I SPEND a lot of time writing things that I never do anything with. It’s a personal problem of mine to go so far, but no farther. That’s why the manuscript for In Our Poverty still sits on my computer, going nowhere. It’s the reason I often keep my mouth shut when I most probably should open it. Posts to this blog are no exception.

Partly because I haven’t posted anything recently, and mostly because a certain group is in the news again, I have decided, with some trepidation, to dust off a would-be post from last year, and put it out. So here it is:

I KNOW as I begin this post that there is a large number of people who are not going to get what I am about to say, even though it is a very simple thing. They won’t get it, because their personal views and biases (we all have them) are going to prevent them from getting it. Their opinions and fears and emotions are going to act as filters so opaque that instead of seeing my single point, their alarms are going to go off and lead them running frenzied into some other corner of discussion. They will miss my point altogether, which is a sad thing because although it is simple, it is important. I’ll get to it eventually, but a little background is needed first.

In case you are not a news junkie, I will give you the background. This year there has been a bit of a controversy involving the Ford Motor Company and a group called the American Family Association (AFA). The short version is that the Ford Motor Company has a history of advertising its more expensive lines of automobiles (Jaguar and Land Rover) in “gay publications.” From Ford’s point of view, it is a corporation and therefore is designed to make money, and research indicates that at a given economic level, homosexuals spend more money than do heterosexuals on their automobiles, so it makes sense to advertise in magazines that are targeted toward homosexuals.

So, the AFA said it would institute a boycott of the Ford Motor Company, urging the AFA’s two million plus members, and conservatives everywhere, to not buy Ford products. At first response, Ford acquiesced, which I would assume created a huge problem for the corporation since it already is one of the more gay-friendly corporations and was now sending a message not only in contradiction to its corporate policy, but also sending a negative message to about five percent of the buying public. Needless to say, Ford changed its mind, and in fact is now saying it will advertise all of its vehicle lines in the gay publications. Also needless to say, the AFA is very unhappy.

So am I. But not because of the car ads. I’m unhappy about the following statement (allegedly) coming out of the AFA: “All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war, and supporting groups which promote same-sex marriage is not remaining neutral.”

I realize that there is more to this story than the automotive advertisements, and probably more to it than the media is saying, but at this point I want to ask a question or two. Presuming that the AFA actually asserts that Ford is “choosing sides” by advertising their products in certain publications and/or by providing some sort of support to certain groups, what exactly is it when you withdraw your ads from a publication based upon its content and reader base? And, what is it when you boycott a corporation based upon who it markets its products to? Neutral? Refraining from choosing sides? I think not. What the AFA’s statement is really saying, of course, is that the AFA wants Ford to take the AFA’s side in the cultural war, and if it will not, then the AFA wants Ford to be neutral-ized. But naturally, the AFA won’t simply say so.

Now, don’t think that the following probability hasn’t crossed my mind: The media chose this particular quote from the AFA to fan the ire of people who, like me, have a somewhat average IQ and see the glaring hypocrisy in it (reference my post, Thinking of Flies). But this case is much like another this year, in which the simple facts apart from any slant are that “interest group A” ended up boycotting “interest group B,” to which group B claimed something to the effect, “[When a group has no moral leg to stand on, it resorts to intimidation.]” Never mind that group B is well-known for boycotting anybody it cares to judge as less moral than itself; you can go to its web site and find a long list of organizations it encourages you to boycott. It just doesn’t like the shoe when it’s on the other foot, and sees a tactic as pathetic when, and only when, wielded by an outsider. And so here’s my point:

Please. For the Love of God. All of you. Stop being so cheap, and so blatantly hypocritical, as to blame your opponent for something you have done, and then feel that both your original action AND your casting of singular blame are righteous—righteous simply because you are you and they are they. This, my fellows, is wrong. It is completely unchristian; more unchristian in many people’s minds, by the way, than the things you stand against. And exactly where does this leave your ability to genuinely share the Love of God with those people?

Now, that last paragraph is where I will lose most people, if I haven’t already. My point is not about sexual orientation, about boycotting companies, or about taking sides. My point is much more simple. I love the Jesus Story. I love the Grace of God. I love the Message of Christianity. I love everything about it. I’ve spent a lifetime’s worth of energy trying to understand the heart of it to whatever extent I do. I believe it makes sense. And I believe people can find the truth in it. But they will find that truth much less easily, if it all, when people like you present it as a blind arrogance that says, “We’re right and you’re wrong, no matter how much we appear to contradict ourselves.” They will find it much less easily, if it all, when your message says, “We’re better than you. We’re special. Our opinion trumps yours, regardless of common sense, logic, or human courtesy.”

If you do not support certain magazines, no problem. If you do not support certain companies, fine. If you want to encourage people to boycott them all, go ahead. That’s your freedom and that’s your faith; both of which, per se, I can accept. But don’t demonize other people for drawing lines that you yourself have also chalked. Don’t be hypocritical, and say it has anything to do with being like Jesus. It doesn’t.