There are many Christian circles where members are required to adhere to a certain code of conduct. One such example was my high school, which had rules such as no dancing, men cannot have long hair, women's skirts must be of a certain length, etc. Evangelical colleges also have their own set of rules; most notably is the common rule that practicing same-sex attraction is prohibited. The degree to which this is deemed unacceptable varies from school to school, but the bottom line is that anti-LGBT rules are in place.
One time in high school, an extremely demeaning assembly took place. The administration gathered a group of men whose hair had been deemed "out of dress code" and evaluated them one at a time in front of the other attendees. I was one of those students, and I spoke out about the injustice of it by publishing a Note about it on Facebook. I got a lot of positive feedback; but I also got a lot of feedback defending my school. The defenses largely came from current faculty. A common theme in the defending feedback was, "Remember that you signed a contract saying that you would abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can leave."
Evangelical colleges defend their anti-LGBT rules by saying something similar. "Attending this school is tacit agreement to abide by the rules. If you don't like it, you can leave." More or less.
There are a few problems with this perspective.
1) It encourages people to leave the community for non-faith related reasons. The institutions, which are supposed to be "Christian," are willing to drop someone from their community over something completely non-essential. Not only that, but it also treats the victim as dispensable. There is no effort made to try to convince the student to stay in the community; it's a "take-it-or-leave-it" perspective.
2) It denies the fact that there is a reason other than the rules that these students chose to attend these institutions. If the rules were all that mattered to the student, then s/he would have left already. But s/he sees value in remaining a part of that particular community in spite of the flawed regulations. Saying, "you can leave" trivializes and devalues the student's connection to the community.
3) It discourages any self-reflection. There is a reason this rule became an issue for a student. This instance would be a perfect opportunity to take time and examine the health of the community, and if the rules are causing more harm or good. Communities should not be satisfied with the status quo; they should be seeking to improve.
Besides, if someone is "living in sin" or whatever, wouldn't it make the most sense to hold that person even more closely in an attempt to "restore" him/her to "holiness"? Instead, the student in violation is presented with the option to leave the safe community. Are they supposed to return to "holiness" on their own? How will they if they're already "living in sin" according to your perspective? Pushing a person away is the last thing you should want to do if you sincerely care about a person.
I was inspired to write this after reading this article today.
