Herb

to me

11/16/06

Thanks so much. I was worried that OCC was NOT spreading the gospel. Your
complaints reassures me that they are. Now I can contribute to their efforts
with a clear conscience.

Thanks again,
Herb

occ critic

to Herb

11/19/06

What made you previously think OCC were not an evangelical operation?

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

11/20/06

Someone told me that the Samaritan's Purse organization was not including any
information about Jesus in their "Operation Christmas Child" gift boxes, and
this was after I had helped purchase and pack several boxes. I found out later
that these boxes were going to Muslim countries, where it is illegal to include
anything Christian, which is kind of funny, since the Muslims believe Jesus was
a prophet.

Anyway, there was a line on your web site that said something like, "Christian
material is included whenever possible...", so I figured that it was only places
where it was actually illegal that the Christian material was not included.

Thanks,
Herb

occ critic

to Herb

11/28/06

Hi Herb,

This is my understanding too, that where it is illegal to distrubute evangelising material or to organise religious rallies, they do not do it. However they have been known to tell Muslim children that the shoeboxes were "packed by people who know Jesus" and to use other dishonest tactics, since it is certainly not the case that all contributers to OCC are Christians.

Some children receiving the shoeboxes are told that these gifts all come from Christian children. The 2002 Operation Christmas Child Special Report celebrates a provincial governor in a Muslim country who "acknowledged that the gifts came from Christians who wanted to share God's love. 'These gifts are from Christian children in the West,' he said. 'They want you to know that God has not forgotten you.'"

Samaritan's Purse Special Report on Operation Christmas Child 2003 explains how they use the shoeboxes to get around local laws preventing missionary activity:

India can be a difficult mission field. Many states have anti-conversion laws that make it hard for Christians to work. But Operation Christmas Child breaks down barriers and provides a way to reach the children.

etc.

As for countries where they are allowed to distribute material and evangelise they certainly do. See http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/booklet.html for details.

Are you happy that OCC tell children untruths about the origins of the shoeboxes?

I have heard that sometimes these schemes get horrifically tainted once the gift giving is done and the photo-op is over. Several reports from people who have been directly involved with charities in poor nation like Romania and Haiti have mentioned that these gifts have been removed from the child in question and sold on the black market (crime, drugs, desperation or plain out and out greed). There have been reports also of orphanages that charitable good will has re-decorated and re-fitted with equipment, toys etc. being stripped by hard bitten locals desperate and resentful that so much wealth has been bestowed on these poor wretches.

These charities if their heads were in the right place would seek to reduce the poverty level in those nations rather than pile up conspicuous piles in places where the recipients can't defend it from a desperately impoverished people.

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

11/29/06

I know at our church, all of the packing is done by Christians who know Jesus,
even though contributions come from many people. We have been told that OCC
repacks the boxes themselves, or at least inspects them. I don't really see
OCC's claim that boxes are packed by people who love Jesus as being a false claim.

Of course it would be ideal to reduce the poverty levels in these nations, but
that would usually take some form of interfering with the government of these
countries. That does not seem to be the aim of OCC, nor do I see it as the aim
of Jesus. However, I do see many requests by Jesus to try and befriend the less
fortunate.

I was more concerned that OCC was not being agressive enough in sharing the
message of Jesus. You have helped dispel this rumor. Now I realize that they
are very careful in respecting the wishes of certain governments, and that would
be the Christian thing to do.

Herb

occ critic

to Herb

11/30/06

Hello Herb,

You wrote:

I don't really see
OCC's claim that boxes are packed by people who love Jesus as being a false claim.

It is easy to see. Remember OCC claim that the gifts originated from Christian children, not that they were "repacked by Christian adults." Whereas the truth is they originate from a wide spectrum of people, plenty of whom are not Christians and some don't even know that OCC is an evangelising organisation and stop taking part when they find out. Also note the letter in blue near the bottom of my website which shows there are even those in the packing centres who are not Christians and who OCC attempt to get to lie that they are!

I was more concerned that OCC was not being agressive enough in sharing the
message of Jesus. You have helped dispel this rumor.

Why didn't you just ask this question of OCC? Why have you had to go to a site critical of OCC to find out that they are aggressive in "sharing the message of Jesus"? Do you not trust OCC to be truthful?

Of course it would be ideal to reduce the poverty levels in these nations, but
that would usually take some form of interfering with the government of these
countries.

I don't know why you think reducing poverty means "interfering with the government." Do you disapprove then of the work of Christian Aid or Oxfam?

That does not seem to be the aim of OCC, nor do I see it as the aim
of Jesus.

Do you really believe that the message of Jesus is to use presents as bait to children to hear the Gospel? Many Christians do not believe deception to be Christian behaviour. If you do, then I suppose this is the "charity" for you.

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

11/30/06

Oh yes - it is a great charity, and probably reaches twice the number of people
than the ones you mentioned.

I was about to ask OCC these very questions when I did a web search to find
their website. When your web site came up in that search, and it addressed my
question directly, I went to your site 1st. It was just a difference of a
button click.

I will ask these very questions of OCC. I will even refer them to your web site.

I know they do have to inspect the boxes that others pack and send to them.
They have told us that much in the past. The OCC management is Christian. They
may occasionally have to hire some non-Christians to fulfill duties during
crunch times, but that doesn't mean it is not a Christian organization.

Thanks for the info,

Herb

Quoting occ critic <[email protected]>:

occ critic

to Herb

12/1/06

Hello Herb,

You didn't address my points - i.e. I showed that OCC claims the boxes originate from Christians, whereas they often do not, even to the extent that OCC representatives pressurise people to play down the extent of the evangelism and to sign up that they are Christians, even if they are not!

So is it true or is it not true to state that the boxes are "sent from Christian Children who wanted to share God's love" if in many cases they are not? Your claim that since it is (mostly) Christian adults who repack/inspect the boxes this is equivalent to saying they have come from Christian children is just as dishonest.

Your point about "reaching people" did not address what we were talking about:
i.e.

Is it Christian or moral to use presents as bait for evangelism?
Why do you think that Christian Aid or Oxfam or other such charities ( e.g. Red Cross) must "interfere with Government" to help alleviate poverty?

You can easily see that the evangelising leaflets are used by OCC by going to the "who is using" page http://mostimportantstory.com/mi/who.html at the WorldServe Ministries site.

OCC are well aware that there are numerous websites, schools, organisations and individuals critical of them, and if you read the FAQ at http://www.samaritanspurse.uk.com/occ/FAQ_leaflet.pdf that mentions this and attempts to play this down then you might be excused for thinking they are not evangelical at all!

It is not just me. Numerous individuals, schools and organisations have objected to and withdrawn support from OCC once they learnt of their nature. The most vigorous opponents of OCC have actually been Christian ministers (see the Guardian articles via my website).

OCC has been criticised by the Charities Commission, and schools in the UK have been alerted to check out them out carefully before deciding to take part by the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education. Many schools have withdrawn support (and have even expressed alarm) when they have investigated OCC. OXFAM, DHL, the South Wales fire Service, the England Revenue and the Co-Op have all also withdrawn their support. I am not aware of any other evangelical organisation or charities that have received such criticism. This should set up alarm bells for you that there is something wrong with OCC that other religious charitable organisations are not being criticised for.

If you write to OCC please will you forward any response you get back to me.

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/1/06

Aren't all Christians children of God?

I am not sure about the bait and switch aspects. If OCC claims to be Christian,
and they include Christian material, that seems to be consistent. Jesus himself
frequently fed people and then preached to them. Probably a lot of the people
just wanted the free food.

I am not sure that the other agencies you talked about ever present the gospel.
That would be my main emphasis with a charity. All the food or toys in the
world won't save a lost soul. If you can introduce people to Jesus, then they
will be in a position to receive blessings from God as one of his children.
This may be the best economic help they will ever receive.

Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/2/06

Hello Herb,

Still, you didn't address my points - i.e. I showed that OCC claims the boxes originate from Christians, whereas they often do not, even to the extent that OCC representatives pressurise people to play down the extent of the evangelism and to sign up that they are Christians, even if they are not!

I gave you proof of this and you have ignored it. Why is that? Will you address that point? If OCC state that something they know is not true is true then are they being truthful?

Also is it true or is it not true to state that the boxes are "sent from Christian Children who wanted to share God's love" if in many cases they are not? Your claim that since it is (mostly) Christian adults who repack/inspect the boxes (and your new claim that just because OCC is a Christian organisation) that this is equivalent to saying they have come from Christian children is just as dishonest.

A generalisation is not an answer - can you address this exact question?

If this doesn't make you feel uneasy then imagine that this was a Muslim organisation holding Islamic rallies telling vulnerable poorly educated children that gifts sent by Muslims, Christians, Hindus, agnostics etc. were all sent by people who have submitted to Allah, and the local Mosques held well organised and intensive follow up meetings to cement this evangelism, and what is more a good proportion of the people who contributed to the shoeboxes read the literature poorly enough (partly because in some countries the flyers only gave vague allusions to any religious message) to think that this was merely a toy charity. Would you claim that for this organisation to state that the presents were sent by Muslim children who wanted others to know Allah was a fair and accurate statement?

Jesus himself
frequently fed people and then preached to them. Probably a lot of the people
just wanted the free food.

Your analogy with the feeding of the 5,000 is incorrect. The people did not know that they were going to be fed. The feeding was a surprise - see Matthew 14 - far from expecting free food the disciples even suggested that the people be sent away to find food! Do you really believe Jesus would have gathered a group of people on false pretences? Imagine that even if it was true that as you said "probably a lot of the people just wanted the free food" do you really believe that Jesus had advertised free food with the thought that while they are there he would surprise them with some preaching? Even apart from the fact that you are wrong that the people expected to be fed, there is a difference between what people might have expected and what Jesus deliberately led them to expect. Do you agree?

Your point about "reaching people" did not address what we were talking about:
i.e.

Is it Christian or moral to use presents as bait for evangelism?

Why do you think that Christian Aid or Oxfam or other such charities ( e.g. Red Cross) must "interfere with Government" to help alleviate poverty?

I note that you have switched tack. Initially you objected to other charities because they would "interfere with the government" to help alleviate poverty. Your actual words were:

Of course it would be ideal to reduce the poverty levels in these nations, but
that would usually take some form of interfering with the government of these
countries.

You have not yet explained how Christian Aid, Oxfam the Red Cross (or even the Tear Fund which is evangelical) must "interfere with Government" to help alleviate poverty. Now you are claiming that your objection is that other charities are not evangelical. You have also claimed that hearing about Jesus is "economic help." How is this? Rather Jesus encouraged people to give their possessions away. You had also previously stated that the poor will always be with us. I get the impression you are grabbing at anything you can think of to prevent admitting that OCC are unethical.

If you are interested in evangelism, maybe you should be straight about it, rather than using toys as deception and an organisation the frequently plays down its purpose. I hear from many people who had no idea what OCC was about until they were directed by sites like mine to read the evangelising leaflet and subsequently have stopped taking part. How does that reflect on Christian honesty and being upfront? This may be honest evangelism to you, but the reality is it is the spread of fundamentalism to vulnerable children by dishonest means.

Why do you think OCC has been criticised by Christian ministers?

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/4/06

I am not sure what is the direct question you want me to answer, and I am
definitely not sure of any proof you have provided. Maybe you should re-state
the question?
Thanks,
Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/4/06

Hello Herb,

The first direct question rephrased is:

OCC often downplay their evangelism. Is that ethical?

The proofs for this (all available on my website) are:

The letter in blue near the bottom of http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/ (make sure you read that letter).
The fact that Franklin Graham himself describes OCC as a "tool" to "open the doors to telling about Jesus." i.e . He doesn't just evangelise (I don't criticise evangelists in general on my site) rather he uses toys to entice children to evangelical events and to accept evangelical literature.
The UK and Canadian branches downplay the evangelical nature of OCC and give little hint of the actual content of the material they distribute. This is borne out by the fact that many groups who have participated in OCC have done so without knowing this was an evangelical mission (something Americans who write to me are flabbergasted at, because they have not seen the UK recruiting leaflets). These are people who have stopped doing it and expressed horror at the fact that they had unknowingly taken part in a form of evangelism they do not agree with.
These people who have unwittingly taken part against their wishes because they were not properly informed are often not Christians (indeed there was much anger from Muslim groups when they found out what OCC was after they had been packing boxes for their children's schools). However OCC claim that the boxes were sent by Christian children in the West when they are aware that this is frequently not the case. Indeed, as you saw in the letter in blue they even will deliberately downplay the evangelism so that they will get more people to pack boxes. I have had first had experience of this when I tackled OCC in my local press. However when I wrote to OCC under the guise of an evangelical supporter they were quite upfront about their evangelism.
In the UK leaflet they describe the literature they hand out as "a booklet of bible stories" whereas the truth is it is a carefully crafted conversion attempt aimed at children.
When I and (independently) the General Adviser for Religious Education and SACRE (the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education) wrote to OCC for details of the booklet distributed to children I was sent a few pages of the general bible stories (see http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/booklet.html) and the General Adviser for RE and SACRE was sent one page of the bible stories in Rumanian! No details or hints were given of the conversion pages, or even a link to the booklet on the web. Even the OCC websites don't link to http://mostimportantstory.com/mi/read.html. I had to pose as an evangelical supporter and write to the head office before I found out enough about the booklet to track down the URL above.

See how you get on with that and then I will attempt to rephrase the remaining questions from my previous email if you have trouble answering the rest.

You may like to note the pertinent email I had today from another Christian quoted below. (Also note I regularly receive emails like this, but I felt this was particularly poignant as it arrived at the same day as yours):

I totally agree with your suggestion that OCC is not transparent. I am a member of a Church which has supported OCC for several years, despite preaching that as Christians we should share God's love with those who are interested and not pressure anyone. I protested that OCC has ulterior motives which I disagree with, and the Church PCC told me that there is no evangelism involved!! OCC represents that the 'gifts' are for Children who are too deprived to get Christmas presents, our vicar stated 'some of these children don't even know it's Christmas'. Well, obviously, if they are Hindu or Muslim. To cynically and aggressively target deprived and ill-educated children in this way is totally the opposite of what Christianity should be about.

So either "no evangelism is involved" in which case, according to your first email you could not contribute in a clear conscience:
i.e.

I was worried that OCC was NOT spreading the gospel. Your
complaints reassures me that they are. Now I can contribute to their efforts
with a clear conscience.

or OCC representatives are downplaying the evangelism, even to the extent of telling people who are sensitive to evangelism that OCC is not an evangelising mission when it is.

So which is it?

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/5/06

First, if you are going to make an accusation (i.e. OCC often downplay their
evangelism), you need to have documentation of that fact. I did not see any.

1. I read that letter in blue, but I have no idea who wrote it or if what they
said was true. That should be documented. Most people do not believe
everything they read on the Internet.

2. I am very happy that [Franklin Graham himself describes OCC as a "tool" to
"open the doors to telling about Jesus."]. I would think that anything not
illegal, unethical, immoral or unbiblical would be fine to attract people to a
gospel message.

3. I do not know anything about the Canadian or UK branches, and I did not see
any documentation about them.

4. Who are these people who have unwittingly helped OCC? No one that I know
helps OCC unwittingly.

5. Never seen a UK leaflet.

6. Never heard of SACRE.

It kind of seems like a "your word versus their word", and I can not referee
that kind of an argument. You will have to discuss that with OCC.

I was worried that OCC was not evangelising. and your web site and emails have
convinced me that they are evangelizing, so I am very happy about that. Thank
you for including that information on your web site.

Thanks,
Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/6/06

Hello Herb,

Contrary to your assertions I do have documentation that OCC plays down their evangelism and I have it on my website with links to the sources, photocopies of letters etc.

For instance see http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/concerns.html where I quote:

The Rev David Applin, chief executive of SPI, admits that a religious pamphlet - "The greatest gift of all" - is distributed with the boxes (though not inside them). But he denies that the appeal is evangelical. "The word evangelical has connotations and I prefer to think of us as a Christian group," he says, adding that he does not regard SPI as a missionary agency.
( http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,861580,00.html )

[my emphasis]

You can follow the link above to the Guardian newspaper where you can this see for yourself.

So do you regard OCC as a missionary agency? Can you answer this direct question yes or no?

You won't do it because if you say yes then you admit that in this documented case from the chief executive of SPI he has downplayed the evangelism of OCC. If you say no then you will not be able to take part in OCC due to your own concern that it might not be evangelical or a missionary activity.

To see that people have unwittingly taken part in OCC see here for an example, from which I quote the reaction one parent found from the headteacher when he informed her about the nature of OCC

Well, I've just got back from the meeting.

I won't go into the specifics but I must say I'm absolutely gobsmacked.

Brief details:

As I imagined the school's support for OCC has been going for many years (this head is quite new to the school) and this year was no exception.

The head wasn't aware that there was any concern about OCC and SP (and why would they be, people tend to think that a charity is, well, you know, "good")

I don't think I've ever seen anyone so visibly shocked and appalled by something.

The school will never support OCC again. They will, however, find a similar scheme, that isn't tainted like OCC, and support that instead. I've given them a few ideas and will be providing some more pointers some time soon (I'm looking into a few things that can be found on this page).

Assembly on a Friday happens in the afternoon and the shoebox collection was going to be part of the focus for it. That won't be happening now.

And here's the one that shocked me: the head is adamant that the boxes they've collected today (interestingly she said that they'd not received as many this year when compared to other years) won't be going to OCC, instead the intention is to quickly find a similar charity and direct the collection to that instead. Personally, if I'd been in that position, I think I'd have let it slide this year and that would be been that.

In other words, not only did the meeting go as well as I'd hoped it would, it went far better than I'd imagined.

Once again, thanks to everyone for their words of encouragement and support. It was a great help.

To everyone else reading this: if you're a parent with a child at a school that supports this charity please do take some time to have a chat with the head and inform them about it. It's not like secular charities don't exist and I'd be willing to bet that the heads of many "non-denomination" state schools that do currently support it will be equally as shocked and appalled (and probably as grateful for being informed).

Maybe you would like to believe somebody just made that up. If so then documentation from the UK national press is available at http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,861580,00.html
from which I quote:

Shan Davies, head of Builth Wells high school in Powys, says her school produces about 200 boxes each Christmas, but that the charity has not informed her that the gifts delivered to needy children are accompanied by Christian literature. "I would have difficulty promoting the appeal if that were true," she says.

So they had unwittingly taken part in something they would not have approved of because they were not informed of its nature. You said you could not see any documentary evidence that this has happened. There it is and it has been on my website all along. Will you admit you are wrong and there is documentation?

There is more at that article that should alarm anyone concerned about transparency.

The person who wrote the letter in blue was from the USA but wanted to remain anonymous because of the aggressive reactions they were getting from supporters of OCC. You may choose to disbelieve anything that counts against OCC, but why are you so selective in what you choose to believe? There is enough documented on my website and elsewhere anyway.

A websearch would have explained SACRE - e.g.
http://www.natsoc.org.uk/schools/curriculum/re/re2.html

You wrote:

I am very happy that [Franklin Graham himself describes OCC as a "tool" to
"open the doors to telling about Jesus."].

Previously I discussed that your depiction of Jesus feeding the 5,000 was in error. I had no response from you to that. Do you really believe Jesus would use deception to get people to listen to him? What are children going to OCC for? Do you really think they go because they want to hear about Jesus or because they are going to get some toys? It is bait and switch as you said.

Even if you are very happy with OCC's methods, there are other Christians, including Christian ministers (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1081349,00.html) who find OCC unethical. Perhaps you and they see each other as "false Christians."

I could scan in a UK leaflet. Would that make any difference to you? Maybe you won't believe it and will assume I have done some digital editing. If you will take it as genuine then I'll scan it in for you, but I don't see the point if you're going to dismiss anything that counts against your views.

I do not know anything about the Canadian or UK branches, and I did not see
any documentation about them.

Go to their websites and compare them. e.g.
US http://samaritanspurse.org/OCC.asp?MPGID=1
UK http://www.samaritanspurse.uk.com/occ/
(notice how they describe the evangelising leaflet as "a booklet of bible stories")

It is not my word against your word, as contrary to your assertions I do have documentary evidence. It was already available via my website but I've spelt it out for you here.

- Show quoted text -

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/6/06

It is very difficult to understand what you are complaining about. On the one
hand you say that OCC is not evangelical, and on the other hand you say they
are, and you have proof for both.

Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/7/06

Hello Herb,

It is not difficult at all. All that is going on here is you are refusing to answer direct questions.

OCC are evangelical, but they often play it down and mislead people. That is the point of seeing if you can answer the question below. i.e. they say they are an evangelical mission (if you believe Franklin Graham and read the booklet they give alongside the shoeboxes) and at the same time the chief executive of Samaritan's Purse International deny that they are a evangelical or missionary!

So can you see that SPI is misrepresenting OCC to the public when it suits them to do so? That is the point. If an organisation claims it both is and is not missionary then clearly it is misrepresenting itself to some of the public!

That is the point of my website being an alert. Whilst OCC are happy to be upfront about being an evangelical mission amongst fundamentalist and evangelical Christians where they know they would be supported as such, they are cagey to the point of dishonest misrepresentation where they know they would not get such an uncritical acceptance, as is the case in the UK.

I do not think you can or will answer this question because if you tackled this question you would have to admit that OCC are unethical. Meanwhile refusal to answer this question (or indeed any of my direct questions so far) makes for a good example feedback for my website.

Now will you answer my question?

i.e.
Contrary to your assertions I do have documentation that OCC plays down their evangelism and I have it on my website with links to the sources, photocopies of letters etc.

For instance see http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/concerns.html where I quote:

The Rev David Applin, chief executive of SPI, admits that a religious pamphlet - "The greatest gift of all" - is distributed with the boxes (though not inside them). But he denies that the appeal is evangelical. "The word evangelical has connotations and I prefer to think of us as a Christian group," he says, adding that he does not regard SPI as a missionary agency.
( http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,861580,00.html )

[my emphasis]

You can follow the link above to the Guardian newspaper where you can this see for yourself.

So do you regard OCC as a missionary agency? Can you answer this direct question yes or no?

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/7/06

I believe OCC is a missionary agency, but I do not know about SPI. They seem to
be 2 different groups.

Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/7/06

No OCC is run by Samaritan's Purse International. I even have a photocopy of a headed letter to me from Samaritan's Purse International head office at http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/booklet2.html
from the UK manager of OCC.

If you still don't believe me then type Samaritans Purse International into google, look at the first result and go to the website.

You challenged me to give documentary proof. There it is, twice. You could even write to SPI and ask them if they run OCC!

So now you must answer.

... or have I been falling for an Internet trickster just having a joke with me?

--
Regards,

OCC critic
www.geocities.com/occcriticism

Herb

to me

12/8/06

What is it you want me to answer? I thought I already did. You seem to be
talking in circles. Franklin Graham runs the organization I am talking about.
You seem to be talking about a Rev. Applin. I have never heard of this guy or
his organization.

Herb

to me

12/8/06

Here is the web site that came up in response to my query:
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
The 2nd line on the web site says Franklin Graham (didn't see Applin).
The bottom line has a solicitation disclosure that says it is a faith-based,
religious organization (501(c)(3) organization). How could anyone ever mistake
it for something other than a religious organizatuion is beyond me. There is
even a pie chart showing 89% of their money is spent on ministry, and they are a
member of ECFA.

There was a link to OCC, and at that page
(http://www.samaritanspurse.org/OCC_About.asp)
was this:

"Operation Christmas Child brings joy and hope to children in desperate
situations around the world through gift-filled shoe boxes and the Good News of
God's Love. This program of Samaritan's Purse provides an opportunity for
people of all ages to be involved in a simple, hands-on mission project while
focusing on the true meaning of Christmas - Jesus Christ."

That statement does not seem to be trying to hide anything.

Then there is a letter from Franklin Graham including this excerpt, "... provide
opportunities for local believers to tell children about Jesus Christ through
Gospel literature and evangelism programs."

I don't know about Rev. Applin, but Mr. Graham is not trying to hide anything
that I can see. One would have to be blind to think it is not an evangelical
organization.

My worry was that they were not, but your web site has convinced me they are.

Herb

occ critic

to Herb

12/10/06

Hello Herb,

Can you assure me that this isn't a game you are having with me?

You wrote:

Here is the web site that came up in response to my query:
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/
The 2nd line on the web site says Franklin Graham (didn't see Applin).
The bottom line has a solicitation disclosure that says it is a faith-based,
religious organization (501(c)(3) organization). How could anyone ever mistake
it for something other than a religious organizatuion is beyond me.

I was under the impression that it was you who didn't know that SPI were a missionary group! Remember I sent you to their website in response to your writing:

I believe OCC is a missionary agency, but I do not know about SPI. They seem to
be 2 different groups.

The point of me sending you there was to demonstrate that OCC is an activity run by SPI! It was you who claimed they were different groups as if that made playing down the evangelism of OCC by SPI legitimate!!

Now, I have made it quite clear that OCC are upfront with evangelical Christians (at least in the USA). The point is that they are not when they are presenting themselves to more sceptical audiences.

Rev. David Applin was appointed as Executive Director of SPI in 1995. So yes he is a senior spokesman for SPI. Franklin Graham is the President and David Applin is the Executive Director.

See this on http://www.samaritanspurse.uk.com/about/history.asp along with a photo of Franklin Graham. Do you believe Franklin Graham disagrees with his executive director as to the point of OCC?

So once again will you answer my question? Is OCC a missionary activity? Yes or no?

Contrast your answer with what Rev. David Applin said here:
http://www.geocities.com/occcriticism/concerns.html where I quote:

The Rev David Applin, chief executive of SPI, admits that a religious pamphlet - "The greatest gift of all" - is distributed with the boxes (though not inside them). But he denies that the appeal is evangelical. "The word evangelical has connotations and I prefer to think of us as a Christian group," he says, adding that he does not regard SPI as a missionary agency.
( http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,861580,00.html )

[my emphasis]

So once again will you answer my question? Is OCC a missionary activity? Yes or no? Contrast your answer with what Applin told the British National press.