Boycott, boycott, boycott
The American Family Association has called for another boycott. This time, the target is Ford Motor Company for their support of the homosexual agenda and tasteless European ads. While I understand the concern behind this type of a boycott, I wince a bit at the actions. I am no fan of boycotts. Sure, they often have something of an effect in changing the minds of those to whom the boycott is directed (or at least gives them pause), but I am concerned that it is the kind of situation where one can win the battle but lose the war.
Rarely does the general population look at those who are calling for a boycott with favor. No, I am not advocating a "friend with the world" mentality, but please, if these well-meaning folk want to do more than simply force people to act differently through punishment, I believe a different approach might be called for. In my humble opinion, boycotts, generally speaking, serve only to isolate and marginalize the group boycotting, punish the group being boycotted, and galvanize the group the offending company is supporting. I don't know, sounds like a lose, lose, lose scenario to me.
If Christians are to stand against evil but love all individuals involved, perhaps a different strategy is called for, because with this one, the Christian is seen as someone who merely wants bad things out of society so he doesn't have to look at them. It appears self-centered. That is not the call of Christ. Should Christians stand up and be heard? Absolutely, but it must be done in such a way that fellow sinners know that they are being treated with love and compassion, just the way we all want to be treated. It must also be done in such a way that the Christian Church does not look like just another special interest group. That's a tough one to be sure.
What's an alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with an individual withholding money from any group or company that doesn't share his or her core values. People do that all the time. Further, I think there is nothing wrong with individuals communicating with the company, expressing displeasure for something that company is doing with the money that is being given it by consumers. That, too, is done for various reasons regularly.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with a group like the AFA communicating the facts about a company with its members or subscribers in order for them to make informed decisions about their spending habits. But that's where I think it should stop. Individuals should then act on their own convictions and in such a way that the door remains open to communicate love to a world in need of a bunch of it without having to overcome the obstacles of punitive actions towards a corporation.
Is there ever a time for a boycott? Perhaps, but we should always err on the side of mercy without sacrificing the integrity of the message of Christ. There are many companies from which I have withheld financial support, but that doesn't mean that I must, in so doing, mis-communicate to the world that I hate an entire group of people. Do what your convictions tell you to do with your money, but leave the door open to demonstrate compassion and love for the world around you.
For another post in which I struggled with this topic, click here.
Rarely does the general population look at those who are calling for a boycott with favor. No, I am not advocating a "friend with the world" mentality, but please, if these well-meaning folk want to do more than simply force people to act differently through punishment, I believe a different approach might be called for. In my humble opinion, boycotts, generally speaking, serve only to isolate and marginalize the group boycotting, punish the group being boycotted, and galvanize the group the offending company is supporting. I don't know, sounds like a lose, lose, lose scenario to me.
If Christians are to stand against evil but love all individuals involved, perhaps a different strategy is called for, because with this one, the Christian is seen as someone who merely wants bad things out of society so he doesn't have to look at them. It appears self-centered. That is not the call of Christ. Should Christians stand up and be heard? Absolutely, but it must be done in such a way that fellow sinners know that they are being treated with love and compassion, just the way we all want to be treated. It must also be done in such a way that the Christian Church does not look like just another special interest group. That's a tough one to be sure.
What's an alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with an individual withholding money from any group or company that doesn't share his or her core values. People do that all the time. Further, I think there is nothing wrong with individuals communicating with the company, expressing displeasure for something that company is doing with the money that is being given it by consumers. That, too, is done for various reasons regularly.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with a group like the AFA communicating the facts about a company with its members or subscribers in order for them to make informed decisions about their spending habits. But that's where I think it should stop. Individuals should then act on their own convictions and in such a way that the door remains open to communicate love to a world in need of a bunch of it without having to overcome the obstacles of punitive actions towards a corporation.
Is there ever a time for a boycott? Perhaps, but we should always err on the side of mercy without sacrificing the integrity of the message of Christ. There are many companies from which I have withheld financial support, but that doesn't mean that I must, in so doing, mis-communicate to the world that I hate an entire group of people. Do what your convictions tell you to do with your money, but leave the door open to demonstrate compassion and love for the world around you.
For another post in which I struggled with this topic, click here.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 6/02/2005 07:45:00 AM
|
2 Comments:
I am in agreement with much of your sentiments. Sometimes I applaud what is behind the call for a boycott, but see it working in rare instances.
I think it works better for people to boycott a company that's official stance is what is at stake. When people boycotted the Gap for its sweatshops that was better only because the Gap acts like a hippy little company from San Fran. Similar actions seemed to work for a group against Starbucks (for fair trade coffee) and taco bell (for higher wages- I think).
If Chick-Fil-a were to offer benefits to gay partners, open on Sundays and sponser a gay Day it may be more useful to me (only because Chick-Fil-a may need to be brought back to its principles). I have expectations of CFA's behavior, unlike Ford.
I have never seen a company like Ford as having a particularly Christian or wholesome image (I remember Henry Ford and his fascination with Hitler and Nazis), just a struggling American car company who is trying to find any niche they can to make a profit. Of course, if they worked on their cars, they may not need to worry about the gay market.
I don't think I would buy a car just because it suddenly advertised and supported Christians. It would still have to be a good car with a good price. I would care more about Consumer Report's endorsement than Christianity Today's. I would assume gays are the same way.
But, I don't know the demographic or its buying habits all that well (except for the stereotypical stuff).
Also, I think boycotting a car company is kinda dumb, since it is such a major item purchase. It would be hard to tell that the few Christian buying a new car that month did not buy theirs. It seems a boycott would be more effective against a company that made smaller-ticket items. But, I am no economist.
Well said.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home