Bathrooms, Politics and Christianity

Image Courtesy of: WIKIPEDIA COMMONS

21 March 2016 (Mint Hill, NC) - Several weeks ago the Charlotte City Council voted to mandate that public bathrooms be no longer gender specific.  Without going into explicit details such an ordinance will allow deviancy to become legally, though not morally, normative.  The personal privacy of individuals will be at least compromised.  The worst case, of course, is that the safety and security of individuals will be threatened.  Under the guise of "sexual orientation confusion," deviants will proceed into bathrooms of the opposite sex for less than honorable pursuits.

What should the response be to this by Christians?  

There are two possible responses.  One is to take the historical view of the early church and not engage at all in the political process.  The other is to use whatever biblical allowable means available to challenge this turn to immorality in our community.  We will here explore both options.

The first option, to do nothing, comes from a misapplication of ancient history.  First and second century Christians, according to the Roman philosopher Celsus (image noted above), refused service in the military, did not engage in any kind of empire politics and did not even participate in the running of local municipalities.  The much admired and lamented bro. David Lipscomb held this view for American church members in the 19th century.  With all due respect to our late brother, to apply Roman conditions to American conditions is simply trying to compare apples to oranges.  The "dog just won't hunt."

We should go to the Patristics (the so-called "church fathers") for history but never for theology.  For theology, we go exclusively to the Holy Writ.  Christians never participated with Rome for such a participation would constitute an "unequal yoking."  The reason being of course, is that the early Christians intuitively knew that Rome was the "Beast."  (Revelation 13)

No such designation could ever be applied today to our Nation, to our Declaration and to our Constitution.  Our Republic, like no other, acknowledges that ALL rights descend, not from other men as was the case with Rome, but from God Himself!  In fact, Peter, by inspiration tells us to "honor the king."  (I Peter 2.17)  Just who is our king in the United States?  Our king, to which we give honor, is the Declaration and the Constitution.  We give honor to our king, not by disengaging in the political process, but by embracing the political process!

Therefore, option two is biblically viable for the church today here in America.  So...how does this play out in our time and place?  

*  The biblical truth concerning Christian morality must be heralded continually from our pulpits. Namely, ALL sexual contact outside of marriage between one man and one woman for life is immoral and damnable.

*  Our approach to all parties should be one characterized by "truth in love," never with anger, rancor, threats, shoutings or any other form of personal animosity.  Our approach should be as was Christ's; "...go and sin no more."

*  Our approach must always be within acceptable legal channels such as public hearings, prearranged visits with dignitaries, letters, emails and social media.

*  Should our pleas go unheeded, then we are free to support other candidates for the city council that oppose immorality and support our Constitutional moral order.

*  Finally, Christians should be running to serve on councils, boards and commissions so immorality will no longer raise it's ugly head in our community.

NOTE:

Since I wrote this article the Governor and Legislature of North Carolina have stepped in on the side of decency and morality to overturn the Charlotte City Councils dictatorial bathroom edict.  We thank God for their quick and decisive action.

Having said that, the likelihood of a radical court "overturning" (one cannot "overturn" what is biblical, good, pure right and moral!) this state statute is very great indeed.  The deviant parties are already rumbling about this direction.  The place to have stopped this would have been on the council itself so that there never would have been a vote in the first place.