mission – Houghton STAR

Operation Christmas Child

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.

Future of Catholicism After Benedict XVI and John Paul II

In a country where Protestant Christianity stands as the dominant religion and Roman Catholicism often seems to be at a disjoint with the operations of Rome, it can be easy to underestimate the significance of this past week’s events. On Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI said his last mass as the Church’s leader, and became the first Pope to resign in nearly 600 years, the last being Pope Gregory the XII in 1415. I admit that I myself (even as a Roman Catholic) didn’t fully realize the importance of this event until after thinking about it more closely. However, I believe that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI creates an interesting situation for the future of the Catholic Church, in which the Church will either continue on its liberalizing path, or attempt to recover some of its lost traditionalism.

This is an interesting time in Catholic history. It is not hard to forget that just over 50 years ago the Catholic Church went through radical liturgical and theological changes that defined Roman Catholicism as we so know it today. These changes took place at the Second Vatican Council, the Church’s 21st ecumenical council. Among the most visible changes that the council made was a shift from a universal Latin liturgy to a liturgy that may be spoken in the vernacular of the particular congregation.

The change from a universal Latin Mass seems like a commonsensical move, I mean, doesn’t it make sense to hear a church service in your own language? But to Roman Catholics, this was a huge change, and it is difficult from our present-day perspective to appreciate just how radical it was. The Latin Mass has traditional roots that stretch back as early as the year 250 A.D and since the 16th Century it had been the official language of Catholic services worldwide. For Catholic theologians this was an important aspect of the Church’s practice, as it fostered unity not only with congregations worldwide, but also with the congregations across the historical spectrum. Unity of the believing body of Christ is among the irreducible goods for the Catholic, and the Latin Mass was among the most important tools for transcending cultural boundaries that may inhibit such unity.

However, Vatican II changed the liturgical framework, along with other things, in order to

better accommodate the Catholic Church to the modern world. But many believed that these decisions were compromising the Church’s distinctiveness and encouraging a liberally minded acceptance of wavering ideologies. At what point ought the Church attempt to accommodate for the increasingly pluralistic and scientific age, and when should the Church make the world accommodate to itself? This is a theologically difficult question, and to some, the Second Vatican Council made it loud and clear that the Catholic Church was ready to transgress its traditionally substantiated practices in order to meet the needs of the modern worldview.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent Pope’s resignation? Well, though Pope Benedict XVI has been labeled as a conservative, many forget that he, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, was one of the young theologians pushing for the Vatican II changes. Appearing at each of the Vatican II meetings in a business suit, young Ratzinger, along with Karol Wojtyla, (who would become Pope John Paul II) defended the belief that the Church needed serious changes if it were to remain effective in the changing world. Thus, Benedict XVI stands as one of the last active original members of the Second Vatican Council, and among the last of the original advocates of its general trajectory.

Therefore, the last two popes each had a personal investment in the post-Vatican II Catholic mission: which, generally put, is to seek ways in which the Church can change in order to improve its influence upon the world. Many traditionalists believe that this is almost entirely opposite to the Catholic Church’s mission, which they deem to be maintaining a historical and theological bridge between believers today and the apostle Peter, claimed to be the first pope of the Catholic Church. So, with Benedict XVI leaving his position as the leader of 1.2 billion believers, in what direction will the next pope lead the Church? Traditionalists may claim that now that a main advocate of Vatican II has exited the papacy, it is now time for a pope to attempt to re-emphaisize the Church’s traditional distinctiveness, as opposed to liberalism. Yet, others believe that the next pope may continue Vatican II’s liberalizing trajectory, perhaps enacting changes such as the ordination of women to the priesthood and a progression of LGBT rights. The papacy, leaving behind one of the original advocates of Vatican II, is at a crossroads. The cardinals hope to have elected a pope by Easter, which puts a deadline on the Catholic Church’s decision-making. Regardless of the direction in which this largest body of Christian believers goes, the Catholic Church’s next steps will have immense ramifications for the ongoing dialogue between the secular world and the Christian tradition.