This week has seen the news of a Christian girl, Maddi Runkles, who's been banned from attending her Christian school's graduation ceremony because she's pregnant. Feeling misunderstood, Heritage Academy, Maryland clarified its position: it was not her pregnancy, but her sexual immorality that prompted the punishment.
The story, which sounds like a satirical caricature of Christian conservatism, is just tragically true. And it's tailor-made for portrayal as a victory for cold legalism, shame-culture and sexism.
The problem is that Maddi Runkles couldn't win. When the unmarried, self-described 'born-again Christian' 18-year old became pregnant in January, she knew she was in trouble. The school's code of conduct declares that 'no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of the marriage commitment between a man and a woman', and all the students at Heritage pledge to abstinence from 'sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs'.
Bravely, she ended up confessing her situation in front of her school, and decided to keep her baby. She then found herself caught between conservatives: she won the support of pro-life groups who applauded her choice not to abort, but her conservative school was determined that that her sin shouldn't be ignored. After all, she'd been sexually immoral.
'Let me clarify some facts. Maddi is being disciplined, not because she's pregnant, but because she was immoral,' wrote the school's administrator, David R Hobbs.
He added: 'A wise man told me that discipline is not the absence of love, but the application of love. We love Maddi Runkles. The best way to love her right now is to hold her accountable for her immorality that began this situation.'
One can sympathise with the school's dilemma here while at the same time concluding it got things wrong.
The president of Students for Life of America, Kristan Hawkins, put it well: 'By banning her and her alone, the administration and board collectively decided to make a public example of one student and has either intentionally or unintentionally communicated to the school community that pregnancy (not simply premarital sex) is a shame and should not be observed within our school community.'
Maddi is part of a small class of only 15. By removing her from the ceremony, the school has placed a great pall of shame over her head. It didn't intend this story to make international news, but now it has, and what the world sees is a woman who transgressed the boundaries of sexual morality, and for her sins, must be shamed as such.
'Shame' as a concept doesn't have to be abhorrent: sometimes a sense of internal or corporate shame can be wise – human beings can be shameful. But the Church already has a reputation for being obsessed with sexual shame – parading a purity culture, obsessing over certain acts, and then labelling who's in or out.
Shame is particularly concerned with labels and identity: while guilt concerns behaviour, shame concerns the self – it's about who you are. It can be toxic. If a graduation weren't already fraught with comparison and identity crisis, for Maddi it's now a public parade for the morally pure, and she can't join in.
Sexism is at play here too. As a woman, Maddi has to bear outward sign of her 'immorality' (being pregnant) in a way that no man would have to. Of course, little has been heard of the baby's father, though he isn't part of the school. If men at the school have been sexually immoral or transgressed another boundary how would anyone know? It might not be intentional, but the system is rigged.
Christians, being ministers of Christ-like grace, are meant to reject legalism. Preachers certainly do in their sermons, but when it comes down to it, it's hard to resist the lure of the law.
Why could the indiscretion not slide? Maddi made her life choices, ones she will now live with and embrace. Does the school's moral code really require it to shame her? For outsiders – and no matter how hard the school pushes back against the accusation – it will confirm the suspicion that the Church doesn't really care about loving people – only judging them.
In Hawkins' words: 'There has got to be a way to treat a young woman who becomes pregnant in a graceful and loving way.'
When Jesus met women who had been cast out for their sexual indiscretions, he didn't dismiss them or make them beg for mercy. He embraced them and offered life, not judgment (John 4:1-26). He told those ready to stone an adulteress: 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' (John 8:7).
Evangelicals love to remind people that 'there is no one righteous, not even one' (Romans 3:10), but maybe that isn't true when it comes to sexual shame and graduation ceremonies. That's when we're taking names.
Legalism is easy, but Jesus taught a better way. Perhaps we would all do well to follow the example of Maddi Runkles, and choose life.
You can follow @JosephHartropp on Twitter.
