When you violate the rules at the Honor Academy, you are brought before the Honor Council. The Honor Council is comprised of other interns who have been voted to be “the most honorable.” They will hear your case and give the leadership a recommendation for your punishment, either probation or dismissal.
According to their training manual (which was supplied to me by a former Honor Council member) the purpose of the Honor Council is:
An Honor Council case is not a counseling session and Honor Council members are not counselors. The purpose of the case is not rehabilitation.
The panel should focus on:
1. Understanding the details and nature of the violation
2. Determining the condition of the participant’s heart.
3. Making a recommendation for disciplinary action.
I’m glad to know that purpose of confronting “sin” is not rehabiliation but punishment. (sarcasm)
They also sent me this case study that is used in training the members of the council.
Case Study #1:
I went home over this past Christmas for vacation. Before I left, I spoke with my accountability partner about a guy (Bob) back home that I used to date. We set up guidelines for us to follow and we were going to call each other every other day. We also agreed that I would not see him by myself.
The day after Christmas, Bob’s brother slipped and fell down stairs and was hurt pretty bad. He went to the hospital with his brother. Our families go to the same church so my mom had heard what happened and let me know what was going on. She told me that Bob had gone to the hospital. I went down there and ended up talking with Bob and his sister for an hour. Bob’s sister left for dinner and left Bob and I alone in a private waiting room. He was a little upset so I put my arm around him to comfort him. After a few minutes he seemed to be better.
After that we kept talking and he asked me about the possibility of “us” after Teen Mania. I told him it was possible. We kept talking and I leaned over to pick up my drink and he leaned over and kissed me. I pulled away and told him that I could not do that. He understood and did not try it again. We sat there talking for about 15 minutes longer when his sister came back. I left about an hour later.
I went home and felt bad so I told my dad about what happened. My dad is a pastor. He told me that Bob should have known better and that I had done nothing wrong so I needed to stop feeling guilty.
I came back to Garden Valley and felt a little guilty but I remembered what my dad had said so I tried to forget about it. Then yesterday, I was talking with a new intern about the rules and they brought up romantic contact and quick repentance. After talking with them, I knew I had to talk with someone so I told Ellen, my accountability partner, and we went to my advisor to tell her what had happened.
I am very sorry that this happened. I guess I just wasn’t thinking. I have learned a lot about foresight from this whole situation. I am not going to talk to Bob anymore until after I finish the internship. I truly am sorry about this and hope to continue on here with the program.
If you are a former intern and/or are familiar with the HA rules, there are 2 questions I’d like you to answer in the comments.
1) In light of the HA handbook, what rules (if any) did this intern break and what should the consequences be?
2) In light of Scripture and the heart of Jesus, what “rules” did this intern break and what should the consequences be?
In the next post, we will hear directly from former members of the Honor Council on how they decided this case and how they came to their decision.
42 comments:
To RA:
If I remember the “rules” correctly: 1) This girl was ALONE with the boy, she put her arm around him *gasp*, she talked to him about future plans ALONE *double gasp* and then then the ultimate–she LEANED over!!! jk–she allowed him to kiss her…after the kiss and her pulling away–she should have run from the room screaming ‘wicked sinner!’ and not sat with him ALONE for another 15 minutes…
In light of the heart of Jesus and scripture—no “rules” were broken, she should have repented (from what, I’m not sure) and asked for forgiveness…
I have a terrible feeling that the consequences to this are not good in light of my experiences with HA–Plus, she didn’t IMMEDIATELY confess…bad move…in HAs eyes…
Lord, have mercy….
February 8, 2010 8:52 AM
h. said…
1.) katydid got a lot of them already. there was physical contact while they were alone, and it could be argued that the physical contact [even just an arm around him] was more than just ‘friendly’ since there was attraction. she discussed a possible dating relationship [you absolutely do NOT do that while you’re an intern], the kiss, and she didn’t confess right away, which is a big one. They’d probably dismiss her on that fact alone.
2.)per the Bible, I can’t think of a single thing that was done wrong in the situation–had she not been an intern and had “rules” to follow back on campus, none of this would have been an issue. the only thing i can think of is that she knew the rules on campus, and still “fell”–but even then, the punishment i know she probably recieved most likely did NOT fit the crime [it probably far exceeded it].
February 8, 2010 9:48 AM
moriah said…
kisses! kisses! I love kisses!! And I also loved riding around one of the ministry vans during my internship playing footsie with my obvious attraction!!! ahhhh no names here only because it involves another person and I don’t have their permission. However, it was quite thrilling and I have no regrets no not one! (We didnt kiss until a day after the internship officially ended . . ah hahahaha!!!! how awesome were we!) Unfortunately, I was subjected to a classic TM shame in the following months for this perfectly legal kiss! Ahhhh to be free from this group of people is indeed a miracle, and a fine one at that!
February 8, 2010 12:16 PM
Ben said…
The rules have been hit. I have no doubt that she’d be dismissed. I had a friend who got dismissed shortly after I left for not saying until a few months later that a girl kissed him. He told me it was a bad kiss, and not someone he was actually attracted to, so he didn’t think much of it.
February 8, 2010 12:30 PM
Nunquam Honorablus said…
Moriah, that comment made me laugh! Though I am sorry that there was such shame heaped upon you for that. And for no reason! I’m glad you recognize the freedom that you’re in now. Enjoy it!!
February 8, 2010 12:48 PM
Curious George said…
“Then yesterday, I was talking with a new intern about the rules and they brought up romantic contact and quick repentance.”
I wonder how often real repentance actually happens when it is rushed or is a “quick repentance.” It seems almost like an oxymoron. Also, if you feel guilty after failing to follow twisted ideologies and their resulting skewed rules, is that guilt genuine or is it forced by yourself or by others?
This situation angers me. She went to a hospital to help someone in need. She had an honest conversation with a peer and was kissed but didn’t reciprocate. Why is the victim blamed for this? The situation reminds me of a friend who was raped and subsequently blamed by her family for being in the wrong situation and hanging out with the wrong kind of people. Although less disturbing, the situations seem similar.
February 8, 2010 1:02 PM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
I also had a friend who was dismissed for being kissed by a girl during the HA. She kissed him, and he confessed right away and still got dismissed. I think she ended up leaving the HA of her own accord, but I’m not sure because it happened just after I left!
February 8, 2010 1:06 PM
between beauty said…
When I was at TM, the honor council was not in place. We had “family meetings”. Those were never looked forward to!
But there is one huge fatal flaw I see that I just can’t get past. The second function of the honor council is to “determine the condition of the participants heart” Um, what?! huh?! seriously?! Last time I checked that was God’s job. How arrogant and prideful to think that one could determine someone’s heart or motives! Every time I have ever attempted to do that it has usually gotten me in trouble. The fact that someone could think that was their job just seriously disgusts me.
That whole line of thinking is dangerous on so many levels.
This young woman did not follow the “rules” or “standards” according to TM because she didn’t avoid the “appearance of evil”. I mean being ALONE with the opposite sex is EVIL….right?! j/k If you want to follow their line of thinking she told her accountability partner that she wouldn’t be alone with the guy she was formerly involved with-1st infraction The 2nd infraction would probably be putting her arm around him and let’s see 3rd …hmmmm not telling the truth right away? Oh, wait I think maybe I am trying to determine the condition of her heart?? 😉 They taught me well! (ugh)
But you see, TM rules and standards leave no room for exceptions, or grace, or showing compassion on other humans in need (her friends brother being hurt and her trying to comfort him). The almighty standard is to be held up above all else! TM inflicts an all or nothing mentality, which I have found doesn’t work very well for functioning healthily outside the TM bubble.
In light of scripture I don’t believe this young woman broke any “rules”. Sounds like she’s just human to me!
February 8, 2010 2:35 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Curious George and Between Beauty – very good points.
I would suggest that no rules were actually broken here. While she might have violated the rules she set up with her accountability partner, those are rules she made up for herself, not rules TM imposed upon her. It is not against the handbook (to my knowledge) to be alone in a room with the member of the opposite sex.
I would see the arm around him as a friend comforting another friend during a stressful time. She did not reciprocate his kiss and pulled away from it – so I do not see any romantic contact.
Further, she did not say she wanted a relationship – she only said “Its possible.” That is not really a confession of feelings. TM is on crack if they think that people in the outside world who are emotionally invested in interns should be kept in the dark all year about whether or not they should be waiting for their beloved to return home, or if they should move on.
Personally, I think the intern handled this situation well (considering her limitations) and should not be punished.
Of course, interns have been kicked out for much less.
February 8, 2010 5:01 PM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
RA – I guess a lot changed since you left lol! during mine and Nunquam’s year, spending time alone with someone of the opposite sex was FORBIDDEN. You even walked with fear of passing someone of the opposite gender alone in the Cafe or anywhere else on campus (well, I did!). I nearly got BV’d once when volunteering for walking back from dinner with someone of the opposite gender (with other people walking just in front of us, and people behind!).
February 8, 2010 5:17 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Ex-Intern – wow, that is news to me. Yikes! Thanks for clarifying.
February 8, 2010 5:19 PM
J97 said…
Ohhhh “Family Meetings” – you always knew someone was going home when we were told we had a FM…
between beauty- I too noticed the issue of determining someone’s heart- for real? who are they to do so… How is it sometimes I have to questions MYSELF for the motives of MY heart… so frustrating… maybe I’m glad I only did have Family meetings!
And Moriah – I remember WELL ministry van trips of footsie and “close hands”… hahaha-
If your name is legit- then we were roomates in Tulsa- haha- I was on “road crew” as a January- not only were we roomates- we shared our room!!! hahaha
February 8, 2010 5:36 PM
Nunquam Honorablus said…
RA, Ex-Intern is absolutely correct. You couldn’t even be in the same car alone with them. If you two had somewhere to go (Walmart, airport run, etc), you HAD to have a third person.
As a GI, though, it worked out for our good; I had two friends who would go to Walmart together and they always needed a third person- guaranteed ride to spend food allotment!! 😉
February 8, 2010 5:43 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Wow, this was never an issue when I was there. I went to Dallas more than once alone with a friend of the opposite sex. We had known each other in youth group and it was strictly platonic…
February 8, 2010 5:55 PM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
Yeah it did get pretty ridiculous. I think one of the contributing factors to the increased enforcement of this rule was that during one summer that I volunteered, one of the volunteers spent alone time with an intern of the opposite gender and they ended up having sex (on campus). And then she accused him of rape – there were police on campus and everything! Then the following day Dave called an intern meeting for staff and GI’s (not sure if undergrads were there for this particular meeting) to discuss tighter enforcement on the opposite gender proximity rules.
I know that quite a few of the guys in my intern year struggled with homosexuality, and I’m sure the militant enforcement of these rules did nothing to help them!
February 8, 2010 6:39 PM
Moriah to J97 said…
J97. I barely even remember that year because so much has happened since. Let me try to remember everyone in our room . . . haha! dont know I can. Feel free to contact me through facebook and play guess-a-footsie! Erin Conner lives near me now. Remember her?
Love,
Moriah
February 8, 2010 9:17 PM
h. said…
during my year[s], it wasn’t a written rule per se that we were not allowed to be alone with someone of the opposite gender, but it was STRONGLY implied. in such a case, you knew you were in for an immediate confrontation, especially one including “guarding your heart”. dave hasz talked about this situation quite a bit.
but therein lies another one of the HA’s problems: implied rules. there are many rules at TM that ARE in the handbook, but for every rule that is, there are two rules that are not…and yet you’re still expected to uphold those standards and follow those rules, even though they’re not written down anywhere–the expectations in addition to the rules is almost crippling.
February 9, 2010 12:42 AM
h. said…
i also wanted to post some parts of an article i found on the mistranslation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 [the “appearance of evil” verse that TM LOVES, and would have undoubtedly used to have put the final nail in the accused-intern’s proverbial dismissal coffin]:
“The appeal to the Thessalonians is not to avoid or abstain from that which might appear to be evil, but to avoid those things that are clearly evil, such as illicit sexual activity or responding to evil actions with evil action in return. In every case, those things are contrasted with the proper Christian response, purity or “holiness” (4:7) and doing “that which is good.” This suggests that the translation “abstain from every kind of evil” is far preferable to “abstain from every appearance of evil.” Paul calls the Thessalonians to a holy lifestyle that would avoid things that were clearly evil, like illicit sexual activity or responding to people with a retaliatory “evil for evil.” In contrast, he also calls them to love one another, to be patient with each others, and to do the things that are good as God’s will for them as his “set-apart” people.
None of this suggests the older translation, that Christians should “avoid the appearance of evil” as if we were building a fence around the NT commandments like the Jews did with the Talmud. That would result, as it did in some strands of Judaism, in multiplying rules and commandments to infinite numbers in order to define precisely what “appearance” might mean in any particular situation. That would be a solid basis for the worst aspects of legalism.”
“In many cases there was total sincerity on the part of those who applied the test of the “the appearance of evil.” There was genuine concern for living a holy life and for avoiding even the appearance of participating in something that was evil, or that could be seen by others as evil. But misunderstanding biblical guidelines can lead to very negative results. In all too many cases, this led to a judgmental spirit toward others. It also led to a sense of insecurity and fear on the part of Christians who were constantly worried about whether their actions could be perceived by others as “evil” or sinful.
In this sense, “the appearance of evil” talks about evil that has not happened or is not really evil at all but only seems evil in someone’s eyes! It feeds suspicion. It feeds all the darkness inside us that loves to judge people. It accuses brothers and sisters in the Lord that have done nothing wrong but create an appearance of evil in someone else’s eyes! It destroys fellowship and trust. It fosters gossip and talking behind someone’s back. It serves to create discord in community and undermines the love that should mark Christians fellowship, the very things that Paul was trying to avoid in his exhortations in 1 Thessalonians!”
the article as a whole is really good; read it all here:
http://www.crivoice.org/appearance.html
February 9, 2010 12:46 AM
ex-intern 08 said…
To RA:
The rules have definitely changed since you were there. It is absolutely FORBIDDEN to be alone with a member of the opposite gender…even going into the dorm room of the opposite gender is a dismissable offense. Also, as Nunquam stated above, there must be three in a vehicle–also you can NEVER walk alone with a member of the opposite gender-no matter what!
Also, when off campus, you could even be dismissed if you went to someone’s home and they showed an “R” rated move–even if you were the guest! And don’t forget the forbidden video games…
Craziness…
February 9, 2010 5:30 AM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
Yeah you’re right about that that one – I forgot about the whole R-rated movies thing. And you weren’t even allowed to play the games on your cell phone either. The only games you were allowed to play were board games, or solitaire (if your personal computer had it).
I remember that because of this rule, the guys in my dorm (Elliot) would play Risk ALL THE TIME!
February 9, 2010 7:41 AM
Lisa said…
I am hearing faint echoes in my head…
“Guy in the dorm! Guy in the dorm!” Would be the call as a male security/maintenance intern was climbing the outside steps of Green Hall
February 9, 2010 9:18 AM
Anonymous said…
i was there 98-99, and the dorm rooms/r-rated movies rules were the same. i don’t know if watching R rated movies was dismissable, but…it was definitely a rule even then.
and yeah, the not-being-alone rule was unspoken and in place back then. i sort of ignored it sometimes, but once i got a ride back from the airport and the only person who could do it was a guy…and there was no one else in the car. i think in my day that was ok…DURING THE DAY…but as soon as it was night…shoooooo. so, i was petrified pulling up to the guard house. of course nothing happened.
my other big fear was when i went on an adventure trip to a south american country, one of the nationals kissed me on the cheek…before i could avert my heat. i was SO afraid and confessed to the trip leader and everything…i was lucky and there was no punishment. (NOT THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN.)
February 9, 2010 11:09 AM
Anonymous said…
the above should say “avert my head”
February 9, 2010 11:10 AM
carrie said…
wow. i don’t think this girl did a single thing wrong. she broke no rules, she tried to be a good friend. when i was at TM, i remember dave saying that there was “no such thing as a stolen kiss” which is what this reminds me of. and that conversation with us about stolen kisses prompted the quick repentance rule, which hadn’t been applied before that time (jan 99), if i remember correctly.
when i was there, i had many platonic relationship with guys. i was on girl overload, and needed some male energy to balance things out a bit. it was very interesting to me who i got in trouble for hanging out with. if it was a guy who was popular and good-looking, i would get confronted immediately. at one time, a GI asked me to see if i could go for a week without talking to this guy. i asked if this was something i had to do, and she said no, but thought it would be beneficial to me. i said i would rather not, and a week later, my advisor confronted me on my inappropriate relationship with this guy. however, i spent much more time with another guy who was not as cool or good-looking, and i never had a single confrontation about it. i had no romantic feelings for either guy, but i did find in interesting that i was only confronted on the “attractive” ones.
February 9, 2010 3:30 PM
Lisa said…
I was there 98-99 and with movies they always talked about “3 strikes and you’re out” If a movie had 3 “dishonorable” offenses it had to be turned off or you were sort of “expected” to walk out of it. In fact, there is a story of the entire internship going to see Titanic at the theater and walking out after “3 strikes.”
I went to the movies once with a car full of people and Rush Hour (or rush hour 2 i dont know the timing) was playing and several people went to see that. I had heard there was cussing in it so, out of guilt, I went and watched Babe a Pig in the City. I totally LOL at my poor, tourtured soul self, sitting ALONE in the theater when I think about it now.
February 9, 2010 8:50 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Lisa – that is hilarious. But are you sure that Babe was ok? Wasn’t the pig rebellious to authority or something? After all, we can’t tolerate that either…
February 9, 2010 11:00 PM
Lisa said…
OMG you’re right, RA! Do you think it’s too late for repentance?
February 9, 2010 11:40 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Yeah I think you missed the cut-off point. Sorry!
February 10, 2010 12:26 AM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
THAT’S IT LISA, NO MORE POSTING ON THIS BLOG. You DEFINITELY missed the repentance cut-off point! Well, I guess you’re just gonna have to live the rest of your life knowing that you’re going to hell.
And I’m guessing you watched the FIRST Babe too? HMMM? You double wicked sinner. Hahahaha
POINT. And maybe Nunquam can testify to this too? During our year we had the Habitudes guy come and take a seminar with us. During this he played clips from Titanic, and I specifically recall one of the clips having the F-word and it wasn’t censored either. I can’t remember which clip it was though – i’ve been sleep since then….haha!
February 10, 2010 7:12 PM
Nunquam Honorablus said…
Haha, sorry 007, I’ve slept since then. (Your new name is 007, because I am significantly too lazy to spell out “Ex-Intern 07” every time I want to refer to you).
I don’t remember that at ALL. Though I do remember several times when I would zone out in class and suddenly people would be laughing and I had no idea why… maybe I was in the bathroom?
Regardless, that is AWESOME and I’m sad that I have no recollection of it!
PS: Lisa, you just ctrl+z’d the entirety of the Resurrection of Christ. I hope you’re happy.
February 10, 2010 7:22 PM
mom of ex-intern said…
to the whole string of recent comments starting with Lisa–hilarious—thanks for the laugh–I needed it!….(007….ROFL….)….
February 10, 2010 7:28 PM
Nunquam Honorablus said…
Bummer, looks like I’m even too lazy to throw the “Aug” in there! 007 it is!
Mom- I’m glad you enjoy the humor around here! I think we’re gonna like having you aboard our motley crew 😉
My laziness strikes again so you’re just going to be “Mom”. Is that alright? 🙂
February 10, 2010 7:49 PM
mom of ex-intern said…
lol–totally fine–‘Mom” it is…(that goes for you too 007)…lol
February 10, 2010 8:01 PM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
Mom – Will you be my mom too? I’d also like to hear your son’s story too.
February 11, 2010 1:02 PM
mom of ex-intern said…
007–sure you can call me mom–(we were always the kolaid house on the block)–and we hosted “Warrior Group”–yes–after the Battlecry theme–every Friday–and I was ‘Mom’ to all the guys…
My son’s story is all over the blog…I started as ‘anonymous’ on Oct 30th with his story– under Dangerous Leadership at 10:25pm comment–and yes, Heath knew EXACTLY of the situation and contacted us. I did write that we had closure–but have since realized that we are all working on it as a family still.
February 11, 2010 1:58 PM
Ex-Intern Aug 07 said…
mom – okay thanks i’ll look it up! 🙂
February 11, 2010 2:38 PM
Nunquam Honorablus said…
Mom! I just read your son’s story… he and I were dismissed at right around the same time. Probably within days of each other! I was a GI at the time, though, so it’s unlikely that I actually know him (I was in CCM, and didn’t know very many undergrads).
However, I’m sure that I’d have known his CA, if not his supervisor, depending on where he worked. Yeah I probably know all the GIs that he knew, cause they were all in my class 😛
If you (or anybody on here) want to shoot me an email, you’re more than welcome to! Hit me up at vengeance.as.a.virtue at gmail dot com.
(This post probably makes it obvious who I am but I’ve ceased caring at this point. Y’all are a safe group of people ;).)
February 11, 2010 7:23 PM
reluctant-intern said…
HAHAHA. I was one of the interns who walked out of the Titanic movie. It was during debriefing and Mr. Hasz had JUST given us a talk that morning about how growing up his parents had a rule that if any show/movie had 3 curse words it got turned off or they walked out, period. So just a few hours later, there we were, watching Titanic. I think most of us stuck it out through a few curse words but when Jack & Rose started doing the nasty, I think about half of us got up and left. And honestly, I totally would have stayed except that the people I was sitting with all got up. Gooood times. Har.
March 11, 2010 12:49 AM
Philip said…
I can’t believe anyone DIDN’T walk out of Titanic.
Not because of the content, just because it was such a crappy movie.
March 11, 2010 12:58 AM
Anonymous said…
I also sat on the Honor Council for a term my undergraduate year. That is when I began to experience the most pressure to be perfect. I can remember seeing interns open up about their struggles and thinking, “here is the perfect opportunity for deliverance” only to dismiss them or put them on probation and strip them of their titles if they had any.
I wasn’t in favor of being on the Honor Council but everyone else thought it was a huge honor so I didn’t decline. I wish I would have.
April 27, 2010 3:38 PM
Recovering Alumni said…
Anonymous – I think you just hit the nail on the head.
April 27, 2010 3:42 PM
moriah said…
the scene between rose and jack is beautiful! I love that scene.
April 28, 2010 10:04 AM