Skip to content

4 Year Old Girl expelled from Christian school due to lesbian parents

August 26, 2010

A week before the first day of class, a Christian school in Texas expelled a 4 year old girl upon finding out that her parents are a lesbian couple at a parent’s meeting.  You can read the whole story here.

What are your thoughts?  Is the school to be commended for standing for their values, or rebuked for taking out their issues with the parents lifestyle on a small child?

9 Comments leave one →
  1. Brian permalink
    August 27, 2010 7:50 am

    That’s perfectly ok. Didn’t Jesus say he only came to die on the cross for the rich and righteous? Certainly he didn’t come down to earth for the poor and unrighteous people that no one cares about. Of course we wouldn’t want “those” people or their children ruining our perfect little circles of friends. (Hopefully the sarcasm is noted.)

  2. August 27, 2010 3:07 pm

    I know that the popular reaction to this story is to label it a civil rights violation, but this isn’t Plessy v Ferguson Part II. The homosexuality issue aside, this is a private, not public school. No one is forcing them to go there. There are not only public school options, there are also other private school options in their town. As I tell my students all the time, you can’t go to Fenway Park and expect everybody to become Yankees fans because you’re a Yankees fan. Freedom of speech and religion means both for all, even if you don’t agree with their point of view. They’re not breaking the law, and they’re a private organization. If you don’t agree with them, then exercise that great American freedom (and opportunity) and go somewhere else.

  3. Josh permalink
    August 27, 2010 3:10 pm

    Yeah, I’m with Brian, why would Christians ever want to show their beliefs to other people?

    This is connected to the post about the African Church coming to the US, by the way. The Anglican Church in North America is made up of a bunch of churches who thought the Episcopalians and the Anglican Church in Canada were doing wrong things, so they broke off as a mission of those African Churches. They’re not a part of the Anglican Communion, and they shouldn’t continue to call themselves an Episcopal church because they’re not one.

  4. Wes permalink*
    August 27, 2010 3:26 pm

    I don’t disagree with anything that Zack said, but I don’t think that the legality of this is the issue for most of us. As a private school, they have the right to do just about whatever they want with their enrollment.

    The question is whether or not it’s a “Christian” thing for the Christian school to do.

    Also, I’m not sure that your Fenway metaphor holds much water- was this four-year old girl going to try to convert her pre-k classmates to the sexuality of her parents?

  5. August 27, 2010 4:40 pm

    If my Fenway metaphor is losing any water it’s because its a Red Sox reference.

    The point of my wonderful metaphor is not a reflection on the children but their parents. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say it was them (or an affiliated party), not their children who were upset and alerted the media. Therefore, the point I was making was that they wanted the school to conform, or at least accommodate their viewpoint/lifestyle/whatever. So in that respect I agree very much with Josh that this story is connected to the African story in that there is a group of people trying to force change on others.

    As for the “Christian” aspect, I think that that issue is probably not as cut and dry as we would like. To borrow another one of my eloquent youth ministry examples: the English language sucks. We read “love” in the bible and automatically equate it with acceptance, which we in turn assume to mean as Christians we should include/condone everyone in everything we do regardless of what they think/say/do. Without pulling out too much Dan Spross exegesis I think it would do the church a GREAT amount of good to remember that there are many words for “love” and they don’t all call for the same response….i.e. i love my wife and my dog, but i’m only having sex with one of them. In the same way, I am called to love my enemies, i.e. Bin Laden, but that doesn’t mean i’m called to “accept” his ideology or way of life. I’m not equating Bin Laden with homosexuality AT ALL, but to make the claim that because Jesus calls us to “love one another” and therefore we are also called to include/accept/involve everyone in everything we do simply doesn’t line with the same Jesus who also talked about kicking people of out the wedding feast for wearing the wrong clothes.

    It may be fashionable to have a warm fuzzy, hippie Jesus who doesn’t care want we do and just wants us all to sit by the fire and sing kumbaya, but that’s not the Jesus of the gospels.

    All that said, I think the school should probably have allowed them to say, as I think it would probably have done them both a lot of good.

  6. Wes permalink
    August 27, 2010 4:49 pm

    While I do acknowledge that there are many definitions of “love,” to imply that one of then could be “avoid like the plague” seems a little off.

  7. August 27, 2010 4:58 pm

    I’m just trying to make the case that while we might like this issue to be black and white, it probably isn’t. Also, I was not implying that I think one of the possible definitions of love was “avoid like the plague.” I am simply pointing out that while we may not be comfortable with it we do have to deal with a God who in the Old Testament is pretty on board with “avoid like the plague”, a Jesus who talks about cutting off limbs and gouging out eyes in order to avoid contact with sin, and Paul who is vehement about the light avoiding the dark.

    While we may not like the school’s reaction, I am simply making the point that they do seem do have biblical grounds to stand on. So, for me I think the real issue here is what we do with a biblical witness that doesn’t seem, at least to me, to be so clear.

  8. Brian permalink
    August 28, 2010 5:08 pm

    Agreed, we as Christians have a standard to follow, but my point was simply if we excluded everyone living in sin, whether they realize it or not, we would have no church. Sinners are the first people who should be including in our churches and Christian schools. I’m certain the young girl wouldn’t get a more positive education on morals/ethics in public school. It’s the classic sin vs. the sinner idea. Yes, Jesus avoided sin like the plague, but definitely not the sinners.

  9. Josh permalink
    August 28, 2010 8:31 pm

    I don’t even know if saying “Jesus avoided sin like the plague” is right because it seem like he really didn’t. By not avoiding the sinners, which we know he didn’t do, it makes sense that he was around sin quite a bit. What he did avoid was committing the sin. His being the cure for sin doesn’t mean he avoided it.

    What I’m trying to say is that this church and school seems to think otherwise. They seem to think that just because they’re around people who sin, that means they’re committing the same sin. Jesus’ life shows us quite differently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: