Christian Fraternity colonizes University of Central Florida

[Elephant Walk]

not really. God, why can't it just be Keeping Under Christ, an all male association?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

not really. God, why can't it just be Keeping Under Christ, an all male association?

...................

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by BetaRose

Not to fuel the flames, but at least at UCF and UF (and probably at most other public universities) the only way to have a single gender student organization is to be recognized as a fraternity or sorority. All other student groups must be co-ed.

Oh, now I get what he's saying. He's wondering why they aren't a group instead of a fraternity. I thought he was saying "Keeping Under Christ" didn't make sense.

Possible answer in addition to the one you provided: Because they want to be a fraternity. Probably in response to the culture of GLOs that they have witnessed so they want an alternative for people who live a certain lifestyle. This is a Christian fraternity whereas some fraternities are only founded on some Christian principles.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by BetaRose

Not to fuel the flames, but at least at UCF and UF (and probably at most other public universities) the only way to have a single gender student organization is to be recognized as a fraternity or sorority. All other student groups must be co-ed.

That's generally the case at all schools, whether public or private, if the organization wants school recognition. Title IX, as implemented and enforced by the Department of Education, basically forbids any school that receives federal funds from granting official recognition to single-sex organizations. There is a specific exemption for social fraternities and sororities.

Besides, if they want a fraternity, they should be able to start a fraternity.

That said, Keeping Under Christ doesn't make much sense to me either -- not that it needs to and not that my opinion matters or should matter. I mean, I understand what it means (I think), but it just seems like an odd phrase. I figured it's just one of those phrases that would be familiar to people in some but not all traditions of Christianity.

More power to them!

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That said, Keeping Under Christ doesn't make much sense to me either -- not that it needs to and not that my opinion matters or should matter. I mean, I understand what it means (I think), but it just seems like an odd phrase. I figured it's just one of those phrases that would be familiar to people in some but not all traditions of Christianity.

More power to them!

To put it how KYX put it: "we are first and foremost bound by the love of Jesus Christ, God's son, our Savior."


Out of curiosity:
What Christians (or nonChristians, for that matter who can understand it logically if not religiously) won't understand being kept and to remain under Christ? No matter what the denomination of Christianity, don't we all profess to be kept and to remain under Christ? A lot of Christians use this as a profession of faith--to be kept under His blood and to keep under Jesus in mind, body, and spirit.

[Drolefille]

I think it's the phrasing. I've never heard that type of phrasing ever. I can understand being "kept" under Christ (although I would never phrase it that way) but saying "keeping under Christ" to me implies that you are the active party and not Christ. It's not Christ keeping you.. it's you maintaining it yourself.

*shrug*

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it took your comment to explain it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

but saying "keeping under Christ" to me implies that you are the active party and not Christ. It's not Christ keeping you.. it's you maintaining it yourself.

Christians are the active party in making sure we keep under Christ. Christ is the active party in keeping and sheltering us.

Being a devout person of any faith takes a sense of agency and activity on the part of the believers. It is a constant test and testament of faith.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think it's the phrasing. I've never heard that type of phrasing ever. I can understand being "kept" under Christ (although I would never phrase it that way) but saying "keeping under Christ" to me implies that you are the active party and not Christ. It's not Christ keeping you.. it's you maintaining it yourself.

That's exactly what I was thinking, both as to who is the "active party" and the phrasing itself. It's sort of like talking about "getting saved" or being asked "when were you saved?". I know exactly what people mean when they say those things, but they're phrases I have never heard used in my own tradition and that I associate with more evangelical traditions. It's just not the way we talk.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Christians are the active party in making sure we keep under Christ. Christ is the active party in keeping and sheltering us.

Being a devout person of any faith takes a sense of agency and activity on the part of the believers. It is a constant test and testament of faith.

Maybe, but I can tell you that traditional Presbyterianism, rooted in Calvinism, would always look at God or Christ as the ultimate active party, and would say, without denying free will or human responsibility, that our ability to make sure we "keep under Christ" is completely dependent on God's grace that keeps us. That's one reason why, like Drolefille, it would sound a little more understandable to me to say "kept under Christ" than "keeping under Christ." That, and when I hear "Keeping Under Christ," my initial reaction is to ask "keeping what under Christ?"

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's exactly what I was thinking, both as to who is the "active party" and the phrasing itself. It's sort of like talking about "getting saved" or being asked "when were you saved?". I know exactly what people mean when they say those things, but they're phrases I have never heard used in my own tradition and that I associate with more evangelical traditions. It's just not the way we talk.

Maybe, but I can tell you that traditional Presbyterianism, rooted in Calvinism, would always look at God or Christ as the ultimate active party, and would say, without denying free will or human responsibility, that our ability to make sure we "keep under Christ" is completely dependent on God's grace that keeps us. That's one reason why, like Drolefille, it would sound a little more understandable to me to say "kept under Christ" than "keeping under Christ." That, and when I hear "Keeping Under Christ," my initial reaction is to ask "keeping what under Christ?"

When I hear keep under Christ I do think of standing under a Crucifix. But then I'm Catholic so just like "Being Saved" (which in our view is a moot point) "Keeping Under Christ" might be better expressed as following God's will/ living in a Christlike manner, etc.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

that our ability to make sure we "keep under Christ" is completely dependent on God's grace that keeps us.

I never said that it was not contingent upon God's grace but we have to seek that grace and are testified by faith. Being saved means that we have been given God's grace and are therefore expected to live our lives accordingly. "Live our lives" meaning being active participants in living a saved life in which we are devout in faith.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That's one reason why, like Drolefille, it would sound a little more understandable to me to say "kept under Christ" than "keeping under Christ." That, and when I hear "Keeping Under Christ," my initial reaction is to ask "keeping what under Christ?"

Our hearts, our minds, our being.

If you overthink anything it won't make sense.