Category Archives: Christian in the workplace

GUIDELINES ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE

Leave a reply

In his book Business Courage Father Nkwasibwe points out that there was some action to protect religious rights at the workplace. Sad to say that has to be done since the United States Constitution, First Amendment specifically stipulates: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This has been of course construed to be in a passive sense, i.e. it doesn’t give you a right to practice your religion in my presence. Before it was taken for granted that you were entitled to exercise your First Amendment Rights, now that right is qualified by “…only if it doesn’t offend me…” Somehow the First Amendment has been stretched and qualified to mean, unless everyone else is ok with you exercising your rights, you can’t… exercise your rights… uhh? You ask. Ah ya, I don’t get it either.

Interesting President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order in 1997, that Fr Nkwasibwe refers to, I assume is still in effect: GUIDELINES ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE FEDERAL WORKPLACE. Now I don’t put a whole lot of faith in what should/shouldn’t be legal/acceptable, when I was demobilized in 2002 and went back to my regular job, they did exactly what they were supposed to do under the “Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act” and then fired me. I called the Veterans Administration and was basically blown off. Frankly that was fine, it allowed me to go on full-time active duty and God led me from there, but still relying on a federal agency or law etc is always a dicey proposition. I’d like to believe it provides actual protection, but unless you’re willing to spend a lot of time and money, the reality is that it really does little or nothing for you. (I won’t share that company’s name, publicly although it was recently listed as one of the five worst companies to work for, but I will be happy to share if you want to message me.)

This is an “Executive Order”, this only directly applies to federal employees in the executive department (vs the legislative or judicial). This doesn’t have the effect of law, but what is done at the federal level usually guides most other organizations. It doesn’t have to, you can refer to it, but I wouldn’t stake my life on it. I think that you will probably be surprised at what is allowed and you have probably been told is not. Sorry to say there are a lot of people out there who 1. don’t know what they are talking about and, to a lesser degree, are 2) liars. There are way too many who are the former, they don’t know what they’re talking about and they really don’t care, they have their world view and everyone else is supposed to subscribe to that. Christians can often be too polite, I’m not telling anyone to be rude, but there is no reason that you can’t assert your First Amendment rights. There are many in the world that have no problem being divisive and then trying to blame it on others. They love to call others hypocrites, but usually they are the worst kind of hypocrites, they don’t know what they’re talking about and they really don’t care. Anyway, take a pass through the following. If anyone has anymore up to date information please feel free to share and of course feel free to chime in, pro, con or whatever flies your kite. Remember we get together for Wednesday morning coffee at First St Johns, 140 W King St, park right behind the church, 10am. If anyone has any ideas on other times, formats, etc please raise them up. We have a good group, but it should be bigger and we can do a lot more.

“The following Guidelines, addressing religious exercise and religious expression, shall apply to all civilian executive branch agencies, officials, and employees in the Federal workplace.

These Guidelines principally address employees’ religious exercise and religious expression when the employees are acting in their personal capacity within the Federal workplace and the public does not have regular exposure to the workplace. The Guidelines do not comprehensively address whether and when the government and its employees may engage in religious speech directed at the public. They also do not address religious exercise and religious expression by uniformed military personnel, or the conduct of business by chaplains employed by the Federal Government. Nor do the Guidelines define the rights and responsibilities of non-governmental employers — including religious employers — and their employees. Although these Guidelines, including the examples cited in them, should answer the most frequently encountered questions in the Federal workplace, actual cases sometimes will be complicated by additional facts and circumstances that may require a different result from the one the Guidelines indicate.

Section 1. Guidelines for Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. Executive departments and agencies (“agencies”) shall permit personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible, consistent with requirements of law and interests in workplace efficiency as described in this set of Guidelines. Agencies shall not discriminate against employees on the basis of religion, require religious participation or non-participation as a condition of employment, or permit religious harassment. And agencies shall accommodate employees’ exercise of their religion in the circumstances specified in these Guidelines. These requirements are but applications of the general principle that agencies shall treat all employees with the same respect and consideration, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).

A. Religious Expression. As a matter of law, agencies shall not restrict personal religious expression by employees in the Federal workplace except where the employee’s interest in the expression is outweighed by the government’s interest in the efficient provision of public services or where the expression intrudes upon the legitimate rights of other employees or creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion. The examples cited in these Guidelines as permissible forms of religious expression will rarely, if ever, fall within these exceptions.

As a general rule, agencies may not regulate employees’ personal religious expression on the basis of its content or viewpoint. In other words, agencies generally may not suppress employees’ private religious speech in the workplace while leaving unregulated other private employee speech that has a comparable effect on the efficiency of the workplace — including ideological speech on politics and other topics — because to do so would be to engage in presumptively unlawful content or viewpoint discrimination. Agencies, however, may, in their discretion, reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of all employee speech, provided such regulations do not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint.

The Federal Government generally has the authority to regulate an employee’s private speech, including religious speech, where the employee’s interest in that speech is outweighed by the government’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs. Agencies should exercise this authority evenhandedly and with restraint, and with regard for the fact that Americans are used to expressions of disagreement on controversial subjects, including religious ones. Agencies are not required, however, to permit employees to use work time to pursue religious or ideological agendas. Federal employees are paid to perform official work, not to engage in personal religious or ideological campaigns during work hours.

(1) Expression in Private Work Areas. Employees should be permitted to engage in private religious expression in personal work areas not regularly open to the public to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable content- and viewpoint-neutral standards and restrictions: such religious expression must be permitted so long as it does not interfere with the agency’s carrying out of its official responsibilities.

Examples

(a) An employee may keep a Bible or Koran on her private desk and read it during breaks.

(b) An agency may restrict all posters, or posters of a certain size, in private work areas, or require that such posters be displayed facing the employee, and not on common walls; but the employer typically cannot single out religious or anti-religious posters for harsher or preferential treatment.

(2) Expression Among Fellow Employees. Employees should be permitted to engage in religious expression with fellow employees, to the same extent that they may engage in comparable nonreligious private expression, subject to reasonable and content-neutral standards and restrictions: such expression should not be restricted so long as it does not interfere with workplace efficiency. Though agencies are entitled to regulate such employee speech based on reasonable predictions of disruption, they should not restrict speech based on merely hypothetical concerns, having little basis in fact, that the speech will have a deleterious effect on workplace efficiency.

Examples

(a) In informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, employees are entitled to discuss their religious views with one another, subject only to the same rules of order as apply to other employee expression. If an agency permits unrestricted nonreligious expression of a controversial nature, it must likewise permit equally controversial religious expression.

(b) Employees are entitled to display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. So long as they do not convey any governmental endorsement of religion, religious messages may not typically be singled out for suppression.

(c) Employees generally may wear religious medallions over their clothes or so that they are otherwise visible. Typically, this alone will not affect workplace efficiency, and therefore is protected.

(3) Expression Directed at Fellow Employees. Employees are permitted to engage in religious expression directed at fellow employees, and may even attempt to persuade fellow employees of the correctness of their religious views, to the same extent as those employees may engage in comparable speech not involving religion. Some religions encourage adherents to spread the faith at every opportunity, a duty that can encompass the adherent’s workplace. As a general matter, proselytizing is as entitled to constitutional protection as any other form of speech — as long as a reasonable observer would not interpret the expression as government endorsement of religion. Employees may urge a colleague to participate or not to participate in religious activities to the same extent that, consistent with concerns of workplace efficiency, they may urge their colleagues to engage in or refrain from other personal endeavors. But employees must refrain from such expression when a fellow employee asks that it stop or otherwise demonstrates that it is unwelcome. (Such expression by supervisors is subject to special consideration as discussed in Section B(2) of these guidelines.)

Examples

(a) During a coffee break, one employee engages another in a polite discussion of why his faith should be embraced. The other employee disagrees with the first employee’s religious exhortations, but does not ask that the conversation stop. Under these circumstances, agencies should not restrict or interfere with such speech.

(b) One employee invites another employee to attend worship services at her church, though she knows that the invitee is a devout adherent of another faith. The invitee is shocked, and asks that the invitation not be repeated. The original invitation is protected, but the employee should honor the request that no further invitations be issued.

(c) In a parking lot, a non-supervisory employee hands another employee a religious tract urging that she convert to another religion lest she be condemned to eternal damnation. The proselytizing employee says nothing further and does not inquire of his colleague whether she followed the pamphlet’s urging. This speech typically should not be restricted.

Though personal religious expression such as that described in these examples, standing alone, is protected in the same way, and to the same extent, as other constitutionally valued speech in the Federal workplace, such expression should not be permitted if it is part of a larger pattern of verbal attacks on fellow employees (or a specific employee) not sharing the faith of the speaker. Such speech, by virtue of its excessive or harassing nature, may constitute religious harassment or create a hostile work environment, as described in Part B(3) of these Guidelines, and an agency should not tolerate it.

(4) Expression in Areas Accessible to the Public. Where the public has access to the Federal workplace, all Federal employers must be sensitive to the Establishment Clause’s requirement that expression not create the reasonable impression that the government is sponsoring, endorsing, or inhibiting re ligion generally, or favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. This is particularly important in agencies with adjudicatory functions.

However, even in workplaces open to the public, not all private employee religious expression is forbidden. For example, Federal employees may wear personal religious jewelry absent special circumstances (such as safety concerns) that might require a ban on all similar nonreligious jewelry. Employees may also display religious art and literature in their personal work areas to the same extent that they may display other art and literature, so long as the viewing public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employee acting in her personal capacity, and not that of the government itself. Similarly, in their private time employees may discuss religion with willing coworkers in public spaces to the same extent as they may discuss other subjects, so long as the public would reasonably understand the religious expression to be that of the employees acting in their personal capacities.

B. Religious Discrimination. Federal agencies may not discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning religion.

(1) Discrimination in Terms and Conditions. No agency within the executive branch may promote, refuse to promote, hire, refuse to hire, or otherwise favor or disfavor, an employee or potential employee because of his or her religion, religious beliefs, or views concerning religion.

Examples

(a) A Federal agency may not refuse to hire Buddhists, or impose more onerous requirements on applicants for employment who are Buddhists.

(b) An agency may not impose, explicitly or implicitly, stricter promotion requirements for Christians, or impose stricter discipline on Jews than on other employees, based on their religion. Nor may Federal agencies give advantages to Christians in promotions, or impose lesser discipline on Jews than on other employees, based on their religion.

(c) A supervisor may not impose more onerous work requirements on an employee who is an atheist because that employee does not share the supervisor’s religious beliefs.

(2) Coercion of Employee’s Participation or Nonparticipation in Religious Activities. A person holding supervisory authority over an employee may not, explicitly or implicitly, insist that the employee participate in religious activities as a condition of continued employment, promotion, salary increases, preferred job assignments, or any other incidents of employment. Nor may a supervisor insist that an employee refrain from participating in religious activities outside the workplace except pursuant to otherwise legal, neutral restrictions that apply to employees’ off-duty conduct and expression in general (e.g., restrictions on political activities prohibited by the Hatch Act).

This prohibition leaves supervisors free to engage in some kinds of speech about religion. Where a supervisor’s religious expression is not coercive and is understood as his or her personal view, that expression is protected in the Federal workplace in the same way and to the same extent as other constitutionally valued speech. For example, if surrounding circumstances indicate that the expression is merely the personal view of the supervisor and that employees are free to reject or ignore the supervisor’s point of view or invitation without any harm to their careers or professional lives, such expression is so protected.

Because supervisors have the power to hire, fire, or promote, employees may reasonably perceive their supervisors’ religious expression as coercive, even if it was not intended as such. Therefore, supervisors should be careful to ensure that their statements and actions are such that employees do not perceive any coercion of religious or non-religious behavior (or respond as if such coercion is occurring), and should, where necessary, take appropriate steps to dispel such misperceptions.

Examples

(a) A supervisor may invite coworkers to a son’s confirmation in a church, a daughter’s bat mitzvah in a synagogue, or to his own wedding at a temple. But a supervisor should not say to an employee: “I didn’t see you in church this week. I expect to see you there this Sunday.”

(b) On a bulletin board on which personal notices unrelated to work regularly are permitted, a supervisor may post a flyer announcing an Easter musical service at her church, with a handwritten notice inviting co-workers to attend. But a supervisor should not circulate a memo announcing that he will be leading a lunch-hour Talmud class that employees should attend in order to participate in a discussion of career advancement that will convene at the conclusion of the class.

(c) During a wide-ranging discussion in the cafeteria about various non-work related matters, a supervisor states to an employee her belief that religion is important in one’s life. Without more, this is not coercive, and the statement is protected in the Federal workplace in the same way, and to the same extent, as other constitutionally valued speech.

(d) A supervisor who is an atheist has made it known that he thinks that anyone who attends church regularly should not be trusted with the public weal. Over a period of years, the supervisor regularly awards merit increases to employees who do not attend church routinely, but not to employees of equal merit who do attend church. This course of conduct would reasonably be perceived as coercive and should be prohibited.

(e) At a lunch-table discussion about abortion, during which a wide range of views are vigorously expressed, a supervisor shares with those he supervises his belief that God demands full respect for unborn life, and that he believes it is appropriate for all persons to pray for the unborn. Another supervisor expresses the view that abortion should be kept legal because God teaches that women must have control over their own bodies. Without more, neither of these comments coerces employees’ religious conformity or conduct. Therefore, unless the supervisors take further steps to coerce agreement with their view or act in ways that could reasonably be perceived as coercive, their expressions are protected in the Federal workplace in the same way and to the same extent as other constitutionally valued speech.

(3) Hostile Work Environment and Harassment. The law against workplace discrimination protects Federal employees from being subjected to a hostile environment, or religious harassment, in the form of religiously discriminatory intimidation, or pervasive or severe religious ridicule or insult, whether by supervisors or fellow workers. Whether particular conduct gives rise to a hostile environment, or constitutes impermissible religious harassment, will usually depend upon its frequency or repetitiveness, as well as its severity. The use of derogatory language in an assaultive manner can constitute statutory religious harassment if it is severe or invoked repeatedly. A single incident, if sufficiently abusive, might also constitute statutory harassment. However, although employees should always be guided by general principles of civility and workplace efficiency, a hostile environment is not created by the bare expression of speech with which some employees might disagree. In a country where freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed, citizens should expect to be exposed to ideas with which they disagree.

The examples below are intended to provide guidance on when conduct or words constitute religious harassment that should not be tolerated in the Federal workplace. In a particular case, the question of employer liability would require consideration of additional factors, including the extent to which the agency was aware of the harassment and the actions the agency took to address it.

Examples

(a) An employee repeatedly makes derogatory remarks to other employees with whom she is assigned to work about their faith or lack of faith. This typically will constitute religious harassment. An agency should not tolerate such conduct.

(b) A group of employees subjects a fellow employee to a barrage of comments about his sex life, knowing that the targeted employee would be discomforted and offended by such comments because of his religious beliefs. This typically will constitute harassment, and an agency should not tolerate it.

(c) A group of employees that share a common faith decides that they want to work exclusively with people who share their views. They engage in a pattern of verbal attacks on other employees who do not share their views, calling them heathens, sinners, and the like. This conduct should not be tolerated.

(d) Two employees have an angry exchange of words. In the heat of the moment, one makes a derogatory comment about the other’s religion. When tempers cool, no more is said. Unless the words are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the insulted employee’s employment or create an abusive working environment, this is not statutory religious harassment.

(e) Employees wear religious jewelry and medallions over their clothes or so that they are otherwise visible. Others wear buttons with a generalized religious or anti-religious message. Typically, these expressions are personal and do not alone constitute religious harassment.

(f) In her private work area, a Federal worker keeps a Bible or Koran on her private desk and reads it during breaks. Another employee displays a picture of Jesus and the text of the Lord’s Prayer in her private work area. This conduct, without more, is not religious harassment, and does not create an impermissible hostile environment with respect to employees who do not share those religious views, even if they are upset or offended by the conduct.

(g) During lunch, certain employees gather on their own time for prayer and Bible study in an empty conference room that employees are generally free to use on a first-come, first-served basis. Such a gathering does not constitute religious harassment even if other employees with different views on how to pray might feel excluded or ask that the group be disbanded.

C. Accommodation of Religious Exercise. Federal law requires an agency to accommodate employees’ exercise of their religion unless such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the agency’s operations. Though an agency need not make an accommodation that will result in more than a de minimis cost to the agency, that cost or hardship nevertheless must be real rather than speculative or hypothetical: the accommodation should be made unless it would cause an actual cost to the agency or to other employees or an actual disruption of work, or unless it is otherwise barred by law.

In addition, religious accommodation cannot be disfavored vis-a-vis other, nonreligious accommodations. Therefore, a religious accommodation cannot be denied if the agency regularly permits similar accommodations for nonreligious purposes.

Examples

(a) An agency must adjust work schedules to accommodate an employee’s religious observance — for example, Sabbath or religious holiday observance — if an adequate substitute is available, or if the employee’s absence would not otherwise impose an undue burden on the agency.

(b) An employee must be permitted to wear religious garb, such as a crucifix, a yarmulke, or a head scarf or hijab, if wearing such attire during the work day is part of the employee’s religious practice or expression, so long as the wearing of such garb does not unduly interfere with the functioning of the workplace.

(c) An employee should be excused from a particular assignment if performance of that assignment would contravene the employee’s religious beliefs and the agency would not suffer undue hardship in reassigning the employee to another detail.

(d) During lunch, certain employees gather on their own time for prayer and Bible study in an empty conference room that employees are generally free to use on a first-come, first-served basis. Such a gathering may not be subject to discriminatory restrictions because of its religious content.

In those cases where an agency’s work rule imposes a substantial burden on a particular employee’s exercise of religion, the agency must go further: an agency should grant the employee an exemption from that rule, unless the agency has a compelling interest in denying the exemption and there is no less restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Examples

(a) A corrections officer whose religion compels him or her to wear long hair should be granted an exemption from an otherwise generally applicable hair-length policy unless denial of an exemption is the least restrictive means of preserving safety, security, discipline or other compelling interests.

(b) An applicant for employment in a governmental agency who is a Jehovah’s Witness should not be compelled, contrary to her religious beliefs, to take a loyalty oath whose form is religiously objectionable.

D. Establishment of Religion. Supervisors and employees must not engage in activities or expression that a reasonable observer would interpret as Government endorsement or denigration of religion or a particular religion. Activities of employees need not be officially sanctioned in order to violate this principle; if, in all the circumstances, the activities would leave a reasonable observer with the impression that Government was endorsing, sponsoring, or inhibiting religion generally or favoring or disfavoring a particular religion, they are not permissible. Diverse factors, such as the context of the expression or whether official channels of communication are used, are relevant to what a reasonable observer would conclude.

Examples

(a) At the conclusion of each weekly staff meeting and before anyone leaves the room, an employee leads a prayer in which nearly all employees participate. All employees are required to attend the weekly meeting. The supervisor neither explicitly recognizes the prayer as an official function nor explicitly states that no one need participate in the prayer. This course of conduct is not permitted unless under all the circumstances a reasonable observer would conclude that the prayer was not officially endorsed.

(b) At Christmas time, a supervisor places a wreath over the entrance to the office’s main reception area. This course of conduct is permitted.

Section 2. Guiding Legal Principles. In applying the guidance set forth in section 1 of this order, executive branch departments and agencies should consider the following legal principles.

A. Religious Expression. It is well-established that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects Government employees in the workplace. This right encompasses a right to speak about religious subjects. The Free Speech Clause also prohibits the Government from singling out religious expression for disfavored treatment: “[P]rivate religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression,” Capitol Sq. Review Bd. v. Pinette, 115 S.Ct. 2448 (1995). Accordingly, in the Government workplace, employee religious expression cannot be regulated because of its religious character, and such religious speech typically cannot be singled out for harsher treatment than other comparable expression.

Many religions strongly encourage their adherents to spread the faith by persuasion and example at every opportunity, a duty that can extend to the adherents’ workplace. As a general matter, proselytizing is entitled to the same constitutional protection as any other form of speech. Therefore, in the governmental workplace, proselytizing should not be singled out because of its content for harsher treatment than nonreligious expression.

However, it is also well-established that the Government in its role as employer has broader discretion to regulate its employees’ speech in the workplace than it does to regulate speech among the public at large. Employees’ expression on matters of public concern can be regulated if the employees’ interest in the speech is outweighed by the interest of the Government, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Governmental employers also possess substantial discretion to impose content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner rules regulating private employee expression in the workplace (though they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against particular viewpoints). Furthermore, employee speech can be regulated or discouraged if it impairs discipline by superiors, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise, or demonstrates that the employee holds views that could lead his employer or the public reasonably to question whether he can perform his duties adequately.

Consistent with its fully protected character, employee religious speech should be treated, within the Federal workplace, like other expression on issues of public concern: in a particular case, an employer can discipline an employee for engaging in speech if the value of the speech is outweighed by the employer’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employee. Typically, however, the religious speech cited as permissible in the various examples included in these Guidelines will not unduly impede these interests and should not be regulated. And rules regulating employee speech, like other rules regulating speech, must be carefully drawn to avoid any unnecessary limiting or chilling of protected speech.

B. Discrimination in Terms and Conditions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers, both private and public, to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). The Federal Government also is bound by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which bars intentional discrimination on the basis of religion. Moreover, the prohibition on religious discrimination in employment applies with particular force to the Federal Government, for Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution bars the Government from enforcing any religious test as a requirement for qualification to any Office. In addition, if a Government law, regulation or practice facially discriminates against employees’ private exercise of religion or is intended to infringe upon or restrict private religious exercise, then that law, regulation, or practice implicates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Last, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, Federal governmental action that substantially burdens a private party’s exercise of religion can be enforced only if it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.

C. Coercion of Employees’ Participation or Nonparticipation in Religious Activities. The ban on religious discrimination is broader than simply guaranteeing nondiscriminatory treatment in formal employment decisions such as hiring and promotion. It applies to all terms and conditions of employment. It follows that the Federal Government may not require or coerce its employees to engage in religious activities or to refrain from engaging in religious activity. For example, a supervisor may not demand attendance at (or a refusal to attend) religious services as a condition of continued employment or promotion, or as a criterion affecting assignment of job duties. Quid pro quo discrimination of this sort is illegal. Indeed, wholly apart from the legal prohibitions against coercion, supervisors may not insist upon employees’ conformity to religious behavior in their private lives any more than they can insist on conformity to any other private conduct unrelated to employees’ ability to carry out their duties.

D. Hostile Work Environment and Harassment. Employers violate Title VII’s ban on discrimination by creating or tolerating a “hostile environment” in which an employee is subject to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment. This statutory standard can be triggered (at the very least) when an employee, because of her or his religion or lack thereof, is exposed to intimidation, ridicule, and insult. The hostile conduct — which may take the form of speech — need not come from supervisors or from the employer. Fellow employees can create a hostile environment through their own words and actions.

The existence of some offensive workplace conduct does not necessarily constitute harassment under Title VII. Occasional and isolated utterances of an epithet that engenders offensive feelings in an employee typically would not affect conditions of employment, and therefore would not in and of itself constitute harassment. A hostile environment, for Title VII purposes, is not created by the bare expression of speech with which one disagrees. For religious harassment to be illegal under Title VII, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Whether conduct can be the predicate for a finding of religious harassment under Title VII depends on the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the verbal or physical conduct at issue and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. As the Supreme Court has said in an analogous context:

[W]hether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).

The use of derogatory language directed at an employee can rise to the level of religious harassment if it is severe or invoked repeatedly. In particular, repeated religious slurs and negative religious stereotypes, or continued disparagement of an employee’s religion or ritual practices, or lack thereof, can constitute harassment. It is not necessary that the harassment be explicitly religious in character or that the slurs reference religion: it is sufficient that the harassment is directed at an employee because of the employee’s religion or lack thereof. That is to say, Title VII can be violated by employer tolerance of repeated slurs, insults and/or abuse not explicitly religious in nature if that conduct would not have occurred but for the targete d employee’s religious belief or lack of religious belief. Finally, although proselytization directed at fellow employees is generally permissible (subject to the special considerations relating to supervisor expression discussed elsewhere in these Guidelines), such activity must stop if the listener asks that it stops or otherwise demonstrates that it is unwelcome.

E. Accommodation of Religious Exercise. Title VII requires employers “to reasonably accommodate . . . an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice” unless such accommodation would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). For example, by statute, if an employee’s religious beliefs require her to be absent from work, the Federal Government must grant that employee compensation time for overtime work, to be applied against the time lost, unless to do so would harm the ability of the agency to carry out its mission efficiently. 5 U.S.C. 5550a.

Though an employer need not incur more than de minimis costs in providing an accommodation, the employer hardship nevertheless must be real rather than speculative or hypothetical. Religious accommodation cannot be disfavored relative to other, nonreligious, accommodations. If an employer regularly permits accommodation for nonreligious purposes, it cannot deny comparable religious accommodation: “Such an arrangement would display a discrimination against religious practices that is the antithesis of reasonableness.” Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 71 (1986).

In the Federal Government workplace, if neutral workplace rules — that is, rules that do not single out religious or religiously motivated conduct for disparate treatment — impose a substantial burden on a particular employee’s exercise of religion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the employer to grant the employee an exemption from that neutral rule, unless the employer has a compelling interest in denying an exemption and there is no less restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1.

F. Establishment of Religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the Government — including its employees — from acting in a manner that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the Government is sponsoring, endorsing or inhibiting religion generally or favoring or disfavoring a particular religion. For example, where the public has access to the Federal workplace, employee religious expression should be prohibited where the public reasonably would perceive that the employee is acting in an official, rather than a private, capacity, or under circumstances that would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the Government is endorsing or disparaging religion. The Establishment Clause also forbids Federal employees from using Government funds or resources (other than those facilities generally available to government employees) for private religious uses.

Section 3. General. These Guidelines shall govern the internal management of the civilian executive branch. They are not intended to create any new right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. Questions regarding interpretations of these Guidelines should be brought to the Office of the General Counsel or Legal Counsel in each department and agency.

Integrity in the workplace in faith in Christ

Leave a reply

Father Nkwasibwe raises a point which I think deserves a lot of consideration in terms of organizational management. “Only a leader who has undergone a personal path of conversion and lived with an interior attitude of conversion and humility can be an example of the effort to downgrade workplace religious bias, prejudice and discrimination and other sinful inequalities. Such a leader enjoys the moral courage of freedom, responsibility and participation in social, cultural and religious interchange and promotion of the common good.”

Ya, ya, I can hear the clenching from here. The contemporary wisdom goes something like this, you have to hire someone who is completely unbiased, unattached, uncommitted, just “un” everything. I have to wonder if that is someone you can really trust. One of the main reasons for this blog is to champion the concept of living one’s faith life out in the workplace. Now, I will grant you that many see their faith life as converting the heathen. And I’m certainly not saying that given the opportunity in the workplace that I wouldn’t witness to Christ. I have, but when I do/did, it was with integrity. I’m there to present Christ, to tell people what He’s done in my life. What the Lordship of Christ in my life means, and what eternal life means. Now to be truly faithful to that, my witness has to be one that is with integrity, doing my job in a way that glorifies Christ. Not getting into holy wars, not picking on people, not discriminating etc. Always remembering that part of living my life in Christ in the workplace is to do my job with integrity and not using it as a way to abuse my position in favor of those who agree with me. Is that easy? No.

On the flip side, that person who has no scruples in terms of their life regarding “God”, however they see that, that’s better? No, it just isn’t. This is a person who’s decided that they know best, they trust only in their own judgment, or the judgment of other people. That is the continued downfall of secularism. We continue to try and impose individual, unguided, uncritical, frankly mostly about how I can do things to enhance me, and then expect that person to make principled, unbiased judgments. That’s a ridiculous expectation. This person is, bottom line, all about him or her. If anything they will discriminate against people of faith, like the college professor who picks out Christian students and decides that for a variety of reasons, they just don’t have it, tries to bully them into denying their Christian convictions. Come on, are there more Ken Lay’s and Bernie Madoff’s in the business world, or more David Green’s (owner of Hobby Lobby)? Ya right, who would I trust more? Come on! Who could I expect to hold accountable and who would think that they are a law unto themselves?

I’m not saying that Christians are always the most humble or the most principled. But I can go to David Green and if he’s not acting according to Christian principles I can hold him accountable. Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff et al, the only thing they are accountable for is the bottom line, investor value anything else, they will do as they judge and that’s what will get the secular man or woman in trouble every time.

“Self leadership, which is an offshoot of conversion, is that leadership that spurs others through moral values and exemplary skilled practices because nemo dat quod non habet. …Latin … “nobody gives what he or she does not have’. No matter what, this cannot be bypassed if effectiveness and righteousness are to be realized… Undergoing a path of conversion involves sustaining on-going renewal and connotes persevering in holiness, true friendship and altruistic service. … a journey of discovery, spiritual progress or soul’s journey toward God…”

“…it is also when conversion occurs that the leader can develop courage to lead the workplace community to ascend from the disrepute to which unethical practices and religious rivalry and confrontations have drawn most business actions.”

A man of faith is going to be a lot more likely to step up and take the heat and trust God’s providence as compared to the just cowardly, infantile, pathetic actions of people like Lay, Madoff and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco. Just squirrely little weenies. I know, not very charitable, but it is what it is. (Quick note, I had to Google Tyco. You know what the first reference was “tyco scandal”. Ya, just how you want to be remembered.)

Popular media likes to try to portray people of religion as bigots, narrow-minded, abusive. But the reality completely contradicts the popular fiction. I’d rather work for Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil A before I worked for Dennis Kozlowski.

Our group meets for discussion on Wednesday 10am, coffeehouse at the corner of  W King and Beaver Sts. Parking is behind the church 140 W King St, about a 50 yard walk from there. No charge, no committment, I will even buy your first cup of coffee. We are still in Gene Veith’s book, “God at Work”. See you then and God bless you.

 

Humbleness in the workplace

2 Replies

As Christians whether we are the “boss”, in any kind of prominent position ya like a pastor, or just known as a Christian where you work, or part of group, in the community, there is a kind of attitude and humility that is generally part of being a Christian. I like C.S. Lewis’ quote: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it’s thinking of yourself less.” To be sure, we are more Christlike when we are more concerned with the interests of others then our own concerns, our own agenda. Believe me it is a struggle for me.

What’s that fine line between who is in charge and how that looks and thinking of others. To be sure Father Frederick Nkwasibwe’s observation that: “Humility occasions commitment to conquer all conditioning’s and biases within oneself. In addition, it occasions combat of individual, institutional and structural discrimination and prejudice.” (Business Courage p 397) Too be sure we need to be aware of our prejudices in many areas of our makeup. Jesus certainly modeled that. Certainly 1st century Israel was a very provincial and prideful people. They were God’s chosen and everyone else wasn’t. There was particular acrimony between them and Samaritans, in Jesus’ interactions with Samaritans He showed as much charity to them and other non-Israelites as He did to anyone. He also dealt with those who were prideful in no uncertain terms. In terms of humility, it is being focused on what is important, are we truly acting in a way that brings glory to God. Sometimes you have to hold people accountable and Jesus did that with His own followers and with those in the Jewish leadership. But He did not let another’s ethnicity or as it were “paganism” be a barrier. Jesus treated the Roman centurion with respect, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the Samaritans. He served them all even though they were very far from knowing who Jesus was and what He was all about.

“Demonstrating humility in leading, interpersonal communication, developing human skills, learning, implementing corrective action and giving feedback among others constitute a big advantage of practicing and living healthy mature-faith-focus workplace spirituality. This highly impacts productivity. For example, a humble and contrite heart of the boss does not accept to live luxuriously at the expense of the staff and endeavors to bridge the disparity in top-up allowances of benefits that exists between himself and the staff. The courage of leadership typified by the virtue of temperance is, for example, required by the highly paid CEOs or MDs at an S&P 500 company or other organizations making over 100 times more than a typical worker receives. Similarly, a humble and contrite heart of the follower is always cautious and prudent yet tight-lipped when it lacks evidence to speak… Humility makes leaders unashamed to behave in a manner that is not a popular workplace fashion yet a righteous one….Humility makes it easy for leadership to establish credible and altruistic workplace structures that can effectively and ethically moderate tempers and mediate between competing workplace discords.” (pp 397-398)

This is a genuine concern of mine, in my own experience I’ve seen too many “leaders” make decisions that were based on pride and/or popularity. It is certainly instructive to me. As a still, relatively, new pastor, I’ve had to learn the hard way about leadership decisions, that might have been more about perception, then an actual act of pridefulness. How to assert authority, but still do it in a way that isn’t prideful, abrasive, or at least even perceived that way? Jesus could certainly do it and impact even His enemies. We watched Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ again last night. Doing this blog and the movie being fresh in my mind, at least in the movie, even in defeat/crucifixion, Jesus left a discernible mark on those who witnessed His “defeat”. Certainly the Roman centurion’s witness at the crucifixion: “Truly this man was the Son of God”. (Mark 15:39) Even in the degradation and torture of crucifixion, Jesus was still perceived having strength and dignity. Was it Jesus’ true concern for those who were there, for all humanity, that showed through and influenced their perception? As a Christian leader we balance the good of the organization, our authority and need to do our job with genuine concern for those stakeholders we serve. We know stakeholders are management, shareholders, peers, employees. Yea, it’s a lot, we trust in Christ to guide us through these situations too.

We meet at the coffeehouse at the corner of W King and Beaver Sts, no cost (yea, I’ll even buy your first cup of coffee), no obligation, come on down, break up the day and join in some good discussion about being Christian in the workplace. Wednesdays 10am, parking is open right behind the church 140 W King.

Failure, not the final frontier, often just the beginning.

1 Reply

There is such a sensitivity to failure. People today are almost hypervigilant about being “safe”, playing it “safe”. Frankly I hear the word safe/safety so abused I just want to cringe from embarrassment, because there are so many who cringe in fear. Do the reading, in Christian history, any kind of history. Say what you will, but there is a lot of courage in the business world. Reading an article in Forbes, Warren Buffets children said that he expect them to fail, if they weren’t failing at some point then they weren’t really doing what needed to be done.

Where would we be if people like Columbus, Edison (I’m sure you’ve heard it took 500 attempts for him to get the incandescent light right), the American Founding Fathers. There have been a lot of people who’ve tried but failed, but who should probably be recognized just because they made the effort to make it better for someone else.

In secular terms,  I certainly can’t say I’ve been any kind of success, but I have been faithful. Is there any doubt that God is not always about success in our life, but He is about our being faithful, taking the chances, not cowering in fear.

You’ve no doubt heard of Corning Glass, in Corning, NY. It’s been around for 162 years, that alone should tell you it’s got to have something going for it. Connie Guglielmo writes in an interview with Matt Dejneka: “There are no accidents.” “Those four words could sum up Corning’s 162-year history of continuous reinvention. No concoction is ever deemed an accident or true failure since Corning believes in ‘patient capital,’ the idea of investing in unproven technologies even if there’s no quick profit. The firm is rife with stories of inventions that sat on the shelves for decades until the right opportunity came along. The weather-resistant borosilicate glass designed for railroad lanterns gave rise to Pyrex cookware…” (Forbes Mag Sept 23, 2013 p 90)

Not failure, so much as the right opportunity. Those who stayed “safe” weren’t remembered. We remember Moses, Abraham, David, Paul, Matthew, Peter on and on. We don’t remember those who were “smart”, and played it “safe”. The world calls us to be “safe”, and I still can not understand what that means, safe into a mediocre twilight of existence, simply fading away. There is no hope and promise in what the world offers, and it certainly doesn’t offer anything that doesn’t rot, die and decay. Centuries of Christians have been called to stand up and challenge the world, in whatever God guides us to do, in the church, in education, in business in the government. Christians have been playing it “safe” for too long and yes that certainly includes the church. Even as the church we believe the world’s story and not Christ’s, we cringe and cower just to tell those around us about Him. We are put into these places for a reason, not to be obnoxious and loud, but to be faithful, the reason for our strength, our faith, our existence is in Christ the Lord.

It’s not offending if it’s in love and concern

Leave a reply

Uhhhmmm, I don’t know… “Of importance to the courage of leadership is cultivating spiritual and religious humility, which is an attitude of respect and esteem developed when encountering people of other faiths.” (Fr Leo Nkwasibwe Business Courage p 397)

A Christian should never be disrespectful to any other person, regardless of anything; religion, race, sexual preference. But it seems to me that Christians are a little too quick to defer, to willing to back off, to me that’s a little too, well I’ll say it, gutless to Christ. Jesus didn’t back down one bit when confronted by the Jewish leaders, by Pontius Pilate, by anyone who some how called Him out. He directed demons, He took control of the situations He was in. He didn’t concede the field to anyone, now a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that He is God. He created the people He was confronting, He knew more in an instant, than they’d ever know in a lifetime. So that’s a little difficult for me to reconcile how Jesus, who is God, confronts, as compared to me. One way I am looking at it, is that Jesus’s life is the example that I should follow. No question, Jesus was never obnoxious about it, but He was always assertive. This is the way it is, this is the truth and you need to deal with it.

As a Coast Guard Petty Officer, I was trained as a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer by the nature of the vocation is going to encounter confrontation. It is incumbent on the officer to handle a situation as safely and expediently as possible, this in the best interests of everyone. This reduces the possibility losing control, injury of any parties, and getting the parties involved to where they need to be.This is analogous to Christian witnessing.

I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t meek and humble, certainly the incarnation itself was a demonstration of Jesus’ willingness to humble Himself in order to do what was necessary for man. John MacArthur quotes the NASB:

Have this attitude 1in yourselves which was also in bChrist Jesus,

6  who, although He aexisted in the bform of God, cdid not regard equality with God a thing to be 1grasped,

7  but 1aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bbond-servant, and cbeing made in the likeness of men.

8  Being found in appearance as a man, aHe humbled Himself by becoming bobedient to the point of death, even cdeath 1on a cross.

We should always look to serve. But perhaps I see service not as caving in, but as doing what is best for those involved. Certainly I serve Christ by being an assertive witness for Him. Christ died for the sins of the world, it is not God’s will that any should die, but all should be saved. Sorry, the fact of the matter is this, only in Christ are we saved. Same old discussion, I can tell people what they want to hear and not offend, or I can tell them what they need to hear. In an assertive way, no one is hurt, in fact ultimately they are saved from eternal hurt. I have stayed in control and kept the focus on Christ, too often these discussions end in everyone either genuinely considering what was said or being offended, frankly I’m more concerned about offending Jesus, then offending people who are misguided to begin with. Jesus said the Gospel would offend, we can’t help how other people react, we can only be faithful and assertive.

“Assertive”, does not mean loud, obnoxious, pugnacious, it means “this is where it’s at, this is how it is. You can chose to accept it or not, but this is how it’s going to be. If someone is being arrested for cause, they can be offended (they usually are), they can talk all kinds of smack about you, your momma etc, but the fact of the matter is this, they’re under arrest and just as in Christ there will be a judgment. All are going to be judged, I want to be judged faithful to Christ, when others are judged and found to be not in Christ, well… suffice to say, it’s not going to be pleasant for them. A secular judge can send someone to jail, the ultimate Judge will condemn those who have rejected Him, and jail will seem like a luxury resort compared to where they will be condemned.

These aren’t my words, they are Jesus’. I’m not making this stuff, it is the way God the Son promised that it would be. I’m not doing my co-worker, family member, neighbor, other guy I play basketball with, a favor, by patting them on the head and sending them on their way because they were offended. Hopefully not by the way I said it, because those in the world will always use that as an excuse, but as respectfully and in love, wanting what is best for them.

Maybe Father Nkwasibwe has a different definition of esteem, I esteem the fact that we were all made in the imago dei. But I’m sorry I do not “esteem” someone else’s wrong opinion. You can condemn yourself, but I wouldn’t esteem your killing yourself with pills versus hanging. Either are evil and so is spiritual poison, that kills, not just the body but for eternity. I have to be serious and assertive about the Gospel, not antagonistic, because I don’t want anyone hurt, but in a way that conveys that I am very serious, that I have full confidence in what I’m doing and if the other person doesn’t want to end up spiritually damaged they would do well to listen to what I have to say.

People do respond to assertiveness and confidence, they may not comply as if they were under arrest, but they will think about it. We often don’t see the results of our witnessing, we are told that we will be used to plant. Don’t quit because there are no results, we are called to be faithful, when we witness with confidence, assurance and in genuine love, we are being as faithful as we can be.

So, no, don’t start a holy war at work, there is such thing as discretion. But don’t be too fast to just concede the field. I’ve had Christian pastors tell me that other pastors shouldn’t be allowed to say the Name of Christ in their public prayer. Why? Well they don’t want to offend. The Gospel offends, Jesus told us it would, we are called to faithful, if that offends, well, there’s not a lot I can do about that, except to continue to faithfully serve the Lord of Life.

We meet on Wednesday’s 10am the Green Bean Coffee Co. corner of W King and Beaver Sts in downtown York, parking behind the church.

God’s will, even in the little things.

Leave a reply

We had a great “Coffee Break Bible Study” today, (you could have too, you are all invited 10am Wednesdays Green Bean Coffee Co, corner of W King and Beaver Sts, downtown York, Pa.). Part of the discussion was on liturgical worship, but we also made time on the Gene Veith book that we’ve been studying. I had to share some of his book today.

“…The point here is not to identify vocations for people who think they do not have one, but to emphasize that our Christian calling is to be played out in whatever our daily life consists of.” (Gene Veith God at Work pp 58-59)

Cannot emphasize this enough, we compartmentalize our life and if it doesn’t “have to do with religion”, then we leave God out of the equation. However, God is who put you there (“For such a time as this” – Esther 4:14), He has you there at that time and place for a reason. Discern His will, be open to what the other person is doing and what God is moving you to do.

“If a person is married, that is his or her calling. Thinking I should never have married that person or I have no vocation for marriage is no excuse for divorce or abandonment. “If anyone lives in marriage, in a certain way of life, he has his vocation”, wrote Luther. “When this is interfered with – by Satan, or neighbors, or family, or even by one’s own weakness of mind – it ought not to yield or to be broken in spirit. Rather if any difficulty impedes, let one call on the Lord … For it is sure that here, in fidelity to vocation, God has insisted on hope and trust in his help” (Exposition of Psalm 127; quoted in Wingren, 195) Yea, especially in this case, we let friends (who way too often just tell us what we want to hear), or family with that whole history etc going on, or Satan who will twist and try to manipulate any way he can. He doesn’t care how, so long as it separates you from Jesus and messes up your life.

We are put there for a reason, just because it’s not what we like, doesn’t make us happy or blah, blah whatever excuse we have, does not mean that God did not intend for us to deal with this. We grow when we deal with the things in our life, marriage, work, worship etc. Running away is not growing, it’s immaturity. When we deal with the issues at home, at work, at church, we have taken a test and passed, not saying always well, but we grow, mature. Hopefully all involved grow and mature and see God’s hand at work. But the world’s idea of “well if it’s uncomfortable, unhappy, then it must be wrong…” no, it means that God has you there to confront, deal with and grow in.

“We can do nothing about the past. The future is wholly in God’s hand. Now is what we have. The future-oriented obsession of today’s culture pushes our attention and our good works to the future, to what we are going to do later. We must “live in the hour that has come,” says Wingren. “That is the same as living in faith, receptive to God, who is present now and has something he will do now ‘(214)'”

“…Whatever we face in the often humdrum present – washing the dishes, buying groceries, going to work, driving the kids somewhere… this is the realm into which we have been called and into which our faith bears fruit in love..”

What you are doing now is important, God has you there for a reason, so do it well, oh yeah sure, sometimes we aren’t in the right place, doing the right things and we know perfectly well we’re not. But I’ve certainly had the experience, something that doesn’t seem all that important and yet, the person I’m interacting with sees it as being very important. Even if that person doesn’t express it, I’ve had the feeling, walking away, that wow, I’m glad I stopped for that, it didn’t seem important at the time, now I can really see God’s hand in this.

Be open to what God is doing, it isn’t always a big splash for you, but it might be for someone else. Lots of things we think are boring and unimportant, God is using to move us somewhere or do something in our life. We are often too quick to chose  otherwise and then miss what’s supposed to be happening. Putting our will over God’s will, which is never a smart idea.

I could go on, yea I know, when don’t I? But this would be a good topic for next Wednesday. As I said 10am, the Green Bean Coffee Co, corner of W King and Beaver Sts, downtown York, Pa. Parking in the little lot behind the church. Everyone is welcome no charge, obligation etc, I will even buy your first cup of coffee.

The church can be its own worst enemy

Leave a reply

This is one of my regular themes, that the church, in the name of “go along to get along”, tries way too often to be “accepting”, which often puts our fidelity to the Lord, behind our desire to, oh I don’t know, hang with the cool kids? Father Frederick Nkwasibwe raises this issue in his book Business Courage, quoting Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, Ireland: “…the process of secularization has been accelerated by the efforts of the Church or religious leaders to conform to the popular culture of the times … which to Christians, for example, could become a type of civil religious: politically correct, but without the cutting edge of the Gospel” (Cf. Neumayer, April 2011; Marin, 2009) (Business Courage pp 290-291

Yea, well AMEN. My wife and I were the Massachusetts coordinators for the National Day of Prayer, I had a pastor suggest to me that I should let the Christian pastors know that they shouldn’t be referring to Jesus in their public prayers!!!! Yea, really!!! I still can’t get over that, here’s a person, an ordained pastor, has taken an oath to faithfully proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but hey, you don’t want to make that public???

As a Lutheran pastor might have theological issues with the Archbishop but boyo, couldn’t agree more. In fact this is a theme with Martin Luther “the right-hand kingdom” (the church) and the “left-hand kingdom” (the secular). These are entirely separate kingdoms, but both created by God and both responsible to Him, with the church always mediating, being the conscience of the world, not imposing Christ, but certainly not forsaking Him or somehow denying Him just because there is a secular audience.

As a Christian minister, I am by definition a representative of Christ, I represent Christ no matter what the forum. Anything less would be to deny Him, how would that make me different from Peter or even Judas? If the church had been a lot more concerned about its faithfulness to Jesus and a lot less concerned with its public persona over the last however many decades, it would be taken a lot more seriously today. Despite its very serious issues with some of its priests, the church is still respected, albeit grudgingly, because it ultimately still maintains a faithful witness to Christ. They may do it wrong, but they still confess Christ and that is what is ultimately important. If the rest of the church had faithfully proclaimed Christ and not worried about its polling numbers like some slavish politician, the church would be taken much more seriously and respected today.

How does that fit into our life in the workplace, pretty much the same way. Christians for way too long (again at least decades) have been living like the world for six and half days and expect that they can just put that Christian facade on Sunday mornings and their good to go for the next six and a half days. You don’t have to parade around with a Bible, or jump on your desk to preach at work, but living out a living witness to Christ as best as possible, and taking advantage of opportunities to tell people about Christ being your Lord and what that means. I lived that way in a regular, old corporate job and on active duty in the military and I lived it in a Christ honoring way, people knew it, respected it and often talked to me about it. Don’t know that I can really say how and why others related in a handful of words, but it sounds to me like something you can talk about to your pastor (yea, like me) and keep in prayer looking for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

We meet on Wednesdays at the Green Bean Coffee Co, corner of W King  and Beaver Sts 10am, park right behind the church. All welcome, no cost, no obligation, heck for your first visit I’ll even buy you coffee.

God builds leaders and gives them gifts for leadership

Leave a reply

Thought I would refer back to Fr Frederick Nkwasibwe’s book Business Courage as much as being a Christian is supposed to be about spiritual growth and maturity, yes I agree that there are interpersonal relationship benefits. (p 224) “…spirituality is considered a system of developing the inner life or spirit of the leaders and workers in order to receive and awaken important gifts. Moxley (2000), in his book Leadership and Spirit, makes a list of such gifts. They include becoming more centered internally and better connected relationally, getting a new kind of self-confidence, having a sharper understanding and acceptance of our personal power, becoming better able to engage in the activity of leadership and fostering a genuine partnership in relationships (p 151). For them, spiritual development is correlated to human development through developing interior life.”

Certainly it makes sense as we grow in the image of the Lord we grow in our relationships. Certainly Jesus is an example of how we should relate to others and in different situations. For those who needed confronting, He did not have a problem confronting. For those who needed compassion, He gave compassion. Not in a way that was enabling, but in a way to let people know that He knew we are weak vessels, we need compassion, but we also need encouragement. We need to understand that we need to grow, have better skills, be better listeners, empathetic, encouraging, on and on, just as Jesus was. He encouraged, but He also made it clear that He expected better. The more we become more like Him the better we relate to others.

I have had to be assertive, I’ve had to take the lead, confront problems. Can’t say I’ve always enjoyed it or looked forward to it. There were plenty of times when I wished I could have avoided confrontation and there were times when I just did. I can look you in the eye though and say that the more I’ve grown in Christ, the more I’ve felt the need to confront, especially when it was in Christ, but also to do what was right and to step up for the weak, the disadvantaged, the bullied. But always as a witness for Christ, always pointing people to Him through our better skills and in fact relying on Him to give us the words to speak. I’ve had plenty of times when I wondered “where did those words come from”. The Holy Spirit works through us at the workplace as much as anywhere else in our life. Hey we normally spend more time at work then anywhere else in our life, why would God leave that part of our life out and what we need to function in that part of our life unequipped? God has certainly developed leaders and He gave them the necessary gifts for leadership.

Let’s discuss more and/or Dr Gene Veith’s book that we’ve been talking about for awhile. Wednesday 10am Green Bean Coffee Co at the corner of W King and Beaver Sts, park behind the church.

Why I do it

2 Replies

Thank you for reading and staying with me. It would be nice to hear from folks, if I’m accomplishing anything or rambling into cyber space.

I thought that I would buttress my fulminations (did ya like that?), with some of my pertinent background. I was raised in Brockton, Ma. That was where Rocky Marciano lived and Marvin Hagler, who is just a little older than me. It was not a gentle place to grow up, an old blue collar mill city, where every guy in junior high thought he was Rocky (the real Rocky). The only sports I was barely decent at were football and swimming.

While it just sort of happened, I was accepted into the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve in a program that required that I had to already be accepted into a college program. Nothing fancy, but a very good State College (hey I’m pretty much middle everything). While at Bridgewater State College, I met my wife Margie and we have been married 35 years in June of this year, we have three children who are grown, Erica, James, Timothy and we have three grand children.

There is no doubt in my mind that God takes a hand in each life, especially if we just go with it and don’t try to force our own agenda. I was not raised a Christian and hadn’t been a Christian, that really doesn’t matter to God. He is God of all creation, and we are His creation, He is still in control and when I look back in my life He was certainly guiding my life, as He does every life. Quite often though, we mess ourselves up through sin, through our own agenda, our own weaknesses which we allow to separate us from God.

Along with three other guys straight from bootcamp we reported to Group Boston, they had orders to further report to Point Allerton Station, one of the most historic boat stations in the Coast Guard. I had orders to work in an office at Group. They already put  me to work at Group, but I could hear the conversation with the CO at Pt Allerton, who asked (well when it’s a Warrant Officer 4, it’s not a question, it’s a direction), is there anyone else? Yes… Send him. So I was saved from a career of filling out forms, filing, typing, to doing Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement, port security, environmental, etc. Had a lot of adventures, made life-long friends and a lot of life-long lessons. The Coast Guard Reserve is not like other military reserves. We are assigned to a station and we are expected to have the same or better qualifications as the equivalent active duty people assigned to the station. So when we were there we were expected to perform the same jobs; search and rescue, law enforcement, port security, aids to navigation, environmental, etc. It was through a pretty serious situation on a case that made me do one of those there are no atheists in foxholes. The next Sunday my wife and two children, rather confused, were going with me into a Methodist Church. Neither one of us really knew where to go, we went there because my younger brother was part of the youth group there. From there God continued to set the course of my life. In the Coast Guard I was awarded a Navy Achievement Medal, Presidential Unit Commendation, Secretary of Transportation Unit Commendation, Unit Commendation, 2-Meritorious Unit Commendations, Bi-Centennial Unit Commendation 6- Team Ribbons, Special Operations Ribbon, Humanitarian Service Award, 2- Armed Forces Reserve Medals, War on Terror Service Medal, six -Meritorious Service Commendations and Joshua James Operational Achievement Award,

Did two years of college majoring in Political Science, got married, and like most people who go to college for one thing, they end up working in finance, and I got an opportunity to work for Chase Manhattan, financing computer systems. Spent three years at Chase, moved on to Motorola, went to Fleet National Bank in Providence R.I. for two years, then back to Motorola total of six years, one year with the Massachusetts State Treasurer, then Entex Information Systems for four years, then Robert Half International for three years. While at Robert Half, 9/11 happened and I became an active duty member of the Coast Guard. At the time I was with Naval Coastal Warfare which is a deployable unit to provide force protection for foreign or U.S. ports. We were able to transport all our gear, set up in ports and live in tents etc. Just before 9/11 I did a 4 week deployment to do seaward security on Vieques which is an island off of Puerto Rico, the year before did security for Tall Ships in Puerto Rico for four weeks. Our first deployment after activation was to Taragona, Spain, doing force protection for a NATO exercise in Spain. This unit was demobilized, but I was put back on active duty to be part of a mobile security unit (Small Boat Tactical Team) in New England to do security at various locations in District One. After this I went back to Pt Allerton Station for two years, did a month of port security down in Staten Island, NY. Did a lot of search and rescue at Pt Allerton and some Law Enforcement, had some great adventures, which I will happily share on demand.

I was a candidate for various local  offices in my (basically) hometown, I served four years as the Chairman of the Republican City Committee and served with other civic organizations. During this time, Margie and I were the State Coordinators for the National Day of Prayer in Massachusetts I had the great honor to organize a state committee that consisted of Ambassador Raymond Flynn, former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican and Prof Elie Wiesel of Boston University, Holocaust survivor and Pulitzer Prize winning author, among other prominent church and state leaders, While state coordinators we had the opportunity to organize programs at the Massachusetts State House as well as to work with local coordinators across the state. One of the most active members of the state committee was a lady named Margaret Schatkin a professor at Boston College and a member of the Lutheran Church. One thing led to another, Professor Schatkin had me meeting with a few different Lutheran leaders up to the District President and just before I finished active duty learned that I had been accepted to Concordia Seminary in St Louis.

Academically I finished my Bachelors Degree at Lesley College, in Cambridge, Ma. BS in Business Management. After I did four years of active duty in the War on Terror, we moved from Brockton, which we both lived most  of our lives and raised our children there and moved to St Louis.  In 2010 I finished four years of seminary and received a Masters of Divinity Degree. Margie and I were put through a weekend vetting and designated as “church planters”. Our first call, though, was to a grand old church in York, Pa. and we were charged with putting our church planting skills into a “Renewal” project at First Saint John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church. This is a grand old church, with a great group of Christian brothers and sisters, who truly want to reach out in the world to lead others to Jesus. I have served as pastor since 2010 and have seen God do some great things, there is still a long way to go and we welcome all to worship and to become members of the Lutheran Church and First St. Johns.