Starbucks & Christmas

on November 10, 2015

A previously obscure online eccentric evangelist has criticized Starbucks’ new plain holiday season cups denuded of traditional secular Christmas symbols, like snow flakes, as anti-Christian, igniting lots of media buzz and online chatter. It’s an old storyline. A purported Evangelical ignoramus makes outrageous public claims to universal ridicule, often led by other Evangelicals.

The new cup design, in simple red and green, actually looks pretty tasteful and is still clearly seasonal. Unfortunately, Starbucks reacted to the faux controversy with a hyper politically correct and pompous explanation including these stupefying quotes:

“In the past, we have told stories with our holiday cups designs. This year we wanted to usher in the holidays with a purity of design that welcomes all of our stories.”

“Starbucks has become a place of sanctuary during the holidays. We’re embracing the simplicity and the quietness of it. It’s more open way to usher in the holiday.”

“Creating a culture of belonging, inclusion and diversity is one of the core values of Starbucks, and each year during the holidays the company aims to bring customers an experience that inspires the spirit of the season. Starbucks will continue to embrace and welcome customers from all backgrounds and religions in our stores around the world.”

So these red and green cups welcome “all of our stories,” offer “sanctuary,” and embody “inclusion and diversity.” Yuck. This post modern narrative-speak sounds worse, or at least more banal, than the crazy evangelist critic who apparently has also entered Starbucks with a holstered revolver to make his own statement about gun rights.

Some Evangelicals have rushed to condemn the crazy evangelist with the solemn insistence that Starbucks should not be expected to evangelize for the Gospel, which is instead the obligation of individual Christians, etc, etc, etc. Indeed.

No, big corporations aren’t expected to promote Christian theological understanding. But Christmas is a nearly global holiday, celebrated by hundreds of millions of non Christians. Starbucks cites the “spirit of the season,” which begs the question, on what exactly is that “spirit” based?

There’s no need for Starbucks or other organs of popular culture to specifically cite the Nativity Story. But there’s also no need to minimize what Christmas traditionally is in a bid for “inclusion and diversity.” Very few are the non-Christians who are actually offended by Christmas celebration in public life. Around the world Christmas is enjoyed by Chinese communists, Hindus, Muslims and many others with all the cultural bricka brack for which the season has become universally beloved. More power to them. To the extent Christmas fosters generosity and high spirits, it speaks to every human heart and culture.

Scolds in government, media or the corporate world who think Christmas must be sanitized of any significant spiritual and cultural meaning do favors for nobody, least of all the typical non Christian or rare genuine secularist who enjoys holiday lights, trees, gift giving and carols.

Christian purists who also join the chorus against cultural Christmas by implying the holiday, to retain its integrity, and to avoid any offense, must retreat into churches and private homes, with apologies to everybody for centuries of imposition, are nearly as irritating as the scolds.

Some Christians may see such a retreat as an act of humility. But it would deprive the wider culture of one of Christendom’s greatest gifts to all humanity, without which the world would be darker, duller, and less joyful. Wherever Christmas is celebrated, in whatever form, it elevates the human spirit and points to the divine.

  1. Comment by MarcoPolo on November 10, 2015 at 8:18 am

    Thanks Mark Tooley, for a well written perspective.
    Cogent, compassionate and consistent with your faith.
    And a Joyous Festivus to ALL!

  2. Comment by John Hutchinson on November 13, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Mr. Tooley. You are not thinking too straight. Our concern is not about retreating into our ideologically and ethically gated communities and hidden valleys. The issue is that if we insist upon the right for Christian wedding cake makers, florists etc. not to have to act in ways that give sanction to things that violate their own conscience, we cannot expect that our adversaries should not have the same right. We undermine the rational, ethical, and judicial credibility of our argument by such inconsistency and hypocrisy.

    Indeed, I would suggest that you are violating the ethics and ethos of the Scriptures by doing so (Romans 14, or Matt 15:14).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.