Why should Christians feed a company and help it stay in business, “knowing that it is going to use money to support an anti-Christian agenda?”

Should Christians Boycott Starbucks?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should Christians Boycott Starbucks?

    Russell D. Moore

    A respected pro-family organization announced this week a boycott of Starbucks coffee. The group, which supports legal protection for traditional marriage, launched the "Dump Starbucks" campaign after a national board meeting in which the Seattle-based coffee company mentioned support for same-sex marriage as a core value of the company. Some Christians are wondering whether we ought to join in the boycott. I say no.

    It's not that I'm saying a boycott in and of itself is always evil or wrong. It's just that, in this case (and in many like it) a boycott exposes us to all of our worst tendencies. Christians are tempted, again and again, to fight like the devil to please the Lord.

    A boycott is a display of power, particularly of economic power. The boycott shows a corporation (or government or service provider) that the aggrieved party can hurt the company, by depriving it of revenue. The boycott, if it's successful, eventually causes the powers-that-be to yield, conceding that they need the money of the boycott participants more than they need whatever cause they were supporting. It is a contest of who has more buying power, and thus is of more value to the company.

    We lose that argument. The argument behind a boycott assumes that the "rightness" of a marriage definition is constituted by a majority with power. Isn't that precisely what we're arguing against? Our beliefs about marriage aren't the way they are because we are in a majority. As a matter of fact, we must concede that we are in a tiny minority in contemporary American society, if we define marriage the way the Bible does, as a sexually-exclusive, permanent one-flesh union.

    Moreover, is this kind of economic power context really how we're going to engage our neighbors with a discussion about the meaning and mystery of marriage? Do such measures actually persuade at the level such decisions are actually made: the moral imagination? I doubt it.

    I'm all for protecting marriage in law and in culture, and I'm for that partly because I believe it is necessary for human flourishing for all people, believers and non-believers alike. But there's a way to do so that recognizes the resilience of marriage as a creation institution and that rests in the sovereignty of God over his universe.

    Those who are scared of losing something are those who seem frantic or shrill or outraged. Those who are fearful resort to Gentile tactics of lording over others with political majorities or economic power. The winners, on the other hand, are able to take a longer view. We're able to grieve when our neighbors seek to copy marriage without the most basic thing that makes marriage work: the mystery of male and female as one-flesh.

    But we don't persuade our neighbors by mimicking their angry power-protests. We persuade them by holding fast to the gospel, by explaining our increasingly odd view of marriage, and by serving the world and our neighbors around us, as our Lord does, with a towel and a foot-bucket.

    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.

    Fear can lead us to cower and to hide a view of marriage that seems archaic and antiquated. That's why so many evangelical Christians have already surrendered, in their own lives, on such questions as round-the-clock daycare or a therapeutic view of divorce. But fear can also lead us to a kind of enraged impotence, where our boycotts and campaigns are really just one more way of saying, "I'm important; listen to me." Marriage is too important for that.

    A Roman governor thought Jesus was weak when he refused to use imperial means of resistance. But Jesus' refusal to fight meant just the opposite of what Pilate assumed. "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting," Jesus said (Jn. 18:36).

    Let others fight Mammon with Mammon. Let's struggle against principalities and powers with the One thing they fear: a word of faithful witness that doesn't blink before power, but doesn't seek to imitate it either.

    With the confidence of those who have been vindicated by the resurrection of Christ, we don't need to be vindicated by the culture. That ought to free us to speak openly about what we believe, but with the gentleness of those who have nothing to prove. Let's not boycott our neighbors. Let's not picket or scream or bellow. Let's offer a cup of cold water, or maybe even a grande skinny vanilla latte, in Jesus' name.

  • #2
    Personally, I would avoid them at all costs and promote the local coffee houses around my own area. But it seems that there is a greater gay population out West than people really realize. Because if they weren't such a majority, they would never get as much support. Just imagine if they were like than 1% of the total US population. There would be absolutely no support for them and their cause.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by martinearletara View Post
      Personally, I would avoid them at all costs and promote the local coffee houses around my own area. But it seems that there is a greater gay population out West than people really realize. Because if they weren't such a majority, they would never get as much support. Just imagine if they were like than 1% of the total US population. There would be absolutely no support for them and their cause.
      The population of people that identify as homosexual is less than 4%, up from 1%. I believe the reason why the number appears larger is because homosexuality is the poster child for liberal sexual immorality, which many more can identify with.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Pardon me if this comment is offending. But I believe that same sex marriage is the work of the devil. It is very clearly stated in the Bible the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the main reason why those 2 cities were destroyed - due to homosexuality. And same sex marriage is obviously condonation of homosexuality since man to man and woman to woman is homosexuality. Sometimes I think we are entering a new era because of the prevalence of homosexuals. They are almost everywhere, on television in entertainment, in fashion, and some of them are using their popularity to promote their homosexuality. Worse, the people do not contradict. When Manny Pacquaio commented recently that same sex marrriage is worse then animals, he was rebuked by the so called LGBT - lesbian, gay, whatever. Where is the world going to?
        Comment>

        • #5
          I wouldn't mind, they have ridiculously expensive coffee anyway. I'm pretty sure they are just doing this for good press and all that. I highly doubt 100% of people working at Starbucks agree with what the company does.
          Comment>

          • #6
            Of course we shouldn't! Starbucks is a perfectly legitimate business! (They make absolutely amazing coffee, might I add.)

            This "organization" is obviously boycotting to be a special snowflake.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Corzhens View Post
              Where is the world going to?
              We seem to be getting close to the time when the Antichrist will rule and demand that people worship him.
              Clyde Herrin's Blog
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                We seem to be getting close to the time when the Antichrist will rule and demand that people worship him.
                I don't want to say this but it seems to me that ISIS is the AntiChrist that everyone was talking about since I was a girl. Isn't it a wonder how ISIS could establish a territory in the Middle East? How did they capture a part of Iraq and Syria? They also have territories in Liby and other parts of Africa. There is also a connection in Asia. And if ISIS would rule the world, all infidels shall be beheaded, that means all those non-believers of their ideology will have to die and that includes the Muslims as well. And since ISIS is standing on the strength of jihad or religious war that allows them to kill in defense of their religion then it is clearly an indication of AntiChrist.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Corzhens View Post
                  I don't want to say this but it seems to me that ISIS is the AntiChrist that everyone was talking about since I was a girl.
                  This is very close to what I believe. I believe Islam was established by Satan as the vehicle for bringing the Antichrist into the world. I have explained the reasons I believe this here:

                  The sons of Abraham | clydeherrin
                  Clyde Herrin's Blog
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    If not boycotting them, but I would recommend going to somewhere else if there's a possibility.

                    I know how these big stores can really kill small coffee shops, where you could also help your local businesses. I think that the real evil thing about starbucks is the while franchise -stuff. They are everywhere and do not let small businesses having income.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      I was never a fan of them to begin with, never having liked their coffee or their prices. Now I dislike them moreso because of their outright beliefs (if you look at who they're owned by then you might understand why the company has those beliefs). It's a franchise that has its own liberal agenda and that's never a good thing.


                      "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

                      "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,"

                      Those verses sound to me as if God doesn't want us walking amongst sinners, so why shouldn't we boycott Starbucks?
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        By definition, a company cannot hold a religious belief. A person who owns a company can have religious beliefs; but not a corporation. Businesses are not supposed to discriminate between customers unless there is a valad reason to do so.
                        As an example, if there is a sign that says "no shirt or shoes, no service" and you walk in there barefooted, then you can expect not to be served, or to shop in that store.
                        This is called the right to refuse service to anyone.
                        It refers to specific people, and not to any group of people.
                        You can't say "no gays allowed" anymore than you can say "no Christians allowed". So what if Starbucks policy is okay with gay marriage ? It is just a business, and they have no right to object to what a person does in their personal life.
                        Are we also going to stop going to the grocery store because there are gay couples shopping there ?
                        I actually have a friend who was telling me that she thought she should stop shopping at Walmart because of their policy towards same-sex marriage.

                        Not only that; but the Bible also says that gluttony is sinful. Are we now also going to boycott our favorite buffet restaurant because there are people eating there who are eating way too much food ?
                        I think that it is much more important to be looking at our own lives and make sure that we are doing what we should be doing, and not worry about what some company is doing. If same-sex marriage is a legal union, then businesses have no choice but to support it.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Happyflowerlady View Post
                          It is just a business, and they have no right to object to what a person does in their personal life.
                          But customers have a right to stop shopping there if they don't agree with its policies.

                          Originally posted by Happyflowerlady View Post
                          If same-sex marriage is a legal union, then businesses have no choice but to support it.
                          Businesses can't refuse to serve people who are in a same sex marriage but they aren't required to support the practice.
                          Clyde Herrin's Blog
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by theophilus View Post
                            But customers have a right to stop shopping there if they don't agree with its policies.


                            Businesses can't refuse to serve people who are in a same sex marriage but they aren't required to support the practice.
                            As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Some opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.

                            States such as Mississippi do protect corporations (persons) to withhold services based on religious objections.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by William View Post
                              It's not that I'm saying a boycott in and of itself is always evil or wrong. It's just that, in this case (and in many like it) a boycott exposes us to all of our worst tendencies. Christians are tempted, again and again, to fight like the devil to please the Lord.

                              A boycott is a display of power, particularly of economic power. The boycott shows a corporation (or government or service provider) that the aggrieved party can hurt the company, by depriving it of revenue. The boycott, if it's successful, eventually causes the powers-that-be to yield, conceding that they need the money of the boycott participants more than they need whatever cause they were supporting. It is a contest of who has more buying power, and thus is of more value to the company.

                              We lose that argument. The argument behind a boycott assumes that the "rightness" of a marriage definition is constituted by a majority with power. Isn't that precisely what we're arguing against? Our beliefs about marriage aren't the way they are because we are in a majority. As a matter of fact, we must concede that we are in a tiny minority in contemporary American society, if we define marriage the way the Bible does, as a sexually-exclusive, permanent one-flesh union.

                              INteresting perspective, though I can't say I agree with it altogether. I don't see a boycott as fighting mammon with mammon, but a matter of informing those who actively promote unbiblical principles and agendas that this is enough for Christians to separate themselves from them, and that is what we should be doing...separating ourselves from the world. We don't say "We are going to go buy X brand of coffee now because of your position," simply, "Okay, you want to promote gay marriage...we want nothing to do with you." And that is an important statement for at least two reasons: it shows that Christians are paying attention, and it shows that Christians are not advocates by default. The result of inaction is "Hey, we don't have a problem with that."

                              I agree with a previous poster and think anyone who is spending that kind of money for a single cup of coffee is failing in regards to stewardship. I can make 100 cups of coffee for the price of one of theirs, lol. But coffee has become a big deal for people. How about we boycott all coffee houses for selling addictive substances...

                              ;)

                              When Proctor and Gamble began supporting the homosexual agenda, we did stop buying their products, and they recanted. I think that is a positive message for the world to see, so think the boycott is a good idea, though I think being a little more sensible as to how much we are willing to pay for a cup of coffee is common sense.


                              God bless.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap