Should Biblically Lawless People Have Responsibility Over Children

[Strangelove]

Parents should protect their children from danger, both spiritually and physically.

However, we also don't want to go overboard and turn into "witch hunters" and start ostracizing people because of sin.

Just to clarify......one more time. It's not the sin I'm worried about, we all sin. It is the persons lack of RECOGNITION of the sin that is the issue.

Should a person who cannot even see their own sin be in a position of guardianship over children.

And I'm not saying ostresize them but simply asking about whether they can be trusted with supervising children.

But to address the specifics of your examples ....

Might need to be a little more specific as to what they are teaching.
Are they actually teaching that adultery is OK?
Or are they just teaching math or history?

Well since they do not recognize adultery as bad then we will have to assume that if the topic came up then they would say it was ok...yes.

It doesn't matter about the topic the person teaches. What if they were on a break and chatting to students in the hallway?

A heroin addict loses the sense of reality while he is spaced out.
I doubt he could even tie a shoe!
And more than likely would not even realize that a child was with him!
One would be foolish to leave a child in the care of a heroin addict.

Again, the issue is the persons attitude that drugs are ok. Not the actual drug use itself. Do we want those kinds of people around our children...influencing them?

 

[Strangelove]

So, perhaps we should ensure that no one who has obvious moral issues should teach children...

But, this must include those who are Christian as well, because I submit a Christian who practices lawlessness is even more insidious than a non-Christian who does so. Because then, not only will the young mind think that the immoral issue is OK, they will perceive that even God is OK with it.

Wow! Finally someone said it. Good grief what is up with you lot seriously?

And someone who has obvious moral issues is basically someone who doesn't recognise their own sin. Correct?

This is what I am asking you guys, should people who have obvious moral issues be supervising children?

Some of the answers I'm getting back are just unbelievable.

Just shows how people are so scared to stand up for their beliefs. Staggering.

 

[handy]

Oh, I got your point, Strangelove!

The problem is, are we going to cherry pick which sins must be acknowledged as sins, and which ones can be justified away.

It's easy enough to say that an open adulterer or addict or homosexual must not be in a position to influence a young mind.

But, when, where and how are we going to draw the line as to what is OK to be around impressionable minds and what isn't.

Is a teacher who denounces Obama as a Muslim commie to be considered OK? A very strong, overwhelmingly strong, biblical case can be made that such a denunciation is sin. Is it not "enough" of a sin to worry about? Are only "big" sins like adultery and addictions to be acknowledged?

And, what about someone who acknowledges the sin, but continues on in them?

 

[Strangelove]

We live in a sinful world though ...

So just forget about making an effort protecting your children? Do you have children Lamp?

If anyone had serious concerns about someones conduct then of course no-one should remain silent. But if addicts manages to be responsible in his/her job then I don't think it's fair to sack them.

What if the addict doesnt see drug use as bad. They have a questionable moral makeup. And they WILL be in contact with your children both in class and possibly at break times too. What then?

*Please bear in mind though I haven't got a clue how heroin addicts thinks or behave - but I'm assuming their main aim is this need for injected chemicals on a regular basis. Assuming that is the case, I'm not sure how it affects his behaviour responsibility wise when needs be. Do they ALL automatically think it's ok for others to do it?

I dont know but what if, in our example this teacher DOES think its ok for others to do it. thats my question. Should they be around children?

Maybe I'm missing the relevence of this?

I think what you was saying you want your children to be around responsible Godly people thinking that they in turn will grow up to be the same. I'm saying that is not necessarily gong to be the case ...

No thats not what I'm saying.

Parents are responsible for children growing up to be godly people. I'm saying I want my children to be around teachers who know the difference between good and bad so that they dont negatively influence them and so they can adequately protect them from other children.

 

[PouringRain]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

Just to clarify......one more time. It's not the sin I'm worried about, we all sin. It is the persons lack of RECOGNITION of the sin that is the issue.

I will pose a question back to you: If the individual recognized the sin as a problem, would you then be okay with that person teaching your children?

For example, if the heroin addict recognized that he has a problem with heroin and discouraged children from using it, telling them all the horrors of the addiction, and warning them against ever falling into the same trap he is stuck in. Would that make you feel more comfortable with him teaching your child?

 

[PouringRain]

[/COLOR]

So just forget about making an effort protecting your children?

If I knew my children had a teacher who was a drug addict, a pedophile, had an anger problem, etc. Sure, I would request a new teacher and remove them from the class.

God entrusts us with his children to raise properly, but sometimes he asks us for them back. Sometimes he asks us to place them on the altar, place them in the basket on the water, place them in the mouth of the lion, and to walk away and trust him. In times like that I remind myself that they are God's children, not mine, and I must trust him.

 

[Strangelove]

Oh, I got your point, Strangelove!

The problem is, are we going to cherry pick which sins must be acknowledged as sins, and which ones can be justified away.

It's easy enough to say that an open adulterer or addict or homosexual must not be in a position to influence a young mind.

But, when, where and how are we going to draw the line as to what is OK to be around impressionable minds and what isn't.

No we are not gonna cherry pick at all. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to recognize their own sinful behaviour, whatever the sin may be, is morally reprehensable and is not fit to be supervising children.

Is a teacher who denounces Obama as a Muslim commie to be considered OK? A very strong, overwhelmingly strong, biblical case can be made that such a denunciation is sin. Is it not "enough" of a sin to worry about? Are only "big" sins like adultery and addictions to be acknowledged?

Hmmm.....denunciation. That can just mean show disaproval. Thats not a sin. If its clear and aggressive condemnation or judgement then thats different. Maybe that one can go to the school board for review.

Seriously though...I think we can use our discernment to figure out what is a clear sin and what isn't. (like downloading mp3's)

And, what about someone who acknowledges the sin, but continues on in them?

Ok good question. At this point, knowing they are doing wrong....IF their sin doesn't effect their work and if they are sinning AT work (unprofessionalism) THEN they are in the clear. You could not label them as morally reprehensible coz they have vitally RECOGNIZED their sin and are not likely to be a bad influence to children.

Agreed Handy?

 

[Sissy]

Well since they do not recognize adultery as bad then we will have to assume that if the topic came up then they would say it was ok...yes.

Then that is when a parent should step in and remove the child from under his false teaching.

On the other hand, we do not remove our children from under a sinner who is teaching correctly.
As was pointed out by scripture, the Pharisee could teach correctly while his own personal actions were wrong.

It doesn't matter about the topic the person teaches. What if they were on a break and chatting to students in the hallway?

That's not in a teaching capacity.
You would have to shield your child from all of society in general to avoid such.

Again, the issue is the persons attitude that drugs are ok. Not the actual drug use itself. Do we want those kinds of people around our children...influencing them?

What's your answer, Doc?
Do you lock a child in his room from fear that he might hear or see something wrong from someone?

A child needs to be aware of both good and bad to be able to recognize the difference.
And if a child is taught at home that it is the fruits of the person that distinguishes good from bad actions, then he will be better equipped to recognize a correct or erroneous teaching from correct or erroneous action.


The heroin addict would be a foolish choice to put any child with, as a heroin addict wouldn't be physically or mentally capable of teaching much of anything.


I mean, #2 is a no-brainer because there would be no teaching involved.
But #1 could have correct teaching despite the personal actions.

So, seriously, what would be your solution to the 2 examples you gave?

 

[Strangelove]

I will pose a question back to you: If the individual recognized the sin as a problem, would you then be okay with that person teaching your children?

For example, if the heroin addict recognized that he has a problem with heroin and discouraged children from using it, telling them all the horrors of the addiction, and warning them against ever falling into the same trap he is stuck in. Would that make you feel more comfortable with him teaching your child?

Yes I would feel comfortable as long as their addiction didn't effect their work. In fact it may even be a positive thing as maybe that teacher could give the class a talk on the negative aspects of drugs and discourage them. They know it's wrong, thats good enough for me.

What I can't abide is for my child to be around an adult who practices lawlessness without knowing they are a sinner.

 

[Strangelove]

Then that is when a parent should step in and remove the child from under his false teaching.

On the other hand, we do not remove our children from under a sinner who is teaching correctly.
As was pointed out by scripture, the Pharisee could teach correctly while his own personal actions were wrong.

As long as the sinner knows that they are sinning then I dont see a problem as long as the actual sin doesnt effect their work.

But someone who has a faulty moral character is not suitable to be teaching. What about out of class? What about kids looking up to adults?

Ok forget about teaching Sissy. Just pretend we're talking about someone who is in a child supervisory role. Like a scoutmaster for example. If they are morally reprehensable we dont want them there correct? Theres a good chance they will be a bad influence.

That's not in a teaching capacity.
You would have to shield your child from all of society in general to avoid such.

What's your answer, Doc?
Do you lock a child in his room from fear that he might hear or see something wrong from someone?

'All of society' does not have responsibility over my child. People who are in certain trusted positions do! And we can do something about them. We have the right and we have a voice in that area.

A child needs to be aware of both good and bad to be able to recognize the difference.
And if a child is taught at home that it is the fruits of the person that distinguishes good from bad actions, then he will be better equipped to recognize a correct or erroneous teaching from correct or erroneous action.

So does that mean don't do what you can do make sure morally reprehensable people are not in positions of responsability over your child?

The heroin addict would be a foolish choice to put any child with, as a heroin addict wouldn't be physically or mentally capable of teaching much of anything.

I mean, #2 is a no-brainer because there would be no teaching involved.
But #1 could have correct teaching despite the personal actions.

So, seriously, what would be your solution to the 2 examples you gave?

BOOT THEM! Take anyone who is incapable of recognizing clear sin in themselves out of positions of responsibility over children. Thats the correct solution. Isn't that a no-brainer?

The adulterer who feels no guilt at commiting his sin is not suitable to be around children. He is likely to be a bad influence on them. Even if he were a teacher there is always that possibility as children and teachers often mix out of class. Take school trips for example.

But try to think about any child supervisory role and not just teachers.

Doc.

 

[jasoncran]

No. It's not an issue of topical discussion If I were to become a teacher I would be a teacher of biology I would teach biology as would be my professional role that I was trained to perform. my personal life, love life or whatever simply dosen't factor into it you don't allow them to overlap.
You can belive that but it's more about your moral opinions begin afforded free reign over others lives.
If his personal life interferes with his professional life yeah whitch probably would be the case if you take £200 of heroin a day.


Hmm. That's actually sad thing to hear. *shrug*

Thing is with DADT is your already living with those pepole it's just if someone hunts them down they are savagely persicuted in a way that you say yourself is wrong.
Mike Almy, Soldier Discharged After Air Force Searched His Private Emails, 'Dumbfounded' By McCain Comments (VIDEO)
In this story Major Mike Almy had his personal email searched by his supereriors he was completely silent about his sexuallity to his co-workers he had sent emails to his partner at the time.
It was decreed that there is 'no private email' while in active service and he was discharged. although claims this dosen't happen it REALLY dose happen. Basically begin denied contact to there loved ones the poloicy is just a sheild for aggressive types of homophobia.

but i dont know that he is in the room and openly there. by that logic should i be in a room with a girl and she not have a choice? after all we are all soldiers.


and if you are dumb enough to use the .mil sites that they watch for opsec then you get what you deserve. and open admission of it violates the rule.

yes they are there and so are the others. i dont want to shower with them if i know they are that way. i would take a shower with you in an open shower.

i was also groped by a bi man and didnt turn him in twice. i harbor no ill will toward them. and i was bi briefly in the guard when i acted on that.

so agian i ask should i shower with the female soldier and they have no privacy?

remember we dont go home all the time to seperate rooms. if you are single you will stay with a gay person and not have a choice if this is implemented.

no to mention the other relationships that happen, and they do. more leader stress of keeping fraternization on the down low.

remember its a team thing. so we would now have to keep the bi wherever they are at the moment. and the lesbians and gays in each respective bunk.

that is separation not unit coherence.

 

[handy]

No we are not gonna cherry pick at all. Anyone who doesn't have the ability to recognize their own sinful behaviour, whatever the sin may be, is morally reprehensable and is not fit to be supervising children.



Hmmm.....denunciation. That can just mean show disaproval. Thats not a sin. If its clear and aggressive condemnation or judgement then thats different. Maybe that one can go to the school board for review.

Seriously though...I think we can use our discernment to figure out what is a clear sin and what isn't. (like downloading mp3's)



Ok good question. At this point, knowing they are doing wrong....IF their sin doesn't effect their work and if they are sinning AT work (unprofessionalism) THEN they are in the clear. You could not label them as morally reprehensible coz they have vitally RECOGNIZED their sin and are not likely to be a bad influence to children.

Agreed Handy?

Now here is when things get really sticky...

Seriously though...I think we can use our discernment to figure out what is a clear sin and what isn't. (like downloading mp3's)

See, I happen to think that it's very much a sin (stealing) to download mp3's. No, I'm not going to judge you if you think it isn't, that's between you and God. But, now should you be teaching my kids if you can't see that artists and producers have the right to the profits of their industry, every bit as much as I expect to be paid for the beef we raise?

How about my old gym teacher...she lived with a woman. No, she didn't talk about her relationship at the school, but in a small town, everyone knew. It was kind of the "elephant in the room". We all instinctively knew that if we kids openly discussed it, it would become a serious problem for her, and since we liked her, we didn't.

However, at the ripe old age of 15-17, I knew she was a lesbian who lived with her girlfriend. But, she was also the one and only gym teacher I ever liked. She worked so much like a personal trainer for all of us. Several of my friends were overweight, by quite a bit, and she worked with them to find ways to make more exercise a part of a healthy life-style. She helped me to find the one physical activity that I wasn't a total klutz at (gymnastics) and worked with a physical limitation that I have (bum hip) to work up routines where I actually looked graceful.

So, being that she didn't acknowledge that she was a sinful creature...I don't think she was Christian...should she have been fired?

There were also two teachers at my school who, the woman left her husband and as soon as her divorce was final, married the other. They are still married to this day and were at the 30 year reunion. The Mrs. in the situation wasn't really all that great of a teacher, she was fun and popular, but I didn't necessarily learn much from her. However, the Mr. was a great teacher, and a great mentor. He also was a pretty good coach as well. But, they weren't apologetic about their private life. In a small town, everyone knew what happened, but they didn't face being fired. Even before her divorce was final, they were an open couple at school functions. Something that our gym teacher could not have done with her partner.

So, should these three teachers of mine have been fired for their openly sinful lives, adulterers and lesbian?

If it had been a Christian school and supposedly Christian teachers, I would say yes, yes, yes! But, as far as I know, none of them identified themselves as Christians. So, in that case, I don't see why any of them should lose their jobs.

Christian parents then have a choice to make...who am I going to allow to teach my kids?

If a Christian parent wants only committed Christians who acknowledge sin and keeps it away from young minds...then they must either put their kids into Christian schools or homeschool. There really isn't any other option.

We didn't opt for that. We've homeschooled our daughter, but not because we didn't want her exposed to unrepentant sinful teachers. We've always have had our kids in public school and then we teach our children what is biblical and right and teach them that they must be discerning in life....that people we love and look up to are still sinners and will make mistakes. But, that we must always look to God and the Bible for what is right and what is wrong and live according to how the Holy Spirit convicts us, rather than what others around us do.

 

[Strangelove]

Now here is when things get really sticky...

See, I happen to think that it's very much a sin (stealing) to download mp3's. No, I'm not going to judge you if you think it isn't, that's between you and God. But, now should you be teaching my kids if you can't see that artists and producers have the right to the profits of their industry, every bit as much as I expect to be paid for the beef we raise?

Ok its no problem. We can still make this work with minimum fuss. If there is a sin that is debatable, which I think downloading absolutley is and would be happy to debate you on that in a different thread......then what you do is you simply let the school board or the parents union make a decision on it. Seeing as there are very few sins which are not clearly spelled out in the bible then I cant see that being a problem.

How about my old gym teacher...she lived with a woman. No, she didn't talk about her relationship at the school, but in a small town, everyone knew. It was kind of the "elephant in the room". We all instinctively knew that if we kids openly discussed it, it would become a serious problem for her, and since we liked her, we didn't.

However, at the ripe old age of 15-17, I knew she was a lesbian who lived with her girlfriend. But, she was also the one and only gym teacher I ever liked. She worked so much like a personal trainer for all of us. Several of my friends were overweight, by quite a bit, and she worked with them to find ways to make more exercise a part of a healthy life-style. She helped me to find the one physical activity that I wasn't a total klutz at (gymnastics) and worked with a physical limitation that I have (bum hip) to work up routines where I actually looked graceful.

So, being that she didn't acknowledge that she was a sinful creature...I don't think she was Christian...should she have been fired?

There were also two teachers at my school who, the woman left her husband and as soon as her divorce was final, married the other. They are still married to this day and were at the 30 year reunion. The Mrs. in the situation wasn't really all that great of a teacher, she was fun and popular, but I didn't necessarily learn much from her. However, the Mr. was a great teacher, and a great mentor. He also was a pretty good coach as well. But, they weren't apologetic about their private life. In a small town, everyone knew what happened, but they didn't face being fired. Even before her divorce was final, they were an open couple at school functions. Something that our gym teacher could not have done with her partner.

So, should these three teachers of mine have been fired for their openly sinful lives, adulterers and lesbian?

Well the question is...were these people morally reprehensable?

If the answer is yes then they should have been fired. It's that simple.

So you tell me, were they?

If it had been a Christian school and supposedly Christian teachers, I would say yes, yes, yes! But, as far as I know, none of them identified themselves as Christians. So, in that case, I don't see why any of them should lose their jobs.

I don't see how that matters. Why does their religious affiliation have anything to do with whether we as parents want our children to be under the authority of openly lawless people who are not able to recognize sin in themselves let alone the kids under their chrage.

Christian parents then have a choice to make...who am I going to allow to teach my kids?

If a Christian parent wants only committed Christians who acknowledge sin and keeps it away from young minds...then they must either put their kids into Christian schools or homeschool. There really isn't any other option.

There is another option. You can demand that lawless teachers be removed from their positions of authority. Why is that not an option? I'll tell you why....political correctness and the ADL which is a zionist front group bent on destroying Christianity. But thats just brainwashing. We still have a voice but people are scrared to use it coz of the conditioning.

We didn't opt for that. We've homeschooled our daughter, but not because we didn't want her exposed to unrepentant sinful teachers. We've always have had our kids in public school and then we teach our children what is biblical and right and teach them that they must be discerning in life....that people we love and look up to are still sinners and will make mistakes. But, that we must always look to God and the Bible for what is right and what is wrong and live according to how the Holy Spirit convicts us, rather than what others around us do.

What about when they are too young to discern?

Do you want lawless individuals who are incapable of recognizing their own sin to be a kindergarden worker?

 

[Elijah674]

Ok its no problem. We can still make this work with minimum fuss. If there is a sin that is debatable, which I think downloading absolutley is and would be happy to debate you on that in a different thread......then what you do is you simply let the school board or the parents union make a decision on it. Seeing as there are very few sins which are not clearly spelled out in the bible then I cant see that being a problem.




Well the question is...were these people morally reprehensable?

If the answer is yes then they should have been fired. It's that simple.

So you tell me, were they?



I don't see how that matters. Why does their religious affiliation have anything to do with whether we as parents want our children to be under the authority of openly lawless people who are not able to recognize sin in themselves let alone the kids under their chrage.



There is another option. You can demand that lawless teachers be removed from their positions of authority. Why is that not an option? I'll tell you why....political correctness and the ADL which is a zionist front group bent on destroying Christianity. But thats just brainwashing. We still have a voice but people are scrared to use it coz of the conditioning.



What about when they are too young to discern?

Do you want lawless individuals who are incapable of recognizing their own sin to be a kindergarden worker?

Are there Home Schools & Home Church's today? It used to be that the kids could be sent to the Church school. But even that is Rev. 17:1-5 'spiritually' dumb in this last day time period. One wonders about the marriage break up in most of these churchs with being about equal to that of the world?

God tel's us what needs to be done in Jer., but that is most likely to deep for most here?

--Elijah

 

[jasoncran]

Are there Home Schools & Home Church's today? It used to be that the kids could be sent to the Church school. But even that is Rev. 17:1-5 'spiritually' dumb in this last day time period. One wonders about the marriage break up in most of these churchs with being about equal to that of the world?

God tel's us what needs to be done in Jer., but that is most likely to deep for most here?

--Elijah

what slay the wicked?
and yes you can homeschool but not all can. my step daughter cant kinda hard when she is the only one taking care of her son and gets no child support.

i would gladly homeschool mine if i had them. but theres is a curricula for these programs.

many of them are christians.

 

[Pebbles]

If a man touched you indecently then you should have reported him for sexual harassment.

The problems with discipline don't happen the USA is probably the only 1st world military with such draconian views on the matter I asked a friend of mine in the UK Navy and yeah he explained the British Navies position. Ie your not permitted to touch each other without express orders while on base or at sea at all. I've not seen any problem at all with any of the people serving with the armed services at all.
This is the view of most modern armed forces of the world.

Of course he still got himself formally reprimanded for fraternizing with a female recruit... That's a different issue.

 

[jasoncran]

If a man touched you indecently then you should have reported him for sexual harassment.

The problems with discipline don't happen the USA is probably the only 1st world military with such draconian views on the matter I asked a friend of mine in the UK Navy and yeah he explained the British Navies position. Ie your not permitted to touch each other without express orders while on base or at sea at all. I've not seen any problem at all with any of the people serving with the armed services at all.
This is the view of most modern armed forces of the world.

Of course he still got himself formally reprimanded for fraternizing with a female recruit... That's a different issue.

i hear other wise. and seen otherwise. the army covered up my lt sleeping with a female subboridinate.

that doenst address the issue i said. why shouldnt i as a male bunk with a female that isnt in a relationship with me. its no different. and dont think that co-ed relationships dont happen they do.

i see it in my unit at times. its there.
(with in regs but the regs dont allow superior to subordinate relationships)
keep in mind the military isnt a democracy. just there to defend it.

lol asking for orders to touch, thats one way to put it.

i have to use that line in my next drill date.

 

[lamplady]

[/COLOR]
So just forget about making an effort protecting your children? Do you have children Lamp?

No, I'm saying we can only do so much ...


What if the addict doesnt see drug use as bad. They have a questionable moral makeup. And they WILL be in contact with your children both in class and possibly at break times too. What then?
I dont know but what if, in our example this teacher DOES think its ok for others to do it. thats my question. Should they be around children?

right, the no you're right. wouldn't you say unfit or untrustworthy type of people could occur anywhere - what I mean is unless you have access to control who you're children are around 24/7 then it might be nigh on impossible to protect them that much. I mean we already know what SOME catholic priest et al did .....

Maybe I'm missing the relevence of this?
No thats not what I'm saying.

Parents are responsible for children growing up to be godly people. I'm saying I want my children to be around teachers who know the difference between good and bad so that they dont negatively influence them and so they can adequately protect them from other children.

k that's nice and and you're right but in the real world who knows good from bad? the unrepentant sinners often say if it's not 'hurting anyone' then it's morally ok.

 

[Strangelove]

No, I'm saying we can only do so much ...

right, the no you're right. wouldn't you say unfit or untrustworthy type of people could occur anywhere - what I mean is unless you have access to control who you're children are around 24/7 then it might be nigh on impossible to protect them that much. I mean we already know what SOME catholic priest et al did ...

k that's nice and and you're right but in the real world who knows good from bad? the unrepentant sinners often say if it's not 'hurting anyone' then it's morally ok.

I agree. We can only do so much. What we can do, is have a say on who is directly responsible over our children. We can do that.

How do we know good from bad? Uhm.........how do you know good from bad lamp?

 

[handy]

There is another option. You can demand that lawless teachers be removed from their positions of authority. Why is that not an option? I'll tell you why....political correctness and the ADL which is a zionist front group bent on destroying Christianity. But thats just brainwashing. We still have a voice but people are scrared to use it coz of the conditioning.

Actually, I could care less about PC or the ADL. We make most of our decisions based upon the word of God.

And, the word of God says:

1 Corinthians 5:9-12: "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."


I just don't see where it is our job, as either parents or Christians, to throw teachers out of a job, because they are sinners. It is our job as Christian parents to control who has authority over our children, yes, but not to get a teacher fired because she divorces her husband. For instance, the teacher at our school here in our little town...she's been awarded "Teacher of the Year" awards several times now (I nominated her for one of the awards myself). She is a great teacher...she is now divorced and not because either she or her husband committed adultery. Sin. Go to the school board to throw her out? Not me. Not my job as a Christian to do that.


Now my brother-in-law is principle of a Christian school and he makes a lot of employment decisions for the school. If one of their teachers gets a divorce because h/she just doesn't want to be married anymore, then they have a decision to make about whether or not h/she can remain employed there. Because it is part of the church, and the Scriptures are quite clear as to what constitutes a valid reason to divorce.

But, it is not nor has it ever been, the job of Christians to decide who gets to keep a job or lose a job based upon morality out in the world.

If you don't want your kindergartner being taught by a divorcee, or a homosexual or an adulterer, put them in a Christian school where then, the Scriptures tell us, we are to set high moral standards and hold each other to them.