“Heck they don’t even hold Deacons/Elders in my church to these sorts of standards”

So they don't hold elders and deacons in your church to Biblical standards? Husband of one wife, not a drunkard, above reproach, not open to the charge of debauchery: these are all requirements for an elder. Why shouldn't leadership in a Christian organization use the same Biblical requirements for leaders?

I was inserting my tongue into my cheek a little bit there, but seriously how well do you “abstain from acts of a sinful nature” including, but not limited to the list they provided?

We hold our elders/deacons to the appropriate standards for their positions, but we don't expect them to be perfect as apparently this organization does. Of course it doesn't sound like this organization even holds its members to its own standards. So long as they aren't gay/heathen then they can let these other things slide.

THANK YOU! I'm a tad sick of groups cloaking bigotry in religious trappings and calling it free speech. it always strikes me as missing the message for the words.

You're welcome.

I think that any volunteer organization should be able to set their own standards for membership and/or leadership. I may not agree with some Christian organizations' standards and thus I choose not to associate with them but they may set any standards they choose.

The university in this case is discriminating against the CLS. Intolerance in the name of tolerance. There seems to be a double standard being practiced by the university that basically excludes evangelical Christian groups automatically. With the policy espoused by the university in this case, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship would not be a recognized campus organization and there are many more groups who would fall into this category. Should they receive money from the university is an interesting question, but if other groups receive such funding so should these.

Christians are as hypocritical as non-Christians sometimes, but just because we have a set of standards that are impossible for us to meet on our own power does not mean that we should not have them nor strive to live into them if at all possible. If one were to look at the requirements for any decent paying job, for example, most of us would feel that no one can do all that seems to be required of them and it is probably true that most of us couldn't. What is on paper and what acutally transpires are two different things, and you may call it hypocrisy or whatever, but we set the standards, especially for leaders, high and hope that they can live into them.

Basically, fund all groups or none, even those we do not like.

Interesting. I see your point about the long list of rules to follow if you want to be part of the group, and clearly it is a bit of a stretch. Even in our church, its a long list, but its a given that someone's going to f#@% up eventually, either noticeably or secretly. I think its a list of things to strive for, knowing that you won't always succeed. I suspect thats what this organization is after as well. they're liars otherwise. (liars/lawyers… what's the difference?)

but when it comes to a group like this, I think they should be able to limit their membership- and even more so their leadership- to persons holding the same convictions. it just makes sense. I mean, would a club for female lawyers be required to admit men? or a group for black lawyers be required to admit whites? Would a group for homosexual lawyers be required to let a straight christian dude join and vote, and potentially run for an office? How about a Muslim group?

Now, should the group get funds from the school? should any group get funds from the school?

i don't know. somewhere there is a line that must be drawn determining what groups get access to facilities and perks, and maybe money. Otherwise you could end up with hate groups or whatever. but requiring any group to accept persons in opposition to their core values? at church we accept sinners in our midst, cause we all are, which means we have sinners in leadership roles. and we welcome those that participate in those sins that are somehow deemed more evil- but there we're just talking about attendance, not membership or leadership. but that may not be far off either if some people get their way.

perhaps you just accept anybody and hope and pray that only the like-minded apply?

Here's the thing though, they can set their own standards. They just can't discriminate and expect to get perks given to groups that don't. Is the University discriminating? Sure. Both groups are allowed to discriminate.

The University has to draw a bright line when it comes to these issues. If it was them that changed their policies effecting an existing group I might feel differently, but these were established rules and the CLS group decided to change their charter. They knew before they did that what the answer was likely to be. Now they're whining about it.

If other groups who discriminate in this fashion are getting money, etc. then you're right. If not then, no they shouldn't get any. The University should be enforcing their rules fairly.

We as Christians should have standards, make no mistake. As I said, our church does follow the Biblical guidelines for Elders/Deacons and I think they're good ones. I guess what I'm saying is though, if these are guidelines then make them guidelines and make the same exceptions for homosexual students that you would for students who struggle with other sins.

As far as who should get funding and whether or not the school should have such a policy, well that's a different topic altogether.

Certainly that's a list worth striving for but that's not the language they're using. These guys are lawyers (or lawyer wannabes) and should know the power of bylaws and these sorts of statements. It's one thing to say “Officers also must “abstain[] from ‘acts of the sinful nature,’” and another to say that Officers also must strive to “abstain[] from ‘acts of the sinful nature,’”. I think there needs to be room in there for some grace and I don't see any.

I think groups can (and should) be able to limit membership. The guidelines are clear that if they do, they won't receive everything that other groups will. Interestingly enough this group doesn't limit membership, just leadership. Would an atheist work to be a leader in this group? Probably only if he/she were barred from it to make a point.

I'm thinking if they did accept people that they differ with theologically in leadership roles (depending on what those roles were) perhaps that would change more laws for the good than being buttoned up?

And then you can get into the whole question of explicit and implicit discrimination. While this group's discrimination is explicit, I have experienced groups in my lifetime that while there is nothing written about who is accepted and who isn't do indeed practice discrimination. Much harder to figure out and deal with which is why it is generally ignored, even by such august bodies as the University of California.

Not my hill to die on, but an interesting topic none the less. As far as the university having to draw a bright line… maybe. We all draw our lines somewhere and the institution does as well, but it seems really ludicrous to proclaim tolerance by being intolerant. As far as funding goes, my tax dollars go to many things that I do not like nor approve of, but I still send in my tax money. Actually, my thinking is that if a group cannot raise their own support, that should tell them something about their organization and the need/desire for it.

See, there's the rub. What does abstain mean? Does it mean “don't sin, EVAR!” or does it mean don't actively live in such a way that sin controls your life? I submit it's the latter and not the former because otherwise nobody would meet those qualifications. We must judge, no, discern who meets those criteria and because we're flawed we make flawed decisions. Also, I draw a distinction between someone who is trying to overcome sin (be it lying, fornication (hetero- and homo- flavors), murder, or deceit) and someone who says, “Screw that,” and lives a life that is not consistent with Christian principles.

[...] Recently, Scott Roche became aware about the now 6 year old legal battle Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez (UC Hastings) because it has finally reached the Supreme Court and the oral argument was presented on April 19, 2010 (transcript pdf available here). I posted some comments on his blog post. [...]

[...] Recently, Scott Roche became aware about the now 6 year old legal battle Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez (UC Hastings) because it has finally reached the Supreme Court and the oral argument was presented on April 19, 2010  (transcript pdf available here). I posted some comments on his blog post. [...]

Wow, you bought the hype hook, line and sinker.

What's that mean?

You're arguing that this group wants to discriminate against gays–which is not what the brief says. You cite the part that agrees with the newspapers position, while ignoring the context where that text is located. You admonish these Christians to be loving (as if they're not) and then ignore the fact that other groups do limit their membership to people who adhere to their mission–especially leadership roles.

Essentially, you read the paper, enjoyed NPR's broadcast and swallowed the drumbeat while proceeding to throw your brothers in Christ under the bus and then (worse) labeling them anti-Christian.

Actually my biggest problem with them isn't that they discriminated against gays (which they did and do), I can see why they do it and I don't necessarily disagree with that practice. My biggest problem is that they decided to take the matter to court and used the fallacious argument that if they didn't take this to court that everyone elses' freedoms would be at stake.

As a sidebar I also have a problem with people who use the law in a way that I think is unhelpful/unhealthy. Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I had a kneejerk reaction, but that's how it smells to me. Were I part of their group, I wouldn't seek to be an officer unless they changed the language.

I didn't throw anyone under the bus and I think it is anti-Christian to expect anyone to be able to live up to the standards that they seem to be setting. It strikes me as moralism rather than centered on grace.

I would admonish every Christian to be loving, to turn the other cheek, and to walk two miles when asked to walk one. Here I would admonish my Christian brothers to have accepted the school's policy, not because it's a good policy, but because they knew about it before they joined the national chapter and since they made the change they should be willing to live with the rules.

Tell me, what's Christian about what they did?

See, what bothers me is the notion that our Christian walk is only credible if we 'abstain[] from ‘acts of the sinful nature’. I don't recall that being one of the fruits of the spirit, unless you count self control, and then that's only one of many.

I suppose another thing that bugs me is this, “Nationwide, CLS has only once had to expel a member for beliefs inconsistent with the Statement of Faith, and it is unaware of any homosexual person being expelled from any chapter.” It seems that, as you say, it may mean that we shouldn't actively live in such a way that sin controls our life. If that's it then why not say that? I mean, if it did it would mean they could still in theory discriminate against homosexuals and non-Christians since both of those groups of people would obviously be living a life “controlled by sin”.

I would also argue that no, they don't have to “discern who meets those criteria” for leadership in their group since it was they, not God, who decided on the criteria for their group. Personally I know men who are gay that I consider to be Christians and would make fine leaders in this sort of group. Apparently this group have either never had someone who was openly gay join or they don't really police it since they've never kicked anyone out of it. I suspect a don't ask/don't tell thing is going on. That being the case, why have this as a stipulation for leadership?

Some notes:

First: They didn't (and don't) discriminate against gays. That's just false. Unless you mean in the same way that they discriminate against people committing adultery, having sex before marriage, or being an atheist. Note the rest of the bit you didn't quote:

In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith, and consequently may be regarded by CLS as disqualifying such an individual from CLS membership.” J.A. 146. The resolution applies to “all acts of sexual conduct outside of God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, which acts include fornication, adultery, and homosexual conduct.

Second: They're the ones who brought the suit–not the school. Not even a supposed discriminated against party. If it was a clear case of them discriminating against someone you would have expected to hear that–even though the media has taken to reporting it that way for the last few years.

Third: Lawsuits are the basis for new Law in this country. Lawsuits suck, but the way they are held in this culture, and the way they are weighed, they become the backbone of later regulation. This is why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was important with all that it mandated (and fought for by the joint forces of the ACLU and the CLS). This is why every brief filed always cites several other cases as case law–because of precedence.

Fourth: Is your kneejerk reaction to the lawsuit or the language of their confession of faith and mission? The leaders and voting members of the group lead bible studies–kinda' ridiculous to have an atheistic openly sexually promiscuous person leading said Bible studies.

Fifth: MoraliTY isn't antithetical to Grace even though that keeps coming up but framed pejoratively as if it is some form of legalism. Their statement of faith is as legalistic as Paul, John, Peter and the rest of your Apostolic Tradition. Indeed as legalistic as Christ who tells his followers to be more perfect than the Pharisees–in fact, as perfect as his Father.

Sixth: Is it discriminatory to allow participation of said parties and join in any of the events (which they do)? Strange form of discrimination that. But they disallowed their participation as voting members or as leaders–mostly because of the reason I listed up top. That just means that adherents to the mission and belief statements are the ones with the right to teach and vote and lead. That's as discriminatory as America who actually restricts leadership and voting membership only to American citizens.

Seventh: there was history of struggling at the local level (I remember reading since 96) which seems to be part of the reason they moved for the joining and support of the national organization. Makes sense.

Eighth: Your same admonishment would result in the continuation of Slavery in the United States, and the continuation of the Roman policy of Exposure. It was Christians who changed the ethical moires of society so that those things became deplorable. They didn't merely turn the other cheek, they stood up and said “This is wrong.” There's a reason why Abraham didn't put the same restrictions he laid on himself over his battalion of 300.

Ninth: Because their position doesn't only stand for Christians, it stands for any religious group that decides to form a society on any campus. Even though the National LGBT group stands with the school, there is actually another LGBT that stands on the side of CLS in this suit saying that yes, a group has that right.

And Tenth: Because 1 Corinthians 7 demands that a Christian stand in the position he is in and uses the resources available to him as being the best available application of Christianity to that Culture. Somewhat more about that in my e-book: http://biblearchive.com/blog/2009/reys-a-point/…

—

But that is all longhand for saying this: Give your family the benefit of the doubt, man! They may be stupid sinners but they, if you believe your Bible, have something that the darkened mind around them doesn't have. Indeed they have something that, if your Savior is right, is so deplorable to the world that the world has to shut it's mouth.

I'll shut up for now.

Hate to be the jerk in the conversation, but much as I can understand why this pisses you off as it reflects badly on your faith, I gotta side with the fundies. Free Speech means EXACTLY that. It doesn't mean “you're free to say what everyone agrees with” it means “you're free to be ugly and rock the boat.” We need the psychopaths, the assholes, the racists, the non-conformists, and the contrarians to keep reminding us. There was a time when civil rights activists would file amicus briefs on behalf of the KKK to support the Klan's right to have parades – not because they liked the Klan, but because they believed that the truth will out. Good ideas, vigorously argued, have a way of winning in an open forum. Bad ideas, when repressed, become MORE appealing because they are anti-authoritarian, forbidden, or otherwise sexy.

So, bring on the bigots! Let's argue with them. But please, never NEVER let us citizens of free societies attempt to shut the door of freedom behind ourselves. It was only that freedom to speak the unpopular that gave the boomers, one generation ago, the leverage to revolutionize the culture in ways undreamed of only a decade before. Are we to assume that we have reached moral and political perfection yet? I hope not.

-J. Daniel Sawyer