Bob Jones Ain't Drinkin' Starbucks
| Question: Does boycotting a company ever really help? I mean the Southern Baptist Convention tried it with Disney and now Bob Jones University is doing a similar thing with Starbucks (read here). Really, if you think about it 1) Is the Christian called to separate himself in such a way? And 2) If so, how are we supposed to legitimately live in this world? That is, in order to be consistent you would have to start your own nation. I am sure that’s what some folks would like to do. But where then is your light shining if not only on the inside of your basket? Shall we now begin a pure, Christian distributor to compete with Starbucks? Shall we not eat at McDonald’s, Taco Bell, shop at Whole Foods, buy Johnson & Johnson, Maybelline, ad infinitum because they may not have views consistent with our own? I would agree that we should not support companies that seek to propagate a world view diametrically opposed to mine. That is, a company whose purpose of existence is to tear down that which I seek to build. Thoughts?? [HT: Boanerges] |
posted by Matthew Wireman at 3:22 PM
Comments on "Bob Jones Ain't Drinkin' Starbucks"
-
The Traveler said ... (Fri Feb 24, 04:42:00 PM) :
-
ckjolly said ... (Fri Feb 24, 08:18:00 PM) :
-
leahclaire said ... (Sat Feb 25, 02:04:00 AM) :
-
ckjolly said ... (Sat Feb 25, 09:02:00 AM) :
-
Jason Ramage said ... (Mon Feb 27, 08:55:00 AM) :
post a commentPerhaps we should not eat at McDonald's if it was using its profits to fund marriage bashing events. (read "Gay rights marches") Starbucks is one of many coffee companies and it is being extremely socially irresponsible. Why shouldn't we just buy "Barnie's coffee" instead like Bob Jones University is.
Perhaps Starbuck's will get the message and act more responsibly. Maybe it won't but it may have a few less dollars to spend on destroying the moral fiber of America and the institution of marriage.
I don't see why we christians should fund the Gay rights movement.
Bob Jones is not urging a boycott of the Starbucks franchise. Instead, they have made a business/political decision (that just so happens to coincide with their moral stance) to discontinue selling/serving the product on their campus. Seeing how most of their support comes from Indepent Fundamental Baptists ... I don't see how they had a choice. It was either lose the coffee or lose the support.
I realize this is far fetched ... but imagine if Mohler/Moore announced that Pilsner beer would now be sold in the Founder's Cafe. Sure, we have our "freedom" in Christ ... but the Trustees wouldn't be too thrilled.
Okay, I have to agree with Matthew on this one. I mean, a boycott by any sect of Christians really only means one thing to the lost world--extremist tendencies. Like we saw with the whole Disney uproar, it didn't really dent their profits...instead, it just made us look cold and unloving to society. I realize that we don't want to be "funding" certain acts that go against our moral standing; however, we would also have to stop spending our money at hundreds of other establishments as well to fill that tall order. I went to college in the same town as Bob Jones, and while I've made good use of their library on multiple occasions, I can't say I agree with the stances they take as the mouthpiece for the Independent Baptists (i.e. not recommending "The Passion of the Christ"--not because of errors in the content--but because it was shown in a movie theatre, etc.). Christine, I do understand your comment about their funding, though I don't see the point of the beer at Founder's comment.
i said it just to show the politics involved. The Seminary would lose almost all of its support if we started selling beverages that went against the conviction of a majority of our supporters.
(not that a majority of IFBs are actually convicted against good coffee ... but i imagine there's probably a few "moneybags" that support BJU who are grumpy about just about everything ... including Starbucks)
Well, beer is slightly different case from coffee, but I'm siding with Christine here. They aren't flat out banning Starbucks, but they don't want to sell the Starbucks brand on campus for what I think are valid reasons. With all the independent coffee roasters who generally serve better quality coffee than Starbucks anyway, why support the mega-corporation? I found the last sentence humorous:
Pait said saying Starbucks coffee "was banned" is too strong. He said it's permissible to bring the coffee on campus.
Can you imagine someone who didn't know innocently bringing a cup of Starbucks on campus and getting harassed by the campus security? :)