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

You make the point that implies the young lady is being made a public example.

who made it public? Not the school.

ergo, she is not being made a public example.

a little more clarity of thought is needed on one side of this thread.

That’s pretty rich, considering that the leadership of the school felt the need to address the entire student body and specially invited families to that assembly as well, according to Maddi’s account.

But two wrongs, last I checked, didn’t make something right. It just compounds problems.

Maddi isn’t the only one dealing with the consequences of bad decisions here. Don’t act like it’s all her fault this is so big and ugly.

Don’s response is akin to blaming the people of Israel in I Kings 12, when it was Rehoboam who forsook wise counsel and answered the people roughly.

Behold, Maddi wrote a piece for the Washington Post which was published 01JUN. Enjoy … Here is an excerpt:

When girls like me who go to pro-life schools make a brave pro-life decision, we shouldn’t be hidden away in shame. The sin that got us into this situation is not worth celebrating, but after confession and forgiveness take place, we should be supported and treated like any other student. What we are going through is tough enough. Having to deal with the added shame of being treated like an outcast is nothing that any girl should have to go through.

…..

People who had been supportive before are now telling me to shut up, suck it up and grow up. Because of the volume of anger from the community, my parents have decided to keep my brother and me at home for the rest of the school year.

Note how she believes she deserves credit for not murdering her baby. What a sad state of affairs. Christians are ​expected to not murder their unborn children. You get no credit for that decision. You followed God’s law. Yay. And?

I must go now. I want to throw up. This is the same kind of self-serving, public victimhood that Kathy Griffin is engaging in right now - but with a conservative Christian gloss. There is something so distasteful, so selfish and so immature about the nature of this kind of response. It is a reflection of where our society is, and it has infected us all.

I have no sympathy for this girl. None. She displays an extraordinarily immature understanding of sin and God’s providential discipline (has she considered Heb 12:5ff and the implication of providential discipline through intermediaries [i.e. the school!]?), who is (unwittingly?) being used as a convenient tool for an activist organization. This matter is not being framed in a Christian context; her entire article is predicated on the assumption she deserves praise for not aborting the baby. That is the narrative, and Christianity seems merely a convenient filter to screen that activist narrative through.

This quest and revelry in victimhood, presented through the thin veil of a newfound activism, is extraordinarily disappointing to me. How sad. Most people aren’t eager to write opinion pieces for the Washington Post and bemoan what has been “done to them” as a result of own rebellion.

Jay, once again, you told an untruth. HCA did not run her out of the school. She continued in school and graduated with her class. You have said things that are untrue several times in this thread. Why? If we are doing to discuss it, let’s discuss what actually happened. There is no need to make stuff up that isn’t true.

I’m different from the caricatures because I am willling to not treat this like it’s a mortal sin by applying all the penalties that the school did.

That’s not a difference Jay. It’s not accurate since the school didn’t treat it like a mortal sin. And it’s not even relevant to the question. The question wasn’t about what you would do in this situation. You have made that clear, and it’s fine.

The question was rather about your mindset that only you are correct and everyone else who disagrees is wrong. That is the mindset that people attribute to fundamentalism (rightly or wrongly). I would suggest that your mindset is no different than them. You seem to have the fundamentalist mindset that you alone know what is right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Larry, what kind of testimony to the community would it be if they’d suspended her for two days or a week, removed her from leadership, and asked her to address the school….and then moved on and said that the matter was closed? Justice would be done, restitution would be made, and everyone would have moved on. This wouldn’t be a discussion point, and it certainly wouldn’t be a semi-major news story.

Or what if they had expelled her and been done with it? Or what if Maddi and her dad hadn’t gone public with it? Then no one would be talking about it. But in any event why should the school be making decisions for the school based on fear of what people might think? Earlier in the thread, people were condemning the school for making choices based on their reputation. Now you are encouraging them to do exactly that—make a choice based on their reputation.

Sure, they might have done what you suggested. Perhaps it would have been fine. Perhaps the community would have complained about a suspension, or removal from leadership, or having to say something publicly. You just never know.

Furthermore, what’s the biblical basis for a two-day suspension, removal from leadership, and addressing the school? Why are all those things okay but not marching in graduation is not? That’s the question no one is willing to answer. Why do you support not showing grace and mercy in these things but not walking in graduation is crossing the line of grace? What’s the difference? Those questions keep getting avoided.

She is the one who made it public. She is the one writing articles and doing news interviews. She is not being mistreated. She has now disobeyed the principle of 1 Cor 6 in taking her case before unbelievers rather than settling it among Christians and, if necessary, allowing herself to be defrauded. I realize 1 Cor 6 is talking about an actual court of law which I why I talk about the principle of 1 Cor 6. The bottom line is that she agreed to a code of conduct and then failed it. She doesn’t get to now make demands about how she should be treated.

Christians don’t look like a crazy caricature for things like this. It seems to me that the school has responded in a very measured way, meeting with the family on multiple occasions and “compromising” each time (to use their word). So they were willing to work with the family. And now HCA is being drug through the mud by this. Frankly we should not judge Christianity by the comments at the WaPo.

But no, we have to make a public example of her sin.

That’s actually a biblical principle at times, Jay. One of the reasons to do something publicly is to show that the sin is not being overlooked and to warn others who might fall into the same sin.

Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

Yes, I love that verse. And rest in God’s forgiveness. And it still doesn’t take away the temporal consequences of sin. This girl and every other sinner can be completely forgiven by God and by fellow Christians and still not be free of the temporal consequences of sin.

After all this, it has devolved into the almost absurd.

Jim mentioned earlier this morning that he saw no point in continuing to beat a dead horse, which I privately agreed with. It’s probably past time for the mods to close this thread.

Having read the last three posts or so, I feel even more strongly about that, so I’m dropping out. I’m not going bother defending myself against Larry’s last post because all we are going to wind up doing is going around in endless circles. I have said repeatedly that Maddi shouldn’t escape all the consequences of her sin, and I’ve said that HCA should have applied some, but not everything that they did. I’m not budging off of that point.

See you all in another thread.

….what the day school should have done. No expulsion, no exclusion from class activities, goal is restoration and not “punishment lust.” One thing to add; interact with the girl’s church regarding the process, too.

Regarding Tyler’s point and Hebrews 12:25, I do not know that we can automatically consider the school’s attempts at discipline to be God’s providence simply because…once again, I’ve yet to be persuaded that the punishments meted out by the school board, or for that matter the entire approach they used, to be Biblical.

I’ve seen no evidence of that in about 170 comments here, and quite frankly, if many here wonder why they don’t see very many people between the ages of 18 and 35 in the pews, go to a local crisis pregnancy center and ask them what the result would be if they used such an approach as was used by the board. I’ve volunteered at such centers—was at such an event just today—and it simply would not go well. Again, these people are already terrified, and they take careful note of how others whose sin is more obvious are treated—and will show up as empty pews if they see the treatment as unduly harsh.

A final note; GN notes that “question authority” seems to be on the cars of liberals…but when we read things in Scripture, don’t we see the Bereans checking out what Paul says? Don’t we see Paul confronting Peter when his behavior when he refused to eat with Gentiles and such? Don’t we see John telling the church not to simply accept what Diotrephes is doing? If all these are “liberals” because the question authority, then I want to be a liberal. The Bible simply does not indicate that we should grant unquestioning fealty to leaders and never question what they do, but just the opposite.

I have read with interest every post in this thread, which, btw, has gotten fairly long and tiresome.

What has been strangely missing is any reference to the obligation and duty of the school to absolutely protect the rest of the student body. The “strange woman” of Prov 5, 6, and 7 is aggressively immoral. Whether this girl fits that bill or not is not up to me to decide. That she has been immoral is not in doubt. Her practically demanding that her immorality be celebrated through recognition largely because she didn’t have an abortion could lend credence to her being somewhat aggressive in promoting immorality.

Scripture is crystal clear in its instruction of a proper response to the strange woman —don’t go where she is; don’t stay where she goes! (Prov. 5:8)

I happen to deal with a number of socially aware youth service organizations. Invariably the social pariah of old—gay; gender confused; pregnant; “player”; ecumenist; or whatever—will be provided a platform for influence from within the youth structure simply because these young people are too inexperienced and immature to recognize the spiritual/societal danger they are putting themselves and their friends in.

The discussion of too much or too little grace aside, I could easily see a strong case for the school board acting in a protective capacity for the rest of the student body in keeping them from a potential danger they are likely too young to grasp.

This morning, I saw another report of the Maddi story on Fox News. (Originally aired on Friday, I believe.) What more could possibly be said that hasn’t already? If the approval of the public at large is the Christian’s greatest consideration, HCA should probably apply no penalties whatsoever. Any punishment is too much for some people. Truthfully, any punishment will be considered too much for some professing Christians.

However, if our first consideration is to please the Lord, the solution is far from simple. It has been asserted repeatedly on this thread that HCA violated Biblical boundaries in refusing to let Maddi walk, but assertion is not evidence, and Biblical evidence has been conspicuously lacking. This line of reasoning boils down to, “They failed to extend the large measure of grace that I believe they should.” But grace is not required, and when it is demanded rather than gratefully received as an unexpected surprise, it loses both it’s purpose and it’s power. It is similar to God’s love, a wonderful truth that is trampled underfoot by failing to balance it with other equally important truths, such as God’s holiness and wrath.

The authority we must question and confront is that which is clearly violating Scripture. Then, “We must obey God rather than man.” To question every decision that I subjectively disagree with takes us down the road to lawlessness. We can see this danger in American society, but can we recognize it in the Church?

hree quick things in response to Bert:

First, history is helpful if for no other reason that is shows how common grace showed a sort of shared morality among people. There were in times past shared values in our culture, whether they were held for right reasons or not. In recent years, many have commented on how the church is following the world, just a few years behind. And here we have it played out before us. Christians are continuing to follow the world, just a few years behind. Pointing to history is not a logical fallacy. It isn’t a logical anything. It is simply a fact. And it’s not a fallacy. It is simply a fact. History helps us to understand our present and the changes that have taken place.

Second, as for your three big advantages, you have already admitted that the Scriptures don’t address this situation which should have ended this aspect of the discussion a long time ago. Your approach means she might see something called “God’s rules” but it turns out upon further study that they aren’t God’s rules at all and you have already admitted that. By such an approach, you run the risk of teaching kids that the Bible isn’t an authority to be believed and obeyed but a tool to be used to reach a preferred outcome. I have long said that one of fundamentalism’s greatest traits was also its downfall. They taught people that the Bible was the Word of God to be believed and obeyed. And so people read the Bible to believe it and obey and found out it didn’t say what they were taught it said. When you take the Bible and make it say something it doesn’t say, you do a disservice both to the word and to the hearer as well as yourself and your teaching authority.

Third, you still haven’t explained why you accept some “unbiblical” punishments and not others. That is what seems arbitrary. You have drawn a line that appears to have no reason behind it. Banning her from walking is not arbitrary in the least though it may be wrong. It is directly connected to the offense. But accepting a two day suspension and a removal from leadership while rejecting walking at graduation seems arbitrary at this point.

This is a difficult situation. It should not be made worse by the misuse of Scripture. Once you acknowledge that the Bible doesn’t address this, the conversation should have taken a vastly different turn. Unfortunately, it didn’t.

Jay, You don’t need to defend yourself. I don’t really care. But you said something untrue against the school yet again. Ignoring that under the guise of not defending yourself is not acceptable in my view. I, unlike some, am fine with disagreement about the issue itself. It’s a tough issue and there is room for reasonable people of good will to disagree. I have no firm opinion on it. I do have a firm opinion on saying things that aren’t true.

My concern from the beginning has been about the methodology and frankly, nothing has been said that gives me any confidence that anyone here has a biblical method of addressing it.

Notice that no one has yet said why a two-day suspension and removal from leadership is biblical but not walking at graduation isn’t. Why is it so hard to get someone to talk about that? Why does mercy apply to walking at graduation but not to a two-day suspension or a leadership position? Bert wants to talk Bible but he won’t tell us which passages justify a two-day suspension or removal from leadership so far as I can see. He had made no attempt to defend it. He just wants to say that not walking is unbiblical.

No one wants to talk about why an organization or institution might handle something differently than a church would. Why? That seems to me to be a pretty big piece of it.

I think there is a valuable discussion to be had about this. Unfortunately, it didn’t take place here.