Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by laylo

Of course they do, but we're not talking about any random Christians....

Yes, we are. The Christians in this organization are no different than any other Christians. They certainly aren't more Christian than those who are not in this organization.

We don't know what they are thinking and what they would or would not say, just as we don't know what other Christians are thinking and what they would or would not say.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yes, we are. The Christians in this organization are no different than any other Christians. They certainly aren't more Christian than those who are not in this organization.

We don't know what they are thinking and what they would or would not say, just as we don't know what other Christians are thinking and what they would or would not say.

I'm saying nothing about the quality of their faith, 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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

Again, the bolded doesn't truly distinguish them from other Christians.

Your extreme doubts are based on your hopes and assumptions.** Your doubts are probably incorrect. As Drolefille noted, these particular Christians seem proud over how the NY Times portrayed them so that speaks volumes.

**We aren't saying that we absolutely know that they said those things. We are saying that it isn't a huge leap.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

Yet even when the literal words of the members, and the paraphrased words of the members interviewed match that sentiment you're certain it's wrong? You know all the members? You're sure that there's no one there who thinks that and said it to a reporter?

Particularly as they are featuring a link to this article on their homesite, and on their facebook page with ZERO complaints about the way they were featured, I'm suspecting they're happy with the coverage.

If you're already a fan of Greek InterVarsity, it's not news to you, but today the REST of the world gets to hear the good news about what God is doing in the Greek system! Share the link with family, friends and members of your chapter!

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yet even when the literal words of the members, and the paraphrased words of the members interviewed match that sentiment you're certain it's wrong? You know all the members? You're sure that there's no one there who thinks that and said it to a reporter?

Actually, I don't think the rest of the article matched this sentiment. No, I don't know all of the members, but I highly doubt that someone said this particular quote in the same way I would highly doubt that someone who has taught at my school would call my students stupid-- I'm familiar with what the org looks for and requires.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

Actually, I don't think the rest of the article matched this sentiment. No, I don't know all of the members, but I highly doubt that someone said this particular quote in the same way I would highly doubt that someone who has taught at my school would call my students stupid-- I'm familiar with what the org looks for and requires.

Your school has how many teachers? And this organization has how many members? And you know them equally as well as you know the teachers at your school? The current existing membership/leadership who attended the conference, that is, not past members/leaders, but present ones.

No one thinks every member thinks this way, but your insistence that no one in that organization would dare to utter, nay even think such words, is not really grounded in anything.

Your stance even on this has shifted from certainty that this was something people say about Christians, and not something Christians would say, to not something these Christians would say, to something you doubt they'd say.