I see that Russell Moore, who I mentioned recently, is encouraging Christians to NOT boycott Starbucks, in response to an pro-family Christian organization recommending to do just so, given its pro-gay-rights stance as a corporation.
Interesting, that; given that his Southern Baptist denomination initiated a boycott of Disney for similar reasons in 1997, throwing in the towel in 2005 when they failed to convince Disney thereby to quit being pro-gay-rights. Is it simply that Moore and his denomination have decided their boycotts are unsuccessful? Or is it really that he’s sure it’s un-Christian, as he seems to argue?
Moore argues, correctly, that the rightness or wrongness of a position isn’t determined by whether or not it is held by the majority, by whether or not it is a popular position. No argument there. But what’s wrong with trying to use our financial clout to impact businesses’ policies? In politics, we vote with a ballot; in business, we vote with our dollars. If we don’t like something being sold (be it an actual good or service, or a worldview espoused by a corporate citizen, that ends up reflected in what charities they donate to, who they allow to claim spousal benefits amongst their employees, etc.) , why should we buy it? And why shouldn’t, in a free, open, democratic society, those who disagree with a company’s policies, seek to influence others of similar mind, to join them in not giving said company their business? What is un-Christian about that?
Even if such an action doesn’t have a hope in hell of actually changing the company’s policies (due to not enough people following suit), why shouldn’t Christians nevertheless ‘come out from the unclean thing‘, and choose to forego participating in supporting something which they can’t, in good conscience, support any longer – and encourage other fellow Christians to do likewise, if they feel so inclined?
I think Moore, like the Southern Baptists in general, is simply displaying a failure of nerve here, just as they did when they ended their Disney boycott without having won any concessions – and just as they did when they rejected the proposal to withdraw their children from public education as a denomination (what an impact that would have surely had!).
Pathetic. Bullshit argumentation, with only a single, practically irrelevant Scripture citation, in his essay.
J’accuse!
Svar
March 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm
“Gentile tactics of lording over others with political majorities or economic power”
I lol’d.
I am particularly sympathetic to what he proposes, if not the reasoning behind it. Let the sods, sod themselves to death. Their “marriage” is nothing but a farce. In reality I would love to have these untermenschen put back in the closets where they belong(or atleast shut the fuck up and keep themselves and their fucking disease away from me), but there is no one in power anymore willing to do so.
Realize this; the Constitution no longer has any meaning. Second off, the 14th amendment apllies only to the descendants of slaves. Thirdly, that amendment was passed illegally.
This is at it core, a power struggle, a Kulturkampf. Any and every means must be taken to ensure victory. However, I feel that a boycott will be ineffective. I do not really know what the solution is. My instincts are telling me to wait for it to get worse and then haul ass and let the bastards fend for themselves. Americans pay an unbelievable amount of taxes, because you know, the costs of empire.
The first conquest an Empire makes is of it’s own people.
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I agree that a boycott will likely be ineffective, but it’s a symbolic gesture, that Christians can take, to say, we won’t be part of the problem; let the rest of the world go that way; we will go the other way, God’s way. That, too, can be a very real part of a Kulturkampf; a sort of mental and spiritual secession… Why give pro-sodomites your hard-earned money, anyway, if you can spend it at a company that doesn’t openly promote vice (whatever their private practices are)? And why not stand up and be counted, noticed for standing on principle, regardless of the consequences?
God will vindicate. / Deo vindice.
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Incidentally, I noticed Moore refused to name the organization calling for the boycott, which I thought was also wimpy, not opposing them by name.
They are the National Organization for Marriage:
http://nation.foxnews.com/same-sex-marriage/2012/03/21/national-organization-marriage-launch-dump-starbucks-campaign
Their campaign website is here:
http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/
As for me, I’m not interested in joining the boycott, myself; I rarely drink Starbucks coffees anyway, but I even more rarely participate in boycotts; but I don’t oppose others choosing to do so, themselves. Hence my post.
Booch Paradise
March 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm
“We won’t win this argument by bringing corporations to the ground in surrender. We’ll engage this argument, first of all, by prompting our friends and neighbors to wonder why we don’t divorce each other, and why we don’t split up when a spouse loses his job or loses her health. We’ll engage this argument when we have a more exalted, and more mysterious, view of sexuality than those who see human persons as animals or machines. And, most of all, we’ll engage this argument when we proclaim the meaning behind marriage: the covenant union of Christ and his church.”
Booch: “Boochette, I’m sorry but I’m going to have divorce you.”
Boochette: “But.. why I thought things were going so well.”
Booch: “Well, I’ve decided to boycott Starbucks, so I can’t stay married to you.”
Boochette: “Can’t you do both?”
Booch: “No, now your just talking crazy.”
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 10:29 pm
It’s usually the women who divorce frivolously, these days. 😉
Booch Paradise
March 27, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Meh, Boochette had it coming. And man, I read through Moore’s whole article, and you were way to nice to this guy. I don’t think he had a single valid point. Saying that we shouldn’t boycott because that is a tool of the enemy (Satan also quotes scripture, should we stop doing that?), because not spending money at starbucks is of this world (but tithing is otherworldly), or bringing up that there are other ways (which are not mutually exclusive), every point was wrong. And to top it all off, even though he is arguing from PRINCIPLE not for a specific case, he starts by saying “It’s not that I’m saying a boycott in and of itself is always evil or wrong.”
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 10:46 pm
I agree completely, Booch; you nailed it. Guess I was just being too kind, for some reason. 🙂
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 10:49 pm
To be fair to Southern Baptists, they don’t have as well-developed an intellectual tradition as do Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Confessional Protestants (Lutheran, Reformed, traditionalist Anglican), so reasoned, logical argument isn’t their strong suit. 😉
Svar
March 27, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Women. So unreasonable. Isn’t obvious that you can’t boycott Starbucks and stay married to her at the same time?
I sent a dove to Rome regarding this. Ratzinger replied and said that divorce is permissible in this case.
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm
But what did the SSPX say, Svar? 😉
Svar
March 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm
In fact, Ratzinger said, “non solum est dimittere licitum, est commendavit”
True story.
PS: If you’re a real Christian you know what that means because all real Christians know Latin because that’s God’s language 😉
Svar
March 27, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Ahh, the Ess Ess Pee Exx. I had also consulted them via raven not dove. They said also came to the conclusion that there was no other option beside divorce. Their literal words were, “stillabunt meretrix!”
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Ah yes, Latin, just like Moses spoke. 😉
Will S.
March 27, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Sensible advice from the SSPX. 🙂
Mark Slater
March 29, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Will S. said: “To be fair to Southern Baptists, they don’t have as well-developed an intellectual tradition as do Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Confessional Protestants (Lutheran, Reformed, traditionalist Anglican), so reasoned, logical argument isn’t their strong suit. ;)”
Very true. Even today, most LifeWay/Southern Baptist Press literature is meant to tug on the heartstrings moreso than the intellect. My Baptist brethren simply realise that “That Damned Whore Reason” (h.t. Martin Luther) can only take one so far.
For slightly more reasoned and systematic Baptist apologetics, we may go to John Gill or Charles Spurgeon. Even Bob Jones Sr will do in a pinch.
As for boycotts, a person can worry themselves silly trying to keep up with whom we may and may not trade. The best bet would be to understand that virtually all of today’s Corporate America is supportive of deviancy and subversion to one degree or another, and be wise.
Will S.
March 30, 2012 at 12:03 am
Oh yes, now Spurgeon was a bright light; it’s a pity he isn’t upheld more as an example for Baptists to aspire to… Same with John Gill, from what I know. Or John Bunyan, for that matter. The Calvinistic Baptists have more in common with their paedocommunion Calvinist brethren than with their Arminian Baptist brethren; always have…
Agreed, re: boycotts. Might as well make up your own mind, using discernment.
Will S.
March 30, 2012 at 12:10 am
I do agree, that reason can only take one so far, since faith ultimately rests on other grounds; well, its own. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen”, as the book of Hebrews puts it. But, at the same time, we are commanded to love our God with all our mind; reason is a tool, one which can be used or misused; we are to use it properly therefore, to God’s greater glory.
I wish that more evangelicals would emphasize the usefulness of reason, and logical consistency in argumentation… Bright worldly people like H.L. Mencken will be impressed with the likes of J. Gresham Machen (the former wrote a favourable obituary for the latter); they have little respect for the anti-intellectual backwoods bumpkin evangelists… Not that we should go whoring after the world’s respect; at the same time, if we Christians are to be excoriated by the world, let it be for our virtues, rather than our avoidable failings…
Jehu
March 31, 2012 at 1:32 pm
The thing with boycotts is that our cultural enemies are SO thick on the ground, that honestly it might be a better idea to do reverse the usual process. That is, find corporations and businesses that AREN’T our enemies, and do business with them, exclusively when possible. We should also use energy to find companies that are totally apolitical (with the possible exception of defensive lobbying) to support as well when a friendly option isn’t available (i.e., most of the time).
Will S.
March 31, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Ah, a buycott… Also a potentially worthwhile strategy, indeed.
Will S.
July 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
@ Mark Slater: Since you’re a Baptist, I thought you might like this video, or at least find it of interest: