Review of Christianity Today’s article Should an Iowa Dentist Have Fired his Attractive Assistant?

I was reading an interesting article on Christianity Today that crossed hairs with situations involving morality, which happens to be one of my favorite areas of research and understanding. But I have to admit that I was very puzzled at the comments of some of the reviewers of the courts’ decision to finalize a dentist’s choice to fire his assistant, simply because he was afraid of committing adultery with her. But before I begin giving my critique of some of the commentators’ thoughts, there is something I should point out at the outset. Iowa’s Supreme Court’s recognition of the man’s rights to fire her seems almost independent of the notion of “doing what is right” put forth by the people commenting on the man’s decision. There are precisely 6 mistakes I spotted in the commentators’ reasoning in how they were reflecting over the man’s decision and the situation he was in.

Inconsistent Action

The man and his wife’s reason for him firing his assistant were for the reason that he would try to have an affair with her down the road. People should be fired for what they did do, not what they would have done. Just because someone would do something, doesn’t make him or her culpable. Many of us, at certain times, would lash out at our bosses who come off as overbearing knowing that would cost us our jobs, but nobody fires us because of that being possible or that we would do such a thing.  Someone might say,  “This situation is different!” Not really because his responsibility to remain pure and have a good marriage is ultimately a matter outside of his work place. His marriage could in fact be in poor condition even if he had never been concerned about having an affair with her. In fact, saying “If I had gone down to my buddy’s apartment, I would have beat him to a bloody pole.” does not entail that I in fact did such a thing. I would only be prosecuted for doing such a thing. There are many criminals who haven’t committed certain crimes but would if they got the chance. But nobody is locking them up simply because they would or they could because they haven’t!

Misplaced Concern

If the issue were about him possibly having an affair with this woman, then why would the action be centered towards the woman? Clearly he has shifted his strategy (from himself to the woman) to avoid having to make a tougher decision (train his thoughts and eyes). Since the concern was about he having an affair with her, he should have gotten his act together and changed how he would look at her and think about her. It’s all too convenient to get rid of someone simply because – even though he did nothing to you – your life of temptations got increasingly more difficult.

False Assumption #1

Michael McManus, the president of Marriage Savers, made the following remark that illustrates my next point: We have to walk away from temptation; we just cannot court it, which would be happening if she had remained. The best thing to do would be to show compassion and help the woman find another job so she's not hurt by the firing. Michael made a fundamental mistake despite his noble intentions in what he was saying: Walking away from temptation, in this case, did not necessarily have to include getting rid of the woman because there is no evidence that she in fact was trying to seduce him. There are 2 different kinds of temptations here. Temptation #1 is with the man being unable to control his eyes and thoughts about his assistant and Temptation #2 is about the assistant coming onto him. Walking away from temptation with respect to Temptation #1 would have been changing the way he looks at her and thinks about her. Moreover, walking away from temptation does not entail a literal interpretation in which one necessarily physically walks away from a situation (although there are situations where that is necessary – Joseph -). But to suppose that because this happens in one particular situation, therefore it has to happen in all situations is to commit the fallacy of composition (the whole set of situations has the property or attribute of needing to physically walk away from temptation, because 1 event out of the whole set has that property). To make it more practical, suppose you know someone who consistently abuses your trust. Now in 1 out of say 20 situations you are merciful and don’t penalize him for what he has done to you. Does that mean you are to be merciful to him in the remaining 19 situations (we’re being hypothetical here; not claiming this has actually happened) just because you were in the first situation? Obviously not because some of the other situations might have different factors that could render your decision differently from the first situation and it would be presumptuous to think that the remaining 19 situations are going to have the same set of circumstances around them as the first one did.

False Assumption #2

He took action against her on the basis of his mental and physical reaction to her presence there instead of any action on her part towards him. In other words, because he couldn’t for some reason take control of his thought life (he was at fault – not her -) and was perhaps lusting after her (not saying he was actually doing that – just a possibility), he decided to – not change his beliefs about her and his eyes about her – get rid of her, thinking he has established himself as pure. Well guess what? He hasn’t really solved the problem because his internal struggles are still there and will be there regardless of what kind of woman is there. And remember this is a work environment where provocative dress isn’t going to be permitted because employees have to dress uniformly. A woman is held accountable before God on how she dresses in terms of how it affects us men in our attempts to be pure with our eyes and mind. And a man is held accountable before God on how we look at women regardless of how the woman is dressed. People can get fired and even prosecuted because of sexual harassment. I have seen many attractive females in the United States Army when I was in. If I were told to travel on a convoy and have a female soldier guide me as I was driving, I would have to carry that out regardless of how her physical presence made me feel. I would be laughed at if I withdrew from the order simply on the basis of not being able to control my thoughts.

Begging the Question

This mistake in reasoning comes when one assumes the very thing they are trying to prove or conclude. Greg Smalley says that the dentist made the right decision because he needed to save his marriage. Needing to save his marriage from what? Being tempted in his own thoughts is identical to his marriage being in danger? Why should the woman be fired simply because the man is afraid of having an affair with her? That question implicitly says that the woman made no initiation to have an affair with him or any hints of inappropriate conduct. That statement by Smalley just assumes there was a danger of their marriage being interrupted by infidelity. It’s an inserted assumption, not an argued assumption. Choosing to either have or not have an affair with that woman was completely within his power because he is a free agent.

Misplaced Action

Taking legal action against someone (unless one’s rights are in danger – racism, sexual harassment – etc.) is not to be taken on a par of moral issues unless the violation of one’s rights has been indicated. If we applied this man’s reasoning and decision consistently, then I should fire someone at my job that makes it difficult for me to be patient (firing someone because their presence makes it hard to uphold a particular moral virtue). No one should be fired on those issues unless someone’s rights is at stake, but because of their job performance or integrity has negatively impacted their job performance (stealing from work, lying about reports, etc.) If this woman had in fact violated moral or social conduct, then she would have been rightly fired. But this man’s actions, irrespective of her actions, were unjustified because they were predicated on an issue with him, not with her. If I am working at an office and a very attractive secretary works in the same office, I cannot reasonably ask that she be removed from my workspace simply because her attractiveness (not dressing provocatively necessarily) is too much for me to handle. Whatever action someone takes with her should be predicated on her work performance unless she does something on the job that has a moral link to it (doing special favors for her boss, taking him out on a date, flirting inappropriately towards me).

So firing her because he and his wife were afraid he would have an affair with her is simply unjustified. They can’t just get rid of people who are attractive just because he could or would lust after them. If he looks at her in the right way, regardless of how she looks, then he won’t commit adultery. It would be entirely different if she had tried to come onto him and had violated a policy in separating work from friendship, if in fact that was a policy. If she had not done anything inappropriate, then he has to square himself away because she’s not the problem, he is. You can’t get rid of something X, if in fact, X is not the issue but when you are the issue.

Concluding Remarks

I did my best to look over the article carefully before drawing certain conclusions that I have drawn right now. For future reference, unless someone has done something to you – indirectly or directly – you cannot place the blame on him or her for a struggle you have. You have to correctly identify where the issue lies and then take appropriate action towards it. Thanks for reading.

The issues of trust, knowledge, and skepticism

If I asked you to name the number of people who you trust dearly in life on a variety of issues (money, relationships, dating, theological issues, etc.), how many would you come up with? I would like to share some thoughts on what trust, knowledge, and skepticism are and how they relate to each other in certain areas of life: beliefs and relationships.

Trust

How would you define trust? Would you say it’s a decision you make despite what the evidence suggests? Is it a choice that is based on what you know is true but goes beyond what you know is true? What would you say? Here’s what I think.

           

I think trust is a decision to commit oneself to something or someone. Whether that trust is grounded reasonably or not is another question. In fact trust, by itself, is just an exercise of my will. Now if I want to have good reasons for trusting someone or something, I’ll need to (1) examine my own reasons for trusting and (2) examine the reliability of the thing or person I’m trusting. Those 2 factors are usually pretty crucial.

Knowledge

I don’t want to bog you down with philosophical jargon, so I’m going to just give you the plain old definition that they have come up with and then explain what it means. Knowledge can be understood as a belief, which is true and is justified. Basically, you believe something (you hold something to be true/to be the case), you have reasons for believing it to be true, and you’re in a position to know whether it’s true or false.

It would be one thing if I believed something to be true but not know truly whether it was true or not. A good example would be my car. I believe my car is running well. I could say my car is running well because, if it weren’t, it would show on the screen above the steering wheel whether the car is working decently. But I am not a mechanic. I don’t know how a car internally works. I can only rely on an expert who knows how to operate on cars. Now relying on his expert opinion would seem to justify my belief that my car is running well. Is that reasonable? I think so.

Skepticism

This is basically the idea that we really cannot know either anything or much at all. Now why would this even gain ground as an idea? I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head for possibly why. First, people who are very knowledgeable have gotten facts wrong or interpretations about certain facts wrong before. Gee, if the people, who seem to know so much more than I do, get certain things wrong, then how can I hope to know much at all, since I would have to work twice as long to get the knowledge they have right now? Another reason sometimes considered is the fact that sometimes evidence shifts from certain degrees through time. Certain new evidence could come up in the future and challenge a once established theory or a certain interpretation of that theory.

Making sense of all of this

Now that we’ve gotten a decent understanding of what trust, knowledge, and skepticism are, I want to give a brief sketch on how they shed light on relationships and beliefs we hold to.

I want to trust other people and know that they are people who are worth my investment. I also am applying the same idea to myself. The obvious question, it seems to me, is the following: why is trust and knowledge so hard to gain sometimes, and why does skepticism seem so natural at times?

What about the first question? It seems to me that trust can be so hard to gain for perhaps 2 fundamental reasons: failures of credible sources & people and lack of initiative from people. Even the best of sources of information can be mistaken at times about certain things. A woman who, while counting on doctors, only happens to find out they had misdiagnosed her can become susceptible to a lack of trust in those doctors who took care of her. The same can happen in many other situations. Trust, while capable of being an intellectual matter, can oftentimes drift over into the emotional realm of the struggles of humanity.

What about the fact that some people oftentimes do not take the initiative in giving forth friendship and love to lonesome strangers? This has happened quite common, even in my own experiences. There have been numerous times when, after visiting a number of churches, I would wonder if God would ever lead me to the right place. I had been searching for meaningful friendships with people. In order for certain people to trust others, the  - quite oftentimes the case – third party is expected to step forward and make the newcomers feel welcome. If that does not happen, the newcomers might end up feeling isolated.

I will trust someone who takes the initiative and who does more than give an eloquent speech. Let’s be frank about this folks. Love necessarily must be intentional in its nature. What right do others and I have to say we are kind, good, and loving people if we hardly or rarely give evidence (i.e. steps to our words) to back up what we assert? If I tell someone I would like to be his friend, the burden of proof lies on me to show him that I mean what I say. He has no epistemic obligation to take my word as true, if and only if my word is all he receives from me. We hardly ever accept that standard on behalf of others and ought not to impose it on others.

Let’s tackle the last question before offering some possible solutions to some of the problems I have highlighted so far. Why does skepticism seem so natural at times? I think there are 2 reasons for why that happens. First, we are sometimes to some degree overtaken by our own skepticism, to the point of not thinking carefully about our own expectations with people and beliefs. It is much more natural to be skeptical of other peoples’ views than our own views. A healthy skepticism is indeed a good thing, but too much of it can be harmful. I think we ought to ensure we are not overly skeptical to the point of clouding our judgment capabilities. One way to do that is by reevaluating our motives. What expectations do we have with respect to people and beliefs? Are those expectations reasonable? Are they applicable? Do they have absurd ends (do they lead to unmanageable situations)? And the list goes on.

The second reason why I think skepticism seems so natural at times is because certain people seem so ill equipped, self-centered, or unable to live out certain Christ-like qualities in relationships. Now how exactly does this relate to the question? Very simply, because certain people fail to do the things essentially needed for a friendship to originate and develop successfully, someone – like myself – is prone to think that it would be a waste of time to invest in their lives or to accept their alleged investment into mine or someone else’s. Someone might retort to what I just said by insinuating that my conclusion seems a bit harsh and maybe too hard. It could be too harsh. But remember that people are the most valuable entities in all of creation because they are created in the image of God (imago dei). Therefore, given that truth about ourselves, we are to take all the more seriously our decisions about others since they involve making or possibly breaking friendships. So that is the issue about skepticism. There is one more I wish to cover before moving on to discuss certain ways to overcome these difficulties.

The third – and final – reason why skepticism seems quite natural is because of peoples’ lack of intellectual ability to know how, when, and the kind of answers to give when friends approach them with difficult questions about life, and when they act as if it’s an unimportant matter in the first place. This comes back to the issue of knowledge once again. Let’s make this personal. If you had difficulties knowing how to communicate with your friend about his decision making abilities in choosing the kind of girl to take on a date, would you go to someone who either (1) hadn’t experience that dilemma before or (2) someone who didn’t give you the impression they were reflective people? Clearly not! You go to someone who seems able to relate to your situation or can at least speak truth into your life to the point of you feeling confident and reassured about the situation.

In short plain words don’t trust people who are not reliable sources of knowledge, experience, guidance, and relational skills because it isn’t worth your life. Don’t confide in someone about emotional struggles who isn’t in contact with his/her emotions in a healthy way. The same goes for someone, from whom, you’re seeking counsel or wise insight. Don’t seek someone who lacks the intellectual skills to think – as best as one can – objectively about the situation but is able to communicate it to you in a way where you will feel the thrust of his/her love and wisdom.

Some Proposed Solutions

First, take stock for whom you invest in and who is currently investing – or so you think – in you. Not everyone on your cell phone, email list, and Facebook is going to be able to be that close and reliable friend you need right now and will need in the future. Make some distinctions among acquaintances, regular friends, close friends, and best friends and make up your mind.

Second, figure out who is responding more to your initiation than others and make them a higher priority in life, but don’t abandon the remaining others.

Third, evaluate the kind of friends you are spending time with. Are they the kind of friends who are sometimes challenging you to mature in life? Are they willing to confront you on an issue if necessary? Do they make you think critically about important issues that affect them, you, both of you, and others? Do they go out of their way to make sure you’re loved, taken care of, and encouraged? If they do, then that’s a real group of friends to associate with. Last, but not least, make sure you have access to worthwhile Christian friends who are mature and desire to grow in their faith. Don’t allow yourself to consistently hang around stagnant believers because it could badly affect you.

This is just something I had decided to put down into words because this has been on my mind for a long time and I wanted to make it accessible to others who might need some encouragement and someone who understands what they’re going through and how they’re thinking and feeling. Hope this has blessed you.