Florida Megachurch Removes Pepsi Machines Over Gay Sponsorships
- Posted on September 14, 2009
- Viewed 736 times
- (62) comments
According to Tampa Bay Online:
The last of 10 Pepsi vending machines were wheeled out the door this week at Bell Shoals Baptist Church and replaced with Coke machines, but the switch wasn't spurred by a taste test.
Terry Kemple, a member of Bell Shoals Baptist and president of the Community Issues Council, said the church's decision to boycott Pepsi products came after months of failed discussions with the soft drink company.
The council, formed "to promote and protect Judeo-Christian values" according to its Web site, and church officials asked the soft drink company to curb its support of groups, events and legal issues that "oppose traditional family values," Kemple said.
The company, Kemple said, sponsors major gay pride parades and events across the country.
"This year, they pumped millions of dollars into organizations that opposed California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8," he said. "There are a lot of corporations that have diversity programs, but Pepsi goes far beyond."
The council meets with about 50 churches each month to discuss issues that conflict with traditional Christian values. Other local churches participating in the Pepsi boycott include Kings Avenue Baptist Church in Brandon and Plant City Church of God.
Kemple said more churches are expected to join the effort he hopes will send a strong message to corporate America.
What do you think? Boycot Pepsi over gay sponsorships; or drink more Pepsi to protest the churches that are protesting Pepsi.
Why/Should we expect our drink manufacturers or our car companies or any company we purchase from to have/hold our Christian convictions? What's your take?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.
Tye Male on Tue, September 15, 2009
@Jon said: “You keep referencing the Gospel. Do you realize that the Gospel CONDEMNS people, and offers salvation? Do you realize that the Gospel EXPECTS change?”
Of course the gospel expects change. However, not before, but after. It is the gospel that changes our lives.
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
Yes, it is the gospel that changes lives. But look at what happens when the gospel is presented to someone, and they don’t accept it. In fact, they spit in the face of it. Then what happens? Then what was the direction from Jesus? To shake the dust of your feet and move on. That’s what happened here. The church spent MONTHS trying to deal with Pepsi in another way. Pepsi wouldn’t budge - Pepsi didn’t care. Eventually, the church moved on. They are ‘boycotting’ Pepsi and using another product.
So, why do you want ignore a directive from Jesus in order to try to improve the public image of the church and promote an emasculated Gospel?
CS on Tue, September 15, 2009
Jon:
“@CS - What is the problem with the church sending a strong message to corporate America?
The church may be naive to think that Pepsi will change based solely on their �strong message�, but no one so far has been able give any real reason why it is anti-biblical.”
Good question, and I’m trying to sort this one through biblically as well to ensure that I am in line with Scripture here, so please excuse any, “train of thought,” rambling I may do.
I think it comes down more to the nuances and a matter of intent and desire to see something change, rather than forcing the change ourselves. Compare the following two examples:
“If you choose to do X, that is your choice, but then I won’t be able to be around you because I want to do what is right.”
and…
“I don’t want you to do X, I want you to change and do Y, and if you don’t, then I won’t be able to be around you, because I want you to do what is right.”
The first one shows a self-focused intent on doing the proper thing. The second one shows an other-focused intent on getting someone else to do the proper thing.
With regards to the Bible, we call all people to repent, yet we have to make sure that we are repentant for ourselves, because it is there where we will be accountable. We cannot change people into something that they do not want to be changed, because that is only the work of the Holy Spirit. The best we can do is to live holy lives and pardon ourselves from engaging in any sinful activity while offering a stern warning and hoping that those people will change.
So, taking this concept to boycotting something, when we say, “We will not buy your product and we want you to change,” does that mimic the idea of calling someone to repentance? That’s where I’m thinking the first idea may be better.
Then again, since companies are soulless entities whose primary purpose is to gain wealth without being confined by morals, is this even applicable to them, or do we treat them like animals and get them to perform tricks? Hmmm… the philosophical extents of this debate are quite interesting. =)
And, Peter, it’s just another sign of the end of times. =)
—
CS
Peter Hamm on Tue, September 15, 2009
Jon writes [@PeterHamm - You have one message to tell the world - the gospel? It sounds like your message is one of tolerate anything anyone does, which is NOT the gospel. Your message seems to align more with some sort of leftist agenda than the gospel.] Wow, I’ve never been so misquoted and mischaracterized in my whole life.
They will know we are Christ’s followers, not by our agendas and doctrinal statements, but by our great love for one another.
I want to be known by that, not by my stand on issue X or Y or Z.
The Gospel expects change? Or perhaps… it makes change possible! Perhaps it BRINGS change…
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@PeterHamm - First of all, you weren’t quoted so you can’t be misquoted. Secondly, it is possible that you were mischaracterized, but I’m not sure that you have been. Given that, you have called a fair number of your brethren bigots, I think you have a tough argument to make that you are showing great love to Christ’s followers.
Agendas and doctrinal statements are part of the way that the church loves the world. You may want to avoid being known by your stance, but you have to stand somewhere.
The gospel does make change possible. The gospel does bring change. But what argument do you have the the Gospel doesn’t EXPECT change?
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@CS - You are drawing an extroadinarily fine line down this issue. There is on one hand little distinction between the two scenarios that you present and on the other hand great distinction.
Additionally, it is possible to say both of those things that you reference at the same time. Which is likely what the church has done in their months of negotiation.
Furthermore, there is nothing inherent in a boycott that expects/requires change. It is likely that the church does expect/require/desire change, and that is the case in most boycotts, however, a boycott is simply a protest of the way something is happening. So, it is possible to have a boycott that is simply a rebuke.
I would also challenge your assesment of companies. While they are souless entities, they are run by people who do have souls. Additionally, their primary purpose is not always to gain wealth, and even if it is, their primary purpose does not have to be to gain wealth without being confined by morals. These situations occur because companies are rewarded rather than chastised for immoral behavior. Even if you want to totally separate the issue from religion, companies should be boycotted for immoral behavior.
Peter Hamm on Tue, September 15, 2009
I didn’t say that I thought we were bigoted so much as the label we are given by the world of “bigot” is well-deserved.
I think by saying that the Gospel “expects” change, you are putting the cart before the horse. It PROVIDES change. If the Gospel expects me to change, it is expecting me to “work” for my salvation in a sense. I doubt that’s what you mean, though…
I want to be known as the person who follows Jesus and loves people on my way, people who are in my way, and even people who are out of my way (or I will go out of my way to help them).
I’d rather make them care to find out what I believe because they think I’ve really got something going on than tell them what I believe and merely leave it at that. Sadly, too many of us are only doing the latter of those two things.
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@PeterHamm - While I can understand your desire to downplay your previous assertion, you must be able to see your backpedaling and doubletalking.
You didn’t say that we were bigoted, but you did say the label of bigot is well deserved. Therefore, if we deserve the label of bigot, than we must be bigoted.
You have to realize that what you say has meaning. What you don’t say has meaning. You can’t stop just short of saying something and pretend you didn’t say it.
You may have all these desires to do things right, but you have to realize that when you sit back and SAY nothing, and passively encourage others to sin, you ARE saying something. So no one is going to think that “you’ve really got something going on” because of that. They are going to think you don’t have enough belief in what you believe in to stand up for what you believe in.
Peter Hamm on Tue, September 15, 2009
Jon,
You have no idea what I’m talking about. It’s becoming clear.
I am trying to see if I can get you to see us from an outside perspective. The label is well deserved. We are not all bigots. I stand by both those statements.
The problem is that the institutional/public/what-have-you church in the west and America historically has chosen it’s hot button issues based on different criteria than Christ would, we know this from Scripture. It’s clear.
American Evangelicals place a high value on crusading against what some call the “homosexual agenda”. The Bible takes a small space to address it.
American Evangelicals place a high value on crusading against abortion. Even though a detestable abortion-like practice was prevalent in Christ’s day, the New Testament doesn’t address it directly.
American Evangelicals place a high value on many things that are clearly political issues (just watch an episode of the 700 club for proof).
I am not saying we should ignore these things, but the one thing that is at the forefront of Jesus’ social agenda is caring for the poor and “disenfranchised”. Like it or not, we are not known for even caring about this, certainly not as much as rock stars are now. That is changing, and there is a lot of “hope”.
Again, we are off-track if we think it’s more important to “send a message” than to “be THE message”...
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@PeterHamm - I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. I just COMPLETELY disagree with your approach. I understand what we look like from an inside perspective, and an outside perspective. I think you should be careful when you suggest what others know and don’t know. For instance, I could suggest that you have no idea about a lot of things based on your comments.
Additionally, I think you have to be very careful how you criticize the church for their stance on these ‘hot-button’ issues. You say these ‘hot-button’ issues are detestable, yet suggest that we should support them and fail to protest them?
For instance, who is more disenfranchised than unborn babies about to be aborted? These are people that have no voice, yet you would suggest that we should sit back and allow generational genocide in order that someone will stop by and “ask what we think” rather than rebuke and protest murder, because you don’t believe the New Testament addresses it ‘directly’?
Just because something is a political issue doesn’t mean that it ISN’T a moral issue, a spiritual issue, or a biblical issue.
Do you have some sort of distoreted perpsective which makes you believe that the Pepsi executives are disenfranchised more so than unborn babies?
Finally, I think you are perhaps playing a semantic game with your comments about “sending” messages vs being “THE” message.
Peter Hamm on Tue, September 15, 2009
Jon…
You have an idea about who I am and what I believe that is incorrect. But there isn’t enough space here to communicate it to you.
About me you say [You say these �hot-button� issues are detestable…] I didn’t say that.
and…
[ ...yet you would suggest that we should sit back and allow generational genocide in order that someone will stop by and �ask what we think� rather than rebuke and protest murder, because you don�t believe the New Testament addresses it �directly�?] No I would not.
Thanks for the exchange.
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@PeterHamm - Peter, you do suggest that abortion, homosexuality and other things are hot-button issues. You also acknowledge these issues are detestable. Therefore, you say these ‘hot-button’ issues are detestable.
Additionally, you claim that you would not sit back and let things happen on some issues, yet you are clearly advocating doing that for other issues. Where do you draw the line? And how do you draw it in something other than an arbitrary manner?
I understand your frustration with the limitations of discussing these issues in this forum, but I would gladly discuss it with you using any other medium that you prefer.
Peter Hamm on Tue, September 15, 2009
I don’t think the issue of abortion is detestable. I think the practice is…
I just also don’t think it’s the only issue that I stand for in life. And I think it’s a travesty that it is practically the only issue that Christians are identified with. I want to be known as the people who love the poor, etc…
I also believe it’s patently obvious that God instituted marriage as a one-man/one-woman practice. And yet, I am not going to try and make it my life’s purpose to make people who don’t believe what I believe to practice what I think is true.
I think you misunderstood me. But that’s okay.
Peter
Jon on Tue, September 15, 2009
@Peter - I don’t think I misunderstood you. I just don’t agree with you.
Whether you speak of abortion as an issue or a practice as detestable I think is a game of semantics.
I don’t think that abortion is the only issue that Christians are identified with, but I do think its very important that Christians be identified with that issue.
I also believe its obvious how God create marriage - and I don’t think you have to make your life’s purpose to protest homosexual marriage in order to protest it.
I do think that its inappropriate to criticize others for protesting homosexual marriage, as you have done. Its easy for you to remove yourself from this conversation, and its perfectly alright if you’d like to do that, but theses issues are still going to be there in our lives.
Tye Male on Tue, September 15, 2009
@Jon - you have made some accusations and assumptions about me and others on this site. We are merely discussing an issue and it would be best if we would stick with the issue.
I have decided that I want to be known more for what I am “for” than what I am “against.”
I would be curious to know if the church made this stand as a result of some members complaining about the association of Pepsi with the gay community. Does this apply to all the furniture in the church? How about the appliances in the kitchen? When you start drawing lines like this most of the time you run out of ink.
Page 3 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Post a Comment