>Return-path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:01:38 -0500 (EST)
>From: Josh Pack <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask] (fwd)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Dave, please get this on our listserve.  I couldn't get it out there.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:45:34 -0500
>From: "L-Soft list server at Miami University (1.8b)"
>     <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Josh Pack <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>
>You  are  not  authorized  to  send  mail  to  the  SCHOLEAD  list  from
your
>[log in to unmask] account. You might be  authorized to send to
the
>list from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail
program
>which  generates slightly  different addresses,  but  LISTSERV has  no way
 to
>associate this other account or address  with yours. If you need
assistance or
>if you  have any question  regarding the policy  of the SCHOLEAD  list,
please
>contact the list owners: [log in to unmask]
>
>------------------------ Rejected message (90 lines)
--------------------------
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from MIAMIU (NJE origin SMTP3@MIAMIU) by MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
(LMail
>          V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 6929; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:45:25 -0500
>Received: from miavx1.acs.muohio.edu by MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU (IBM VM SMTP
V2R2)
>   with TCP; Thu, 09 Oct 97 23:45:24 EST
>Received: from miavx1.acs.muohio.edu by miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
> (PMDF V5.1-9 #19147) id <[log in to unmask]> for
> [log in to unmask]; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:45:40 EST
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:45:40 -0500 (EST)
>From: Josh Pack <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Question and discussion item
>In-reply-to: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "Scholar Leaders at Miami University (Ohio USA)"
> <[log in to unmask]>
>Message-id:
> <[log in to unmask]>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Only read this if you have time to read the whole message.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Ephesians 5:22-33:
>
>       "Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is
>the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of
>which he is the Savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also
>wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
>
>       "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and
>gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing
>with water through the word, and without stain or wrinkle or any other
>blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love
>their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.
>After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it
>just as Christ does the church-for we are members of his body.  'For this
>reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
>and the two will become one flesh.' (Gen. 2:24)  This is a profound
>mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.  However, each one
>of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
>respect her husband."
>
>********************************************************************
>
>       OK.  That was Paul writing all that to a Church in Ephesus 50
>years (give or take) after Christ was ascended.  Paul was just a man and
>never married, but most Christians (including me) take Paul's letters to
>be the word of God just as if He came down and spoke it himself.  Literal
>translation of the Bible is a tough issue and that is not my main purpose
>here.  I would like you all to know however that I have heard a message
>from a pastor I love listening to regarding the whole "submission" issue.
>He said that many word studies of older texts indicate that "submit" has a
>meaning that is much closer to our modern "support".  Try rereading the
>scripture and replacing "submit to" with "support".
>
>       I was at Promise Keepers in DC this past weekend.  I thought that
>I might share a couple things.  First, I can understand how many people
>are cautious in supporting or denouncing a group of such size and
>visibility, especially one consisting of men.  Having said that, there is
>little if anything to fear about Promise Keepers.  The only complaint that
>anyone can really come up with is the above scripture.  This is not a
>Promise Keepers idea, it is a Christ idea (or Paul if you wish).  I can
>not deny that there may be men in PK who would love to take this scripture
>and use it to their advantage, but these are immensely outnumbered by men
>who wish to be the best servants that they can be to their wives and
>families by living a Christ centered life and by taking personal
>responsibility for the spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and whatever
>other condition of their family.  This by no means excludes the wife from
>taking a leadership role as well.  In general, Promise Keepers just wishes
>that men would grow up and start doing the dishes, listening to their
>kids, praying for their wives, fixing the sink... There are so many who
>just come home from work turning on the TV asking, "What's for dinner?"
>There is a lack of care there.  That is the controversy.  That is what
>the National Organization of Women and others who fear the religious right
>are questioning.  Is that a fifties reactionary idea?  Is it to much to
>ask or hope for?  I would think that Christian or no, almost anyone who
>wants a good family life would value this "Promise Keeper's" concept.
>Shouldn't we all?
>
>       If you want to know more about PK, there is going to be a
>panel/discussion/interview/newspaper thing at 6PM next Thursday in room
>100 Art Building.  I won't be there since I have a test, but some writers
>and other guys who went to DC will be.  Keep in mind that the family issue
>is only a part of what PK (and Jesus) are trying to accomplish.  There are
>church, racial, personal, and Christ related issues as well.  I am sure
>that Political Science majors, would know how better to analyze the
>political side of things, but an opening speaker firmly requested that the
>event not be thought of as a political rally.  It was more to open eyes of
>viewers and to touch those who attended.  I don't know this for fact, but
>it has been said that Clinton requested to speak and was declined.
>
>
>