Franklin Graham Goes Native, Social-Gospel Style
I had some concerns about Franklin when it was revealed in 2004 that he met with anti-Christian bigot Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League to assure him that he would make sure that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ would not be “misinterpreted” by the Christian community- as in, we lowly peasants couldn’t handle the raw gospel message (with its account of Jesus’ murder at the behest of, hold your hats, Jews and Jewish leaders, not Buddhists or Druids) without helpful “interpretation” to make sure we didn’t spontaneously re-enact the Kristelnacht.
I recently had this article brought to my attention regarding the removal of religous literature from Samaritan’s Purse packages:
It is a Christian charity bringing Christmas cheer to needy children abroad.
So its decision to ban Jesus, God and anything else connected with its own faith has been greeted with little short of puzzlement.
Operation Christmas Child, run by the charity Samaritan’s Purse, sends festive packages to deprived youngsters in countries ravaged by war and famine.
Donors are asked to pack shoeboxes with a cuddly toy, a toothbrush and toothpaste, soap and flannel, notepads, colouring books and crayons - but nothing to do with Christmas.
Stories from the Bible, images of Jesus and any other Christian literature are expressely forbidden - in case Muslims are offended.
Specifically:
“Ideally, a child would receive a present with a Madonna and Child card, but if that is not possible, it is more important than the aid gets through than the Christian message.”
No, the aid is NOT important. That’s social-gospel Marxist wealth-redistributing nonsense. We meet the need so we CAN share the gospel.
If this is true, it’s sad because it means our leaders have partially internalized political correctness, censoring themselves preemptively to gain approval.
Merry Christmas, Franklin!
Response from Samaritan’s Purse Here:
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
I think I would like a little more context on this. I’m pretty disappointed to hear this - Samaritan’s Purse is an organization that I have supported for a while, because of the work they do bringing joy - but especially bringing Jesus - to Muslim countries.
One thing that I learned in Russia is that sometimes you do have to temper your words about Christ in hostile environments - not so that it is NEVER spoken, but so that others may have a chance to continue the work.
Example: one school we went to specifically prohibited us from speaking or singing and “religious propaganda”. We could have gone and given gospel presentations anyway, but that would have firmly shut - no, slammed - the door for the missionaries we would be leaving behind. But WE would have felt better because we spoke the gospel.
As it is, we left this school with a positive thought and “taste” of Christians. There is an open door now where pastors can go in and speak, and, as the days go on, will be able to preach about Christ.
I don’t know, though, if this is Samaritan’s Purse’s objective. I’ve always thought that the gift boxes were basically just something to get them into the country so that they could spread the gospel. So if they are changing this objective to get the boxes in there no matter what, shouldn’t they also change what goes in the boxes? I mean, instead of toys, books and colors for the kids, shouldn’t it all be non-perishable food items, maybe plane tickets to America?
Sorry for the sarcasm, this is just really upsetting.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I’ve edited the post now that SP has an official response.
I tend to look at things from an efficiency perspective. You can’t put a dollar value on a soul of course, but just like in a health care triage setting, there are ethical ways to make distinction between needs to optimize use of limited resources.
The triage analogy holds true. In triage, you divide people in a mass catastrophe (for example, a massive automobile pileup with hundreds of injuries but only 5 first responders) based on need. The first category are those who have non-serious injuries that aren’t life-threatening, and the third category are those whose injuries are so severe they can’t be treated effectively with the resources available. The people who receive treatment are in the second category, those with serious injuries but who are “savable” with the resources available.
Similarly, scarce resources for missions should be concentrated in places where the harvest of souls is most fruitful.
I would argue that if a Muslim country bans religious literature, then those shoeboxes should be sent to another country where the literature would be accepted. There’s only 8 million boxes, and many more kids in need in countries that would allow the literature.
I know your plane ticket comment was in jest, but it’s important to remember that countries consist of living, breathing people, not borders. Relocating them to the US would just recreate the same problems here, after our charitable resources were tapped out.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Of course - that’s actually the point I was making - no shoebox full of stuff - no matter WHAT the stuff was - would change any of these people’s problems. The only thing that will change anything for them is Jesus - and He’ll change it whatever country they are living in.
That’s what’s so confusing about this situation to me. They started off saying, “Hey, let’s put together a shoe box of gifts for kids that might get us into that country so we can spread the gospel.” Then, after they ‘got in’, now it’s “Well, we have to make sure the shoeboxes get in no matter what, so we can drop the gospel to make that happen.” It’s like the cart got put before the horse.
In reading the response put out by Samaritan’s purse, though, it sounds like the shoe-boxes are just another door, another tool to allow the missionaries and churches in these local areas develop relationships, help suffering people, and spread the gospel - one step at a time. I wish that Franklin would have been a little bit more clear in his response - he never did say one way or another about the Christian literature in boxes.
I’m gonna think a lot about this, I have more to post, especially from my specific example in Russia, but I think I’ll take up my own blog space instead of hogging yours! =)
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I just wrote about Franklin Graham and his outrageous paycheck- see it here:
http://www.freegoodnews.com/2008/02/2008-christia-1.html
…Bernie