Posted on 11/09/2003 7:06:13 PM PST by Pikamax
The evangelicals who like to giftwrap Islamophobia
The world's largest children's Christmas project has a toxic agenda
Giles Fraser Monday November 10, 2003 The Guardian
It all sounds innocent enough. Operation Christmas Child "is a unique ministry that brings Christmas joy, packed in gift-filled shoeboxes, to children around the world". Over the past 10 years, 24 million shoeboxes have been delivered, making it the world's largest children's Christmas project. Every US president since Ronald Reagan has packed a shoebox for Operation Christmas Child. In the UK, thousands of schools, churches and youth clubs are doing the same. Some will fill their boxes with dried-out felt tip pens and discarded Barbie amputees. Others spend serious money on the latest GameBoy or Sony Walkman. But what many parents and teachers don't know is that behind Operation Christmas Child is the evangelical charity Samaritan's Purse. Their aim is "the advancement of the Christian faith through educational projects and the relief of poverty". And a particularly toxic version of Christianity it is. This is the same outfit that targeted eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and was widely condemned for following US troops into Iraq to claim Muslims for Christ.
It's run by the Rev Franklin Graham - chosen by George Bush to deliver the prayers at his presidential inauguration - who has called Islam "a very wicked and evil religion". Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, is from the same school of thought as General William Boykin, US deputy undersecretary of defence for intelligence, who described America as waging a holy war against "the idol" of Islam's false god and "a guy called Satan" who "wants to destroy us as a Christian army".
Across the UK, children in multicultural schools are being encouraged to support a scheme that is, quite understandably, deeply offensive to Muslims. Under pressure from those who have complained that Operation Christmas Child is a way of promoting Christian fundamentalism through toys, evangelical literature will now be distributed alongside shoebox parcels from the UK rather than inside them - as if this makes any real difference. Little wonder that such organisations as the fire service in south Wales, which had allowed its depots to be used as collection points for shoeboxes, has decided to suspend its involvement. Other organisations are reconsidering their participation.
What is most resented about Samaritan's Purse is the way it links aid and evangelism. "We have no problem with people going into a country to do evangelical work," said Hodan Hassan, a spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "But when you mix humanitarian work in a war-torn country with evangelisation you create a problem. You have desperate people and you have someone who has food in one hand and a Bible in another."
Christian missionaries in 19th-century India used to describe those who came to the mission stations simply for food as "rice Christians". This became a derogatory term for those driven to accept Christianity out of hunger rather than genuine conviction. The accusation is that groups such as Samaritan's Purse are creating a new generation of rice Christians in the Middle East. How might they be stopped? The answer is not quite as simple as erecting a firewall between Christian evangelism and social action. For Christianity is not neatly divisible into theory and practice; it is a form of praxis. Belief and action are ultimately inseparable.
Ironically, it is the story of the good Samaritan that provides one of the most effective put-downs to precisely the sort of Islamophobia displayed by Christian fundamentalists such as Graham. Jesus is asked: "Who is my neighbour?" The moral of the story he tells in response - at least the one most people remember from Sunday school - is that it is the man who is beaten up and left for dead that Jesus points to as our neighbour. Conclusion: we must help those in need.
But that's not the story at all. A man is mugged in the Wadi Qelt between Jerusalem and Jericho. Whereas the religious pass by and do nothing, it is the Samaritan who offers care. Those listening to the story would have despised Samaritans. The words "good" and "Samaritan" just didn't go together. Indeed, theirs would have been the General Boykin reaction: that Samaritans worshipped the idol of a false god. Therefore, in casting the Samaritan as the only passer-by with compassion, Jesus is making an all-out assault on the prejudices of his listeners.
If the story was just about helping the needy, whoever they are, it would have been sufficient to cast the Samaritan as the victim and a Jewish layperson as the person who helped. Crucially, however, the hated Samaritan is held up as the moral exemplar. Conclusion: we must overcome religious bigotry.
The story of the good Samaritan, in the hands of Franklin Graham, is conscripted as propaganda for the superiority of Christian compassion to the brutal indifference of other religions - almost the opposite of the purpose of the story.
What is astonishing is that Christian fundamentalists have managed to persuade millions that their warped version of Christianity is the real thing and that mainstream churches have sold out to the secular spirit of the age. The truth is quite the reverse.
US evangelicals employ a selective biblical literalism to support a theology that systematically confuses the kingdom of God with the US's burgeoning empire. It is no coincidence that the mission fields most favoured by US evangelicals are also the targets of neo-conservative military ambition. To use Jesus as the rallying cry for a new imperialism is the most shameful reversal of all, for he was murdered by the forces of empire. The cross spoke of Roman power in just the way Black Hawk helicopters speak today of US power.
Schools and churches that are getting their children involved in Operation Christmas Child need to be aware of the agenda their participation is helping to promote. There is, of course, a huge emotional hit in wrapping up a shoebox for a Christmas child. But if we are to teach our children properly about giving, we must wean them off the feel-good factor.
Instead, why not support Christian Aid, which works wherever the need and regardless of religion. Its current campaigns include working with HIV/Aids orphans in Kenya, recycling guns in Mozambique, and highlighting the impact of world trade rules on farmers in Ghana. Sure, we will need to have some rather grown-up conversations with our children if we are to explain some of these things. But that would be time better spent than wrapping up a shoebox. We must get over our fondness for charity and develop a thirst for justice.
· The Rev Dr Giles Fraser is vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford
Maybe the story also involved not judging by outward appearances (ie:those all dressed up and talking church may not be what they appear)but rather what was in people's hearts regardless of religion,race,colour etc etc.The one who did was trully his neighbour,not the one's who simply talked.Much like some who lecture as opposed to some who "...that brings Christmas joy, packed in gift-filled shoeboxes, to children around the world". Over the past 10 years, 24 million shoeboxes have been delivered, making it the world's largest children's Christmas project. Every US president since Ronald Reagan has packed a shoebox for Operation Christmas Child..." etc etc.
Conclusion:yes "we must overcome religious bigotry" The question is who exactly is the religious bigot?
"We must get over our fondness for charity and develop a thirst for justice."
Ideally...wouldn't true justice actually be born of charity?
"What is astonishing is that Christian fundamentalists have managed to persuade millions that their warped version of Christianity is the real thing and that mainstream churches have sold out to the secular spirit of the age. The truth is quite the reverse."
We shall see.
To put it in perspective, suppose Christians of my particular sect were persecuted and in an incredible act of generosity, Saudi Arabia allowed us to move over there, practice our religion and customs, and even get jobs without being discriminated against. I would be a poor guest and maybe even crazy if I was "offended" that most of the people over there were Muslims and there were Muslim rather than Christian holidays, etc.
I would just be grateful that they gave me sanctuary and I would not expect every Muslim I met to go out of his way to make me feel comfortable. I would respect the fact that they were going our of their way just to give me sanctuary and I would not demand that everyone like me. I would expect that people from different cultures would not always be comfortable with one another and I would not be devastated if someone did not "understand" me. I would not demand that every Muslim accept the doctrine of the Trinity just to make me feel comfortable and important.
Now, according to the article, there are Muslims in the UK who are "offended" that there is Christian literature and there are Christian symbols in a country that has been mostly Christian for over 1,000 years. Were they surprised and expecting perhaps Buddhist symbols? I don't understand. The last I knew, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Christains were free to give out literature and teach their religion. If someone finds it offensive that people can freely express their views, perhaps he is intolerant and should leave to find a less open country. And I really don't know what to think of so-called Christians who are upset that anyone is preaching Christianity.
This fake "reverend" is over the top. Imagine a real Christian denigrating charity!
And I bet his definition of "justice" is pretty interesting. Wanna know how to get people to succinctly divulge their political philosophy? Ask them for an open-ended definition of "justice."
If any of you are interested in participating in the Operation Christmas Child Project, shoebox collection week is Nov 17-24.
Yeah.
I guess offering people hope, and a chance to enjoy true freedom on earth and to escape eternal torment in hell is poison, eh?
The bullshit before the but
The problem isn't simply the nine bishops - the Church of England itself is institutionally homophobic
Giles Fraser
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian
Everything before the but is bullshit. It's a useful hermeneutic rule when dealing with sentences of the type: "I'm not racist, but..." It's just as applicable to the official position of the Church of England concerning homosexuality: "We're not homophobic, but..." I'm not allowed to accuse others in the church of homophobia, for it is one of the conditions of dialogue between people with "different views" that we respect each other's viewpoint and don't call each other names. But if it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, by golly it is a dog. The Church of England is institutionally homophobic.
The Samaritans follow a Mosaic faith that developed seperately from Judaism for 2500 years. They are not idolitors.
Jesus said (Matthew 28:19-20) "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
I hate when the religious left "lectures" us on "legitimate" Christianity. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (sexual perversion).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.