Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: This Just In

My statement was theological, not legal. If she violated a moral agreement, fine ... they may have been within their rights to fire her once they knew the information.

This certainly does not give them the right to disseminate medical information about her pregnancy to employees, parents and students — and likely doesn’t give them the right to ask questions about her conception.

If Christian schools purge sinners from their staffs, they’d be unable to operate. This was the thrust of my statement. Christians are Saved by Grace, not by flawless behavior. The fact is, there isn’t a sinless one among them (teachers, administrators, students or parents).

I’d venture a guess that most of the teachers and administrators have engaged in a sexual sin at some point ... if her head is on a platter, theirs should likely be right next to it. She committed a sin — she is not living a sin. She married the man who impregnated her (only a month or so after being impregnated), and is, as far as we know, is no longer engaging in sexual sin. She’s a married woman and the father is her husband ... which relegates this particular sin to a lack of self-control and an error in judgment, not a lifestyle choice.

Forgiveness is also a Christian value.

SnakeDoc


179 posted on 06/09/2010 11:12:05 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Shut it down" ... 00:00:03 ... 00:00:02 ... 00:00:01 ... 00:00:00.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]


To: SnakeDoctor

“...theological, not legal. If she violated a moral agreement,...”

Our moral principles are based on theology. God is the author of our morality. I was referring to the moral violation rather than the violation of the Decalogue.

We do not know the details surrounding this case. People are jumping to conclusions and making faults assumptions.

We do not know the details of the contract this teacher signed, and how, exactly, she violated the contract. So I will reserve my opinions concerning “sin” as it relates to the entire staff and this woman.


198 posted on 06/09/2010 11:22:36 AM PDT by This Just In
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

To: SnakeDoctor
If Christian schools purge sinners from their staffs, they’d be unable to operate. This was the thrust of my statement. Christians are Saved by Grace, not by flawless behavior. The fact is, there isn’t a sinless one among them (teachers, administrators, students or parents).

True enough, but that only addresses part of the theological issue. Obviously, we are all sinners. Obviously, we all need to grace to cover those sins. This is all well and good. Yet, it doesn't change the fact that we all also have to face up to the consequences of our decisions, including when we make the decision to sin. Check out what Paul has to say about the qualifications for a pastor in I Tim. 3, for instance. A man could not be a pastor if he had openly and notoriously sinned at some point (vv.2,7). Does this mean he couldn't be forgiven? Obviously not. But it does mean that, due to the circumstances, he was not qualified to fill that particular role anymore.

The circumstance in this case is that this teacher chose to fornicate while she was employed at this school, violating a contract which she had previously agreed to. Does that mean she cannot be forgiven for that sin? Of course she can - and nobody on here (despite the hysterics from some) has said that she couldn't or shouldn't be. All the same, there are consequences for her action that she has to continue to bear, even after she has been forgiven.

That's the key point that I think you are missing - forgiveness is not a "get out of consequences free" card. A murdered doesn't get to be released from gaol just because he finds Jesus.

I’d venture a guess that most of the teachers and administrators have engaged in a sexual sin at some point ... if her head is on a platter, theirs should likely be right next to it.

Why? Did they all do it while employed at the school? Actually, probably not.

She committed a sin — she is not living a sin. She married the man who impregnated her (only a month or so after being impregnated), and is, as far as we know, is no longer engaging in sexual sin. She’s a married woman and the father is her husband ... which relegates this particular sin to a lack of self-control and an error in judgment, not a lifestyle choice.

Again, true as all this may be, it doesn't negate the fact that she broke her contract (which also means she lied and oath-broke), which is a theological and moral issue in and of itself, not merely a legal one. If she had fornicated in the past before becoming a teacher, but then married the man who was the father, etc., fine and dandy. She messed up, she got it right. Fine. But that's not what happened here, and I think your approach is forgetting a few salient details.

Forgiveness is also a Christian value.

True, and so is living up to the consequences of our actions.

206 posted on 06/09/2010 11:28:37 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson