We only have the testimony of this fellow. We don’t have the testimony of the lesbian supervisor to whom he refers in this video but as I watched this I couldn’t help but think that there must have been a better way to handle this. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, his account is basically accurate and that she was flaunting her homosexuality, did he do the right thing by confronting her? Should he have taken her out for coffee to discuss it? At one point in the video (3:10) he seems to suggest that he didn’t want her to mention her homosexuality or her impending marriage around him because “I think that’s bad stuff, as I told her.” If he wanted to communicate the gospel to her, Instead of accusing her of sin (of which she is guilty) would he have done better to accuse himself? How should Christians conduct themselves in workplaces that become hostile to traditional and Christian mores?
Actual Related Posts Intentionally Generated by the Heidelblog:
How to React to Homosexuals in the Congregation
“It made me uncomfortable.” That’s not why we should have a problem with sin. I don’t think Jesus reacted to sin by saying he didn’t want that around him. Rather than trying to run, we should pray for such opportunities to proclaim the gospel.
He is in the world. What does he expect? In the world people sin. His work place is not the body of Christ where we hold one another accountable and, when needed correct and rebuke. That is not to say that we should meet the reality of sin with a shrug. But the problem with the woman’s sin is not that it made this man uncomfortable. Far greater is the fact that it is an offense against God and places her in great peril.
We make such a big deal of homosexuality, as if it were the ultimate sin. For one thing, I don’t think they can legally fire you for disagreeing with your boss on a particular lifestyle. The man must have done more than that. Apart from that, I agree with Brandon. If we reacted the same way to every sinful lifestyle, we would not be able to work with or under too many people! Wasn’t Jesus accused of eating with publicans and prostitutes? And how are we better than homosexuals? Because we are “only” self-righteous? Or is our only hope the love that God bestowed on us when we were clutching tightly our filthy rags? Sorry. I know a few homosexuals, wonderful people in need of the Gospel like everyone else, and it breaks my heart to see what treatment they constantly receive by people who are supposed to have been forgiven by pure grace.
I agree with simonetta, Jesus did not come for the well, who need no doctor, he came for the sick. Homosexuality, though it seems gross in our culture, is in fact no worse than any other sin.
If he had been equally concerned when God’s name was used as a cuss word or blasphemed in the work place then I would say he was consistent in his zeal to glorify God, but to pick on one sin that is less culturally accepted than another says less about his concern for God’s glory and more about his cultural tolerance.
This could have been handled better. We live in an imperfect world and it’s good that sin bugs him, but we need to react sober minded fashion. There could have been more thought put in behind his reactions and less reflex.
Of course Massachusetts overturned its homosexual laws yesterday http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/11/04/maine_voters_overturn_states_new_same_sex_marriage_law/
That being said, there is so much wrong with this person in the video. First nowhere in Christianity does it say that we have any rights, let alone some right to be comfortable. At the time, sad though it was, homosexual marriage was the law of the land in his state. Further Massachusetts is an employment at will state meaning that either the employee or employer may terminate the working relationship for any non-protected cause or for no reason at all.
At no time did I hear him say he was concerned for her or her then fiance, nor did I hear him say it is an offense to God (as is all sin) instead all I heard him say was that he was uncomfortable.
There is much more that can be said but let me simply end with:
Present the Gospel, let Christ be the stumbling block to the sinner.
Do we know if the guy in the video is even Reformed?
He is probaly a Papist or a Baptist?
You mean to say there are no reformed Baptists?
And what does reformed have to do with this situation.
I am uncomfortable around fundamentalists
I definitely don’t agree with how this man dealt with this woman…he was way too limp-wristed. Perhaps a better response would be: “It seems you’re trying to provoke others and flaunt your sin…you should be more concerned with the way you are provoking the anger of God”.
I’m dumbfounded by comments that imply we should simply expect these things…to even go so far as to refer to the woman’s deviant sexual assistant as her “fiancee”…I wonder if Paul, while perusing the idols at Athens, should have shrugged and said “What else can I expect?”
Craig,
I don’t disagree with you. I certainly do not believe we should shrug in the face of sin. My statement is aimed at the fact that he seems to be most interested in his comfort. Christians need to be careful not to adopt the, “thou shalt not offend me,” mentality of our culture. In this world we will have trouble. We will be surrounded by people who degrade themselves sexually. I agree with your assessment that his response is “limp-wristed.” I agree also that it would have been entirely appropriate for him to warn her of the consequences of her abominable sin (so long as he understands it could cost him his job).
Todd,
I’m glad to read your clarification. While I don’t think this chap responded appropriately, it seems that the premise of the post is that this man was wrong to bring up this woman’s sin. I have trouble being too harsh on this guy because the Church has largely abandoned a prophetic voice…”God wouldn’t speak so harshly…so maybe I’ll just tell people I’m not comfortable”.
We’re really good sanctifying our silence and turning our disbelief in the Spirit’s effectual working with the Word into an act of faith.
Is something like Prop. 8 or the recent New England efforts the socio-political version of this fellow’s personal interaction? I wonder, if we’re quick to criticize the way he chose to interact personally, would we also do the same when it came to casting certain ballots? Or do we think we’re called to a higher standard only in our personal interactions and not our socio-political ones?
Please no pile-ons, just a thought.
I would have said congratulations to her. We do not reach anyone for Christ by focusing in on a particular sin. The world is full of sin, and we have to live in the world. If this co-worker had been a Christian, then her church would have every right to deal with her in a disciplinary way, but we do not have that right in our dealings with non-Christians. In Corinth Paul was angry because of sin within the church, not in secular society.
As a Christian I don’t agree with homosexuality either, but we are called to love our neighbor with the love of Christ. This guy has no clue what he is talking about and is the exact reason why people don’t want to be Christians. My question to him would be, would you do the same thing if people were talking about getting drunk? Or a non-Christian talking about having sex? The answer is no. This guy would have blown those conversations off as if they had never happened, but because this is about homosexuality he felt that he needed to assert his Christian dominance. Not so fond of this.
He needs to get his priorities straight. It seems a bit nutty to claim to be a Christian and not to have at least said anything about the Gospel. If someone is gonna risk one’s job, then at least do it in a way that could possibly respect and even love one’s overtly sinning neighbor: say something about the supernatural Christ, His purpose, and His message.
The real shame is that there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who will see this guy as a hero! I bet his first call was to Jay Sekulow!
As I understand it, anyone who flaunts their sexuality — whether hetero or homo — or who pesters others at the office with sexual inuendo and the like, is creating a “hostile” work environment. I think he handled it the best way he could, if he’s telling the whole story, and he’s got a good law suit against the company that fired him.
Vern,
I’m an employment law attorney. There is no way this is a “hostile” work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Jeepers, some of the comments on this thread are pretty disturbing. They reflect a roll-over-and-play dead view of Christian involvement.
Vern, I think a better assessment might be that some are persuaded of a better sort of involvement. Persuading some to drop their stones, praying for those who don’t know what they are doing and laying down one’s life for his friends might look like apathy to some, but it’s actually a much more difficult form of involvement. It requires a loss of self. Besides, the “you don’t care like I do therefore you don’t care” worldview is really annoying.
Zrim,
I agree entirely. What this fellow said and the way he said it is bound to sound like self-righteousness to this woman. Let’s assume that homosexuality is a chosen disposition. Why did she choose to become a homosexual? I would wager, based on my experience in counseling etc, that she’s angry at someone (and probably herself) and quite probably hurt and may even have a religious past. Why did she mention it 4 times that day. She was sending a message. She was being provocative. Instead of saying to himself, “This woman is needy” he said, “This woman is sinful.” Instead of giving her the gospel, for which he might not have got in trouble (he might have, I don’t know) he went with the law.He took the bait. Instead of defying her expectations he played right into her hand and confirmed her ground for anger and distrust of “fundamentalist” Christians.
To be sure everyone needs to know the greatness of their sin and misery and perhaps he was right to go with the “woman at the well strategy,” but if he had tried to build trust and a some sort of relation, from an evangelistic pov he might have gotten farther. I wonder if he would have gotten farther had he asked where they were getting married? What if he had said, “I’m a terrible sinner who knows the grace of God. If you want to talk about it sometime, give me a call.”
RSC,
Instead of defying her expectations he played right into her hand and confirmed her ground for anger and distrust of “fundamentalist” Christians….if he had tried to build trust and a some sort of relation, from an evangelistic pov he might have gotten farther.
Perhaps. As long as we’re talking experiences, I have found that it’s a bit of work to assume the Reformed approach to an extended family member who is at once gay and raised in a Fundamentalist world. One is easily mistaken for his tormenters, and it isn’t always clear that one is getting anywhere. It’s a project in patience all around.
Although I will say it helps to place unbelief in front of lifestyle (duh). It’s also helpful to convey great reservations about socio-political ways to punish certain sinners. Those two strategies seem to signal to such folks that there more than a choice between moralistic-therapeutic deism and outright paganism, or, as some might suggest, that there is indeed a “better way to handle the situation.”
Zrim,
You did a great job of couching the discussion in dishonest terms. You were able to do it with biblical allusion as well…kudos to you for making error look holy!
Plus, RSC agreed with you…that’s like a double bonus!
http://www.antipelagian.com/2009/11/velvet-calvin.html
Craig,
I’m not sure what you mean by “dishonest terms.” Is it related to the point about putting faith in front of behavior in our witness and apologetic? If so, do you mean to say that what distinguishes believers from unbelievers isn’t really belief after all?
I’m referring to this specifically:
ersuading some to drop their stones, praying for those who don’t know what they are doing and laying down one’s life for his friends might look like apathy to some…
Craig,
On top of not being very bright, I’m Presbyterian—not Pentecostal. Instead of me divining how this rises to employing “couching the discussion in dishonest terms,” you’re going to have to connect some dots for my sake.
Here are the dots (I’m Presby, btw…PCA):
Is the alternative to 2K noumenal/phenomenal disconnect in this situation
stone casting?
The 2 kingdoms ethic is Kantian? Come again?
Sent from my iPhone
I am not certain where your 2 kingdoms is Kantian comes from Dr Clark, but 2 Kingdoms is not necessarily separate from deontology or its more specific subset of Divine Command. I am deontological as opposed to teleological or virtue theory. Am I missing something? (probably)
Someone seemed to suggest earlier in the debate the the two-kingdoms ethic is Kantian. That’s ahistorical nonsense, of course, akin to suggesting that all versions of natural law are Grotian or Thomistic. Only people who don’t know the most basic history of Reformed theology could think or say such things. Of course that hasn’t stopped some people, even people who should know better, from saying such things.
Was it this by Craig French:
Is the alternative to 2K noumenal/phenomenal disconnect in this situation
stone casting?
By my count 2K is now liberal, fundamentalist, antinomian, atheist, deist, rationalist, apathetic, Lutheran, and now Kantian.
Paging Brian McLaren, I have 2K on line three and theonomy on line four.
Whatever it is, that 2K stuff must be really bad! Don’t call McLaren, call Calvin before he teaches it. Oh wait, we’re too late for that.
Can you recommend some bold essays/books/treatments on 2k? I read your essay on the Covenant before the Covenant written with VanDrunen found in CJPM and found it edifying.
Use the category cloud to the right or use the search box on the top left of the main page
There are many posts on this topic on the HB
Sent from my iPhone
That was my allusion to which you are…well, alluding.
For some reason you think I was making a historical connection when, in fact, it was a logical connection.
Where’s the bridge between God’s Word and the world?
Craig,
We don’t agree on what the phenomenal/noumenal distinction is. Second, the historic two-kingdoms ethic simply recognizes that God’s kingdom is administered in two spheres. It has nothing to do whatever with not being able to know things as they are in themselves (the noumena).
Third, the whole point of the post is to help Christians try to figure out how to navigate a post- Christian society effectively. Evidently this fellow’s approach was not very effective. Who knows what the Spirit will do in this woman’s life but ordinarily this sort of encounter is not very fruitful.
I’m proposing that we get our hands dirty by actually spending time with sinners. Demonstrating our disgust with their sins is not getting one’s hands dirty. Refusing to take the time to build a relationship of trust with sinners is not getting one’s hands dirty.
If we are perceived as angry, alienated middle-class (usually white) fundamentalists who are angling to get our cultural power back, we won’t get far. If, however, we come to people as redeemed sinners, as representatives of the heavenly kingdom, with the gospel (which is quite earthy and revealed) and with the law (which is both earthy and revealed) then we have a point of contact. Our point of contact is divine revelation. That’s not in doubt. What is in doubt is a strategy which is designed to fail.
Is the alternative to 2K noumenal/phenomenal disconnect in this situation
stone casting?
Craig,
It may not be stone casting, but that doesn’t seem to make it any less misguided to my mind. Perhaps, pursuant to New Covenant categories, a better taxonomy may be worldly weapons versus spiritual ones.
But does it seem at all wise to you that believers push back at least as hard as unbelievers shove? If so, how do you make any sense of Jesus’ own refusal to come down off the cross? I mean, that was some supreme shoving and if anybody had the right to push back it was he. If he had such rights yet refused them, what makes those of us who don’t have such rights think we can claim them, especially when we have the audacity to claim to be his disciples? Doesn’t following Jesus mean a giving up of rights?
Steve, you said:
It may not be stone casting, but that doesn’t seem to make it any less misguided to my mind. Perhaps, pursuant to New Covenant categories, a better taxonomy may be worldly weapons versus spiritual ones.
Was Jesus using worldly weapons with the woman at the well? Was Paul at Athens? Before Caesar? Peter with the Jews? Stephen with the Jews?
But does it seem at all wise to you that believers push back at least as hard as unbelievers shove?
I never said it was a 1 for 1 response…that’s what *you* are assuming. Following RSC’s take on this situation, it’s difficult to see where he would find a point of contact between unbelievers and the gospel…pontificate about how ridiculous fundies are, or banter about irrelevancies yet miss an opportunity to share the gospel…which has that awkward “bad” news that will probably make you squirm and the lesbian ready to bite your face off. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be thoughtful…but we wouldn’t be faithful ignoring her words.
If so, how do you make any sense of Jesus’ own refusal to come down off the cross?
Are you suggesting Jesus stayed on the cross so you can keep your mouth shut about why He was on the cross?
If he had such rights yet refused them, what makes those of us who don’t have such rights think we can claim them, especially when we have the audacity to claim to be his disciples?
To my mind, this wasn’t about that young man’s rights…it’s about what is right, what is wrong, and what a Christian’s faithful duty is…and that transcends anyone’s comfort. Even at His trial, Jesus informed Pilot he had no authority except what had been granted him…strange how Jesus was silent when it came to His innocence, yet why would He make such an “irrelevant” point? (Irrelevant to the 2 Kingdom view, at least)
Craig,
Are you suggesting Jesus stayed on the cross so you can keep your mouth shut about why He was on the cross?
No, and I’m not sure how you get that, other than you must be placing an emphasis on sinful behavior instead of sinful being. But the point to moral unbelievers is the same to immoral ones: to remain in disbelief (whether also immoral or moral) is to abide wrath. And I might suggest that whatever struggle there may be against lesbian co-workers flaunting their sexuality there is also one against fellow believers who seem to think we need to put them in their place. If I think I’m supposed to keep my mouth shut why am I engaging you?
To my mind, this wasn’t about that young man’s rights…it’s about what is right, what is wrong, and what a Christian’s faithful duty is…and that transcends anyone’s comfort.
I agree, this is about “what is right, what is wrong and what a Christian’s faithful duty is, and that it transcends anyone’s comfort.” You seem uncomfortable with how I am suggesting we go about our Christian witness and at ease with portraying it as weak, dishonest and compromised.
But the point to moral unbelievers is the same to immoral ones: to remain in disbelief (whether also immoral or moral) is to abide wrath.
Steve,
What are you going on about? Seriously. Was I merely suggesting moral reform for the lesbian? No. If I were, I’d just recommend a dude for the lesbian to meet. It’s not as if this is an either/or: Either be a 2 Kindgomer, or be a moralist.
And I might suggest that whatever struggle there may be against lesbian co-workers flaunting their sexuality there is also one against fellow believers who seem to think we need to put them in their place.
Do you read with your eyes shut? Seriously…I could just point to what I really said, but before I do that you may need a trip to the tool-shed. This is either stupidity on your part, or dishonesty. Which is it? I hope it’s stupidity.
Here’s what I said:
“I never said it was a 1 for 1 response…that’s what *you* are assuming. Following RSC’s take on this situation, it’s difficult to see where he would find a point of contact between unbelievers and the gospel…pontificate about how ridiculous fundies are, or banter about irrelevancies yet miss an opportunity to share the gospel…which has that awkward “bad” news that will probably make you squirm and the lesbian ready to bite your face off. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be thoughtful…but we wouldn’t be faithful ignoring her words.”
Does that remotely sound like I’m suggesting “putting” the lesbian in her “place”?
You seem uncomfortable with how I am suggesting we go about our Christian witness and at ease with portraying it as weak, dishonest and compromised
Praying for unbelievers is great…praying for wisdom in speaking to them is great (in fact, necessary)…acting as if addressing the particular sin as a point of contact is the equivalent of stoning is where you derailed. You don’t seem to see the relevance of Jesus’ choice of sin with the woman at the well nor His instruction to Pilot as His sentence was at hand. This is why your stance is Kantian…you’re presented with a point of contact (in this case, homosexuality), but you opt for the heavenly option that will not require an icky, physical contact with the unbeliever.
When we find we’re at the well, having a good conversation with an unbeliever, it is not enough to just show them we’re not those nasty fundies…if we want to be like Jesus we needn’t worry how an unbeliever will take us or marginalize us.
This is why your stance is Kantian…you’re presented with a point of contact (in this case, homosexuality), but you opt for the heavenly option that will not require an icky, physical contact with the unbeliever.
When we find we’re at the well, having a good conversation with an unbeliever, it is not enough to just show them we’re not those nasty fundies…if we want to be like Jesus we needn’t worry how an unbeliever will take us or marginalize us.
Craig,
You’ve got it backwards. The “point of contact” isn’t behavior, it is belief. Indicatives always precede imperatives. This is true when addressing both un/believers. I don’t know how this outlook removes me from real contact with unbelievers. In point of fact, making behavior first is what tends to foster the sort of seating arrangements Peter came up with and so irked Paul.
And I agree that we shouldn’t worry about how unbelievers take or marginalize us. But we should be marginalized for the right reasons, not bad ones. I realize that’s not always easy, but that doesn’t mean we may lazily confuse law and gospel, indicatives and imperatives.
I think it’s easy after the fact to pick apart what this young guy did, but I think as a fellow Christian, we owe him the judgement of charity. It seems to me as if he’s getting the opposite while the supervisor’s actions get excused. Strange.
The guy doesn’t appear to be some whacko, rather it looks like he was asked point blank by his supervisor what he thought about homosxuality and to his credit he didn’t respond with ummmm or lie, but quietly told her what he believed. He didn’t appear to be looking for the confrontation, just made some small talk and then got harassed. Ideal situations exist in the classroom and blog world, but rarely correspond with real life, so let’s show the kid some grace.
It is because he is ostensibly a Christian that I was hard on him. There are 2 classes those who Accept Christ as King and those that do not. Those who do accept Christ as King have a much stricter standard to uphold as we represent our King. Was this kid set up for a fall? Most likely. Should he have expected such? Certainly. Did he handle things properly? By no means. He was ,in his own words, made uncomfortable, a term he uses repeatedly and shows only concern for his own comfort and what he “thinks”, again his word, is right. At no point does he show any concern for his supervisor at all and this is the opposite of Christ’s example to us. IF he had espoused the Gospel to her and used her own blatant sin as an opening then I would give him credit, even if he had tried to explain that homosexuality was an affront to God then I could back him, he did neither according to his own testimony on the subject.
On the other hand she was within the law of the land. Would he have complained similarly if a non christian heterosexual couple was getting married and one of them pronounced it 4 times in one day in the workplace? I dare say even the most charitable of us would say he would not have been offended. No charity shown from him, no concern for her, only for his feelings makes me desire his correction and hope that Christians will see this as a way to not do things rather than try and show him as some kind of martyr.
Assuming this guy’s telling the story accurately, I think he has a good case against the company. His company’s termination letter to him sounds like it’s got a lot of CYA material in it, almost as if they’re anticipating a lawsuit from him. He stated that the company has a policy against retaliation, but the letter seems to bend over backward to deny that the supervisor was retaliating.
As for the way he handled the situation, I’m willing to cut him some slack because he found himself responding in an ad hoc manner, with no time to formulate a well-structured reasoned response to her. He probably did the best he could under those circumstances. He could always have done better – but then, so could most of us.
By the way, it’s Maine, not Massachusetts, that overthrew it’s gay “marriage” law.
Things happen when I try and read right side up and so I apologize for saying the wrong state in my original post. You are correct as the link I posted shows it was in fact Maine that overturned the homosexual marriage laws on Tuesday and not Massachusetts. (the first part was not sarcasm I have mostly lost the ability to read texts right side up likely due to a brain tumour they found a year ago which BTW makes sight reading music a real pain because I need the music right side up and the words upside down and backwards but I digress significantly)
As for him having a good case against the company remember he is in a state where employment is at will they can terminate him at any time for any unprotected cause. Also He had a full day to apprise the situation. In a similar situation you have only 2 good options. 1) Go big and go with the Gospel 2) Shut up and be uncomfortable knowing that she is not a regular manager and she will go away shortly. By approaching her at the end of the day he failed yet again because she would have been gone and not caused him any more trouble. Had she bragged about having an affair with someone or having unmarried sex would he have still approached her at the end of the day?
Allow me to ramble a bit more and say this, the American church is in a sad state of affairs. The typical churchgoer, even the typical Christian probably cannot give a clear presentation of the Gospel. I know Seminary graduates who do not have their theology set yet (major seminaries albeit non confessional ones). As a body we are so American that we insist on our rights even when there is no right to insist on. We are, again as a body, ill prepared to do the work of our King.
Lastly i would like to point to Steve Camp’s “Christian Bill of Rights” Steve is not truly reformed (he is a Reformed Baptist in the best sense) but his words strike true to my hearing.
http://www.a1m.org/page.php?page=template1.php&pageid=94d930764da07d31ae86829be0902a20
From his description, it seems like the company over-reacted regardless of whether his is a nominal Christian or not. This case as described doesn’t rise to the level of authentic Christian persecution. As Clark asked earlier, Why is Theological Liberalism but Homosexuality Not? See Clark’s April 2009 posting and subsequent discussion:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/why-is-theological-liberalism-okay-but-not-homosexuality/
For me, an obvious moralist isn’t Christian. To jump from moralist to Christian, no matter what morals are under attack, seems naive.
*isn’t necessarily Christian
Hey remember back in the day when we read Michael Horton’s Beyond Culture Wars? Anyone??? If you have it, go and read the end dialog between Horton and the gay bank teller. Now the Kingdom transformationalists may not like this I remembered their complaints and critiques against the book and how Horton is too soft on homosexuals but the point is that we should have the attitude of we ourselves that being in the kingdom is solely because of grace and not because we’re Kingdom Crusaders fighting against the fags but only because of God’s grace. Before we call out the sins of the homosexual community in the name of cultural transformation for King Jesus or even just doing normal and sane two Kingdom evangelism we have to remember our long and deep laundry lists of sins that are just as condemnable as homosexuality and that our ticket is punched for heaven solely because of Christ’s substitutionary death and Christ’s active and passive obedience imputed to our account by our meagerly resting on him and not us subduing in some feeble measure our sin in sanctification. Now with that in mind we may not be homosexual (thank God that’s kind of gross at least to me) but even though we’re reformed Protestants, Presbyterian at best we still have sins and our own lusting we cook up in our hearts. Praise the Lord he justifies the Wicked!!! Romans 4:5. Yeah FVists hate that!!! The point is even though we may have our own sinful hearts in motion even as Reformed Christians this should be a call for us to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves so to say. To act slowly and wisely with prayer when we encounter those gay or not in the other Kingdom. To consider humbly, wisely, prudently even with due diligence and discretion with the opposite world. Look we’re not Theonomic Kingdom warriors Christ has already defeated his enemies we’re just waiting to cash in on the final return of the promise, it’s one of those things living in the here and yet to come.
One more thing since I failed to mention it from my previous post. Is that these are the tensions living between Kingdoms and awaiting the consummation of the of the age to come. The trick is this, we have to focus on what Christ has done for us law breakers instead of pointing out the law breaking of others especially of those homosexuals and trying to institute a culture of perfect law keepers and create perfect society. This reality will come when Christ comes and not by our doing “Kingdom building work”. We in this culture of the sin, death, and dying must give the story of the living that is the life giver himself and his life in the place of ours and offer that great indicative that can only give life and not order the culture to be Kingdom Covenant law keepers the lost know that naturally what they don’t know is the Gospel and Christ’s covenant law keeping for them and bearing the curse for law-breaking. It is this message along with the sacraments given from the church that people’s lives are transformed meagerly, slowly and malingering at times in sanctification. The bad news even if we had world wide theonomic cultural transformational revival and we’re all saved this world will still be a mess awash with law breaking and injustice because we in our Kingdom transformation enterprise can’t do what Christ has promised to do in his return. The good news is that God in Christ is reconciling the world to himself and because of Christ and his law keeping we by faith alone are permanently saved from the just wrath of God. That message may not transform this world into a Cultural Transformative utopia but it will transport those by faith alone to that perfect world that Christ alone has prepared for us believers that is to come.
Maybe I’m missing something, but how does this young guy calmly answering a direct question about whether homosexuality is wrong turn him into a wild-eyed theocrat cultral transformer? He didn’t say anything about looking for a confrontation on the issue, rather the lesbian supervisor was the aggressor, even to the point of getting him fired. Perhaps first century Christians when asked by authorities whether Ceasar was Lord, could have offered to host a ten part discussion of redemptive history over coffee at the local Starbucks, but I kinda doubt that would have worked in real life.
He wasn’t answering a question, was he? He was offended by her and he chose to confront her homosexuality directly. He let her dictate the terms of the dialogue. May we suppose he’s known as the “office Christian?” May we suppose (and we might be wrong) that someone said something to her about him? In any event it seems, based on his testimony, that she was being provocative. The choice he faced was not whether homosexuality is sin but how he should respond to her provocation.
He should have responded to her by focusing on his vocation, where God placed him. Anyone remember the movie “The Big Kahuna”?
If this woman in question is unregenerate then she is lost because of mankind’s fallen state, not because of her sexual orientation. All mankind is lost unless regenerated by God, that is the default position of humanity. If she were to “convert” to heterosexuality, she would still be lost unless through God’s grace she is drawn to Him. If she becomes a Christian, her sins are forgiven. If she still were to sin after that, she would be in the same position as all Christians–forgiven but still prone to sin.
Sounds like the lesbian supervisor was creating a “hostile workplace environment” for our young hero, and he got fired for objecting to it.
She, and the company that employs her, could be subject to a costly sexual harassment lawsuit, if the victim chooses to push back. I know this because I and the thousands of my fellow employees where I work were just recently was forced to endure Sexual Harassment Prevention training…
Again, this is incorrect. The events described do NOT rise to the level of a “hostile” work environment under Title VII.
Richard, you need to read Title VII again….A pattern of offensive conduct is precisely what a reasonable person would believe creates a “hostile” work environment. This guy doesn’t seem to have done anything wrong in this situation. He was the one who was harassed, not the supervisor. Again, I’m assuming he’s telling the whole story (a big assumption of course).
Offhand comments don’t create a hostile evironment, but comments that indicate a pattern of harassment and intimidation certainly do. And the supervisor appears to have created the hostile environment by her actions.
Let’s say this guy was a Muslim, who had told his employer his belief about homosexualty, and she retaliated against him. Do you think your answer would still be the same? Be honest.
Vern,
I think this is a good point. It’s hard to imagine that, were the guy a Muslim, that he would have been fired. My point, to be clear, was not to comment on employment law. My point is to ask about how Christians, in this situation and in other similar situations, should behave.
It was an excellent point and your proposal about admitting to the female superviosr that he is a great sinner too and offering to speak about the Gospel sometime is the best solution anyone here proposed.
Until you wrote that, it didn’t dawn on me to say that to someone. It’s one thing to tell fellow church-going Christians that I am a sinner or even that there is evil in my heart, but it’s hole another ball game to say that to someone who may or may not be part of the invisible church.
Thanks for writing that. I guess my fears prevented me from thinking about how to best handle this situation. I could imagine saying something about the Gospel, but never would have included the obvious bit about admitting being a sinner to someone so strange, really a complete stranger.
Why from a natural law perspective does he need to make a gospel presentation to properly qualify his opposition to the homosexuality? Isn’t the natural law position that it’s readily apparent to folks across cutlures and etc., that homosexuality is wrong? The same would hold true for question of what’s a real marriage. That marriage being creational is properly only between a man and women is self-evident to everyone, so opposition to homosexual marriage doesn’t require a person to host a coffee klatch to explain how they were the worst sinner of all time until God saved them , but rather a response of ‘it’s wrong and you know that too” would seem to better fit the natural law approach.
Could he have handled it better? Undoubtedly. Though he starts out wanting to congratulate her, which is great, when she said her fiance was a she, he should have said, that’s too bad. Because it is. Bad and sad. But he didn’t. And if she asked why, he could have said it was wrong. Because it is. But he didn’t. He changed the subject.
Yeah, he brought it up later, in that she evidently saw the need to keep bringing it up herself – I dare say her conscience testifying against her, whatever the Massachusetts law says – but I still agree with Vern above (never thought I’d say that), even if the guy in the video comes across as a bit of a sincere but self righteous arminian. If homosexuality is not against the natural law, nothing is.
Or did the gentile OT Canaanites only get vomited out of the land because they mixed their murders and sexual perversions in with religious worship? But now that we have separated and secularized them in the 21st century – after all, there is no god we can worship falsely or not – they are sanctified and we must mind our sanctimonious 2K p’s and q’s? All sin is sin and all sin is damnable, but some sins are more heinous than others (LC 150,1).
As far as sharing the gospel, if there ain’t no sin, there ain’t no good news. Walter Chantry’s Today’s Gospel – Synthetic or Authentic is a pretty good defense of Christ’s evangelistic technique with the rich young ruler, who could have been criticized on the same ‘he didn’t share the love’ basis from the typical modern antinomian (aka Amer. evangelical) pov.
Wow 2K sounds almost as bad as Amillenialism. (I love you James Bryant, you are one of my favourite profs ever, but not all amills are liberal, papist, emergent and/or spiritualizing fiends)
I’m not trying to make a list that goes from bad to worst, but not all sins are the same. Some are worst than others. Some do disgust us more than others, and properly so for various reasons. Doesn’t the idea of someone raping an infant cause a response in you that is very different from that of a man who looks at a woman with lust but doesn’t act on it? What of man who puts an infant in a microwave and cooks the child? This has happened. Nevertheless, any sin is unpleasing to God and just grounds for condemnation. I’m typing this in response to an erroneous statement that someone made.
Alberto,
Isn’t that why we have law, to distinguish between the severity of sins and their corresponding punishments?
But we have gospel to superabound law; it’s the great equalizer. I’m not so sure this fellow, nor those who want to take up his cause to lesser or greater degrees, quite grasp just how superabounding and equalizing gospel really is.
And consider this: to confuse law and gospel not only gives us this fellow’s story, it also gives us believers who plead with civil judges to suspend punishment on the man who mows down their daughter’s classroom (on the bogus grounds that we are to “love our enemies, turn the other cheek,” etc., etc.).
Brothers,
As someone who was in almost exactly the same situation as this man several years ago, there is no “better way” in most of these situations, because this is an issue of spiritual warfare.
In my case, a member of our work based Christian fellowship had gone to a workplace “Brown Bag Diversity Luncheon” on the subject of homosexuality. The luncheon was billed as a frank and open exchange of views, but what it turned out to be was 20 minutes of sicophantic praising of homosexual, bisexual, and trangendered “lifestyles” along with an open attack on “intolerant bigots” who didn’t agree. The moment my coworker respectfully expressed her belief that homosexuality (and all sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage) was sinful and read from Romans 1:18-32 the room literally exploded. This was a small hispanic lady dying of terminal cancer, but she was instantly ringed by large angry men and women screaming at her and at times poking and pushing her. The majority of the people doing this were college educated scions of the upper middle class. When I showed up (another Christian coworker had run down to my department in tears and said “Andy, you have to come help Maria it’s awful!”) Maria was still peaceful, calm, and absolutely respectful but they were clearly on the verge of doing her physical harm. I have never in my life seen anything as close to what we read in Acts 7:55-60. The moment I began speaking the rage shifted to me, but after I’d spoken for a while in defense of the bible and Maria, and in how I too had been rescued from death and sins of all kinds by Christ, we left. The VP of HR (who was also gay) immediately attempted to have me terminated (Maria worked in a union shop and was untouchable, I wasn’t part of the union). Had not the head of my department taken a principled stand saying “If you’re going to fire Andy because he’s a Christian, you need to fire me to because I’m also a Christian” they would have booted me out there and then.
Brothers, has it not occurred to you that our calling is to be willing to proclaim the truth in season and out of season and to be willing to suffer persecution for it? We are to proclaim the WHOLE GOSPEL, all of Christ’s commandments, even those touching on sexual sin, and then having convicted all, to set before sinful men Christ’s gospel mercy. Failing to preach the law to itching ear listeners and convict them of sin is what the preachers of “smooth things” do. We on the other hand must “Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.”
Incidentally, you will find that even the best expositors of the word are coming up for the same treatment as this man these days. Witness Robert Gagnon’s shameful treatment at Bowdoin:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexBowdoin.pdf
It’s a spiritual issue guys, there is just flaming illogical hate powering this movement, it’s one of the most palpable expressions of the spirit of anti-Christ out there today, but that doesn’t mean we should be silent. Not to condemn sin is to condemn those who practice it to hell and to fail in our calling as watchmen.
Your Servant in Christ,
Pastor Andy Webb
Providennce PCA
Hi Andy,
I agree with you that Gagnon was treated badly and I agree with you that ministers and other Christians must be prepared to suffer for the truth. I also think that Christians have a right (like Paul) to assert their civil liberties (here I note that a state chapter of ACLU actually came to the defense of a Christian recently).
The question I’m asking here is not so much “whether” but so much rather I’m asking the questions “when” and “how”?
I’m asking about wisdom. Was this fellow as wise as he could have been? Was he as patient as he could have been? What message did he actually send to this woman? It seems to me that he sent the message, “I find your lifestyle personally distasteful.” Isn’t that a message of self-righteousness or cultural preference?
As a matter of wisdom, since this woman was apparently being provocative, was he wise to take the bait that way, at that time, in that circumstance?
I agree that there is palpable hate out there. At least some of the homosexuals I know are the product of angry fundamentalist homes. Obviously many are not. At first encounter, there’s no way to know. There is a good bit of propaganda within homosexual circles against Christianity. There are stereotypes. Those stereotypes appear in the media frequently.
Why do we want to play to such stereotypes?
What was this cat’s goal in confronting this woman? What should be our goal?
Pastor Webb,
With all due respect to your experience and that of your friend’s, again, the point here isn’t about “being silent.” It’s about how wisdom might have something to say about our speech and actions. Even so, there is a time to speak and a time to be silent, no? I fail to see why every time is a time for both speaking and law. Is it possible that we feign piety as an excuse to assert ourselves? If so, what would that look like if the sort of pushing back described in this thread isn’t it?
Sometimes it’s about knowing how to assess a situation and figure out one’s full message won’t be embraced. Sometimes a better witness just doesn’t look the way we assume. I realize it gets little press because it’s just not mighty enough, but there is a time to shake the dust from one’s sandals, isn’t there?
Scott, I think you are a bit naive about this. You seem to think that condemning homosexuality in a winning way will get a different response from what this gentlemen got. Nevertheless, homosexuals will hate you no matter how smooth you are in your presentation. They will hate you because they first hate Christ. That’s never going to change. You should always be yourself when talking about your beliefs, not making the mistake of thinking they’ll be awed by your sophistication vis-a-vis the lowly fundamentalist.
Vern,
You misunderstand. I’ve no problem telling someone that they are a sinner. It’s the first thing someone has to know “that they might live and die in this comfort” (HC 2). That’s not the question. The question is one of TACTICS.
I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to get people to think about TACTICS or strategies in talking to other people about the law and the gospel.
What I heard this guy saying is: “You disgust me.” Is that what we want to say to those whom we’re trying to win for Christ?
If so, it’s a poor message. By nature, after the fall, we’re all disgusting to God. Why didn’t he say, “You mentioned 4 times today that you’re getting married to a woman. Are you just excited about getting married or are you trying to send me a signal of some kind?” That might have opened an opportunity to talk about what’s bothering her.
This guy didn’t actually preach the law to her or at least he didn’t do so unequivocally or clearly or biblically. Had he done so, maybe he would be a martyr but as it is, the only thing for which he’s being “martyred” is for being tactless.
The real question here is this: What’s the goal? If we turn opportunities like this into a chance to prosecute the culture war we might find it emotionally satisfying but what will we have accomplished?
if we want to speak to people about their sin and their need for a Savior, why do the most obvious thing? We’re not Jesus. We don’t have omniscience. Not every sinner is the woman at the well. Given our finitude and our own sins (which Jesus did not have) we might actually have to get to know someone, develop some basis for trust, before we start confronting their sin.
In general I say: law for the proud and grace for the humble.
What if her repeated references to her sexuality were really just reflections of guilty feelings? I don’t know. Does this cat (who got fired) know? Did he bother to find out? What if what she needed to hear was not law, but gospel? Maybe she’s an arrogant lesbian spoiling for a fight? Are we obligated to oblige her? Again, is the point emotional satisfaction so that we can say we struck a blow for Christian America or is the goal to win her to Christ?
if we’re going to take the bait (the provocation) in those situations and speak up and say, “Hey lady, you’re a wicked lesbian, you need to repent because God doesn’t approve of “so-called” homosexual marriages, whatever the state of MA says” and if we get fired for it, then so be it. Strategically, however, it seems like dumb way to go.
Our culture is not prepared to hear about absolutes. The entire culture has swallowed the notion that “I am am the autonomous definer of my identity.” Yes, in her conscience, she knows that’s nonsense but intellectually, she may have no idea that there’s any such thing as a universal moral, natural/creational law that says homosexuality is sin. I think we can show that but before we do that, shouldn’t we try to establish the existence of such things or at least get her to agree that there are such things as universal moral norms, even if it’s only “You can’t say that about me”? She thinks morality is entirely private, personal, and fundamentally subjective. Of course she doesn’t live that way but it will take time to show her that.
In other words, this fellow tried to compress what would probably be a multi-event conversation (the existence of law, the divine law, her consciousness of the divine law, sin as transgression of the divine law, homosexuality as sin, the grace of God in Christ for sinners including homosexuals) into about a minute or less. It’s like speaking a foreign language. All she hears is: “Here’s an intolerant, religious nut who’s trying to impose his morality on me.”
This is why I’m arguing that it was a really poor strategy.
What about the statistics? The well-respected BARNA group says that 70% of homosexuals identify themselves as Christians. It’s important to note what a BARNA group defines as “Christian” (and it’s a truly liberal definition, make no mistake). Nevertheless, if 70% of homosexuals consider themselves Christians, then odds are this homosexaul women is at least some sort of nominal Christian, which could be helpful.
Here are the BARNA group reports. The first link is where the 70% statistic comes from. The second is the BARNA group’s definiton of “Christian”.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis
Well, my understanding of what happened is that he wasn’t spoiling for a fight, or attempting to evangelize. He just became annoyed by her constant flaunting of her deviancy, and finally got offended by it. If he responded in anger, he could have apologized for his anger, but he has the right to express his opinion without fear of harassment or retaliation.
This is a case that illustrates why people should leave their personal lives out of the job environment. The rule is, if it’s not a work-related discussion, your wasting the company’s money.
I understand your point about tactics, but I think you are over-interpreting what happened in this individual’s case. You seem to want to turn it into a larger issue of (say) sophisticated Reformed confessional tactics versus boorish independent fundamentalist screw ups.
Again, we’re only getting one side of the story, so in the end you may be right. I just think you’re putting too much weight on HOW the gospel is presented rather than on WHAT is presented in the gospel. I’m all for marketing, but it’s the message that is all important.
Vern,
The medium is the message or at least part of the message and if he was being a boorish fundamentalist then that behavior obscures the real message.
What message did he actually send? He didn’t preach the law, not really, and he didn’t preach the gospel. Judging by his testimony he sent a message of personal disapproval. Is that what we want to do?
Dr. Clark is completely correct about this situation. When we take this person at face value, then I have to say he is:
1. Naive not to realize she was looking for a fight
(satan roams about looking to devour)
2. Unwise in his response if he wanted to keep his job
3. Unwise in his response if he wanted to get fired and sue
4. Unwise in his response if he wanted to be martyred for the Gospel
(he didn’t represent Christ, the Good News, OR the Law!)
5. Self centered in being concerned for his own offense instead of God’s
(The greatest love is that a man lay his life down…)
Dr. Clark, I’d like to see some more on this topic. I have had conflicting thoughts on the matter over time as I grow older and am responsible for the taking care of my wife and four wonderful boys. The idealistic younger man in me would like to think that I would be the “hero” and speak out for what is right in the workplace (the Gospel and not just the offense), but the pragmatic side says that it is my god given responsibility to shut-up and just work in the vocation God has given me so that my family can eat. That is the way God provides through His providence. See the tension?
So, in your view, assuming that lay people and not just licensed ministers are allowed to preach the Gospel, how does the Gospel get preached in a world more and more hostile to us?
kazoo
Thank you for posting the question “How should Christians conduct themselves in workplaces that become hostile to traditional and Christian mores?”
I posted the same at my blog yesterday regarding this situation, and a friend pointed me here today. I think there is some very good insight in the comment thread.
Here’s how I would have handled it:
After the 2nd time she mentioned her out-of-w0rk activities I would have said:
“Why do I need to know about this? How about those Red Sox?”
She was obviously inciting our brother and he didn’t handle it well. Next time he probably will know better.
But unless something happens in the lesbian manager’s life, she’ll have all of eternity in hell to ponder her conquest.
this is absurd. Doesn’t the idea of someone raping an infant cause a response in you that is very different from that of a man who looks at a woman with lust but doesn’t act on it?