"Cru": "We believe wholeheartedly that God has given us this new name"

[Steve Davis]

[Bob T.] Today no crusade. Tomorrow no Christ.

What else would be expected from one of the worlds leading New Evangelical organizations.

Hide your bibles! Don’t let them know! Shh, we’re really Christians but on with the show! 8-)

What else would we expect from Bob? He’s usually uptight and thinks he’s got da right position. Bash these nasty neo’s they ain’t got Bob’s permission. :-)

And backhand Bob with a smiley face, too?

[Steve Davis]

[Bob T.] Today no crusade. Tomorrow no Christ.

What else would be expected from one of the worlds leading New Evangelical organizations.

Hide your bibles! Don’t let them know! Shh, we’re really Christians but on with the show! 8-)

What else would we expect from Bob? He’s usually uptight and thinks he’s got da right position. Bash these nasty neo’s they ain’t got Bob’s permission. :-)

I actually posted this with tongue in cheek to see who would make the old up tight personal attack. How funny! :D

My acquaintance with CC goes back to my student days at Biola University in 1962 to 1966. I was a college student fresh out of the military and involved in military evangelism. I made a friend of a Talbot student my age named Josh McDowell who was active with Campus Crusade. I remember he took me to the then Arrowhead Springs headquarters and introduced me to Bill Bright for the first time. Also to some other ministry directors. I also remember having several discussions with Josh. I had one extensive discussion with Josh and a fellow named Dick Day when they were directing CCs first beach evangelism. We discussed easy believism and the gospel. The problem was not so much their 4 Laws (that had some problems) but the way it was presented. They would approach people on the beach, present the 4 Laws, and then ask “do you see any reason you can’t believe in Christ right now?” Most said “no.” They would then pray with them to “Receive Christ,” give them some literature, and invite them to a meeting being held that night. There were many reported decisions. A few did come to the evening meeting with coaxing. Of the reported thousands of decisions during this spring vacation week probably far less than 1% were real conversions. This became a norm with many other CC endeavors in those days. However, over the years there were some endeavors that were more biblical in approach and many students were converted by CC ministry. But the conversion to reported decisions ratio was always small. Josh went on to have a more sound and solid ministry in some respects.

One lesson I learned in observing CC is that God uses His Gospel even when declared imperfectly and with faulty method. You will find CC converts and so will one find BG crusade converts. However they are a small percentage of reported decisions and do not abrogate the unbiblical practices and confusion that has always resulted as such ministries carry on. Also, the God given results have never set aside the spiritual duty and responsibility of Christian leaders to recognize, speak out, and warn of gaping imperfections in such ministries.

I find it especially sad when those who do speak and warn are often attacked by the true New Evangelicals who are still hanging around their old Fundy crowd. These are not only predictable in their attacks but humorously predictable in it being a personal attack.

As for Campus Crusade, oops, shhhh, its Cru now, they have been used by God. But I would not defend their weaknesses or many practices that have brought confusion and cheapened the gospel. As an example, some of us still remember the 1976 “HERES LIFE” campaign. It was claimed to reach every person in America with the Gospel. It was to bring national revival. It became a huge embarrassment for supporting Pastors and churches. Most all Pastors who participated did not receive one single convert into their churches. CC went silent for a while then just came up with some other projects and never spoke of the HL campaign again.

My first contact with CC was nearly as far back as Bob’s but with none of the “names”. As an unsaved college student from a fundamentalist background in the late 60’s, I found CC’s desire to accommodate intriguing. In seeking to evangelize college campuses, CC was doing a job that others weren’t and, while people were saved, their anemic Gospel presentation did them no credit.

I think I should note that, whatever the historical procedure was (and it’s good to know that), my experiences have been that each campus is different and it depends greatly upon who’s running the individual operation. For instance, the Drexel and Penn campus leaders are careful to make sure that they don’t become a “church” but instead direct students to local churches. (Drexel even hosts a “Find-a-Church” for the first two or three weeks of each semester where area churches will send representatives to talk to incoming students.) Their outreach models are less of a shotgun blast and focus more on evangelizing the people you have some sort of existing relationship with. On the other hand, a friend of mine had some less-than-stellar experiences with the Clemson branch. “Your mileage may vary” seems to be applicable to the organization as a whole.

Also, let’s not forget how hard it is for outside organizations to do anything on a college campus if they’re not affiliated with an established group. Some folks from my old church tried starting a Bible study at Muhlenberg College (certainly not a massive state school) but were having all kinds of trouble advertising the study and finding a place to meet because they weren’t a campus organization, and becoming one required sponsors, a minimum number of students, and a bunch more red tape. It quickly became a chicken-and-the-egg problem: you can’t become official and announce your presence without students, but you can’t get students without announcing your presence. Establishing a solid working relationship with a group like Cru opens the door to more opportunities (and it doesn’t have to be them specifically, for you folks who shudder at the thought of working side-by-side with anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do ;) ; there are other local organizations out there).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/21/campus-ministry-drops-christ-from-…] Fox News reported on the name change.

researchers found that 9 percent of Christians and 20 percent of non-Christians were alienated by the name Campus Crusade for Christ.

We were not trying to eliminate the word Christ from our name… . Cru enables us to have discussions about Christ with people who might initially be turned off by a more overtly Christian name.

Cru does not have a definition… . It is a name we intend to give meaning… .

Regarding that last quote, Cru is a word (French) that means “a vineyard or group of vineyards, especially one of recognized superior quality.” And there are some wine bars/restaurants in Texas, California, and Colorado named Cru.

There is a feminist blog, that I won’t link to because of the language, that responded to the name change. The quotes below are from that blog.

We won’t have the Campus Crusade for Christ to kick around anymore.

Don’t get excited–they’re still going to be around, loving you whilst hating your sin, helping you pray it away, and harassing students who are just trying to get to the student center before Chick-fil-A stops selling breakfast biscuits. But now, they’re going to be doing it all cool-like.

If the name of Jesus really is the most attractive thing on the planet, removing it entirely from the name of your group seems a bold marketing move.

The negative perception isn’t with your name–it’s with your mission.

I actually do not object to name changes but find it a curious thing when an organization or denomination (such as the former Baptist General Conference) adopt names that remove any up front identity as to what they are or what their purpose or mission is. To use a contemporary culture word, it has always been the characteristic of true Christianity to be “transparent” in contrast to cults which often seek to hide identity or some of their beliefs. Christ, Christian, and gospel truth are seen in scripture as unashamed identifiers of who and what we are.

However removing objectionable and unnecessary identifiers is certainly not unscriptural, or wrong. They wanted to remove the word “crusade.” Fine, but how about “Campus fellowship for Christ” or Christian students fellowship or many other combinations that could be used with some thought.

We may be too readily letting our societies lack of convictions and demand for PC dictate our decisions. We should expect that the present trend toward antagonism of anything to do with Christ or Christian may increase. However, the offense is not with the label but what it represents. Can we not rely on the work of the Holy spirit to open hearts and use the name of Jesus Christ to convict people of their sin and unbelief? The life of Christ is God in the flesh and living among men. We are called to be His ambassadors. Does our Ambassador of the United States to China hide who he is, remove our name from the Embassy, or hesitate to fly our flag? We are never popular with our enemies. Christians must still identify their religion as Christian. The wisdom of adopting some catchy or cool label may not be helpful at all and provide a bad example to weak believers who are shy about their faith. I agree that we should not add to use words or a presentation of the gospel that increases offense to others. However, we must recognize the offensive nature of the gospel even when clearly and lovingly presented.

To be associated with the label CRU could mean we are on the rowing team or associated with a new software company or cell phone provider. The explanation may be harder than being up front.

How about a big cheer; “GO CRU, FIGHT CRU, GO, GO, GO! Or a song; FIGHT ON YOU LIVING CRU, LET US LIFT OUR BANNER HIGH!”

The T shirts should sell great with “CRU MEMBER” on the front. Or how about those bibles that are loose leaf with the name “CRU MANUAL” on the front. Then there is the jewelry and Cru sandals. The 4 Laws can now be the CRU laws. The followup course can now be training in CRU proficiency.

The word “Crusade” might be offensive.
The word “Christ” frequently causes division.
But what is “Cru”?

[Bob T.] I actually posted this with tongue in cheek to see who would make the old up tight personal attack. How funny! :D

I find it especially sad when those who do speak and warn are often attacked by the true New Evangelicals who are still hanging around their old Fundy crowd. These are not only predictable in their attacks but humorously predictable in it being a personal attack.

Okay so you were tongue-in-cheek fishing for a personal attack from the uptight guys but find it “especially sad” that the warners (not attackers of course!) are attacked by the true New Evangelicals (anyone in particular or a predictable generalized smear?) who are “humorously predictable” in their attacks. Why would you be sad about a personal attack you were looking for that would put you in a predictable better light as one who predictably speaks and warns about those compromising true New Evangelicals who are so predictable? You sound conflicted Bob. You humorously searched for what you knew would happen and you’re sad? Or humored?