Should Christians Participate in Boycotts?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The question — and the brief answer: Christian liberty

• One of our audience members asked the following question, about whether Christians should participate in bans or boycotts. This person gave their example: they asked, is it okay to purchase from companies that have come out in support of — and they mentioned a controversial issue (which the host won't share here). Then this person cites a list of some of the world's largest and most prestigious companies that have supported what this individual views as policies that are contrary to a biblical worldview. And they add: scripture says that if we love God, then we love what he loves and hate what he hates. They note that: I do love God, but I don't see that I would want to get — that I should get rid of — and then they cite an extremely popular consumer product that many of us own — and not buy products from (and they list off several popular retailers). What are your thoughts on this issue: should Christians participate in bans or boycotts? His brief answer: this is a matter of Christian liberty, under Romans 14. Some Christians will feel one way; other Christians will feel another way. And I think each one can decide, according to his or her conscience — but not condemn another Christian that has a different perspective. So let me try to go a little bit further.

Scriptures: Romans 14

The direct case — and the taxes parallel

• How would you evaluate? Well, if a company is directly supporting something you violently disagree with — it's their reason for existence, it's their main business, you know, it's what they're promoting — then that would be a strong case to avoid it. So, companies that — their product is cigarettes or tobacco, or alcohol, or gambling, or prostitution — or we might say abortion: that's their business; I'm not going to support that whatsoever. On the other hand, you have many corporations — or even, you know, mutual funds — that might invest in some things as a sideline, or indirect: they might be supportive as part of the overall economy. Well, as the connection gets further and further, I think there's less emphasis that we would feel directly responsible. And I think that even goes back to scripture: because scripture, for example — the New Testament says to pay our taxes. Well, if you study what the US government, for example, spends its money on: some of the things that we strongly disapprove of, the government supports. So should we withdraw, withhold our taxes? And so I think what the New Testament is saying is: no, you're not accountable for the subsequent decisions of a government to spend money in ways that you wouldn't approve of. You're only responsible for supporting the lawful government, with its lawful taxes. So I think you can make a similar argument: that if I'm buying a product from a company, I'm not supporting other things that company does — I'm paying for that particular product. Now, if I'm buying a sinful product, maybe I'm guilty. But if I'm buying a neutral or positive product, it's not my responsibility, or my fault, that they might use some of that profit for something else I don't like.

The logic tested to its extreme

• I mean, if you take that logic: you know, anybody that you hire — they might go out and spend your money to get drunk. So, well, I'm not going to hire them, because they're going to use the money that I gave them? But that's their responsibility. So I think a reasonable case can be made both ways. If you feel like your supporting of a company is directly supporting an evil product, you might say: I'm going to abstain — especially if you feel like our collective action might help that company change. But are you guilty of what that company does? Are you honor-bound (as the phrase is heard, 'HonorBound') not to support, or buy products from, any such company? Well, I don't think so — because you can make the counterargument: what I'm buying is something useful, beneficial, neutral; I'm not responsible for what other things that company does with their profit, or with the collective money.

Paul's own pragmatic argument: food offered to idols

• And so — and I think this is pragmatic — because in 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10, it's kind of a similar argument: what if someone offers food to idols — can you eat it? And Paul says: well, if you go to a feast and you don't know where the food comes from, just eat it — don't ask questions. Or if you go to the market — maybe some food was offered to idols, offered to the temple; the temple ends up selling it back on the market; it's actually food offered to idols; you don't know that — well, just buy it. You can't just avoid all commerce. But if you go to your neighbor's house, and your neighbor says, oh, by the way, I offered this to an idol, come participate — then Paul says don't do it. Because: not for your sake, but for the weaker brother's sake (heard as 'weer brother') — that, you know, a new convert looking at that might say: oh, you're supporting idolatry. So, in essence, Paul's making a similar pragmatic argument: if you eat the food, you're not — meaning, whatever else they use the food for — you're not responsible. But if it's brought to your attention in such a way it looks like you're supporting that idolatry, then you don't do it. So I think we can make a similar argument, or similar rationale, of: we can segregate the immediate use from maybe the extended use, several steps down the road, that we're not responsible for, or accountable for. So I think that kind of analysis can come here — and some people will choose one or the other. So: is it okay to join a boycott (heard once as 'bar boycott')? If you really feel this issue is morally objectionable, and you really feel like the boycott can make a difference — well then, yes, it's okay. Is it required for you to boycott? Then I think, no — the answer is no. If you're not directly responsible, then I don't think it would be wrong to participate in the economy.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 8-10

The fellowship limit — and the closing counsel

• As another example: in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul talks about: don't have fellowship with idolaters and adulterers, and so forth. And he says: wait a minute, I'm not saying don't have fellowship with people in the world who are guilty of these sins — because then you would have to — you couldn't live in the world. But he says: I'm talking about a believer — if someone who's in the church claims to be a fellow Christian, and they're living in open, unrepented sin, such as adultery, or drunkenness, or idolatry — well, you can't have fellowship with them, because now you're condoning their sin, and now you're bringing a reproach on the church. So, again, looking at this issue of boycotts: should you try to abstain from all commerce that has been affected by evil? Well, actually, you probably can't live in the world, if you take — if you study every single corporation, everything they do. But so, I think we restrict it: if my participation is going to look like — to maybe new converts, or to unbelievers that I'm trying to win — if my participation is going to look like I'm supporting sin, that I shouldn't do it. But if my participation is just a part of being part of the larger economy, then I'm not accountable for what happens — and therefore I have a choice. So my answer is: Christians should think about this, pray about this, and decide how they wish to participate in our modern economy.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 6

Scripture index: Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8-10; 1 Corinthians 6.