Tish Warren found out that she was the wrong kind of Christian for Vanderbilt.  The fact that she was not a fundamentalist, and that her group (affiliated with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) generally welcomed a very broad range of Christian ideals did not matter much to university leadership.

It didn’t matter to them if we were politically or racially diverse, if we cared about the environment or built Habitat homes. It didn’t matter if our students were top in their fields and some of the kindest, most thoughtful, most compassionate leaders on campus. There was a line in the sand, and we fell on the wrong side of it.

Vanderbilt demands student groups have an “all-comers” policy for leadership positions–thus an atheist, or a Muslim or a Hindu must be equally eligible to be the president of a Christian student organization.  For Ms. Warren, she believes that the offense of banned Christian groups simply comes down to this:

The line between good and evil was drawn by two issues: creedal belief and sexual expression. If religious groups required set truths or limited sexual autonomy, they were bad—not just wrong but evil, narrow-minded, and too dangerous to be tolerated on campus.

Ms. Warren has left saddened by the experience, but not unchanged.  Her group is still there, and their new name (since they cannot have anything saying Vanderbilt) is We Are Here.   She recognizes now what most of us do not–the cross of Christ is offensive.  And she is not defeated; her battle cry is that

We need not be afraid; the gospel is as unstoppable as it is unacceptable.

Vanderbilt’s derecognition was matched earlier this month by the entire Cal-State system, which derecognizes Christian groups such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship that require student leaders to have a faith position.  The trend only continues.

For Bereans, we share the sadness of students that are no longer welcome in their universities precisely because they have faith in a God who requires and is worthy of complete devotion.  But we are not surprised.  We know that there is an underlying spiritual battle behind earthly matters, and neither Satan nor God is interested in a truce.  We should not expect peace in these affairs–just the opposite:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

There is only one question–in this issue as well as all others–the continuing question of Christ, “Who do you say that I am?”

PS: for those concerned about this issue, please consider attending the upcoming Cedarville University Religious Freedom Summit

EDIT:  Here are links to additional articles on this subject you may be interested in (from our friends at AEI):

·         A new piece in The Atlantic Monthly this week asks what students lose, in terms damaged pluralism, when campuses prepare young people for citizenship via this doctrine.

·         Harvey Silverglate pens a WSJ op-ed describing the legal dynamics involved, using civil rights history and a Boston gay-rights case to explain how today’s tables have turned.

·         Recent AEI speaker Charlie Peacock describes as a Christian musician the difference between healthy discrimination and “anti-discrimination.”

·         A Bloomberg piece by Virginia Postrel argues that California’s Executive Order 1068 privileges only one brand of diversity, which harms racially diverse Christian minority communities.