You are here

Home ›

Speaking of Campus Crusade for Christ International/Cru...

by David and Tim Bayly on July 27, 2011 - 6:32am

A blog calling itself "Thinking Christian" with a commendation by Josh McDowell featured prominently doesn't bode well for the state of critical thinking in the church today. Josh has done fine work but he's far from state of the art in the discipline Harry Blamires outlines in his little classic, The Christian Mind (which if you haven't read, you certainly should).

So my hopes weren't high when I started reading the post by blog-owner Tom Gilson titled "Is Campus Crusade Falling Away from Christ?" Gilson works as a "strategic planner" for Campus Crusade for Christ International, so this is an institutional voice speaking, here.

The piece demonstrates the depth of thought and BIblical discernment that, in my observation, has always characterized Cru. Their men seem incapable of receiving substantive criticism or instruction without responding superficially, always telling us their intentions are perfect and God is blessing them with trillions of souls "trusting Jesus."

The superficiality makes sense, though, if you consider that, over the course of years, a man comes to resemble his dog...

We can expect that over the course of fifty years the minds of Cru men will have difficulty developing beyond their doctrine-eschewing nondenominational parachurch keep things very simple "evangelistic" ministry.

Fault me for saying it, but it's what I've observed working personally with men low and high within the ministry. And for me, at least, it's getting late in the day and I want the next generation of Church officers to lead the church in reforming the parachurchification of the Church and Her mission that is flooding the Western world.

Gilson's defense of the name change illustrates the pure-as-the-driven-snow motives and claims of extraordinary blessing ("billions" reached) and mishandling of Scripture that one would expect from a longtime Cru employee. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole post. Evangelical parachurch religious workers have a way of thinking that the simple declaration of pure passions and transporting worship experiences and lilly-white intentions and huge numbers of fruit--ALWAYS those HUGE numbers with Cru--will surely carry the day.

The Apostles’ Example
There was no named ministry organization in the early church. There were only men and women who followed Christ and ministered in his name. Wherever they went they carried the Name of Christ with them, but not on business cards—and not always at the start of every conversation.

At the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13ff), Paul started on common ground with his Jewish listeners, reviewing their common history and scriptures together. He took some time preparing to introduce the Name of Christ. The Phllippian jailer experienced an encounter with Christ’s power and was ready to be saved before he heard the Name (Acts 16:25-31). Although it’s possible he heard Paul and Silas singing hymns to Christ, more likely he was out of earshot until Paul called out “with a loud voice.”

On the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34), Paul doesn’t even mention the Name. He starts from common ground with the Greeks, and moves on to preach of One God and of the Resurrection.

Forming a Biblical Principle
Of course it’s true that on many occasions the apostles began their messages by naming Christ openly. It’s just that they didn’t do it every time. They were flexible according to the audience’s needs, which in every case was to hear of Christ in the most accurate and winsome way.

...our leaders judged correctly that there is nothing unbiblical in not having the Name of Christ in the name of our mission. It can actually free us up to become more effective and (in the sense I’ve outlined above) more biblical in our witness.

For sixty years, Campus Crusade for Christ has led in taking Christ’s Name to billions of people around the world. Cru is committed to doing the same for as long as the Lord allows.

Honestly, where does one start? Speaking only of the first and next-to-last sentences of this excerpt, this is the Campus Crusade for Christ I've listened to all my life. "Taking Christ's Name to billions" while pathetic men and women stuck in those moribund "named organizations" commonly called "churches" waste their time making disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded.

Of course, Mr. Gilson would point out he said no such thing and that he has a passion for his church; but churches get in the way of Campus Crusade for Christ International's leadership taking Christ's Name to billions.

We can have our potlucks and more power to us, but Cru is out there saving souls and getting those souls to share Jesus so even more souls can be saved.

Mark my words: it is absolutely necessary that Scripture's particulars again become normative among Evangelicals, and to that end, that we lead Evangelicals back to the Church, Her Sacraments, the discipline of Her officers, corporate worship, and the proclamation of the Gospel by Her Apostles, pastors, elders, and deacons. This is the record left us in the New Testament of the Apostolic fulfillment of the Great Commission.

And if we are to return to Scripture in this way, we must show the error of those men and organizations who claim to be sharing Jesus, which is to say fulfilling the Great Commission, while studiously avoiding the very things our Lord Jesus commanded, starting with Baptism and moving on to that word "everything."

(TB)

 

Tags: 
Discernment
Evangelicalism
Parachurch
Baptism
Missions
Evangelism
Lord's Supper
Pride

Permalink

Comments

Submitted by Kamilla on July 27, 2011 - 8:18am

I think the problem is that we don't understand "Cru". It's right there in the first paragraph. They are not simply another parachurch organization, not just another of the 368 varieties of cereal on WalMart's shelves.

Nosiree, Bob. They are a MOVEMENT.

Now that I've delivered that straight line, I think I'll go sort through one more stack of papers on my desk.

Submitted by Tom Gilson on July 27, 2011 - 9:31am

Many others disagree with you, Pastor Bayly including many, many pastors. I'm sure you believe they are wrong, which of course you are free to think. I pray God will bless your ministry. I do strongly support the church, and so does Cru, which I feel is important to state for the record even if you will find it hard to believe.

Submitted by Paul Belcher on July 27, 2011 - 11:02am

Mr. Gilson,

The 'many others' who would disagree with Pastor Bayly are simply wrong. I was very involved with Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru from 2008 to 2010, and as a young Christian I thought that it was good for me. God blessed me despite the 'movement'. Year after year I saw men and women working for this movement who were almost entirely ashamed of Christ. Sure they would talk about Christ in Bible studies and have what they would call 'discipleship'. But answer me this, why does Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru CLAIM to obey the Great Commission when they outright deny and disobey the very commands therein? Here are Christ's words: "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20). Cru does not make true disciples because it does not baptize and it does not teach men to obey everything that Christ has commanded. Again, week I after week I would go to the large Cru group meeting and everybody was just having a big party and hiding Christ in the name of being 'seeker sensitive'. Christ wasn't presented, worldliness was presented. And you promote the same thing when you say that Christ's name is taken out of the name of the 'movement' in order to reach more for Christ. That makes no sense. How will they know about Christ unless they hear His name and how will they be saved unless they know that there is no other name under heaven by which we but be saved (Acts 4:12)? The Apostle Paul wasn't sensitive to seekers! He preached that men should flee immorality and run to Christ (1 Cor. 6:12-20). Christ didn't hide who He was, he proclaimed to the people of His day who He was, often with the most offensive language possible (John's Gospel). Campus Crusade for Christ cannot obey the Great Commission because it doesn't have the Sacraments. The Church has the Sacraments. The Church is Christ's Bride. And Christ has given authority and the Sacraments, and discipline, and preaching, and true discipleship to His Church, and to particular churches which are ruled by particular men who are elders and pastors.

Submitted by Abram Hess on July 27, 2011 - 11:40am

Cru's fixation on numbers reminds me of those old McDonald's signs. Y'know, with "999,999,900 served"?

"Cru: 999,999,900 souls someone's testimony has been shared with!"

And obviously the message behind the numbers is "999,999,900 people can't be wrong, so why don't you come along?" The same is true with Mr. Gilson's comment above about the majority's opinion of Cru's mission and methods. The majority can't possibly be wrong, can it? Nevermind that rubbish about the broad road that leads to destruction, with many souls on it. And nevermind that nonsense about the narrow road that leads to eternal life, with few who find it. Nevermind that Jesus told us to "beware when all men speak well of you." McDonalds'...er...I mean Cru's 999,999,900 can't possibly be wrong!

Submitted by Abram Hess on July 27, 2011 - 11:42am

Sorry about the preposition I ended the sentence with. It should be:

"Cru: 999,999,900 souls with which someone's testimony has been shared!"

Submitted by Ryan Moran on July 27, 2011 - 11:47am

"I do strongly support the church, and so does Cru..."

Surely you are aware of your broad brush. I have seen Cru support local churches for no purpose other than further supporting Cru's mission. Although staff members state that church membership is encouraged in Cru, it's not for the purpose of some large scale exit plan of them coming under the authority of a local church or anything of the sort. "Partnership" is a term that ruled the day during my involvement.

Submitted by Andy Halsey on July 27, 2011 - 1:48pm

If I were to try to speak for Cru(sade) I'd probably say something like: "Everything cru(sade) does is for the sake of evangelism--go and preach the gospel. The gospel is summarized in four sentences which could be summed up in four words: creation, fall, redemption, decision." This helpful summary makes "sharing the gospel" easier to do without confusion, chasing rabbit trails, and getting caught up in arguments about predestination.

Obviously, many details are left out for the sake of boiling it down to these "essentials." (So how many of Jesus' words can you leave out before "believing in Him" means not having to believe anything He actually said? A Christianity that only believes in the cross will quickly wonder why it bothers with that.)

To put it another way: crusaders brandish a four-point outline as their sword. Once an unbeliever believes the four-points, they are entrusted with a sword of their own and, after a very brief training period (you've only got 4 years, after all), they themselves are unleashed on the front lines. So the front lines are filled with young converts who themselves are beginning to lead studies and go out on to the beaches, marketplaces and frat houses and quickly rack up victories and defeats. Everywhere there is a soldier there is a front. All fronts are the same. All soldiers are basically armed the same. And in four years, the new recruit goes from being an unbeliever (freshman) to being the leader (senior) of leaders (juniors) of leaders (sophomores) and then...he's gone or on staff.

There is one and only one job--the four points. Everyone is as equipped as anyone. All are at the front. Authority is everywhere (and, therefore, nowhere) because all are doing the same thing at the same time. Billions reached then the next moment billions reaching! One great bucket brigade of salvation! And then you read the Bible and it mentions things like...

Elders?

Discipline?

The Lord's Supper? Baptism? (Our friends can do that in Showalter Fountain any night of the week unless the IUPD comes along, right?)

Lots of love and thanks to those in Crusade who did make sure their people were active in Bible believing churches and seriously aimed at developing holiness in us. But the structure of the campus ministry formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ presents a view of the Christian life that makes Biblical authority and discipleship look like a footnote to the Great Commission.

Submitted by Kamilla on July 27, 2011 - 1:55pm

Funny, you'd almost think Someone had planned the exposure of "Cru's" shame to coincide with the ClearNote conference. I know this is somewhat out of order, but I think if would be instructive for those who weren't able to attend to listen to the first three sermons in reverse order, starting with the one by Joseph Bayly.

I'd mention the rest of them, but I haven't yet listened to them.

Submitted by bert perry on July 27, 2011 - 2:05pm

You know, I've seen a lot of churches that look too much like the Crue. Evangelism, yes, but a coherent philosophy of discipleship? Nope.

And so my counsel would be, then, that the surest antidote to superficial faith would be.....deep faith and real discipleship.

(thanks again to our gracious host and his coworkers in the Gospel for sending me a reading list for David's Mighty men--might be worth making a post of, really. And feel free to demand whether I've really gotten started.....sorry!)

Submitted by Craig French on July 27, 2011 - 3:52pm

When told to stop doing what they were doing in Christ's name, the Apostles didn't stop. Cru, on the other hand, commissioned themselves to remove Jesus' name. I guess Cru isn't much different than a first century Jew.

Even Gilson's use of the term "the Name" instead of Jesus smacks of Jewishness.

Submitted by Eric Rasmusen on July 27, 2011 - 6:50pm

You know, I hadn't even realized that the point of the name change
was to remove "Christ" from the name-- I just noticed how dumb
the new name was in itself.

They probably didn't think about how this affects what is
probably the easiest way to witness to Christ, which is to let
your Christian involvement come up casually in conversation. Even
a shy person can say, "I can't study with you Wed. night; I need
to go to a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting." And that might
even start a conversation. But saying, "I can't study with you Wed.
night, I need to go to a Cru meeting" just will make your listener
surprised that you're into competitive rowing. ["Crew" is the
nickname for the ancient college sport of rowing a 9-man boat.]

Submitted by Andy Halsey on July 28, 2011 - 6:11am

My first thought was that it was to remove the Muslim-offending reference to the crusades. People have bristled at that for a while and, when I was involved, no one ever said, "I have a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting." Way too many words. What we said was either "Campus Crusade" or just "Crusade." Are you going to Crusade tonight? This event is sponsored by Campus Crusade. Everybody knew the full name of the group and it was almost never spoken in full. So the only logical reason for the name change would be to save on printing costs, since it's only in mailings and official publications that you'd see "Campus Crusade for Christ."

When I hear them justifying the name change by saying they want to take away the offense, I could handle that. If they were truncating it to get rid of the "crusade" part, that may be considered a needlessly offensive part of the name. I think it's stupid to let people continue to be offended by things that happened 1,000 years before their great grandparents were born but if they're offended by that, then I could give a hearty "Whatever" and drop it.

But they are hiding the name of Christ--now even in their official letterhead and their stated reason for doing so is that Jesus Himself is too offensive to mention. So we'll keep part of the "Crusade" which may be needlessly offensive and we'll drop the "Christ" because we don't want to be associated right off with Him. So the only needful offense is gone and we're stuck with a strange name that, not being a word, can only be explained with reference to the old offensive name. Because, when someone asks you what you do, and strategic planning gets them interested, saying you plan for Christ is a turnoff. So you say you plan for Cru.

And that will help the conversation along until someone, out of nowhere, is clever enough to ask us (I know this could never happen in a million years but humor me for a moment) "Cru? What's that?"

Submitted by Daniel Meyer on December 2, 2011 - 8:05am

>> Many others disagree with you, Pastor Bayly including many, many pastors. I'm sure you believe they are wrong, which of course you are free to think.

"There are 400 of us and only one of you, puny Elijah."

"The whole world is against you, Athanasius."

"What will become of your vulgar translation now, Mr. Tyndale?"

"How did the Spirit of the LORD pass from me to speak to you, Micaiah?"

How is it that someone in leadership in an organization whose whole purpose is ostensibly Great Commission work argues from raw numbers just as the false prophets, the priests of Baal, and the faithless and godless always have?

Add new comment

2013 Clearnote Summer Conference
Man vs. Lust
Sexual by Design