Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Jonathan Mathews]

In the US, the popular culture teaches people that "duty" and "obligation" are bad things. It's even seeped into Christian popular parlance.

But scripture is steeped in the concept of duty and obligation. Paul certainly observed he had duty and obligation to the Lord who had saved him.

Duty and obligation are not bad things. A person with a duty is in the playbook. He has an assignment, he has a role. He's not sitting on the bench, he's in the game.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Each one of us is in the playbook, each one of us has a fragment of Christ's mission to perform.

"Who, for the JOY (not duty or obligation) set before Him, endured the Cross, despising it's shame" (Hebrews 12:2)

Christ had no duty or obligation to go to the cross for us. He did it out of Joy in the Father. The same reason I obey God, keep his commandments, and do His works. This is the difference between self-righteousness and real Love for God.

 

[RDKirk]

Following the Bible doesn't force anybody to say insensitive things.

It might involve saying something to someone that person will call "insensitive," but under very narrow conditions and then only for the purpose of ultimately knitting a fraying relationship. People doing even the worst evil to others will consider you insensitive if you call them out on it, no matter how gently you do so.

There is a popular pop singer who is also a Christian that fell into a "gotcha trap" set by a Christian radio interviewer. This singer, Lauren Daigle, had appeared on the "Ellen" show--which immediately put her into the target sights of Christians who hadn't paid any attention to her before.

So this interviewer asks her, "Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?"

The intent of the question is not to assist another brother or sister in whatever ministry he might be in. It's not intended to bring a wayward sister back into the fold. This is the kind of question that was hurled at Jesus more than once for the purpose of trapping and destroying Him.

If Lauren Daigle is (as I suspect) ministering to homosexuals and seeking those who have been enabled by the Father to come to the Son, it's an obstructive question, not a constructive one. It's not going to keep her in position to speak of the goodness of Jesus, of how Jesus has a light yoke and an easy burden.

We don't need to convict anyone of his sin. The Holy Spirit does that. For those who are feeling that prodding, feeling that discomfort with the world, our role is to tell them about the relief we ourselves have found in Jesus.

 

[Mountainmike]

At some point all have to accept that Christian beliefs can put them in violation of the law, at which point they need to choose which law to follow. God or secular.

Several examples in our present world.

An example barring free speech: In france it is now impossible by law to give any negative description of abortion, the deed, the consequences for the physical or mental health of the mother, or any negative account or graphic description of how it is done. Almost all christians consider it a heinous crime on which their faith demands they speak out, but they are barred from speaking out against it!
That dent in free speech is a slippery slope.

In the UK some have been sacked for wearing a cross, or in the case of one nurse for offering to say a prayer over an ill person, which was apparently part of a pattern of inappropriate conduct that got her sacked.

At one time marriage was a man and a woman, and none would allow others to sleep together.Now If you offer lodgings It is impossible in the UK to refuse a pair of homosexuals the right to sleep together, even under your own roof. It is hard to know how a heterosexual couple could make the same complaint!
In fact the bias is against christians. Gay parents can adopt, but christians if they have a single negative word to say about any issue of gay lifestyle are deemed unsuitable.

The problem is faith demands action. It cannot be checked in at the door. And the law is increasingly in conflict with it giving rise to hard choices. Which do you follow?

Australia has no Established religion, but we have no legally enshrined freedom of religion. Historically, in Australia, freedom of religion has been preserved by creating exemptions to other laws.

We've just had a large review of freedom of religion in Australia. That review can be read here: https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProt...s-freedom-review-expert-panel-report-2018.pdf and our government's response to it can be read here: https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Documents/Response-religious-freedom-2018.pdf

 

[RDKirk]

"Who, for the JOY (not duty or obligation) set before Him, endured the Cross, despising it's shame" (Hebrews 12:2)

Christ had no duty or obligation to go to the cross for us. He did it out of Joy in the Father. The same reason I obey God, keep his commandments, and do His works. This is the difference between self-righteousness and real Love for God.

Jesus' motivation is not our motivation. Jesus saves us, not the other way around.

And there is great joy in having a duty. Do you think a football player is dismayed when he sees he has a position to play in the game? Or wouldn't he be more dismayed to sit on the bench?

 

[RDKirk]

At some point all have to accept that Christian beliefs can put them in violation of the law, at which point they need to choose which law to follow. God or secular.

Several examples in our present world.

An example barring free speech: In france it is now impossible by law to give any negative description of abortion, the deed, the consequences for the physical or mental health of the mother, or any negative account or graphic description of how it is done. Almost all christians consider it a heinous crime on which their faith demands they speak out, but they are barred from speaking out against it!
That dent in free speech is a slippery slope.

In the UK some have been sacked for wearing a cross, or in the case of one nurse for offering to say a prayer over an ill person, which was apparently part of a pattern of inappropriate conduct that got her sacked.

At one time marriage was a man and a woman, and none would allow others to sleep together.Now If you offer lodgings It is impossible in the UK to refuse a pair of homosexuals the right to sleep together, even under your own roof. It is hard to know how a heterosexual couple could make the same complaint!
In fact the bias is against christians. Gay parents can adopt, but christians if they have a single negative word to say about any issue of gay lifestyle are deemed unsuitable.

The problem is faith demands action. It cannot be checked in at the door. And the law is increasingly in conflict with it giving rise to hard choices. Which do you follow?

And yet, the Body of Christ has increased tenfold in North Korea since the mid 90s, and a thousand Chinese a week become new Christians...but the same can't be said in the West.

So what has been the advantage of freedom of speech?

Maybe we're just doing church wrong.

Back in the 80s when I was doing graduate work on Islam in America, I spent a lot of that time researching the Black Muslims and Malcolm X. I'd know about them from my youth in the 60s, of course, but I was looking at it from a more mature viewpoint, both as a black man and as a Christian.

Malcolm X challenged black Christians to look at our religion, to decide that it wasn't doing us any good...but rather doing us harm, and to abandon it.

He was wrong about abandoning it--Jesus is real.

But he was right about examining how the West "did church" and determining whether the way white people "did church" was actually correct--whether it was correct for us or even whether it was correct at all.

And having experienced a bit of how other groups in in places where Christianity has never been the default religion (just as it was not the default religion in the 1st century) I suspect the West is doing church wrong.

 

[NBB]

Yeah, but that's because John follows the sign pattern. The living water Jesus speaks of is actually a sign for the reader explaining what Jesus is doing. It may have really happened but the primary purpose as a literary device is to catechize the reader in the meaning of Jesus' ministry.

Living water is something we can get and God can give us, is like satisfying the thirst of your soul with his spirit.

 

[FireDragon76]

Living water is something we can get and God can give us, is like satisfying the thirst of your soul with his spirit.

Yes, that's the point of this story. The woman at the well is used to defining herself by her circumstances, by having to come to get water at the well alone because she has to endure societal shame and scorn, and Jesus is saying to her that her life doesn't have to be defined by that.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Jesus' motivation is not our motivation. Jesus saves us, not the other way around.

And there is great joy in having a duty. Do you think a football player is dismayed when he sees he has a position to play in the game? Or wouldn't he be more dismayed to sit on the bench?

I share the same Spirit, Mind, and Will as Jesus. I don't know the motivation of an athlete.

 

[usexpat97]

I share the same Spirit, Mind, and Will as Jesus. I don't know the motivation of an athlete.

So we should all follow the example of the one on this thread who's perfect?

 

[loveofourlord]

I think to me, it depends more on your job, if your beliefs and actions because of your beliefs conflict with your job then you should be fired regardless of what they are. best example, if I hire someone as a pharmacist and they refuse to give medication for religious reasons, I should be able to fire and hire someone that will. I'm paying them to do a job I hired them, not the job they wish to do. Or on the gay front, if I hire a counselor for my school or such and they are constantly telling gays they are wrong and going to hell and such, that may be her beliefs, but as head of a school it might conflict with my beliefs that students should be treated that way.

The tricky thing comes in where they are public figures, and having someone openly be racist, bigoted, or misogonyst, hatefully anti religious or such they can create a bad image for something, and if they effect the bottom line then why can't they be fired? If a muslim was saying bad things about jews, or Christians wouldn't people call for him to be fired?

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters.

There is also the factor that rugby referees can and do penalise backchat and if the backchat doesn't stop they'll move the mark ten yards up the pitch, and keep doing it until either the chopsy one shuts up or gets a kick up the backside from their own team mates.
Even the thickest skulled front row forward can grasp that this is not a good thing to do.

 

[Mountainmike]

But he was right about examining how the West "did church" and determining whether the way white people "did church" was actually correct--whether it was correct for us or even whether it was correct at all.

Not just west of course. Gandhi was scathing about how un Christian the then so called Christian society was in India.

He said he would have become a Christian if the Christians were anything like Christ!

 

[JackRT]

Not just west of course. Gandhi was scathing about how un Christian the then so called Christian society was in India.

He said he would have become a Christian if the Christians were anything like Christ!

That happened when Gandhi was a young lawyer practicing in South Africa. He became interested in Christianity and had read the Bible from cover to cover. He and several Hindu friends decided to visit a church one Sunday. They were physically ejected. He said later "I would have become a Christian but then I had the misfortune to meet one."

 

[NBB]

This is happening right? i hate this:

People are losing jobs because of this and their beliefs, and sorry but it fills me with rage.
I don't agree on this channel videos very much but this is happening.

 

[keith99]

There is also the factor that rugby referees can and do penalise backchat and if the backchat doesn't stop they'll move the mark ten yards up the pitch, and keep doing it until either the chopsy one shuts up or gets a kick up the backside from their own team mates.
Even the thickest skulled front row forward can grasp that this is not a good thing to do.

Actually that does not happen any more. It used to also happen with a team not being back 10 yards (then meters) for a penalty and teams could lose 20 or 30 meters before they got it right. Now that can only result in 10 meters. It may be similar for backchat. But you won't find out by watching matches because after the first 10 meters a yellow card will come out and the player will be gone for 10 minutes.

BTW this thick skulled front row forward has actually won an 'argument' with a referee. Quite polite at the time and asking him to do the one thing he could do that would allow him to change his decision (this was well before instant replay in American Football, let alone Rugby).

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

BTW this thick skulled front row forward has actually won an 'argument' with a referee. Quite polite at the time and asking him to do the one thing he could do that would allow him to change his decision (this was well before instant replay in American Football, let alone Rugby).

This thick skulled front row always politely asked the referee to clarify a few calls, said "thank you sir" and then tried not to do the same thing while he was watching. Or pleaded having very long arms when I was binding on to my opposite number's shorts (and pulling him out sideways) rather than the body of his shirt - one actually checked after the game, and apparently it was legal, just as long as you were bound and not on the sleeve...

 

[High Fidelity]

That is certainly the view of Rugby Australia and the International body.

How does a christian reconcile that.

By not signing what you can't agree to.

His own fault.

 

[RDKirk]

Not just west of course. Gandhi was scathing about how un Christian the then so called Christian society was in India.

He said he would have become a Christian if the Christians were anything like Christ!

Was he talking about Indian Christians or was he talking about Christian England and Christian South Africa who still had their boots on the necks of black and brown people?

 

[Jon Osterman]

If anyone is interested, this is the post in question. Personally, I think he should sue them for unfair dismissal.

 

[RDKirk]

If anyone is interested, this is the post in question. Personally, I think he should sue them for unfair dismissal.

Pretty poor job of representing Christ to unbelievers.

He clearly never used either Jesus or Paul as his models for evangelism.