Should Biblically Lawless People Have Responsibility Over Children

[pjt]

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.

I agree unless the addict has been clean for say 10 years and has really proven they`ve turned their life around. But I think you are referring to an actively using addict? In that case, I just can`t imagine any parent finding an active user as acceptable, I don`t think even nonChristians could feel comfortable with that.

 

[Strangelove]

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.

There are MANY levels of drug addiction pjt. I agree that the addict must prove themselves. And that proof would be from day one to show that his addiction has absolutely NO effect on his ability to teach and maintain order in the classroom.

If the drug use doesn't effect his work and if he is not teaching the kids that drugs are ok.....then I'm fine leaving him with responsibility over the children.

 

[Strangelove]

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.

But what if he was just the kind of addict who smoked a little heroin at night with his friends and was completely straight during the day and it didn't effect his work in the slightest?

It's funny...earlier in the thread people were rebuking me for saying sinners shouldn't have responsibility over children (even though thats not what I was saying at all!) and now you guys are saying it.

A sin is only a problem if it effects your work.

And you can't use examples like murderer and paedophile coz you would be instantly arrested and dismissed if that was the case as the children are in immediate and mortal danger and you would be going straight to prison. So those are not realistic examples.

 

[Strangelove]

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.

You draw the line at sins that leave the children in immediate and mortal danger. Murderers, rapists and paedophiles etc. They would be taken out immediatley obviously.

Other than those...any biblically sinful person who doesn't recognise their sin which basically means they are morally corrupt, should not have responsibility over children for fear of bad influence.

If your asking who would decide if they should stay in their job then it would be the school board or the parents union or both using the bible as the guide. I dont think there is division between Christians at all on what is sin and what isn't apart from a couple of very rare examples. Common sense would be needed.

I know this isn't gonna happen I'm just saying that this is the way it was done in the past when society wasn't in such a mess and thats the way it should be done now.

 

[PouringRain]

But what if he was just the kind of addict who smoked a little heroin at night with his friends and was completely straight during the day and it didn't effect his work in the slightest?

I have personally known heroin addicts and other drug abusers, and I can't honestly say that any of them could ever in the slightest claim that their work was not affected in any way. Let me rephrase that, they certainly would claim that it did not affect their life, but the proof is in the pudding-- it did affect all aspects of their life. If I knew someone was even an occasional heroin user, I would absolutely not want that person in charge of my children.

It's funny...earlier in the thread people were rebuking me for saying sinners shouldn't have responsibility over children (even though thats not what I was saying at all!) and now you guys are saying it.

The people who were "rebuking" you, if I recall correctly, were those who were either not understanding you, had a problem with your definition of who is a "sinner", or else were non-christians. Those who said that even sinners must eat, and that we are all sinners..... those people were not rebuking you, they were either not answering directly about children or else they were having a problem with what all you include as to who should not be in charge. You ignored all the comments that agreed with you even in partiality.

A sin is only a problem if it effects your work.

I disagree, but this line is actually one of the most common lines I have heard from alcoholics. It's why we have the term "functioning alcoholic". Sadly, many alcoholics are fooling themselves.

And you can't use examples like murderer and paedophile coz you would be instantly arrested and dismissed if that was the case as the children are in immediate and mortal danger and you would be going straight to prison. So those are not realistic examples.

They are realistic examples. Especially in churches today where many pedophiles are finding God. ;) Sex Offenders in the Pew | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction



My battery is about to die so I will have to reply to the remainder of your post tomorrow.

 

[Strangelove]

I agree unless the addict has been clean for say 10 years and has really proven they`ve turned their life around. But I think you are referring to an actively using addict? In that case, I just can`t imagine any parent finding an active user as acceptable, I don`t think even nonChristians could feel comfortable with that.

I wouldn't be comfortable with it. But as long as the teacher wasn't strung out at work and didn't hint to the children that taking drugs was ok, then I don't think its a problem. Personally I would go to meet with the teacher during the day t0 witness his condition for myself.

Let me give you another example.

A loooooooooong time ago when I was 18 I went to America to be a camp counsellor on something called 'Camp America' in San Francisco. A 3 month position looking after 5-12 year olds.

Some of the local counsellors I was working with took me out in the nightimes and introduced me to a particularly powerful strain of marajuana called 'chronic' which we were caning through a bong in copious amounts every night. We all knew we were being a little bit naughty but, we were young and it was summertime. We never got stoned for work. Never.

One day one of the head consellors who wasn't part of our group was driving me along and she mentioned that she knew that us guys got together and smoked weed at night. I was petrified at this point but her next line was 'don't worry man, it's cool'.

Now, I was moderatley surprised at this but simply shrugged my shoulders. I guess she was trying to be hip or whatever. Anyway, on the same car trip this head consellor offered me to stay at her house coz things were a bit cramped in the camp directors house and thei womans family had an empty mansion overlooking the bay. So I moved in.

Everything thing was fine until this one night. The head consellor was away from home and me and a friend invited a coupla girls we'd met at the beach over to the pad for a tequila party. Things got a little out of hand and as we were jumping on the bed I knocked over a bedside statue and it broke the bedroom window.

When the head counsellor, who was about 25 years old, got back the next day she was mighty miffed as she was gonna be in trouble with her parents. That day at work we got called into the camp directors office. She told us that the head consellor told her that us guys were smokin' weed at night and wanted to know if it was true. I immediately told her that it was but that the head counsellor had told me in the car that she said it was ok that we were doing this.

The 4 of us were told to leave after being advised that smoking weed was not 'cool' so that the director and the counsellor could talk alone. Later in the day we heard that the head counsellor had been dismissed. The 4 of us continued to work the through the summer and smoke chronic at night.

I think the camp director made the right decision because she removed the morally corrupt person from the scene and left the sinners to go about their work under her observation.

Thoughts?

 

[pjt]

There are MANY levels of drug addiction pjt. I agree that the addict must prove themselves. And that proof would be from day one to show that his addiction has absolutely NO effect on his ability to teach and maintain order in the classroom.

If the drug use doesn't effect his work and if he is not teaching the kids that drugs are ok.....then I'm fine leaving him with responsibility over the children.

Some drugs stay in the system for 30 days so even if one just took the drugs at night, the brain is still being effected the next day. Drugs can do lots of damage to the brain especially in impairing judgement and emotions, both of which are needed in dealing with children, and it may be hard to prove there is "no effect" because we may not know until a moment good judgement is suddenly needed and they just don`t have it. They may have it better some days than others but probably not consistently. In dealing with children especially multiple children the mind needs to be sharp and quick because kids can get into things so quickly. So to conclude people are saying "A sin is only a problem if it effects your work." is not the correct conclusion. Sin is always bigger than work or the effects at work. Sin is a spiritual problem that puts a wall between man and God. This is the most serious condition man can have. More than a messed up brain, having a divide from God is much more serious. But on a practical level, parents have to look at the safety of their child even if the addict has a wonderful, kind heart that is praising God, a parent simply cannot put full trust in an active drug user. It is a matter of practicality which is why I said even nonChristians would probably have a problem leaving their child with a heroin addict (that`s a serious addiction), but for a Christian it goes up a notch to being a moral and practical problem. It remains moral because a Christian simply cannot trust that an addict will not teach drugs are okay or teach other bad bahaviors that often come with drug addiction. It just is not a stable, healthy situation to put children in. We should not take gambles with our children and a drug addict is always a gamble.

 

[Strangelove]

I have personally known heroin addicts and other drug abusers, and I can't honestly say that any of them could ever in the slightest claim that their work was not affected in any way. Let me rephrase that, they certainly would claim that it did not affect their life, but the proof is in the pudding-- it did affect all aspects of their life. If I knew someone was even an occasional heroin user, I would absolutely not want that person in charge of my children.

If you havn't at least recieved a warning becasue drug use is effecting your profession then its not. End of story.

The people who were "rebuking" you, if I recall correctly, were those who were either not understanding you, had a problem with your definition of who is a "sinner", or else were non-christians. Those who said that even sinners must eat, and that we are all sinners..... those people were not rebuking you, they were either not answering directly about children or else they were having a problem with what all you include as to who should not be in charge. You ignored all the comments that agreed with you even in partiality.

Because partiality is not enough for me to acknowledge. Sorry.

I disagree, but this line is actually one of the most common lines I have heard from alcoholics. It's why we have the term "functioning alcoholic". Sadly, many alcoholics are fooling themselves.

How can you disagree? If it's a problem then they will be warned or dismissed over it. It's as simple as that.

They are realistic examples. Especially in churches today where many pedophiles are finding God. ;) Sex Offenders in the Pew | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

Thats got nothing to do with positions of responsibility over children.

 

[Strangelove]

Some drugs stay in the system for 30 days so even if one just took the drugs at night, the brain is still being effected the next day. Drugs can do lots of damage to the brain especially in impairing judgement and emotions, both of which are needed in dealing with children, and it may be hard to prove there is "no effect" because we may not know until a moment good judgement is suddenly needed and they just don`t have it. They may have it better some days than others but probably not consistently. In dealing with children especially multiple children the mind needs to be sharp and quick because kids can get into things so quickly. So to conclude people are saying "A sin is only a problem if it effects your work." is not the correct conclusion. Sin is always bigger than work or the effects at work. Sin is a spiritual problem that puts a wall between man and God. This is the most serious condition man can have. More than a messed up brain, having a divide from God is much more serious. But on a practical level, parents have to look at the safety of their child even if the addict has a wonderful, kind heart that is praising God, a parent simply cannot put full trust in an active drug user. It is a matter of practicality which is why I said even nonChristians would probably have a problem leaving their child with a heroin addict (that`s a serious addiction), but for a Christian it goes up a notch to being a moral and practical problem. It remains moral because a Christian simply cannot trust that an addict will not teach drugs are okay or teach other bad bahaviors that often come with drug addiction. It just is not a stable, healthy situation to put children in. We should not take gambles with our children and a drug addict is always a gamble.

I agree and the minute someones sin effects their work they should be booted. But you can't make a decision without seeing the fruit.

 

[PouringRain]

If you havn't at least recieved a warning becasue drug use is effecting your profession then its not. End of story.

Again, this is a common line I hear among alcoholics especially, and drug abusers. "I've never had a ticket or accident so my drunk driving is fine." (Sometimes this from people who did have an accident, but never reported it.)

I am beginning to think that you have addictions in your own life.

How can you disagree? If it's a problem then they will be warned or dismissed over it. It's as simple as that.

Not true. That is why we have idioms such as "better the devil you know..." People would rather keep the bad person that they know, rather than take chances on something new. People do not like change. People also do not like confrontation.

Thats got nothing to do with positions of responsibility over children.

It does apply, because these people may be teaching our children in the church.

 

[Strangelove]

Again, this is a common line I hear among alcoholics especially, and drug abusers. "I've never had a ticket or accident so my drunk driving is fine." (Sometimes this from people who did have an accident, but never reported it.)

Huh? Your not under direct supervision when you are driving around. When you are working your boss is supervising. If he catches you drunk or stoned he WILL give you a warning or fire you.

And if you are teaching, then the kids have they're eye on you and will report you.

Honestly you're logic is just so wayward here.

I am beginning to think that you have addictions in your own life.

Thank God I have never had a serious addiction in my life. When I took drugs and drank when I was younger it was purely recreational and limited to weekends usually.

I gave up getting drunk about two years ago when I was saved. And, again I never got drunk that often. Gave up smoking about a year ago. I smoked about 3 cigarettes a day. One after every meal coz it was nice.

Not true. That is why we have idioms such as "better the devil you know..." People would rather keep the bad person that they know, rather than take chances on something new. People do not like change. People also do not like confrontation.

Um....VERY, very rarley would that happen. If someone is drunk at work constantly they will be warned. I've never heard of anyone being openly sinful at work and gettting away without at least a warning.

I'm starting to get the feeling you're just arguing for the sake of it now.

Sinners can keep their jobs as long as their sin doesnt effect their work.

Sinners who dont even recognize their sin can take their chances with whatever job they care to try their hand but they shouldn't be in child supervisory roles as a profession because they are a bad influence.

It's quite simple.

It does apply, because these people may be teaching our children in the church.

Being a member of a church is one thing. Being put in a position of responsibility over children in that church is an entirely different matter.