Topic: Born-Again Christians Only: Daycare Parents, Staff Angry Evangelical Changes

[Jetavan]

On Friday, staff members of the Happy Time Preschool & Daycare received letters informing them that the center was being reorganized into the Point of Grace Children’s Academy. Previously, the center operated in Waukee's Point of Grace Church, but religious affiliation was not stressed there, said former employees and parents.

Employees wanting to remain needed to reapply for their positions and agree to the new guidelines. These new guidelines were spelled out in a Christian Lifestyle Agreement included with employment applications. The agreement states that “every employee accept and follow a lifestyle commitment based upon Biblical principles.”

That lifestyle means regular attendance at a Christian church, no sex outside of marriage, no homosexual conduct, no viewing of pornography, no drug or alcohol use, and no vulgar language, according to the application posted on the church's website.

I wonder if the no "alcohol use" (either total abstinence or consumption in moderation are allowed) is a subtle way to exclude (or discourage) Catholics and Orthodox employees (an exclusion that would be perfectly legal, of course).

[JLatimer]

Okay.

[tuesdayschild]

On Friday, staff members of the Happy Time Preschool & Daycare received letters informing them that the center was being reorganized into the Point of Grace Children’s Academy. Previously, the center operated in Waukee's Point of Grace Church, but religious affiliation was not stressed there, said former employees and parents.

Employees wanting to remain needed to reapply for their positions and agree to the new guidelines. These new guidelines were spelled out in a Christian Lifestyle Agreement included with employment applications. The agreement states that “every employee accept and follow a lifestyle commitment based upon Biblical principles.”

That lifestyle means regular attendance at a Christian church, no sex outside of marriage, no homosexual conduct, no viewing of pornography, no drug or alcohol use, and no vulgar language, according to the application posted on the church's website.

I wonder if the no "alcohol use" (either total abstinence or consumption in moderation are allowed) is a subtle way to exclude (or discourage) Catholics and Orthodox employees (an exclusion that would be perfectly legal, of course).

No, I just looked at the application. An employee may use but may not abuse alcohol. It's the "born again" requirement that will used to exclude Catholics and Orthodox.

[JLatimer]

If they want to exclude Orthodox, that's fine with me.

[IsmiLiora]

I think "viewing of pornography" is going to take more people out of the running.

So ridiculous.

[Jetavan]

It's the "born again" requirement that will used to exclude Catholics and Orthodox.

Perhaps, but Catholics and Orthodox can also claim to be "born again", or "born from above", since the phrase is in the Sacred Text.

[Αριστοκλής]

It's the "born again" requirement that will used to exclude Catholics and Orthodox.

Perhaps, but Catholics and Orthodox can also claim to be "born again", or "born from above", since the phrase is in the Sacred Text.

Just so! But unlikely they know that.

[ialmisry]

It's the "born again" requirement that will used to exclude Catholics and Orthodox.

Perhaps, but Catholics and Orthodox can also claim to be "born again", or "born from above", since the phrase is in the Sacred Text.

All Orthodox are Catholic, and being baptized, are born again.

[tuesdayschild]

It's the "born again" requirement that will used to exclude Catholics and Orthodox.

Perhaps, but Catholics and Orthodox can also claim to be "born again", or "born from above", since the phrase is in the Sacred Text.

All Orthodox are Catholic, and being baptized, are born again.

Yes, but they mean it in the 1970's Jimmy Carter sense.

[Jason.Wike]

I really don't see what is wrong here... its their business, they can run it how ever they want. The way they went about it, informing people of the changes in ownership and rules at the last minute, was not polite, but they still have every right to set their own criteria and enforce them.

Actually the only thing 'wrong' I see going on in the situation is more people telling religious people they can't have their own institutions and run them according to their own beliefs without having to change them... to be "inclusive" - in other words, to have no standards at all. Its just more of the popularly accepted hypocrisy, enforced relativism. The only rule is you can't have any rules or you're [insert popular, now meaningless, pejorative].

[NicholasMyra]

I really don't see what is wrong here... its their business, they can run it how ever they want. The way they went about it, informing people of the changes in ownership and rules at the last minute, was not polite, but they still have every right to set their own criteria and enforce them.

You've switched between 2 different justifications. Is it ok because it's moral or ok because it's legal? The two aren't related.

[Agabus]

This is basically the position my college has taken. Professors are also required to sign a statement saying they believe (or at least will not teach contrary to) the Christian faith as expounded in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. 

It caused quite a shakeup about six years ago (and indirectly resulted in me dropping out for several years), but now I am ambivalent toward such policies -- outside of the Christian Studies Department it has very little real impact.

[neon_knights]

This sort of discrimination is allowed in private schools?

[Tallitot]

This sort of discrimination is allowed in private schools?

yes.

[Jason.Wike]

I really don't see what is wrong here... its their business, they can run it how ever they want. The way they went about it, informing people of the changes in ownership and rules at the last minute, was not polite, but they still have every right to set their own criteria and enforce them.

You've switched between 2 different justifications. Is it ok because it's moral or ok because it's legal? The two aren't related.

They're not mutually exclusive.

[Aindriú]

I think "viewing of pornography" is going to take more people out of the running.

So ridiculous.

?

[RPR]

The term "born again" only appears in the reporter's or editor's title for the article. The only requirement is that they want someone that belongs to a Christian church. Are Catholics and Orthodox really excluded, or are they simply saying any non-Christian need not apply? I'm assuming they would refuse Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, and others that would be viewed as cults or sects. I'm also sure Jews, Hindus and Muslims, etc.  need not apply. I only see and  read what they have in the job notice. I'm not reading into it what I want it to say.

Never trust a reporter. They all put their spin into a story. Real journalism is dead. I have no doubt the writer is a liberal that not only had to go after "born again" Christians ( a real redundant term if there ever was one, and one of the liberals favorite bogeymen ), but take a shot at Michele Bauchman too. You will notice no one from the church was asked about who they were looking for and what does or doesn't qualify to clarify what they are looking for.  Be discriminating readers. The author, and paper, are looking to attack a conservative church and candidate running for president.

This is still the USA, or what's left of it, where we have freedom of association. The church is free to set the qualifications however they want whether you or I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with them.

[Robb]

Bauchman  is actually a member of the ultra conservative "WELS" Lutheran Synod. I don't know what their position is on evangelical "born again" Christianity, but I think that traditional Lutheranism is opposed to non Augsburg evangelical groups?  "WELS" especially doesn't permit communion with anyone other then themselves (Most other Lutheran bodies included).  Bauchman  might want to trump up the fact that she's a Christian, but her Synod certainly would have a tough time lumping themselves together with evangelicals and various other non denominational Protestant movements.

[Jetavan]

The term "born again" only appears in the reporter's or editor's title for the article. The only requirement is that they want someone that belongs to a Christian church....

From the application:

"As a Christian School representing Jesus Christ in our community, we require employees to be born-again Christians and to live their lives as Christian role models."

[RPR]

The original post and the article don't have that line in it. I went to the church's site and the application has either been removed or my browser isn't getting it. Never-the-less they are free to hire whoever they want. Just like a  "fill in the blank"  school is free to hire who they want. It's a political article, when it comes down to it,  that goes after "born again" bogeymen and Michele Bauchman.

 As to Michele Bauchman's religious affiliation and beliefs, I'm not that concerned about it right now. I'm still amazed at the lack of vetting of President Obama. The mainstream media did all they could to cover up that he belonged to a church for 20 years that taught black liberation theology, and to inform the general public exactly what liberation theology is all about, and the radical left teaching from the pulpit. Obama had to believe it. How can two walk together unless they agree?

[tuesdayschild]

Moving to Politics in 3...2...

[Agabus]

Bauchman  is actually a member of the ultra conservative "WELS" Lutheran Synod. I don't know what their position is on evangelical "born again" Christianity, but I think that traditional Lutheranism is opposed to non Augsburg evangelical groups?  "WELS" especially doesn't permit communion with anyone other then themselves (Most other Lutheran bodies included).  Bauchman  might want to trump up the fact that she's a Christian, but her Synod certainly would have a tough time lumping themselves together with evangelicals and various other non denominational Protestant movements.

FWIW, Bachmann has left the WELS and joined Eagle Brook Church.

[Robb]

Bauchman  is actually a member of the ultra conservative "WELS" Lutheran Synod. I don't know what their position is on evangelical "born again" Christianity, but I think that traditional Lutheranism is opposed to non Augsburg evangelical groups?  "WELS" especially doesn't permit communion with anyone other then themselves (Most other Lutheran bodies included).  Bauchman  might want to trump up the fact that she's a Christian, but her Synod certainly would have a tough time lumping themselves together with evangelicals and various other non denominational Protestant movements.

FWIW, Bachmann has left the WELS and joined Eagle Brook Church.

It figures that would happen.  I guess she realized what side of the bread her butters on and realigned her beliefs with that.  The WELS is the last of the old time Lutheran churches, in America anyway.  I guess that it wasn't compatible with the more trendy, plastic type of Protestantism that most American crave these days.

[SubdeaconSL]

The term "born again" only appears in the reporter's or editor's title for the article. The only requirement is that they want someone that belongs to a Christian church. Are Catholics and Orthodox really excluded, or are they simply saying any non-Christian need not apply? [snip]

For many Protestants (especially evangelicals), Orthodox and Catholics are emphatically NOT considered Christians, but idol-worshipers and papists (respectively).

[serb1389]

Moving to Politics in 3...2...

You should have started at a higher number.   

I would though caution that if any of y'all want to start debating each other's positions go to the politics board & do it.

Also in general keep in mind that this section of the board is for discussion not debate.  There is a clear & very healthy distinction.  I trust you will all find it. 

[Aindriú]

Moving to Politics in 3...2...

You should have started at a higher number.   

I would though caution that if any of y'all want to start debating each other's positions go to the politics board & do it.

Also in general keep in mind that this section of the board is for discussion not debate.  There is a clear & very healthy distinction.  I trust you will all find it. 

Debate:



Discussion:

[podkarpatska]

The term "born again" only appears in the reporter's or editor's title for the article. The only requirement is that they want someone that belongs to a Christian church. Are Catholics and Orthodox really excluded, or are they simply saying any non-Christian need not apply? [snip]

For many Protestants (especially evangelicals), Orthodox and Catholics are emphatically NOT considered Christians, but idol-worshipers and papists (respectively).

A point well worth reiterating when one is making one's bed so to speak. As my grandfather said, if you sleep with the dogs, don't complain about the fleas.