Much better.
I would suggest that in order to be a member of the Christian Club, prospective members should only be required to sign a statement of agreement with the larger Westminster Confession. Chances are that none of the Liberal Professors and Administrators would ever be able to decipher the underlying theme that this would require a REAL personal commitment to Jesus Christ.
While I subscribe to the WCF and the catechisms, it would eliminate baptists, self-aware Lutherans and most Presbyterians.
That would make sense if it were a "Calvinist" club. But any "Christian" Club that would require members to sign the Westminster Confession would make about 80% of Christians ineligible for membership. Catholics wouldn't sign any document that declares the Pope is the Antichrist, and that the Roman Catholic mass is a form of idolatry. That makes as much sense as having an "Computer club" that forbids members to buy non-Apple products.
The article points out that the Greek organizations are permitted to be explicit about their leadership. I would assume they’re permitted to insist that the leader be a member of the group. A 3D leader has to be a 3D.
Just my guess. Don’t know if I’m right or not.
The Christian group, though, covers a lot of Christian denominations. That’s probably why they went general with: “must have a personal commitment”. My guess is they were trying to parallel the “must be a Lamda” thing that the Greeks get away with.
I think I’d say they use: “must be a member (or equivalent term used by) of some Christian church”.