A recent article on health care organizations refusing to employ smokers got me thinking about how we sometimes refuse to "employ" people that have committed certain sins ("spiritual smokers") in our churches. In
The Ethics of Not Hiring Smokers, Harald Schmidt, Kristin Voigt and Ezekiel J. Emanuel argue that the whole point of health care organizations is to care for those with health problems.
...it seems paradoxical for health care organizations that exist to care for the sick to refuse to employ smokers. [...] It is callous -- and contradictory -- for health care institutions devoted to caring for patients regardless of the causes of their illness to refuse to employ smokers.
Allow me to rephrase that: It seems paradoxical for churches that exist to care for sinners to refuse to employ them. It is callous -- and contradictory -- for churches devoted to caring for sinners regardless of the types of sins that they have committed to refuse to embrace liars/adulterers/sabbath breakers/slanderers/fill in the blank... Who are we to judge someone based on their specific struggle with sin? Are there certain sins that are more sinful than others?
So what should employers do? We believe that offering support for healthful behaviors is the best approach. Central in this regard is assisting employees by [...] providing necessary psychological counseling and other support.
What should churches do? Offer support of healthful (i.e. Godly) behavior and assist churchgoers by providing the necessary spiritual, emotional and psychological counseling. The authors conclude their article by saying this:
We believe that employers should consider more constructive approaches than punishing smokers. In hiring decisions, they should focus on whether candidates meet the job requirements; then they should provide genuine support to employees who wish to quit smoking. And health care organisations in particular should show compassion for their workers. This approach may even be a win-win economic solution, since employees who feel supported will probably be more productive than will those who live in fear of penalties.
What if we started considering more constructive approaches than punishing sinners? What if we focused on someone's ability to meet the job requirements instead of hiring the guy with that halo on his head? What if we actually provided genuine support to and showed compassion for churchgoers who wish to quit sinning? Am I the only one who longs for a church like that?
I think I agree with your remarks or arguments more for "sinning" than I do for smoking.
ReplyDeleteI think the question of hiring smokers is complex. The article says that there are well-established costs and risks to hiring smokers, which can amount to about $4000 a year for a typical employee. There are many behaviors and attributes that people have even less control over than smoking, which are considered perfectly acceptable to discriminate against on the basis of employment. For example, various types of intelligences or abilities, many of which have innate components and many of which are affected by life circumstances beyond their control (like how I didn't choose to have excellent math teachers and bad history teachers in my public schooling).
I also think that choosing to not hire a smoker because they smoke is not the same as setting out to deliberately punish them.
I'm someone who is, on the level of my religious beliefs, opposed to the idea of punishment to inflict suffering on people. I also think that coercion and punishment is a poor way to try to influence people--acceptable only as a last resort, and that the best way to encourage positive behaviors is through leading by example, providing positive encouragement, and making the healthy choices easiest for people.
That said, I think people and organizations need to protect themselves first, before they set out to help others. Why hire someone if the person is not the best choice for their organization?
I think churches are very different. Churches aren't "hiring" congregants. I think a church has the right to be selective about excluding people from leadership positions or employment, on the basis of sinning. For example, one church I attended, had a situation where the pastor pressured a (married) employee into sexual activity. The pastor was fired and stripped of his credentials, barred from ever working as a pastor again in that denomination. I think this is a perfectly acceptable reaction.
Do I think it would be acceptable to exclude or stigmatize someone from the church, because they had done the same thing in the past, outside of the church? No, not at all.
I think this is the sort of distinction I'd make, and why I don't buy 100% into the analogy.