Time and time only will prove who is correct in their beliefs
Jeremy
The time will come for enlightenment when you die – IF there is a further existence. Before that everything is just wild speculation.
What you need to realize, that children who get those boxes are so happy, they do not know who Graham is or how much money he gets. They do not know what a word homophobia means. They are poor children, who most likely never ever got a gift box in their lives. I was one of those children from a very poor family. For Christmas we had pancakes, made out of flour and water. Nothing else, not even sugar. And you have no idea how happy me and my little brother were, when some social workers gave us those gift boxes. It was nothing extraordinary in them. Some candy, a slinky, some stickers, soap, toothpaste, crayons. And a note with words ”from Daniel, in memory of 9/11”. For that one day me and my little brother were happy and i felt connected to the world.
What country? and When? You sound like a normal moron evangelist: telling lies and believing it is “for the good”.
As cold as charity
My child’s school has announced it is collecting Christmas shoeboxes for Teams for you, or Teams4U. Wikipedia tells me it is run by the Op Xmas Child founder who has moved on … Mr Dave Cooke
Should I consider Teams4U in the same vein as OCC?
Thanks for the enlightening article. I’m now going to make up for these people you call as ‘liberal christians’ what ever that means and triple my support for Franklin. 🙂
This article is so ridiculous that it actually reads like satire. If I wasn’t 100% behind Operation Christmas Child already, I definitely would be now. Thanks 🙂
This website brings together some “from the horses mouth” unarguable information along with the much cited statements you may have read. Whether you support or don’t support these people, at least be informed. This site includes audio of Franklin Graham discussing what the shoe boxes are for and Samaritan’s Purse’s own marketing for Operation Christmas Child. http://www.digalittledeeper.co.uk
That is a great site with very useful (and alarming) information on it, thanks Craig.
Our school has just withdrawn their support for Samaritan’s Purse. Although many of us within the parents and governors cohort recognise that it’s not the most efficient way to support the people that need the help, it is popular with the children, so as a compromise the school has gone with “Link to Hope” – still a Christian charity, but with “no strings attached” to the donations. Next year the Head is now looking at using the same charity, or The Rotary Club for its shoeboxes.
hello!
you may prefer a charity closer to home of course, but if not, do consider Santa’s Shoebox for future Christmas charity drives. It’s a South African gig, does incredible stuff (started really small, is now a properly-run, full on NGO) for impoverished and vulnerable children over the holiday season. Here’s the thing; it does not refer in any way to any form of religion. It’s just what it says, a box of goodies and practical items for children who dearly need joy and practical support in their lives, end of. http://www.santasshoebox.co.za for more info.
They helo out children who have nothing, who cares if they support faggots rights!
This article is disgusting!!! Get off your radical high horse and leave the Grahams alone!! They have done more good in the name of Jesus and I am proud to take a stand with them!!
I work independently and voluntarily in the Philippines. My pet hate is these moronic proselytizing self appointed preachers coming from the USA to preach to the poor. This filthy system has been used by religions and con-merchants for a long time. I wish them nothing but a horrible painful death for their deceit, lies and ignorance.
I have three rules: Not one peso is paid by anyone (donations, salaries or bribes). I personally pay for delivery and transport.
Secondly: Total anonymity is essential. The recipient will never know from where the aid comes.
Thirdly: All work is voluntary with no remuneration (even expenses).
And finally – I believe in NO God and do not need the excuse of a religion to justify helping the needy.
So let me get this right….. an extreme fundamentalist Christian charity whose raison d’etre is to promote the idea that a god beamed himself to Earth and was born to a virgin mother so he could later have himself nailed to a cross and die for the sins of man thanks to the alleged first humans Adam and Eve (the latter created from the former’s rib) ignoring a talking snake in the god’s fairy tale garden telling them not to eat an apple hanging from a tree just want to make children smile? Seems legit!
You, accademic people, should stop opposing, stop talking and put your efforts and your suppose power of judgement to help who really need. While I read your article and write to you, many childrens die around the world because the people like you loose their time discussing about what is right or wrong or about religion, gays etc.
Do something to make those children happy once a year and then you can call yourself humanist.
I hope one day God will inspire you! God bless you!
Here is another reason to not support them. They actively discriminate against people, even volunteers, who do not follow their particular brand of Christianity. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/burgeo-woman-samaritans-purse-beliefs-1.3580597
What’s wrong with OCC? Franklin Graham is a problem for me, especially since I read in the Las Vegas Sun in 2008-09 that he receives $500,000 per year from Samathians Purse and OCC plus payments into a pension fund. When questioned at the time about this, he replied that he didn’t know he was receiving this money. In my opinion, the right wing CC are the problem.