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

If my daughter went down a rebellious path like wearing provocative clothes and smoking marijuana and drinking there is no way I would ship her out to a girls school to be corrected. Any parent who has done that and the children were abused shame on you.

Nor should you.

It is not the responsibility of a Christian school to ‘reform’ anyone. The school can only, at very best, supplement the work of the parents (who are divinely ordained to raise that child) and the church they attend as ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’.

Having attended both NIU and BJU, I can assure you that kids sent to any school for the purpose of ‘reforming them’ almost always fail, and they are usually huge problems for the school itself because they are trying to keep to their mission of educating the pupils they have instead of cleaning up 16-18+ years of damage.

[Lee]

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 is way out of bounds here, as Lee is for all practical purposes calling the girl a whore. Sorry, but again, if we wonder why there aren’t many people between ages 18 and 40 in church, there ya go. Reality is as well that many historians argue that the bald head Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 11 was a sign of being a real whore.

I would posit that if the Corinthian church could welcome real prostitutes into fellowship, and historically speaking they did, churches (and day schools) today can learn to be a little bit more gracious with those who have been seduced. That is, really, how crisis pregnancy centers are learning to reach out to abortion-minded women; not with raw judgmentalism and arbitrary punishments, but with the same grace Moses shows in Exodus 22, the same grace Christ shows in John 4 and John 8, and the same grace Paul shows to the sexually immoral, repentant man, and the same grace Paul shows to others caught in fornication.

Larry, we can say that things are OK because the day school is not mentioned, or we can simply say that since it’s not, maybe…just maybe…we should go with the entities that are empowered to deal with these things, specifically the family (Exodus 22), the church (Paul’s writings), and human government (tangentially Exodus 22). And that inasmuch as the school does come alongside the church—and it should if it’s doing its job—I would dare suggest that this is exactly how they should have approached things. “OK, we want to help this girl back into fellowship, how do we work with you?”

Regarding the suspension, I’m actually inclined to view that as partially out of line, too. It might be somewhat debateable if the school board realized they were in beyond their ability to swim and asked the girl to stay home for a couple of days while they sorted things out, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Overall, those in other activities who find some wrongdoing on the part of one of their members need to be aware of the “basketball score” effect where each leader thinks his penalties are OK, but does not realize that the young person is going to be looking at a HUGE laundry list of repercussions. Psychologically, this makes a huge difference in whether one goes to Planned Parenthood or not.

And that’s really the reason I’m coming down fairly harshly on them; the first people we hold accountable are those with authority, not those under authority.

[Lee]

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.

The reason no one brought up the proverbs 5 woman is because the “strange” woman mentioned is an adulteress…..you know, someone who is trying to entice a married man. That is the context. You have clearly gone beyond the bounds of both scripture and with innuendo, smearing her character. She has not at any point, asked people to celebrate her immorality because she chose life (by saying so, you come awfully close to slander) Rather she used her sinful situation to expose the blatant hypocrisy of a shamed-based environment that wouldn’t let her walk during graduation because she showed a baby bump when there hadn’t been anyone from the school that was banned from walking during graduation who had failed to abstain from immorality, drugs, and alcohol in the school’s history. This begs the question whether she would’ve been able to walk if she had come out and repented if she had chose to abort her baby rather than keep it. We don’t know, but the school’s track record with the long-drawn out inconsistency of the punishment in her situation does not give me much hope that they would’ve been consistent and banned her from walking during graduation if she had.

I do find it amusing that Galatians 6:1 has not once been referred to since it actually had much more to do with her situation (getting caught in sin) than certain proof-text references (such as Proverbs 5) that have been referred to. I wonder if it is because gently restoring someone will make fundamentalists look like they are being soft on sin?

Let me share a situation at my son and daughter’s Christian school and how the school dealt with sexual immorality, which I believe embodied what it meant to restore gently those who had been caught in sin. Last year, two of my daughter’s classmates (both of which were seniors), were seen on school grounds by another student having sex in a car. Eventually it was reported and the couple confessed their sin. There were many meetings between the principal and the 2 students, the principal and the parents and the 2 students, and the principal and the parents. They even brought the youth pastors from where the students attended church to take part in discipling these students through this messy situation. The students were suspended for a week and were not able to continue their winter sports that they were involved with. On their own, these students decided to stop dating each other. Each student continued meeting with a mentor. Through the 5 month process, the school staff and faculty were able to deal with some heart issues of these two students, but it took some time. However, these two students not only graduated, but they also were able to walk during their graduation. Fast forward 17 months since the incident took place and both the guy and the girl are doing well spiritually. I can honestly say that the messy grace-based response that the school demonstrated over a 5 month period helped them see the depth of their sin, the beauty of God’s grace, and true heart-felt repentance. If they had followed the unwise path of Heritage academy, it would have brought added more unnecessary baggage to an already messy situation.

[Bert Perry]

And that’s really the reason I’m coming down fairly harshly on them; the first people we hold accountable are those with authority, not those under authority.

[Joel Shaffer]

I can honestly say that the messy grace-based response that the school demonstrated over a 5 month period helped them see the depth of their sin, the beauty of God’s grace, and true heart-felt repentance. If they had followed the unwise path of Heritage academy, it would have brought added more unnecessary baggage to an already messy situation.

What do you know about what happened at Heritage? How do you know it is even close to the experience of the young people and school you are familiar with?

You only know what is reported in the papers, you are not privy to details of what actually happened or how the young woman or her family responded to school authorities.

You are judging from ignorance.

Larry said this:

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 have never said that the penalties I suggested were Biblical truth or equated it with anything like that. I initially said that I thought the Board was overly harsh here, and I stand by that. I even proposed a set of penalties that I thought would be more equitable and appropriate, which you cited, and yet you keep saying that I’m equating my options with Biblical truth and now you’re accusing me of telling untruths or lying. I won’t debate that with you because it’s not what I actually said.

It’s one thing to say that I think HCA overreacted, and I do still think that they did. Joel’s example above is more like what I would have preferred to have seen done. My proposed penalties would be more like what I would have seen done. Reasonable men and women can debate that, which is why I jumped on this discussion in the first place. I thought I had mentioned Gal. 6:1, but maybe I haven’t, and I’m glad Joel brought that up.
For the record, I don’t agree with Bert on the whole ‘bride-price’ thing. I don’t think we have a clear-cut example of how to handle something like this in the NT, which is probably actually a good thing…does anyone want to be tied to practices from AD 60 or so? Anyone?

And finally, I also wanted to note that Lee’s assault on Maddi’s character as a ‘strange woman’ is completely inappropriate and out of line.

I feel kind of like this guy… :)

Larry said this:

Jay, this is simply flat out false. You have said many things that are unsupported (or that you refused to offer any support for), but this is beyond that. They did not treat her as a non-person and they did not ban her from school grounds entirely.

This is Maddi’s account of the initial punishment, which is what I was referring to:

I was not allowed to attend school as my principal and the board decided if I would be allowed to return at all, and I would be stripped of all leadership positions. I wasn’t allowed to attend sports games to watch my brother play basketball or baseball, and I wouldn’t be allowed on campus until after the baby was born. I would be allowed to receive my diploma, but I would have to take all my classes at home, and wouldn’t be allowed to walk at graduation.

I think the distinction is that they would allow her to receive her diploma, but she was banned - ‘not allowed on campus’ - until after graduation.

I said that they treated her as a non-person because, for all intents and purposes, she didn’t exist at HCA any more. She wasn’t allowed on campus, she was removed from all her offices and allowed to finish her schoolwork but only if she did so at home, and she would have been discussed in the third person at the student body meeting (to explain her pregnancy) if they hadn’t relented and let her address the student body herself on that point.

Now maybe they changed that later on, and I don’t know if they rescinded all of that or just particular parts. In any case, that initial punishment was way more than warranted in my eyes. Others may disagree, and I’m OK with that…that’s why we’re discussing this on SharperIron.

Jay, I don’t know if this is willful on your part or if it’s just sloppy, but she was not banned from the school entirely. She received a two-day suspension. Which means two days later she was back. She was allowed to finish classes and attend school rather than be expelled or homeschooled. Even the article you link to is explicit. Maddi says, “I would be allowed back to finish the year with my classmates, but I couldn’t be in any leadership positions in school clubs, and I still couldn’t walk at graduation.”

That answers two of your frequently made points: (1) They didn’t entirely ban her from the school. (2) They didn’t add on the not walking later.

You were wrong. Doubling down on that is wrong. The article you cut and pasted from contradicts your own statement, Jay.

At the best it is just sloppy. I hope you were intentionally not telling the truth. Either way, it is unacceptable. You have been so dogmatic and it is increasingly obvious that you are uninformed. You apparently didn’t even read the articles you cut and pasted from. You want to talk about how Christians should treat each other. Well, how about we start with telling the truth about other Christians? Is that too much to ask?

I think this thread gives us a glimpse of one of the battlefields of the civil war within Fundamentalism. It’s amazing how many Fundamental ministries go “soft on sin” when a member of the leadership’s family falls into open sin (unwed pregnancy, homosexuality, immorality, divorce, etc.). Do we separate from such ministries, or do we continue to fellowship with them in spite of the differences on how we deal with open sin?

In this case, Heritage Academy consistently applied its disciplinary policies (as those policies would have been applied in the past by similar institutions) even when they negatively affected the Chairman of the Board’s daughter. Some of us applaud their consistency; others condemn their harshness.

“Convergence with Evangelicals” and “softness on sin” are the current battlefields within Fundamentalism. The bullets are flying!

At the best it is just sloppy. I hope you were intentionally not telling the truth. Either way, it is unacceptable.

You know what, Larry? You’re right - I was conflating the initial punishment of being barred from the campus with the final outcome. That’s another mistake I made on the thread, and I’m sorry about all the confusion there. I should have been more careful.
As for the whole ‘adding on the not walking later’ - I apologized for that and dealt with it on Friday at 12:01:

As for the whole changing punishment thing - I was mistaken. I thought I read that and I was wrong. My apologies to all.

I’m not sure if you missed that post or not, but I had seriously thought that penalty was added later. That was also my mistake.

Going to try and disengage from the thread again now. Thanks, Larry, for the sharpening.