A Christian Call to Arms!!!

In the past year, it's been almost impossible to avoid the issue of gun control.  Gun violence has regularly dominated the news.  President Obama has vowed to make gun control a priority in his final year in office.  And, in response to recent events, many have felt the need to arm themselves, and gun sales have recently spiked.

What is a Christian to do in all of this? 

I firmly believe we are called to arm ourselves. 

However, I believe we are called to arm ourselves in a very different way than the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jr has called upon the students of Liberty University to do. 

I believe we are to arm ourselves to suffer.

The apostle Peter once said:

"Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God." (1 Peter 4:1-2; NASB) 

Armed to suffer? Say whaaa?  Ain't nobody got time for that.

...But Muslims!
...But Hitler!
...But the Second Amendment!
...But bad guys with guns!
...But late night home invasions!
...But Joel Osteen said I could have my best life now, and I can't do that if I'm dead!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's immoral or sinful to own a weapon.  Jesus isn't going to send you to hell or strike you dead for owning a gun (after all, He did once encourage his followers to carry a couple swords). 

However, in listening to the news and chatting among family, friends, and other Christians, I can't help but notice that the primary tone of the conversations taking shape.  We want to own guns, not only because it is our right, but we want to be prepared to use lethal force so that we can avoid needless death and suffering. 

Suffering, even righteous suffering, is the furthest thing from our mind.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness dominate our thinking instead.

Preserving our life and our way of life have taken priority over everything else.  We are prepared to arm ourselves, but only in order to avoid suffering.  And we find the idea of being prepared to suffer and embracing suffering to be ludicrous and completely foreign to our way of thinking. 

Yet the consistent call of the New Testament from cover to cover is for Christians to prepare themselves to suffer, even unjustly, at the hands of madmen, and to do so with the greater purposes of God and the Gospel ultimately in mind.

Owning a gun is fine, and I'll never object to you owning one.  But instead of owning a gun, and getting all bent out of shape over whether or not President Obama is going to allow us to freely buy them, I believe we need to have a different focus.  We need to focus on arming ourselves to suffer.  It is better to be armed to suffer than to have two friends named Smith and Wesson at your side

I firmly believe in my heart of hearts that difficult times are ahead.  Violent and even life threatening times, from which none of us will be exempt, even those who own guns.  Times for which we need to prepare ourselves spiritually, because of all the suffering that may even be brought to our own front door. 

Times for which, I believe we as the church in America simply are not prepared for... but must get prepared for in our hearts.

Will you arm yourself to suffer?

Franklin Graham: What if Lightning doesn't strike Obama?

Dear Mr. Franklin Graham:

In a recent post on Facebook, I noticed you got pretty upset over the White House being lit up like a gay rainbow flag.  I feel you on that, as it kinda turned my stomach too.

Like you, I object to gay marriage on Biblical grounds.  I definitely don't see gay marriage as something I care to celebrate, and like you, it grieves me that our society has embraced this particular sin.  I'm especially grieved that the White House chose to celebrate this historical mile marker in the fashion that they did.

However, as concerned as I am about these things, I am even more concerned about the public "attitude" you are displaying over this matter.  I mean seriously, what do you hope to accomplish by making a rant about the need for president Obama to invest in lightning rods?

Who does such a comment appeal to?  What good can come from it?  And most importantly, who do you hope to reach with such a comment, and what do you hope to win them to?  Do you imagine somebody is saying "Gee... Franklin Graham is really making a compelling point... I never thought about this issue like that before?"

Such a comment as you made was totally irresponsible, and does nothing whatsoever to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the kingdom of God.

In Luke 9, we read a story about how the Samaritans wouldn't have anything to do with Jesus and the apostles' ministry.  The apostles, feeling a bit scorned over the entire issue, thought it might be wise to ask the Lord if it was ok if they called fire down from heaven in response to their rejection.  Jesus instantly rebuked the apostles, telling them that they were out of their mind and didn't know what Spirit they were of.  For Jesus said to them that the Son of Man did not come to destroy men, but to save them instead.  In other words Mr. Graham... we shouldn't expect any lightning bolts to hit the White House anytime soon.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... Sodom and Gomorrah.  Fire and brimstone.  The book of Revelation.  All that fun stuff.

Such things have had their time and place, and we will see them yet again.  They are Biblical.  But I can't help but prophetically intuit that such comments as you have recently made are a bit off.  And if I were a gambling man, I would confidently bet that president Obama will live out the rest of his days without being struck by lightning from heaven.

And if God doesn't in fact smite president Obama over all the evils our nation has embraced, what will you do?  Will you apologize for such comments?  Will you acknowledge on Facebook and elsewhere that you don't quite know the heart and mind of God as well as you thought?  And perhaps, just perhaps, you will see that God is a bit more merciful than you ever imagined?

After all, if God was able to put up with you in the days of your rebellion, don't you think He is also willing to practice a little kindness and mercy, and forbear the sins of  a blinded nation that doesn't quite know what it is doing.

Many blessings,

Jimmy

The Charlotte Transgender Bathroom Debate: Why I'm Against "Equal Access"

Recently, a heated discussion took place at the Charlotte City Council.  Up for debate was whether or not the city should grant rights to individuals within the transgender community to have equal access to the public restroom of their preference.

The Issue:

It is argued that "transgender" is a protected "class" of people, and that as such, they should have the same civil rights as everybody else, and that the government and society should not be allowed to discriminate against the people who make up this community.  Thus, under the law, they should be allowed equal access to everything that everybody else gets to access.  This includes places like public restrooms, and in particular, whether or not transgender individuals should be allowed to use the restroom of the gender that they identify with, regardless of their actual sex.

For those of you who may not know, the transgender community is made up of men and women, who feel that they are actually a different gender than the sex they were born.  Thus, even though biologically they were born as a male, internally, they identify themselves as actually being a woman, and vice versa.  

It is argued that as such, that somebody who is transgender should have access to the bathroom of their choice, and the failure to allow them equal access to both male and female bathrooms is a form of civil rights discrimination.  Forcing them to go to a bathroom other than the gender they personally identify with is viewed as fundamentally no different than having bathrooms designated for "blacks only."  

The Typical Argument Against: Sexual Predators

Needless to say, there are quite a few people in Charlotte who are upset about this policy discussion.  Some people argue that allowing transgenders to access the bathroom of their choice will also pave the way to sexual predators (or simply bored teenagers looking to get a rouse) pretending to be transgender, to start hanging out in the bathrooms of their choice, and causing all sorts of "problems."

Arguments like this aren't entirely without merit.  Whether we want to admit it or not, there are some rather perverted things that already happen in public bathrooms.  If you have been an adult long enough, you've probably lived long enough to "hear" (or hear about) sexual activity that takes place in public restrooms.  

Such activity is so frequent, for example, that in the main library in uptown Charlotte, the men's public restrooms have bathroom stall doors that have had the top halves cut off so as to discourage such sexual activity, among other things.  So, while such fear based arguments may be deemed irrational by some, in the real world, we recognize that a lot of awful things go on in public restrooms.  Thus, such fears are not without legitimate merit.

Unfortunately, such "reasonable" arguments will never win the light of day.  And here's why:

Simply put, your "fears" of what awful things might happen in public restrooms will never trump the "feelings" of those who feel "hurt" over such "discriminatory" policies and "civil rights violations."  It will further be argued, your fears are no different than the whites who were afraid of what awful things might happen if whites and blacks had to share the same bathroom or water fountain.  It will be further argued that "perverts" already hang out in public restrooms as it is, and that refusing transgenders access to your restroom will not change this fact.  And ultimately, at the end of the day, you just need to grow up and get over your fears, as your fears don't trump others rights.

And such is a somewhat reasonable argument.  But I don't by it...

My 3 Arguments Against "Equal Access":

In light of such a weighty argument for those who are for this type of policy, I believe we need a stronger counter argument than the typical "fear" driven argument that people put forward.  

My arguments against "equal access" are as follows:

1. In granting people who identify themselves as transgender access to the bathroom of another sex, such a public policy actually has the effect of creating "reverse discrimination."  For in it, you are granting somebody access to a bathroom that I do not have the right to use simply because I don't identify myself as a transgender individual.  And as such, you are in fact discriminating against me on the basis of my sex and gender identity (or lack thereof).  
2. Public restrooms are not an issue of "gender," but of "sex."  As the transgender community regularly says, there is a difference between one's "gender" and one's "sex."  One's "sex," it is said, is what you are born with biologically.  It's the issue of whether or not you have a penis or vagina.  One's "gender," on the other hand, is a socially constructed "identity."  Therefore, some transgender individuals have their sex "reassigned" by surgical means, so that their "sex" now agrees with their "gender" identity.  Therefore, no "equal access" law needs to be created, because transgender individuals still have the option of using the public restroom available to their respected sex.
3. Finally, an argument that slides down the proverbial "slippery slope." If we allow transgender individuals to go to the restroom of their preference, then what about public locker rooms at your local gym?  Should a man who identifies himself as a woman be allowed to use the woman's locker room and take a shower in there, simply because that is the gender they identify with?  If we allow transgender individuals to access the bathroom of their preference, why shouldn't they be allowed to access the shower of their preference?

What about "family restrooms"?:

Some people have suggested that we need to strike up a happy medium, and make public restrooms that are "gender neutral," such as the "family restrooms" that various public facilities make use of. This idea, while not a bad one, at the end of the day won't stand-up to any sort of legal challenges.  It could be argued that forcing somebody who is transgender to go to a "family restroom" if they wish to go one of their preference, would actually be a form of discrimination, and is the equivalent of having a "blacks only" restroom or water fountain.

The only solution:

Having said all of this, I see that there are only two solutions for the city of Charlotte:

1. Make all public restrooms gender/sex neutral, as they do in some parts of Europe.  
2. Allow public restrooms to purposefully be places of discrimination on the basis of sex, since there is no actual negative impact on anybody for using either bathroom.

Personally speaking, I am perfectly happy to have bathrooms that continue to discriminate on the basis of sex.  As a guy, I like having restrooms with shorter lines in airports and in stadiums, all thanks to my God-given ability to pee while standing up, and thus, occupying less space because men's rooms are equipped with the "technological wonder" that is the urinal.  Arguably, such makes restrooms as we have much more efficient places, and benefits the common good.

Secondly, requiring all restrooms become gender neutral would require a massive overhaul of all current restroom facilities, and would be a very expensive ordeal to undertake, and simply not practical.  Such could be financially crippling to some private business owners, who cannot afford to redesign their public restrooms.

So... that's my opinion.  What's yours?