Maranatha Baptist University drops 'Crusaders' nickname

4756 reads

There are 17 Comments

Steve Newman's picture

I'm ambivalent. It certainly could be seen as noble and chivalrous. In the article, the Muslims are no their side. Should I worry about that?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Use of "crusaders" is based a particular view of history anyway, not a particular view of the Bible or of the Christian faith or of Islam. Even most of the strongly pro-Christian historians of that period I've read grant that lots of things went on during the crusades that weren't right. It's a good move.

Larry Nelson's picture

Having spent 17 days in Israel, I witnessed first-hand how much our Israeli tour guides loathed the Crusaders.  They took tourist groups like mine to several historical Crusader sites, but they made no secret of their contempt for the Crusaders.  Worse yet, they equated "Crusader" with "Christian" even today.

Ron Bean's picture

I see that two Roman Catholic Schools are (Belmont and Holy Cross) are keeping it. It's their history anyway. With the demise of "Fighting Lutherans" is "Fighting Baptists" up for consideration?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

dgszweda's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Use of "crusaders" is based a particular view of history anyway, not a particular view of the Bible or of the Christian faith or of Islam. Even most of the strongly pro-Christian historians of that period I've read grant that lots of things went on during the crusades that weren't right. It's a good move.

 

It is not just history, but also current events.  Many jihadists are called crusaders.  Rebels are called crusaders.  Given the current climate of the world, I can see, from a global perspective, how this can be viewed negatively.

mmartin's picture

Not that it really matters to me, but I think this is a good move.

I like the suggestion of the Maranatha Cupcakes - good idea, at least for their football team.  :-)!

Larry's picture

Moderator

is "Fighting Baptists" up for consideration?

No one wants to be redundant do they?

pvawter's picture

mmartin wrote:

I like the suggestion of the Maranatha Cupcakes - good idea, at least for their football team.  :-)!

Man, that's harsh. As a former Crusader offensive lineman, it pains me to admit that their recent football record might suggest that nickname. I am trying to do my part, though. I just started preseason training for the 2014 Alumni Game, my one-game season.
I am partial to the MBU Leviathans or the Behemoths. Of course, the women's teams would be called the Lady Behemoths...not so flattering.

mmartin's picture

Saw this on Yahoo Sports:

"Wake Forest Demon Deacons: Before 1923, Wake Forest was known as the Fighting Baptists. That changed after a victory over Duke in 1923, when a newspaper reporter coined the term "Demon Deacons" to refer to Wake Forest's devilish play and fighting spirit."

 

 

SuzanneT's picture

Enjoying the laughs from this thread. The pics of Billy Sunday are a hoot! Especially next to "The Reformers".  Were theatrics kind of his shtick? or was he serious with those moves..? Perhaps a bit of both Smile

JobK's picture

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. 

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Rolland McCune's picture

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.

 

 

 

Rolland McCune

James K's picture

JobK wrote:

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.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.