Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by sherrybaby

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.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

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 know as well as I that some Christians think that way. I've met them. That is not nearly all Christians by any means. But they do exist. I don't think that all Christians think this way, but I believe that someone within the interviews or the observations of the reporter said it, even if only in jest. Regardless of the wording, the implication is to be among the non-converted, non-Christians, etc so as to bring them to Christ. It's not for the benefit of the converted, but to convert others.

[sherrybaby]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

But even evangelical doesn't have to mean ramming something down someone's throat. For me, I know the value of a Christian youth group that encourages inviting friends. If I hadn't received such an invite, quite frankly, I would never have bothered to seek out my faith on my own and quite probably would be dead right now. But the most important part of that invitation was the way in which it was done: by someone who was interested in me personally, who cared about me, and who I knew would drop the issue and continue loving me if I said no. Evangelical can be such a dirty word, but for me I share my faith with sisters because I love them and want them to experience the life-changing effects my faith has had on my life. That doesn't mean I have a checklist of non-Christian Thetas and feel the need to convert my whole chapter by the time I graduate or I'm a failure. Evangelical can be positive IF it's done right (which I'll admit is difficult).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by sherrybaby

But even evangelical doesn't have to mean ramming something down someone's throat. For me, I know the value of a Christian youth group that encourages inviting friends. If I hadn't received such an invite, quite frankly, I would never have bothered to seek out my faith on my own and quite probably would be dead right now. But the most important part of that invitation was the way in which it was done: by someone who was interested in me personally, who cared about me, and who I knew would drop the issue and continue loving me if I said no. Evangelical can be such a dirty word, but for me I share my faith with sisters because I love them and want them to experience the life-changing effects my faith has had on my life. That doesn't mean I have a checklist of non-Christian Thetas and feel the need to convert my whole chapter by the time I graduate or I'm a failure. Evangelical can be positive IF it's done right (which I'll admit is difficult).

While part of me agrees, as a no-longer-Christian, I really can't see any way in which someone 'sharing how Christ/faith/etc has affected their lives' is really going to matter to me. Hey it's nice it works for you, but really I mostly want to be left alone about my religion unless I ASK for advice, input or discussion.

From one perspective evangelism is necessary, needed, a moral requirement, but from the other's perspective even the 'best' kind can be a huge annoyance when it is added up with the other cultural pressures involved. I don't know that it's reconcilable, really. But if people do take hints - from those uninterested, or from those who do want to hear more- then yes it's negative effects are minimized and positive effects are maximized.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You know as well as I that some Christians think that way. I've met them. That is not nearly all Christians by any means. But they do exist. I don't think that all Christians think this way, but I believe that someone within the interviews or the observations of the reporter said it, even if only in jest. Regardless of the wording, the implication is to be among the non-converted, non-Christians, etc so as to bring them to Christ. It's not for the benefit of the converted, but to convert others.

And people are interpreting statements and actions. You don't actually have to say "non-Christians are sinners" for your statements and actions to translate to "non-Christians are sinners."

As a Christian, I would never pretend to be able to predict what other Christians think or what they would or would not say.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You know as well as I that some Christians think that way. I've met them. That is not nearly all Christians by any means. But they do exist. I don't think that all Christians think this way, but I believe that someone within the interviews or the observations of the reporter said it, even if only in jest. Regardless of the wording, the implication is to be among the non-converted, non-Christians, etc so as to bring them to Christ. It's not for the benefit of the converted, but to convert others.

Of course they do, 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. I don't think the wording is irrelevant for that reason, and because its offensive.