On | Off

Small | Medium | Large

The Baptists and Disney

Is it godly to pick on a mouse?

by Dennis Pollock

Oh, how the liberals howled when the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly to impose a boycott upon the Disney Company! "Mean-spirited and hateful," they whined. "Won't accomplish anything," they ranted.

Newspapers and television stations scoured the countryside, tripping over one another to find a Baptist, any Baptist, who would say something derogatory about the boycott. Feverishly, almost desperately, they tried to gather all of America into their consensus that the Baptists had taken the low moral ground for daring to criticize and take action against the nation's number one producer of children's entertainment.

I am not a Baptist, nor a son of a Baptist. Nevertheless I have to say from the start that I applaud their courage and conviction to take a public stand against the immorality of a company that purports to be a provider of "family entertainment." It is interesting to notice the variety of arguments made by liberals in giving their reasons why the Baptists should have left Disney alone. Here are some of their major protestations, followed by a few observations of my own.

"Disney is simply being fair to homosexuals in allowing them the same benefits that married heterosexuals receive."

In deciding to grant homosexuals the same benefits as married heterosexuals, Disney has endorsed homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. What is interesting is that these benefits are not allowed to heterosexuals who are living together without the benefit of marriage. So if a man and a woman shack up, Disney refuses to recognize their relationship, but as soon as a homosexual finds a gay partner, he can petition Disney for all the same benefits and privileges as married heterosexuals are allowed.

For two hundred years in our nation's history, it would have been laughable for a homosexual to go to his boss and demand that his gay lover receive insurance or other benefits allowed for spouses of employees. Yet in the last decade we have decided that this is "being fair." Why the sudden change? It must be that either a) God's standards have changed, or b) There never really were any standards, or c) America is growing increasingly wicked and forsaking those Biblical standards which will never change. I vote for the third statement! (In case you wondered).

Disney has gone far beyond this, however. This company seems to be saturated with homosexuals. In an interview with the homosexual publication The Advocate, one of Disney's vice presidents stated, "There are a lot of gay people (at Disney) at every level. It is a very supportive environment." Disney hired an avowed lesbian to develop female and lesbian movies. Disney owned Hyperion Press published the book Growing Up Gay. Written by three homosexual comedians, the book is aimed at "gay youngsters who were bred by heterosexuals." Hyperion also published America's most popular transvestite, RuPaul's autobiography. Disney's Miramax film company produced the movie Priest, which is openly pro-homosexual and anti-Christian. And of course, there is Ellen, whose coming out as a lesbian on Disney owned ABC gave great joy to all those who savor immorality and find God's "Thou shalt not's" distasteful.

Much of the news media has tried to portray the Baptist boycott as merely an overreaction to one or two decisions that were merely providing fair treatment for all employees. When one looks at the plethora of products, policies, and decisions by Disney which support immorality, it is clear that this boycott is about more than the overreaction of a few angry fundamentalists. Disney has not merely tolerated homosexuality; they seem intent on actively promoting it.

"The Baptists can only deliver a small portion of their number to participate. This boycott cannot possibly be effective."

For the next couple of days after the boycott was voted on, it seemed that reporters everywhere were harking on the theme that this boycott couldn't possibly be effective — that very few Baptists would support it and Disney was too big to be hurt by the actions of a few bigots. Baptists were too independent to listen to such a resolution anyway, etc. etc. etc. The implication was, "You shouldn't have done this naughty thing, but having done it, it won't work; and by the way, that is just one more reason you shouldn't have done it."

The implication of this line of argument is that one should attempt only those courageous stands that he has a reasonable hope of gaining some success. While this may sound logical enough, if this line of thinking had been taken by all of history's great reformers, we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

Are we only to attempt those endeavors which come with a built in guarantee of success? What if Martin Luther had thought like this? The odds that he would topple the current popular notion of justification by works and rituals was virtually nil. But then, I guess there were no pundits and reporters to tell him that.

When Martin Luther King Jr. began to speak out against ancient entrenched policies of segregation that permeated the South, who would have given him favorable odds of making those very policies look absurd and unbelievable to today's generation of young people? Somehow he forgot the odds, and went right on with what he knew to be right. Who can deny that America is the better for it?

Whether or not this boycott can bring Disney to its knees is not the point. Evangelicals of all persuasions are sensing that it is time that we made our voice heard. God once told Ezekiel to preach to Israel a message of repentance. Ezekiel was given no guarantee of success. As a matter of fact, God seemed to suggest that the important thing was merely to proclaim the message, telling him, "Whether they hear or not, they will know that a prophet has been among them" (Ezekiel 2:5).

Actually the boycott has already succeeded by calling a major corporation to account. It has communicated the message that God is a holy God and does not countenance immorality. Disney's stock went down $1.50 on the day the boycott was announced. One commentator suggested that the boycott would have less than a five percent impact on Disney, but even that little an impact would equate into hundreds of millions of dollars. And while clearly not every Baptist is going to heed the boycott, many thousands of conservative Evangelicals are going to be encouraged by the Baptist action to join their brothers and sisters in standing for righteousness.

Only a few days after the boycott was announced, Disney recalled an estimated 100,000 copies of a new, obscenity-laced album from store shelves. They claimed that this album, The Great Milenko, slipped through their review system, and that the recall had nothing to do with the boycott. However, it is interesting that no Disney record label has ever recalled an album before, and such a move is nearly unheard of in the music business. Whether the boycott is fully responsible for this, we cannot say, but one thing is sure: Disney will be looking a little bit longer and a little bit harder at the records and movies they produce and release in the near future, keeping an ever-watchful eye on public relations.

"The Baptists are being mean-spirited and hateful. Don't they know that Christians are supposed to be non-judgmental?"

This argument is so contrary to the Scriptures and their revelation of the holiness of God, that if it weren't so pathetic it would be humorous. If calling sinners to account and taking a stand for public morality is somehow antithetical to the nature of God, then nearly every heroic character of the Bible must have really missed it!

Take John the Baptist for example. He didn't come from the wilderness proclaiming a watered down message of God's tolerance for all people, regardless of their behavior. His message was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 3:2). What was it that ultimately cost John his life? It was his fearless declaration to King Herod that, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Such a intolerant concept — lawful. It almost gives you the idea that God actually dislikes certain types of behaviors!)

Jesus Himself was never reticent to deal strongly with issues of morality. He told His disciples that the reason that the world hated Him so much, and not them, was, "Because I testify that its works are evil" (John 7:7). The truth is, Christians not only have a right to make public commentary on the policies and practices of the world they live in; they have an obligation. God told Ezekiel, "If you do not warn the wicked, his blood will I require at your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). Rebuking the wicked for their sin is the ultimate expression of genuine concern. Love can do no less.

Is it Scriptural?

Is the concept of boycotting biblical? Well, you won't find the term in your concordance. There were no huge corporations like Disney or Kmart to boycott in Jesus or Paul's day. But there is a situation which seems to come somewhat close. Paul told the Corinthian Christians not to have anything to do with those who professed to be fellow-believers, but indulged in sexual immorality. In fact they were not even allowed to have a meal with such persons.

In our current obsession with tolerance, many would consider this to be cruel and inhumane punishment, the ultimate in narrow-minded bigotry. Yet Paul was not being hateful; he was trying to bring the wayward individual to a place of repentance. In a similar situation, he tells the Thessalonians not to have anything to do with such a one "that he may be ashamed" (2 Thessalonians 3:14). He then adds, "Don't count him as an enemy, but admonish (warn) him as a brother." There are times when those who pretend to stand for righteousness (or family entertainment) are so far off the mark that only the shock of a public rebuke has any chance of opening their eyes to the folly of the course they have chosen.

Will Disney come, hat in hand, to the Baptists asking for absolution? Not likely. Will the boycott push them into bankruptcy? No way. But the public debate about their morals, and the lack thereof, has to have some effect. Like most major corporations that depend upon public confidence for their survival, they are supremely concerned about public relations. They have received a tremendous amount of publicity, which, scoffing as the liberals reporters have been, has instilled a doubt in the public mind about the morals and motives of the gigantic offspring of Walt Disney. Future decisions hashed out in their boardrooms will be made in the light of this, and that couldn't help but improve things.

For the Baptists and all other Evangelical Christians, we must continue to speak out on the issues of our day. This is not some new Christian "activism" invented by the Christian Coalition. We are simply following the lead of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and John the Baptist — all of whom endured the scorn of their generations in order to be a conscience to a culture that seemed desperate to live without one.