Former missionary David Painter, now pastoring a Sydney church, questions whether Operation Christmas Child is a worthwhile overseas mission effort.
I wrote this several years ago while still a missionary, but was not in the position to share it then – but am now – something to consider as the mission-minded amongst us approach this Season: Operation Christmas Child: Time to Reconsider
One of my Khmer students recently cheekily posted on Facebook: “Today is the beginning of my birthday month, so please start sending your presents.” We all like receiving gifts, and most of us like giving them. It’s easy to see the widespread appeal of Samaritan Purse’s Operation Christmas Child. The shoe box is ingenious. Not only is it a convenient size, but it plays on our guilt, reminding us of our materialistic excess (yes, I have about ten pairs, mostly sports-related). Besides, who would not want to put the smile on the face of a poor child in some far-off country by giving a bit out of our excess at Christmas time? I took note that last year 25 838 boxes went from Australia and New Zealand to the field of Cambodia where I serve. Moreover, the website informs us that we will be supporting the work of Christian evangelism.
The program is loaded with the best of intentions. Not only are donors encouraged to generously give materially, but also to “pray without ceasing” for the child recipient, that their family will receive the Good News, for the pastor given the responsibility of handing out the goodies, and for the local community to be transformed by the power of the gospel. Here is the real clincher: the evangelism and discipleship component. It is aimed at evangelical Christians (Americans, read “reformed”), rather than those more liberally minded, or pursuing the social justice agenda. Samaritan’s Purse provides the “Greatest Gift Gospel booklet”, available in more than 80 languages, to be given alongside the shoebox: “11 Scripture stories in a child-friendly manner and invites children to follow Christ.” So not only are they offering gifts for the body, but also a gift for the soul. Then, “After receiving the shoebox gift, children have the opportunity to enroll in The Greatest Journey – our dynamic, 12-lesson Bible study course that guides children through what it means to faithfully follow Jesus Christ.”1 The response statistic provided is a staggering 11 256 343 decisions for Christ! How could anyone argue against that? How could any Bible-believing Christian resist supporting such a program?
Now comes the place where I sound like the Christmas Grinch! I need to ask the questions: Is this a good use of our resources? Is this the best way to direct your church’s overseas mission effort? While most churches acknowledge that there are great needs in far-off lands that are poverty-stricken either materially or spiritually (and many both), generally, the missions’ budget is constrained by pressing needs closer to home. There are home church staff that must be paid, building repayments to be met, and other mission and social needs closer to home.
I first came across these Christmas gift boxes in Cambodia when I was on a Bible School mission trip to one of the poorer provinces. We entered the house of one of the local Christians and saw that he had a large pile of these gift boxes stacked against the wall. He was busy opening them and sorting the contents into different piles in preparation for sale at the local market. On another occasion, my wife was given an unopened box as a thank you gift for leading a ladies Bible study at a local church (culturally difficult to refuse so we re-gifted). Evidently, some local pastors are unaware of the original intention behind these boxes.
We regularly hear claims of large numbers of conversions (“decisions for Christ”). The most notorious is that of Joyce Meyer ministries, of 52,000 accepting Christ in their 2007 Cambodian crusade. Despite having served in the country since before that time, and the national Church is about 200 000, I am yet to meet any of these new Christians. The only evidence I have seen was an old bus with the original JM markings recently making its way through Phnom Penh’s backstreets. Moreover, many Cambodians have testified about their multiple conversions. Maybe, they were carried away by the emotion of the moment, a sense of loyalty to the person who brought them along to an event, or the hope of subsequent gifts and opportunity to network among foreigners (and the material benefits that may ensue).
In Cambodia, most Christians are taught to believe that they are poor. Furthermore, their churches are often flooded with offers of financial assistance by well-meaning foreigners. Local pastors enter into partnerships with foreign donors (patrons) because they believe they have a responsibility to provide for their church members (quite the opposite to the advice given in the epistles – 1 Corinthians 9:10–11; Galatians 6:6). This burden only becomes heavier when their church members see other pastors doing just that. In this situation, many church activities, particularly those related to evangelism, become “donor-driven.” Everything is done so that the foreign patron can witness that the gifts are being used for their intended purpose. Unfortunately, this eats away at the local pastor’s and church’s initiative. They begin to think that the only way to run a church or an evangelistic program is with the assistance and direction of a wealthy foreign donor and the generous gifts they bring. Those few churches that deliberately choose to rely on the resources of their members find it difficult to compete.
These ideas are not new or unique. The Alliance for Vulnerable Mission seeks to encourage the wider use of locally available resources.3 For example, culturally more appropriate gifts can be easily bought in local markets at a fraction of the cost. Moreover, local Christians need opportunities to generously give out of what God has given them through their labors, following the example of the Macedonian church who gave “even beyond their ability” (2 Corinthians 8:1–5). However, if we use our comparatively large Western resources to drown them in our gifts, then they will step back from giving and remain an immature Church, forever left holding out their hand for ministry resources. How can we best build up local Christians and local churches and pastors so that they can come to maturity, serve the gospel effectively and with dignity?
We now return to our original question. What is the best way to direct your church’s overseas mission effort? We need to continue sending out missionaries who are theologically trained, willing to stay on the field long enough to effectively learn the local language and culture and use what they have learned. They are the ones equipped to discern real needs, get alongside local leadership, assist in setting up training programs, and encourage and share in the challenges local Christians face as they seek to share the gospel with their families, local communities and friends. They will face hardships (such as remaining during COVID-19, unable to return to their passport country), be vulnerable as they refuse high-status positions, be ridiculed by some as they seek to communicate in the local language rather than employing interpreters, choosing to lose status, and give up opportunities to be financially secure. Their wider families will also pay a price. My elderly parents decided to move house during COVID but being in Cambodia I was unable to be there to help them. Their house in the country was sold, and they could not get into the nearby city to find another to purchase. Fortunately, the local church stepped up and provided in their time of need. Long-term mission costs, not just in terms of finance, but in terms of people, when you find some of your friends and even family taken away from you for the needs of the faraway mission field. However, we need to set our eyes on the goal at hand. While the Church in the West is by and large wasting away, Christian churches of yesterday’s mission fields are growing in numbers and spiritual maturity. This situation did not come about by safely given, well-intentioned Christmas gifts out of our excess, but by the blood, sweat, and tears of those sent out from our churches to bring the gospel to a spiritually needy world.
Undoubtedly, the sales pitch for Operation Christmas Child is powerful. Who would refuse a tree at the back of their church building, and what sort of Grinch would want to discourage people from going out and preparing a generous shoe box offering? However, you need to ask: What is the best way to direct your church’s overseas mission effort? Sometimes these boxes are not used in the manner intended (it is well beyond our control). We need to question the evangelistic appeal attached to programs like this. Our generosity may well be disempowering local pastors and churches who would be better off using the resources God has already provided. Would your church’s cross-cultural mission effort be better used in providing for missionaries, or is there someone from among you, or even related to you, suitably qualified and burdened to be sent out to take the gospel to the ends of the earth?