Alan

Alan to OCCcritic:

You anonymity disturbs me

It seems odd that you feel the need for anonymity. If you have to worry about rabid fundamentalist religions, let me suggest that you take a good look at religions in the UK. Christians aren 't blowing up train stations and driving airplanes into buildings.

It is also amazing to me that you think that OCC is somehow secret about its purpose. In the third paragraph of the pamphlet that each person uses to put in the monetary donation and contains the stickers says the following: " Most important, these shoe boxes provide opportunities for local believers to tell children about Jesus Christ through Gospel literature and evangelism programs ." T hese are the words of Franklin Graham. There is a picture of Billy and Ruth Graham in the pamphlet , for goodness sake. Does someone think Billy Graham has become a secularist?

Let me see some guts on your part. I 'm Alan < rest of details deleted by occcritic >. Who are you?

I would be surprised to hear from you. Pleased, but surprised.

Alan

Hi Alan,

You are right to be disturbed by my need for anonymity. Even in the UK Christians represent a broad church and as I mention on my website I have been warned by other critics of OCC that they have received threatening 'phone calls from OCC supporters and other bad reactions.

I was not anonymous initially. My wife and I have had numerous discussions with local schools and I have spoken at length with my local organiser of OCC and with other local supporters, and my wife has discussed our concerns at our local Christian bookshop (who were themselves disturbed to find that OCC uses WorldServe Ministries which they described as a "fringe group"). I was also invited by one of the OCC organisers to go to one of the collection/packing points to see for myself a video of what goes on and "to see that no literature is put in the boxes" (I explained that I know no literature is put in the boxes - as it used to be - but that following complaints about this in the national press it is now handed out alongside the boxes (as if that makes a difference!)). I agreed to go to the collection/packing point and mentioned that I would also like to show a video of my own that shows the evangelism in action. I was then amazingly told that they are very busy and I couldn't go after all (that turn around is in the course of a single 'phone call!) The simple fact is that the organiser did not want what I know to be shown to the people she had packing the boxes. Why else would she invite me along to see her "proof" and then immediately change her mind when she realised I had material that showed otherwise? See how different it is in the UK? In America the people at the distribution centres know they are on an evangelical mission. In the UK they want the extent of the activities to be a secret! (In fact even in the USA this is sometimes the case - see the letter in blue at http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/).

However following an interview in my local press (in which I merely stated that OCC was an evangelical organisation that used the shoe boxes as an evangelical tool and that I had found many local people who did not know this, merely thinking OCC was a Christmas present charity) I received much unpleasant invective, accusations of bigotry and even bizarrely found my young children accused of taking part in satanic rituals (where they got that from I don't know! - and no it is not true!!)

I have lots of guts and was I anonymous to start with, as I have detailed above. However when it comes to local issues I do not want my children brought into this, so I am anonymous now for that reason and do not want to give my details out on the Internet to anyone with respect to OCC, as once they are anywhere on the Internet they have a habit of turning up at all sorts of places and then are impossible to remove.

I have found OCC supporters are far more aggressive than I would have given them credit for once I started this and I don't want them 'phoning me at home where my children might answer the 'phone (I have an unusual surname and it is easy to find me in the 'phone book). I am also very well informed on the state of Christianity in the UK, both from inside knowledge and much research, and I can assure you it ranges from the most pleasant and understanding people to the most rapid and disturbed. I have had an anonymous death threat (don't know what country that is from) and one gem of a UK fundamentalist wrote to me saying: " I condemn and reject your master and all his works in Jesus name. I leave you to your terrible end, very apt for the evil filth you publish against God." I find it quite strange that any criticism of religion or religious activities can cause such extreme reactions, let alone the bizarre thought that I must be some kind of devil worshipper!

Regarding your comment:

I t is also amazing to me that you think that OCC is somehow secret about its purpose. In the third paragraph of the pamphlet that each person uses to put in the monetary donation and contains the stickers says the following: " Most important, these shoe boxes provide opportunities for local believers to tell children about Jesus Christ through Gospel literature and evangelism programs." These are the words of Franklin Graham. There is a picture of Billy and Ruth Graham in the pamphlet, for goodness sake. D oes someone think Billy Graham has become a secularist?

The leaflets in the UK are very different and have instead the simple statement:

"meeting critical needs of victims of war, poverty, famine, and natural disaster while sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ."

There are no bible verses, pictures of the Grahams, and no statement that the shoeboxes are to be used as an evangelical tool. "Sharing the good news" is a recent addition to the UK leaflets following complaints in the national press that the leaflets were misleading and criticism of Samaritans Purse for this by the Charities Commission. "Sharing the good news" is stated as if it is something merely done along side, not given as the purpose of the distribution, and neither is the extent of the evangelism hinted at, let alone understood in the UK. This sort of thing is often just taken as a euphemism anyway, for "doing good works" or "demonstrating Christian love through action" etc.

In the UK at least, many schools have a long tradition of packing shoeboxes for OCC. It was only in recent years following complaints in the UK national press that Samaritan's purse have included the bare statement they do on the UK flyers. Those schools which traditionally packed for OCC had little idea initially and have not noticed the change to include the "Sharing the good news" statement. I know this for sure as from the responses when I pointed it out to my daughter's school and the feedback from other parents who have done the same at their schools that supported OCC. Some schools just flatly refuse to believe that OCC proselytise at all (and we can't even get them to view Samaritan Purse's website - somehow they already "know" OCC do not proselytise and I am making this up apparently!)

Did you read to the end of the first page at my website? http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/ There I explained the following:

I also get plenty of emails from evangelicals who claim that OCC is quite transparent and everyone ought to know that they use the shoeboxes for evangelism. I point out to them that they are transparent in evangelical churches and with people who they think are sympathetic. In the national and local press they are more guarded, and often mislead people.

e.g.

The Rev David Applin, chief executive of SPI, admits that a religious pamphlet - "The greatest gift of all" - is distributed with the boxes (though not inside them). But he denies that the appeal is evangelical. "The word evangelical has connotations and I prefer to think of us as a Christian group," he says, adding that he does not regard SPI as a missionary agency.

( http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,861580,00.html )

However Compare this with what Samaritan's Purse tell the faithful in their Newsletters and on fundamentalist church websites:

From www.samaritanspurse.org/about/pdf/AR2003.pdf

"We shared the Gospel with them and distributed Bibles," Victor said. "Each time we do a distribution, it begins with a testimony that Jesus loves you and died for you...Operation Christmas Child is one of the best evangelistic tools because it is a gift," ministry partner Victor Kulbich said. "It opens the door to telling about Jesus. "

If you've seen "The greatest gift of all" (see http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/booklet.html ) then it should be obvious that to deny its purpose is evangelical is completely dishonest!

Also contrast the following:

"We're over there trying to help them, we're trying to make the quality of their lives better and we're not over there to convert them." [Sean Campbell, executive director of Samaritan's Purse Canada.]

vs.

The Christian organisation "Ministrywatch" http://www.ministrywatch.org/mw2.1/H_Home.asp contains the following statement at

http://www.ministrywatch.org/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=581437002

The conversion of the lost is the ultimate and expressed goal of

Samaritan's Purse. This fact distinguishes them from many other

relief and development organizations, even some others which are

Christian in name and in charter.

I always reply to critics and do not know why you have evaluated me as someone who would not. I hope you can see that I have good reason to be anonymous, that OCC is not as open as you believe and in fact they have been deliberately deceptive and that there are plenty of people who neither know and even refuse to believe that OCC is an evangelical mission. That's why I have my website.

I am often frustrated not to get a response when I answer the questions of critics, so I would be very interested in seeing your reply to my points in this email.

Regards,

OCC critic

www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Obviously, I would be delighted to respond. First, let me say that any threat that happened to you, or your family is completely unacceptable. It was not Christ like and is totally without regards for the Christian faith for which they claim to stand. On that, we would totally agree. It has been my experience in the local church that often people will use the name of Christ for all sorts of non-Christian things. It is a way of getting their name, or their own anonymity, mentioned in connection with anything that may be controversial. And there can be people who are using this opportunity to trash Christianity, by claiming to be a follower themselves. Also, regrettably and tragically, there are some who are mentally challenged. Those seem to populate any and all religions and no religions at all.

I have no connection to OCC other than supporting it's overall purpose, and participating in making and assisting in the collection of the boxes. It seems logically to me that the OCC personnel would not allow you to show materials over which they had no prior knowledge. This was be the equivalent of allowing people to post materials on your website without the use of a moderator, or webmaster.

I would also agree with you that any person speaking for OCC should be straightforward in stating that there is a distribution of materials along with the boxes. That material does tell the story of Jesus Christ. It is hoped that all will believe. Of course, Christmas itself is the beginning of the earthly story of Jesus Christ, which all Christians hope will be embraced by others. It is not, after all, Operation Holiday Child. The term evangelical has become a buzz word. Its meaning to some is that we will beat you over the head with a Bible until you believe. A booklet that tells a child why Christmas is celebrated in the first place, does not seem like an overly overt and oppressive Christian response. After all, many of the great hospitals and universities of our world were established by people hoping to bring the message of God to those who had not heard by healing and educating them. Eliminating such relief is to eliminate much of the good works going on in our world.

I am saddened that you felt as though you were misled at any point. I am saddened that OCC has become a cause over which you feel you must object. I certainly disagree with you, but in the great tradition of my country (which we stole from yours!) will defend to the death your rights to that opposition.

I do trust that this message finds you well. I also trust that you see that I am not a fire breathing fundamentalist wacko. I never breath fire!! No seriously, I am glad to have this dialogue with you. If I may be so bold, it is my prayer that your family is safe, healthy and happy.

Yours,

Alan

Hello Alan,

I should have included this for you in my previous email.

Here's an example of how OCC is promoted in the UK:

http://www.chesterfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=728&ArticleID=1841583

If that doesn't work, try http://tinyurl.com/ycx8gr

Not much about evangelism there and see how much we are misled in the UK. I know of a local case, where working on such limited knowledge as in the article above, a school headmistress invited an OCC representative to speak during their school assembly. She was so shocked by the American style heavy handed evangelism that he bragged about (presumably thinking that since the school supported OCC that they were on board with this) that as soon as he had gone she immediately vowed to have nothing more to do with OCC.

You wrote:

It seems logically to me that the OCC personnel would not allow you to show materials over which they had no prior knowledge. This was be the equivalent of allowing people to post materials on your website without the use of a moderator, or webmaster.

I think you should be alarmed that you have agreed that censoring information is a reasonable thing to do. (Note I wasn't even moderated - I was just refused to present anything, even in private!) I certainly don't do this on my website, rather I do allow people to post information on my website over which I have no prior knowledge. I have an open forum (look at the bottom of http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/) where people can say what they like - I don't even comment on it!

When I was on the 'phone to the OCC organiser in question I read out to the material which disproved her claims that there was no active evangelism, and invited her to see more on my website. She didn't even ask to see the material in private (indeed I didn't even suggest that I would show it to her own group, I said that I had something to show her). She didn't even want to see it herself such is the self-deception about OCC. The material was even from the OCC website. Remember that she had challenged me to see material that "proved" I was wrong (a tepid UK video I had already seen) and when I demonstrated that I had material that proved there was active evangelism (and note I told her this was material she can get from the OCC website) she didn't want me to turn up!

I would also agree with you that any person speaking for OCC should be straightforward in stating that there is a distribution of materials along with the boxes.

Originally you stated:

It is also amazing to me that you think that OCC is somehow secret about its purpose.

So do you know retract this and agree that OCC representatives have been secretive about OCC's purpose? Remember that these misleading statements (given last time) were from official Samaritan's Purse representatives, not just ordinary OCC workers.

A booklet that tells a child why Christmas is celebrated in the first place, does not seem like an overly overt and oppressive Christian response.

Have you read the booklet? See http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/booklet.html where you will see that this is not just "telling a Child why Christmas is celebrated in the first place" but rather is a very overt attempt at conversion. It seems you too are either poorly informed (have you not read through my website?) or are being misled by OCC if you think they are not engaging in an overly overtly evangelical mission for religious conversion, or if you think the booklet is not an overly overt conversion attempt. Read the whole booklet at http://mostimportantstory.com/mi/read.html. How can either the booklet or the following not be construed as an overly overt and oppressive Christian response?

...regardless of their faith (or none), all children receiving shoeboxes are intended to be registered in advance, attend a Christian rally, and receive Christian literature again wherever the government allows it (http://www.pursestrings.ca/shoebox.htm ). There are also evangelical follow up meetings subsequent to the distributions.

...besides being given biblical literature translated into their native language, each child wishing to receive a box will attend a mandatory Christian 'rally' in which the word of the Lord is proclaimed, in every country where it is legal. Further, a majority of the boxes are distributed in communities that have a resident evangelical Christian pastor who can provide 'follow-up' ministering. This is gift-giving with strings attached."

"These gift filled shoeboxes provide powerful tools the local churches can use to evangelise people in its own community

There was tremendous pressure placed on children who received the shoeboxes (and their families) to convert to Christianity.

So we have sinners prayers of conversion, pledge cards to evangelise friends, mandatory evangelical rallies, evangelical follow up and well organised local evangelism in conjunction with OCC.

Remember that these are just children, often as young as 4, and poorly educated with little opportunity of evaluating the evangelical claims and pressure put upon them. Such heavy handed evangelism of vulnerable children really should disturb everyone who is not an evangelical fundamentalist and strike even fundamentalists as overly overt. An acquaintance of mine who used to live in Africa and has witnessed the OCC distribution has even described the heavy handed evangelism as "sickening."

I am saddened that you felt as though you were misled at any point. I am saddened that OCC has become a cause over which you feel you must object.

It is not just me. Numerous individuals, schools and organisations have objected to and withdrawn support from OCC once they learnt of their nature. The most vigorous opponents of OCC have actually been Christian ministers (see the Guardian articles via my website).

OCC has been criticised by the Charities Commission, and schools in the UK have been alerted to check out them out carefully before deciding to take part by the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education. OXFAM, DHL, the South Wales fire Service and the CO-OP have all also withdrawn their support. I am not aware of any other evangelical organisation or charities that have received such criticism. This should set up alarm bells for you that there is something wrong with OCC that other religious charitable organisations are not being criticised for.

I certainly disagree with you, but in the great tradition of my country (which we stole from yours!) will defend to the death your rights to that opposition.

At this stage it is not clear to me what exactly it is you disagree with?

Do you disagree with me that OCC has been misleading?
Do you disagree with me that some people do not appreciate that OCC is an evangelical mission, let alone appreciate the extent of the evangelism?
Do you disagree with me that people have a right to know what OCC is before they unwittingly partake in something they would not agree with?

That is what my website is about. Why should you feel sad that the above should be aired?

Thank you and I appreciate your cordiality. A proper dialogue though means answering the points made. I think in my previous email I was quite clear that I had good reason to be anonymous and good reason to state that OCC has been (and continues to be) misleading and often downplays the nature of their evangelism. So do you agree now that OCC is sometimes secretive about its purpose?

Did you read this letter?

I came across your website about Operation Christmas Child. I worked for a company that did (and still does) a huge push to collect gift shoeboxes from the community and from employees for OCC. In fact, our company served as an OCC collection site.

Because of the position I held in the company, my boss made me go through the training for people working at collection sites. I was appalled by what I heard. A man who had taken part in the shoebox delivery spoke and said that he did not give the children their shoeboxes unless they brought a friend to hear the story of Jesus. Another said that any child who took a shoebox HAD to take a Bible as well. There was tremendous pressure placed on children who received the shoeboxes (and their families) to convert to Christianity.

After hearing that, I was even more appalled when the trainer encouraged us to "downplay" the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian aspect of OCC. (Although we were only supposed to solicit donations from Christians.) She knew very well that not as many people would donate if they were aware that their "gifts" were actually used to bribe children into accepting Bibles and converting to Christianity.

Next, we were all supposed to sign a volunteer agreement for OCC. The agreement stated explicitly that we were Christians working for Christ. As I am not a Christian, I did not sign, even though my boss wasn't very happy with me. I told her that if I signed the form, I would be lying; and if she forced me to sign the form, she would be violating my right to religious freedom.

By the time I left the training, I was so disgusted with the whole program that I flatly refused to take any part in OCC for the rest of the time I worked for that company. Some of the other employees tried to make me feel guilty about not even giving a shoebox, but I replied that my time and money went to programs that did not use bribery and coercion to "help" children.

I've even caught you downplaying their evangelism yourself, when you said that the booklet was not an overly overt and oppressive Christian response, but just a retelling of the Christmas story. I wonder if there isn't an unconscious psychological drive amongst OCC supporters to bend how OCC is presented in order to make them appear in a better light. Firstly you argued that OCC were upfront about being evangelical and then later you claimed they were merely telling the Christmas story, not being "overly overt." Just how much evangelism of those without the resources to evaluate it does there have to be before it is considered "overly overt"?

Regards,

OCC critic

Listing of representative email discussions | Home