Pregnancy costs teacher her job. How would you vote???

[bevin]

Quote:

---

says that it is very clear in the contractual information that this is grounds for termination. So if she read it, she knew it.

---

Just because it IS grounds for termination does not mean they MUST terminate.

Organizations often have to deal with people straying outside the rules. As a manager I need to trade-off damages - and do, often.

/Bevin

[aldona]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

In one hand we want to all say that we uphold life, and don't want women to get abortions. Our response when people mess up, is the reason women choose abortion. She could have save herself a ton of grief if she had choosen abortion.

K

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Thank you. You summed up my own thoughts exactly. This whole sorry incident has sent a message loudly and clearly to young women about what will happen if they make a mistake out of wedlock and then decide not to abort the baby.

Even if they marry the baby's father.

aldona

[Gregory Matthews]

I have been waiting to see if anyone else would mention this:

There is no indication that any determination has been made that the woman involved sinned!

Rape is not a sin.

Young people in dating relationships often get into situations where the male forces himself upon the female. How do we know that she consented?

Let me tell you a true story: In high school (SDA) there was some kind a program, banquet, or something that was held one Saturday night. I went, and drove our family car. I did not have a date. Another male friend joined me, and after the program/banquet, or whatever, we decided to follow another couple wherever they went, which was to the girl's home. My friend had very poor eyesight. So, he could not see how the couple told each other good-night, and I had to describe it to him. (They kissed.)

He got excited, over that, and immediately began dating the girl. It ended up that he forced himself upon her, and within the culture of that time they immediately got engaged. [NOTE: She did not get pregnant, as as soon as that was evident, the engagement was broken.] But, the bottom line: She had been raped.

There is nothing to indicate that the woman involved in Berrien Springs, had consented. I can well immagine circumstances where such a couple would decide to get married, even if the male had forced himself upon the female.

In short, there is not evidence that she had sinned. Pregnanacy is not automatic evidence of sin.

Should we, or others, inquire into the facts, evidence, and situation? That is another question to which I have not commented.

[Michelle]

Quote:

---

Just because it IS grounds for termination does not mean they MUST terminate.

Organizations often have to deal with people straying outside the rules. As a manager I need to trade-off damages - and do, often

---

Bevin--I actually agree with you here. I'm personally unclear on the "right" thing to have done--what if her contract were simply not renewed--what if nothing were said--what if, what if. I was simply stating policy--but policy is not more important than people. I don't know what is best, and am VERY GLAD I'm not in that position!

M

[Gregory Matthews]

FYI: HIPAA is an acyronym that stands for Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The focus of the law is on health care institutions, the confidentialilty of their records, and access to the information contained in those records by insurance companies and others who may want to know confidential medical information.

Let me give you a real case:

I work in a hospital that provides a lot more out-patient care than it does in-patient care, and the majority of its patients are aging. As a result of our in-patient care, we come into contact with patients who hold drivers licenses, but our providers believe cannot drive safely. The question to us is: Do we, should we notify the authorities that we believe a person cannot continue to safely drive for medical reasons. This illustration is governed by HIPAA. As a result, lawyers who are expert in HIPAA have helped us develop written guidelines that place our responsibility into the following catagories:

a) Situations in which we notify and recommend that driving privliges be restricted, but not abolished.

Situations in which we automaticly notify without permission.

c) Situations in which we deny information to the authorities.

d) Situations in which we provide all, or limited, information upon the request of the authorities.

e) Situations in which we provide information, and afterwards, notify the patient.

f) Situations in which we refuse information without the permission of the patient.

g) Situations in which we initiate providing the informaiton to authorities.

h) As in "g" and we notify the patient.

Folks, is this complicated? Yes, it is.

Yesterday, a man walked into my office and asked me if a certain individual had died. He informed me that he was friend. I infomed him that such was confidential medical information about the condition of the patient, and I was unable to tell him.

[there buster]

Thirty years ago, one of the teachers there won the state lottery, and was terminated.

I repeat, this is simple. This is about people keeping their promises, nothing else.

This is one of the epidemics in all schools, and SDA schools in particular. People sign up because they want a certain environment. The rules are spelled out in advance, and it's one of the reasons people want their kids there. Then, everybody wants an exception made in their particular case.

The overwhelming message sent to the kids in the school is, "It doesn't matter what you agree to, we'll make an exception for you if you cry hard enough."

This does not portray a God of love to children. It portrays a God who cannot be relied upon. These rules are there to protect the children, who are the primary reason for the existence of that school.

I've heard all the arguments before. I've been overridden by boards of "concerned" people, who, 18 months to 20 years later, have seen the fruit of their actions, and admitted their mistakes.

People act like the consequences of all these actions are unknowable, when they're as predictable as sowing seed: you will reap what you sow.

The board has to do this, or compromise their reason for existence.

[Bob Sands]

All I can say to all the above that are pro removal or firing:

Quote:

---

Get-er-done

---

[Ron Lambert]

The teacher also taught remedial reading, so she came in contact with other students besides kindergarteners at the elementary school. But even kindergarteners are intelligent enough to perceive that something is wrong, and they would hear their parents talk, and word would get around.

She said she made no attempt to hide her pregnancy. So why should the school board or the conference?

Some people here seem to think the church had an obligation to participate in a cover-up. Yet I know of people who have become disillusioned with the church precisely because some sexual indiscretion by a minister, teacher, or other church worker was "hushed up."

Is it compassionate to indulge people, and say that no matter what they do, the church will never take any action against them? Such inaction would constitute acceptance by the church of the misbehavior, and would say to the world that it is OK for SDA church members, teachers, ministers, etc., to behave this way.

True love at times requires "Redemptive Discipline," whereby people who have violated moral standards can no longer go on deceiving themselves that what they did was OK; they have been confronted by the church just as Christ would.

Nicodema, the woman taken in adultery is not parallel to this situation. It was staged by the Pharisees specifically to try to trip up Jesus.

Jesus told the Laodiceans: "Him whom I love, I also rebuke and chasten." (Rev. 3:19) If the church fails to do the same, then the church is misrepresenting Christ, and is failing to show genuine, divine love.

[Bob Sands]

Ron,

Get-er-done

[cricket]

Somebody here wrote that she's the one who's going to be with the kids more than the parents. I have a feeling that this is the sort of environment that started this whole problem in the first place. Teachers spending more time with kids than parents.

She should be fired for breach of contract.

The church should be loving toward her and helping her to deal with her own feelings of guilt. They should be offering her much emotional support during her pregnancy; they should do all they can to ensure that this baby be as healthy as possible.

[Michelle]

Okay Ed D and Ron--I'm not confused anymore. I agree with you and Christine.

My biggest wonder is how it got to the media, as I'm sure the conference and board didn't say anything. It's too bad that this is blown all over.

I also hope that they support her and her child.

Michelle

[K]

Quote:

---

Thirty years ago, one of the teachers there won the state lottery, and was terminated.

[/]

---

Well 30 years ago they'd have fired you for wearing a wedding ring.

Today if they started applying all the rules to the conference employees there would be no employees.

Teachers drink caffeine. (yes I've witnessed it) I have seen a lottery ticket or two laying around their homes.

Oh and they eat out on Sabbath too! Where will it all end. If we want to cast stones, shouldn't we be fair in the throwing.

K [:"green"] [/]

[Bob Sands]

Hey, I have a solution to this problem, Home Schooling. Then we only have to worry about our own parental example and what we do that our kids will learn directly from us, by direct observation. It would serve some parents right. How many of us should fire ourselves as examples in that situation?

[cricket]

Quote:

---

How many of us should fire ourselves as examples in that situation?

---

None of us should fire ourselves. We haven't made a contract with ourselves. Our contract, as homeschoolers, is with God. He should do the firing.

[Bob Sands]

Kind of scaring, Christine, when you consider we are all sinners. When we can make a Christine John the issue, and sooth our conscience by "discarding" her.

The harder thing would be to try and see if she is willing to repent publicly and the church and school save a soul and use the lesson to bring the Gospel Message closer to home.

I wrote to the Pastor of this church about this issue. Here is my initial letter:

Quote:

---

As an alumnus of Andrews University, I am embarassed how your church

and school have handled this situation.

I was born an SDA, but am now attending a Presbyterian Church here in

the St. Louis, Missouri area because of the internal treatment by the

SDA church . In that Presbyterian church one of the single ladies got

pregnant out of wedlock. I have never seen a church family forgive the

way this one did. She made a public acknowledgement of her sin,

rebaptized and was forgiven by the church. What an opportunity you are

missing to show the forgiving nature of Jesus Christ. It could be such

a witness to the kids that God forgives when you make mistakes,

instead of feeling like all the kids are going to run out and do the

same. What a time for Christian educators and pastors to demonstrate

more than vengeance or retribution.

God bless you as you have some time before she makes other plans, June

8, and this forever scars the history of your pastorate, the

principal's record and the Michigan Conference.

---

[Bob Sands]

He wrote back:

Quote:

---

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your email expressing your embarrasment over how things are

unfolding with Christine. I agree with you that it is important for a

church community to provide a caring context in moments like these. From

where I am, I am able to both see and feel that as numerous individuals

have been and continue to reach out to Christine in very caring ways. We

love her. She is an excellent teacher. Incredible sorrow flows out from

very heavy hearts. Tears have poured uncontrollably from some of our eyes.

Unfortunately, there is more here than the personal and how our church

community as you say supports a person in as caring and forgiving way as

possible. Employement matters charge it all creating a tension between

values and policy consistent with employment in a Christian school and the

individual. The personal and employment are separate matters, yet because

an indiviudal can be both a person and an employee it is hard for many to

keep that distinction as they critique those in responsibility who are

sometimes asked to make very difficult decisions with regard to things like

these. The peson must always be treated with love, respect, dignity, and

fairly especially in employment matters. Only those involved will ever

really know how the two have been kept together yet separate. The rest of

us can only look on, and yet we can be the caring and praying people Jesus

asks us to be. We are frail, vulnerable, inadequte human beings. All in

great need of God's grace as we affirm the moral values He has given us and

at the same time deeply love those who like us are sinners en route to the

Kingdom of heaven.

May God's gracious presence soften our hearts and keep us humble in His

presence. We thank you for your prayers on the behalf of everyone involved

as the future unfolds and our great God once again demonstrates His

incredible ability to bring something good out of even things like these.

I pray that for Christine. I pray that for our Village Family. I pray

that for our Village School, and Michigan Conference. Our Adventist

community at large across this nation and the world. I pray it too, for

every onlooker. And as I finish this response, I will pray that for you as

well. God's Spirit can do wonderful things . . . and He will.

Larry Lichtenwalter, Senior Pastor

Village Seventh-day Adventist Church

---

[Bob Sands]

I wrote back:

Quote:

---

I'm not embarassed for Christine, I am embarassed for you and your

response shows a typical SDA response of words, no action and a

disregard for the souls and livlihood of individuals. I experienced

something similar with our denomination back in the days when people

were seeking truth about Robert Brinsmead. How we will ever show

people the true nature of the Gospel with actions like this is beyond

me. I for one have half given up on the church I was born into. I

guess a few more funerals before we have change. That's not a threat,

by the way, an observation about how slow change for the better

happens with the SDA church. You have plugged your response with a lot

of words but not much action.

Bob Sands

---

[Bob Sands]

My final response to Pastor Larry was:

Quote:

---

Dear Larry,

It was suggested to me in a discussion about this subject, that had

she had an abortion things would have carried on within policy,

correct?

Bob Sands

---

[doctortechie]

Does anyone actuallly have a copy of her signed contract? From a legal standpoint, if you sign something you have to bear out the terms of that agreement.

Personally, I think a reprimand would be appropriate. To fire her is possibly a little too heavy-handed. Sending her on "Administrative Leave" is the right step to take until they decide what their final stance is. I would think that the teacher's response might play a part in this whole scenario. Was she penitent or confrontational/unrepentant when advised of "the rules"? A woman in the OT could be stoned for "fornicating" whereas in the NT, Jesus didn't condemn a woman who was caught in the act. Which example do we take?

[Ron Lambert]

Bob Sands, your letters show a very uncharitable spirit toward the church leadership, and I think you make assumptions that are unfair. For instance, is there any indication that Christine has acknowledged that what she did was sin, and given evidence of repentance? This is what should have come first, before the church showed her mercy. Since she says she is thinking of suing the church, I think that seems to imply she is still trying to justify herself by saying the whole world has sex outside of marriage, and the church should go along with the prevailing customs of the world and not attempt to keep alive "18th century morality." Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this is the sort of thinking underying the criticisms of everyone who has expressed a somewhat "liberal" outlook and charged the church with treating Christine wrongly.

As I see it, the church has a duty before God to affirm clearly that it does reject and condemn the modern common practice of having sex outside of marriage, and that the kind of moral purity required by our baptismal vows and our covenant with Jesus upon becoming Christians, demands that we keep ourselves from the adulterous impurity of having sex outside of marriage. It is society that needs to be set straight on this, not the church.

The church showed Christine mercy by not outright firing her immediately, but by allowing her to continue to receive full pay and benefits until her contract expires. The only real penalties she has suffered is being removed from the classes she used to teach, and knowing that her contract will not be renewed.

The pastor wrote a far more gracious and reasonable letter than you did. I think you should apologize to him for denouncing him and his church when in fact they did nothing but show compassion and mercy, while still being true to their profession as Seventh-day Adventist Christians.

[Bob Sands]

Ron, you are a member in the Michigan Conference, and certainly don't want any embarassment, do you? The easy thing to say is, there is a contract. The hard thing is to come up with a solution that talks to the Gospel and saving grace. I disagree with your summation. Little if anything was said by this Pastor about the Gospel and the souls of her, her husband and the new responsibility, the baby. If she secretly had aborted the child, there wouldn't be a problem right, don't be honest, don't get caught, getting married doesn't help. I have heard stories about how conservative the Michigan Conference is, that I think also translates to uncompassionate. Sorry, Ron, your posts are pretty consistent, doesn't surprise me here on this topic.

Hey, wouldn't it be interesting if we all had to tell about our first sexual experience. I have no idea about the rest of you, but Christ said, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Our SDA Church is not very Gospel oriented, Standards are a plenty, but not too much compassion.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

... I think that seems to imply she is still trying to justify herself by saying the whole world has sex outside of marriage, and the church should go along with the prevailing customs of the world and not attempt to keep alive "18th century morality." Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this is the sort of thinking underying the criticisms of everyone who has expressed a somewhat "liberal" outlook and charged the church with treating Christine wrongly.

---

Although I was not the one invited to offer correction upon this point, I can say with 100% certainty that you are wrong, because this is definitely NOT what underpinned my own concerns about how the church handled this. If you go back and read my post, you will notice that I pointed to Jesus' example with the woman caught in adultery as a model. I indicated very clearly there that Jesus' response to that situation does not in any way suggest adultery is just fine -- but rather His response to that situation addresses the reality that only one without sin is in any real position to "cast a stone" (impose a penalty) upon another for that other's sin.

Quote:

---

As I see it, the church has a duty before God to affirm clearly that it does reject and condemn the modern common practice of having sex outside of marriage, and that the kind of moral purity required by our baptismal vows and our covenant with Jesus upon becoming Christians, demands that we keep ourselves from the adulterous impurity of having sex outside of marriage. It is society that needs to be set straight on this, not the church.

---

As I see it, the church has a much higher duty before God to make certain that it is the way of Jesus Christ, and not ourselves, that is followed whenever addressing any sensitive matter and most especially when addressing a specific instance of individual sin. That is why I went on to raise the question as to whether it is really necessary to impose a punitive model as any part of the means of upholding a standard at all. An old adage comes to mind here about laws: good people don't need 'em, bad people won't heed 'em. The imposition of retribution after-the-fact certainly cannot reverse time and cause someone's sinful act to be undone or made as though it never happened, nor is it likely to have any redemptive effect whatsoever, seeing as it adds pain and suffering to the soul that is already penitent and hurting enough over the matter, while failing utterly to convince the soul that is impenitent.

Who, really, is this termination being done for? Surely not for the woman being terminated -- I see nothing redemptive toward her in this action. Is it being done to satisfy the righteous indignation of her employers? To slake the frantic concerns (real or imagined) of the parents of children in her class? To "send a message" or "make an example" for the sake of the church's name? I mean, what really is behind this, and for whose sake is this action being taken? Not "presumably" but REALLY. I tend to think it stems from the sense that as a church we need to "send a message" to both our members and to the "watching world" (funny how we always imagine the world is watching us, isn't it?) that is a contradiction in terms. The message is, of course, that "WE" don't "do that kind of thing" -- a message sent via demonstration of intolerance for that behavior -- a message that is essentially a falsehood, since SHE IS, in fact "one of US" who DID do "that kind of thing" and therefore, apparently, WE *DO* do "that kind of thing", that is, at least, some of us do. Why then the dire need to send a message to the contrary? Who are we trying to fool? Ourselves? God? The "watching world" around us??? Really now, what is this all about???

It seems obvious to me that you would disagree with my perspective on these things. Fair enough -- but you need to know that yes, in fact, you are wrong when you say a "get with the times" mentality underlies everyone who has expressed disagreement (or at least discomfort) with the way the church handled this matter. I'm definitely an exception here, and I'm sure there are others as well. The motivation you mentioned -- this "get with the times and stop trying to preserve 19th century morality" mentality -- does not even figure into my thinking on the matter whatsoever.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Get-er-done

---

Will someone kindly explain to me what this absolutely annoying-sounding phrase means??? I've seen it pop up before and my gut instinct tells me I don't really want to know WHERE it comes from, but it is absolute nonsense to me so I would like to know what is meant by it. Thanks.

[K]

It is in reference to blue collar tv. Jeff Foxworthy's redneck show has Larry the Cable Guy who uses this phrase.

It annoys me too in this venue. I feel like it is a big slam towards women.

K

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Nicodema, the woman taken in adultery is not parallel to this situation. It was staged by the Pharisees specifically to try to trip up Jesus.

---

It may have been "staged by the Pharisees". However, the woman involved did, in fact, commit adultery, did she not? She was sufficiently guilty to warrant a "legitimate" stoning under the law of Moses. You say it is not parallel to this situation but that is merely your opinion. You have no authority to make that determination. We have a clear example of how Jesus Christ Himself handled a situation in which sinners sought to condemn and impose penalty upon another sinner who had been caught in the act. Set up or no, entrapment or not, it does not matter. The example set by Jesus still stands, and is a rebuke to all sinners who rush to judgment on another sinner over a visible sin in his/her life, particularly and most especially to those sinners in a position to act retributively because other sinners have invested them with the magic Big Kahuna stick of some title or position.

I believe I will stick with Jesus' example rather than your opinion that it is irrelevant. I find it most relevant, because the examples set by Jesus are universal in scope, and your only reason for disclaiming any parallel is simply so that you may hold to your opinion in favor of the punitive/retributive model -- a model I find Jesus smashing and breaking apart over and over and over again in the Gospels as He liberates needy soul after needy soul from the oppression of the smug, self-satisfied, self-serving, self-righteous religionists of His day -- whom, incidentally, He seemed to reserve His scathing rebukes for as well, choosing to deal with "open sinners" in the language of compassion and invitation, healing and redemption. But I don't need to tell you all this. You own a Bible too, don't you?