It has been hard to avoid the sight of Operation Christmas Child boxes around campus the last few weeks. In years past, I have been the one filling them with dollar store toothbrushes, coloring books, school supplies, dolls, socks, etc. This was a project undertaken by countless years of youth groups as well as within my own family.
This year I haven’t.
I was considering why I had become so uncomfortable with the images of smiling children with their shoeboxes of toys, and I think I realized why. This semester, for my senior seminar, I’ve been studying a myriad of nonprofit organizations and the different ways they give back. My concern about Operation Christmas Child is simply this: that it tries to do a lot of things, and it doesn’t do any of them particularly well.
What are you trying to achieve with your shoebox of gifts? If you are trying to have a personal connection with a person on the other side of the world, sponsor a child or find a pen-pal. For the past few years I have been writing to a Kenyan middle-schooler through Empowering Lives International. Her name is Gloria, and she wants to be a professor at a university. I have no doubt in her capability to do so. But the reason I know she can achieve her ambitions is because we have a (limited) relationship. I have written to her and received responses over time. The recipient of your shoebox, on the other hand, is unknown to you, and you are equally anonymous to her.
The level of monitoring appropriate to various types of programs is frequently debated in the international development community. One approach is known as outcome-based aid, which according to the definition used by the World Bank attempts to tie disbursement of aid to specific results achieved by the recipient of the aid. This approach to development has received some pushback due to the intangible, long-term character of many interventions.
It is even more difficult to hold mission-based programs to standards because of the non-coercive element that should be inherent in preaching the gospel. It should never be a condition that someone need to become a Christian in order to participate in a program. On the other hand, how can we know if a given program is doing anything? One standard to look at is the impact a given program will have over the long term. Over the years, it has become apparent that giving out free things tends to have a net negative effect, destroying the ability of local entrepreneurs and farmers to make a living.
Of course Christians run mission hospitals, schools, feeding centers, water access programs and many other sorts of projects around the world. But there is a clear difference between showing the love of Christ through sacrificial service, and giving people things in exchange for listening to the gospel. The one is in the tradition of the disciples; the other is in the tradition of American consumerism.
Mediocrity is not something we accept readily in most aspects of our lives. When it comes to international development and Christian mission, though, it sometimes seems like good intentions are good enough. But to paraphrase blogger Jamie Wright, good intentions do not relieve us of our responsibility to engage carefully with the world. Part of responsible engagement is taking the time to think through what you are supporting. If it were your sister in need, would you prefer her to receive a single box of gifts at Christmas? Or would you wish instead for school sponsorship and medical care, or the love of a pastor or missionary in her own community?
It’s amazing that you feel called to participate in the spread of the good news. The last thing I would ever want to do is discourage that impulse. And if Operation Christmas Child is something you’ve thought through and truly believe in, I can’t find fault with that.
What I can do, though, is encourage you to carefully consider what you are doing when you fill that box with a washcloth, a ball, soap, crayons. And think if there is a different way you could achieve your goal of encouraging school attendance, good hygiene, a happy childhood, or the spread of the gospel.
Operation Christmas Child is not the worst thing a person could do to show love at Christmas. But I would argue that it is far from the best.
One reply on “Operation Christmas Child”
Dear Sarah,
Something great about Houghton students is that many of us wrestle with similar (and important) questions. I have actually wrestled with this exact question many times. I too grew up filling shoe boxes and then came to question its effectiveness within the church community. Ironically, when I graduated from Houghton (after 4 months of job hunting) I landed a job with an HC alum working with Operation Christmas Child. It was a seasonal position (4 mo.), and I was merely administrative help. However, it offered me 4 months of prolonged exposure to the messaging/marketing/operations/etc. of OCC. Throughout that 4 months I went through ups and downs, vacillating between frustration and admiration for the work that OCC does. I do agree with you, it seems like we should be helping children in many other ways besides stuffing a box full of toys. However, I want to challenge you to not make too many assumptions about the organization and the results that it has.
First, some people put their names and addresses in the shoe boxes, and they do keep in contact with the children who receive them. Other people write notes or include pictures to the gift recipients. Some also spend a lot of time in prayer for the child receiving their gift.
Second, in some areas, these boxes go to places that the local church has been able to reach. These areas are receptive to ‘toys’ and ‘gifts’ in a way that they are not receptive to other forms of aid/missions/church. When the local pastors go into these areas to distribute gifts, they are also sometimes able to open doors to return and develop community-church ties. This is a part of the vision of OCC that isn’t marketed well, but I think redeems the value of giving a gift.
Third, some of these children have never received extravagant love in the form of a gift, and it’s very meaningful for them. [Try reading advent lessons on the gift of Christ to us. William Willimon has a fabulous devotional essay on receiving gifts.] While I really struggle with the implications of gift giving and consumerism, I chose to believe that God does work in these gifts.
Fourth, another element of the OCC mission is their follow up to gift giving. They have developed a series of Bible Studies for pastors to give to children (in non-hostile areas) with their gifts. It’s called “The Greatest Journey” and it’s an evangelical tool that the local pastors use to teach students over an extended period of time following the gift-giving.
Of course, does OCC have to be the organization of choice for Christians? No, and truthfully, it’s not my first choice either. But my exposure to a multitude of NGO’s has taught me that there is no perfect, best, or necessarily good approach. Each organization you will find, as you grow and are exposed, has it’s issues and downfalls. Some are quite likely better than others, and some deserve more support than others. God gives us a spirit of discernment for a reason as we assess how to give of our time and resources. At the same time, while I pass judgment, I am often convicted to remember that God works through our efforts, whether pure or misguided.
It’s hard for me to understand, but I believe that God does work mightily in those shoe boxes, just like he works through other types of NGO models. Next time you are feeling skeptical, perhaps you should do some research and talk to people who have the vision. You’ll likely retain your original opinion, but you might soften your judgment and learn a little about the less-advertised ways that God is working in those situations.
Blessings in your continued service. Keep asking good and hard questions.