In a bold yet predictable gesture, Target Stores just announced that they will now allow customers to use the bathroom of their personal gender identity. Inevitably, this move has caused quite a stir among political and cultural activists... so basically anyone with a Facebook.

But this post isn't about transgenderism. It's not even about Target. It's about a sub-discussion provoked by Target's announcement: boycotting.

The typical motive behind a boycott is to impair the sales of a company enough that they reverse the decision that initially sparked the boycott.

But here's the problem... it doesn't always work.

When a culturally-charged issue (read: political, social, religious) is the spark for a boycott, you can be sure that sales will increase.

Why?

Because with polarizing issues comes polarized loyalties. When one audience is offended, the other is pleased. The offended audience boycotts and the pleased audience shows their support. But, in theory, the supporting audience will be victorious. The offended audience stops their support because of the offense. The supporting audience increases their business because of the offense (which obviously wasn't offensive to them). And in addition to the business they give out of support for the offense, they will indeed give even more support to compensate for the loss of business caused by the boycotting audience.

Remember in 2012 when Chic-fil-A COO, Dan Cathy, delivered his opinion on traditional marriage? He wasn't legislating anything or showing even the slightest bit of discrimination; he was simply exposing his convictions. That's possible to do, even though society likes to think otherwise. But Cathy was labeled "hateful" and "bigoted," even though this couldn't be more false. Regardless, the liberal community protested and boycotted. This boycott caused a decrease in sales (though I can't imagine much of a decrease, considering the liberal community isn't so much known for eating at Chic-fil-A in the first place). But paired with this decrease in sales from the left came an overwhelming wave of support from the right. I remember driving by multiple Chic-fil-As with lines wrapped around the building. Some stores literally ran out of food. So, with the decrease in sales from the left came a response of sales from the right, ultimately increasing the overall sales of Chic-fil-A significantly.

That said, if your intentions are to put a dent in Target's sales, boycotting is not the best option.

Granted some hold the position that regardless whether sales increase or decrease – their conscience is clear knowing the sales didn't come from them. I believe that to be a better approach, personally.

The exception to this theory deserves recognition. What if boycotting did carry a negative impact on a company? What if there's a Target in a primarily conservative community and that community decides to boycott? While Target Stores as a whole will not see a decrease in sales, this particular store will. The problem with this is that when sales decrease, hours get cut. The CEO's salary stays the same. The people who made the offensive decision aren't negatively impacted at all. The only people taking on a financial burden are the cashiers and associates who are likely paid enough to already have financial burdens. And they had no influence on the company's decision to allow transgender folks in their relative restroom.

But then there's the argument that we should indeed NOT boycott because we're supposed to be salt and light to the world and it is impossible to be salt and light to the world if we're purposely ignoring them. I see this argument and raise it a challenge. What does it look like to be salt and light to Target? Walking in, buying three DVDs, and rendering the cashier a hardy "God bless you" upon your departure is not being salt and light. Your business is not, in and of itself, being a light. It's business. It's for this reason that I don't like the phrase, "use the gospel, when necessary use words." There is no way to share the gospel without words. While our actions must reflect Christ, these actions are simply acts of kindness if not paired with the gospel, and kindness alone never saved anyone from Hell.

So are Christians supposed to just sit back and do nothing!? Absolutely not. There are many steps to take aside from boycotting. But before anything, if we ever take action against someone in this capacity we must first pray for them. Otherwise we're making it about us but in the name of God... that's a form of blasphemy. But we're also called to be active in cultural issues: loving the sinner and hating the sin, a message saturated in biblical truth.

Write letters.

Reach out to the decision makers.

Blog about it.

Start a rally in front of the headquarters.

There are many things Christians can and should do about this extremely inappropriate decision made by Target. I just don't see how boycotting is the right method. Granted, I won't allow my daughter in the bathroom without me (I can claim to be transgender if she has to go to the bathroom, right?) but I don't see, at this point, how boycotting is very effective.

But I'm always willing to hear wisdom and perhaps change my mind.