Do we need standards?

[Michelle]

After reading the postings about the pregnant teacher in MI, and talking with people who know a whole lot more details of the situation than most on this board, I'm really curious about something. Not trying to be sarcastic, just wondering: Should we have standards in our policy books? For example, the policy book for MI conf. clearly says that pregnancy out of wedlock is subject to termination. Should we take that policy out of the book? It also talks about things like refraining from alcohol and drug use--should we take that out? Should we only put them in the policy book to make the constituency happy and then when someone messes up we just say, oh, well, they made a mistake, let's forget what the policy book says?

Since we might offend someone, let's not even worry if our teachers childless and pregnancy free out of wedlock. Just take that out of the policy book. After all, if we can accept her into church fellowship, let's let her continue to teach our kids. Forget about the wedding band, just enjoy the wonder of life and don't worry about what lessons the kids learn.

Should we stop preaching the importance of abstinence before marriage? Does the fact that many people have messed up mean that we should stop having this as an important standard for our leaders?

Does the fact that the board members and conference officials are sinners mean that they are unable to enact or enforce any kind of standards? If so, why go through the bother? Why have standards for our teachers? Why interview and look for spiritual leaders in our classrooms? It would sure save a lot of people a lot of time trying to hire people who will uphold standards!

M

[Dr. Shane]

In Latin America Adventist singles:

• that date non-Adventists are not allowed to hold a position in the church or even go up front.
• Adventist singles that get pregnant outside of marriage are disfellowshipped and must be rebaptised to become members again.

Now bear in mind the Adventist church in this part of the world is growing faster than they can build church buildings. So high standards obviously do not drive people away or discourage people.

Here in the US some of the most rapid growing denominations are the Latter Day Siants and the Jehova Wittness. Both groups with high standards.

What our church needs is to provide a culture where young people holding these beliefs and wanting to maintain high standards can. How many congregations have Vespers on Friday, AY on Sabbath, Pathfinders, prayer meetings, Bible studies, singles ministries and monthly socials? When the church fails to fulfill its role the members are much more likely to fail the high standards established by the Word of God.

[Nicodema]

Perhaps a more salient question would be WHY do we have standards? As in, what is it that causes us to formulate a standard, what do we really mean when we speak of right and wrong? If a standard is not upheld by reality itself but must be artificially propped by human impositions, how real is it? We speak of consequences for behavior and yet we seem completely unwilling to allow the Lord's appointed teachers, Time and Experience, do their wise work here. Rather than letting real consequences do their work, we rush to impose artificial ones in their stead. If we do not believe there are REAL consequences to our choices, then what is the point? Is God in control? Is there truly a moral imperative in the universe He has made? Or must we rely upon faulty human intervention to supply what we presumably think reality itself cannot?

What is the point of upholding a standard? Is it not so that the benefit and blessing of adherence to the standard may be the experience of those upholding it? And where someone misses the mark, falls short of adherence, do they not already miss out on that blessing and benefit? Is there not already a natural consequence to their behavior or choice?

If I neglected to say it outright before in the original thread, let me say it now here: disagreement with the punitive model does NOT constitute disagreement with the upholding of standards itself. It is not a question of upholding standards versus NOT upholding standards. It is a question of HOW standards are upheld, where those efforts are directed, and of what nature those efforts are to be. To question the efficacy of the punitive model is NOT to suggest that standards themselves are unnecessary. It is, rather, to question whether those standards might not be better served by a different model.

[Neil D]

Last sabbath, someone introduced me to the word, resitution. It's used in the bible in the levitical law. The concept goes like this.

If I borrow a lawnmower from Nico, and it breaks while in my care, and I bring it back, Nico may forgive me, but will she trust me with any of her equipment again?

Same scenerio, I borrow from Nico, and it breaks, and I repair the lawnmower. I tell Nico that I broke her lawnmower but I had it fix. Now, the lawnmower is not worth as much. Will Nico still trust me when I borrow her equipment? Not likely....

Again, same scenerio, and the lawnmower breaks and I repair it. I tell Nico, I broke your lawmmower, had it repaired and oh, bythe way, here is an edger for your lawn. Will Nico trust me? I think so, especially since not only do I repair the equipemnt but I also buy other new equipment when the old breaks.

The OT insists on resitution to build trust. When a member errors and falls, the church has the right to impose something to build the trust and for that person to make restitstution, that is, to rebuild the trust the individual has broken with the church.

Another example, a pastor commits adultery. He repents and says he's sorry. Question: Is this enough for him to keep his job as pastor? Most will say no.

What if the board imposes upon the pastor the requirement to get counciling for 2 years, AND is not allowed to go up front nor hold an office during the same 2 years, AND is to be the church/church school janitor for 2 years? If he cheerfully complied, I would say, yes, he could come back as pastor provided he fulfilled those requirements...

Most of the time, when a new program comes about, and a pastor falls, we cast them aside and don't allow them to come back to thier calling. We all loose when that happens, both the church and the individual.

Our church has no policy for restitution...We are too steeped in Standards with no security blanket for coming back if we fall. This is our own churches fault for making this a lose lose situation.

[Guest]

The standards are the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ...

[Guest]

The standards are for Jer 17:9 and Rom 8:7 people...who are not ready for translation yet

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Another example, a pastor commits adultery. He repents and says he's sorry. Question: Is this enough for him to keep his job as pastor? Most will say no.

What if the board imposes upon the pastor the requirement to get counciling for 2 years, AND is not allowed to go up front nor hold an office during the same 2 years, AND is to be the church/church school janitor for 2 years? If he cheerfully complied, I would say, yes, he could come back as pastor provided he fulfilled those requirements...

---

Not me....

A pastor leads and feeds...

Think this one through some more.

[Guest]

Phil 1:9

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

think of what makes it so it can abound..and more and more

[Neil D]

So now we know that Jimbob is more of a standards man than a mercy man....Right, Jimbob?

You need to rethink mercy, Jimbob...You need to remember that if Standards are the goal to heaven, every single one of us has forfited our place in heaven...Luckily, Jesus provided mercy and, a way back...and for some, restitution as part of our growth.

I would suggest that YOU need to do more thinking it thru....

A leader is a valuable thing to waste, especially a fallen pastor. I would think that a fully forgiven repentant pastor who has experienced restitution, would be an asset rather than a liability.

[there buster]

When God ruled Israel, did He establish standards?

It seems to me any reasonable reading of the Pentateuch indicates that He did. There were standards of behavior for priests, for ordinary people, for parents, husbands, and so on.

The problem is not 'having standards,' but understanding their purpose and function.

Real standards--as opposed to preferences masquerading as standards-- are essentially the application of a principle (universal truth) to a given set of circumstances. The principle, being a universal truth, does not change. But circumstances change continually.

So having standards poses three major challenges. 1) Understanding the principle being applied, 2) recognizing when it is a mere preference, and 3) recognizing when changing circumstances demand a change in the standard.

At one point, for example, Jewish men and women did not eat together. Why? Because in the dominant culture, when men and women ate together, the meal was followed by an orgy. So in order to make a clear distinction between themselves and the dominant culture, the sexes ate separately.

Unfortunately, people lost sight of the reason for the custom, and perpetuated it long past its relevance.

One standard principle of hermeneutics, Biblical interpretation, is that whenever a prophet speaks, they either apply a principle (basically, declare a standard), or enunciate a principle.

This is where some people make a mistake with EGW. Sometimes she applies a principle to a set of circumstances. Then she applies the same principle to a different set of circumstances, and people accuse her of "contradictions." But of course, it's not really.

So, yes, we need to apply principles. We shouldn't be surprised if the application is differen in Hong Kong than it is in Michigan. It might be different yet again in Edmonton. A consistent application of the same principle will yield a different standard in a different time and place. God does it in the Bible.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

So now we know that Jimbob is more of a standards man than a mercy man....Right, Jimbob?

You need to rethink mercy, Jimbob...You need to remember that if Standards are the goal to heaven, every single one of us has forfited our place in heaven...Luckily, Jesus provided mercy and, a way back...and for some, restitution as part of our growth.

I would suggest that YOU need to do more thinking it thru....

A leader is a valuable thing to waste, especially a fallen pastor. I would think that a fully forgiven repentant pastor who has experienced restitution, would be an asset rather than a liability.

---

Well, Neil...I think it looks like you need to take more than 6 minutes to think about it.

[Guest]

Here is some homework for additional clues to this issue---

ACTS 15

"20": But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

"21": For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

"22": Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

"23": And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

"24": Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

"25": It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

"26": Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"27": We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

"28": For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

"29": That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

"30": So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

"31": Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

"32": And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

[Guest]

Here is one which you can apply to the clergy and analyze...

Matt 23

"15": Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[Guest]

Thanks for the post Ed

[Michelle]

Quote:

---

Perhaps a more salient question would be WHY do we have standards? As in, what is it that causes us to formulate a standard, what do we really mean when we speak of right and wrong?

---

Okay, good question. Let's pretend for a moment that we are on the MI conf. ed. committee looking at the policy book for revisions. When we come to the policy about unwed pregnancy (or however it's termed), what would you say about this policy? What would be your reasoning for changing it, and if you'd change it, how would you?

Quote:

---

If I neglected to say it outright before in the original thread, let me say it now here: disagreement with the punitive model does NOT constitute disagreement with the upholding of standards itself. It is not a question of upholding standards versus NOT upholding standards. It is a question of HOW standards are upheld, where those efforts are directed, and of what nature those efforts are to be. To question the efficacy of the punitive model is NOT to suggest that standards themselves are unnecessary. It is, rather, to question whether those standards might not be better served by a different model.

---

Thanks for putting this in, because I hadn't gotten that from the first thread about this topic.

So, again assuming that we are on this committee, what would be your suggestion for changing the model?

M

[Michelle]

Neil--You have an interesting point about restitution, but do you think there are any instances in which restitution is not enough? Let's use a hypothetical situation of a teacher convicted of child molestation. He/she goes through therapy, and whatever else--what can he/she do to provide restitution? And, more importantly, would you ever hire him/her again in a position with child contact?

M

[Michelle]

Quote:

---

The problem is not 'having standards,' but understanding their purpose and function.

Real standards--as opposed to preferences masquerading as standards-- are essentially the application of a principle (universal truth) to a given set of circumstances. The principle, being a universal truth, does not change. But circumstances change continually.

---

So if we were together on this hypothetical committee looking at policy, what principle might we find underlying this offensive policy about pregnancy?

Quote:

---

So having standards poses three major challenges. 1) Understanding the principle being applied, 2) recognizing when it is a mere preference, and 3) recognizing when changing circumstances demand a change in the standard.

---

I appreciate this because sometimes I really have to stop and think about number 2, especially! These steps are tricky no matter what we're talking about (I tend to get caught up in the "arts" debates (music, dancing, literature) about principles).

So I'm curious about what the underlying principle might be, might it be only a preference of the quite conservative MI conference, and have the times changed so that this policy/standard should be changed or removed?

M

[there buster]

Quote:

---

So I'm curious about what the underlying principle might be, might it be only a preference of the quite conservative MI conference, and have the times changed so that this policy/standard should be changed or removed?

---

Pregnancy, or course, is not the issue.In this case, the pregnancy is simply evidence (supplemented, apparently, by the woman's own testimony), of sex preceding marriage.

Well, you tell me. Should we teach (in this case, by example) that sex before or outside of marriage is a positive and beneficial behavior, or a negative and damaging one?

Silence is assent, so we will teach one lesson or the other.

And is that a preference, something that pleases our sensibilities, or is it an expression of a principle, a truth applicable to all times and places?

Another way of examining the same question. Do we view sex outside of marriage as distasteful, not polite in our culture, or do we have reason to believe it is inherently damaging at all times and places?

(And, before it gets started, Judah and Tamar DO NOT apply here)

And yes, there is a built-in "unfairness" in this particular situation. Nathaniel Hawthorne notwithstanding, when men engage in sex outside of marriage, it rarely becomes apparent. It's difficult for a woman to hide pregnancy. Don't blame me for it, take it up with the management.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps a more salient question would be WHY do we have standards? As in, what is it that causes us to formulate a standard, what do we really mean when we speak of right and wrong?

---

Okay, good question. Let's pretend for a moment that we are on the MI conf. ed. committee looking at the policy book for revisions. When we come to the policy about unwed pregnancy (or however it's termed), what would you say about this policy? What would be your reasoning for changing it, and if you'd change it, how would you?

---

I think you are reading things into my statements that are not there. My point was not to argue whether or not some particular standard ought to be changed. My point was to illustrate that no standard is valid if it is not grounded in reality. Why do we, for example, encourage our children to stay away from drugs or from unprotected, unmarried sex? Because there are REAL WORLD consequences for those behaviors that can affect the person's entire LIFE. Those real world consequences themselves carry the ACTUAL "penalty" for making those kinds of choices. Now, as parents, yes, we impose artificial consequences because we are trying to protect our children from the real DIRE consequences of a poor choice or wrong behavior. But with grown people AFTER the fact, the imposition of an artificial consequence CANNOT add anything to the actual real-world consequence. It cannot protect them from it, it cannot "learn" them any better than the actual one will. If we trust our standards to be rooted in divine reality, in the moral imperative intrinsic to the structure of life and reality itself, why do we think we need to add anything to what God has already built into the fabric of What Is?

THAT was my point.

Quote:

---

So, again assuming that we are on this committee, what would be your suggestion for changing the model?

---

Let's not mix up the model with the standard itself. The standard is the standard; the model (in this case the punitive model) is the type of application one MAKES with the standard. My point is that there are other models for addressing this. It does no good to discuss these, however, in an atmosphere where the attitude prevails that anything other than the punitive model MUST result in some type of lawless chaos -- "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!" so to speak. Where people are ready to chop your head off with outrageously ludicrously paranoid scenarios of Jesuits (booga booga!), atheists (oh my) and/or pagans RUSHING to sign up for meager salaries in order to have the dubious privilege of influencing OUR precious children -- or violent serial rapists roaming the streets because someone suggested a criminal could be forgiven in Christ -- clearly there is no hope of productive, let alone SANE, dialogue about other models. Because the moment anything is said that hints at another model, down come the fearmongers and authoritarian control freaks to INSIST you're insane and anything other than punition and retribution will result in lawless chaos and with all manner of slanderous garbage insinuating if not stating outright that you must want to let all violent offenders loose on the streets because you don't advocate moving immediately from the discovery of another's error to the imposition of an artificially constructed penalty upon them. The Bible also says not to cast pearls before swine because they will only trample them underfoot and then turn and devour you. I believe I've had enough of being trampled and devoured over this topic, sorry.

[Bravus]

Quick question: WWJD? We don't have to guess, there's a parallel story right there in the Bible.

[there buster]

Although I don't automatically grant your notion that I'm using a "punitive model," perhaps you can sketch how your alternative model would work, anchored in your 'real world.'

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Quick question: WWJD? We don't have to guess, there's a parallel story right there in the Bible.

---

I assume you mean Matt 18:6:

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

[Dr. Shane]

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

Another example, a pastor commits adultery. He repents and says he's sorry. Question: Is this enough for him to keep his job as pastor? Most will say no.

What if the board imposes upon the pastor the requirement to get counciling for 2 years, AND is not allowed to go up front nor hold an office during the same 2 years, AND is to be the church/church school janitor for 2 years? If he cheerfully complied, I would say, yes, he could come back as pastor provided he fulfilled those requirements...

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

Wow, that is a lot of restitution. Our church has what is known as censorship. A member may be placed on censor during which time he or she can show their repentence. This is an alternative to disfellowshipping. It is used often in Latin America.

[Guest]

1 Timothy, chapter 3

"1": This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

"2": A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

"3": Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

"4": One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

"5": (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

"6": Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

"7": Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Hey so many preach NFDMTTS anyway...no great loss!

I am speaking about the position not eternity

[Bravus]

I think you mean 'censure', Shane. HTH.