I just saw on Christianity Today's blog (here) that there's been a small (or large? I guess it depends on the way you look at it) controversy surrounding Willow Creek and the CEO and founder of Starbucks, Howard Schultz. I know Willow does a bunch of conferences every year and for this year's Global Leadership Summit, Schultz was supposed to be one of the main speakers of the event. However, after some noise from folks that Schultz's association with an "antigay" (in quotes because although the opposition claims that Willow is antigay, I don't know what evidence they have to make this case) institution such as Willow Creek is unacceptable, he decided to withdraw, with Willow's permission to break the speaking contract without any penalty. Admittedly, I've gone back and forth on Willow Creek as well, having attended one of their conferences many years ago (being in awe of their organizational prowess), then criticizing them a few years later for various reasons.
Be that as it may, when you watch this seven-minute clip,
I think you'd agree with me that Hybels is being very gracious and not "antigay" by any means of the word. I understand he does talk about certain convictions he has concerning Christian ethics, but that does not automatically make him "anti" anything. What is interesting to see with regard to the 'other' side—the "pro-gay" side if you will, that started this whole 'Let's boycott Starbucks and sign the online petition' business—is that people are unable to clearly distinguish what constitutes outright support of and identification with a particular entity from loose association and overlap of interests. Further, it annoys me a bit to see that when it concerns "the Church," people seem to get a free pass to throw anyone and everyone under the bus, but then if the offended may respond negatively to that type of action, it's deemed "hateful" or "anti____." Now mind you, I'm not condoning ultra-fundamentalism that calls anything moving or breathing a millimeter outside of its boundaries as minions of Satan, but I do think there's something to be said that here we see a fairly well-known evangelical Christian responding with grace and humility while the ones who perpetrated this whole ordeal in the first place just thought about how they might tarnish the image of one of the most ubiquitous corporations in America (and apparently some very nasty emails to Howard Schultz).
Is Schultz (and Starbucks) guilty by association? You make the call (wisely).
Be that as it may, when you watch this seven-minute clip,
I think you'd agree with me that Hybels is being very gracious and not "antigay" by any means of the word. I understand he does talk about certain convictions he has concerning Christian ethics, but that does not automatically make him "anti" anything. What is interesting to see with regard to the 'other' side—the "pro-gay" side if you will, that started this whole 'Let's boycott Starbucks and sign the online petition' business—is that people are unable to clearly distinguish what constitutes outright support of and identification with a particular entity from loose association and overlap of interests. Further, it annoys me a bit to see that when it concerns "the Church," people seem to get a free pass to throw anyone and everyone under the bus, but then if the offended may respond negatively to that type of action, it's deemed "hateful" or "anti____." Now mind you, I'm not condoning ultra-fundamentalism that calls anything moving or breathing a millimeter outside of its boundaries as minions of Satan, but I do think there's something to be said that here we see a fairly well-known evangelical Christian responding with grace and humility while the ones who perpetrated this whole ordeal in the first place just thought about how they might tarnish the image of one of the most ubiquitous corporations in America (and apparently some very nasty emails to Howard Schultz).
Is Schultz (and Starbucks) guilty by association? You make the call (wisely).
2 comments:
Hi Mike,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog entry. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. I've never heard of this controversy between Starbucks and this church. I have never heard of this church or pastor before either. I find that he handled the situation in front of his congregation in a loving and gracious manner.
In my opinion, homosexuality is just among one of the many "hot" topics in the Christian world. And I agree with you when you say that so often the church is lumped as a whole when talking about "anti-___" or "hateful" actions. This is just my opinion, but in many and most churches the bible is the sole "go to" when it comes to topics. Every Christian, whether liberal or cult gets lumped into the same category by non-Christians because they all claim to believe in the same thing--the God of the bible. The problem (TO ME) is that the bible seems to be open to interpretation and people interpret it differently. This is not to say that it is supposed to be interpreted differently but the fact is that it is.
I think that in the same manner those who are non-Christian, such as atheists, also get lumped into the same groupings. For the vast majority of Americans those without religion are seen as this immoral group of people. This is just as untrue as saying that any Christian off the street is hateful and anti-everything. It's hard for people to distinguish individuals from a label that covers such a large group.
Anyway... these are just my opinions and perhaps I went a bit off topic. It truly is nice to know that there are many Christians who aren't anti-everything. Especially as I'm questioning and learning about who I am in my faith, it's good to hear that the things that I abhor the most about Christianity doesn't prevail in all people. Thanks.
Jessy: Thank you for your comments. I think you are very right to point out that to think of "Christians" or "atheists" as one monolithic entity is ignorant at best and down-right stupid at worst. There are so many factors to consider when trying to understand one particular individual's stance on an issue, much more so if we think of larger groups/institutions like "the Church" or "atheists" in general. I'd prefer to dialogue on an individual to individual basis, to assess where he/she is coming from and then moving forward from there, rather than wholesale name-calling.
And you also rightly hinted act the fact that there are probably tons of "Christians" who are far less gracious and "moral" than those who are labeled "atheists." It's too naive to just pidgeonhole someone into one particular system of thought just because he or she identifies him/herself with a specific group.
Finally, don't lose hope! I've met plenty of Christians who are truly some of the best people I know, and they are careful thinkers of how their Christian faith should influence their day-to-day conduct: not in a belligerent manner, but in a gracious and loving way that I think the Scriptures envision for them to live.
Post a Comment