Maranatha Baptist University drops 'Crusaders' nickname

I agree with Don Johnson over on Paleoevangelical that the current flap over MBBC’s change of mascot logo “seems to be too much anxiety over something that has very little meaning.” Appealing to history often cuts both ways, especially if centuries or even millennia intervene between the “then” and the “now,” as Don demonstrates. Names such as Spartans or Trojans are good examples. This is to say nothing about the derivation of the word “Christmas,” use of Christmas trees, Yule Logs or the names of the days and months in our present vocabulary. Many of these go back to the Ancient Near East (e.g., the Baal Asherah cult in its numerous manifestations) filtered through the degenerate paganism of ancient Rome. Purging the present-day Christian’s vocabulary based on ancient usage is difficult and endless (and most of time meaningless in my judgment). (I once had a professor whose historicism about Christmas practices turned to histrionics that led him on a “crusade” that ended very badly for him, his followers and the institution where he was employed.) To me the use of ancient words, names, etc., becomes a wisdom issue for the Christian, but sometimes the bases and aftermath of many changes thereof offer a whole lot less than meets the eye. “All things to all men” may not always be applicable.

The above, being interpreted, means that I have/had no problem with MBBC’s “Crusader” nor with their opt for another name. But I seriously doubt that their contact with Islam and/or other groups was or would be impaired with the former logo, or that their contact with Roman Catholicism was enhanced by by it.

[JobK]

Save in defense of one’s person and of the innocent. They most definitely should not use it to promote or defend the faith. Anabaptists even held that it should not be used to promote or defend the state, and I have not been able to find evidence in the Bible where they are wrong (though I should point out that I approach the scriptures from an NCT view, not CT or dispensationalism). So even though in more recent times, “crusade” has other meanings (i.e. evangelistic revivals) I have no problem with a Christian school that wishes not to have a moniker that associates it with militarism, especially of the sort of the Crusades. While the Muslims most definitely posed a real threat to Europe (indeed and very nearly conquered it) and the military actions of Charles Martel, El Cid and others to defeat and drive back that threat was certainly legitimate (Anabaptist objections notwithstanding), for the most part the Crusades were simply papists and Muslims contending over their own vain superstitions concerning Jerusalem and Israel. Why any Protestant evangelical or fundamentalist would want to associate themselves with that sort of anti-Christian nonsense by taking up its name is beyond my ability to comprehend. My chief regret is that the urgent need to distance themselves from the papal superstition that the name represents was not the stated reason for dropping it.

Nicely done.