I was watching NBC News (KECI) out of Missoula, Montana, this morning (11/14/2019) when I noticed a tidbit on their news feed scroller. I may not have the words exactly right, but it’s close enough for anyone to get the message.
“Bozeman High School students are challenging a Christian club (FCA) for not being inclusive.”
A news article from
the Bozeman Daily Chronicle can be seen here.
It would be easy to
lose focus here by condemning this club for discriminating against
the ‘disaffected’ students. It would also be just as easy to
excoriate the students for attempting to impose their own agenda onto
the club. It would be futile to try to produce some type of common
ground between them so that all the participants could be happy and
satisfied.
A club, any club,
has to be exclusive, prejudicial, and discriminating. Every club, no
matter what its religion, philosophy, purpose, bent, or goal MUST
ABSOLUTELY determine what it will be and who will be part of it. By
its very nature, a club is an exclusive group of people who band
together to accomplish a certain pre-defined task. It simply can’t
be any other way.
Think about all the
myriad things that individual people have an interest in. Immediately
relevant to this discussion are religion and lifestyle, not always
mutually compatible. Sports, gardening, social activity,
philosophical thought, guns, sewing circles, etc., etc., and on and
on and on. The list is endless. However, no matter WHAT the club is
involved in, it always has one purpose: to promote the interests of
its members.
Let’s look at one
easily defined category—chess. Chess is a game unlike any other and
there are millions of people around the world who are fascinated by
it. Innumerable clubs have been set up in order to bring people
together who are interested in playing and have a desire to improve
their skills.
World-wide, the one
thing in common among all the groups, however, is that they are all
dedicated solely and completely to the game of chess. Nothing else.
It is an exclusive club. Non-devotees need not apply.
Imagine the
consternation and chaos that would ensue if someone from outside the
club wanted to join, but was determined to force the club to allow
members who wanted to play Tiddly-Winks. Both are games, after all,
so there shouldn’t be a problem. Except for one thing—when a
chess club starts importing other games into its structure, it no
longer is a chess club. It has morphed into something different which
might satisfy some people, but will repel the true believers, who
will likely tender their resignation from the club.
Every club has
ground rules about who it will accept, what the focus is on, how that
focus will be accomplished, how the rules will be enforced, why
someone will be asked to leave, et al. These rules may be written or
not. They may be formal or not. They may be set in stone or subject
to constant change, but the one thing which can’t be denied is that
they provide a structure so that the club can operate under its
original charter.
As pertains to the
situation in Bozeman, if the excluded students actually succeed in
joining the club, they have two choices—change themselves to fit
the parameters of the club OR change the club to fit their own
preferences. In the case of the first, they will, by conforming to
the rules, become part of the club as it was originally designed. In
the case of the second, the club will become something else.
As far as the club
is concerned, it also has two choices—either continue to exclude
certain persons and thoughts from its structure OR to allow and
accept competing ideologies which will inevitably dilute its message.
In the case of the first, someone’s feelings are going to be hurt
because they are not given access due to their refusal to conform. In
the case of the second, the “Christian” part of the club will
simply disappear and something antagonistic to it will appear.
Regardless of belief
and opinion, the right of certain people to disassociate themselves
from others ought to be ironclad and unassailable. No one person or
any group of persons should be required to associate with anyone else
who promotes or holds an incompatible viewpoint. Freedom of
association (or disassociation) should be the preeminent right
accorded to everyone. Otherwise, we become a society in which
personal beliefs and opinions become weapons to force others into
submission to ourselves and our agendas.