By Eric Blauer
“If you don’t like it…then go somewhere else!”
That’s the mantra these days and it’s the core value system of the American individualist. It’s in our blood from the very early days of our ancestors who agreed with their British relatives and sailed off to America. It was on the lips of the Manifest Destiny folks who kept moving into more and more First People lands. Parents have been using it in their discipline tool box since the first dinner table battle or dirty room rebellion. We say it at work, restaurants, marriages, churches and now it’s the sacred phrase that all Americans can use no matter background, politics, creed, sexuality or race. It’s the nuclear bomb drop of all debates and differences in any conversation.
Lately the issue for some people on Facebook and social media is Starbucks’s choice to remove the word Christmas from their holiday cups. Some people are outraged and others are outraged at the outrage. It’s a chance to line up everyone’s virtue meter and tell one another what is more important to think or care about at any given moment of the day. In the end, as usual, more cups are sold, companies get the free promo, divisive and mean words get penned, superiority inflates some and frustration simmers in others. It’s a never ending circle of marketing that social media fuels and business, moralists and pugilists love and it almost always raises the profit margins.
I am not sure “go somewhere else” is always the answer as Christians. There’s a time to leave when someone or some place is obviously not interested in you, your values or your participation. If abuse becomes the posture and you are torn down more than built up, it’s time to seriously contemplate the worth of the investment or the sustainability of staying put. Opposition isn’t always evidence that you are doing something wrong. A closed door might be shut that needs to be opened by the most reasonable argument or sustained push.
As Christians, our New Testament is filled with the discerning dance of these moments. Stay, go, confront, defend, etc. Imagine if the Apostles did take Christ out of Christianity, stopped spreading the Gospel and bowed out every time someone said “You can’t,” “You shouldn’t” or “Go away.”
Acts 4:16-20“What should we do with these men?” they asked each other. “We can’t deny that they have performed a miraculous sign, and everybody in Jerusalem knows about it. But to keep them from spreading their propaganda any further, we must warn them not to speak to anyone in Jesus’ name again.” So they called the apostles back in and commanded them never again to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Do you think God wants us to obey you rather than him? We cannot stop telling about everything we have seen and heard.”
I do think we should mourn the loss of the Christmas message, which in the past, our culture has welcomed and proclaimed in all the sphere’s of life, not just the religious. Christ is not just for the Creche.
But boycotts rarely makes any reasonable sense to me. It’s a never ending sweater thread that if you pull unravels everything and you end up with a moral mess. The interconnectedness of economics, business and morality is a dead end. There will never be a perfect purity that can be established in the “don’t eat, don’t touch” posture of life. Everything is connected to something or someone and the more you trim off, the more you see and soon you’ve shaved everything off and look like naked mole rat.
But I am unashamed to say that I don’t want to see the editing out of Christ from the culture. I don’t believe faith is for the heart alone. I don’t want to see Christ imprisoned in church and kicked out of culture. I celebrate the desire of all Christians and Americans to want to maintain their various cultural identities that are good and rooted in history, tradition and memory. Who gets to say that secularism or some other ‘-ism” has to be submitted to, embraced or championed? Pluralism doesn’t demand secularism and we don’t have to embrace the banality of a culture that bows to the god of inclusivism.
When I sit in a high school auditorium listening to choral arrangements that are faith-based, Christ-honoring and reflect the heights of artistic mastery, I know those days are numbered if some folks get their version of culture. Many people want Christ removed and isolated into subcultures of inconsequential religious ghettos. There are more and more movements that perpetuate silence in witness, works and worship. There’s a repackaged hipster version of the old gnostic heresy that divides life into spiritual and secular and perpetuates a sterile version of faith that is great for the owner but dies with them.
We are not at war with people but we are in a battle with principalities and powers that base most of their opposition in the realm of ideas, beliefs and values.
“For though we walk in the world, we do not fight according to this world’s rules of warfare. The weapons of the war we’re fighting are not of this world but are powered by God and effective at tearing down the strongholds erected against his truth. We are demolishing arguments and ideas, every high-and-mighty philosophy that pits itself against the knowledge of the one true God. We are taking prisoners of every thought, every emotion, and subduing them into obedience to the Anointed One.” (1 Corinthians 10:3-5).
The battle for what is true is always taking place in every culture and Christians are not called to always be silent, subversive or subtle. That’s no excuse to be rude, riotous or self-righteous but let’s not surrender everything we know to be true, good and right in a world that is uninterested in Christ, his claims and his kingdom.
I’m sorry, they have one of the most important symbols of Christmas on that cup, Mary, the mother of G-d. It’s not a war on Christmas, it’s not even an issue. If this is what everyone is outraged about, they need a reality check. People are dying due to hunger, war, gun violence, the inability of far too many (often Christian) people to emotionally self-regulate and actually listen to someone with a point of view not their own. It’s a flipping coffee cup. Get over it. I think more people need to pay attention to the weakest link in the Christian chain – themselves. They can best celebrate the birth of Christ in Bethlehem by taking a long hard look in the mirror, hitting their knees, praying, and following in that babe’s footsteps by listening to Him and following where He leads. Complaining about coffee cups is easy. Following Christ by serving others is hard. If anyone is taking Christ out of Christmas, it’s Christians. And it’s time we owned it.
Wait, I thought that was a mermaid. Are we talking about the same cup?
Of course it is. But…
So they took off the word Christmas. They don’t have any reindeer or stars. Then *make* it a Christmas cup by shrugging, co-opting the emblem, and going, ‘Cool, it’s Our Lady! Best Christmas cup ever,’ and just let it go. For me, Christ is in Christmas when I observe Advent beforehand: lighting Advent candles, deepening my prayer life, doing better at living my Christian life every day. Then, midnight mass and time with those I love. A Starbucks cup adding to or taking away from my Christmas isn’t even on the radar. I don’t need anyone else to put the Christ in my Christmas. That’s my job.
Well said.
Hail, mer-Mary, full of coffee, the lord is with thee… 😉
I am *totally* swiping mer-Mary – that is sheer genius! 😀 I’ll give credit, I promise.
I don’t think saying that Jesus’ mother was a mermaid respects the Christian narrative. However, it does make it more amphibian-friendly.
If your faith is so shallow it’s threatened by a coffee cup, you really need to take a good hard look at yourself.
Interesting article, Eric. At a first read, I’m curious: what do you think *is* the Christmas message for spheres of life other than the spiritual? I feel like Christmas has been diluted of a lot of its meaning by all the reindeers and snowmen we seem to pile into it in the cultural and commercial sphere. I’m not sure exactly what an improvement would look like, from where we are now.
I’m curious about this as well, Charlie, particularly since it’s my understanding that the word “Christmas” wasn’t ever actually on the cup. From what I’ve seen/read (not much of a coffee drinker, so my knowledge is secondhand), it was just ornaments and snowflakes, etc. that were removed. Which aren’t even Christian symbols. In fact, those symbols place emphasis on a more secular holiday. It seems like this change could actually be taken as a net gain, so I’m a little confused about the “controversy” and “outrage.” This feels like someone going out of their way to be upset about something. Like they’ve been waiting all year to start this fight.
I hear that. I’m not sure that’s the ‘loss of the Christmas message’ that Eric is actually talking about in his article, though.
I agree. I was talking about the issue in general.
There is no War on Christmas. Christmas is probably the dominate cultural event in America and is inescapable for a solid 1/7th of the calendar.
Starbucks simply charged their cup design. They’re still Christmas cups. The sense of entitlement of some who believe that not only is the company required to celebrate the holiday, but must do so in such a way that pleases them is mind blowing.
Good article, Eric. I think the ‘furor’ over the coffee cup is not religious at all, but actually a cultural conversation. Starbucks isn’t a religious organization so they cannot really make a declarative religious statement. Now, if the Vatican took the cross off all the hats and stuff, THAT would be making a declarative religious statement. What Starbucks did is change the images on their marketing and rake in the profits from all the free advertising on threatened folks’ facebook pages.
This is not a religious issue; this is cultural. Christianity is the dominant religion in America, so the privilege that Christians experience is tweaked by this advertising diss by Starbucks. Bummer. I wonder if the Muslims in America are bothered by the lack of Islamic iconography on coffee cups in America? Sikhs? Hindus? No, of course not. How can they be upset over something that has never happened? Their religions are never center stage, nor do they expect them to be.
Perhaps offended Christians should try checking their privilege at Starbuck’s door and rather than petulantly demand their dominant religion be given ever-more prominence, they could encourage diversity and encourage Starbuck’s to share the coffee cup marketing space with other American religions. Huh…what would an “American religion” look like? Native American Waashat Religion, perhaps? I’d love to see THAT celebrated by the White, Christian majority for once. Sigh.
Bravo
I could care less about Starbucks, if they want to drop Christmas completely and continue to prohibit anyone from saying Merry Christmas its thier right. I think their coffee isn’t that great no matter what cup it’s in, though their “Christmas blend” is good 🙂
I know that many Americans want a secular, religious scrubbed free, de-christianised cultural America. I represent one that doesn’t.
It’s interesting to me, as someone who is religious, just not Christian that you see this as secularizing and scrubbing free of religion whereas I see this as a showing of respect to far more faiths.
Editing out the ability to recognize or mention a faith doesn’t show respect, it actually dumbs everything down.
No one is editing anyone’s ability to mention their faith.
It’s striking to me that you see respect as dumbing down.
Walk into a Starbucks and see the Christmas decorations and the Christmas blends.
This isn’t a sign of a war on Christmas. This is sign of Christian privilege.
AMEN. Thank you.
Also, Howard Schultz is Jewish, no? Yet Starbucks still has tons of Xmas stuff in their shops. That’s Christian privilege.
No it’s business.
I mean, yes, it’s business in the sense that Schultz has a decision to make and doesn’t let religion get in the way of it. But the fact that in America Christmas decorations are the default, and in many places people say, “Oh, isn’t that nice, they put up some Chanukah/Kwanzaa/whatever decorations too!” because that’s always a surprise — that’s Christian privilege.
I want an America of all the faiths and the non-faiths and everything. All the things. Islam and atheism and Paganism and Wicca and whatnot. And also Judaism and Christianity. And Mormonism. And Sikhism. And Buddhism and Hinduism. And Baha’i. And Rastafarianism. And all the things.
So do you think that companies like Sbux should take a secular stance then and just stay out of it? Or try to include all these faiths? If we have a country like this where people are free to practice their faith without editing it like Eric said, then where’s the line for businesses? I agree with you on the America of all faiths thing; this issue just seems to get so messy when you get business owners of one faith or another claiming to operate their business by that faith principle (starts an argument) or when they try to just opt out like Starbucks (also starts an argument).
Freedom grants and demands that people figure out how to handle that freedom. When people say “freedom from Religion”…that’s a twisting of words to make the idea mean something it’s not.
I don’t know – the establishment clause of the first amendment seems pretty clear to me. We’re not supposed to favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religious practice.
If we really want to, we can find ways to treat people badly in a constitutionally protected manner. We can probably even do it under the guise of being true to our faith. I don’t see the point of this though. It’s a bad business practice, and if history has taught us anything, it’s a losing battle.
Freedom from religion imposed in public schools, places, etc. As a third grader in German public schools, I had to either be in a Christian religion class or do gym class with the second graders. I opted for the humiliating second option because I was Jewish. There was no religion class for Jewish kids.
That’s Christian privilege, and that’s an example of religion being imposed in a public venue.
How is it twisting words to mean something it’s not? I do not want to be part of any religion, ergo I have the freedom from religion. I seem to be handling it just fine.
So what, exactly, are you talking about?
Why would you want to regulate whether a business advocates for one faith or the other in a free l, pluralistic society? Potential customers operating in our more-or-less free market context will do all the regulating necessary. If a business owner is too obnoxious in presenting his/her faith or unfaithful views, then that business won’t be able to keep enough customers to survive.
Not necessarily – plenty of people have been willing to support businesses that exclude someone by race/ethnicity or religion throughout our history, even if another part of the population finds them offensive or obnoxious.
Definitely. If you say “the free market will weed out discrimination,” you haven’t read your American history.
YES! Imagine an America of religious freedom for all religions.
America is a place where all those can come, practice their faith, establish places of worship. Open businesses, proselytize, run for public office, publish all the literature, social media they want. On and on it goes. Christian Heritage is the foundation of beautiful freedom and America has it working. It’s not perfect but I’d take it over any other religious heritage country.
Like Israel?
Witch hunts, slaughter of indigenous people, and slavery were all foundations of America, and all of them came with Scriptures attached.
Right, Neal, if I understand you correctly. But that includes the freedom to advocate for one’s convictions in the public arena. The secularist agenda wants to force public silence of faith convictions in the public square.
Dude. You have freedom to advocate. You aren’t being jailed, hurt, or killed, or even threatened physically. People advocate, and they get a response. Then they act as though that response had the power of physical threat behind it. It doesn’t. Freedom of speech and religion doesn’t mean freedom from verbal blowback/feedback. If you think America is moving toward not allowing freedom of speech and religion, then we definitely don’t agree.
Eric, what do you think about being manipulated by those who started this controversy. He claims to be a pastor and internet personality. He got himself on FoxNews and for the life of me I can’t see how anyone can see through him for his real purpose is self promotion. Can’t you see it? Push the button and make people jump and count the clicks.
Yep.
I would agree that pluralism doesn’t necessarily demand secularism. But from a marketing standpoint, I think it does, at least for a secular company selling a product that has nothing to do with religion. Marketing’s effectiveness usually hinges on having a clear and concise message and product – having one holiday cup makes more sense than having either several types of cups for each holiday or one cup that excludes people.
Cups exclude people? Does a single person feel they can’t buy anything during Valentine’s Day?
The cups formerly decorated with Christmas ornaments only would be exclusive in my definition, yes – it’s a widely celebrated holiday, but it leaves out those who celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc.
Re: Valentine’s Day, yes, it’s somewhat of an exclusive holiday and I think a lot of people feel left out during that time of year. But freedom of religion/religious pluralism are constitutional rights. Freedom from an overdose of Hallmark love is not. IMO they’re separate issues.
Well said, Elizabeth.
Do cups exclude people? Apparently a whole lot of Christians seem to think so, since we’re having a non-ironic conversation about a “war on Christmas” because a coffee company didn’t decorate its cups with tree ornaments.
Couples don’t go on and on about a War on Valentine’s if a single person buys a non-heart shaped box of chocolates. Yet Christians somehow feel that their very identity is at stake if a coffee company decides not to have snowflakes on their paper cups.
I would also like to point out the irony of having a discussion about cheapening/diluting Christmas on November 9th.
The term Christian privilege is a pejorative of progressives of what is simply Christian heritage.
“Awareness of privilege:
Some academics highlight a pattern where those who benefit from a type of privilege are unwilling to acknowledge it.[2][11][15] American sociologist Michael S. Kimmel
describes the state of having privilege as being “like running with the
wind at your back”, unaware of invisible sustenance, support and
propulsion.[2]
The argument may follow that such a denial constitutes a further
injustice against those who do not benefit from the same form of
privilege. One writer has referred to such denial as a form of “microaggression” or microinvalidation that negates the experiences of people who don’t have privilege and minimizes the impediments they face.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29
Privilege is not a pejorative, rather, being aware of one’s privilege actually helps one act in more grace-full and “love thy neighbor” ways. When I understand that I have status and better-than-equal odds of access within my society, I can lean further in for my less-than-privileged neighbor and give them a helping hand. Isn’t ‘love thy neighbor’ the greatest commandment after ‘love the lord thy God”? So, accepting my Christian privilege, rather than trying to avoid looking in that rather messy mirror, gives me more grace to help my neighbor. How is that term then a pejorative?
In my experience it’s not used as you are presenting it, it’s used as another ‘drop the bomb’ comment. It’s a phrase used to end conversations not open them. It’s dropped when people are frustrated with a perspective or view and they add it as the tag line to label someone’s view as irrelevant. It’s used in a pejorative way like: “You are such a man!” or “You are just acting like a woman!” etc. etc. I think our American experience stands on it’s own as a system that can address the issues of freedom and access as it relates to evolving issues. It’s one of the reasons marginalized people from all over the world want to be in western countries that have a strong Christian heritage, because the freedoms of personhood go along with it. Christian Heritage is the blessing to many who would be hunted, killed and marginalized to prison or poverty by many other other world heritages. I think the privilege is something even those criticizing it, benefit from.
Since I’m one who used the term, let me explain my intentions and what was meant by the phrase since there seems to be some confusion.
“Christian privilege” means your religion is the default. Christians are so used to being the main or the only. Some are baffled when anyone questions that or when their experience doesn’t coordinate with that.
The term is not intended to end discussions. It’s used in an attempt to help Christians see that they are in a position of power. When one is the default, one often has no real concept of the experience of others.
Christian privilege means never having to stop and question what others experience because Christians experience the privilege of being the default and therefore catered to in the larger culture in a way no other religion has known.
The term isn’t used to stop discussions, but continue them with a better understanding that the Christian experience, is dominant, but not the exclusive experience for all Americans.
It’s been my experience around here, that the idea that America is Christian or founded so, is erroneous. How can it be founded on deistic/secularism and Christian privilege at the same time?
No one is arguing that it was founded on Christian privilege. For one thing, privilege isn’t a philosophy or ideology. It’s simply a set of benefits and/or advantages that certain groups have simply for being in that group. The problem I’ve seen a lot in the resistance to the idea of privilege (and I’m not saying you’re doing this, simply that I’ve seen it frequently) is that privilege often gets conflated with superiority and/or the desire for superiority. That’s not what it is at all. And I would say that if and when privilege is used by progressives as a pejorative, it’s rarely (if ever) that privilege is being used that way. More likely what is being criticized is the stubborn refusal to acknowledge privilege, and in some cases even aggressive backlash against the mere suggestion that privilege exists. There’s a huge cultural pushback (and yes, it’s largely conservative) against things like the idea of privilege, “political correctness” (which isn’t actually a thing), social censorship, etc. And the irony is that the people crying the loudest about oppression/intolerance/reverse discrimination/censorship etc. aren’t working for the acceptance of free speech; they’re seeking protection from it.
America isn’t a Christian nation. It’s a nation that defends religious freedom on a legal level, as long as that freedom isn’t impinging on someone else’s vital freedom to access their rights as Americans. This goes for same-sex marriage, abortion, contraceptives, and on and on.
Thank you. That’s a great explanation.
I also used the term, Christian privilege, and Hyphen and I meant it in the exact same way. Also, it was not “as you are presenting it” privilege is a widely used term that you are unfamiliar with, and seem to be unable to understand.
Eric, two of us are trying to help you see that Christians in America have more power more freedom, more ‘voice.’ We are trying to HAVE a conversation, not stop one.
“Christian Heritage is the blessing to many who would be hunted, killed
and marginalized to prison or poverty by many other other world
heritages.” – As a member of the LGBTQ community let me in on a secret, we are being hunted in many parts of the world BECAUSE of Christianity, or at least, some people’s understanding of it. In many African nations, gay folks are being actively hunted, jailed, and even killed simple for being gay because of the narrow-minded interpretation of the bible that American missionaries brought to that continent. Christianity is not a blessing for those gay folks! It’s a death sentence!
And even worse, look at the long history of colonization by good Christians to all areas of the world, where they “clothed and fed” the indigenous populations, robbed them of their native religious heritage, and used guilt and economic manipulation to bind them to a belief system that still controls them today. Forcing whole people groups to abandon their native languages, dress, and rituals, the Christians did not “bring them the gospel” NO, they brought them White, Anglo-Saxon social mores and traditions. Christianity didn’t make life safer for those millions of indigenous people, it just made it expedient. The only way you could say it was safer is to admit that when the natives gave in to the missionaries demands, the natives got food and shelter. That’s criminal.
“I think the privilege is something even those criticizing it,
benefit from.” – I am not criticizing Christian privilege – you misunderstand. I know I have this privilege and I am trying to get you to see that you have it too. It is not something to be praised or criticized, it just exists. What I am critical of is how the majority religion in America refuses to allow that others don’t agree, and tries to force America to hold only one religion as acceptable, and all others are demeaned.
As usual I disagree with your characterization of missionaries, gospel, American Christians and pretty much everything else it seems. We see the world differently, you are sure if someone doesn’t agree with you they are just not educated enough. That is a dead end.
I’ll agree with you on this point, that you are refusing to become more educated as to your privilege. My mom used to say, “If one person says it, it’s their opinion. If two people say it, it might be so. If a bunch of people say it, you might want to check it out.” It has taken me years to learn about things like white privilege due to America’s history of racism, and Christian privilege due to colonization. Perhaps you could spend a few minutes considering it, rather than dismissing it and then telling me I am an elitist snob. Especially since I am not the only commenter who is discussing privilege. I think the dead end is on your side of this conversation.
I didn’t call you elitist snob…I said I disagree with you. I know that 98% of the responses I get from Favs people will be rebuttals. It’s reality of the primarily progressive circle that it is, of course you will be in the majority in views.
You didn’t use the words elitist snob, for sure. But then, I’ve never seen her say that if someone disagrees with her it’s because they’re not educated enough. I also am puzzled as to why you frequently make broad generalizations about progressives and their intent/how they say/mean something, and yet immediately take personal exception when progressives make the same generalizations about conservative motives and arguments. Why would your inferences of what people are saying and what is behind that be more valid than others’ same inferences of what you’re saying, or what conservatives in general are saying? I would argue that holding other people to a higher conversational standard than you are holding yourself is a pretty massive dead end, if you are truly concerned about dead ends.
I would agree people use this as a conversation-ender. That’s unfortunate. It should be a conversation starter.
People are leaving other countries, some of which themselves have strong Christian heritage, to come to Western countries because the countries have foundations of freedom, or have accepted freedom, not because those countries have anything to do with Christianity. In fact, most of the countries with the highest quality of life are secular.
And try telling a homosexual, or any of the children being killed because their family thinks they’re witches (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html) that Christian heritage has anything good to say about “freedom of personhood”.
It’s privilege because it’s the dominant narrative in our culture. If we want to, we can go into any store and find decorations or food or music to express or celebrate that heritage, and find many community/national leaders who share our beliefs. Can we say the same of people who celebrate other religious holidays?
I don’t think acknowledging that is pejorative. It’s just being aware of what we’ve always had.
Exactly. All heritages do not garner equal institutional power in our society.
“Progressives” is a pejorative of what is simply wanting to make a society that doesn’t limit influence to any one group, religion, gender, or race.
If you’re not progressive, what are you?
Ba, Humbug. No really humbug as Joshua Feuerstein practices it. The guy that hit Internet gold by posting his video about the “new” cups and his answer to it taking off the commercial symbols of Christmas (at no point has Starbucks ever put a nativity scene but limited to snowflakes and reindeers). Humbug is the old name for the type of marketing that PT Barum and co practice by stroking a Pavlovian response then laughing to the bank from the attention it pulls in. Trump, the modern master of Humbug, quickly jump on it. Hucksterism sees an opportunity in moral outrage. If you are outraged by this as a Christian, you should be, using Jesus and a faux anger to generate attention and the corresponding payday should make Christians blood boil like using Christian symbols by ambulance chasing lawyers. What Joshua Feuerstein has done is cheapen the Gospel to fatten his wallet and what did Jesus say about Mammon worship?
I wonder if the Hellenists were upset when the Christians forceably replaced Saturnalia and Mithras, their most sacred day and deity, with Jesus and renamed the day Christmas? I bet changing coffee cup text was a “B” back then since cups were made from metal or pottery.
“The question was no longer to find the one simply true religion among a thousand religions simply false. It was rather, “Where has religion reached its true maturity? Where, if anywhere, have the hints of all paganism been fulfilled?”
With the irreligious I was no longer concerned; their view of life was henceforth out of court. As against them, the whole mass of those who had worshipped–all who had danced and sung and sacrificed and trembled and adored–were clearly right.
But the intellect and the conscience, as well as the orgy and the ritual, must be our guide.
There could be no question of going back to primitive, untheologized and ummoralized, Paganism.
The God I had at last acknowledge was one, and was righteous. Paganism had been only the childhood of religion, or only a prophetic dream.
Where was the thing full grown? Or where was the awakening?
-C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy, last chapter.
Eric I’m not sure how that quote actually pertains but I guess that since C.S. Lewis said it (all hail) then it must some how trump thousands of years of documented, readily available, religious/secular anthropological, archeological and sociological evidence.
“Then another horse appeared, a red one. Its rider was given a mighty sword and the authority to take peace from the earth. And there was war and slaughter everywhere.” -Revelations 6:4