Is there a pattern here?
Perhaps we can think of this in another way, not immediately jumping on the condemnation bandwagon. Can we assume that the leadership of the organization really do mean to glorify God with this decision? The organization is more than its name.The environment on many campuses is toxic towards the cause of Christ, and if you represent an organization which includes "Christ" in its name, many doors are instantly closed to you. The misunderstandings that are so prevalent in colleges and universities can be evoked by the name, creating an insurmountable barrier to communication. If, through a name change, that barrier can be avoided, allowing for a personal connection to be made, wouldn't that be good?Personally, I would think it more important to choose a name that does not suggest the word "crusade". Why oh why would an organization ostensibly dedicated to spreading the cause of Christ choose a name that is associated with the most damnably shameful and wicked acts committed in Christ's name? The connotations attached to this word are not insignificant. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have shrewdly invoked the crusades as a call to arms for jihadists against the West, the sense of hurt is still so keenly felt amongst some. President Bush, betraying a startling ignorance of history, referred to the war on terror as a "crusade" in several speeches, enflaming hatred in the Middle East towards Christianity and the West. It is a word loaded with meaning and history, not to be used lightly.I'll state clearly that I neither support nor condemn CCFC/Cru's change of name, nor do I openly support or resist the organization. I do wonder if we can see another side to this issue, though. Why can't we assume the best of those who are supposed co-labourers? Why is this forum so full of condemnation? Need we be so hung up on semantics?For what it's worth,aaron
Very sad... but not surprising. It's God's judgement, really.I've found myself becoming more and more bold in my proclamation of the truth the more I grow in the Lord. There is a Christian friend of mine who says I need to employ more "stealth evangelism" in my life... to which I reply "get thee behind me, Satan".But thats a phrase I am hearing more and more: Stealth Evangelism.No no! Boldy proclaim the Truth! If people reject it, get offended and walk away then the only conclusion you can draw is that God is not saving them anyway... at least not right now. But nowhere in scripture can a person defend not being bold. Not rude or intentionally offensive, but BOLD.Krispy
While I agree that any time Christ's name is removed from anything it is sad and disappointing, I sympathize with aaronhobbs' sentiments. The news article reporting this is at least slightly sensationalist. Working in Muslim Ministry I can vouch for the fact that using the word "Crusade" immediately creates an obstacle to the gospel. The Crusades are major history for Muslims and though the slaughter of Christians in Spain up to present day killings around the world by Muslims are even more appalling, the killing and atrocities perpetrated on Muslims in the name of Christ during the Crusades is absolutely something we should distance ourselves from. I appreciate the desire to describe evangelism with militant terms and the encouragement to inspire the Church to take ground, but the word "Crusade" does harm.I know a number of evangelists who I greatly admire who use the word crusade; however, I think it would be wise to take "Crusade" out of Christianese vocabulary. It means something else to those outside the Church culture and it definitely means something else to those in the Middle East and around the world.I also know at least two sold-out missionaries in their twenties who were greatly blessed by the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ and did indeed refer to it as "Cru" before this occurred. In spite of the disappointment of removing the name of our LORD, let's hope this decision was made out of pure motives.
KrispyKrittr,You would probably enjoy reading Adoniram Judson's biography entitled "To the Golden Shore", by Courtney Anderson. He was a missionary to Burma, a land ruled by a terrifying despot. He went to Burma and boldly proclaimed Christ, in spite of the many warnings. In fact, the first tract that he made and translated into Burmese proclaimed that there is only One True God, and that all other gods are false. He wouldn't receive people too easily for baptism either, he would make sure that they have a genuine desire to follow Jesus Christ to death, screening down those who were simply following their emotions or influenced by their peers. His approach was quite different from the shy and powerless approach that we often see nowadays. His approach was much more faithful to the example of Paul, who stood in front of angry crowds boldly preaching Christ, unashamedly. But, God's power was behind him... if God is not with us, I can understand why we would want to hide and use manipulation. May God be pleased to make us bold for Christ, in spite of the angry crowds, the rejection, and the persecution.In Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior,Renoncer
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. I wonder, when the Sanhedrin boldly told the Apostles not to mention the name of Jesus, as it was obviously offensive to them, should they have obeyed men or God?"I'll state clearly that I neither support nor condemn CCFC/Cru's change of name, nor do I openly support or resist the organization."Well that is pretty clear, you have no position, I will take you at your word...........brother Frank
There is a Christian friend of mine who says I need to employ more "stealth evangelism" in my life... to which I reply "get thee behind me, Satan".But thats a phrase I am hearing more and more: Stealth Evangelism.
if God is not with us, I can understand why we would want to hide and use manipulation.
His...[ Adoniram Judson ] approach was much more faithful to the example of Paul, who stood in front of angry crowds boldly preaching Christ, unashamedly. But, God's power was behind him... if God is not with us, I can understand why we would want to hide and use manipulation. May God be pleased to make us bold for Christ, in spite of the angry crowds, the rejection, and the persecution.In Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior,Renoncer.............Excellent and moving post, Renouncer. It is the preaching of the cross, The willful shed Blood of Jesus, and Him making a way for us by being born again by His Spirit. Then, what the Devil fears most, those who actually learn how to love....and are transformed as Christ to give life.I like to greet folks at times, saying that I love Jesus...and get His Name out there right away...[ not all the time..] If Satan can quench this fire in us as to our unashamed love for Jesus, he's got us where he wants us.The beginning of "Falling Away."
I have had no personal encounter with CCFC, all I know is what I read and hear from others. However....There is a lot of power in a name. I know of Christian missionaries, ministries who work in countries very hostile to Christianity. In order for them to even be there they have to work underground. Instead they work in 'tent making' jobs, working for the country in education or medicine or some other humanitarian activity. They will tell you upfront they will never come back with impressive stats on people being saved, but hope to introduce people to the LORD privately and they in turn will evangelize their own. Blaine made the point of how so many popular groups today started out well as Christian but have since apostasized. This happens all over the place. Why this happens would make for an interesting research project for someone, I think. He named a few organizations and I could add more to that list...Just thinking about why this happens - is it possible that when their directors assume this role as this being their career that it begins to shift from being Christ centered to to humanitarian only? Is it possible that when people work in the gutter, they see first hand the injustices inflicted upon helpless peoples, they will resort to political means to fix the problem and evangelism is ignored? and then eventually abandoned altogether? (I have personally witnessed this in an organization when a director assumed the job of director of a ministry. For her it was just a job, she did not have the passion for the work like the person she replaced. And it went downhill from there.) Just wondering...What say?