Where Raucous Is the Norm, Bible Study

[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!

[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.

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

Just to clarify, I was talking specifically about that quote, not the general way they were portrayed.

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

Sorry if the analogy was whack. My point was that my feelings aren't about knowing these individuals, but about knowing what the organization requires.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Actually I said I'd bet they didn't, I'm confident that they didn't, and I highly doubt that they did. The only statement I made about Christians in general was that people often assume we think that way, which is not contradictory to anything else I said.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by laylo

Sorry if the analogy was whack. My point was that my feelings aren't about knowing these individuals, but about knowing what the organization requires.

It would make more sense if your contention was that a member wouldn't publicly express that sentiment if they knew that it was counter to the organization's purpose and requirements. That would be different than claiming that no member actually feels that way.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

Sorry if the analogy was whack. My point was that my feelings aren't about knowing these individuals, but about knowing what the organization requires.



Actually I said I'd bet they didn't, I'm confident that they didn't, and I highly doubt that they did. The only statement I made about Christians in general was that people often assume we think that way, which is not contradictory to anything else I said.

So you've moved from confidence to doubt?

Ultimately you are saying that you have 'faith' in the organization's leaders. Which kind of makes the whole conversation ironic, in that annoying 'not really sure if it's irony' way.

My point is, that based on the entire tone of the article - one of evangelizing to fraternities and sororities which is, AFAICT the entire purpose of IV and Greek IV - that statement is not out of left field. It fits in pretty well with the sentiment of being a missionary among one's GLO, confronting other Christians who aren't living up to one's own standard and so on. You said you saw NO pressure in this article, and put all the responsibility on the people who felt pressured. Funny thing is, if you're the one evangelizing - and I'm going to assume you've been a member of this group and thus have participated - your opinion about whether you're pressuring someone else or not doesn't actually matter. If they tell you you're pressuring them, you are. I can state for me that whether when I was Christian or now, such things would have been annoying, and if persistent, most certainly pressuring. People have tried to 'save' me before, and that was while I was Christian. It's pressuring, particularly when those people are not people you can just ignore because you live with them, or they're the financial chair, or whatever. It's not just about 'declining' something you're not interested in.

That's not even getting into the idea of evangelizing to/around gay brothers and sisters and the intolerance that can entail even in a college environment. I don't know what IV's attitude towards homosexuality is, but I can guess.

Maybe on your campus, maybe in your experience things weren't that bad, but these things do exist and the statements made in this article are reflective of THAT attitude. "Rubbing shoulders with sinners" is merely an extension of that attitude, and whether the words themselves are literal, or were said in a joke, or reflected the overall feeling of the conference, they're not some sort of ridiculous extreme past what was already represented in the article.

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

It would make more sense if your contention was that a member wouldn't publicly express that sentiment if they knew that it was counter to the organization's purpose and requirements. That would be different than claiming that no member actually feels that way.

Well, my claim was that I highly doubt they said those words. I'm sure everyone feels holier-than-thou sometimes, but it seems to me very likely that the Times heard them talk about hanging out with non-Christians and came up with the phrase "rubbing shoulders with sinners," and very unlikely that IV leaders actually go around calling people that.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So you've moved from confidence to doubt?

Nope, confident they didn't- doubt they did.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

My point is, that based on the entire tone of the article - one of evangelizing to fraternities and sororities which is, AFAICT the entire purpose of IV and Greek IV - that statement is not out of left field. It fits in pretty well with the sentiment of being a missionary among one's GLO, confronting other Christians who aren't living up to one's own standard and so on. You said you saw NO pressure in this article, and put all the responsibility on the people who felt pressured. Funny thing is, if you're the one evangelizing - and I'm going to assume you've been a member of this group and thus have participated - your opinion about whether you're pressuring someone else or not doesn't actually matter. If they tell you you're pressuring them, you are. I can state for me that whether when I was Christian or now, such things would have been annoying, and if persistent, most certainly pressuring. People have tried to 'save' me before, and that was while I was Christian. It's pressuring, particularly when those people are not people you can just ignore because you live with them, or they're the financial chair, or whatever. It's not just about 'declining' something you're not interested in.

That's not even getting into the idea of evangelizing to/around gay brothers and sisters and the intolerance that can entail even in a college environment. I don't know what IV's attitude towards homosexuality is, but I can guess.

Maybe on your campus, maybe in your experience things weren't that bad, but these things do exist and the statements made in this article are reflective of THAT attitude. "Rubbing shoulders with sinners" is merely an extension of that attitude, and whether the words themselves are literal, or were said in a joke, or reflected the overall feeling of the conference, they're not some sort of ridiculous extreme past what was already represented in the article.

To address what you said about me, the form of evangelism that I participated in didn't involve anything other than holding events and inviting people to them. My campus was hostile to religion, yet I never heard a complaint about pressure. Evangelism with tact and respect and without unwanted discussions is very possible.

My point is, regardless of what some Christians do, all these students are talking about doing is starting conversations and having bible studies. I don't see how this causes more pressure than starting conversations or holding events supporting any kind of cause. We disagree on what makes pressure- I think of pressuring someone as compelling them in a way that purposefully causes discomfort if they don't go along.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by laylo

Nope, confident they didn't- doubt they did.



To address what you said about me, the form of evangelism that I participated in didn't involve anything other than holding events and inviting people to them. My campus was hostile to religion, yet I never heard a complaint about pressure. Evangelism with tact and respect and without unwanted discussions is very possible.

My point is, regardless of what some Christians do, all these students are talking about doing is starting conversations and having bible studies. I don't see how this causes more pressure than starting conversations or holding events supporting any kind of cause. We disagree on what makes pressure- I think of pressuring someone as compelling them in a way that purposefully causes discomfort if they don't go along.

Welcome to the oblivion of the majority to the minority. If you're the one being evangelized to (by the majority religion in the country particularly) you're the one who gets to decide when enough is enough. You missed the point that it wasn't about how awesome you were about evangelizing nicely, but that "your" opinion as the evangelizer doesn't matter

Being told you're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior (once happened to me at a New Year's Eve Concert. Yes it was at a church, but no it wasn't advertised as a religious event) is pressuring. But so is someone repeatedly trying to 'start a conversation about Christ' with you because they're genuinely worried about your soul. As sisters, you generally feel some sort of obligation to each other, and as housemates you might not have the ability to escape it. Consider particularly if there are only a few non-Christians in the chapter, how quickly a bible study goes from 'optional side event' to 'essentially mandatory.'
You might not have been 'that person', but your assumption that none of these people are 'that person' is probably wrong. Just as 'those people' exist among the general population, so 'those people' probably exist within the smaller selected population. .

And frankly, the more I read, on their own site, of the organization the less I can support any of them. I'm sure some of them are nice people, but I'll be judging the hell out of them. You know, loving the sinner and hating the sin. I'm sure they understand that.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Welcome to the oblivion of the majority to the minority. If you're the one being evangelized to (by the majority religion in the country particularly) you're the one who gets to decide when enough is enough. You missed the point that it wasn't about how awesome you were about evangelizing nicely, but that "your" opinion as the evangelizer doesn't matter

Being told you're going to hell if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior (once happened to me at a New Year's Eve Concert. Yes it was at a church, but no it wasn't advertised as a religious event) is pressuring. But so is someone repeatedly trying to 'start a conversation about Christ' with you because they're genuinely worried about your soul. As sisters, you generally feel some sort of obligation to each other, and as housemates you might not have the ability to escape it. Consider particularly if there are only a few non-Christians in the chapter, how quickly a bible study goes from 'optional side event' to 'essentially mandatory.'
You might not have been 'that person', but your assumption that none of these people are 'that person' is probably wrong. Just as 'those people' exist among the general population, so 'those people' probably exist within the smaller selected population. .

And frankly, the more I read, on their own site, of the organization the less I can support any of them. I'm sure some of them are nice people, but I'll be judging the hell out of them. You know, loving the sinner and hating the sin. I'm sure they understand that.

I don't think I missed the point, I just don't agree with your definition of pressuring. However, even if I did agree, we aren't talking about a situation in which people have expressed that they feel pressured- you're assuming that if students are evangelizing, others must feel pressured, and I don't think that assumption is correct. The students who wanted to propose bible studies said that they feared ridicule and rejection, which doesn't sound like the majorities of their chapters studied the bible whether they considered themselves Christian or not.

Telling people they're going to hell is pressure, as would be making a bible study mandatory or repeatedly trying to start a conversation with the same person, but none of these things are in the article. The student who said he was hoping to start a conversation went on to discuss how the conversations began with others asking him about his temperament. I'm not assuming those things don't happen and haven't once stated that they don't. I'm saying there is no evidence from the article that it does, so to say that it does is an assumption.