Faith Dilemmas for Marketplace Christians
They Call It Harassment
Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, . . . because these are improper for God’s holy people.
—Ephesians 5:3, NIV
SEXUAL harassment is as old as the Bible. An early incident, with the usual gender roles reversed, can be found in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39). A remarkable feature of the ministry of Jesus is the radical new respect for women.
Evidence includes Luke’s honoring of Mary (Luke 1:26-55), new rules on divorce that restrict the power of men (Matt. 19:3-9), a compassionate response to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), and the fact that Jesus made his first post-resurrection appearance to women (Matt. 28:1-10). This redefined view of women gives some clues as to what Jesus would have thought about sexual harassment.
* * *
Janet, a department manager, was saddened to learn Lucretia was resigning. Lucretia was competent and resourceful. Everyone liked her. She had a good future with the firm.
Then the reason unfolded. Mitchell, single and a rising company star, was paying Lucretia a lot of attention. Too much.
Mitchell was friendly and outgoing, sometimes to excess. Like the time he encouraged a receptionist to stand and turn so he could admire her new outfit. Then he had been transferred to manage a branch in another city. Now he was back at the head office as a vice-president.
He was well-behaved at work, but it was clear he had a special interest in Lucretia. At first it was just the occasional ride home. Lucretia had accepted rides because they lived in the same end of town. Then he asked for a date. He was nice enough, but Lucretia wasn’t interested.
Mitchell persisted. He wouldn’t leave her alone. Sometimes he’d just show up at places she went. He joined Lucretia’s church choir, apparently to be close to her. Once she thought she saw his car parked on her street late at night. Was she being stalked?
Then one day he told her, for no apparent reason, “I’m going to be president of this company. Then you’ll want to go out with me.”
Janet was shocked. “If that was a threat,” she said, “then it’s harassment.”
Company guidelines described sexual harassment as “unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature or with sexual overtones.” There were two different types.
One was “quid pro quo” harassment, whereby decisions affecting employment were based on compliance with sexual requests. The other was “hostile environment harassment.” Here unwelcome sexual conduct interferes with a person’s job performance or causes an intimidating or offensive work environment.
Janet told Lucretia that the policy also required an investigation of any complaint of harassment or information about suspected harassment.
“No,” said Lucretia. She feared that would make things worse.
“Are you afraid for your physical safety?” Janet asked.
Lucretia wasn’t sure. There was nothing she could pin down.
“Our policy protects you,” Janet protested. She pointed to the last paragraph in the manual. “All reported incidents of sexual harassment will be investigated fully and kept confidential.”
“That’s easy to say,” said Lucretia. “He’d know it was me who reported it. In no time it would be all over church and I’d get branded. Let’s just leave this alone. I can find other jobs.”
Janet hated to let the matter drop. Should she take action? Or should she respect Lucretia’s wishes?
Questions to ponder and discuss
1. Some people would consider this a mild or borderline case of sexual harassment. How much more serious would it have to become for Janet to have no choice but to report it?
2. What obligation does Janet have to future victims whom Mitchell might harass if not confronted now? When does her moral responsibility to foster working relationships of trust take precedence over her desire to respect Lucretia’s wishes?
3. How widespread is sexual harassment among Christians? Could Lucretia’s situation have occurred in a church agency or a company owned by Christians? Is this an issue for church attention?