Should Biblically Lawless People Have Responsibility Over Children

[lamplady]

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?

lol I should had said unrepentant sinners ...

**I 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"

 

[Strangelove]

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."

Ok Handy let's just have acloser look at Corinthians 5:9-12

I'm gonna use the KJV if you dont mind.

5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:​

Ok...so...immediately here we are told not to keep company with fornicators. Later in 5:11 Paul clarifies that he is talking about pretty much anyone who practices lawlessness. An unrepentful sinner. We are not to company with them and that obviously includes our children too.​

5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs
go out of the world.​

Right, here in the next verse he's saying but if we are including EVERYONE in this group then we would have to leave the world so that's just impossible. Ok so whats next? >>​

5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater,
or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not
to eat.​

So here Paul narrows it down. Brother. Now, you could read that to be only a believing Christian...and I concede that it is used that way in th bible hundreds of times......but it is the same word (adelphos) that is used to describe an actual brother of the flesh...so...I think you could easily say that this could mean someone who is a close part of your life and someone that you need to trust like family. Which a teacher would be.​

Later in Corinthians Paul talks about a husband not turning away a wife who is not a believer. And yet she must still submit to him if they stay together. So this shows that a Christian can still have a say over one who is not a Chritian. It's about having juristiction over relationships not about belief.​

5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not
ye judge them that are within?​

Anyone outside your close sphere is not your concern. Anyone in your life that you or your children have contact with IS.​

5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked person.​

And again we see that it's our responsibility to eject those who are among ourselves who are lawless and unrepentful.

Basically I'm saying that these verses talk much more about if these people are actually around you and in contact with you and not about whether or not they are Christian.

If you have other verses that show that Chrisitians are not to rebuke non-christians then I'd be glad to see them.

But I'm not convinced that those verses mean if our teacher is Christian and morally reprehensible (does that even work??) then we can remove them, but if they arn't then we have no say.

And come to think of it actually....no that doesn't work..lolz....coz anyone who is morally reprehensable cannot legitamately call themselves Christian because they show bad fruit. Saying you have 'faith' without the works means the faith is not real. Maybe thats why in that verse it says 'called' a brother......?.....?.....?

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.

Again, I'm not condemning sin...we all sin...thats not the issue. The issue is unrecognized sin and the constant practice of lawlessness. Lolz...I don't want a teacher sacked just coz she is a divorcee. Not unless they practice the act of marrying and divorcing for illegitamate reasons over and over again.

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.

Well as I've said I think we do have a say and it's biblically legitamate for us or our children to not keep company with lawless morally corrupt people no matter what they're religion if we have a say in the matter. And with regard to who has guardianship over our kids....we do, and should have a say.

Thanks for your input Handy.


Doc.

 

[handy]

It's been an interesting thread, Doc.

I disagree with both the premise of the thread and the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5, but, I respect your views on the subject.

 

[Strangelove]

It's been an interesting thread, Doc.

I disagree with both the premise of the thread and the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5, but, I respect your views on the subject.

No probs Handy...thanks for your time Sister.

You did state this:

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

So...I mean, thats the basic premise of the thread so I would say we're kinda in the same ballpark. **sigh** I just wanna protect my kids.

Love Doc.

 

[PouringRain]

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.

We do not always have a say in who is directly responsible over our children. Which is why I wrote this earlier:

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.

When Moses' mother placed her infant son in the basket in the water, she had absolutely no say in who would find him or raise him. She had no choice that he would be raised in a pagan home. All she could do is trust God with her son. Sometimes we are also put through those trials.

And even when parents do have a say.... think of all those parents who entrusted their children to the priest, the sunday school teacher, the family member-- and their child was molested. Sometimes the person who you should be able to trust the most in the one you can least trust.

We can only trust God and his will in the lives of our children.

 

[Strangelove]

I give up.

Your right, theres absolutley nothing we can do to protect our kids from being supervised by totally inapropriate, morally reprehensible people. We're utterly powerless. Just leave it in God's hands. Fine. I'm done here.

:

 

[handy]

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

So...I mean, thats the basic premise of the thread so I would say we're kinda in the same ballpark. **sigh** I just wanna protect my kids.

I have to admit, Doc, that the post referred to was in preface to my thoughts that we really cannot ensure such a thing because it just gets too murky as to what is "obvious moral issues". That changes over time. 100 years ago, a teacher would get sacked for being a divorcee. God's standards for marriage and divorce hasn't changed over the last 100 years, but society's acceptance for divorce has. Just as society's acceptance for many things has.

I want to protect my kids as well, but we truly cannot protect them by keeping them in a bubble or attempting to only allow the "right" people around them. As PouringRain pointed out, how many times have children been violated by a Sunday School teacher, or a family member, someone in whom the parent had complete trust.

I do think that Christian schools provide a choice for parents, as well as homeschooling. But, I've always figured that it was part of my job as a parent to teach my children how to go along in the world, and yet live by God's standards. So, they must learn discernment. I'm not for letting kids be in situations that can easily overcome their immature judgments, which is why we don't allow our daughter to be alone on dates, but we truly can only do so much, and trust that God will also only allow that which He wills to happen in their lives.

But, yeah, wanting to protect the babies...yep, I understand completely!!! It is truly scary to have to let the kids go out there.

 

[Strangelove]

I have to admit, Doc, that the post referred to was in preface to my thoughts that we really cannot ensure such a thing because it just gets too murky as to what is "obvious moral issues". That changes over time. 100 years ago, a teacher would get sacked for being a divorcee. God's standards for marriage and divorce hasn't changed over the last 100 years, but society's acceptance for divorce has. Just as society's acceptance for many things has.

So you're saying you are not sure what is clear lawlessness and what isn't becasue the bible isn't clear enough? Or you dont think a school or a parents union could come to a concensus on the issue?

I want to protect my kids as well, but we truly cannot protect them by keeping them in a bubble or attempting to only allow the "right" people around them. As PouringRain pointed out, how many times have children been violated by a Sunday School teacher, or a family member, someone in whom the parent had complete trust.

Maybe thats coz parents didn't have the courage to remove a lawless person from the postion over children. Or maybe they didn't watch carefully enough the people that they entrusted their children with. Is that a possibility?

I do think that Christian schools provide a choice for parents, as well as homeschooling. But, I've always figured that it was part of my job as a parent to teach my children how to go along in the world, and yet live by God's standards. So, they must learn discernment. I'm not for letting kids be in situations that can easily overcome their immature judgments, which is why we don't allow our daughter to be alone on dates, but we truly can only do so much, and trust that God will also only allow that which He wills to happen in their lives.

Yes we can only do so much. And one of the things we can do is vett the people we trust with supervision of our children. We can do that.

But, yeah, wanting to protect the babies...yep, I understand completely!!! It is truly scary to have to let the kids go out there.

The world is a dangerous place. I accept that. There are many things that we don't have a say in with regard to our childs safety. But trusted guardians are not one of those things.

Example:

Your 14 year old has been on a school trip. You are having dinner with him and your husband. He is talking about his trip and mentions that he and his friend were having a conversation with Mr.Jones (a teacher they all like coz he's quite funny and wacky) about drugs.

'Mr.Jones says theres nothing wrong with taking heroin!....He says it shouldn't even be criminalized. He said he does it at home and loves the buzz'

What do you do?

Does it depend on whether Mr.Jones is Christian?

Does it depend on whether the school is Christian?

I would make an immediate complaint.

How about you Handy?

Doc.

 

[pjt]

Should unrepentent people who openly practice lawlessness have positions of responsibility over our children?

We are not talking about redeemed, repentful sinners but specifically those who practice lawlessness and are totally unrepentful of the sin they are commiting.

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

What do you guys think?

From a purely Christian perspective, of course not. That`s why many people home school these days. Actually in my mother`s generation, she was a teacher and they used to have very strict moral codes that teachers had to follow. One simply could not be an adultress and be a teacher. They would not even get a chance to repent. They would have been instantly fired. She couldn`t even have a questionable social life. She was to be a model citizen but today things have greatly changed so parents even nonChristians see it and are withdrawing their children from public schools. And I don`t know any decent parent Christian or nonChristian who would be comfortable with a drug addict watching their children. That is just scary, but I know it happens and some parents accept it.

 

[Strangelove]

From a purely Christian perspective, of course not.

RIGHT! Thanks pjt.

Don't you find it amazing that you're the first person to just simply make that agreement with the basic premise of the thread?

What you would do about the situation after you were made aware of it is something for further discussion but that's all I really wanted to get out of people for starters....that Biblically Lawless People SHOULD NOT Have Responsibility Over Children.

Sheeesh.

Personally I would report the individual first and see what happened. If measures were not taken I would then remove my child from their care.

Doc.

 

[pjt]

RIGHT! Thanks pjt.

Don't you find it amazing that you're the first person to just simply make that agreement with the basic premise of the thread?

Doc.

I`m the first person after 4 pages to give this answer! That is amazing! If it is nonChristians answering, then I understand, but if it is our brothers and sisters wanting Biblically lawless people watching over our children then we have a problem!

 

[Strangelove]

I`m the first person after 4 pages to give this answer! That is amazing! If it is nonChristians answering, then I understand, but if it is our brothers and sisters wanting Biblically lawless people watching over our children then we have a problem!

No mostly christians in this thread..

We have a problem pj..

The problem is the emerging church. Where there is no black and white...no right or wrong...

Only.......'The Conversation'

 

[PouringRain]

I`m the first person after 4 pages to give this answer! That is amazing! If it is nonChristians answering, then I understand, but if it is our brothers and sisters wanting Biblically lawless people watching over our children then we have a problem!

You actually aren't the first, but strangelove doesn't like the remainder of the responses that go along with them.

No one here has advocated handing our children over to drug addicts. In post #26 I wrote " 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."


But strangelove's complete point is not issue of allowing or not allowing lawless people to have responsibility over our children. He is asking if the person is unrepentant in their lawlessness, and denies it, then would you allow them to be responsible for your children. In post #25 I asked a question back to strangelove, that if the person knew what he was doing was wrong, then would he then be okay with having that person over his children, to which he replied "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."

So, you can see, Mr. Pjt, that the issue has many more facets involved. As for me, I personally would have a problem having a heroin addict as my child's teacher even if the person knew their addiction was wrong and cautioned others against it. For strangelove, he is actually okay with having the lawless over his children provided they knew what they were doing is sin and it did not effect their work.

The points that handy and sissy were making is that yes we should protect our children, but where do you draw the line when it comes to defining what is lawless.

You should go back and read the entire thread, pjt.

I ask you, pjt, if the lawless person, such as the heroin addict mentioned, knew his sin was wrong and even spoke out against his addiction and encouraged others to never use heroin-- would you then be okay with that person being over your child?

 

[Strangelove]

You actually aren't the first, but strangelove doesn't like the remainder of the responses that go along with them.

No one here has advocated handing our children over to drug addicts. In post #26 I wrote " 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."

Sorry I must have missed that post as I didn't reply to it. Sorry.

But strangelove's complete point is not issue of allowing or not allowing lawless people to have responsibility over our children. [That is my point exactly!? Look at the title of the thread] He is asking if the person is unrepentant in their lawlessness, and denies it, then would you allow them to be responsible for your children.

Ok you are still confusing things a little. If someone is lawless (morally reprehensible) then they don't recognize their sin at all. And therefore don't see anything to repent against.

In post #25 I asked a question back to strangelove, that if the person knew what he was doing was wrong, then would he then be okay with having that person over his children, to which he replied "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."

So, you can see, Mr. Pjt, that the issue has many more facets involved. As for me, I personally would have a problem having a heroin addict as my child's teacher even if the person knew their addiction was wrong and cautioned others against it. For strangelove, he is actually okay with having the lawless over his children provided they knew what they were doing is sin and it did not effect their work.

That red bit doesn't make any sense. Lawless means they are morally reprehensable and don't recognize their sin. I am NOT happy having lawless people supervising children because they would influence the children to be lawless too!

If a person is able to recognize they're sin then they are simply sinners who may or may not repent against that sin. They are NOT lawless and morally corrupt. Whether they repent or not I'm happy to have them supervise children AS LONG AS they're particular sin doesn't have any effect on their work i.e. doesn't manifest itself in any way in front of the children. Becasue they WOULD NOT influence children to be lawless. they just have a problem themselves that they know is wrong and would teach the children it is wrong too if the subject ever came up.

Do you understand pouringrain?

The points that handy and sissy were making is that yes we should protect our children, but where do you draw the line when it comes to defining what is lawless.

The Bible is a good start! :

I ask you, pjt, if the lawless person, such as the heroin addict mentioned, knew his sin was wrong and even spoke out against his addiction and encouraged others to never use heroin-- would you then be okay with that person being over your child?

I'll let pjt answer that and then I'll give you my answer which I've kinda already given.

Doc.

 

[PouringRain]

Lawless means they are not restrained by the law. It does not mean that they are not able to recognize their sin. An individual who is an heroin addict, yet knows what he is doing is both morally wrong and legally wrong, is still lawless. An individual who lives in opposition to the law is just as lawless as one who does not recognize the law as being over him. Both are unrestrained by the law. The difference is that one recognizes that what he is doing is wrong and the other refuses to acknowledge it. But both are lawless.

Some might argue that it is worse to know that what one is doing is in sin yet refuse to correct ones ways.

 

[Strangelove]

Lawless means they are not restrained by the law. It does not mean that they are not able to recognize their sin. An individual who is an heroin addict, yet knows what he is doing is both morally wrong and legally wrong, is still lawless. An individual who lives in opposition to the law is just as lawless as one who does not recognize the law as being over him. Both are unrestrained by the law. The difference is that one recognizes that what he is doing is wrong and the other refuses to acknowledge it. But both are lawless.

He's not morally wrong he's simply a sinner. He recognizes his sin which makes him morally right.

Ok maybe I'm using the wrong word. When I say lawless I mean one who doesn't recognize a clear sin that they have.

So we have 2 teachers who are obviously both sinners:

Teacher 1) Doesn't recognize a clear sin he has
Teacher 2) Does recognize all his sins

I don't want number one supervising my children because he will teach them that his sin is ok.

I'm fine with number 2 supervising my children becasue he won't teach kids that his sin is ok.

It's quite simple.

Some might argue that it is worse to know that what one is doing is in sin yet refuse to correct ones ways.

It's not my concern whether they repent or not, thats a personal thing. I only care that they don't advocate that the sin is not a sin infront of my children and that his sin doesn't effect his job.

Can I get any agreement with that PR? 2

Doc.

 

[jasoncran]

do as i say but not do as i do!

interesting that it makes it ok?

the state is the same. so if he was murder would that be ok if said dont murder then yet still did it?

 

[pjt]

He is asking if the person is unrepentant in their lawlessness, and denies it, then would you allow them to be responsible for your children.
I ask you, pjt, if the lawless person, such as the heroin addict mentioned, knew his sin was wrong and even spoke out against his addiction and encouraged others to never use heroin-- would you then be okay with that person being over your child?

Actually the question is "should?" rather than "would you allow?" So I think the right out answer to "should?" is no.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I think it is crazy for any parent to leave their child in the care of a known drug addict. It`s just crazy even if the addict recognizes his behaviour and addiction is harmful and wrong. I would say the addict must do more than just admit their wrong before being allowed in a classroom or have any position of care for children, elderly, disabled, mentally ill, etc. They have to get clean and stay clean for X numer of years. For addicts, this is a very difficult hurdle even for those with sincerely repentant hearts. They may desparately want to change but the temptations are often all around and strongly pulling. It is the same with a child molestor, some child molestors never admit their wrong but others do and hate themselves for their sin so they say they don`t want out of prison because they know they will just do it again even though they don`t want to. I agree with Strangelove that people that admit their sins and ask for forgiveness are far different than the Biblically lawless who actually defend their sin as right, but as long as one is fighting the temptation of a sin that could bring harm to a child or other feeble person, the person should out of their own heart and remove themselves from that situation. It is just the right and responsible thing to do, but if they do not, then someone else should take that responsibility and remove them. Things get more tricky though when you have cases like compulsive liars. I don`t want my child to learn the ways of a compulsive liar, but legally such a person probably could not be removed from the care of children. Plus they would only lie that they don`t lie!!! I also doubt a school would allow a parent to change teachers because of a compulsive liar so a parent would be left to make the choice of having their child basically raised and taught for a year by a liar or taking the plunge of removing the child from the school. But what if the parent did not have the means to do that? Then perhaps the parent just has to pray extra hard and try to undo the damage each day. But that gets back to the original question of "should?" and the answer to should a compulsize liar stay in charge of children, the answer is no. Not until the person gets their act together should they take care of other people`s children. It is more than just admitting they are wrong because their influence is potentially too strong on children. Children need better influences than that. It is more than just what they teach it is also the influence they have through their own behavior. You have to look at both. Not to mention a drug addict is just not mentally competant. Their minds are altered when using drugs.

 

[PouringRain]

Actually the question is "should?" rather than "would you allow?" So I think the right out answer to "should?" is no.

Thanks for your reply and I agree completely. I did not focus on the should, but also included the "would you" because strangelove himself by post #3 was directly asking "would you" about the specific examples. Both are appropriate to be used in this thread, IMO, because asking "should" person X be allowed to lead children is a more generalized statement; whereas, asking "would you" now personalizes the statement. Since individuals were answering both with generalized and personal opinions on the topic, and since strangelove himself personalized it to individuals, then both are appropriate, IMO.

I do not believe that heroin addicts, even those who acknowledge their sin, should be leading children, nor would I allow my children to be under the care of someone who I knew was an Heroin addict.

 

[PouringRain]

So we have 2 teachers who are obviously both sinners:

Teacher 1) Doesn't recognize a clear sin he has
Teacher 2) Does recognize all his sins

I don't want number one supervising my children because he will teach them that his sin is ok.

I'm fine with number 2 supervising my children becasue he won't teach kids that his sin is ok.

It's quite simple.



It's not my concern whether they repent or not, thats a personal thing. I only care that they don't advocate that the sin is not a sin infront of my children and that his sin doesn't effect his job.

Can I get any agreement with that PR? 2

Doc.

Thanks for your reply. For me personally, I would not want the heroin addict in charge of my children even if he knew what he was doing was wrong.

But, getting into what sissy and handy were talking about with who decides what is "lawless", even using the Bible as the guide, this is where my personal preferences may vary greatly from others and where we all may have disagreements. For example, I also would not want someone teaching my children who goes out to bars at night, sleeps around with others, is a habitual liar, etc. For some people, they would be fine with a teacher who frequents bars, as some churches even hold Bible studies in bars these days! (And drink beer during the Bible study!) Obviously, for some, that is perfectly acceptable, but for me I have a lot of reasons why I can not accept that behavior. But alcohol aside, some things may be more clear cut for people-- no heroin addicts, no pedophiles, etc. Other things may get dicey and mixed-- what about sabbath breakers? Should they be allowed to lead the children? What about idolaters? Sounds like an easy one, but depending on how you define idolatry that could eliminate many Christians even. ;) How about fat people :D ? (Sorry, I couldn't resist asking about that one. :D ) Should completely healthy, physically fit obese people who have no physical limitations due to their weight be prevented from teaching/ leading children?

Where do you draw the lines and who decides? It is not as simple as saying that the Bible is the criteria. If it were that simple then Christians themselves would not be so divided on issues.