The Evangelical culture usually fights its battles with the surrounding culture by boycotting.  I remember recently Focus on the Family calling Christians and Conservatives to boycott Abercrombie & Fitch because of their 'pornographic' advertisements.

I am more and more inclined to see boycotting as wrong headed.  What I am seeing more and more is buycotting.  Both methods see that the economy drives a good deal of what is in our culture.  If it sells there is more of it.  Boycotting assumes that if we can keep more and more people from buying products, then those products will no longer be part of the culture.  There are many problems with this though, and one of them is that many of the people who were called on to boycott A & F weren't buying their clothes from them.  Thus, the boycott would not do that much good. 

But a buycott can send a positive message.  We will buy things, and we will buy things that are good.  This way of working with economics, I think, is more influential, than simply boycotting.

This, I would argue along with Mr. Nehring, is the way foward with Christians and Hollywood.  Instead of simply boycotting movies we really wouldn't see anyway, let's make a move toward flooding the theaters, when a good movie comes out.

This is the same way Marvin Olasky argues we should deal with Peter Singer and his idolatrous views.  He writes,

" So, the future: The better way is to demand and support only programs that provide an alternative to Singerism -- Princeton has done that through the creation of its James Madison program -- and to debate Singer not only on theoretical grounds, but also on the practical applications of his proposals." (Read the whole piece here).

We can't simply boycott, we must buycott as well.  Speak with your money.  Be bold!