Ed Vitagliano

AFA Journal news editor

July-August 2013 – Since its inception in 1977, AFA has been known for its boycotts. Yet this often remains a contentious issue among Christians. Should followers of Christ withhold their money from a company that promotes values antithetical to Scripture?

A tool of persuasion
In its simplest form, a boycott involves the intentional withholding of money from a business. It is usually used as an instrument of protest, persuasion or even economic coercion.

Therefore it is difficult for some Christians to see how boycotting could be an expression of their faith, and critics even argue it is not Christian to do so.

One such critic is Russell D. Moore, president of Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He entered the fray when the popular coffee company Starbucks made explicit its support of efforts to legalize homosexual marriage in America. Some Christians (unaffiliated with AFA) responded with a call for a boycott.

“A boycott is a display of power, particularly of economic power,” Moore said. “The boycott shows a corporation … that the aggrieved party can hurt the company, by depriving it of revenue. … It is a contest of who has more buying power, and thus is of more value to the company. We lose that argument.”

First of all, AFA always tries opening a dialogue with a company first, hoping to convince its leadership to understand the Christian perspective. Most companies, however, refuse to listen.

Secondly, Moore has the means confused with the goal. AFA does not primarily call for a boycott in order to hurt a company’s pocketbook. This is why AFA goes out of its way to target huge corporations, not the mom and pop grocery store on the corner.

Disney. Pepsi. Ford. Home Depot. Such financial behemoths are virtually impervious to the “display of power” Moore cites – and AFA knows it.

Then why call the boycott? AFA uses the pocketbook to accomplish two things: get the attention of the offending company in order to start a dialogue; and get the attention of the public in order to begin a dialogue with our neighbors over the main issue of contention.

This was the success of the civil rights movement – and the 1955 boycott of the bus company in Montgomery, Alabama, that helped trigger it. Christians – most notably, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – began to explain the evils of segregation from a biblical perspective.

Surely Prof. Moore doesn’t believe that Rosa Parks and the black community in America “lost that argument” following the boycott?

Do they work?
Of course, the bus boycott may have been an exception, and some Christians take such a pragmatic approach to boycotts. In a blog for the Christian Post, for example, media guru Phil Cooke said about the use of the boycott: “It raises plenty of money for fundraising campaigns, but as a strategy to change the culture, it simply rarely works.”

In determining whether or not boycotts are successful, Cooke sets the bar so high that few boycotts could possibly be considered a success unless they “change the culture.”

Yet AFA has never set out to change the culture with a single boycott. Just as a culture often moves incrementally in one direction, AFA hopes to move it in the other direction one small effort at a time.

That’s quite a different standard from the one offered by Cooke. Are Christians only to participate in those efforts that always work or work most of the time, or only those that have the potential to change the entire culture? Aren’t Christians to pay attention to the spiritual principles at stake?

Is there an issue that Cooke – who is himself a Christian – finds important enough that he would boycott a business even if he knew that the company would continue its practices – i.e., that the boycott would “fail?” Would he continue patronizing the company merely because boycotts “rarely work?”

What would Jesus do?
Above all else, however, the Christian is to live life according to Scripture, and some critics of boycotts insist that it isn’t biblical.

One common argument in this vein is that Jesus never addressed the sinful conduct of the world – only the sins of God’s people (the Jews) and especially their religious leaders.

For example, Karen Covell, director of the Hollywood Prayer Network, had this to say of boycotts: “Jesus only got mad at the religious leaders – never at the people who didn’t know Him. … I truly don’t see biblically where Jesus judged the nonbelievers.”

This is utter nonsense, because Jesus certainly did announce the judgment of nonbelievers. 

In John 3:18, Jesus said those who did not believe in Him have “been judged already.” Why? Because “men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil” (vs. 19).

For the most part, however, Jesus assigned to the church the task of confronting the world with its own sin. It is part of the Great Commission “that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations” (Luke 24:47). 

It should go without saying that preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins requires some mention of sin beforehand.

Jesus made it clear that the coming of the Holy Spirit would empower the church to do this. Jesus said, “And [the Holy Spirit], when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8).

There are many ways for the church to carry out this prophetic assignment. AFA believes boycotts are one of those ways.

Salt and light
In many ways Jesus merely assumed the wickedness of the world – and assumed that His hearers understood this as well. 

That is why His followers were called to be salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Why would Christians need to be salt unless the world is corrupt? Why would Christians need to be the light of the world if it isn’t covered in darkness?

Christians are called to warn unbelievers that “the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Ephesians 5:6). Is it wrong to indicate to sinners what exactly constitutes disobedience? 

Thus, from AFA’s perspective, boycotts are not “a display of power,” as Moore suggests, but a display of God’s righteousness. 

When AFA initiated a boycott of Movie Gallery more than a decade ago, for example, it was triggered by the company’s practice of renting and selling hardcore pornographic videos. Is it wrong for Christians to stand publicly against the dissemination of pornography, with its malevolent power to corrupt the heart and destroy marriages and families? Moreover, if it’s right to take that stand, why can’t Christians choose a boycott as the means?

Yes, the saltiness of the Christian is first evidenced by his own refusal to live according to the sinful ways of the world. Paul said, “Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness,” (Ephesians 5:11).

Yet the responsibility of Christians as salt goes beyond the refusal to compromise. Paul commands the believer to “even expose” such deeds of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) – to uncover them, show them to be exactly what they are and reprove them.

Naturally, a Christian must endeavor to do the right thing in the most loving way possible. We should never be arrogant and self-righteous. We don’t need to be sour and snarly either.

But in the end, a boycott places a Christian squarely against something. That is unpleasant – especially when the backlash erupts.

Whether it was Jonah crying out against the pagan city of Nineveh, Elijah challenging the corrupted people of God or John the Baptist rebuking a sinful civil leader, exposing sin is one of the responsibilities of the Christian.

What better way to expose this nation’s hedonism and idolatry than to point it out in the policies and practices of a company like Home Depot, for example, and to do so by way of a boycott; and then to issue a call to repentance and faith in the only One worthy of this country’s worship – Jesus Christ?

Moore concludes his article with this statement: “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.”

To which we heartily say, Amen.  

Boycotting with a Christian attitude
1. Pray about it. Only Scripture should bind the conscience of a Christian in this matter.
2. Keep a charitable attitude toward others who choose not to boycott.
3. Politely communicate your dis-pleasure to the company. Let it know of your decision to boycott and why.
4. Persuade others to join in.