Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study
 

INDIANAPOLIS — Imagine 475 college students — all members of fraternities and sororities around the country — flooding a hotel for a weekend. Imagine, come Sunday, that not one noise complaint has been lodged, no chairs are broken, no beer stains the carpets and the hotel housekeeper says, “What a nice bunch of kids.” ......
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/us/07greek.html

I had a very, very negative reaction to that article this morning. It makes me sick.

Why does it make you sick?

I would hope that their sole purpose in joining a GLO was not to become "missionaries". But I salute the fact that they are proud of their faith, and live that out in various ways in their organizations. As long as they don't shove it down their sisters/brothers throats, I don't see a problem with it.

What does upset me about the article is the stereotype reinforcement by the New York Times. I would hope that journalists for this paper would know better than that.

Since you did not provide any explanation to your reaction, hard to understand causes or reasons.

I did not enjoy parts of it either because the story shows how the actions of a few members of GLO's impact the rest of us. And I am not referring to the actions of those in the story.

I am referring to those who do not understand Risk Management and proper behavior.

This is great, and I’m happy for those that are involved in this group who feel like they can share religion with other members of the Greek community.. but this article is terrible. It makes it sound as if all Greeks need to be saved, that we’re all leading a life of sin, and that we need the members of this group to help us see the light.

Yeah, that's called most of the collegiate NPHC formals that I have attended since college.

Stupid, stupid, stupid article. NY Times editorialized when they should've just shared the awesomeness of that group and that event. Why would collegiates who don't drink and have sex want to join a fraternity and sorority? Because drinking and having sex are not formal or informal requirements for joining a fraternity or sorority. What some chapters and individuals do is what chapters and individuals do.

And this is important to note because when we talk about fraternities and sororities, the average person (including GC discussions) is thinking of NPC/NIC and going based on those stereotypes.

:) It isn't a "few" so people need to stop pretending that it is because that's as extreme as saying "all."

More accurately, "some" and even "many" do those things but "the average" doesn't; and I'm talking across the nation and across councils, conferences, and GLOs.

****************

Moreover, I have yet to see proof that even the craziest GLOer is crazier than the craziest nonGreek college student. GLOs just provide an additional context for college students who are looking for the opportunity to act carefree and crazy. Not all of us were like that as college students but we certainly knew those who were.

I also compare the humor of this article to when I read about A.C. Green. He was considered a good guy when it comes to the NBA. Danny Ainge, as well. Why would they want to be a part of the NBA, which is known for hard partying, alcohol and hazing violations (yes, they haze), and casual sex? Could it be that they saw a larger goal and something greater to be gained? Duhhhhhhhhhhh.

one of my friends helped found Greek InterVarsity at her school, and I can confidently say she'd hate this article. its tone is ridiculously judgmental..."rub shoulders with the sinners?" I would have a serious problem with anyone in my Bible studies using this kind of language. Just because I don't drink or have sex doesn't make me less of a sinner than someone who does...they may engage in more public behavior but that's no worse than the mean thoughts I might think about someone or the gossip I might spread in a weak moment. Quite frankly, the way this article speaks makes the members of Greek InterVarsity sound down right manipulative. There's a difference between spreading the Gospel by just behaving in a manner that God would want you to among friends and purposely inserting yourself into groups for the sole purpose of preaching at them. This article makes the members of Greek InterVarsity sound only interested in the latter. And guess what? I joined the sorority on campus with the worst "party reputation" and I've found not only that no one judges me at all, but also so many girls share my faith. the assumptions in this article are obnoxious.

"...to expand Bible studies and Christian recruiting in fraternities and sororities at mainstream universities."

Proselytizing is exactly what InterVarsity does. I know people who have been spiritually abused by this cult.

Moreover, it is my opinion that (most) GLOs are places where people of different faith systems can come together in a secular community based in values. Whether I am an Alpha or a Teke, I shouldn't have to be recruited to somebody else's faith. Leave it outside of the chapter.

I may have not presented my case all too well DrPhil-For the most part, I do agree with you.
And as you point out, all kinds of living and social groups do crazy, stupid, dumb things. However if something of that nature happens in Todd Hall or Jones Dorm it just does not get written up anywhere.
It will get written up, it will get coverage if it happens in a national named group. And it will be covered even more so if something really bad comes out if their actions or deeds.

I did like the one guy who started a forum for the members to talk about their faith if they wanted to.

Unrelated to the central theme of the article: The only party I've ever been to that was full-scale shut down by the police was an IV dance party at my old school :p

True.

But where was the justification here for referring to all members of the Greek community as "sinners?"

Don't act brand new. You know we all killed a goat, snorted some goat cheese, got high off of goat milk and praised Pan the god just this morning!

Shh... no one's supposed to know!

Don't tell them that we made the new members clean it up, either...

"expanding Bible studies?" sure, that's fine, they're optional forums for sisters and brothers who are interested. "recruiting?" not okay. My faith is not the armed forces.

I agree that InterVarsity is an organization that definitely has the potential to be abused, as do all national faith-based organizations. One campus could have a policy of holding events for members and people who are interested and attracting people just based on their values and actions as a group while another can decide they need to do the "hard-sell" and manipulate or guilt-trip students. Sure, sharing your faith is part of the Gospel, but let Christianity speak for itself. The person who best shares their faith is the person who doesn't even need to tell you they're Christian. They are so radically compassionate and principled, and their actions so embody the Gospel, that you want to ask what makes them different.

I think Bible studies are okay in a chapter, though, although I go to a Christian university so perhaps I don't understand how this can be problematic on more diverse campuses. For my chapter, the Bible study is something that maybe 5-10 members who are interested do on our time, and the only sorority-related thing about it is that we're members. There's no compulsion to go; we mention the meeting times once a semester for any new members, and that's it. I'm sure if someone wanted to start a different faith-based group in our chapter, it would be similar.

InterVarsity depends on the people on the campus. There are InterVarsity chapters on some religiously and spiritually diverse campuses that will send out an email but not force the issue on those who don't want to attend the programs. That's how it should be.

This^. It was incredibly demeaning and obnoxious. This is the kind of stuff that turns people off. They're doing themselves a disservice by talking about "rubbing shoulders with the sinners".

I was an InterVarsity leader and I'm sorry that you had that experience, but it is the absolute opposite of my experience on my campus or any of the campuses I worked with. And you never have to be recruited to anything- if you're invited to an event you can simply decline as with anything else you're invited to.

I always find it odd when people tell others to "keep their faith out of xyz". It's essentially telling them to keep themselves out of it, like saying "Keep your culture out of the chapter" or "Keep your background out of the chapter". Why is faith any less legitimate a part of who someone is?

They didn't say it, though, the Times did. I definitely wouldn't read this as a direct quote.

No one is telling people not to believe in what they want. Your faith should be just that -- YOUR faith. It's not the chapter's.

It depends on the dynamics of the chapter. Chapters know when they are religiously diverse and can alienate members whose religions are being silenced. But, most chapters of most GLOs aren't religiously diverse (nor are most diverse based on race and ethnicity, culture, social class, and other ascribed and attained statuses).

Some colleges and universities have places of worship where people of all faiths can worship. The emphasis is on love and devotion for all faiths and silent worship/meditation. Chapters can do the same thing if they want to share religious experiences and faiths in a religiously diverse chapter.

Afterall, all Christians (for example) don't believe the same things and all denominations within Christianity don't believe the same thing. That's one reason why Interfaith and Interdenominational places of worship were created.

No, but we're not talking about giving sermons in chapter meetings here. If you're friends with someone you're going to end up mentioning things you think are important with them, and possibly inviting them to share those things with you.

There are chapters that share religious texts as "daily words" instead of doing more generic inspirational words at chapter meetings. That is fine if the chapter that operates that way also allows members of different religions to share their religious texts as "daily words."

That can be done on your own time. The article made it seem as if this group is on a crusade to convert all non-believers and recruit the "right type" of GLO member.

It is done on Greek IV members' own time. Nothing has been mentioned about chapter business time. And pretty much all churches and Christian groups want to convert non-believers, whether they make it obvious or not. I think it is often people's negative experiences with religion that cause them to be offended by someone's invitation rather than the inivitation itself. I've had people invite me to plenty of things I didn't believe in and simply declined. There was no need to think they were doing something awful to me.

The problem is that the way the article is written, these young men and women purposely joined GLOs in order to try to save the existing members. I have a hard time believing that they intended for it to sound that way and I think this is probably a good example of why we are always told not to speak to the media. You never know how your quotes will be used... or misused.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a craptastic article by the NY Times.

There's a difference, though, between keeping your faith out of XYZ and pressuring (or seeming to pressure; remember part of communication is the recipient) someone else to share that faith.

I don't think anything in the article demonstrated these kids putting pressure on non-Christians. People are projecting their own experiences of pressure onto this group.

From the article in question:
So I feel compelled to ask whether you even read the article, or whether you read it through a lens that caused you to see this as not pressuring at all. But for a non-Christian perspective, when someone says they're a missionary to their fraternity, that's pressuring. As is confronting other Christians who may or may not be of the same denomination as you and share the exact same beliefs as you about their actions. If you turn a party into a preaching mission, that's pressuring.

This article was written to suggest that this was the ONLY thing that IV was about, we know better, but to suggest the article doesn't say that is wrong.

Yes, I read the article. My opinion differs from yours in that I don't see sharing as pressuring. Some of those quotes were from the Times, not the students (I highly doubt that they actually think of non-Christians as "the sinners" because that's contradictory to any message I've ever seen from the organization). Most were about creating an event and telling others about what they believe. I don't see how these kinds of events or conversations cause any more pressure than those surrounding any other cause- if you are passionate about it, you want others to join you, and if they don't believe in it, they don't join you.The only thing I saw as pressure was the one about the Christian confronting other Christians.

If you don't see being a Christian missionary to one's fraternity as pressuring, it's probably because you're a Christian. Were a Muslim student to say that their one purpose in joining a fraternity or sorority was to spread the word of God, your reaction might be different.

Additionally, while most of those are not in quotations, they're clearly paraphrases of statements made by students. "Many also said..." "Adding ..." etc.

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.

And if that's all that this was about I'd agree with you.

To me, there is a big difference between one of the quotes you mentioned, "Starting the Christian conversation," and confronting someone about drinking/sex. Starting a dialogue or Bible study is not pressuring. Most of the other quotes were. Would I confront one of my close Christian friends out of concern about drinking or sex? Probably, although I would even then be very hesitant and careful to come off the right way. But would I confront someone who didn't share my beliefs? No, unless the behavior was so absolutely ridiculous the person was consistently putting themselves in danger of alcohol poisoning or an STD. Perhaps if they were a closer non-Christian friend I'd mention it if they were getting a bad reputation. But while I get the feeling that Greek InterVarsity most likely is more about creating events for already Christian Greeks and those Greeks interested in Christianity, the article comes off in a different way. Even if you recognize that the intention of Greek InterVarsity is probably not the same as the article portrays them, you have to admit much of the wording of the Times ("rubbing shoulders with sinners") is an issue.

Additionally starting a conversation ONCE and being told to let it go is still a bit different than being a 'missionary.' But yes I agree with what you said here. Even though the overall reality isn't reflected by this article, the article showed a (I suspect small-ish) minority who have this attitude. Maybe just this one campus, or local area is particularly evangelical, but the striking thing to me was exactly how evangelical it was. Those terms and phrases "conversation about Christ" for example, are not ones I saw in Catholic youth groups or universities.

ETA: rereading it, it appears that IV is intentionally evangelical in nature, where I thought it was more ecumenical.

Absolutely. And that wording was done by the Times. 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.

You might lose your entire salary. I know Christians who are not ashamed to say that non-Christians are sinners.