Campus Crusade's Jesus Idol...

CCC numerical claim's are equally embarrassing on the local level.

When I arrived at U. of New Hampshire as a new staff member, there had been a big event the previous semester. Steve Sawyer, an evangelist that had contracted AIDS due to hemophilia had spoken to 400 students, and 75 had professed faith in Christ.

Two months later, we could not point to 5 students involved with out ministry that were among those 75 souls that at gone from death to life.

The gospel is regularly presented so that there is no counting the cost, no commitment to obedience, just a vague invite Jesus into your heart, don't you feel sorry for the winsome young hemophiliac?

It was very strange to me, though I was a relatively young Christian, to see that no one else thought it was odd for our ministry to claim 75 new births last semester, while pointing excitedly to two new believers in our fellowship. Imagine the mother that excitedly reports the ten children that God has given here, and seems surprised if you ask where any of them are.

As for the JESUS film, it's just crazy in so many ways. So much time and money have been invested in taking that film to people that have never seen moving pictures before. What in the world does response to it mean?

"Embarrassing?" No, it's much worse than that. It makes Charles Finney look penny ante.

Years ago I told a Campus Crusade for Christ International staff worker who was a close friend that I'd observed lying to be written into CCC's DNA. There was the false advertising of the Jesus Film hucksters that had been carried on for decades; and those international lies had worked their way down to individual staff workers as they reported on "decisions for Christ" at evangelism events; and it even extended down to the level of the way staff workers reported how their support raising was going.

The context for my expression of concern was this particular staff worker's efforts at that time to raise support for a full-time CCC job. After telling him my concern over the inability of CCC and its staff members to be truthful, I pointed out to him that every time I asked him how his support raising was going, he always said, "Great!" Yet I knew it wasn't going great because his wife had been telling my wife the brutal reality.

"So," I asked him, "how can your raising of support always be going great? It's just not true."

To which he responded, "Well, you're right. It's not always great. Two weeks ago it was awful. But right now it's going really great!"

I gave up.

As former CCC staff worker Dr. Eric Wilson has pointed out above, this lying is systemic and reminds me of what Bernard Nathanson said about his work to legalize abortion with the National Abortion Rights Action League.

After repenting, he wrote a book called "Aborting America" in which he said that, when they were working to legalize abortion in the late sixties and early seventies, they always lied about how many women died due to back alley abortions. He said they'd used the figure 10,000 per year although they'd known it was a lie.

Why?

Nathanson reported they lied because they were convinced the righteousness of their cause justified lying. (Keep in mind that the parallel I'm noting is not between CCC's work and Nathanson's work, but between crusaders of one sort or another thinking the righteousness of their cause justifies lies.)

What I really think is that the churches and denominations that poured money into CCC's coffers to fund the Jesus Film work over the past few decades ought to join together and file a class action lawsuit for false advertising. And they should ask a couple of Ken Sande's associates or the Christian Legal Society or the Alliance Defense Fund--or better yet, the Thomas More Law Society which, being Roman Catholic, would have an easier time finding men to judge who are not intimidated by Campus Crusade for Christ International's hordes--to hear the case so it isn't heard and judged by our civil courts.

Seriously. The honor of Christ is at stake.

Love,

Again another organization with no accountability to the local church! Interesting that they want local churches to support them and the local churches are not involved in beginning the ministry or the goal of these organizations.
Too many churches are supporting organizations that at best give lip service to the local churches.
Shame on true believers when they think that the Gospel is propagated with unbiblical methods done by unbiblical organizations!

No one has yet mentioned that in India, Hindus gladly "accept Christ as their Saviour". As long as it doesn't involve losing their other gods. And many a Christian speaker comes home from there with glowing reports of how many people have accepted Christ. The Jesus film is having a similar effect there.

While I do think that there is sometimes pressure to perform and "have good numbers" (I've been there), it's nevertheless slightly disturbing to me how cynical this whole discussion is. I've gone on summer projects with cru and at the end of the summer we had hundreds of people "begin a personal relationship with God."

Were some of those conversions false? Were the numbers inflated? Perhaps. The parable of the sower of the seeds teaches us that even when we share the Gospel faithfully, not all "conversions" result in life transformation. Unless you propose an alternative, missionaries don't really have another metric to rate their progress with other than numbers.

Evangelism is hard work. It sucks sometimes. And the corporate mindset overflows into ministry and everybody wants to look like they've performed really well. I'm not trying to justify false advertising or claims (if that's what they are), but I am trying to point out that there are real people working there, pouring their lives into the work of ministry and attempting to follow the Lord. Don't forget that.

I'm all for accountability, but please inject a modicum of grace into this discussion. People *have* come to know the Lord through cru. It's not just a sham. Maybe cru has generally done a poor job of following through with new believers, but unbridled condemnation like this comes across like the football fan who sits in the stands balancing a hotdog on his beer belly while yelling at the quarterback to do a better job.

Cru can (and should) repent for inflated numerics if necessary. But I would suggest that we all repent for our graceless response to the situation.

Let me start by saying I am currently on staff with cru/campus crusade for Christ. And I am leery of statistal use in ministry in general.
However, the logic of your argument troubles me: it doesn't seem possible, therefore it isn't possible. And using anecdotal evidence, like less than 1/10th of your congregation having seen the film, to support your hunch doesn't help either. We Americans may have televisions and DVD players in every room, but we are not the target audience of the film/ministry. Intend, the film is primarily translated (with the help of Wycliffe I believe) and taken by missionaries to largely unreached people groups. In other words, a pastor in the Venezuelan jungle could say 10/10 of his flock have seen it. And using your logic, he would be shocked that so few around the world have seen it.
Though I mentioned my leeriness of statistics and the "converts" they present, I'll make a simple case for why cru records them. From the beginning, Bill Bright was convinced that the Great Commission was within reach and our ministry DNA revolves around that conviction. The measurement of decisions is simply a way of seeing how we are doing. And while indicated decisions made to follow Jesus certainly doesn't always mean a true regeneration, it is measurable and does give a picture of the progress of the Gospel message.
I would love to read a well reasoned, Biblical critique of measuring decisions in general, and would most likely agree with your conclusion, but this post was little more than mean spirited name calling.

yeah, let's get rid of the Jesus film. It's useless. We should revoke the salvation of anyone who has "come to Christ" through this lie. Oh wait, it's still the gospel. It has still shared the gospel with more people than any of us can claim. I admit the numbers game is stupid, but lets not forget the jesus film has brought the gospel to so many people. And that is what we are supposed to do right. Go and teach the gospel?

Friends,

Jesse and John:

May I point out, as I believe my post clearly states, that on the basis of CCC's own figures not only has one-half the world's population watched the Jesus Film, but 3.1 percent of the world population has made a decision "to accept Christ as their personal Savior and Lord" as a consequence of watching the Jesus Film.

The language I quote is from the 2000 web site. Today's language claims that these are people who have "made a decision for Christ." Perhaps the change in terminology is to evade the embarrassing implications of such a bodacious claim, but when today's web site calls the film "the most effective evangelistic tool ever invented," it's hard to deny that the implication of the current terminology remains true professions of faith.

May I add that the onus is not exactly on me to disprove CCC's claims. CCC presents not a scintilla of evidence to justify these numerical claims. Anecdotal though my claim may be, there's at least a real man standing behind it who is willing to be challenged on it. Find a Lilly Foundation survey, a Gallup or Harris poll, in fact, any independent source at all which comes within ten percent of the CCC claims and I'll be amazed.

James:

There's that as well, dear brother.

Love in Christ,

David

>>I expect that if you guys took a trip to the global south, you'd quickly find the numbers making more sense.

Dear Mr. Holland,

Our adult children have made five trips to Africa where they've worked in orphanages and, so far, adopted two orphans. I've been to Rwanda and Zambia myself and it's knowledge of what you call the global south that leads me to say your numbers make no sense at all.

This afternoon I was talking with a missionary friend just returned from Africa with his wife and children for home assignment, and his global south life and work makes him view your numbers as ludicrous.

You should repudiate them--both your "billions" who have watched and your "230 million" saved.

As a number of Campus Crusade for Christ International/Cru staff workers have pointed out in response to these posts, this dishonesty is in your DNA. Read their testimony. This is not a one-off fluke. It's what Campus Crusade for Christ International does, and since you use these numbers to raise money, it's false advertising.

But worse, it dishonors the Name of our Lord Jesus.

Love,

PS: We commended Jenkin's "Next Christendom" back in April of 2008.

This way of measuring success is fairly recent in church history. It really dates from the Second Great Awakening and the work of Charles Finney and company.

In the First Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, who was the historian of the revival and a preacher in it, said that fruit takes time to be measured. He was hesitant to report any "decisions" for Christ. He knew that many who seemed to be awakened were not in fact converted. Time is needed to see who was genuinely saved. So the results of a revival could only be determined as people gave evidence of a changed life and were examined for church membership.

That changed with the Second Great Awakening. Finney made a direct appeal to the sinner's will and urged them to "decide" for Christ at that very moment. He wanted them to perform some physical act that signified a break from their sinful past, whether it be coming forward in response to an altar call or moving up to the anxious bench. This physical act signified a new beginning. Thus, the results of a revival could be known immediately and were often reported in the next newspaper.

The changes that are evident as you move from the First to the Second Great Awakening are massive, both theologically and practically.

- Is our will in bondage to sin or free?
- Can only God change a man's heart or are sinners bound to change their own hearts?
- Are we sinners because we inherited a sinful nature from Adam or because we commit sins?
- Does ability limit obligation? If we are commanded to repent and believe, does it necessarily follow that we can repent and believe?
- Did the work of Christ effectually save anyone or did it merely render the salvation of all men possible if they meet a list of conditions?
- Is a revival a miraculous work of God or not?
- Is it God's extraordinary work or His normal work?
- Can only God bring it about or can man bring it about if he obeys God's laws?

Cru is the direct descendant of the Second Great Awakening no matter how tenatively they report the decisions. The parable of the sower is real. It's not cynicism.

One more perspective: 4 billion over 32 years would amount to an average of 342,000 unique viewers per day over the last 32 years. Considering that the film was not heavily viewed in the first decade or so, they would have needed to accomplish more like 500,000 daily (at least) for the last 15 years or so.

It would be interesting to know how many have been involved in traveling and showing the films on a day-by-day, year-round basis . . .

Another note: I agree with you David - lying is in Cru's DNA. Just as it is in the church. It is well to remember that the reason lying is in the DNA of a ministry is because it is in our DNA as humanity. "There is no one who is righteous; not even one" If lying is in our DNA, then the words of our Lord are proved true: "You must be born again." We do not condone lying in ministry by any means, nor can we use this as a license for sin, but in humility to rely on God who can use us (and Cru) for His glory in spite of our DNA. No one is righteous. There is no place in God's church for name calling and pointing fingers, but there is always a place for love and for calling our brothers and sisters to act in a manner which is worthy of the calling they have received. We should be careful not to throw mud. As I have heard it rightly put by Ravi Zacharias, "When you throw mud at each other, not only do you get your hands dirty, but you also lose a lot of ground." It is always

Thanks for the article calling Cru to the standard of God. I hope that they heed and repent, just as I hope we can do daily. And I pray that they continue to impact the lives of college students around the world for the sake of Christ.

Glory to God

Sean,

Forgive me for using you as a placeholder, but I always get a bit frustrated with those who rebuke pastors for their tone in addressing sin within the church. Well, in this case outside of the church (parachurch.) The response is always, "Well, THAT wasn't very graceful or kind," with the assumption being that of a soft, American (and, forgive me, but feminine) : "Love is never hard or confrontational." But, brother, look at Paul confronting Peter in front of the Judiazers. Read Corinthians. Both of 'em. In fact, look at most of the New Testament. There are hard things said very bluntly ALL OVER it.

So, we cannot say that true, biblical love isn't hard or blunt and we cannot say that PASTORS who are calling out to those working OUTSIDE the institution that God ordained to be truthful in their speech, shouldn't just say it like it is. This is a call to repentance, not posted to the New York Times. Judgement is to begin within the church. I just shook my head at Ben above comparing a pastor set apart for work in God's church to a fat football fan on the sideline, yelling at the quarterback. The reality of the situation is quite the reverse, actually. Most Cru workers are the ones on the sidelines, seeking a profession of faith and then moving on to other work for the rest of their lives: arm-chair quarterbacking. Pastors, set apart by the laying on of hands for their lifelong work in God's ordained institution of the church are the ones on the field, in the meetings on a weekly basis, giving their lives in the service of souls. They are the ones who disciple and go house to house with tears. They are the ones who are in the arena for a lifetime and stain the ground with their blood and sweat. They are the ones who don't have the fans on earth who give them money (supporters and donors) to whom to produce stats. But, rather, pastors have the one from Whom they have received their charge and to Whom they will one day give an account. And also, the officers of the institution God has established as their authority.

Pastors who are humble enough to work with individual souls who are known to them in all their grotesque sin and will love these men, women and children over decades - warning, correcting, training, and teaching them to obey everything that He has commanded. These men are worthy of our honor. Pastors.

As a former staff member of Campus Crusade I remember being required to fill out "stat sheets" with who we shared the gospel with that week. This lead to: false motives for sharing the gospel, a pride in self when (when you got people to "say the prayer"), and a lessening of calling people to repentance since you desired to "pad your stats". Making much of the "stat" was the name of the game. Not all staff felt this was right. I was part of a significant exodus of staff who felt that it was becoming more about stats, marketing, and agendas rather than Jesus.

for a blog that is a supposed call to humility, it (and subsequent comments) seem oddly lacking it. as a financial supporter of Cru recently pointed out to me (regarding how Christians have been attacking Cru's recent organizational decision) "Christians love to eat their own".

And yes, the Baby Boomer is meant to be ironic. hehe

>>but - of course - it's easier for commenters and bloggers to stereotype any organization.

Honestly, Dennis; all bloggers? All commenters? Or are you only including bloggers who are Christians and white and heterosexual?

It floors me how predictable people are in their criticisms of posts and comments. So often they do precisely the thing they're complaining about, as here.

But really, I don't fault the poor man for his stereotyping since, as Ortega y Gasset put it, "All true thinking begins with exageration." Like the hypothesis of the scientific method, for instance...

Can we please simply be quiet and work to restore our financial support and Great Commission work to the Church? And will someone please simply tell all those in Campus Crusade who have in any way profited, financially, from the "billions" served of the Jesus Film ads over the past three decades to get their hucksters to stop lying. It's that simple. Cut the hyperspiritual blather.

Lies are lies and they should stop.

With love,

Well said, good sir. I bet when you justify to your constituents that you're worth every penny of your salary that's likely 3x to 4x more than more missionaries - I bet it's quite with astute.

Well said.

oh no... you got rid of your comment -- and now my chuckling comment makes no sense.

why the editing?

Dear Dennis,

Brother, I gored your ox, apparently. I did so never knowing your name or of your existence, but I don't doubt that you're hurt by what I've said about CCC even though it wasn't aimed at you personally.

For that reason I'll not complain about your personal attack in response.

But please remember the difference between goals and accomplishments. By the measure by which you've judged me, CCC stands on even worse ground because their stated goals have always been grand. Yet we're not criticizing goals here, we're criticizing claims of accomplishment. In your unhappiness you've missed the distinction, but it's an important one.

Love in Christ,

David

Dennis Leskowski? I know him. This will be fun. I feel like two worlds of mine are colliding. Very strong forces going head to head.

To be fair though, I admire Dennis. I think he has the skills and abilities to succeed in almost every area of life, and he chose to use those skills to glorify God.

Wow, I just stumbled upon this and I am embarrassed for you Baylys(s). Arguing in a blog/comment section is just like the Special Olympics, no one really wins.

I find it funny Dennis was engaging with you and your comments disappeared. Seems pretty Hitlitarian/Marxist of you.

Sad to say the 15 minutes of my life I lost while reading this blog post and comments, I will never have back, and come to think of it, all this time wasted on this blog could have been put to use developing relationships with our neighbors, spending time in the Word and in prayer, or going for a walk.

Wow Baylys(s), I am glad to see you have so much going on in your church that you have time to bash an organization that has been around for 60 years, versus tending to your flock or reaching out to your community. As a matter of fact, you even have time to stalk Dennis on Twitter. Wow - things must really be humming for you at your church if you have all this free time.

I am glad I am not member of your congregation, or affiliated with you in any way. Unfortunately, I am as a follower of Christ, good to know there will be plenty of room in heaven and you can get a view of the back of my head from where you are.

Telling Dennis to do the right thing? Sirs, I will encourage you to do the right thing and take down this blog post. All it has done is cause strife. I will pray for you both and your good souls this evening. And that you will do the right thing.

Cheers.

I hear that CCC staff even let their new staff dance to Michael Jackson's thriller at their New Staff Training.

Is there an edit tool that I am not seeing? I stink at typing and had a ton of typos!