Boycotts, Agendas, and the Public Square

There's been an interesting reversal these last two weeks - rather than a group of Christians rallying to boycott something, a group of folks have called for a boycott of a fast food restaurant because the head of the company publicly shared his personal view on a moral issue.

I don't intend to say who's right or who's wrong on the myriad of related issues here - that's not my point, and I don't intend to stir up the debate. I don't intend to answer the question of whether or not we should boycott at all. My only goal is to offer some ideas for Christians to consider as they exercise their right to engage in the public arena.

Our model, of course, is Jesus. I also see other useful examples in Scripture.

As you engage with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and cyberfriends, please consider:

• Jesus affiliated with the sinners, loved them, and yet never pretended that sin wasn't sin. The only people who felt really uncomfortable with Him were the religious hypocrites and those who wanted to remain in sin. All others, including the "vilest offenders," felt welcome in His presence (even though He would say things like, "Go and sin no more"). Would a sinner have every reason to feel comfortable in my presence by the loving way I stand for God's ways?
• In Acts 4-5, the disciples were unfairly arrested, but did not raise a huge protest over being mistreated, misunderstood, or violated. They did not make their personal rights the main issue, even though they were treated illegally. They did, however, plainly and clearly state the core truth of the Gospel, and then extended an offer for others to believe. Am I speaking to truly advance the Gospel or to advance my personal feelings and agenda?
• Because these disciples were mistreated, they were able to explain the claims of Christ to people they otherwise would never have had a chance to. Do I see opposition to my views as opportunities to share Christ in a winsome way?
• Their deciding factor, it seems, was that they would do whatever they could to give the Gospel its best possible hearing. They let their own rights be denied, they displayed respect, they chose to shut up or speak boldly, everything for the apparent purpose of not interfering with the Gospel. If they had loudly (and legally) demanded their rights, adopted a combative attitude, or spoke out of turn, they would have damaged the appeal of the Gospel. Do I treat my own freedom, safety, and rights as secondary to the Gospel?
• Paul did assert his rights at times, such as appealing to Caesar - which, as a result, put him in the court system in Rome, where he spoke about the Gospel (more than about his own rights) to those in the Roman government. Do I understand the system well enough to negotiate it wisely?
• Joseph and Daniel are two Old Testament characters in captivity to two different pagan kings. They both had their rights and freedoms denied. They were both treated unfairly. And they both used the gifts and talents God gave them to make their immoral kings very successful. Both made a stronger argument for the God of Israel by doing so. Do I bring value to others, or merely arguments and demands, forcing them into a defensive position?

There is a time to make a stand and endure conflict. When justice is systemically denied, when the defenseless are oppressed, when the moneychangers turn a space dedicated to God into a den of thieves.

But always, always, always, our actions in the public square should be dictated by advancing the Gospel, not mere religiosity. And the manner of our engagement must also reflect the nature of the Gospel itself, or we cancel out our own message.