Opportunity lost

[mrs]

Regardless, should a Christian school even have a rule that a parent must be a professed Christian? Think of what could have been- the girl could have accepted Christ and in turn brought her parents to Him. Now that opportunity is lost. We can only hope another one can take its place.

Yes they should have that rule.Our church had a school back when there were more kids, and they had to change their rules from allowing anyone, to requiring at least one parent to be a Christian.The reason is the kids would act out, and then the parents would make a huge fuss when the school would enforce the rules. Whereas a Christian would see things from a Biblical standpoint and would agree.

Also, a Christian school is supposed to be seperate, a different atmosphere. If all these unsaved families come in with their wrong teachings and philosophies that has a bad influence on the other kids which were taken out of public school specifically to prevent that!

[Kabowd]

Even the guy who played Jesse on Full House was a homo. You can't trust anyone these days. I couldn't be an athelete, no way to know which guy is the homo checking you out in the shower or the locker room.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, the actor who played Jesse on Full House is not gay. John Stamos is a heterosexual who married Rebecca Romijn in 1998 (although they divorced last year).

Secondly, your attitude towards homosexuals is appauling and saddening. Calling them "homos" and your expressed homophobic behavior (fear that one of "them" might be "checking you out") reveals a pious, self-righteous attitude. You display a spirit that seems unable to love someone who struggles with this particular sin, as evidenced by the fact you could never be in the same room as a "homo".

You can't love someone, and consider yourself "above" them.

You can't love someone, and consider their sin worse than your own.

You can't love someone, and use derogatory terms to describe them.

You can't love someone, and hate to be near them.

Love demonstrates itself. Love reaches beyond stereo-types, labels and fears and moves to act on someone else's behalf. Love gives, love forgives, love encourages, love hopes. Love sets aside concerns about self (even reputation) in order to meet the needs of another. Love corrects, love heals, love changes things.

With the attitude displayed by this school (and WhySoBlind), it's no wonder the world dispises churches and believers. We've earned the reputation. We're cruel and judgmental. We're harsh and unforgiving. We're fearful that they'll "rub off" on us and afraid of what others might think if we befriend one of "them". We're callous and indifferent towards their suffering and struggles and expect them to repent immediately....while we cling to our own secret sins.

I'm going to post this article I read by a christian artist named Derek Webb. I've yet to listen to his music, but after reading this article I was deeply moved. I want to have a heart towards others like this man has. He has a heart that loves like Christ. I hope this convicts some of you the way it moved and convicted me:

I love someone who is gay. I

[Trust & Obey]

That school isn't too far from where I live. The school made the right decision.

[eagleswings]

Amen Deacon and Trust&Obey, Love without Holiness Is No Love At all............. BUT I HAVE THIS AGAINST YOU, THAT YOU TOLERATE THEH WOMAN JEZEBEL, WHO CALLS HERSELF A PROPHETESS, AND SHE TEACHES AND LEADS MY BOND-SERVANTS ASTRAY, SO THAT THEY COMMIT ACTS OF IMMORALITY AND EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS................REV.... 2:20 I ask You, has this crept into the so-called churches of today??`

[Qun Mang]

Okay, there probably is more to this than the newspaper article is saying. If it is as biased as it appears, then this is certainly so. But it should make one think. Am I wrong in thinking that these schools should be as welcoming as a church? Perhaps the girl was put there by the two women who raise her (calling them "parents" bothers me, sorry, even if one of them really is) in an attempt to make a stink when she got thrown out. Or maybe they wanted the girl to be taught some values. There are many parents out there who make no claims to be Christian, yet they recognize Christian values as being good values and so want their children to be raised in them.

Trust & Obey, you say the school is near you. Do you know any more information about this than the article states? You say they made the right decision, but you don't say why.

Smiles (and others), you make a good point, though I would question the influence the unsaved students have. Yes there is some, certainly, as teens tend to respect peers quite a bit, but don't discount the influences the teachers and Christian students have. They more than likely outweigh the few students who come with different views. Parents who are against Christianity altogether whould never place their children in any Christian school so that least is one view students aren't likely bringing to the school. At least no more so than rebellious unsaved children of at least one Christian parent (the standard set by this school).

And correct me if I am seeing this wrong, but it sounds like your church (and other churches/schools that have made similar decisions) took the easy way out, smiles. As we know, God's way is not necessarily the easy way (usually far from it). Now I don't know what all was going on there so please forgive me if I offend.

Bringing the Gospel to people isn't always easy, but it is a command. Schools are an excellent way of bringing people to Jesus before their hearts get hardened by the world, and that is why I believe that children should be given a chance at a Christian education and not be shut out simply because their parents aren't saved.

[Gerioke]

How is letting an unsaved girl into a christian school any different than letting unsaved people onto worthy boards? We have a few young people that hang out hear and are subject to a lot of unGodly banter.

[nebula]

I don't suppose this school would approve of the company that Jesus kept either, it certainly upset the "Holy Joes" of his days.

What is it that you're trying to to say? That these school officials are like the pharisees, not interested in being godly, only in looking godly?

Jesus met with sinners, but He only kept company with the righteous (the repentant). If Jesus wouldn't keep company with unrepentant homosexuals, and Paul teaches not to even eat with someone who calls himself brother but is sexually immoral, how much less should a christian school, filled with children, tolerate those who do not agree with Christian standards?

I'm done "tolerating away" my religious freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to agree with Deacon on this one.

The reason we see Jesus hanging out with "the tax collectors and sinners" of His day were because they were the ones who were seeking Him and welcoming Him into their lives. The religiousd folk were rejecting HIM.

So, before we "buddy" with "the sinners" - note where do they stand with Jesus?

Ever notice how when the Gentiles came to Jesus they had to prove themselves to Him as to their sincerity?

[Kabowd]

Secondly, your attitude towards homosexuals is appauling and saddening. Calling them "homos"

What's wrong with "homos"? It's short for homosexuals. It's like "heteros" is short for heterosexuals. "Meds" is short for medications. Etc.

Is it an obscene word? Or, is the only fault in it is that only people who disapprove of homosexual behavior would use the word? I've got news for you, the same applies to the whole word "homosexual." "Homo" just lacks the pale pretense of impartialness.

Increasingly, homosexuals are objecting to the word "homosexual". What will you call them then, "gay"? They adopted the word "gay" purely as propaganda. If they start insisting on being called "righteous", will that become the term you use? Just how far are you willing to retreat to prove your love?

Is the Bible's attitude towards homosexuals appalling and saddening? It is to homosexual activists. And, it's no less so than the word "homo." The real sin, as far as the fallen world is concerned, is disapproving of homosexual behavior. And, "homo" sums that up with one word.

Was Jesus acting appalling and saddening when he was telling the pharisees that they were vipers, hypocrites, murderers, liars, and children of Satan? Love does not mean appeasement of wickedness, and groveling to prove you don't hate the wicked. That road leads to denying that homosexual behavior is a sin, followed by demanding the government force everyone to support homosexual relationships (same-sex marriage) and prohibitians against preachign what's in the Bible. Sorry, I don't want to live in Sodom.

The fact remains, the label "homo" is most often used in a derogatory way not as a means of identifying someone. You're grasping for straws here. When Jesus approached sinners, He didn't address them by their sin. Did He say to the woman at the well "Hey you whore, give me a drink"? He could've since that's basically what she was. But He didn't. His harshest terms were reserved for religious piety, not those trapped in their sin. Jesus looked at sinners with compassion because He knew their great need to be redeemed. When those of you use terms such as "homo" to address or refer to someone, you cannot tell me you do it with a heart of compassion. A person who has a heart like Christ doesn't seek to mock someone's sin.

You're using a strawman argument, trying to justify your own fears and hatred by equating those who choose to love as "groveling" or "appeasing the wicked". That's sheer nonsense. I never said we should coddle someone or even overlook their sin. If you think you're going to reach the lost by "loving" them the way you've described you're in for a rude awakening.

Does the Bible even require that we love those who hate God?

I think you need to go read your Bible. Jesus taught us to love those who hate us and persecute us. God the Father showed us love by sending His son....WHILE we were still sinners (see Romans 5:8). If God, being the person who is offended and defiled by all sin, can love like that...we as His children should do no less.

[Kabowd]

The reason we see Jesus hanging out with "the tax collectors and sinners" of His day were because they were the ones who were seeking Him and welcoming Him into their lives. The religiousd folk were rejecting HIM.

I don't think it's that the sinners were "seeking Him" and welcoming Him...as much as it was that He was accepting them and loving them...which made them receive Him. Can you give me an example of one of "the sinners" who was seeking Christ first? From my understanding, Scripture teaches that Christ is the seeker...He came to SEEK and save that which was lost. Every example I can think of where He encountered those who were deep in their sin it seems that He is approaching them, not the other way around. I believe the "sinners" welcomed Him because they recognized His Spirit, that He truly loved them and that He was what they needed.

So, before we "buddy" with "the sinners" - note where do they stand with Jesus?

First of all, we should never consider anyone as more sinful than ourselves. We are all sinners. There is no one worse than you or me. Secondly, if there's anyone we should set ourselves apart from, it is believers who are living in rebellion or walking in unrepentant sin. Before you meet your best friend (who is a professed Christian) for lunch...do you determine if she is right with God? If she's a known gossip, or disrespects her husband...do you still stay close friends with her? According to 1 Cor. 5:9-13 we should be more careful about believers we associate with than unbelievers. It's those who claim the name of Christ and live like heathens that we should not associate with...not those who are entrenched in their sin and need our help and influence.

Ever notice how when the Gentiles came to Jesus they had to prove themselves to Him as to their sincerity?

Can you give some examples of this? I suspect that they didn't have to "prove" anything to Jesus. My belief is that He revealed things so that they could see it for themselves. The evidence was for them, not Him. Afterall...He already knew their hearts, why would they need proof for Him?

[mrs]

Smiles (and others), you make a good point, though I would question the influence the unsaved students have. Yes there is some, certainly, as teens tend to respect peers quite a bit, but don't discount the influences the teachers and Christian students have. They more than likely outweigh the few students who come with different views. Parents who are against Christianity altogether whould never place their children in any Christian school so that least is one view students aren't likely bringing to the school. At least no more so than rebellious unsaved children of at least one Christian parent (the standard set by this school).

And correct me if I am seeing this wrong, but it sounds like your church (and other churches/schools that have made similar decisions) took the easy way out, smiles. As we know, God's way is not necessarily the easy way (usually far from it). Now I don't know what all was going on there so please forgive me if I offend.

I don't think they were taking the easy way out.The parents of these children didn't think they should have to follow the rules the school clearly laid out. If they refuse to do so, then it is reasonable to expect them to take their children elsewhere.Public schools have rules students must obey, same with Christian schools.However when enforcement of the rules became a struggle,then they realized it was necessary to make a policy change.