AFA boycott of Ford - a closer look

This is a bit off the normally beaten path of what I post here so feel free to just skip over it. This is meant to be constructive criticism and not a harsh attack because I do respect the AFA (as will be obvious from what follows).

I got another action alert from the AFA. Here is how it started, "Dear Matt, The AFA boycott of Ford Motor Company continues to impact its sales. December sales dropped 13% compared to the same period a year ago..."

The reason for the boycott is Ford's ads during shows that promote homosexuality. While I do applaud the AFA for the continuous efforts to improve society and undergird our country with a moral foundation I do think that they could often use a little different approach. In this email, the AFA shows that Ford's sales figures have dropped nearly every month since the boycott began (March 2006). While Ford's numbers have dropped, it is not as simple as saying this boycott was the cause. That is like throwing a rock in the air, snapping your fingers, and watching it fall only to say that snapping your fingers brought the rock back to the ground. There are often unaccounted for factors that we overlook to think that what we are doing is making a difference. You have to be able to prove your movement is what made the difference. How can you prove that (with reasonable certainty)? There are several things you could show that would begin to make the case that yes, it was this boycott that made the difference.

1) If all other domestic auto makers experienced increases during the same period of time while Ford is posting loses. Ford was the only one boycotted, so that would move toward showing an effect.
2) If there are no other internal factors or decisions apart from the boycott that would lead to Ford's decline.
3) If there are no broader world economic issues that would influence a decline in sales.

There may be several others but if you could build a case that there were no real alternative reasons Ford should have experienced a decline then you have something to talk about.

1) How did other U.S. automakers do over the same period of time? Answer - they also saw a drop in sales.
2) Were there any internal factors apart from the boycott that hurt Ford's sales? Answer - yes, the end of production of the Ford Taurus one of Ford's best selling cars. They have no replacement and have lost one of the most valueable parts of the market.
3) Were there any broader economic issues that would influence a decline in prices? Answer - yes, anyone notice gas prices these days? Many analysts say this has stifled the market as a whole and has caused a decline in sales for Ford's biggest sellers, the F150 and large array of SUVs (see here).

There is one more wildcard factor that surely had an impact on Ford's sales, those awful Taylor Hick's Ford commercials. I am sure that alone played a major role in hurting Ford this year.

With all that said I do appreciate what the AFA stands for. I appreciate the role they are trying to play. I appreciate that they are willing to stand up for morality. But I think they need to be careful and reasonable in presenting the facts. I just want to see them do a quality job and do it right. I don't want there to be any room for naysayers to jump in there and pick apart the presentation of their position. You can't just say, "We had a boycott, sales dropped, and it was because of us." That just doesn't cut it. I also don't appreciate the mentality that says Christians are out to get you if you don't agree with us. I think there are far more effective ways of getting our message across than that.

Christian Boycotts and Paul's Take on Eating Meat

I don't know about you but I am emailed about something we should boycott on a regular basis. Being Christmas time it becomes even more intense. At this time of year it is normally about which stores are not using the word "Christmas" in their promotional material. I just want to make a couple of observations and see what you think.

1) We don't boycott stores the other 11 months out of the year when they don't promote Christ. We waltz in and buy whatever we want without a second thought.
2) Does God want us to use our money to leverage others or twist their arm? I am not saying we should support immorality with our money.
3) I am just not certain why we expect pagan run businesses to act like Christians one month and then go back to business as usual the rest of the year. Are we really just asking them to be phoney and hypocritical?
4) Is it a sin not to promote Christmas? Why not boycott stores with employees who steal or executives who abuse their workers, etc. It seems silly to me to limit boycotts to whether or not a company gives lipservice to our religion when they can totally live against God's word and we don't bat an eye.

If the news broke today that some giant retail store was selling bread in their bakery that had been used in an occult ceremony in the back of the store, would you boycott that store? I am sure the AFA would. I would probably receive an email within minutes asking me to boycott which ever store had such a policy in place. In 1st century Corinth they had several large problems. Most of their problems stemmed from their practices in worship and in their lives still resembling what they had done when they were pagans. One issue we find in 1 Cor 8-10 was that the meat that was being sold in the market place had often been used in pagan worship. Many meals in Corinth were even eaten as worship to certain little "g" gods. These baby Christians were struggling with whether or not they should eat the meat (8:7).

Wouldn't you think Paul would call for a boycott against this pagan meat? I mean, when you buy it in the market, you are supporting their cults and temples! I can just hear the chant. "Meketi broma! Meketi broma!" = "No more meat! No more meat!" That is not what Paul says. 1 Cor 10:25-26 "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'" And in 10:27 he gives them a don't ask, don't tell policy for what to do as a guest at meals in regard to where the meat came from. I think Paul realized there were larger things at stake (not to be confused with steak) than not buying from this guy or that. He didn't at all see purchasing things from pagans as supporting their ethics, worldview, or morality. Today we try hard to tie all these things together with someone trying to sell us a shirt or a pair of shoes. If we would spend more time on what God is concerned about I think the rest would take care of itself.

I wonder, if Paul wouldn't boycott pagan sold meat that had been used in idolatry do you think he would boycott a pagan store that said, "Happy holidays?" The pagans are always going to act like pagans. Don't get me wrong on this. I do think we should stand up for our beliefs. I do think we should stand aganist immorality. I think this one just needs further examined. What do you think?

To Speak or Not to Speak - Bearing Witness in Acts 5

God's power is once again evident in the opening of Acts 5 with the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Remember, Luke didn't use chapter divisions and while this is a different story his theme is the same - God is accomplishing his purposes in a very visible way despite opposition.

• Chapter 1 - Jesus comissioning them and his ascension into heaven.
• Chapter 2 - The wind, the fire, the tongues in opposition to the naysayers and those who had killed Jesus.
• Chapter 3 - Healing a man crippled for over 40 years and opposition by Jewish authorities.
• Chapter 4 - Healing a crippled man and speaking through uneducated men in opposition by the Jewish authorities.
• Chapter 5 - Solidarity of the community opposed by Ananias and Sapphira. God's healing and message opposed by the temple authorities.

For the text of Chapter 5 click here.

Peter's words in 5:9 are important and key to understanding how the story of Ananias and Sapphira fits the broader context of this passage - "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?" Bottom line is God is to be respected and not to be trifled with. He will accomplish his purpose his way and no one can withstand him.

In the verses that follow 5:12-16 tells us that the apostles were highly regarded among the people and then 5:17 says that the high priest and his associates were filled with jealousy. The apostles are thrown into jail and during the night an angel of the Lord released them. The angel tells them, "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life." This is in direct violation of the orders from the Jewish authorities in 4:18. The NIV has 4:18 say "not to speak" and 5:20 to has "and tell the people." Even though the NIV doesn't reflect this, Luke uses the same word in both verses. It is a clear distinction that God's command is in direct opposition to the religious authorities. When Peter is confronted by the authorities in chapter 4 and 5 he tells them the same thing - that he will obey God over man every time (4:19-20 & 5:29). Peter also uses a word we heard in chapter 2 - that they are witnesses of these events, which also has to do with telling someone about something.

The result? They are flogged and again ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus (5:40). Do you think they learned their lesson? Discipline normally hopes to associate a negative outcome with a particular action. The Jewish leaders wanted them to learn that preaching and teaching in Jesus' name results in pain and would surely discourage them from doing that again. What was their reaction? Acts 5:41 - they went on their way rejoicing! How can you rejoice amidst this kind of treatment and pain? How can you rejoice when your back is torn ragged and the social shame that you experienced is so intense? Some of you have found yourselves in the midst of pain and suffering and still found the strength and resolve to rejoice! In the coming chapters we will see that these Christians were willing to take far more than a beating for Christ. They will even lose their lives for the priviledge of proclaiming the message of the Christ.

What cost are we willing to pay to proclaim the message of Jesus? In a world of political correctness that says exclusivism is not an option we bear the message of the one who says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)." Jesus says he is ultimate truth in a world that is trying to hard to reject truth. Are we willing to tell others the truth that is found in Jesus even if it costs us something? In a world that threatens us with socially unacceptable labels if we stand for Jesus, maybe we too could use to pray the prayer these believers prayed in Acts 4:29 - "Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness."

TNIV - Headings and Subheadings

Is it just me or does the TNIV appear to have sub-headings under some of the titles. I have only noticed this in the Old Testament and only in the minor prophets. Here is a very clear example:

Zephaniah 2:1
(View it here - http://www.tniv.info/pdf/TNIV_NewTestament.pdf on p.642)

Main Heading (bigger font) - "Judah and Jerusalem Judged Along With the Nations"
very next thing in the print - Subheading (slightly smaller font than previous - same font size as text but in italics and not part of the text) - "Judah Summoned to Repent"
= 2 headings in a row
Then you see this...
2:4 - Subtitle - "Philistia
2:8 - Subtitle - "Moab and Ammon"
2:12 - Subtitle - "Cush"
3:1 - Subtitle - "Jerusalem"
3:6 - Subtitle - "Jerusalem Remains Unrepentant"
3:9 - Main section title (bigger font) - "Restoration of Israel's Remnant"

I thought that would sure be nice in the NT and starting looking through some places where chapter disctinctions totally throw off many readers - like 1 Cor 6-7 to see if they used subheadings to keep things more coherent rather than all big titles. They didn't. It seems strange to me to use a totally different formatting tool in so few places. This would be very useful elsewhere in the TNIV.