I guess I am failing to see what is wrong with raising 18 million for AIDS.

Other than Josh pointing out the glaring inconsistency in their approach? they’re capitalizing on the new trendy social justice push to sell more clothes. The money raised for AIDS is completely secondary to their primary goal of looking good in the eyes of those buying into the justice trend…the ones who clamor to buy the shirt but don’t ask any deeper questions about where the shirts are coming from.

The Gap, without any major effort, could skim some of the cash off the top of the money they’ve saved through sweatshop slave labor and give straight to the AIDS epidemic. 18 million is nothing to them.

Josh is unveiling it for the glaring hypocrisy it is. This isn’t even an issue of relative injustice. It’s obvious.

It’s just as smarmy in my eyes as Brad Pitt (who makes a minimum of 20 mill a movie) appearing on the ONE campaign website to mobilize the middle class masses to give their twenty bucks as they struggle to make ends meet. Pitt could sell two houses and give all his cash from a year’s worth of movies and it wouldn’t make him bear a bit of real cost, and yet he dares to beg US to give sacrificially to this cause?

Come on!

(last phrase uttered in best Gob voice)

18 million given for the point of a tax write-off.

why not just give the 18 million out right. instead of spending 100 million to raise 18 million. the way i see that’s 82 million wasted.

why not keep the 18 million as profit and give away the 82 million. and why not close down a few sweat shops while they’re at it.

Both “why not just give the 18 million out right” and “why not keep the 18 million as profit and give away the 82 million” are hypotheticals that did not happen and will not happen, especially at a publicly traded company (and in the interest of sounding like a jackass,The Gap, Inc NYSE:GPS 17.97+0.09/ +0.50% 2:24pm ET, apparently investors are mildly pleased with Josh’s post, with volume above average).

Anyway, Gap did what they did, and sent their 18 mil along. It’s a done deal, they aren’t gonna do it any other way, and its fairly out of balance. What exactly were you expecting to happen? They were gonna sacrificially give and cut costs just to squeeze out a few more hundred k for the cause of AIDS?

Didn’t think so. I fully agree its fancy marketing, following a cause for profit/goodwill, hypocritical, etc, etc. By all means, don’t buy their clothes if it bothers you that much. But here’s the bottom line: they gave $18 million bucks for AIDS. This is exactly $18,000,000 more than anyone expected them to give away if they didn’t bother with this campaign. It’s also close to $18,000,000 more than anyone reading this will ever give away.

At the end of the day, that’s a whole hell of a lot more than I’ve done for the cause of AIDS, pure motives or otherwise. I know, I know, Jesus says to not to announce it when you give (the antithesis of what they did, basically), and that the one who gives sacrificially gives more than the one whose gift doesn’t hurt… well maybe if we as believers started actually doing those things, the Gap corporation wouldn’t see this as a way to make the American community see them as a socially responsible corporation.

It reminds me of Shane Claiborne in The Irresistible Revolution talking about Bono and others being advocates for those who have nothing and it being a huge deal. This is a paraphrase, but he basically says, “God did say that if we do not praise[or rather in this case, act], the rocks will cry out… well, at least the rock stars.”

Kevin Cawley mentioned this today on his blog. He offered the site… uh… buylesscrap.org.

Whole writeup-
http://cawley.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/how_beneficial_.html

I prefer the Buying Less Crap thing.

Again. . . we all live in inconsistencies. . I am sure if we measure what we make versus what we give ours look the same. . . my point is that it is GAP’s money to do with what they want. . they happen to give 18 million to help AIDS. . could they have given more? Sure. . . couldn’t we all? Sure. But as it was said ‘its a done deal’ and it will help people.

If you don’t like it do as Jordon Cooper says give your money somewhere else. People are going to buy trendy things anyway. . . so why is it a problem that it is trendy to give to an expensive shirt.

I mean tithing is a crapshoot. . most of the money goes to the church and doesn’t go to help others, but tithers don’t seem to care.

Why blast gap for doing what they have always done? AIDS funding just got 18 million, can we appreciate that?

Did anyone buy a red product? Do you have grivences?

You make some good points, Eric, but here is my issue;

“It’s also close to $18,000,000 more than anyone reading this will ever give away. At the end of the day, that’s a whole hell of a lot more than I’ve done for the cause of AIDS, pure motives or otherwise.”

I’m honestly tired of hearing and seeing these money figures tossed around.that continue to imply that those who have the ridiculous amounts of cash are more important than those who don’t. Maybe the 18 million sounds good to the ears, but it IS all about heart + actions, and the poor widow DID give more than the wealthy Pharisees, and our pursuit of purity and justice as Christfollowers IS worth more to God than a hypocritical company riding the latest social wave.

I reject the notion that Gap’s 18 mill is worth more than my 10% tithing minimum to my local church community and charitable giving (including my service) above that.

So Gap gave some cash. Good. Maybe people will care enough about the mixed message to dig deeper. And in the meantime, I’ll continue to whine about unethical and inhumane practices about companies, pursue education about the most heinous offenders, and line my spending up accordingly.

The church is meant to be a thorn in the side of society. From now until the end. I won’t settle.

nick- you make a very good point in that most people’s “tithe” (whatever that means in the new covenant) almost completely goes to pay off building mortgages and utility bills that could be completely avoided and used instead to meet basic human needs.

i feel like all this discussion of the gap is just a scapegoat for the main issue. i mean, the gap is a *clothing* company. i’m not sure why anyone expects them to do anything other than what they’re doing. i agree it’d be great if they did, but perhaps there are bigger fish to fry:

if the church started for the first time in history giving most of their money to the places that Jesus and the new testament writers taught it should go (in my interpretation), do you have any idea how many times over that 18 mil could be eclipsed on ONE SINGLE SUNDAY?

i think everybody’s time would be better spent fostering faith communities who can give all their money to these type things. i really believe these type needs are more deserving of our money as believers than big buildings, cutting edge media, spiritual art, you name it.

why not call the church out? if the church believed God put the church in place to feed the poor it wouldn’t matter what Gap was or wasn’t doing.

D10 – thanks for grabbing my point and taking it to the next level.

Why put companies on trial. . . they never said that they are the religiously pure. They are a company. . . they said they would give half of the profits and they did. . . SO WHAT. . . if you think that you are more pure than them with a widows mite . . . that is fine. . . they are not claiming purity.

I mean am I wrong and just out of touch here. . . why are we holding them to a pure motive standard. . .

my point in mentioning it was never to put them on trial or to play morality police.

i’m just more or less tired of GAP and other mega-corporations acting like they are these big social justice advocates. it just seems so fake in a campaign like that. which was my point. attempting to point out how fake, contrived and back-handed the campaign is at its nature. spending 100 million to make 18 seems like really bad math.

it’s just bad logic. it’s like a pastor telling his congregation to spend money, put your tithe on your credit card, and drive around in a hummer . . . then and only then can you give money away to the poor.

if it’s excess. it should be called excess. just like when i have excess in my life, it should be called that.

i also understand that there is a tension with jesus. eric’s point . . . if they’re not against us, then they are for us. and nathan’s point . . . it’s not “what” they give but “how” they give.

i would just say that GAP’s policy and ethics as a whole are more materialistic and consumeristic than kingdom of God. so in that vein, they are against God’s agenda. and for that it should be brought to the surface. non-christian companies and people need to be called back to the center as much as christians do.

See I think there isn’t a clear logical arguement here.

To say they spent 100 million to get 18 million is inaccurate. They spent 100 million to make a hell of a lot of money. Whether people even bought the Red Products doesn’t matter. . . it was advertising for Gap. . . they got a service for their 100 million. Lots of companies spend that. .

They added a gimmick. . . they gave away half of the profits on one product. Everyone got was was promised. . . no one was shafted.

I think every company is materialistic and more consumeristic than the kingdom of god that says give it all away.

that doesn’t mean they are inconsistant or evil. they just don’t have the same agenda as the kingdom of god. our thoughts on that are relative to our own beliefs.

spelling mistakes duely noted.

[...] Josh Brown: Product(RED) [...]

I think I have to side with Nick on this one. Gap is in business to make money. It is a publically traded company so stock holders are at the core expecting a return on their investment and they are not expecting to give it all away. I agree with Nick that the Gap made a ton of money and they gave a lot away. They did not have to give any away. And while they certainly got some good press in this as being socially aware they still held up their end of the bargain.

In regards to comparing it to tithing. that is an interesting point. I was always taught that it is not about equal gifts but about equal sacrifice. So the number gave really is not all that relevant but what is relevant is the sacrifice. I can tell you that for any publicly traded company to give away 18 million dollars is a a pretty serious comittment. We cannot hold the world to the same standard so even that they did anything at all I think is a step in the right direction. Maybe the motives were no pure. Who cares. A hell of a lot of money was given to Africa for AIDS from a company that is not founded on anything related to the kingdom. I think you take that money and say thank you very much.

Nick, you said in two different responses;
“I mean am I wrong and just out of touch here. . . why are we holding them to a pure motive standard. ”

and

“I think every company is materialistic and more consumeristic than the kingdom of god that says give it all away.”

In a similar vein, d10 said

“if the church started for the first time in history giving most of their money to the places that Jesus and the new testament writers taught it should go (in my interpretation), do you have any idea how many times over that 18 mil could be eclipsed on ONE SINGLE SUNDAY?…why not call the church out? if the church believed God put the church in place to feed the poor it wouldn’t matter what Gap was or wasn’t doing.”

Talk about a perfectionistic ethic!!! You guys speak of realism in expectations of GAP while simultaneously holding the church to a ridiculous standard.

First, I think there’s a big difference between the impulse of “pure motive” and the impulse of “give it all away.” In only one place in the gospels does Jesus say “give it all away” (in his conversation with the rich young ruler) and some serious time spent on interpretation should lead us to the conclusion that he was addressing what this man’s life hinged on; his possessions. The early church’s approach to this (which provides a tremendous model for God’s people) was not to “give everything away,” but instead to hold everything in common and sell things as necessary to meet the needs of the community. The perfectionistic ethic of “give everything away” simply doesn’t exist in the NT.

But “pure motive” is a whole ‘nother animal. I definitely believe we are called as Christfollowers to a life example of pure motive + responsible action, and that this example is meant to set the pace for the way the world is to live. We’re all familiar with Jesus lacing into the Pharisees, but in other places he says to the disciples, “I tell you this, if your righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees, you will surely not enter the kingdom of heaven.” The Pharisaic concern for the law of God was not a bad thing (and in fact Jesus came to fulfill the law)…their pursuit of righteousness according to God’s law was even a good thing in the eyes of Jesus…but it was their underlying motive that was so twisted.

In short, the church has two main duties, in my estimation, for the world:
1) to show how humanity is meant to live (though as humans we live into that in fits and starts), and
2) to speak to nations and peoples about their motives and actions and call them to a higher account.

In other words, we CAN speak to GAP’s motivations and actions whether they’re a publicly traded company or not. They’re accountable to the world for their actions, and we have a number of means to address that issue. The very first thing we can do (that Josh is doing) is expose their hypocrisy. They gave money to AIDS? Good. Now amp up your commitment to a higher level. I guarantee you if the shareholders of GAP and the consumers of their product start using their leverage with stock and the power of the purse respectively, GAP will eventually have to respond or risk failure. But people have to care enough to act.

And d10, “if the church started for the first time in history” as a comment is disingenuous at best and ridiculous at worst. With all of her failures, the church has been the biggest social force for change this world has ever seen…and even in her crippled, individualistic, self-centered state in America is STILL having an incredible impact on her society. You suck all the food pantries, homeless shelters, thrift stores, ministries of service, and charities of the church out of our society, and mass pandemonium would ensue.

I know you guys have a bad taste in your mouth with church communities you’ve been a part of that are more self-serving than self-sacrificing and giving, but give me a break! Don’t expect perfection from an institution inhabited by imperfect people like you! Hold them to a higher standard? Yes. Of course. But “for the first time in history” comments are ridiculous. The church is doing a heck of a lot of good in society; with an incredible potential for greater good.

And irregardless of the church’s success in giving and overflowing love into the communities surrounding it, the world is still a twisted, dark place, and companies and nations and individuals still need to be held to higher account for their practices…from now ’till judgment day.

All human beings are held to a “pure motive” standard as God’s creation.

All I am saying is comparing GAP to the Church is comparing two completely different things.

One standards are not the others. Moreover comparing GAP to the kingdom of god is again a bad comparison.

I am also saying AIDS relief got 18 million dollars and that is a good thing.

If you don’t like GAP don’t shop there – but why levy attacks that they aren’t giving enough? They don’t have to give at all.

Forgive me for bringing the church into the equation. . lets take it out. 18 million dollars will help AIDS die out and that is good.

ok. lets take GAP out of the equation. let’s not speak prophetically about the corporate empire.

let’s just shift this conversation towards the dumbasses who think that that buying a $50 t-shirt will help make the world a better place.

Nate- First of all, okay I see your point and agree with you and I’d change the “first time in history” line if I could. It’s probably misleading but I didn’t mean it the way you took it. I don’t disagree with you that the church brings immeasurable good to our society and the world. “Disingenuous at best”… maybe a stretch for a person you’ve never met face to face. Maybe I could clarify a few things.

If you look at my original statement, the “first time in history” clause is obviously meant only in relation to churches “giving most of their money to the places that Jesus and the new testament writers taught it should go”, and that’s all I was referring to.

When I talk about giving everything away, I’m not referring to individuals in the “rich young ruler” sense, but to churches. I’m saying that I believe that most of the money that is given to churches should be given away. Or, if not given away, spent primarily on meeting basic human needs in their community. I’m certainly not saying to shut down the homeless shelters and food kitchens.

There are a great many things that I will still defend about traditional church structures, but financial responsibility with money from a “global/whole-world” perspective is not one of them. I just think that with a little creativity a lot of churches could give away 80% instead of spending that internally. Perhaps you are a part of a community that functions more in this way and if so, I think that’s great.

Could churches do that without drastic changes? Obviously no, but why not dream big for the church too? Is that a perfectionistic ethic? That’s an interesting question. Yesterday I read a quote on http://www.servlife.org by Joel Vestal (who heads up the ministry). In it he says:

I wholly believe God’s people possess the resources to accomplish God’s purposes in the world. Read it here

What do you think about that? That’s the perspective of one of the greatest leaders in Christian justice. I read that and feel I have a lot to learn.

So yes, I agree that I wish the Gap would give away more, but my heart is in seeing the church participate more in these things than it does. And it’s entirely my personal opinion, but I believe our time would be better spent there.

The difference between church and world is relatively simple and distinct.

The church is made up of those who have submitted to the Lordship of Christ and are living into that pursuit. The world is made up of those who have not. This much is simple and true.

The role of the church, then, as those who call Jesus Lord, is to call others into this same relationship that brings expectations in order to continue to enjoy and grow in the relationship. So the church endeavors to be faithful while calling the world to higher account. The world includes GAP.

In a world without moral expectation or prophetic imagination, no, GAP doesn’t have to give at all. The system of capitalism and their identity as a corporation depends on their sole pursuit of profit to benefit the company and its shareholders…everyone else be damned. They are not accountable for any stage of production, worker treatment, price-setting, pollution, business dealings, etc…they only should be driven by the profit motive.

I think we can agree that this is a bad thing. It’s the economic principle of externalities. No corporation or person exists in a vacuum. How can GAP know there’s a higher standard than the profit motive if no one tells them? And how can they make progress toward that standard unless maintaining the status quo becomes costly to them in real, tangible terms?

The world needs the church for both moral signposts along the way as well as prophetic imagination.

GAP wouldn’t give 18 mill if there wasn’t some moral pressure exerted on it to be perceived as a company that gives a rip about social justice. I acknowledge their gift. Good for them.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about further steps they can take…in fact, we should, because if we don’t, they’ll settle for where they are now. Right? Right?

We all need challenge as well as grace. There’s a tension here, and GAP isn’t “Christian” in any sense of the often vacuous term, but we CAN hold them to a higher standard.

And I’m not buying a $50 tshirt with a pittance offered for AIDS relief when I can buy a shirt at Goodwill for $5 and almost 100% is going towards addressing the cancer of poverty. My personal decision.

d10

i definitely see your point..and forgive me for my more aggressive answer there.

I just tend to react negatively when folks seeking to speak prophetically speak of “church” as a negative, monolithic entity. Using the term in such a sweeping way negates the power of using the term in the first place, simply because the church expresses itself in any number of flavors, sometimes many on the same city block…and the discussion of meeting needs as the church is always one of relativity. It’s similar to Niebuhr’s famous book Christ and Culture where he talks about “culture” as a monolithic entity. Culture, like church, is far too complex a reality to be summed up in a stereotype.

Can a stereotype be used effectively in some cases to prove a point? I think so, but in this case, I don’t see the effectiveness.

I agree with Joel that God’s people have tremendous untapped potential, though I wouldn’t extend the comment to suggest we have the resources to “accomplish God’s purposes in the world” quite so quickly. God’s purposes are huge and varied (bigger than we can imagine or conceive of)…

I do think God’s people could be much more creative in their interactions with the world and much more generous monetarily and physically. And I think your bolded statement is incredibly important and accurate.

Again, I ask forgiveness for going over the top a bit.

Great. . . so we can applaud GAP’s 18 million that is there money in the first place. . . understand they can do whatever they want with money they make. . . they are not under the imperial rule of the kingdom . . . and maybe out of thanking them for the 18 million encourage further opprotunities that will do more?

p.s. when i talked about “giving everything away,” I wasn’t speaking to d10, who didn’t address that in his comments, but to nick.

This is a great (kick ass!) conversation. Personally, i just hate advertising and corporations, so i say screw any company that exploits people (or a disease those people may have acquired) for their own profit.

The real issue is what happens in two years (or less) when being “socially aware” isn’t trendy? Are these companies helping to create a sustainable base for a greater social consciousness about what is happening in the rest of the world?

And how disconnected (and selfish) are we as a culture that we see helping others only in terms of our own capital gain?

I’ll start the whole Capitalism debate up again with a quote from Richard Moore’s “Escaping The Matrix”:

“Capitalism is basically the belief that those who have the most spare money — the most capital — should decide how our societies develop [and how other societies are aided]. This is a political belief, a belief about who should make the important societal decisions. It is an entirely undemocratic belief; in fact it is a belief in the virtue of plutocracy — rule by the wealthy.”

The idea that a few, rich countries/corporations should own most all of the wealth (and in turn be allowed to decide how that is distributed) in the world is ridiculous and unacceptable.

[...] At the risk of putting up 4 posts before noon . . . this does fit well with our very animated conversation on GAP and The Red Campaign from earlier in the week. [...]

[...] Josh B. – Questioning Product RED [...]

Wow, I’m way late at this. but here’s my quick thought.

I think Josh’s point and the reason it’s worth mentioning all this is that we have an opportunity to speak an alternative to the multi million dollar campaign. We have a chance to say hey! don’t buy that shirt and wipe away your guilt, do something more.
We have a chance to point out the scheme behind the campaign and how it’s not really helping