From time to time the
issue of Church boycotts comes to the fore. Usually what is meant by this is
that certain denominations and para-church organisations will decide to
collectively boycott a particular retailer or organisation due to moral
objections regarding a product or sponsorship.
I do think we need to
reject certain corporations and institutions. As Christians we understand that
we live in a lost and sinful world full of idolatry and like the Early Church
there are aspects of society that are all but closed to us. This is not the
viewpoint of most who advocate this view. Frankly they're confused and their
proclivity to call for a boycott is not rooted in antithesis but is instead a
political tactic meant to 'break' an opponent. Their hope is that their numbers
are sufficient that the company or institution will take such a financial hit,
that they'll reconsider the policy.
I hope you see the
difference? One school of thought is motivated by separatism, the call to
holiness, the call to 'come out of Babylon' and embrace antithesis and the way
of the cross. The other school is motivated by a wish to transform society and
control its narrative. Ideally the advocates of this view would 'Christianise'
society and they seek to control all its institutions and narratives.
The differences are
themselves antithetical.
If the unbiblical
concept of the 'denomination' is abandoned much of the discussion quickly
becomes moot. Congregations still could (and should) work together and it's
possible that a group of congregations in a given region could instigate a
boycott. This does not require the bureaucracy of denomination but instead
would be based on congregational voluntarism. Congregations (led by elders) can
weigh the issues and decide for themselves whether or not to participate in any
action, whether we're speaking of a boycott or something else.
Denominationalists don't like the lack of ability to sanction a wayward
congregation but as is often the case if a congregation wishes to defect they
tend to do so regardless of the denominational infrastructure. The battle (if
there is one) usually ends up being over assets and property... to the shame of
both parties.
All that said,
individual congregations engaging in mass boycotts is probably not warranted or
even useful. This is something the Church can and should certainly address but
hopefully there's enough wisdom in the leadership to recognise that every
situation is different and everyone's conscience is different. It's probably
better to leave the boycott to the individual realm. Each of us in our context
can respond as we are able and according to conviction.
There's an additional
danger of congregations let alone large denominational institutions engaging in
the boycott. The Church's witness can be bruised and misrepresented.
The Church makes a
public statement. We're going to boycott Target over its Sodomitical policies.
Their degenerate policies are certainly a valid concern. One must weigh their
policy with regard to bathrooms and what you wish to expose your family to. And
one is warranted in asking whether we should patronise their business, feed
their profits or work for such a company. All of these questions are valid.
But when the Church (as
the Church) speaks out, it sends a mixed message. Its agenda appears to be
targeted (no pun intended). Its concerns for moral universality rightly come
under question and it appears its motivations are instead political. The Church
targets homosexuals and sinks a great deal of time and energy into the
Christmas wars but seems little concerned when it comes to corporate avarice,
globalism's destruction of societies, slave labour or geopolitical
machinations. The Church 'cares' about the one and doesn't seem to 'care' about
the other.
That may or may not be
true. Individuals within the Church and indeed some of its leaders may be
concerned about economic crimes, the abuse of fellow human beings, warmongering
etc.
But when the Church
speaks up about one political issue
and ignores others, it sends a message of prioritisation... regardless of
whether or not this was its intention.
Of course in many cases
not only does 'The Church' not care about economic exploitation and
warmongering but instead actively encourages these things. The 'Land Letter' of
2002 comes to mind. Its signatories proclaimed their moral bankruptcy, heresy,
and even stupidity and brought a great deal of shame to the American
Evangelical Church. Every one of them fools, all they did was proclaim their
ignorance of Scripture, history and geopolitics. Such endorsements (and
boycotts) are dangerous and will almost always be taken politically.
At the end of the day,
we're not going to stop the wars and rumours of wars. We're not going to stop
avarice, exploitation and criminality. Christ did not establish the Church to
stop Nike, Verizon, Wal-Mart, Monsanto or General Dynamics. These evil
organisations will go on indulging in their evil.
Our task is to bear
witness and leave vengeance in God's hands. And no fear, they will all perish
and give account for their deeds.
In that sense Christ
did come to stop them... his victory is secure. But during this time between
the times, He exhibits longsuffering. The individuals that make up these
organisations need to repent and embrace Christ.
Merely reforming their
conduct will in the end accomplish nothing. There are many waiting in the wings
who would take their places and their real problem is not their evil deeds but
their rejection of Christ. All attempts at reform apart from embracing Christ
in repentance and faith are ultimately exercises in futility.
That said, we keep
preaching and proclaiming... and suffering, even if that suffering is merely being
relegated to second-class citizen status. By excluding ourselves from such
companies and institutions we may indeed pay a social price.
Christ will make things
right in the end, but it won't be through legislative reform or economic
sanctions. He will destroy them in the fires of vengeance.
The world is broken. We
can't fix it but we need to follow our consciences. Elders can and should
connect Scripture to what's happening in the wider world. That may mean some
Christians change their habits, find different jobs and re-think the way they
relate to culture. The Early Church understood this and believers knew that
many occupations and spheres of society were closed to them. This mindset and
the categories that go with it were destroyed by the Constantinian Shift. And
frankly the confusion was exacerbated by the world-affirming posture of the
Magisterial Reformation.
If God grants a new
reformation, this issue has to be re-thought. In the meantime questions about
'boycotts' and other such issues will continue to confuse. It need not be so,
but for change to ensue a reconsideration of Scriptural Sufficiency must be
embraced.