Why People Don't Become Christians
by Tom Neven on 05/15/2008 at 4:07 PM
Some people have too much time on their hands, like these guys.
Some people have too much time on their hands, like these guys.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Before the 'you're being judgmental' crowd starts up: touche', nicely done.
It's a mermaid for goodness sake. The first mermaid with a ANY clothes was a Disneyfied mermaid (and even that wasn't much). Someone needs some help organizing their priorities.
I noticed they're based in San Diego; I wonder how many will leave California to avoid being associated with homosexual
'marriage.'
Back in the days before Starbucks was on every corner and the logo was unfamilar, one of the volunteers for my youth group wore a Starbucks brand shirt every once in a while. As a young teen I was shocked and embarrassed to see an image of a topless woman on this guy's shirt--especially while he's leading prayer and praise.
I'll agree the boycotting thing easily gets out of control, and the case against the logo should have been much more eloquently made, but the image is still inappropriate.
I am reminded of a hilarious MadTV sketch in which a senator views the artwork of an aspiring painter asking for government funding and sees "naked little boys" in everything, including landscapes of mountains and lakes......
#1 I'm still pretty convinced that the main reason people don't become Christians has something to do with sin.
#2 That logo is muy muy feo, all faith traditions aside.
#3 This isn't the first thing Starbucks has done to alienate its Christian customers: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55564
So maybe people are a little touchy.
Listen, if Christians have continued to visit Starbucks after some degree of worldly taunting, why do we have to pretend that sinners have every right to blame every Christian who ever did something stupid for their choice to reject Jesus Christ and pay for their own sins eternally?
Yawwwwnnnnn....I drink Starbucks (Venti Americano) every day, and--quite frankly--never really paid attention to the logo. I didn't even realize it had changed.
Dude...I'm sorry, but that logo is just vulgar. And while I think it's silly to say that's why people don't become Christians...HONESTLY?!!
I'm a fairly liberal art student, and I see no artistic value in it whatsoever. It's embarrassing as an artist to have people promoting that kind of graphic design.
"I'm still pretty convinced that the main reason people don't become Christians has something to do with sin."
Sure it does. But our touchiness doesn't help, either.
Tom is spot-on, I think. What's the point of getting all upset over a logo where you have to squint to see anything even remotely suggestive? (And if you're squinting that hard at a coffee cup, you may have bigger problems than mere touchiness.)
This whole "blame the Christians for the existence of sinners" schtick is getting beyond tired. So no one is responsible for their own actions/choices anymore? Guess what" there's ALWAYS something or someone else to blame. Why else would there be so many self-hating "white people" in the suburbs for all of the injustices done to "black people"?
Look, I'm not dismissing the effect that hypocritical Christians have on people's decisions to follow Christ. But is this really something that is worth blaming Christians for as the cause of atheism? Personally speaking, if I were an atheist I would be offended by the implication that I'm so gullible to my emotions that I would let something like this influence major decisions in my life, such as those involving spiritual or religious decisions.
People with strong convictions make the world a more interesting place. (Sometimes, a little too interesting.) However, they've got a right to their own opinions. And I doubt very much that this 3000-strong group is going to sway public opinion much.
But I hope these guys stay out of art museums -- they'd probably have heart attacks.
Sylvia, I agree. La insignia de la sirena es muy, muy fea.
And those "The Way I See It" things? Most of them bug me because they're so pompous (not to mention secular preachy)... Though I do know that they had a quote from a Christian musician on one of their cups for a while. The quote had nothing to do with Christianity, but it comforted me a little to know they had asked at least ONE Christian for his opinion on something. And it was nice to have a cup that (for once!) didn't talk about global warming or intelligent design. :P
I have to agree with Amir. I don't find this to be important at all. I love the economic freedom that American provides... there's always 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts if you don't want to be offended. You can always get your coffee somewhere else or... gasp... make it at home for a fraction of the cost.
When Jesus said something about causing another person, I think that sometimes that could mean pointing out smut to someone who doesn't see it.
I have a Christian friend who several times in the past has pointed out to me (another Christian) something that was inappropriate to look at. I politely told him not to point those things out to me anymore 'cause it would make me stumble. He totally understood my point.
There is something about the Starbucks logo on the cup that I didn't notice until I read the third paragraph of the StarTribune (my local paper BTW).
If anyone has read the book "Every Man's Battle", then they are familiar with the fact that purity is not only in our external behavior, but also in our mind. Sexy jokes, innuendos, comments, dialogue, stories, etc can all cause a brother or sister to stumble. Sure there are a few guys out there who seem impervious to illicit material out there, but most men are not. BTW, a few years ago I was in a study group and we went through that book, and most of the time we would not read certain passages out loud because they were too graphic.
I understand the good intentions for protesting and exposing evil in this society, but sometimes I just wish we as Christians would be MORE CAUTIOUS when delivering their message.
I just find it disturbing that men who act so offended over an image that no one is forcing them to view have no problem using language that degrades women. I'm not going to repeat it, but they replaced the 'star' in Starbucks with another word that starts with s. If they were truly concerned with decency, they wouldn't have used that word.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I absolutely loathe that word.
Wow. Before I read Mark Dice's take on the logo, I looked at it myself, thinking "It looks like a two-tailed mermaid to me. What's the problem?" Then I read his thoughts, looked back at the logo and thought "where on earth does he see LEGS in that picture?? They're clearly tails."
Sylvia, lol, Starbucks has not alienated its Christian customers with that logo. It alienated a tiny whacked-out minority who read ridiculous things into relatively innocent images.
I'm thinking of all sorts of snarky replies to the post title, but for the sake of fellowship, I'll just amen Sylvia's post (#5)
This might sway me and my other Christ lovin'/Starbucks buyin' co-worker if their Frappacinos weren't so amazing.
Especially this one that I recently discovered: http://carrie.covblogs.com/archives/028461.html
Neither am I going to let go of my Thin Mint fixation.
I'm so glad that neither one would send me to Hell.
I don't really care for the new logo, but mermaids don't have legs, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
ahh the great debate over the naked human form. i love that nudity is bad, it cracks me up. so this crazy group of 'christians' is boycotting the starbucks logo and making a to-do about it. meanwhile i can't watch tv without over-sexualized ads for beer, cars, and stupid sitcoms.
Do they also have plans to protest art museums, where there may be paintings of the Nativity (the Baby Jesus depicted in such is often not wearing a diaper!)
Normally I'm the first to say that certain conservative groups are too uptight, but I'm not a fan of that logo either. I don't need to see a naked woman in that much detail on the side of my coffee cup -- even if she is a fictional two-tailed mermaid.
That said, referring to the popular chain as "slutbucks" is pretty clever.
Also, I've noticed that those "The Way I See It"s are so ridiculous and sentimental, although Starbucks claims they do not necessarily represent the company's views.
Why not tell Starbucks the way that we see "it" (whatever "it" may be). Just as easy as dropping a comment on Boundless.
Tell Starbucks how you see it
Bottom line is this: there are some hacks out there, from KJV-only folks, to Landmark fundamentalists, to the Jesus Camp folks, to the perpetual boycotters, to snake handlers. And that's not accounting for the quasi-cults out there. They're the minority, but always on the radar.
If I am a non-Christian, there will always be "reasons" not to believe. Heck, I can point to any number of Christians that I can make my "bad example" for why I could refuse to become one.
But ultimately, I am responsible for what I do with the good news. God ain't gonna let me off the hook for unbelief on judgment day, simply because I saw Jesus Camp.
Honestly, I could care less what Starbucks does or doesn't do. They make good coffee, I drink it. The local Starbucks has several Christian people working there, many of whom are college students. If they feel discriminated against, they don't seem to indicate so.
I agree with the spirit of the title. If you listen to a lot of non-Christians (something that Christians often have a hard time doing), then it becomes clear that many non-Christians don't want to become Christians because in their mind, "Christians" are silly, irresponsible, unloving, intellectually bankrupt people. This kind of thing contributes to that image, and thus the offense of Christianity is no longer Christ and His Cross (which is and should always be offensive, as should the church's teaching on sin, etc.) but instead is... some people who get funny feelings when they look at a coffee cup.
I like the story behind the image.
=p But then I like greek mythology.
Where I wouldn't spend much time staring at it, I think some people are picking the wrong battles...
OR...as was suggested in one of the comments on Motte's latest blog post, maybe they just feel called to fight THIS battle...and some of the rest are called to fight other battles.
Could be =p
Those that think that Tom is putting blam on the wrong people for others not becoming Christians, for some people, we will be the only Christ they ever see. We are called to bring light into darkness. If our light is a bit gawdy, off color, or too bright for eyes that are too used to the dark, then we're not being good witnesses =p
No, we can't take ultimate responsibility for their enternal souls, but we can take responsibility for our own actions.
I'm with Sylvia
People are not becoming Christians because they love their sin and hate God.
And we need to stop crawling for them, reassuring them in their ridiculous excuse that we are the problem.
I didn't boycott, I didn't make a stir. And neither did like 99.98 percent of Christians.
I'm sorry but this "Evangelical guilt" is a really heavy burden to bear. Every time some Christians who are not on their best behavior get an inflated amount of press the cool thing to do as a young evangelical is to be the first to jump up and snark on them.
I'm tired of it.
The "dirty trick" that God played on us, is that while He called us to love our enemies, He told us that they will know we are His by our love for one another.
Our apparent love for the people of this world can be interpreted by the world as flattery, position seeking, attraction. People in the world try to have something to offer: money, drugs, sex, permission to sin, and the world can always choose to think the worst about our Christian love for them. For this reason, it is our love for humble, weak, simpering, sometimes judgmental,sometimes-foolish "one another" that best demonstrates our faith to the world.
And yet, we play the old "I'm not with him!" game(Gal 2:11) whenever we possibly can---not with heretics, and apostates, mind you, but with every Christian whom we believe might cause us to lose face with the people of this world. Meanwhile we are ignoring the very command that Jesus said would distinguish us.(John 13:35)
I don't mean to state that Tom, or those who agree do not love the people boycotting Starbucks. I only mean to demonstrate that the I'm-not-with-him tactic does not jive with the way God intends for us to present ourselves to the world.
Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light. He obeyed his Father. Years later, people would misinterpret his actions, and find all sorts of reasons not to accept His gift of eternal life. We Christians, unlike Christ, have actual faults, but the yoke we are to take up is His. We need to do the will of our Father, not live out lives second guessing how it will reflect on the perverse minds of the unregenerate in whom we pray the Lord Himself is working conviction unto repentance.
you can't deny that some of us who call ourselves christians have done some pretty dumb things that have turned others off to the faith. these dumb things range from terrible to trite, but still, we've done dumb things.
i see this all the time, both at my church and my work place. people hear the word 'christian' and they immediately think of silliness like people boycotting a retro starbucks logo.
this starbucks battle is the perfect example. it's a NAKED WOMAN. as was mentioned, people don't boycott great works of art.
as for the 'i'm not with him' mentality, sure, i hope that this group's motivations are right. and i can even say, great i admire that they're trying to protect purity/decency/etc, but... i can also say that i'm saddened by their choice and wonder who is being reached for the gospel by it.
in short, right on tom.
I just have to say a big THANK YOU to Sylvia for her post. I thought I was alone in my feelings. "Evangelical guilt" is too tough for me to carry. I'm tired of blaming myself for why someone else isn't saved. Only God's Holy Spirit can reach out and save a person's soul. Ultimately it is between that person and God.
Saying that, we are held accountable to an extent for our poor witnesses as well. But this Starbucks issue is so laughable that neither side should take it seriously.
Thank You Tara.
I agree that we are responsible for being good witnesses. I think that is part of following Christ, and if we keep our eye's on Him, He will manage our public image as he sees fit.
Does anyone see that this blame-Christians-for-atheists thing is only hurting the people who already care? It's people who have a burden for the lost who are throwing up their hands saying "Ugh! Its enough to apologize for my own failings! I can't deal with everyone else's!"
Worse, it serves to temp the eyes of these earnest evangelists off the Lord and onto what the ears of the ungodly want to hear. (Not to mention
causing division with brothers and sisters over worldly issues as I pointed out above)
Paul urged Christians to live good lives unto the Lord, and to be willing to sacrifice for those who needed the gospel. That said, Philippians 1:15-18, demonstrates, in my opinion, that it is the Gospel itself that unbelievers need to deal with. We need to live our lives unto the Lord and give His love to those who are without him, but we also need to understand the power of the Gospel itself.
It is embarrassing that there are braying jackasses out there that preach the gospel while acting out their asinine natures, but you know what? The GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation, and his WORD will does not return void. And we should praise the Lord every time we hear the cross of Christ preached, on TBN, on the back of a truck, or out of the mouth of someone who never has and never will say another true thing.
You might say, that the Starbuxters never mentioned the gospel, never mentioned the cross---just complained. Well then, they are irrelevant. Let them do their thing. Lets just make sure that we live our own lives unto the Lord, and that at every opportunity we preach Christ and Him crucified.
Tara (34) wrote: "Ultimately it is between that person and God."
-->Right. Thankfully, salvation does not rest upon people & their sin.
Sylvis (35) wrote: "And we should praise the Lord every time we hear the cross of Christ preached, on TBN, on the back of a truck, or out of the mouth of someone who never has and never will say another true thing. "
-->Interesting. Yeah, Phil. 1:18 is interesting. In my heart, I should probably extend grace more often...though...What do you think of Acts 16:16-18? I guess we should consider both passages...
Cheers!
What this world needs...is not another one-hit wonder with an axe to grind, another two-bit politician peddling lies, another three ring circus society
What this world needs
Is not another sign waving super saint that's better than you
I love the dialogue in that song...
pretty much, in a nut shell, it doesn't matter who is carrying the Gospel...God doesn't NEED us to do anything...he just WANTS to use us.
Dear Boundless,
In your eagerness to point out a mis-representation of Christianity, I fear that you have likewise succeeded in gravely mis-representing the gospel. Would it have been so difficult to take a little more time to tweak the title? Your point is not to challenge orthodoxy, so why go there? Please remember your audience--young believers do not need confusion in basic theology, and unbelievers don't need corroboration in evading God. (Not to mention that Christians must proclaim truth--no matter what our individual proclivites to exaggeration.)
Usually, I love Boundless for its thoughtfulness and humble insight. So frankly, I'm suprised this made it past the editors.
I was trying to remember the last time a similar image of a man was protested in such a way . . . I honestly couldn't. It irritates me that groups like this seem to only apply their high standards to women and/or images of women. Purity is not a device to control women.
Lately it seems in the media that the only time a giant fuss is raised over something being indecent, it always has to do with the female form. My favorite example is Miley Cyrus. Every talking head in the media is angry at her- where is the anger at Disney, who has no problem turning young children into multimillion dollar brands and then washing their hands of the damaging aftermath? They can just find and groom the next big thing, and they will.
We live in a society where people, especially young women, are seen as consumable and disposable.
That outrages me a lot more than any two-tailed mermaid.
(Though as an art history student, I would love to take the anti-starbucks people on a docent tour. Though the floors are marble, so it might hurt if they faint.)
Frankly, I think this entire argument is hilarious. Why? Read on.
Ever question why the "mermaid" has two tails? The two-tailed siren was dreamed up by mythologists when people realized there wasn't a feasible way for sailors to sleep with the typical one-tailed version. The two tailed-version was conceptualized to have her genitals between the two tails. Hopefully you can fill in the blanks from here. (..and hopefully no one will get bent out of shape that I used the word genitals in the Boundless comment section...)
Go back and look at the (non-vintage version) of the logo. Yep, those things to the right and left of her head - the two tails she's holding. There's been sexual symbolism in the logo this entire time, and people raise a stink NOW because of some microscopic, semi-covered breasts? The entire concept behind the Starbucks' branding is that the coffee at Starbucks is supposed to be alluring in much the same way as the mythical siren. Not the angle I would pick were I to start a company, but an interesting branding metaphor nonetheless.
So basically, if you're going to be speaking out against the logo NOW, you should have been against the branding since you first stepped foot in a Starbucks.
Personally, I don't feel sexually entranced by a logo of a mythical creature, but I realize that it could be a stumbling block to people (especially if it's sported loud and proud on a tshirt like another commenter noted). Hopefully it isn't, but if it is you could a a) start hanging out around real girls b) visit one of the other many fine coffee shops in this world.
Personally I think the statement put out by "The Resistance" reeks of angry PTA parents; negative points to them for lashing out with "Slutbucks." We as customers have a right to tell Starbucks how we feel (and show support via money), but marching in frantically waving the Christian banner and quickly prodding it at people to try and get the best jab in might just be "Why People Don't Become Christians."
And Alex, please think before labeling something of no conceptual or artistic merit...it makes the rest of the graphic designers look bad.
Who has too much time on their hands? The people who decided on the logo, or the ones objecting?
I guess if Starbucks hadn't decided to take over the world a few years ago, it wouldn't matter at all.
Personally, I don't much like their coffee. I drink it occasionally, but not often, and so a boycott from me wouldn't matter much.
But - until I saw that this logo is apparently temporary anyway - I was planning to hunt up the number for their corporate office and phone them. Not to complain as a Christian - although I am one. But rather to inform them that, as a straight female, I totally have NO intention of drinking coffee from a cup decorated with a picture of a naked lady spreading her legs wide to the world. To inform them that, if this is their new logo, my infrequent Starbucks visits will probably end. And to inform them that I generally find myself to be a normal, average person, and that I believe many of my acquaintances, who also represent a large segment of their desired market share, will also find their new logo highly dis-tasteful. That choosing an offensive logo might be Not a wise move for a company whose competitors (ie DD & even McD's) now now provide many of the same drinks they offer.
Well, now I might not make that call after all. Since it looks like that logo may be limited anyway.
I personally think the flaw here is the newsmedia, or anyone who thinks that Christians' objections to this logo are newsworthy. The only newsworthy question is why such a company would choose such a grossly objectionable logo. What straight woman wants to drink her coffee from between another woman's legs? And, despite Starbucks' left coast origins, straight women make up a huge proportion of their customer base.
Sarah writes:
The logo is disgusting.
I'm glad they're speaking out against it.
I guess taste is in the eye of the beholder. I'm curious as to why you think it's disgusting. I zoomed in on the image. I can see no explicit details.
I suppose it could be worse, though. What I call the "sucking chest wound Jesus statues" that one commonly sees in Catholic churches and homes used to scare the life out of me as a kid. (If you've seen 'em, you know what I'm talking about.)
valerie- I must say I don't understand your problem. The title has nothing to do with theology and I don't think it would confuse "young" believers. It's true- a lot of people are repelled from Christianity because of extremist radicals who protest and stand out against silly little irrelevant unimportant things, like the starbucks logo.
Sarah- an honest question, but how is the logo disgusting? Look in any publication of ancient greek stories which contain sirens, and you'll see the same thing. It's a mermaid with two tails. Her breasts are stylised and not graphic in the least, and the way the two tails are split is a design issue, to fit within the circle and give it a look of symmetry. It's not erotic, graphic, and I am honestly confused by anyone who thinks it's disgusting.
Sylvia and Tara- of course it is only the gospel (and God, who works through the gospel) who makes Christians. Boundless knows that. I think you're getting a little theologically pedantic. But Satan uses things to repel people from God too, and extremist fanatics like the people protesting this silly little logo are a very possible tool of his.
(Please keep in mind I am not calling them "tools of the devil" in the conventional sense of the phrase, just saying that it is very possible Satan uses people like this to repel others away from Christ.)
Single Certain Girl is right on the money.
I have to admit, it was stuff like this that meant "Christian" in my head before I was a believer. This, and the show-up-on-Sunday-with-a-hangover kind of "Christians" at my high school. I remember laying in bed at night wondering if God was real and thinking if He was He probably wasn't Christian because those people were always angry about something ridiculous.
As far as the Evangelical burden thing goes, I don't think it's so much a need to think, "Oh man! Every time I mess up it could cause a non-believer to stumble." When I wasn't a believer, I didn't expect Christians to be perfect (and the ones who seemingly were were way more intimidating), but when I saw brazen hypocrisy or ill-motivated, showy action *that* was what turned me off. And I have to wonder what is motivating these people - being "right" and making a point to show they're better and more pure than others, or bringing God glory by advancing the Gospel.
I must say, to me at least, there is always a haughtiness that comes with boycotting like this. If your personal conviction is to boycott something yourself that's fine, but being a squeaky wheel is just plain annoying (and can slow the wagon down).
I'd like to echo the comments of a few other posters on here and in the links - how big a deal is this compared to feeding the hungry, loving your neighbor, etc...? What brings God more glory? And can anybody show me evidence that Jesus would have done something like this?
But then again, I'm pretty much never one to pick Thin Mint battles. I tend to focus on the bigger picture.
I don't know where I first heard this. or even if it's true, but it seems fitting for the topic.
Ghandi was quoted as saying that he would become Christian if only it weren't for the Christians.
This reminds of an incident approx. twenty years ago here in Chicago.
There was an art exhibit with a painting of the late mayor Harold Washington attired in women's underwear.
Well, some people decided to protest it, and as a result, the news story along with footage of the offending painting appeared on network TV news broadcasts every night for a week, thereby insuring that a lot more people saw this painting then would have had there been no protestors.
I don't go to Starbucks often....I do like their coffee but I usually purchase it in grocery stores and prepare it at home.
So...chance are I (and several others I am sure) would never have seen this "offending logo" if it wasn't for this news story that Mr. Neven brought to our attention here on this blog.
My friend Mike drinks about 3 Starbucks a day. I pointed out the new graphic on his coffee this morning, mentioning that I heard there had been discussions about it. He hadn't even noticed it. My guess is that is the case for a lot of people.
I find it interesting that it's not exactly a new logo - in a way, it's zooming out from the regular logo to see a more complete picture of what might be going on.
Sirens, seductions, a mermaid spreading her tails, prostitute, pornea? Possibly - you pays yous money, you get yous temporary pleasure.
A provocative conversation starter, I think.
No need to waive a "christian" banner; let each one be convinced in his own mind and act concientiously.
Grace, peace & courage.
Maybe the mermaid isn't behaving like a prostitute.
Maybe she's married and is merely preparing for her husband.
:)
Louise #49:
In my post #12, that is precisely the point I was making, although I wasn't necessarily pointing my finger at Tom Neven. Again my point was that there was something about the logo I maybe would have not noticed had it not been pointed out in the article. As brx said in post #51, let each of us be convinced in our own minds.
Re comment 53, I doubt very much that either the Starbucks logo or the Harold Washington painting would ever cause anyone to "stumble."
Comment 49 merely pointed out the irony of the situation, that in protesting a work that a group of people consider "unfit for viewing" said protest virtually ensures that said work will be viewed by several people!
If you'd like to leave a comment, we're afraid you'll have to use a non-mobile device to do so. I just couldn't get the mobile comment entry form to work right. Alas. ~Ted.
1. mindlab said the following at 4:24 PM on May 15:
Before the 'you're being judgmental' crowd starts up: touche', nicely done.
It's a mermaid for goodness sake. The first mermaid with a ANY clothes was a Disneyfied mermaid (and even that wasn't much). Someone needs some help organizing their priorities.
I noticed they're based in San Diego; I wonder how many will leave California to avoid being associated with homosexual
'marriage.'
2. Alyene said the following at 6:11 PM on May 15:
Back in the days before Starbucks was on every corner and the logo was unfamilar, one of the volunteers for my youth group wore a Starbucks brand shirt every once in a while. As a young teen I was shocked and embarrassed to see an image of a topless woman on this guy's shirt--especially while he's leading prayer and praise.
I'll agree the boycotting thing easily gets out of control, and the case against the logo should have been much more eloquently made, but the image is still inappropriate.
3. Chris said the following at 6:51 PM on May 15:
I am reminded of a hilarious MadTV sketch in which a senator views the artwork of an aspiring painter asking for government funding and sees "naked little boys" in everything, including landscapes of mountains and lakes......
4. Sylvia said the following at 6:59 PM on May 15:
#1 I'm still pretty convinced that the main reason people don't become Christians has something to do with sin.
#2 That logo is muy muy feo, all faith traditions aside.
#3 This isn't the first thing Starbucks has done to alienate its Christian customers: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55564
So maybe people are a little touchy.
Listen, if Christians have continued to visit Starbucks after some degree of worldly taunting, why do we have to pretend that sinners have every right to blame every Christian who ever did something stupid for their choice to reject Jesus Christ and pay for their own sins eternally?
5. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:08 PM on May 15:
Yawwwwnnnnn....I drink Starbucks (Venti Americano) every day, and--quite frankly--never really paid attention to the logo. I didn't even realize it had changed.
6. alex said the following at 7:36 PM on May 15:
Dude...I'm sorry, but that logo is just vulgar. And while I think it's silly to say that's why people don't become Christians...HONESTLY?!!
I'm a fairly liberal art student, and I see no artistic value in it whatsoever. It's embarrassing as an artist to have people promoting that kind of graphic design.
7. Gina said the following at 8:16 PM on May 15:
"I'm still pretty convinced that the main reason people don't become Christians has something to do with sin."
Sure it does. But our touchiness doesn't help, either.
Tom is spot-on, I think. What's the point of getting all upset over a logo where you have to squint to see anything even remotely suggestive? (And if you're squinting that hard at a coffee cup, you may have bigger problems than mere touchiness.)
8. Jason said the following at 9:09 PM on May 15:
This whole "blame the Christians for the existence of sinners" schtick is getting beyond tired. So no one is responsible for their own actions/choices anymore? Guess what" there's ALWAYS something or someone else to blame. Why else would there be so many self-hating "white people" in the suburbs for all of the injustices done to "black people"?
Look, I'm not dismissing the effect that hypocritical Christians have on people's decisions to follow Christ. But is this really something that is worth blaming Christians for as the cause of atheism? Personally speaking, if I were an atheist I would be offended by the implication that I'm so gullible to my emotions that I would let something like this influence major decisions in my life, such as those involving spiritual or religious decisions.
9. k. said the following at 9:24 PM on May 15:
People with strong convictions make the world a more interesting place. (Sometimes, a little too interesting.) However, they've got a right to their own opinions. And I doubt very much that this 3000-strong group is going to sway public opinion much.
But I hope these guys stay out of art museums -- they'd probably have heart attacks.
10. Tami said the following at 9:48 PM on May 15:
Sylvia, I agree. La insignia de la sirena es muy, muy fea.
And those "The Way I See It" things? Most of them bug me because they're so pompous (not to mention secular preachy)... Though I do know that they had a quote from a Christian musician on one of their cups for a while. The quote had nothing to do with Christianity, but it comforted me a little to know they had asked at least ONE Christian for his opinion on something. And it was nice to have a cup that (for once!) didn't talk about global warming or intelligent design. :P
11. dana111 said the following at 10:19 PM on May 15:
I have to agree with Amir. I don't find this to be important at all. I love the economic freedom that American provides... there's always 7-11 or Dunkin' Donuts if you don't want to be offended. You can always get your coffee somewhere else or... gasp... make it at home for a fraction of the cost.
12. Dan said the following at 11:33 PM on May 15:
When Jesus said something about causing another person, I think that sometimes that could mean pointing out smut to someone who doesn't see it.
I have a Christian friend who several times in the past has pointed out to me (another Christian) something that was inappropriate to look at. I politely told him not to point those things out to me anymore 'cause it would make me stumble. He totally understood my point.
There is something about the Starbucks logo on the cup that I didn't notice until I read the third paragraph of the StarTribune (my local paper BTW).
If anyone has read the book "Every Man's Battle", then they are familiar with the fact that purity is not only in our external behavior, but also in our mind. Sexy jokes, innuendos, comments, dialogue, stories, etc can all cause a brother or sister to stumble. Sure there are a few guys out there who seem impervious to illicit material out there, but most men are not. BTW, a few years ago I was in a study group and we went through that book, and most of the time we would not read certain passages out loud because they were too graphic.
I understand the good intentions for protesting and exposing evil in this society, but sometimes I just wish we as Christians would be MORE CAUTIOUS when delivering their message.
13. BDB said the following at 11:36 PM on May 15:
The logo didn't change at the one I frequent, either. Then again, it's in a grocery store.
14. Kate said the following at 11:57 PM on May 15:
I just find it disturbing that men who act so offended over an image that no one is forcing them to view have no problem using language that degrades women. I'm not going to repeat it, but they replaced the 'star' in Starbucks with another word that starts with s. If they were truly concerned with decency, they wouldn't have used that word.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I absolutely loathe that word.
15. DannieA said the following at 12:14 AM on May 16:
yup so true...and quite frankly...this is all the world sees.
16. Leah said the following at 1:59 AM on May 16:
Wow. Before I read Mark Dice's take on the logo, I looked at it myself, thinking "It looks like a two-tailed mermaid to me. What's the problem?" Then I read his thoughts, looked back at the logo and thought "where on earth does he see LEGS in that picture?? They're clearly tails."
Sylvia, lol, Starbucks has not alienated its Christian customers with that logo. It alienated a tiny whacked-out minority who read ridiculous things into relatively innocent images.
17. valerie said the following at 4:25 AM on May 16:
I'm thinking of all sorts of snarky replies to the post title, but for the sake of fellowship, I'll just amen Sylvia's post (#5)
18. Carrie (the original) said the following at 6:32 AM on May 16:
This might sway me and my other Christ lovin'/Starbucks buyin' co-worker if their Frappacinos weren't so amazing.
Especially this one that I recently discovered: http://carrie.covblogs.com/archives/028461.html
Neither am I going to let go of my Thin Mint fixation.
I'm so glad that neither one would send me to Hell.
19. Melissa D. said the following at 7:37 AM on May 16:
I don't really care for the new logo, but mermaids don't have legs, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
20. single certain girl said the following at 7:38 AM on May 16:
ahh the great debate over the naked human form. i love that nudity is bad, it cracks me up. so this crazy group of 'christians' is boycotting the starbucks logo and making a to-do about it. meanwhile i can't watch tv without over-sexualized ads for beer, cars, and stupid sitcoms.
21. kaj said the following at 7:49 AM on May 16:
Do they also have plans to protest art museums, where there may be paintings of the Nativity (the Baby Jesus depicted in such is often not wearing a diaper!)
22. Louise said the following at 8:07 AM on May 16:
I personally have never heard of a double-fin mermaid.
:0!
23. Jennifer said the following at 8:42 AM on May 16:
Normally I'm the first to say that certain conservative groups are too uptight, but I'm not a fan of that logo either. I don't need to see a naked woman in that much detail on the side of my coffee cup -- even if she is a fictional two-tailed mermaid.
That said, referring to the popular chain as "slutbucks" is pretty clever.
24. niki said the following at 8:56 AM on May 16:
Those are her legs?
She needs a wax!
25. niki said the following at 9:04 AM on May 16:
Also, I've noticed that those "The Way I See It"s are so ridiculous and sentimental, although Starbucks claims they do not necessarily represent the company's views.
Why not tell Starbucks the way that we see "it" (whatever "it" may be). Just as easy as dropping a comment on Boundless.
Tell Starbucks how you see it
26. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:20 AM on May 16:
Bottom line is this: there are some hacks out there, from KJV-only folks, to Landmark fundamentalists, to the Jesus Camp folks, to the perpetual boycotters, to snake handlers. And that's not accounting for the quasi-cults out there. They're the minority, but always on the radar.
If I am a non-Christian, there will always be "reasons" not to believe. Heck, I can point to any number of Christians that I can make my "bad example" for why I could refuse to become one.
But ultimately, I am responsible for what I do with the good news. God ain't gonna let me off the hook for unbelief on judgment day, simply because I saw Jesus Camp.
Honestly, I could care less what Starbucks does or doesn't do. They make good coffee, I drink it. The local Starbucks has several Christian people working there, many of whom are college students. If they feel discriminated against, they don't seem to indicate so.
27. PPC Management said the following at 10:25 AM on May 16:
Tom,
Wow - of all things to complain about!
Zach
28. Matthew said the following at 10:28 AM on May 16:
I agree with the spirit of the title. If you listen to a lot of non-Christians (something that Christians often have a hard time doing), then it becomes clear that many non-Christians don't want to become Christians because in their mind, "Christians" are silly, irresponsible, unloving, intellectually bankrupt people. This kind of thing contributes to that image, and thus the offense of Christianity is no longer Christ and His Cross (which is and should always be offensive, as should the church's teaching on sin, etc.) but instead is... some people who get funny feelings when they look at a coffee cup.
29. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:31 AM on May 16:
I like the story behind the image.
=p But then I like greek mythology.
Where I wouldn't spend much time staring at it, I think some people are picking the wrong battles...
OR...as was suggested in one of the comments on Motte's latest blog post, maybe they just feel called to fight THIS battle...and some of the rest are called to fight other battles.
Could be =p
Those that think that Tom is putting blam on the wrong people for others not becoming Christians, for some people, we will be the only Christ they ever see. We are called to bring light into darkness. If our light is a bit gawdy, off color, or too bright for eyes that are too used to the dark, then we're not being good witnesses =p
No, we can't take ultimate responsibility for their enternal souls, but we can take responsibility for our own actions.
30. Ruben Ravatsås said the following at 10:53 AM on May 16:
I'm with Sylvia
People are not becoming Christians because they love their sin and hate God.
And we need to stop crawling for them, reassuring them in their ridiculous excuse that we are the problem.
31. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:18 AM on May 16:
Jesus Himself gave an answer to this question
32. Sylvia said the following at 11:19 AM on May 16:
I didn't boycott, I didn't make a stir. And neither did like 99.98 percent of Christians.
I'm sorry but this "Evangelical guilt" is a really heavy burden to bear. Every time some Christians who are not on their best behavior get an inflated amount of press the cool thing to do as a young evangelical is to be the first to jump up and snark on them.
I'm tired of it.
The "dirty trick" that God played on us, is that while He called us to love our enemies, He told us that they will know we are His by our love for one another.
Our apparent love for the people of this world can be interpreted by the world as flattery, position seeking, attraction. People in the world try to have something to offer: money, drugs, sex, permission to sin, and the world can always choose to think the worst about our Christian love for them. For this reason, it is our love for humble, weak, simpering, sometimes judgmental,sometimes-foolish "one another" that best demonstrates our faith to the world.
And yet, we play the old "I'm not with him!" game(Gal 2:11) whenever we possibly can---not with heretics, and apostates, mind you, but with every Christian whom we believe might cause us to lose face with the people of this world. Meanwhile we are ignoring the very command that Jesus said would distinguish us.(John 13:35)
I don't mean to state that Tom, or those who agree do not love the people boycotting Starbucks. I only mean to demonstrate that the I'm-not-with-him tactic does not jive with the way God intends for us to present ourselves to the world.
Christ's yoke is easy, his burden is light. He obeyed his Father. Years later, people would misinterpret his actions, and find all sorts of reasons not to accept His gift of eternal life. We Christians, unlike Christ, have actual faults, but the yoke we are to take up is His. We need to do the will of our Father, not live out lives second guessing how it will reflect on the perverse minds of the unregenerate in whom we pray the Lord Himself is working conviction unto repentance.
33. single certain girl said the following at 12:32 PM on May 16:
you can't deny that some of us who call ourselves christians have done some pretty dumb things that have turned others off to the faith. these dumb things range from terrible to trite, but still, we've done dumb things.
i see this all the time, both at my church and my work place. people hear the word 'christian' and they immediately think of silliness like people boycotting a retro starbucks logo.
this starbucks battle is the perfect example. it's a NAKED WOMAN. as was mentioned, people don't boycott great works of art.
as for the 'i'm not with him' mentality, sure, i hope that this group's motivations are right. and i can even say, great i admire that they're trying to protect purity/decency/etc, but... i can also say that i'm saddened by their choice and wonder who is being reached for the gospel by it.
in short, right on tom.
34. Tara said the following at 12:43 PM on May 16:
I just have to say a big THANK YOU to Sylvia for her post. I thought I was alone in my feelings. "Evangelical guilt" is too tough for me to carry. I'm tired of blaming myself for why someone else isn't saved. Only God's Holy Spirit can reach out and save a person's soul. Ultimately it is between that person and God.
Saying that, we are held accountable to an extent for our poor witnesses as well. But this Starbucks issue is so laughable that neither side should take it seriously.
35. Sylvia said the following at 2:47 PM on May 16:
Thank You Tara.
I agree that we are responsible for being good witnesses. I think that is part of following Christ, and if we keep our eye's on Him, He will manage our public image as he sees fit.
Does anyone see that this blame-Christians-for-atheists thing is only hurting the people who already care? It's people who have a burden for the lost who are throwing up their hands saying "Ugh! Its enough to apologize for my own failings! I can't deal with everyone else's!"
Worse, it serves to temp the eyes of these earnest evangelists off the Lord and onto what the ears of the ungodly want to hear. (Not to mention
causing division with brothers and sisters over worldly issues as I pointed out above)
Paul urged Christians to live good lives unto the Lord, and to be willing to sacrifice for those who needed the gospel. That said, Philippians 1:15-18, demonstrates, in my opinion, that it is the Gospel itself that unbelievers need to deal with. We need to live our lives unto the Lord and give His love to those who are without him, but we also need to understand the power of the Gospel itself.
It is embarrassing that there are braying jackasses out there that preach the gospel while acting out their asinine natures, but you know what? The GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation, and his WORD will does not return void. And we should praise the Lord every time we hear the cross of Christ preached, on TBN, on the back of a truck, or out of the mouth of someone who never has and never will say another true thing.
You might say, that the Starbuxters never mentioned the gospel, never mentioned the cross---just complained. Well then, they are irrelevant. Let them do their thing. Lets just make sure that we live our own lives unto the Lord, and that at every opportunity we preach Christ and Him crucified.
36. Rachael said the following at 4:43 PM on May 16:
Tara (34) wrote: "Ultimately it is between that person and God."
-->Right. Thankfully, salvation does not rest upon people & their sin.
Sylvis (35) wrote: "And we should praise the Lord every time we hear the cross of Christ preached, on TBN, on the back of a truck, or out of the mouth of someone who never has and never will say another true thing. "
-->Interesting. Yeah, Phil. 1:18 is interesting. In my heart, I should probably extend grace more often...though...What do you think of Acts 16:16-18? I guess we should consider both passages...
Cheers!
37. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:06 PM on May 16:
What this world needs...is not another one-hit wonder with an axe to grind, another two-bit politician peddling lies, another three ring circus society
What this world needs
Is not another sign waving super saint that's better than you
I love the dialogue in that song...
pretty much, in a nut shell, it doesn't matter who is carrying the Gospel...God doesn't NEED us to do anything...he just WANTS to use us.
38. valerie said the following at 6:25 PM on May 16:
Dear Boundless,
In your eagerness to point out a mis-representation of Christianity, I fear that you have likewise succeeded in gravely mis-representing the gospel. Would it have been so difficult to take a little more time to tweak the title? Your point is not to challenge orthodoxy, so why go there? Please remember your audience--young believers do not need confusion in basic theology, and unbelievers don't need corroboration in evading God. (Not to mention that Christians must proclaim truth--no matter what our individual proclivites to exaggeration.)
Usually, I love Boundless for its thoughtfulness and humble insight. So frankly, I'm suprised this made it past the editors.
39. Sarah said the following at 9:23 PM on May 16:
The logo is disgusting.
I'm glad they're speaking out against it.
40. Kate said the following at 11:30 AM on May 17:
I was trying to remember the last time a similar image of a man was protested in such a way . . . I honestly couldn't. It irritates me that groups like this seem to only apply their high standards to women and/or images of women. Purity is not a device to control women.
Lately it seems in the media that the only time a giant fuss is raised over something being indecent, it always has to do with the female form. My favorite example is Miley Cyrus. Every talking head in the media is angry at her- where is the anger at Disney, who has no problem turning young children into multimillion dollar brands and then washing their hands of the damaging aftermath? They can just find and groom the next big thing, and they will.
We live in a society where people, especially young women, are seen as consumable and disposable.
That outrages me a lot more than any two-tailed mermaid.
(Though as an art history student, I would love to take the anti-starbucks people on a docent tour. Though the floors are marble, so it might hurt if they faint.)
41. j. said the following at 5:51 PM on May 17:
Frankly, I think this entire argument is hilarious. Why? Read on.
Ever question why the "mermaid" has two tails? The two-tailed siren was dreamed up by mythologists when people realized there wasn't a feasible way for sailors to sleep with the typical one-tailed version. The two tailed-version was conceptualized to have her genitals between the two tails. Hopefully you can fill in the blanks from here. (..and hopefully no one will get bent out of shape that I used the word genitals in the Boundless comment section...)
Go back and look at the (non-vintage version) of the logo. Yep, those things to the right and left of her head - the two tails she's holding. There's been sexual symbolism in the logo this entire time, and people raise a stink NOW because of some microscopic, semi-covered breasts? The entire concept behind the Starbucks' branding is that the coffee at Starbucks is supposed to be alluring in much the same way as the mythical siren. Not the angle I would pick were I to start a company, but an interesting branding metaphor nonetheless.
So basically, if you're going to be speaking out against the logo NOW, you should have been against the branding since you first stepped foot in a Starbucks.
Personally, I don't feel sexually entranced by a logo of a mythical creature, but I realize that it could be a stumbling block to people (especially if it's sported loud and proud on a tshirt like another commenter noted). Hopefully it isn't, but if it is you could a a) start hanging out around real girls b) visit one of the other many fine coffee shops in this world.
Personally I think the statement put out by "The Resistance" reeks of angry PTA parents; negative points to them for lashing out with "Slutbucks." We as customers have a right to tell Starbucks how we feel (and show support via money), but marching in frantically waving the Christian banner and quickly prodding it at people to try and get the best jab in might just be "Why People Don't Become Christians."
And Alex, please think before labeling something of no conceptual or artistic merit...it makes the rest of the graphic designers look bad.
42. jen said the following at 8:31 PM on May 17:
Who has too much time on their hands? The people who decided on the logo, or the ones objecting?
I guess if Starbucks hadn't decided to take over the world a few years ago, it wouldn't matter at all.
Personally, I don't much like their coffee. I drink it occasionally, but not often, and so a boycott from me wouldn't matter much.
But - until I saw that this logo is apparently temporary anyway - I was planning to hunt up the number for their corporate office and phone them. Not to complain as a Christian - although I am one. But rather to inform them that, as a straight female, I totally have NO intention of drinking coffee from a cup decorated with a picture of a naked lady spreading her legs wide to the world. To inform them that, if this is their new logo, my infrequent Starbucks visits will probably end. And to inform them that I generally find myself to be a normal, average person, and that I believe many of my acquaintances, who also represent a large segment of their desired market share, will also find their new logo highly dis-tasteful. That choosing an offensive logo might be Not a wise move for a company whose competitors (ie DD & even McD's) now now provide many of the same drinks they offer.
Well, now I might not make that call after all. Since it looks like that logo may be limited anyway.
I personally think the flaw here is the newsmedia, or anyone who thinks that Christians' objections to this logo are newsworthy. The only newsworthy question is why such a company would choose such a grossly objectionable logo. What straight woman wants to drink her coffee from between another woman's legs? And, despite Starbucks' left coast origins, straight women make up a huge proportion of their customer base.
43. Chris said the following at 9:29 PM on May 17:
Sarah writes:
The logo is disgusting.
I'm glad they're speaking out against it.
I guess taste is in the eye of the beholder. I'm curious as to why you think it's disgusting. I zoomed in on the image. I can see no explicit details.
I suppose it could be worse, though. What I call the "sucking chest wound Jesus statues" that one commonly sees in Catholic churches and homes used to scare the life out of me as a kid. (If you've seen 'em, you know what I'm talking about.)
44. Leah said the following at 7:12 AM on May 18:
valerie- I must say I don't understand your problem. The title has nothing to do with theology and I don't think it would confuse "young" believers. It's true- a lot of people are repelled from Christianity because of extremist radicals who protest and stand out against silly little irrelevant unimportant things, like the starbucks logo.
Sarah- an honest question, but how is the logo disgusting? Look in any publication of ancient greek stories which contain sirens, and you'll see the same thing. It's a mermaid with two tails. Her breasts are stylised and not graphic in the least, and the way the two tails are split is a design issue, to fit within the circle and give it a look of symmetry. It's not erotic, graphic, and I am honestly confused by anyone who thinks it's disgusting.
Sylvia and Tara- of course it is only the gospel (and God, who works through the gospel) who makes Christians. Boundless knows that. I think you're getting a little theologically pedantic. But Satan uses things to repel people from God too, and extremist fanatics like the people protesting this silly little logo are a very possible tool of his.
(Please keep in mind I am not calling them "tools of the devil" in the conventional sense of the phrase, just saying that it is very possible Satan uses people like this to repel others away from Christ.)
Single Certain Girl is right on the money.
45. Mrs. B said the following at 8:40 PM on May 18:
I have to admit, it was stuff like this that meant "Christian" in my head before I was a believer. This, and the show-up-on-Sunday-with-a-hangover kind of "Christians" at my high school. I remember laying in bed at night wondering if God was real and thinking if He was He probably wasn't Christian because those people were always angry about something ridiculous.
As far as the Evangelical burden thing goes, I don't think it's so much a need to think, "Oh man! Every time I mess up it could cause a non-believer to stumble." When I wasn't a believer, I didn't expect Christians to be perfect (and the ones who seemingly were were way more intimidating), but when I saw brazen hypocrisy or ill-motivated, showy action *that* was what turned me off. And I have to wonder what is motivating these people - being "right" and making a point to show they're better and more pure than others, or bringing God glory by advancing the Gospel.
I must say, to me at least, there is always a haughtiness that comes with boycotting like this. If your personal conviction is to boycott something yourself that's fine, but being a squeaky wheel is just plain annoying (and can slow the wagon down).
I'd like to echo the comments of a few other posters on here and in the links - how big a deal is this compared to feeding the hungry, loving your neighbor, etc...? What brings God more glory? And can anybody show me evidence that Jesus would have done something like this?
But then again, I'm pretty much never one to pick Thin Mint battles. I tend to focus on the bigger picture.
46. Henry said the following at 1:46 AM on May 19:
There is bigger fish to fry.
47. Olivia said the following at 4:49 AM on May 19:
I don't know where I first heard this. or even if it's true, but it seems fitting for the topic.
Ghandi was quoted as saying that he would become Christian if only it weren't for the Christians.
48. Loris said the following at 7:07 AM on May 19:
This is a mole hill. There's nothing risque about the logo and people are fussing over nothing.
49. Louise said the following at 11:21 AM on May 19:
This reminds of an incident approx. twenty years ago here in Chicago.
There was an art exhibit with a painting of the late mayor Harold Washington attired in women's underwear.
Well, some people decided to protest it, and as a result, the news story along with footage of the offending painting appeared on network TV news broadcasts every night for a week, thereby insuring that a lot more people saw this painting then would have had there been no protestors.
I don't go to Starbucks often....I do like their coffee but I usually purchase it in grocery stores and prepare it at home.
So...chance are I (and several others I am sure) would never have seen this "offending logo" if it wasn't for this news story that Mr. Neven brought to our attention here on this blog.
50. S said the following at 4:12 PM on May 19:
My friend Mike drinks about 3 Starbucks a day. I pointed out the new graphic on his coffee this morning, mentioning that I heard there had been discussions about it. He hadn't even noticed it. My guess is that is the case for a lot of people.
51. brx said the following at 4:24 PM on May 19:
I find it interesting that it's not exactly a new logo - in a way, it's zooming out from the regular logo to see a more complete picture of what might be going on.
Sirens, seductions, a mermaid spreading her tails, prostitute, pornea? Possibly - you pays yous money, you get yous temporary pleasure.
A provocative conversation starter, I think.
No need to waive a "christian" banner; let each one be convinced in his own mind and act concientiously.
Grace, peace & courage.
52. Louise said the following at 10:18 AM on May 20:
Maybe the mermaid isn't behaving like a prostitute.
Maybe she's married and is merely preparing for her husband.
:)
53. Dan *real name* said the following at 1:35 PM on May 20:
Louise #49:
In my post #12, that is precisely the point I was making, although I wasn't necessarily pointing my finger at Tom Neven. Again my point was that there was something about the logo I maybe would have not noticed had it not been pointed out in the article. As brx said in post #51, let each of us be convinced in our own minds.
54. Louise said the following at 2:47 PM on May 20:
Re comment 53, I doubt very much that either the Starbucks logo or the Harold Washington painting would ever cause anyone to "stumble."
Comment 49 merely pointed out the irony of the situation, that in protesting a work that a group of people consider "unfit for viewing" said protest virtually ensures that said work will be viewed by several people!