Principalities & Powers: Looking Beyond Our Assumptions
This past week the house across the street from us got new tenants. As is typical in our neighbourhood, in place of curtains, a blanket was used to make the upstairs bedroom private. In this case (and to the chagrin of a few of our staff), the blanket in question features a full sized Playboy bunny logo. While the image itself is harmless enough, as a symbol it represents a very clear message. I am sure we will come to ignore it in time, but in the meantime it continues to spark conversations in our little community.
As I considered the response this logo evokes, especially to Christians who (rightfully) criticize it for it's association with pornography, I began to think about what our response to such popular images teach us about ourselves. Consider your own response: What did you think and feel when you saw the logo above? Why do you think you responded it this way?
Now, consider your response to this logo:
For most of us it will result in more or less benign responses (like thirst). And yet, if we took a closer look at the Coca-Cola Company- it's history, it's international business practices, it's role in some of the more questionable aspects of globalization- we would likely find that, in fact, we have more to be concerned about than we first suspected. Perhaps even more than with the first example.
My point is not to compare the relative "badness" of either company, but rather to expose our own biases and blind spots. While pornography is one of the most destructive and exploitive forces in the world today, we cannot understate the millions of lives impacted (and ended) as a result of heartless corporations that exploit people for their own bottom line. Having served among the poor of many nations, I have seen far more devastation at the hands of materialism and greed than through pornography. This doesn't mean we ignore the latter to address the former, but rather to acknowledge that our emphasis is dangerously imbalanced.
Enculturated by individualism, the models of discipleship we utilize empower us to recognize and fight the more explicit and personal sin in our lives. However, it also fails to open our eyes to the systemic, big picture realities of how our choices, while not explicitly "sinful", can contribute to injustice, suffering and even death. On a daily basis we make seemingly innocuous choices that, through the connectedness of our world, contribute to the very problems we are called to transform for the Kingdom.
I am not saying that everyone should stop buying Coca-Cola (though I can think of worse advice), but rather that ignorance cannot be an excuse for our complicity. The greatest evils in our society parade in the guide of respectability, with our own system reinforcing this disparity (i.e. compare the nature of criminal justice applied to an armed robber and a CEO who defrauds millions). It is time that our discipleship- both personal development or corporate formation- breaks through the limits of individualistic, one dimensional moral policing and call for a radical allignment of every aspect of our lives with the way of Jesus Christ.
Missional, Coca-Cola, Playboy, Corporations
we seem to spend so much time as church straining at the gnat and yet swallowing the camel. (Comment this)
Excellent point about intended appearance. Another thing to consider is how often we (the church) do the same thing- attempt to present a wholesome and good appearance, yet differentiate very little in our actual choices. Thanks for the link!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
when i see the Coca-Cola emblem, i see security. My dad worked for Coca Cola for 30 years. It paid for my college, my parents' livelihood, and now their retirement and is even helping me and my husband through some hard financial times (sic). My parents will never be short of money to provide for long term care if and when they may need it.
So, while I'd never condone practices that exploit the poor and create imbalances in humanity and nature, I'm reminded that most everything has more than one side to it. However that money came about, my parents used it to raise me and I am intensely concerned about matters of justice and equality. If I'd grown up differently- without a good education and the freedom to ponder that so often comes with a lack of need, I might just be a different person. who knows. (Comment this)
As I stated in my post, my point was not make us see the "badness" of Coca-Cola, but rather the question the knee-jerk assumptions about the seemingly innocent or neutral choices we make everyday.
I am in no way calling into question the integrity of people like your father. We cannot, however, simply equate the end as a justifier for the means. I am intensely aware that the livelihood of millions of people (and most often the poor) is wrapped up in situations where it often comes down to choosing the lesser of evil. The question we have to continually ask ourselves is this: Who ultimately pays the price for our social/economic security? If our security, even when invested into the support of good families, is achieved only through systemic exploitation and injustice, can we justify such a system?
I am not suggesting that this was the case with your parents or with Coca-Cola at large. I used them as an example as they are one of the single most globally influential companies in history with some very questionable history and practices. Oddly enough I decided not use Wal-Mart because of our last exchange over that example.
Again, my point is not to judge Coca-Cola, but to challenge our assumptions about our choices and values. If I offended you, I apologize.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
of course i wouldn't claim the end as justification of the means either, but sometimes we have absolutely no control over the means (like where our parents are employed) and the only thing we can control is what we make of what we've been given.
i should've used more words earlier so you didn't think i was offended. i sometimes let my pragmatism affect my word usage to the detriment of the message. (Comment this)
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
A question back to you, what is an appropriate response to act out the words? I'd think it's probably to create a better alternative, rather than just condemn the other one (not that you were). People will not abandon Coke for a vaccum, but they abandon it for a drink produced by a company that really did live out its values and its values were great.
Sorry, long comment. (Comment this)
Great questions. With respect to Coke, it could be argued on so many levels, but ultimately there are many better alternatives. Any quick Google search will surface options. It takes work.
Beyond Coke, though, is the issue of how we participate in economies (and wider cultures) that sustain themselves on inequity and injustice. I hear so many people tell me that they shop at Wal-Mart because that is the most affordable way of doing things. After all, shopping ethically is far more expensive and challenging. Fair enough! However, if we make choices based on that criteria when we knowingly participate in systems that exploit others, how does it differ from shoplifting to save money? Frankly, in some cases, I see it as absolutely the same!
So what choices can we make, then? First, while there are MANY things we can do as individuals (such as acknowledging that most of us could afford to buy ethically if we tackled the deeper issue of our wider non-essential life expenses), the truest solutions will be collective, communal. What one family can't do, three or four could make doable. This could range from the development of co-op businesses to community micro-farming to business development. What I am suggesting is a radical re-evaluation of our complicity in the "status quo" of cultural participation.
The frustrating thing I have seen is that, while people affirm more ethical economic options, when faced with Wal-Mart prices, most choose the cheaper option over the ethical option. Because the consequences of those choices are so distant and divorced from the immediate, it is easy to rationalize the decision.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)