Pregnant at 18. Hailed by Abortion Foes. Punished by Christian School

Bert, think about what you are saying. First you tell us that the school is harsher than the Old Testament. Then you remind us that the OT prescribes stoning. Are you saying that excluding Maddi from walking is worse than stoning? Pleeeze. Something is way out of whack in your thinking.

Why do I find it difficult to resist the thought that many of the SI contributors sound too much like the Left?

1) Those in authority are presumed to be wrong.

2) Those under authority are presumed to be right, and victims of over-bearing authority which must be protested.

Never mind that God ordains human authority for the good and necessary restraint of human society.

“Black lives matter! Black lives matter!” Woops. “High School Students Matter!”

How about, “God’s Word Matters!” God’s Glory Matters!” “Sin Matters!” “God is Merciful to Repentant Sinners!” “Unrepentant Sin has Eternal Consequences!” Dealing with sinners who protest their punishment more than they weep for their sinfulness is a difficult task. May God grant much grace and wisdom to those who have been given this responsibility by God.

Now, it seems, the church has joined the world in automatically assuming that nearly any exercise of authority is abusive. I fear that his is a dangerous trend.

This. Is. Not. What. We. Are. Saying.

Sheesh.

But pregnancy makes a private issue public and I can understand dealing with it in a different way.

The principal’s letter says his goal is to protect first Maddi, and then the school. He thinks he is protecting her by not having her walk. She already has confessed to the people who matter the most (which I don’t think she needed to do). She wants to walk to celebrate the 12 years she spent at that school and her academic achievements with her classmates. She is ready and willing to walk in whatever state of pregnancy. The school leadership is not willing to forgive her, or they would have finished this business 4 months ago. If a male student had premarital sex, do you think he would have been able to walk? Of course. He would have been disciplined immediately and then the issue would be done. The issue is her pregnancy, and that is why it is a prolonged discipline process.

This second part of his statement is where the rubber meets the road. The reason that they are imposing this is because they are afraid of what people will think. They are concerned about the school’s reputation. She gets the consequence because she carries the result of her sin in a visible way on her body.

God cares about matters of the heart, not the outward appearance. For the school leadership to be concerned about “what people think” shows that they are concerned about SELF, not Maddi. The principal said so himself. He wants the graduation ceremony to honor God and be done in a dignified manner. I propose that it is a dignified matter to allow Maddi who publicly confessed, repented, asked forgiveness of her sin to be allowed to walk. It would be a public statement that they as a school forgive her and support her and rejoice that her sin was bought with a price and now is white as snow, forgotten, wiped clean.

I have no comment on the school’s decision, as I’ve stated. We don’t know enough to second-guess that decision. I do have a few observations for the girl and her family. Perhaps the girl and her family should:

1. Realize sin has consequences
2. Realize the school made the decision it felt was best
3. You disagree - get over it. Welcome to the real world, where things don’t always go your way. Better get ready - life won’t get any easier or fairer.
4. You have your diploma - yay
5. Prepare for the arrival of the child
6. Get yourself together and get on with your life
7. Stop allowing yourself to be used as a prop for an organization with an agenda
8. You deserve no credit for not aborting the baby. You did the proper moral thing. Yay. That’s what God expects His children to do. Congrats. Have a cookie.

I believe the statement by the school principal is excellent, and reflects a mature approach to this issue. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the decision; it is clear it wasn’t a flippant one. The school did what it thought was best. And, as others have pointed out, the school is not a local church. It isn’t run by elders who have been biblically appointed by a congregation to shepherd a flock. They’re school administrators, not pastors with theological training and God-gifted pastoral wisdom and experience. I am disappointed with the girl and her family’s response to the decision.

[Larry]

the school’s punishment appears to be quite in excess of what Moses and Paul prescribed, and what Jesus practiced.

Refresh my memory here, Bert. Where does Scripture address the protocol for a pregnant teen marching or not marching in a graduation ceremony?

…we ought to proceed from Exodus 22 and 1 Cor. 6, which state very clearly what ought to be done in such a case, as well as John 4 and John 8’s accounts of the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery?

Now granted, they do not technically prohibit refusing to allow a girl to go to commencement in the same way that they don’t prohibit burning her at the stake, feeding her to crocodiles, or doing an honor killing or gang rape as happens in many Islamic lands like Pakistan. That conceded, I think that where we have the Bible’s testimony of what ought to be done, maybe, just maybe, we ought to think that through and…do that.

Reality here is that the Scripture recognizes that a girl caught in fornication is in a vulnerable position with many natural consequences, and thus it makes no more sense to impose additional consequences than it would have made for me to give my son a good whipping after he cut himself when he disobeyed me about using my pocketknife.

Re-read my comments, GN. I am saying that the punishments that we know about given to this girl exceed the Old Testament punishments for girls caught in fornication described in Exodus 22:16-17. This does not even give account of the punishments that the school board originally intended.

Again, if your “Christian” school board imposes punishments that are clearly harsher than those in the Mosaic Law, never mind far harsher than how Jesus dealt with the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery, you’re doing it wrong. You are teaching the subjects of your discipline contempt for God’s Word and His Son. That is most likely what that video shows.

This statement says it all …

Can you enlarge on what you mean by that? You started with that but never got to saying what that means. What “all” does it say?

The school leadership is not willing to forgive her, or they would have finished this business 4 months ago

How did you conclude this? Do you think forgiveness makes all the consequences go away? You have been very active in the survivor boards, correct? And I have never seen you argue that forgiveness makes consequences disappear. In fact, don’t you argue that even the appearance or the mere accusation of wrong doing should bring irreversible consequences? Did I miss something?

If a male student had premarital sex, do you think he would have been able to walk? Of course.

How did you conclude this? I am confident that in my school that wouldn’t have been the case, and still wouldn’t be.

The reason that they are imposing this is because they are afraid of what people will think.

How did you conclude this and why is this inappropriate? Haven’t virtually all the comments here been based on what people will think, yours included? IIRC, you have argued that the school is being negatively harmed because of what people will think. You are afraid of that. Does the school have no right to be concerned about its testimony and reputation? Do they have no right to protect that as they see fit?

BTW, one of the scriptural commands and principles is to publicly rebuke sinners so that others will fear.

God cares about matters of the heart, not the outward appearance.

Actually, God cares about both. That’s why God gives commands about our outward actions.

I think there is a case to be made for her walking. I don’t care one way or the other. My concern is that the arguments such as you make are not based in the scriptural teaching on grace and forgiveness. It seems that people are adopting a worldly view of forgiveness and grace.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe the school is in sin by not allowing her to walk? Is there anything that a student could do that would legitimately exclude them from walking?

they do not technically prohibit refusing to allow a girl to go to commencement

So you acknowledge that your whole view is based on something that the Scripture doesn’t say?

I happen to agree that this is not prohibited. Now it seems you do as well.

Exod 22 requires marriage if the father is willing. I don’t think that is the being pursued and I haven’t seen you suggest that she should marry him. I also haven’t seen you suggest the boy involved should pony up some bucks as a bride price. So it seems you are willing too ignore this command. You say that this exceeds the OT Law, but you don’t say how. Walking in graduation is a fairly minor consequence compared to paying off a bride price for someone you aren’t even going to marry, or marrying someone just because you got pregnant by that person. After all, that ceremony will be over in an hour or so. The marriage will last a bit longer.

I am struggling with 1 Cor 6. It starts with lawsuits before unbelievers which precludes those who say there is a possible lawsuit. Perhaps there is an application here about the court of public opinion, that when Maddi’s dad took this public to be judged before unbelievers, he violated the principle of 1 Cor 6. I can’t imagine you are condemning her to hell based on vv. 9-11 for fornication so that rules that out. I agree that the body is the Lords (vv. 12-20) and she should glorify God with her body. But I am not sure how that applies to walking at graducation.

The woman at the well doesn’t seem to apply here does it? And the woman caught in adultery doesn’t seem to have any application here. Those were about forgiveness of sin. The woman at the well still had five ex-husbands and a live-in mate and only one of those things could change. The adulterous woman was always going to have that past. It seems like you are confusing forgiveness with consequences. Yet you surely agree that forgiveness does not remove temporal consequences, right?

So it seems, Bert, that you have concocted a biblical case and then admitted that you don’t have one.

That you say that the Bible doesn’t “prohibit refusing to allow a girl to go to commencement in the same way that they don’t prohibit burning her at the stake, feeding her to crocodiles, or doing an honor killing or gang rape as happens in many Islamic lands like Pakistan” perhaps shows just how desperate this case is. All those things are condemned in the Bible. They are prohibited. And yet the Bible says nothing about this situation.

Let me ask you what I asked Julie Anne: Do you believe the school is in sin by not allowing her to walk? Is there anything a student could do that would legitimately exclude them from walking?

Agree with GN. Removing the PRIVILEGE of walking for graduation is more harsh than stoning for the same offense? I thought SI’s mantra was “Thinking is fundamental.” This is critical thinking? This is Biblical thinking?

Why don’t we all take a step back from all the hyperbole and consider an actual example of sin and consequences from the Scriptures? When David sinned with Bathsheba, Nathan pronounced 4 consequences from the Lord on David.

1. The sword would never depart from his house
2. Evil would be raised against David from within his own house
3. His wives would be given to other men
4. His child would die

Maddi’s punishment is going to be fulfilled 4-5 months after the sin was discovered and discipline administered? That’s terrible! How long did David had to wait until the consequences for his sin were fulfilled? Years - to the point that consequences occurred even after his death!

Good for the school for standing its ground and reinforcing the important truth that sin has consequences and the one that sinned does not get to decide what’s acceptable or not. Perhaps others will learn this most important lesson, including those who have posted on this thread and are knowingly/ignorantly condoning her actions and questioning the authority that God has sovereignly placed in this young woman’s life.

All of David’s penalties were decided and applied at that time although some effects could not be realized until later. God didn’t decide three months down the road to do something else on top of what He promised.

…one of the scriptural commands and principles is to publicly rebuke sinners so that others will fear.

Since when when is a Christian school responsible to carry out the duties of a pastor or church? Should they start serving communion as well? Are they responsible to treat school disciplinary issues according to Matthew 18 up to and including the admonition as gentiles and tax collectors? And even if so, didn’t they already do that when she was told to confess it to the student body?

A school is a school, not a church.

Larry, the argument that the Bible does not prohibit sanction A is simply an argument from silence. This is a basic logical fallacy, period. You may, with equal logic, argue that the Bible does not prohibit feeding the girl through a wood chipper. It’s nonsense.

So is the notion that the school board may be excused because they’re not pastors with theological training. Hello? Isn’t it a…”Christian” school they’re running, theoretically according to God’s Word? Maybe a theologically immature school board member has as much business there as an engineer who can’t do math? Maybe….if they find the theological issues are beyond their depth, they could….find someone who is capable of acting at that level? Maybe….if the girl’s public statements aren’t theologically mature, the ugly truth is she’s only doing what her school board is doing?

And yes, I would affirm that those whose punishments are harsher than those specified in Exodus 22:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6, John 4, and John 8 are in sin. That’s all there is to it; God’s Word gives us a plan for dealing with the sexual sins of single people, so let’s follow it.

If anyone has a Biblical argument that would point to the permissibility of harsher penalties, I’m all ears, but again, I’m expecting bupkus here.

“All of David’s penalties were decided and applied at that time although some effects could not be realized until later. God didn’t decide three months down the road to do something else on top of what He promised.”

Where did you arrive at the conclusion that this most recent aspect of the discipline was only recently handed down? In all of the reading I’ve done, no one has said that.

From everything I’ve read, the objection appears to be that the discipline is extending to a period that’s months away from when it was determined. Sounds like they wanted the discipline to occur immediately and then be done.

the argument that the Bible does not prohibit sanction A is simply an argument from silence. This is a basic logical fallacy, period. You may, with equal logic, argue that the Bible does not prohibit feeding the girl through a wood chipper. It’s nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, the argument from silence is not necessarily a logical fallacy and it’s typically different than what is being discussed here. But I haven’t appealed to that at all. In Scripture, this situation is unconsidered. It is an adiaphora. You are making the case that Scripture mandates something that Scripture is silent about it. You are using the silence of Scripture to impose a standard but objecting to those who use the silence of Scripture to impose another standard. You can’t have it both ways.

I argue that we are to use what Scripture does say to draw conclusions how about to handle things like this. If Scripture doesn’t address it (and we both agree that it doesn’t), then we take what Scripture does say and use wisdom and practicality to apply it. And not knowing details, we are in no position to do that.

You would apply it differently. Fine. You might be the one who is wrong. Or you might both be wrong (meaning both sides might have missed what should be done). Or you might both be right (meaning it can be handled either way or different ways depending on various factors).

And that raises another issue: You are drawing dogmatic conclusions based on almost nothing. You are operating from a brief NY Times article with a slant, a brief article with a news clip, and a letter from the school (who is prevented from discussing it publicly). You haven’t talked to any of the parties involved. How can you be so dogmatic with so little information?

So is the notion that the school board may be excused because they’re not pastors with theological training.

Who has excused them? And who has excused them based on not being pastors with theological training?

I don’t know this is beyond their depth. I don’t know what their depth is. Neither do you, do you? You have simply disagreed with them but you have made no real case for your position and you haven’t made a case about their theological depth. As you have affirmed, the Scripture doesn’t even address it.

You keep talking about this being a harsher punishment than Scripture. How so? 1 Cor 6, John 4, and John 8 have nothing to do with this so far as I can tell since this isn’t about individual interactions. I am sure the school would tell her that they forgive her and to go and sin no more. The only passage that you have listed that deals with this type of situation in Exod 22:16-17 and you are not telling them to follow that. You would have to argue that not walking at a high school graduation is a greater punishment than paying a large financial sum and possibly being forced into a shotgun wedding from which there is no possibility of divorce. And you don’t seem interested in enforcing that law.

And yes, I would affirm that those whose punishments are harsher than those specified in Exodus 22:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6, John 4, and John 8 are in sin. That’s all there is to it; God’s Word gives us a plan for dealing with the sexual sins of single people, so let’s follow it.

But you admitted that God’s word does not give us a plan for dealing with the specifics of this situation. So how can they be in sin for doing something that is not prohibited either by command or principle? The basis for your charge of sin is that they disagree with you on how Scripture should be applied to a situation that Scripture doesn’t mention. That seems thin to me.

I ask again: Is there anything a student could do that would legitimately exclude them from walking?

Regarding King David

After David’s true repentance so vividly given in Psalm 51 and Psalm 32, God relented on having David executed for his capitol crimes. However, God exacted the penalty of the Law which David cited in 2 Samuel 12– “the man shall restore four-fold” the lamb which he took. The first son un-named died on the seventh day, one day before circumcision; the second son Amnon was murdered by Absalom; the the third son Absalom was executed by Joab; the fourth son Adonijah was killed pre-maturely. God took the lives of four of David’s sons for David’s sin. God predicted that David’s wives would be raped in public because of David’s sin. Absalom did so on the roof of the palace before all Israel. God allowed David’s Kingdom to be divided by treachery resulting in the death of 20,000 Israelites–Twenty years of punishment for David’s sin directed and predicted by God himself. God’s severity and grace are both illustrated in the life of David simultaneously. God promised that the Sword would not depart from David’s house on account of his sin.