Randall Murphree
AFA Journal editor
April 2009 – A few days ago, I received an e-mail from a Christian lady who believes boycotts are not a valid means of defending moral values. Specifically, she disagrees with AFA’s boycott of PepsiCo, in part because she has relatives working for Pepsi and she fears they might lose their jobs. She agrees that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong but thinks a boycott hurts innocent people, thus we should never “judge” others.
She suggested that boycotting is judgmental self-righteousness; we call it judicious – i.e. wise – stewardship. Still, she raised a concern that deserves an answer, and I was grateful for the honest spirit of her e-mail. We appreciate hearing from our constituents and we do not take your thoughts lightly. You help keep us alert and accountable.
So I began to reflect on the countless times I’ve considered her position over my 25 years at AFA. In my response to her concern, I cited a number of principles that I believe stand the test of time, principles that AFA has been observing for decades.
First of all, it is never AFA’s objective that a company go out of business. Rather, we hope the company will change corporate policy to reflect the moral foundations of our nation. Whether we’re boycotting a corporation that sells pornography, a TV network that disparages our Christian faith or a company that celebrates and supports a life-threatening and aberrant lifestyle, it is our first hope that the corporate entity will right its course and uphold moral standards.
Second, we are persuaded that the gay agenda, as much as any other issue of our time, poses a grave threat to our survival as a nation and as a moral and civilized people. We are not judging other persons or their inherent value in God’s eyes. We are simply holding a spotlight on poor corporate decisions that support an agenda bent on destroying the Biblical foundation upon which our nation was built.
Third, how and where we Christians spend the financial resources God gives us is a matter of stewardship. That’s a no-brainer in my book. To pose a valid parallel, should I purchase my daily paper or news magazines at the adult bookstore because my cousin works there or because I don’t want the clerk to lose her job? Should I choose Pepsi over Coca-Cola because my brother is employed by Pepsi?
Fourth, a company’s employees may, indeed, suffer when the company takes a stand to support sexual perversion and immoral lifestyles. But that is the company’s responsibility, not the fault of consumers. One cannot rationally blame decent citizens who wish to stand against sexual perversion if they opt not to buy from a company which chooses to support that perversion.
Finally, any loss PepsiCo experiences will almost certainly result in a gain for other soft drink companies – where, of course, other people’s relatives are employed. In short, PepsiCo has made a choice to support perversion and immorality. Other companies choose differently.
God’s people have a choice as well – give God’s money to PepsiCo, or spend it elsewhere. A boycott is nothing more, nothing less, than judicious stewardship of the resources God has placed in our care. 
