That's because far too many Christians say things and act in ways that indicate they do think that about others, including other Christians who do not think just like they do. I've been on the receiving end of the latter.

And for the record, the NYTimes does not imply that these particular Christians think non-Christians are sinners. This is the sentence in question:

Quote:

The leaders urged members to stay in the thick of Greek social life, rubbing shoulders with the sinners.

In the context of the article, the implication is that Greeks are sinners. After all, just a little earlier, we had:

Quote:

“Our goal is to help students lead a Christian life inside the Greek system, as contradictory as that may sound,” said Eric Holmer, the communications director for Greek InterVarsity.

As for the Times' wording vs. direct quotes, this is what caught my eye:

Quote:

Kurt Skaggs, a junior at Indiana University, sees himself as something of a missionary. “Some people go to Africa or South America,” he said, explaining his decision to join Sigma Phi Epsilon. “I can go to my frat house, where my single goal is to glorify God and share the Gospel.”

As a Christian, statements like this really make me wince and groan. This statement has pressure (with a little arrogance thrown in for good measure) written all over it, I'm afraid.

It's not about assumptions, it's about people in HERE saying that they see it in the article. Or that they would face it in certain circumstances.

Because when you say this:
You're apparently the only one who doesn't see it, so I encourage you to examine the lens through which you see the world. Every other poster on here has said this article was problematic at best, offensive at worst, and you just keep on white knighting them.

Also, funny that you keep ignoring the pretty horrid things that the organization believes/supports about homosexuality.

I know I'm late to this party, but I had to chime in:

It is not solely the New York Times that made Greek IV sound bad (unless they misquoted everyone and no one had a problem with it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2036964) I don't think it would be different- as I said, I've been invited to many things I don't believe in. The word "missionary" means different things to different people. Preaching without invitation, taking away people's choice in whether or not to listen to you, or expressing judgments on their activities is pressure. Saying, "I'm going to have bible study in my room, you're welcome to join," is not pressure in my eyes.

Clearly you can see from the quotes above, and from this one here:

Quote:

Joe Grotheer, a member of Phi Gamma Delta at DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., said some Jewish brothers had objected to Bible study in the common area, so he and others moved the sessions to a bedroom.

… they’re not just inviting people to events and having bible study in their rooms. I know that I would also feel awkward if I walked into a common area of my sorority house and there was a bible study going on. It’s not even so much “pressuring” people as much as it is making others uncomfortable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2036987) I'd bet my entire salary that no one in this interview called non-Christians "sinners." This is the way people often assume Christians think about others.

So it’s ok for you to say that non-Christians are judgmental, but it’s not ok for non-Christians to say that Christians are?

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2036995) but we're not talking about any random Christians, we're talking about a specific organization with specific goals. As someone very familiar with this organization, I am confident that this wording does not fit the doctrine of its members.

Oh, so as long as Christians have goals, they don’t believe that non-Christians are sinners. Yea, I get it now..

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2036999) I'm saying that they are a specific group of Christians who agreed to certain statements before becoming leaders in the organization. I have extreme doubts that they would use these words knowing what those statements are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2037002) No, I don't know all of the members, but I highly doubt that someone said this particular quote…

Just as I wouldn’t assume that every member of this group is a “missionary” who has been sent from God to “save the sinners,” you shouldn’t assume that not one member of this entire organization does think that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laylo (Post 2037008) Sorry if the analogy was whack. My point was that my feelings aren't about knowing these individuals, but about knowing what the organization requires.

To make sweeping generalizations about all members of any group cannot be done with absolute certainty. Organizations can require one thing, but people are still free to do as they please. Just look at our fraternities and sororities – all of our members say our creeds, believe in our mottos and perform our rituals, yet I'm willing to bet that every GLO has had at least one member who hasn’t lived up to those creeds, mottos and rituals at all times. Most, if not all GLOs have a GPA requirement.. not everyone reaches it all the time. Many GLOs have required meetings that everyone must attend.. I’m sure at least a few people have missed a meeting with no legitimate excuse. And don’t even get me started about what other people think… I couldn’t tell you, because I don’t know every member of my sorority, and I don’t pretend to know them. We are all individuals who are free to say, think, and do as we please, regardless of what organization we are a part of.

I'm taking this out of context because it made me laugh.

I am really annoyed by Christians who think they're "better Christians" than other Christians. That goes for anyone who thinks they are "better" than others who share their faith-base.

That member of Sigma Phi Epsilon said he goes to the frat house for the "single goal" of spreading the Word. I don't even want to be around people whose "single goal" is spreading the Word. I want to be able to talk about things and do things without the response to everything being "God."

On that note, the reality is that 99% of people are more awesome in their own minds than they are in real life. How people describe themselves is more based on self-identity and how they want others to perceive them rather than how they really are. It may be the case that this member of Sigma Phi Epsilon isn't doing what he claims to be doing. Or, his actions are a lot more balanced than they seem in that article.

The article made every group look bad.

Of course it is the New York Times, they do have an agenda (selling papers, by interviewing and posting enough quotes to scare those folks that believe the Christian right is ready to wipe us out, and the Christian right that is believing these are good folks fighting the the good fight of faith.)

Anybody who is taking a stance defending this article for any particular reason is wearing rose colored glasses for their particular belief system.

I would also like to point out that inviting people to events "they can say no to" can still be pressure. There was a girl in my sorority who constantly made pro-life events & invited me to them, even though she knew I was pro-choice. I asked her repeatedly to stop, but she didn't. Sure, it's easy for me to click "reject," but it's still pressure to continually invite me to Bible studies, Bible verse of the day, pro-choice, etc events if you know that I'm not interested.

I'm actually gonna play just for fun the other side of this. I don't believe inviting somebody to something that you can say no to is pressure. I think it was more disrespectful because you came to this person and they still kept inviting you.

Its a slippery slope sometimes and is more so case to case. I've seen both sides where somebody was not invited because the inviter assumed it would be offensive to the person only to still offend because the person wanted to at least be told about the event so they could decide whether or not they would want to go and whether or not it was offensive. Of course it wasn't so overt like pro-choice rally or I'm gonna save your soul come to Jesus meeting, but if I invite you to play Bingo at my church (I'll provide the denture creme LOL) and you say no, I shouldn't be thinking "Oh no, I hope she didn't think I was pressuring her to become a christian?"

Some things (not this article not exactly the best of examples) should not be filtered through our biases and should still be approached by actually developing a relationship and a bond. If we are truly bonded with our chapter brothers and sisters, it should never be an issue of whether or not a bible study is being held, or the Islamic members have a special place to pray to the east set aside, or the atheist do what they do. We should be bonded enough that if you invite me to your bible study and I politely decline, we still gonna work the work of our org.

Of course I'm talking as somebody from a small diverse chapter, so maybe I'm assuming too much.

And I think that's the problem, one invite is cool*, repeated invites or invites to events the person knows the other person would be opposed to like the pro-life/pro-choice rally, unless specifically approached as "I know you believe X, but would you want to come to Y to see the other side?" and even then that should be in very specific scenarios.

*Some people will be upset at one invite, whether that's them being 'sensitive' or the fact that they face more persistent pressure from others and yours was the 3rd 'come to Jesus' comment that week, well, YMMV.

I think the line is whether there's going to be an attempt to convert. The friends who invited me to the NYE concert that ended with the "pray this prayer to be saved. Any who wish to be saved come forward' were super apologetic about it, because that wasn't what they asked me to come for. Bingo, even with a prayer before hand, probably no big deal.

I agree.
No, I think as long as people have the ultimate goal of serving the organization, rather than saving the heathens** you're right.


**To avoid further complaint, no, most Christians don't say things like 'saving the heathens' with any sense of seriousness.

SO what. People are entitled to do whatever they wish for their religions. The article was poorly written but nonetheless I get the just of it.

So...suicide bombing in the name of God = OK?

I think everyone agrees that people should be able to do what they wish individually. There's a disconnect re: bringing it to the chapter.

QFP