Today I happened across this story about a Colorado man who confronted a group of three women in bikinis on a beach:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2021/09/man-filmed-harassing-group-of-young-women-for-wearing-pornographic-bikinis-at-colorado-beach.htmlThe article includes video footage that lasts for about 3 1/2 minutes. Use discretion if you want to watch the video (I mostly scrolled down the page so I could listen without seeing too much). It starts playing automatically, so if you don't want to watch it, jump on the pause button. However, if you do watch the video (or largely listen to the dialogue therein), it does provide a little more information and context than the article alone.
Now of course, the mainstream media love stories that support their narrative that Christians Are Evil, but leaving that aside, I think this story shows an example of what NOT to do when evangelising. I don't know whether this guy is even saved! I reckon it's very likely he could be a false convert, or at best a baby Christian. Actually, he doesn't really evangelise much at all, other than warning the women that they will have to answer to God someday (I'm glad he at least pointed that out to them).
Anyway, the man's name is Logan Dorn. He admonishes these women (one of whom posted a couple of videos of the confrontation on TikTok) for their extremely immodest bikinis, asking them why they're dressed that way and telling them that they should consider "young eyes". He goes on to say, "
There's freedom of speech and if men of God don't stand up, then our society is going to go down the drain because there's no morality". (He does have a bit of a point there in that men of God should stand up and reprove the works of darkness and not just passively allow evil to go unchecked, but there is a time and place for that sort of thing.) A couple of the women he was confronting pointed out that they're atheists, and he retorted that they could still put some clothes on rather than showing their bodies off. He goes on to say that they should put on a "
one-piece or a two-piece that actually covers your body". (Actually, those kinds of outfits still leave a fair amount of flesh exposed, so his standards of modesty are not the Bible's.)
Mr Dorn then posted a video on TikTok himself to explain his side. According to the
Newshub report, the video has since been deleted. They do not say whether Mr Dorn himself took it down, or whether TikTok removed it. But in any case, he reportedly said this in the video: "
I just had a righteous anger come over me and also just boldness by the Holy Spirit to go and confront these ladies and to speak truth". He also claimed that he was "
introduced to pornography young and wants to protect young people from it".
In the video (which I think is a combination of the two different TikTok videos), the women react in the way you would expect lost people to react to a Christian (or professing one) - they curse (that's bleeped out), laugh at him and roll out the lost sinner's favourite two words from the Bible, "Judge not" (which they misquote as "Thou shalt not judge"). Near the end of the video, another woman talks to them. I think she might be Mrs Dorn, but I'm not sure. She is in a "two-piece" (shirt and shorts), but her own standard of dress is none too modest, as she shows a bare midriff and too much of her legs. Yet Mr Dorn held her up as a standard of modesty these women in bikinis should aspire to!
A key point in this story is that the women asked, several times, to be left alone (the video corroborates this). But Mr Dorn ignored their requests and kept haranguing them. So I think that describing his behaviour as harassment is actually accurate, even though the mainstream media often falsely accuse Christians. Certainly, this is not what the Bible teaches us to do. If we approach someone to share the Gospel with them, and they tell us in no uncertain terms to get lost, the instruction from the Word of God is to respect their wishes and not try to force them to listen to something they're not interested in:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (Matthew 10:14)
And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. (Luke 9:5)
The Bible moreover says that rebukes for specific sins should be reserved for those within the church:
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:12-13) This Scripture should be borne in mind too:
He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. (Proverbs 9:7-8) Scorners are lost people, and some of what these women say amounts to scorning. In a Biblical context, a wise man is usually a saved man. Mr Dorn is "getting himself a blot" here. His actions are bringing Christianity into disrepute, which of course the mainstream media just loves.
If these women had been members of this man's church, and professing Christians, he might have been more within his rights to reprove them (although even then, he would be better to confront them at a later time when they were dressed). However, these women are plainly lost. They care nothing for the things of God and only want to walk after their own lusts. They don't need reproving over specific sins so much as they need the Gospel preached to them, beginning with the Law so they can see their sin in general and understand their lost condition. This man is addressing a symptom rather than the underlying cause. Sure, what they're doing is wicked, but wicked people are going to act wickedly! Even if they covered up like he asked, it wouldn't change their lost condition. They would still be full of their wicked lusts. Colossians 4:5 gives this instruction:
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. What this man is doing however is not wise. In fact, he's really not acting all that much better than the Taliban who force women to obey their standards of modesty. At least he's not physically assaulting them the way they would. But he's still out of line, even if he makes a couple of valid points. As wicked as those women are being, they have liberty to think and act as they do. They will answer to God for their words and actions one day, and we know it will not end well for them if they have not repented and been born again by then. But in the meantime, how they want to conduct themselves on a beach is their business, provided they're not harassing or assaulting anyone.
I think what this man is doing could also be considered
striving, something else the Bible tells us not to do:
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:24-26) And he's not being very obedient to this command either:
And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you (1 Thessalonians 4:11) Of course, we can't be quiet when preaching the Gospel or reproving the works of darkness, but outside of that, we should mind our own business as much as reasonably possible. In a way, this guy is being a busybody in that he is essentially meddling:
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. (1 Peter 4:15)
What should he have done instead? Well for starters, he probably would have been better off not going to that beach in the first place. If you know there is a high likelihood you're going to see a lot of bare flesh in a place, then why go there and expose yourself to so much temptation? But since he
was there, the next best course of action would have been to
avert his eyes.
I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? (Job 31:1)
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28) Now, you can't help an initial sighting, but you
can help looking after that. Mr Dorn should have just turned his face away, minded his own business, and moved on. In fact, by confronting them for such a long time, he was getting quite the eyeful! He saw FAR more of those women than he would have if he'd just looked away and let them be. Given that he admitted he had a problem with pornography from a young age, that hardly would have been helpful to him.
He says he wants to protect young people from porn, but first and foremost, that is the job of their parents! (I don't know whether he had any children with him, but if he did, why take them to a place where they're going to see a lot of skin being shown?) It's not his place to be a moral guardian on a beach. And if he was so keen to "speak truth" to those women, then why not preach the Gospel to them properly? But perhaps this man, like the Pharisees of old, is a bit too focussed on externals. Moreover, while we do need to obey the Great Commission, that doesn't mean we should do it everywhere. There are places we have no business going to. So even if he had actually preached the Gospel to them properly, he would have still being doing it in an inappropriate setting. That in itself causes confusion. Moreover, reproving someone for wearing a bikini on a beach is a bit like going into a bar and telling someone off for drinking, or standing in a brothel and preaching against fornication! It's not wrong to say these things are sins, but to actually go to places where the sins are regularly committed and say it is another matter.
In conclusion, when I read a negative story about Christians or Christianity in the mainstream media, I often feel angry at the media for their blatant anti-Christian bias. However on this occasion I feel more grieved with Mr Dorn himself. All he has succeeded in doing is hand the media a gift on a plate to bash Christianity with. Of course, it's not Christianity that is the problem here (though the media wants you to think that), but Mr Dorn. Apart from his harassment, he shows himself up as a hypocrite with his very faulty definition of modesty. And while those women need to repent and be saved, he also has some repenting to do (and quite possibly needs to get saved as well). He needs to examine his own heart and remove the beam from his own eye. After all, while those women will answer to God someday, he will have his own day of reckoning. Men of God need to stand up, sure, but they also need to lead by example, and his example in this instance is not a good one to be following. Or am I being a bit too hard on him? What do you think?
