
After  an international Christian group for college students, InterVarsity  Christian Fellowship, was “derecognized” by all 23 California State  University schools because IVCF wouldn’t stop requiring its leaders to  hold Christian beliefs, a writer for Christianity Today wondered what  might be coming next.
 
 “It’s not just InterVarsity that will be impacted,” Ed Stetzer  wrote. “Following the same logic, any group that insists on requiring  its leaders to follow an agreed upon set of guiding beliefs is no longer  kosher (irony intended) at California’s state universities. This will  impact many other faith-based organizations with actual, well,  faith-based beliefs. Presumably, even People for the Ethical Treatment  of Animals would have to allow Oscar Meyer to lead their campus  chapters.”
 
 Stetzer then offered, “Only in a modern American university would this make any sense.”
 
 More from his analysis:
 
 Now, it’s not persecution. Christians are not banned. People can  share their faith. But, now, what we once called “equal access” has  taken another hit — people of faith do not have equal access to the  university community, like the environmentalist club, the LGBT  organization, or the chess club.
 
 The university system has decided that speech with beliefs that  undergird it — and shape how it is organized — has to be derecognized.
 
 Stetzer asked IVCF’s national field director & campus access  coordinator to explain how the IVCF chapters in California state schools  are affected. Here’s what Greg Jao told him:
 
 Loss of recognition means we lose 3 things: free access to rooms  (this will cost our chapters $13k-30k/year to reserve room). We also  lose access to student activities programs, including the new student  fairs where we meet most students. We also lose standing when we engage  faculty, students and administrators.
 
 Stetzer tore into what he sees as universities’ “continual  sanitization of unacceptable religious voices” and then noted a very big  irony, writing that “those who champion nondiscrimination, in the name  of nondiscrimination, are creating rules that push out those who  ‘discriminate’ based on biblical belief statements.”
 
 Jao sees another irony, telling Stetzer that “the university is  using a rule intended to protect and to include religious groups to  exclude religious groups because they want their leaders to be  representatives of that religion. It’s an imposition of a civil religion  (democratic process) on a religious leadership selection issue.”
 
 Stetzer concluded by noting it appears this trend will continue.
 
 “But, the question remains, how will Christians react? I hope they  won’t call themselves persecuted, since that lessens the persecution  in, for example, Iran. However, I also hope they will speak up  graciously. And, that even people who are not religious will see the  danger of stripping faith from the organized conversation at the  university.”