Would allowing neo-Nazis to join an ethnic rights group affect the group’s ability to define and defend equality, fairness, and justice?

Would forcing the organic gardening club to accept students who define “organic” in a way that includes Round-Up change the organic gardening club’s ability to promote their hobby?

I fail to see the connection that you made about how admitting a certain person suddenly changes the theology of the club or challenges the theology of the club.

If the club has a theologically-formed policy of not admitting “certain persons,” then being required to admit those persons obviously challenges its theology.

I fail to see the connection that you made about how admitting a certain person suddenly changes the theology of the club or challenges the theology of the club.

Religion is not only a matter of belief, it is also a matter of practice, including the practice of assembly. These practices are theologically formed and informed. Maybe that is what makes it hard to see the connection: if you do not see the intimate link between theology, belief, and practice, you might think that requiring a Christian group to change its practice has no impact on its theology. This is just wrong.

It is in fact a matter of theology that belief and practice are matters of theology, so if the university were to say, “Your policies concerning who joins your club are not part of your Christian theology,” the club could say, “There you go again: you’re making yet another theological statement that is not your place to make. Our policies are tied to our theology, and that very fact itself is part of our theology.”

Suppose the club makes a theological statement of the sort that Pentamom laid out: “Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore unrepentant homosexuals are sinners. You are an unrepentant sinner. You cannot join a club composed of Christians, who are (in part) identified by their repentance from sin.”

If the university contradicts or overrides that, then they are imposing their version of what is correct policy concerning assembly. That policy has a contrary impact on theologically-informed club policy. It is thus an infringement of religious freedom, and it is also an authoritarian imposition on the theology behind club policy.

Specifically Moreover, if the student government is proceeding according to the reasoning you’ve suggested, then it has made a theological determination and is asking the university also to make a theological determination: to tell the student Christian groups their theology is wrong. This is clearly a violation of religious freedom, and it is clearly discriminatory against a religious viewpoint.

This where I made the point that I don’t feel like the school is making a theological statement at all. If this was the case, than the school would say “You need to accept homosexuals because they haven’t done anything wrong”, instead the school is saying “You need to admit homosexuals into your club because they are a student, and on this campus all clubs are open to students.”

I fail to see the connection that you made about how admitting a certain person suddenly changes the theology of the club or challenges the theology of the club.

In addition I don’t feel like this was discrimination against religion. If that was the case than ONLY religious groups would have to be open to everyone, but instead every club on campus must have an open member policy. In fact, in this regard the club (and extended religions on campus) were in fact receiving special treatment over other clubs on campus because they were allowed to exclude members. I feel that in this case it is the school being consistent with it’s policy and not discriminatory.

First some context: in a similar situation in California, the school required the group to admit persons of contrary viewpoints not only to membership but to positions as voting officers. Astonishingly, the school’s right to do that was upheld in court. I don’t know if OSU would make the same requirement or not. Having no specific information, it’s impossible to dismiss the possibility.

Second, let’s recognize that your comment has taken us down a bit of a side trail. The original blog post was about a university’s attempt to restrict freedom of religion and freedom of association. Your comment was about Christian groups’ attitude toward homosexuals. Those are two different questions. Though your comment was slightly off topic, it was close enough to it that I thought it worth noting that at least one Christian group is quite free of the ungracious attitude you warned against. I hoped that might address and help alleviate the concern you raised.

Note, however, that your question was essentially theological in nature, and I continue to hold that this is precisely what the university should keep its nose out of. Suppose the student government were to discover what you wrote here, and then they went to InterVarsity or Campus Crusade or the Christian Legal Society and said, “Look, if you follow [Mr. Dell's] approach, that’s fine, because [as Mr. Dell pointed out] that’s really being Christian.” I hope you can see that would be wrong. It’s not the Student Government’s place to determine what’s really Christian, and it’s not the university’s either.

Yes, that’s how those who wish to join view it. But you seemed to be criticizing the group for excluding the people on the basis that they were sinners, when that’s not the point — they’re excluding people for being unrepentant, and even if they are unrepentant because of a putatively false belief about the wrongness of homosexuality, that’s still non-repentance from the POV of the current group members.

At any rate it’s either “I want to join a group with whom I disagree about something they consider fundamental to the group’s identity,” which is odd, or “I want to join a Christian group that considers me to be unrepentant of sin and therefore not a Christian at all” which leaves one wondering again, why — what kind of fellowship they think they have with people who deny that they are Christians?

In either case….why? In either case, they are wishing to be part of something that denies that they, as they are, are entitled to be a part of it. It would be like Sarah Brady wanting to join the NRA — as a matter of law I suppose she’d be allowed to, but people are entitled scratch their heads over what the purpose of it could be, and whether any purpose would be served by forcing the NRA to admit her should they wish to exclude her?

The campus ministry with which I am associated welcomes homosexuals as members. The line is drawn at the point where welcoming them as members would also mean (a) endorsing, supporting, or condoning homosexual practice

Yet you never in any sense provide a bright line as to when allowing homosexual members into a club suddenly becomes endorsing their practices. You said that the ministry welcomes homosexual members. The you go on to say that welcoming them somehow ALSO becomes endorsing them? I fail to see where you draw this “line”. In what circumstance does admitting homosexual members become endorsing their practice? Similarly, at what point does admitting Catholic members into the group mean that the club endorses transubstantiation? The school never says “Christianity needs to endorse homosexual practice” The school instead says “Your club needs to open to EVERYONE, including homosexuals”. It’s not the fact that they are homosexuals that they should be allowed in the club, it is because they are a student.

In addition, the club is never commanded to tell the homosexual members that their ministry agrees with their lifestyle. A homosexual member can be admitted into the club and be made well aware by the other members that the club strongly disagrees with his or her theological position.

To your second point about leadership: I agree to the point that you make. I also believe that homosexuals should likely not be in a position of leadership, especially of the club feels that homosexual practices are immoral. However, I ask if the leadership of the group is determined by the school? Or by the club members? Or maybe the leadership is appointed by the former leader? In all of these cases, I would doubt that the school administration determines the leadership of the club. I may be wrong, that’s just an educated guess after being involved with two campus ministries, and if the school ministry DOES in fact determine leadership of the group, than there is an issue in that case.

But if NOT, than the leadership point you made doesn’t have any relevance to the discussion. The members of the group determine the leadership, and the club can create by-laws to prevent homosexuals from becoming leaders of the group. The school, in this scenario, is determining the criteria for entry to the club, not the leadership.

Pentamom,
Homosexuals don’t follow the logic of “We know homosexuality is a sin, we just don’t care”. They take the position of “homosexuality is not a sin”. Though I personally disagree with this, the case comes down to a different theological view, not necessarily refusal to repent for sins. In other words, homosexuals similarly identify with repentance of sins, they simple don’t believe homosexuality is a sin.

In a similar scenario, Christians are also identified by the grace that they receive from God. Even more so, I would argue, than repentance from sin. Catholics believe that the seven sacraments are necessarily for salvation, for they are necessarily to receive their respective modes of grace. So if we are to follow the logic that a member must have consistent “identifying” Christian traits, than the club should additionally catholic members, because their identification of grace through God comes through the seven sacraments, and very few protestants share this view with the catholic church.

“Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore unrepentant homosexuals are sinners. You are an unrepentant sinner. You cannot join a club composed of Christians, who are (in part) identified by their repentance from sin.”

The campus ministry with which I am associated welcomes homosexuals as members. The line is drawn at the point where welcoming them as members would also mean (a) endorsing, supporting, or condoning homosexual practice, and/or (b) placing anyone in leadership who is either practicing or promoting it. The Bible is clear about these things. We have the same policy toward heterosexual immorality.

One can argue that the school’s administration has no place to decide that admittance of the club, but saying that admitting gays into a Christian club is forcing Christians on campus to accept homosexuality as moral is simply outrageous and unfounded.

The situation is not a matter of whether homosexuality is acceptable or not, but it is whether the school should have a policy regarding the admittance of clubs. Either the school holds a policy that there can be no discrimination of any kind for club admittance, or that clubs have the ability to decide their member body with their own discretion.

Gays that believe that homosexuality is compatible hold their own theological view of Christianity. Many in the Christian community believe that this is wrong and that homosexuality is sinful. This is a heavily debated and I believe wrong view of theology, however it is still a Christian perspective. Similarly, Quakers deny the idea of original sin. Many disagree with this theology, but it is still a Christian theology.

Essentially, much of the logic that is being proposed, and I will use specifically the example of orthodoxdj (hey adams!!!), is that the admittance of personell of the group is what decides the theology or purpose of the group.

I think the Hindu student union should admit that Muslims are right and I also believe Muslims should provide tracts that prove the deity of Christ…
If this logic is the case (that accepting members into a club with different theologies is the same as the club admitting all theologies correct), than accepting quakers and calvinists into the group would also mean that the club denies original sin and simultaniously believes in TULIP. Also, if the club were to admit Catholics, than the whole club also believes in transubstantation and the club should be asking for funds from the school for confessionals.

So I think that the issue is whether the school has the authority to tell clubs who they can or can’t admit. If the school tells clubs that they must be open to everyone, than it should be consistent and the club should not discriminate on the admittance of it’s members. This may have muslims coming to Christian groups, and the Muslim will be likely be told by other members that they disagree with Muslim theology. This may spur debate within the club, but it does not force the Christian club to accept Muslim theology.
OR, the club could say that it is up to the club’s discretion on the admittance of it’s members. However, I believe that since the club provides the funds and often facilities of the clubs, than the school has the right to say that membership should be open. As I pointed out above, saying that a club must admit all applicants is not the same as saying that a club must AGREE with all of the applicants.

On a side note, I find it odd that a Christian club of all things would deny homosexual membership. Obviously, the club does not agree with homosexuality. So the thought process of the club is: “Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore homosexuals are sinners. You are a sinner. You cannot join the club.”
—Hardly a position I would like to associate with Christianity. Once my church takes this position, that sinners are no longer allowed, than I will gladly leave my church with a smile on my face.

What reason do they have to wish to be part of a Christian club that includes in its tenets that homosexuals cannot be fully recognized as practicing Christians?

That’s *precisely* where it’s a theological problem — the university wants the right to tell the club that “homosexuals cannot be fully recognized as practicing Christians” is an “optional” part of its belief system. But to do so is in fact to dictate or make judgments about the content of the belief system.

Why just talk about homosexuals?

True, but this is the point of attack. The universities are not passive, but rather are active participants in this agena. What we see in the universities is LGBT, not LGBTH, where H would be the advancement of Heterosexual immorality directed specifically against Christian morality, or LGBTM, where M would be Materialism versus the Christian ethic.

Once Christianity is forced to accept …

Seems to be the whole point right there.