Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

"...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 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?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by laylo

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?

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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by laylo

No, but we're not talking about giving sermons in chapter meetings here.

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."

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

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.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by laylo

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?

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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DGTess

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

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:

(Regarding why the joined a GLO) But many also said they relished the opportunity to spread the Gospel.

The students heard sermons from a pastor who easily segued from “U2 — I love that group” to “I love Jesus” and explored their feelings in small group discussions on challenges to faith and how to start a Bible group in a fraternity or sorority house.

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

Jesus turned water into wine “to get the party going,” said a young woman who traveled here from Willamette University in Oregon, adding that parties were an opportunity to show that Christianity could be fun.

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.”

He said that he tried not to be preachy, but that he was not shy about confronting other professed Christians if they started drinking too much or engaged in casual sex.

With other students, Mr. Skaggs hopes simply to start the Christian conversation. “People do open up to you when they’re drunk,” he said. “They ask, ‘Why are you so excited all the time?’ ”

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.

[KSUViolet06]

Come on, New York Times. I thought you were better than this. lol.

[thetaj]

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

[DrPhil]

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[Xidelt]

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

[sherrybaby]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sherrybaby

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.