>Return-path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:06:31 -0500 (EST)
>From: PMDF e-Mail Interconnect <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
>
>  Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
>  Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:06:29 -0400
>  From: "David A. White IV" <[log in to unmask]>
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>  Subject: response
>
>Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
>
>  Recipient address: [log in to unmask]
>  Reason: Illegal host/domain name found
>
>Original-envelope-id: [log in to unmask]
>Reporting-MTA: dns; miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
>
>Action: failed
>Status: 5.4.4 (Illegal host/domain name found)
>Original-recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask]
>Final-recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask]
>Return-path: [log in to unmask]
>Received: from TCP-DAEMON by miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #19147)
> id <[log in to unmask]>
> (original mail from [log in to unmask]); Thu,
> 9 Oct 1997 18:06:31 EST
>Received: from whiteda.muohio.edu ("port 1253"@[134.53.121.83])
> by miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (PMDF V5.1-9 #19147)
> with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]> for
> [log in to unmask]; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:06:30 EST
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:06:29 -0400
>From: "David A. White IV" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: response
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Just to let you know Denny, I agree with you not allowing non-Scholar
>Leaders onto the list serve.  I like knowing whom I'm sending things to and
>who is sending them to me.  Thanks.
>
>
>My response to Promise Keepers is as follows.  I myself have not gone to a
>PK event but I encourage those who did from Elliott to share their views on
>this list serve.  There is something in the works for an info session about
>PK on campus.  Keep your ears open if you're interested.  I believe the
>passage that Denny is referring to is or is similar to Ephesians 5:22-33.
>Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord".  To understand this we must
>first understand the relationship between Christ and the church.  Ephesians
>goes on to say "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church
>and gave himself up for her. . ."  Promise Keepers promotes men loving as
>Christ did.  Striving to give yourself up to your wife and family so that
>the whole family is better off.  It is an attitude of servanthood for the
>husband.  Yes, wives are to submit to their husbands but it's not a one
>sided deal.  Husbands as well submit to their wive's well being.  It is a
>reciprocal relationship which involves a mutual respect and love for each
>one's role in marriage.
>
>I think that is a decent explanation of the intended marital relationship.
>I think PK just wants more men to committ to following through on their
>part.  Please, fellas who have attended correct me if I'm off.  I would
>like to hear others thoughts as well.
>
>Thanks for reading,
>
>David IV
>