Posted on 04/02/2013 8:08:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A respected pro-family organization announced 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.
Amen! That’s my philosophy. I am not going to support any of these companies. EVER. A couple I will have to cross off my list. Guess I’m lucky that I patronize very few of these places. The only reason I was ever in a Starbucks is because I was given a gift certificate...and that was 6 years ago.
McDonald’s makes pretty good coffee, is nearly as convenient, cheaper, and so far their board has the corporate discipline not to take political or social positions.
Leading societal decline may be a noble calling, but it isn’t what shareholders hired the CEO, COO, or the board to do.
People ask our company officers how we stand on ______. We generally tell them we don’t hold political office, we provide services for corporations.
That’s the point this pastor is missing - “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” works both ways. One should not have to sell their soul to buy a loaf of bread. Revelation fortells of that very day coming to pass.
I dislike their coffee because it tastes burnt to me. Second only to the pretentious menu system. Venti, yeah wonderful, what’s the Italian word for big cup strong caffeine and not burnt. Maybe if I knew it, I could get a decent cup of coffee there.
See, I like flavor more than caffeine. I have had to severely limit my caffeine intake; so I'm all about flavor.
I often hear people say Starbucks tastes "burnt". It does not taste burnt to me at all. Burnt is when a pot has stayed on the warming plate too long. Starbucks has always claimed they roast their beans longer to avoid the bitterness that is part of under-roasted beans. I would say they have always tried to achieve a French or Italian style roast for most of their coffees. I can make ridiculously strong cups of coffee with Starbucks beans without tasting bitterness. Maybe the rejection some have for their coffees is akin to how most Americans like a light, foamy beer rather than stouts or ales. It's what one is used to.
I seldom order coffee from a Starbucks store unless I am out of town or at a trade show. My involvement with Starbucks has mainly been in buying bags of beans to grind and brew myself. It's cheaper to buy the beans and brew them, but expensive, nonetheless. Starbucks did piss me off when they stopped offering Verona Decaf beans. This was well known to decaf drinkers as the strongest brew out there. Now if I get Starbucks decaf, I have to get Pike's Place or Decaf Espresso beans for flavor. Whenever I can get to a Cost Plus World Market store, I stock up on their 1-1/2 lb bags of Italian roast regular and decaf beans. Even at a pound and a half, the beans are cheaper than Starbucks 1 lb bags and very nearly as good.
I also have a Keurig brewer. I agree the K-cups are overly expensive. I mainly use mine for those extra cups during the day when I don't want to make another pot. There are not many good decaf options. Green Mountain Italian Roast Decaf has the most flavor. Starbucks House Blend is pretty good, too.
Re; Posting # 3
Wasn’t there a recent turnover in ownership of AFR American Family Radio ?
I wish I could boycott them over this, but I was already boycotting them.
True but I’ll still boycott the bitches.
I want meth levels of caffeine and when I brew it in the regular drip machine which my wife hates because I use a ton of coffee as well as squeezing the filter to get the last drop of caffeine and she thinks it’s strong. That’s kind of the point. It may be strong but it is not bitter. Besides, I cool it down with milk and slam it in one swallow. I guess this makes me a connoisseur. And it took me five minutes to look up how to spell the word. Need more coffee.
RE: Wasn’t there a recent turnover in ownership of AFR American Family Radio ?
Are you sure you’re not confusing AFR with Harold Camping’s Family Radio?
Their regular tall coffee isn’t expensive, under 1.50. I like them because they’re very convenient and the coffee is fresh. I put their card on my phone, my wife’s, my kids and grandkids. That way, if they want a beverage, it’s on me.
Answer: Yes, absolutely!
Comment: The author just helped deliver the victory to very bad men. Christs teachings are directed at the individual interacting with another individual. Christ never said "If the government of Russia nukes New York City the American leadership would be obligated to offer Russia Chicago." If one group advocates sin another group can suppress them.
I think I’ve had a coffee from a Starbucks store once or maybe twice. Way overpriced.
I have, however, enjoyed buying their beans at the supermarket when they’re on sale. There’s a couple of whole bean blends that I have enjoyed.
However, there are other brands that make very good coffee as well. Peet’s, coffeefool.com, and probably others.
I’ve been a bit of a coffeehaulic since I got the Cuisinart Coffee maker with the built in grinder. It’s awesome!
I’ve never set foot in one. Never had a craving for a $5 cup of coffee.
I had one of those Cuisinarts. Very nice, but my model was a royal pain to clean well. Now it’s Keurig 90% of the time at home.
One would think FR’s would be in the “loop “ with this one. But it just goes to show you .....fill in the blank
After reading many of these stupid postings it seems FR’s are not aware Starbucks CEO told investors and customers alike if they don’t like Starbucks position funding and supporting “gay marriage” to take a hike .
It’s got nothing to do with drinking or tasting their overpriced overhyped coffee, which I don’t buy and have not interest in doing so It’s with what they shamelessly advocate .
Perhaps some of them don’t like or care about loops, or are even in different loops?
I’ve noticed that those who take cream enjoy Starbucks. Those who like their coffee black, not so much.
You must frequent Starbucks often to have been able to make that detailed of an observation.
Paying some snooty “barista” for an overpriced cup of Starburps that tastes like burned cat s&#$ is not my cup of tea, no wait a second that doesn’t sound right I mean well you know really
Good for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.