Categories
Opinions

Operation Christmas Child: An Honest Evaluation

Each year, SGA pairs with the Houghton Wesleyan church to take part in “Operation Christmas Child.” For the past two years, I have taken the role of coordinator as SGA Chaplain.

When I first started the event, it seemed so simple. We packed boxes, celebrated our numbers, sent them off in big trucks, and then waited to hear stories of kids opening these boxes. It was such a simple equation. “A” plus “B” equaled “C.”

Photo by: Nate Moore
Photo by: Nate Moore

However, as I began to grow deeper in my understanding of international development, everything suddenly turned gray. I found myself asking questions such as,“How sustainable is their methodology?” or “Is this destructive to other cultures, especially non-westernized ones?” These are some of the questions I want to attempt to address.

Let’s first lay out context on the organization.

Operation Christmas Child (OCC) was originally started by Dave and Jill Cook in the United Kingdom in 1990, but later merged in partnership with Samaritan’s Purse in 1993. According to their website, their mission is to “provide local partners around the world with shoeboxes filled with small toys, hygiene items, and school supplies as a means of reaching out to children in their own communities with the Good News of Jesus Christ.” They are based in 150 countries, including Native American reservations here in the United States.

Now that we have context, let’s start the analysis. There are two issues I want address: proselytization and Westernization.

First, proselytizing. To proselytize means to “induce someone to convert to one’s faith from another.” Unlike the word “witnessing,” proselytization carries negative connotation of “force,” “against will,” or “unwanted.” Bryant Myers put it well in his book, Walking with the Poor. He says,Our thinking and practice of transforming development must have evangelistic intent…though this is not a call for proselytism; neither is it a call to coercive, manipulative, or culturally insensitive evangelism…rather, it is a call to be sure we do our development with an attitude that prays and yearns for people to know Jesus Christ.” So does OCC fall on the witnessing side or the proselytizing side?

To be honest, I came into this argument quite skeptically, thinking that their Greatest Journey program was a form of proselytization; however, after some research, I found that OCC explicitly addressed my question and titled it “Is this forcing religion on the child who gets a gift?” In their statement, they openly addressed that, saying, “children do not have to do or say anything to receive their gifts.” So if we are to take them by their word, I believe it would be thus unfair to label them as proselytizers.

melquoteSecond, westernizing. In the development world, this word carries a great deal of controversy. The thought of “white saviors” coming into non-Western cultures and giving them Western toys, laced with messages of “the West is best” is quite controversial. It is also argued to be a form of post-colonialism aid that reinforces other cultures’ need for the Western white world to fix their problems. However, this line grows gray. For one, the organization states that they pair with local churches in attempt to initiate a “bottom-up” approach. Secondly, half of their ministry is in already Westernized countries. For instance, Houghton student Elizabeth Clark ’18, recalls her experience receiving an OCC box as a child in Estonia. She remembers it as a nice gesture, though nothing out of the ordinary, since her family was used to getting present on Christmas. But, “to have something nice…or something that won’t break in five minutes…makes a child feel loved, cherished and important.”

So where do we go from here? I admit, I’m still wrestling, debating, and engaging with these issues daily. But my desire today is not to provide any answers to you, but rather to ignite a prompting in your heart to critically analyze and engage with the grays in this world. It is easy to point out flaws and mistakes, or on the other side, give a blind eye and neglect any wrongs; but to engage the gray is hard. But there is also beauty in gray. I used to always pray for God to give me black and white answers on everything. However, I’m finally starting to see that the gray not only forces me to engage both sides, but it also stands as a beautiful reminder of my complete and total need for God.  So wherever you stand, try to step back and try and engage the gray. Who knows, maybe it is through that engagement that you will find the answer you were looking for.

Melissa is a senior majoring in communication and international development.

Categories
Opinions

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.

Sarah SlaterI 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.

Categories
Opinions

The Irrelevancy of Cheerful Intentions

With the close of another Thanksgiving season, I am excited to begin celebrating all things Christmas. I want to sing cheesy Christmas songs, eat lots of Christmas cookies, and wear wonderfully ugly Christmas sweaters, every-single-day. While this may actually be rather child-like, I have also come to appreciate the Christmas season’s emphasis upon giving unto others with the intent of selfless appreciation. Unfortunately, living in a consumer-oriented context, the bargain-hunting aggression of ‘Black Friday’ has come to more readily define ‘Christmas-like’ giving. The influx of consumerism during this season has simultaneously translated into innumerable opportunities for material charity amongst citizens of the Global North. It is initially daunting to challenge consumer-based charity, specifically with its popularity among respectable citizens. However, there persists a need to re-conceptualize consumer-based charities popular during this

occ

holiday season. A needed shift in perspective specifically highlights the lack of depth, cultural relevance, and disregard for recipient perspectives. At the core of its shortcomings, however, consumer-based charity needs greater understanding for the complexity of human-related issues.

At the forefront of consumer-focused charity during the Christmas season is an initiative facilitated by the Samaritan’s Purse named Operation Christmas Child (OCC). Since 1993, OCC has collected shoeboxes from its participants in North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Each participant is to fill a shoebox with hygienic items and toys that Western children typically see as essential or enjoyable to play with (i.e. toothpaste, socks, crayons, coloring books, kazoos, etc.). Through OCC, participants are encouraged to label their toy-stuffed shoebox with a sticker indicating a preferred age and sex of the child who will receive the box. According to the Samaritans Purse website, these boxes are intended for children of the Global South who are ‘living in difficult situations’. Through participant’s shoebox donation, OCC mobilizes ‘privileged’ families of the Global North to ‘share the good news of Jesus Christ’ with ‘underprivileged’ children of the Global South. Unfortunately, introducing Jesus Christ through toys and knick-knacks promotes a simplistic view of Christianity in association with Western consumer culture. As a result, the nature of Jesus Christ adopts attributes of our capitalist society rather than the magnitude of his humanity, divinity, and relevance.

In addition to its non-contextualized approach to evangelism, OCC promotes a one-way relationship between the ‘giver’ and the ‘receiver’, lacking parameters for reciprocity or consistency from year-to-year. In narrowing its concept of charity to a linear flow of western materials, OCC has missed potential for deeper impact through long-term relationship building. Further opportunities involve the development of healthy relationships among consistently participating communities, while better engaging the voice of OCC recipients to define such relationships. Never accessing the capabilities of mutual relationships undermines the diverse expression of opinion amongst both donors and recipients, further hindering the determination of relevant outcomes. Just as one would wish to give a gift relevant to a family member’s indicated ‘wish list’, the voiced desires of OCC recipients need be better involved in determining the outcomes of donor strategies.

Operation Christmas Child currently represents a Westernized view of Christmas, evangelism, and the Global South. As members of the Houghton student body, it is critical that we better critique the premise of OCC and its campus-wide participation. From this perspective, we each are challenged to re-conceptualize the intents, means, and effects of how we choose to give. Moving forward into this holiday season, let us contemplate the wonderful attributes of Christmas, while also reflecting upon its increasing focus on consumerism. In doing so, may we continually contemplate our well-meaning intentions with the valuable humanity of our neighbor, both local and abroad.