Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study

[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.

[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!

[Drolefille]

On a note entirely separate from the discussion, upon discovering that InterVarsity supports "Ex-gay" treatment, and sells books through IVPress including "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" the author of which suggests that gay people only get so angry at his book because they have a developmental disorder, not because they find him to be a bigoted fuckwit, they can kiss my ass.


For fucks sake.

Thanks, IV, you made me donate to It Get's Better's project to get its book in EVERY school library.

[MysticCat]

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.

That's because far too many Christians say things and act in ways that indicate they do think that about others, including other Christians who do not think just like they do. I've been on the receiving end of the latter.

And for the record, the NYTimes does not imply that these particular Christians think non-Christians are sinners. This is the sentence in question:

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

In the context of the article, the implication is that Greeks are sinners. After all, just a little earlier, we had:

“Our goal is to help students lead a Christian life inside the Greek system, as contradictory as that may sound,” said Eric Holmer, the communications director for Greek InterVarsity.

As for the Times' wording vs. direct quotes, this is what caught my eye:

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.”

As a Christian, statements like this really make me wince and groan. This statement has pressure (with a little arrogance thrown in for good measure) written all over it, I'm afraid.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm afraid.

I'm taking this out of context because it made me laugh.

I am really annoyed by Christians who think they're "better Christians" than other Christians. That goes for anyone who thinks they are "better" than others who share their faith-base.

That member of Sigma Phi Epsilon said he goes to the frat house for the "single goal" of spreading the Word. I don't even want to be around people whose "single goal" is spreading the Word. I want to be able to talk about things and do things without the response to everything being "God."

On that note, the reality is that 99% of people are more awesome in their own minds than they are in real life. How people describe themselves is more based on self-identity and how they want others to perceive them rather than how they really are. It may be the case that this member of Sigma Phi Epsilon isn't doing what he claims to be doing. Or, his actions are a lot more balanced than they seem in that article.

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

. . . the reality is that 99% of people are more awesome in their own minds than they are in real life. . . .

QFP

[BluPhire]

The article made every group look bad.

Of course it is the New York Times, they do have an agenda (selling papers, by interviewing and posting enough quotes to scare those folks that believe the Christian right is ready to wipe us out, and the Christian right that is believing these are good folks fighting the the good fight of faith.)

Anybody who is taking a stance defending this article for any particular reason is wearing rose colored glasses for their particular belief system.

[angels&angles]

I would also like to point out that inviting people to events "they can say no to" can still be pressure. There was a girl in my sorority who constantly made pro-life events & invited me to them, even though she knew I was pro-choice. I asked her repeatedly to stop, but she didn't. Sure, it's easy for me to click "reject," but it's still pressure to continually invite me to Bible studies, Bible verse of the day, pro-choice, etc events if you know that I'm not interested.