I’m a long-term staff member with Campus Crusade for Christ who has believed that it was time for a change in our movement’s name. Last Monday the announcement was made that our U.S. ministries would become “Cru.”
For me the change was welcome. Not everyone is likewise convinced it’s a good thing. Some observers in the blogosphere have taken a cautious stance—Touchstone, for example—but a few members of the press and some bloggers have been sharply critical of Campus Crusade’s dropping “Christ” from our movement’s name. I’ve seen headlines like, “The Beginning of the End.” I’ve seen dire warnings that we are falling away from Christ. I’ve seen pastors writing that their churches could no longer support us in our apparent apostasy.
No Place for Pride
We recognize that anything is possible: there is no guarantee that God will keep his hand of blessing on our ministry, and those who think they stand must take heed lest they fall. When Bill Bright left Campus Crusade’s presidency, I wrote up a study for leaders on how prior movements had come and gone, and I learned there were more than a few that had slipped away from their founding vision in Christ. Possibly the greatest missions sending movement of all time is one that’s all but lost to memory today: the Student Volunteer Movement. For decades around the turn of the 20th century it had been vibrant, world-changing, sending thousands around the globe;, but theological liberalism led to its downfall around 1920. The Y (its official name now) was originally the Young Men’s Christian Association. Its Christian roots are all but invisible now.
We’re Holding Close to Christ
Still, as I wrote elsewhere yesterday, I wish everyone could have experienced what we staff members did on the days this name change was announced. It was above all a time of worship, repentance from sin, exalting the name of Christ, re-affirming our commitment to our mission, and learning new ways to advance the glory and knowledge of Christ. We spent hours on that. Included in that mix was about 60 or so minutes spent on the new name, but even that was positioned in context of our continuing mission to reach the world for Christ.
For that reason, even though I know anything is possible, I remain convinced Campus Crusade for Christ (Cru) will stay focused on knowing Jesus Christ and making him known, for at least as long as we are led by the current generation of leaders. And because of their leadership and the biblical reverence and worship expressed among our staff members, I believe we’ll continue on track with Christ for years beyond that.
A Biblical Perspective
What does the Bible say about our name, though? Much of the debate I’ve seen centers around one question: should we bring the Name of Christ with us as a banner everywhere we go, or can it stay in the background for a while sometimes? As “Campus Crusade for Christ,” we see the banner effect all the time: people see our written material or signs, and they form impressions of us right from the start, based on whatever impression they might have of Christ or of other Christians. The same thing happens to us when someone asks us who we work for.
Is there a problem with that? Some bloggers think we’re “backing away” from the Name of Christ because of shame. Not by any means! It’s no accident that one of our leaders focused on Romans 1:16 at our staff conference this week. And there was nothing extraordinary about him doing so: it’s engraved on all of our hearts. Still the question remains, is it necessary or even helpful, though, to present the name of Christ at the beginning of a conversation with a non-believer? Let’s look at the New Testament witness.
Jesus’ Example
John chapter 9 is devoted to the story of Jesus healing the man born blind. It begins with Jesus and the disciples having a short theological discussion with this man in the background. There is no indication that the blind man knows who Jesus is. Then He heals him. A spat with the Jewish leaders ensues: who was this man who did this, and why did he do it on the Sabbath? This newly-sighted man knew very little: “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25, ESV).
When Jesus meets him again at the end of the chapter, the conversation goes like this:
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
Jesus ministers first and reveals His identity later. All of His ministry, in fact, could be seen as a gradual unfolding of his identity. The disciples finally caught on to it at His resurrection; but even then we have instances of Jesus ministering first and revealing later who He was (Luke 24:13-35, for example).
When He was in dialogue with the Pharisees toward the end of His ministry on earth, He often withheld from answering their full questions. He seemed to follow a rule of revealing as much as they were ready to receive, but no more than that.
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.
We 21st century believers ought to follow their example of flexibility. Ephesians 4:29 tells us to tailor our words according to the need of the moment, to give grace to those who hear. It is not the case— it cannot be—that we must always—inflexibly—bring up the name of Christ at the start of every conversation. To do so would be to adopt a strategy that is not only ineffective, but contrary to the biblical example.
Now, do we always move toward the Name of Christ? Of course, and as quickly as possible. There is no Good News without Jesus. Cru has no mission apart from Jesus. No mission or church does. We have no life apart from Him. But it is not always necessary or wise to begin with the Name. Consider for example the rough unbeliever whose only experience with the Name of Christ is as a cuss word, along with an impression of holier-than-thou sanctimony and conservative politics. When he hears Christ brought up in conversation with no context or preparation, he’s likely to run away. If instead he receives some ministry first, or maybe hears the message told in story form building toward Christ (as the Bible does it, in fact), there’s a much greater chance he’ll be open to listening.
So the principle in summary is: Talk about Christ, share his good news in the power of the Holy Spirit, urge others to follow Him; but do so wisely; be flexible to do it in a manner that is least likely to raise needless barriers and most likely to win them over.
“Stealth” Witness?
One blogger said this was sneaky and underhanded: “stealth” ministry, he (or she) called it. If so, then Jesus and the apostles are guilty of the same. But that’s not what it is at all. Cru will not hide our devotion to Christ any more than Campus Crusade for Christ has done, which is not at all. It is not deceitful to use wisdom in how one brings forth Christ’s Name in conversation; rather it is (by definition) the wise thing to do.
Campus Crusade for Christ staff members have known this for a long time. When a seat-mate on an airplane asks, “What do you do?” I usually answer, “I’m a writer and a strategist.” I know that’s likely to open the door for a longer talk: “Oh, really? What do you write about?” From there the conversation flows, and there’s plenty of opportunity to introduce Jesus.
Applying the Principle
There are times when the first thing I want to talk about with someone is Jesus Christ. There are other times when I know that beginning there would shut down all conversation from the start. For the sake of being biblical and for effectiveness in my mission, I need to be able to be flexible in my approach. That’s not easy when the first thing the person knows about me is that I work with Campus Crusade for Christ. It takes that conversational option away from me.
The same thing that happens to me individually also happens in larger contexts. If the poster for a meeting includes, “Sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ,” some people will run away as far as they can get—because of the Name of Christ there. They’ll continue to believe whatever false view of Jesus they might have, and they’ll miss the opportunity to hear the truth about Him.
Does this mean we absolutely had to drop the name “Christ” from our organization? No; the real problem with our name (as I saw it, at least) was “Campus,” which overlooks a large proportion of what we do, and “Crusade,” which has gained serious negative associations as awareness of Islam has increased. Those two terms were the reason we needed to change. Once the door opened for a change, though, 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 partnered with thousands of churches and mission agencies to help take the name of Jesus Christ to billions of people around the world. Cru is committed to doing the same for as long as the Lord allows.
(Edited: see comments 66-68; further edit made ca. 6:00 pm, 7/28/11, for accuracy)
(Cross-posted at Thinking Christian)
July 22nd, 2011 | 7:20 pm | #1
I’ve come to be slightly suspicion of organizations like Campus Crusade. Like many church denominations, there is a tendency for such organizations to develop self-perpetuating agendas, biases towards policies that will increase their own market share, and reward systems that foster inwardly focused loyalties.
It is often difficult for someone employed by such an organization to objectively recognize these tendencies. Quite the opposite, in fact. As if moved by an unseen hand, the staff member suddenly just feels the need to act as as a PR rep.
July 22nd, 2011 | 8:44 pm | #2
The question, JGY, is whether the biblical basis I wrote about here is sound. If it is, it doesn’t matter who wrote it.
July 22nd, 2011 | 9:23 pm | #3
Good move. The Lord wants us to wise as a snake, and harmless as a dove. Wisdom with a heart for Christ is what we need. Seems Bill Bright’s heart is still moving on–and his heart was for Christ; and for sinners to come to Christ.
July 23rd, 2011 | 10:05 am | #4
Thank you. I wish people would stop focusing on a name and start focusing on who the organization really is and what they stand for.
I also find it very interesting Jesus doesn’t address what his followers will be called, only what they will do.
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:35
In Matthew 7:15 through 20, Jesus warns of false prophets saying “by their fruit you will recognize them.” Jesus always focused on the actions and on the heart. Not reputation.
Even today we see numerous cults and non-believing groups who use the name of Jesus right in there name. The focus should not be on what you call yourself but instead who you really are. Not on your reputation but your character.
When I look at CCC, or now Cru, I see a group committed to spreading and sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in every way they can to every person they can.
July 23rd, 2011 | 10:55 am | #5
I guess what I find somewhat unsettling is the underlying assumption that a name that communicates nothing is better for the mission of Campus Crusade, than one that clearly communicates. There’s just a whole lot of potential baggage in that idea, and it may not portend well for what goes on in the heads of those who devised the change.
July 23rd, 2011 | 12:29 pm | #6
BTW, none of what I suggest is to be equated with “falling away from Christ.” But there are kinds of “going in an unhealthy direction” that fall short of that and merit concern.
July 23rd, 2011 | 1:22 pm | #7
The problem with the name “that clearly communicates” is that it communicates “Campus,” which is no longer descriptive of a huge proportion of what the ministry does, and it communicates “Crusade,” which has its obvious liabilities.
“Cru” admittedly does not communicate. Neither did “Google” when it started, and neither did the Nike name or its swoosh when they were introduced. The point is not (as I’m sure some will falsely accuse) that CCC is trying to “be like” these secular companies. The point rather is that we have examples to demonstrate that over time, a name can acquire meaning.
Campus Crusade for Christ has discussed this among its staff. The message is, the name is an empty vessel. It will acquire the meaning the we give it by what we do, what we say, who we are. We’re willing to take on the challenge of instilling that meaning in the name: it’s a small one compared to our continuing goal of helping to fulfill the Great Commission!
July 23rd, 2011 | 3:44 pm | #8
Well, my concern isn’t so much with changing away from CCC, since as you point out, that name has its own liabilities.
But why the choice of a name that is non-communicating?
Sure, a name can acquire meaning. But why not start out with one? What is the reasoning, with all the possible names in the world that could communicate that they are an organization dedicated to the spread of the gospel, do they choose a name that communicates nothing to anyone at first impression?
I am not presuming the worst possible answer to this, I just feel uncomfortable that I have to ask it at all. What motivates a Christian organization not to reveal their identity in their name? It cannot possibly be that doing so never occurred to anyone in the decision-making process, so what motivated them to *reject* that option? That is what raises a yellow flag in the minds of many, I think.
Yes, I know the basic answer is “people were already calling it Cru.” But defaulting to that cannot possibly be the only option that occurred to anyone, so why did they reject a name that openly proclaimed their allegiance to Christ?
Please believe me when I’m saying I’m not presuming the worst possible answer, I just think it’s not unfair to ask it.
July 23rd, 2011 | 3:50 pm | #9
BTW, Nike did communicate, since Nike is the goddess of victory, and back in 1978 there were still probably enough people culturally literate enough to make the association to make it something other than entirely opaque.
Not to dispute your point, just a point of fact. And even Google, if you look into the meaning, could have told you something about what was in their minds — they intended to search on a really massive scale, so the association with 10^100 was apt. I actually got the association the first time I heard it, and I’m no math geek. But Cru has no literal meaning whatsoever, at least not one related in any way to the organization. We’re not talking French vineyards here.
July 23rd, 2011 | 4:05 pm | #10
Some 20 years ago when we changed the name of our college & seminary we were pleasantly surprised by how little criticism we received and how much affirmation came to us for that move. In part we felt this change was successful because for a year or two after the change we used a small font parenthesis referencing our former name. Many other schools and missions have done same. Is this also part of the Cru name-change plan?
July 23rd, 2011 | 7:32 pm | #11
The problem with biblical references in this article is that Jesus is concerned with people getting the wrong idea about the implications of Jesus being the Messiah. The change from CCC -> Cru is rather based off avoiding two of the C’s, and admitting that the third C is a turn-off today.
Jesus wasn’t faced with people being turned off to the idea of someone being Messiah, so I don’t think the analogy holds.
Even if the “Christ” in CCC is not the reason for the name change, you defend dropping it nonetheless on grounds that it shuts doors due to the baggage people associate with the Christian faith.
Perhaps a better analogue would be to compare what the martyrs of the early church did when asked under duress if they were Christians — those vile godless atheists who have incestuous orgies at night and tear apart infants to drink their blood. Under threat of death, their answer was to say: “I am a Christian.” They chose to wear Christ’s name proudly, even when it was scandalous to do so. Not everyone was a Justin Martyr writing an apologia to correct the misperceptions people had about Christians and Christ; they believed they would be known by their fruit in spite of any terrible misunderstandings of the Name, the Name they would wear like a badge of honor no matter what.
I fear that any attempt to avoid the baggage rather than accept the baggage and then redeem the name from said negative associations will be seen as disingenuous. That’s how I would see it, anyway.
July 23rd, 2011 | 9:36 pm | #12
Gary, you say,
I hope you’ll re-read what I wrote about how that “turn-off,” as you described it, makes a difference for persons’ coming to faith in Christ. It’s not about how it affects us (though some have falsely said that we have said that). It’s about how it affects the eternal destiny of those who really are turned off by the name of Christ. If they run from the Name due to false conceptions of Christ, how will they hear the truth?
Now I’m not saying this was a principal reason we changed our name. (I have explained this in the original post.) The point was never that we had to remove Christ from our name for this reason–not at all! The point is that when for other reasons it became advisable to change the name, we were not doing something unbiblical, unchristian, or “ashamed” of Christ if His name were not included in it.
I’m writing this on my mobile where I can’t easily go back and remind myself what you wrote, so I’ll post this much in hopes it addresses your concerns adequately.
July 23rd, 2011 | 9:41 pm | #13
I’ll add this having re-read what you wrote: your analogy to the martyrs really doesn’t apply at all to an organization’s name, does it? It’s about personal encounters. We love to share Christ that way!
July 23rd, 2011 | 11:27 pm | #14
I’m on a computer now where I can write better than on my phone. Where I wrote, “If they run from the Name due to false conceptions of Christ, how will they hear the truth?” what I really meant was this: Our ministry is about sharing Christ with every person we can. If, because of false conceptions of Christ, they run from the Name of Christ when they see it in our organization’s name, we’ll miss that opportunity to tell them the truth about Him.
To reiterate: it’s not about us, it’s about the people who need to know Christ. If there is any barrier raised to them listening to the message—other than the barrier presented by the Cross itself—we want to remove it so they can hear and come to life in Christ.
July 24th, 2011 | 5:41 pm | #15
When Jesus shrouded his identity, it was to prevent a popular uprising which would attempt a premature and misinformed coronation. He understood that he ministered in an atmosphere which was desparate for a political messiah. Thus, he carefully unfolded his message on his terms and timetable. Now Jesus can do this since He is the King of Kings. But, I believe that it would be tenuous to claim that we have the same perogative with His message.
One passage which I believe should serve as the center of the debate is 1 Thess. 2:3-8:
For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed– God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else. As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.
Paul makes it very clear that he did not resort to tricks or duplicity to make the gospel known. If the name change of CRU is inteaded to obscure the name of Christ then there may be a danger of a bait and switch. It would be like telling a friend of yours to come hear this talk on relationships, and have him be surprised when he sees that this is an overt attempt to prosyletize him. He would not heed the message so much as resent being “tricked.” I believe this is why Paul was very open about his ministry and intentions up front. As a former Staff Member who came to Christ under CCC I am deeply supportive of the ministry. But it has been my biblical conviction and experience that we shoudl be upfront with who we are so that we can truly build authentic relationships.
July 24th, 2011 | 6:02 pm | #16
If Gary, and others, are concerned about national ministries not having Christ in their name, have they contacted InterVarsity, Navigators, Chi Alpha, Samaritan’s Purse, Billy Graham Ministries, and the vast majority of local churches and denominations?
The issue was CCC needed a name change in the USA, and they felt cru was their best option. The national ministries of CCC in most countries was already different (Student Life, Campus for Christ). Canada’s CCC has been called “Power for Change” for a decade and has not altered their mission.
July 24th, 2011 | 6:26 pm | #17
Dave @#15 (not the same Dave as @#16, in case anyone wonders), you write,
Authentic relationships are crucial. They are also person-to-person, not person-to-organization.
I agree with you that bait-and-switch is a particularly vile form of deceit. But did it ever occur to you to suggest to the Navigators that, by virtue or fault of their name, they’re not being upfront with who they are? Just wondering…
July 24th, 2011 | 6:32 pm | #18
Also–did Jesus only shroud his identity to prevent a popular uprising? Did he not also, with the Pharisees, selectively reveal himself in accordance with their heart’s readiness to respond to him? And does the principle you stated really apply to John 9, or to the apostles’ ministry?
July 24th, 2011 | 11:19 pm | #19
As a college student and attender of Cru, I think the name change is a great move. It has been clearly stated by Cru and I firmly believe this decision was made out of goodwill for the advancment of the Gospel.
‘It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill…But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice -Philippians 1:15, 18
It seems to me that a good strategy of our enemy would be to have fellow believers argue about semantics and be distracted from ministry. I pray that God continues to bless this ministry and that we can rejoice together, as Paul rejoiced, that Christ will continue being preached through Cru.
July 25th, 2011 | 8:16 am | #20
I, for one, have found this entire debate pretty non-sensical. To say that CCC is going away from Christ because of a name change is absurd. I was on staff with Crusade for 2 years and don’t ever recall using the full name of the ministry when saying who I worked for. I always called it Campus Crusade. That was never meant because I am ashamed of Jesus. The entire name just seemed a bit too much. However, I must say that if I heard this about another organization, I might come to the same conclusion……that they were going in a negative direction. I first read about this on Foxnews.com and thought it was such a shabby piece of journalism. I didn’t know that people were actually taking it seriously. I am slightly convicted, though, of how I can have a tendency to jump to conclusions off of what others have said. I wonder, if I had no ties to Cru at all, would I be on the opposite side of the argument.
July 25th, 2011 | 9:07 am | #21
Interesting points, Kevin.
As a political/social conservative I’m inclined to trust someone like Glenn Beck who shares many of my views. Having seen how completely he distorted our position, though, I’m going to be a lot more cautious about believing him on anything else.
July 25th, 2011 | 9:34 am | #22
Tom,
One can see from your initial post above that the switch from Campus Crusade for Christ, to Cru, was made with much deliberation and prayer. As committed followers of Christ, one can also see the organization’s strongly held intent and desire that the name of Christ not be dishonored in any way. It is hard to judge motive, since only God has the prerogative to do so, but reading your post it seems if one were to try and judge the motives of you and the staff, one would find no accusation worthy of prosecution. You are wise to understand the implications of an organization’s tendency to slip away from their founding vision in Christ and to warn of just such an effect. May you and the staff of Cru continue to be blessed in holding up the name of Christ and encouraging all that there is salvation in no one else, and no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
July 25th, 2011 | 10:06 am | #23
Tom,
To answer your question about the Navigator’s, I don’t believe that they are necessarily being deceitful. You could say that their name has some semblence of meaning as they are seeking to provide direction for life. CRU on the other hand does not have any meaning to those unassociated with the movement. Now I have no problem with simply using the name CRU. I do have a problem with any motivation that seeks to obscure our identity, intent, and purpose. Paul – who serves as a better template for New Covenant ministry – was very open about his mission and purpose. Yes, his introduction to his sermon did not mention Christ, but after five minutes of speaking his name surfaces. Regarding the Philippian Jailer, he was singing hymns before the earthquake struck. His testimony was public, open, and transparent.
Regarding Jesus and the Pharisees, in His omniscience he new that they could not understand his message or his identity. The Spirit was not drawing them to repentance. Thus, he had as his perogative to withhold his message. My larger point which should not be missed, is that it is tenuous to use statements by Jesus such as “tell no one that I am the Christ” to justify obscuring our identity. I realize that you did not do this, I am just trying to make a point.
Tom, I do agree with a lot of what you have written. I know that we live in a world which completely misunderstands Christians. And this has made many of us shell shocked. The prospect of sharing the gospel makes most Christians sweat. Thus, our natural tendency is to be overly subtle with the gospel. And when people become overly subtle they tend to obsure it leaving out the offensive truths such as the exclusivity of Jesus or the reality of eternal punishment. I guess that I am concerned by the movement of Campus Crusade for Christ to CRU. While this move alone will not corrupt CRU, I would hate to see the bold culture of the Crusade I knew change.
Just out of curiosity, in your personal ministry have you found the name Campus Crusade for Christ to be a liability? Is it something where Universities won’t allow you to meet in their rooms? Just curious.
July 25th, 2011 | 12:44 pm | #24
Dave, your question is about my personal ministry. I’m a strategist whose work is behind the scenes, with ministry leaders. The question doesn’t apply there.
When I’m hoping to share with someone personally, say, on an airplane, I have found it a whole lot better to say I’m a writer/strategist than a “Campus Crusade for Christ staff member.” When I say the former they ask, “Oh? What do you write about?” and I have a chance to share Christ with them. When I say the latter, they say “Oh,” and they pull out the in-flight magazine and bury their nose in it. It’s not always exactly like that, but that’s the tendency.
Our staff have found the same kind of thing to be typical on the larger scale of campus and community ministries.
July 25th, 2011 | 12:45 pm | #25
Also, your comment implies you think our testimony might not be public, open, and transparent. What leads you to conclude that!?
July 25th, 2011 | 2:54 pm | #26
Hey Tom,
I am not saying that you are obscuring the gospel, I am simply cautious (note I am not saying opposed) about an approach which delays disclosure. Now I don’t go around and introduce myself with “Hi, my name is Dave and I am a born again Christian.” But when someone asks about my life, I should not edit the facts which may give away my true identity. For instance, when I traveled during my days in seminary people would ask “What do you do?” The question forced a choice. On one hand I could say that I am a seminary student. This is a truthful statement since I was in training to be a pastor. On the down side the person next to me may tense up for fear that I am one of those judgmental evangelical pastors. My other choice was to say “graduate student.” This was appealing because they would see me as a man of learning, and the conversation would not get uncomfortable until they ask me “what are you studying.” Either way the uncomfortable truth that I am a pastor in training will come out. In my view seminary would be the most complete answer to that question since I was training to be a pastor. And in not saying seminary in the first place my conversation partner would wonder why. Was it because he was embarrassed by his chosen vocation? Or was he trying to be subtle? Frankly, I have found that its not the words that I use when I mention that I am a born again, evangelical Christ (a term I used last week when sharing the gospel with a self professed secular Californian), rather its my tone, questions, and compassion for the person. And to be honest, at the end of the day I believe that people respect others who are very open and comfortable with their beliefs. Doesn’t the unbelieving world respect the open homosexual? And if the person who sees Christ as a cuss word and links us with those evil evangelicals abruptly cuts me off, I am not sure if I made a tactical error in bringing up my identity too early. Clearly, God is not drawing him to faith at that time.
July 25th, 2011 | 3:20 pm | #27
I respect Mr. Gilson and the CCC/Cru organization and believe him when he says their intentions are for the Gospel. And I don’t think this is some kind of sin per se or an unbiblical thing to do in a legalistic sense. But I do think it raises some questions that we would do well to reflect on.
One issue here is, in my view, the same one that tempts seeker-friendly churches and especially parachurch organizations: salesmanship vis-a-vis Matthew 7:6
Seeker-friendly churches cater somehow to the particular misgivings of seekers. By definition, they tailor their message or approach or appearance to the target population so as to make themselves more approachable by, for example, having rock music or taking care not to mention hell in sermons, or doing fun, attractive activities.
But this tailoring constitutes a change that is not wholly neutral; it is different and presents a different shape to the Body based on the desires and sensibilities of the seekers. Depending on the change, such churches can, over time, morph into entities that not only present an image but embody priorities such as how people look, what doctrines will be taught when, what music we will use, what socioeconomic class we want to cater to, or whatever based not on objective notions of what is good, true and beautiful but on what “the market” with its possibly disordered desires happens to want. This happens in seeker-sensitive churches and parachurch groups, even if that kind of change is not intentioned by the leadership. This is because you become what you actually practice over time.
What does this have to do with Matthew 7:6? The verse reveals our priorities. When you, with noble intentions, try to give pearls to swine or the holy to dogs and they don’t want it, you have to cajole and sell it to them. In the process (and because of the nature of the practice), you are inclined to change the message ever so slightly to fit that person’s whims, intentionally de-emphasizing this or that unpopular notion, sometimes though not always communicating a slightly false or distorted picture. This is less an issue at a personal level, but becomes a bigger problem as the practice of selling Jesus is institutionalized.
The NT and early church did not market Jesus to those who aren’t really interested. The harvest is plentiful, but it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God because he doesn’t really think he needs help, so we have to sell it to him instead of calling him to repentance. And it is various sorts of rich people (not necessarily in wealth) that are the “seekers” we are trying to be sensitive to in these efforts.
So what’s a better alternative?
1) It is to follow Jesus in proclaiming the gospel to the poor:
Note Jesus emphasizes the poor here. Yes, we preach to everyone including the rich, but we do especially to the poor, since theirs is the Kingdom. We need to stop justifying our neglect of preaching and seeking converts especially among our poor neighbors by saying we’re evangelizing to the rich, college-educated, hipster, politicians, cool kids, football players, etc. which demands salesmanship and distorts the Church over time.
The poor don’t care if you’re called Campus Crusade for Christ or Cru; in fact, they probably are more alienated by the distinctly hip-sounding “Cru.”
So preach to the rich if they really want the crucified Christ and humble themselves. But if they go back to reading their in-flight magazine, “shake the dust off your sandals” and preach to the poor.
The 2) of the better alternative is to re-focus on the local church. I value parachurch ministries. I became a Christian through a parachurch ministry. But parachurch ministries perpetuate homogenous Christian groups. They do not embody a full vision of the Church, which does not consist in college students, or Asian students, or single women, or married people, or whatever niche population demographic. It embodies the contrite in heart, poor in spirit, mercy-yearning humble soul which is mostly the poor and only rarely the “rich.” And I hope one recognizes that many American parachurch organizations do not sufficiently emphasize the life of the Church as a diversified by life stage/socioeconomic status/etc. Body living in community together locally and preaching the Gospel by Word and communal life together, as opposed to atomic Christian individuals of an interest group spreading the doctrines of the Gospel (which truly has value, but is not sufficient). Even if they do emphasize local church in lectures, the members do not experience the life of the Church as a core of their identity in Christ as the NT early Church did because most of the time is spent in parachurch activities.
Again, there is much value there. But parachurch as an institutional form apart from the Church has, in many areas, become inordinately more significant than the local church in American evangelicalism. I know Navigators who feel like they just need Bible study with a few others and don’t go to church. Many don’t, but this is perfectly understandable because of the limited content of their practices. The formal organization structure of student ministries of the Roman Catholic Church and a few conservative Reformed denominations whose student ministries are under Church authority, however, do not lend themselves to shape students to even think this Christianity apart from the Church is a practical possibility. Navigators are great as far as they go, and many love the local church. God has graciously done much through them and He knows we could all use more mentored study in the Word. But this is a shortcoming in the parachurch model that is built into the form and which, in my view, often does not do as much justice to the biblical picture of the Church.
The upshot of the better alternative is a presentation and embodiment of the whole Body of Christ, the Church living out in Word and life together the vision of love which is certainly intelligible to the poor, though the rich won’t be as willing to embrace it. It is a Church that is not overly concerned about worldly power and is not filled with egos who demand status recognition or feel-good moral therapy or who feel uncomfortable with being weak or with hard truths, but is filled with the poor in spirit who repent and receive mercy at the hand of a crucified Lord, and then give it to the other poor.
In the end, the problem with salesmanship is not so much what you do (which can be justified somewhat in certain narrow circumstances), but the neglect of the more important aspect of the biblical picture of what the Church is supposed to be because we’re chasing after market segments instead of the poor. So I do not condemn particular actions here nor do I think all parachurch ministries should cease immediately, but I do think our vision should be re-oriented in prudent and peaceful ways to conform more to the picture of NT church life.
I apologize for the treatise.
July 26th, 2011 | 2:11 pm | #28
Dave, #26: “I am simply cautious (note I am not saying opposed) about an approach which delays disclosure.
And to be honest, at the end of the day I believe that people respect others who are very open and comfortable with their beliefs.”
There’s merit in what Dave has written.
A: “What’s that you’re carrying under your arm?”
B: “It’s da Book.”
A: “Da Book? You mean, the Bible?”
B: “Uh, yeah. It’s the Bible. I’m on my way to a meeting.”
A: “Why didn’t you just say so? It seems like you’re ashamed of calling the Bible the Bible.”
B: “Uh, well, I’m just trying to be sensitive. Some people are offended or put off by the word/term “Bible” so I don’t want to unnecessarily offend others.”
A: “Oh. Jus’ curious, what meeting are you going to?
B: “I’m going to a CRU meeting.”
A: “What’s CRU?”
July 26th, 2011 | 2:19 pm | #29
Albert, #27: “When you, with noble intentions, try to give pearls to swine or the holy to dogs and they don’t want it, you have to cajole and sell it to them.”
Genuinely curious Albert, how do you judge and discern and identify who is “swine” and who is a “dog” so that I don’t make the mistake of giving pearls to swine and of giving what is holy to dogs?
July 26th, 2011 | 3:03 pm | #30
TUAD:
That exact scenario has been played out for over a decade on dozens of college campuses. The way you ended it implies that you think there would be some difficulty answering that last question.
Let me help you. This would be typical:
B: “I’m going to a CRU meeting.”
A. “What’s Cru?”
B.”It’s a group of students who study the Bible to get to know Jesus Christ better.”
Consider the alternative. This sort of thing was happening often enough that most of our campus ministries quit using the full name years ago:
B. “I’m going to to a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting.”
A. “Oh, a Crusade? Whatcha gonna do, start a war?”
Which one is more likely to open up a spiritual conversation where A would listen to B about Jesus Christ? It’s about the mission, you see. It’s not about mentioning the name of Jesus Christ, which 3/4 of students would misunderstand; it’s about opening doors to explain the truth of Jesus Christ so that a lot of them could find out what’s real.
Albert: Don’t let yourself be fooled by your own selection of an emotionally charged term.What is “salesmanship?” It’s an attempt to persuade someone that some x has value for them. Is that wrong? Well, of course it can be, and in a moment I’ll come back to that, and discuss it in that charged form. Meanwhile I want to ask, has everyone who has ever sold you something done something illicit? Yesterday at Lowe’s I got advice to help me buy a part to repair a bathtub. Who gave me that advice? A store salesperson. I even bought the part. I’m glad they sold it to me. My tub is fixed now, with their help.
Salesmanship is the negatively loaded term for sales turned pushy, dishonest, or manipulative. It’s a real problem. Does it actually apply to Cru, though?
I think of salesmanship as happening when someone is trying to get me to buy something that’s not worth the price. Cru is trying to help people give their lives to Jesus; Jesus is worth everything.
I think of salesmanship as happening when someone is pitching dishonestly at me. If there’s anything dishonest about the term “Cru,” I’ll be astonished to hear it; most people say they don’t know what it means.
And I think of salesmanship as happening when someone is pushing their pitch on me without regard to me as a fellow human being. That has nothing to do with the name of an organization.
So I think this is a case of an emotionally loaded, charged term being misapplied.
Now, I don’t want to be disrespectful and I don’t have any reason to think this was your motivation, but it’s worth pointing out that one feature of negative “salesmanship” is that it is careless about the use of emotionally loaded, charged terminology.
Seeker-friendliness is another term to use with caution. Jesus was friendly with seekers. He and the apostles did tailor their message to their audiences, not watering it down, but adapting it according to the need of the moment to edify and to give grace (Eph. 4:29). See 1 Thess. 5:14 for an example of adapting one’s words to the needs of the person. It’s not wrong; it’s biblically mandated.
July 26th, 2011 | 3:25 pm | #31
Before you jump to the conclusion that we are neglecting ministry to the poor, Albert, you might want to know about our ministries Here’s Life Inner City, Global Aid Network (the Western world’s largest humanitarian aid supplier to the countries in the former Soviet Union–though that’s only one part of many, many things they do), and Hope for Orphans.
Our other ministries take part in these outreaches, always making it a priority to share not only humanitarian aid but also the Good News of life in Christ. Our campus ministry is in Haiti (I wish you could have seen the video update I saw last night), and sent some 17,000 students to help after Katrina (see also here). We were there in Indonesia after the tsunami. This is only a part of the story, the outreaches for which I can quickly find web pages. Our adult community-based ministries are likewise involved in caring outreach, along with the Gospel. That’s even part of what we do with executives, because we know that’s part of their own discipleship in Christ.
This illustrates a point. A lot of people in the media and the blogs are looking at one small news report, or one blog post (even mine) and jumping to false conclusions about Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru from them.
I ask you to remember, friends, that we’re your brothers and sisters in Christ. Our hearts are sold out to helping bring Christ’s love and truth to everyone in the world. If you’re committed to the same thing, let’s lock arms and get there together. Christ has called us to unity. Please don’t judge us on false or incomplete information. Take the time to know what’s true before you criticize.
July 26th, 2011 | 3:49 pm | #32
“Consider the alternative. This sort of thing was happening often enough that most of our campus ministries quit using the full name years ago:
B. “I’m going to to a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting.”
A. “Oh, a Crusade? Whatcha gonna do, start a war?”
Which one is more likely to open up a spiritual conversation where A would listen to B about Jesus Christ? It’s about the mission, you see. It’s not about mentioning the name of Jesus Christ, which 3/4 of students would misunderstand”
Dear Tom,
I hear what you’re saying. I do.
Incidentally, in the scenario that you just painted above and from which I’ve excerpted, I think Albert’s point has bearing on your scenario:
“What does this have to do with Matthew 7:6? The verse reveals our priorities. When you, with noble intentions, try to give pearls to swine or the holy to dogs and they don’t want it, you have to cajole and sell it to them. …
The NT and early church did not market Jesus to those who aren’t really interested.”
If someone says “Oh, a Crusade? Whatcha gonna do, start a war?” then Albert’s citation of Matthew 7:6 could very well be applicable here.
July 26th, 2011 | 4:16 pm | #33
Why? What is it about associating “crusade” with “war,” even in this context, that demonstrates someone is swine? Do you see what you’re implying by that? Have you never had the experience of seeing someone who seems negative to Christ turn around and come to him? How sad.
I’ll guarantee this: if they walk away from you, you won’t have that experience with them.
July 26th, 2011 | 5:03 pm | #34
At the university where I attended, the local CCC chapter was called Agape Christian Fellowship. I understand that that has been the name for chapters in several countries. Why not make that the new name?
I understand that Cru is a common nickname, but that’s a pretty weak reason to adopt it as the official name. There are a lot of ways to drop “Crusade” from the name without dropping “Christ.”
July 26th, 2011 | 6:18 pm | #35
“Have you never had the experience of seeing someone who seems negative to Christ turn around and come to him?”
Exactly. So why not keep the name “Campus Crusade for Christ”?
July 26th, 2011 | 7:54 pm | #36
I hope you’ll re-read the full context in which I wrote that, TUAD.
July 26th, 2011 | 8:05 pm | #37
Pastor Tim Bayly received a letter from Stephen Douglass, President of Campus Crusade for Christ, regarding the name change to CRU.
His response to the letter can be found: HERE.
July 26th, 2011 | 10:09 pm | #38
Some agree with him. They should certainly follow their consciences. Many others disagree.
July 27th, 2011 | 12:25 pm | #39
“Some agree with him. They should certainly follow their consciences. Many others disagree.”
Disagreement is frequently a part of an iron-sharpens-iron growth process.
Here’s more commentary that hopefully forges and sharpens iron:
Speaking of Campus Crusade for Christ International/Cru….
July 27th, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #40
Nothing substantive there, and nothing new about it. Some agree with him, and they should certainly follow their consciences; many others disagree.
July 27th, 2011 | 1:31 pm | #41
Dear Mr. Gilson,
Yes, you’re right. There is a kind of salesmanship that is loving as it genuinely seeks to provide what someone needs, especially when that someone is open to learning more and receiving. I don’t criticize that, nor do I condemn any particular action of you or Cru, including the name change. I tried to be clear about this, precisely because my experience of parachurch ministries including CCC, though greater than most people, is nonetheless limited, and the internet in my opinion is not an appropriate forum to discuss particulars.
At the same time, the temptation to water down the Gospel and the commandments of Christ is strong, and many give in to it who see it as their mission to reach a certain demographic. Successes notwithstanding, there are problems with the niche marketing model of evangelism, problems I elaborate above. So my point was to raise questions about the general structures of parachurch ministries and ask every reader to think about the issues that I raise rather than to condemn an isolated particular action or person or organization, since any such online condemnations of particulars are about as helpful as internet condemnations of some Christian’s purchase of a BMW. It is an exercise in futility apart from knowing that person and establishing a biblical vision that provides the framework where certain behaviors are revealed to be inappropriate and less conducive to building the Kingdom than others.
My purpose was to look at that vision and re-orient it in a more biblical direction: church centered, non-niche specialized but diversified and unified, and centrally involving the poor not merely as a separate organizational ministry; and then ask readers to consider whether they think I might have a point. My purpose was not to attack or judge motivations, but to look at the actual model, examine dangers that can be expected and indeed come to fruition in my experience, and suggest something better based on biblical texts.
Mr. Gilson, I know we are on the same side, and I should not have been as harsh since your post was already a response to criticisms of the Cru name change (criticisms I abstain from). I do respect the good things that Cru and other parachurch organizations do including humanitarian aid, and I wish they would continue their good work–but to change over time in prudence toward a structure that conforms more to the biblical vision of the Kingdom.
Ephesians 4:29 is specifically instruction for Christians to their brothers and sisters in Christ, not instruction for evangelism to unbelievers; likewise 1 Thes 5: 14. Most of the preaching to the public in the New Testament was in blunt and possibly/probably alienating and angering forms like “Repent (of your sins), for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Or Jesus’s difficult sayings. Or Acts 2:14-24 where Peter accused the public of crucifying Jesus: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words…” Or the fact that Paul was as often as not run out of town. Perhaps the only time an evangelist tailored the message was once at the Areopagus, but we tend to act as if this were the norm rather than the exception in the Bible.
The point is that exhortations to peace are for the Church to build up the existing Body because it is through our love for Christians (and secondarily the poor, to whom we are especially to preach the good news) that unbelievers will know us. The life of the local church is the heart of evangelism because reasons and doctrines are implausible apart from seeing the whole life. But the American local church is in shambles, divided, compartmentalized while we seek to build up parachurch organizations that in my experience, do not enact in their practice the priority of the local church. Maybe your experience is different. If so, thank God. If not, we might consider how we can respect the traditions and institutions we’ve inherited
while moving them in a better direction.
July 27th, 2011 | 1:35 pm | #42
Thank you for those comments, Albert. They’re worth thinking about.
July 27th, 2011 | 3:28 pm | #43
>>Nothing substantive there, and nothing new about it…
Really? Nothing substantive or new in what I wrote? Good readers, go and check it out for yourselves. As a charter subscriber to “First Things,” I’m guessing most have rarely read or heard the criticisms I raised there. And trust me, the concerns are as substantive as can be.
http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/07/a-blog-calling-itself-thinking-christian-with-a-josh-mcdowell-quote-as-its-touchstone-doesnt-bode-well-for-the-state-of-criti.html
Love,
July 27th, 2011 | 3:41 pm | #44
Pastor Tim,
I’m not sure I understand completely your argument that para-church ministries need to come within the bounds of a local church or denomination’s leadership, authority, and control. I have read your link. Maybe I am misrepresenting what you are saying.
Is it your argument that a para-church ministry like Cru, would be more effective and fulfill the Great Commission in a more Biblical way than they do now? It’s still somewhat confusing to me.
July 27th, 2011 | 4:11 pm | #45
>>Is it your argument that a para-church ministry like Cru, would be more effective and fulfill the Great Commission in a more Biblical way than they do now?
Yes, dear brother. There will always be church-related works that do necessary work, but we must return to the specific commands of the Great Commission given to the officers Christ had appointed for His Bride which we see carried out with great consistency across the New Testament.
Love,
July 27th, 2011 | 4:26 pm | #46
Pastor Tim,
Thank you for clarifying. So, blame should be laid at the feet of brother Bill Bright for not keeping Campus Crusade for Christ within his denomination or local church? And the same is true of all para-church organizations?
What are the practical implications of trying to bring these para-church organizations back into a local denominational fold? It seems like even if the leaders of Cru were to agree with you, the logistics of this would tear the organization apart, destroying it from within due to the varied and different doctrinal beliefs of those in it’s organization. I realize you may think that that is part of the problem, but logistically how would this be accomplished? (For all para-church organizations.)
July 27th, 2011 | 10:59 pm | #47
Thank you for those questions, Steve. I refer readers to this analysis (PDF) by one of the most respected men of global missions in recent generations, Dr. Ralph Winter.
July 28th, 2011 | 2:53 am | #48
As a new Christian in the early 70′s, Campus Crusade had a profound influence in my life through their military ministry (By the way, I came to know Christ through the ministry of a local, evangelical Church). I became a Christian just nine weeks prior to going to Vietnam and I’m indebted to CCC’s input into my life. I learned to love God’s Word, the necessity of the ministry of the Holy Spirit to live out the new life that was graciously given me by Christ, and I learned how to pray. After serving ten years in the military, I served with CCC’s military ministry for two years. These two years were, not only a time of personal spiritual growth, but were productive as I had the opportunity to see the transforming power of the Gospel in the lives of military personnel.
At age 66, I now have many years behind me. Besides serving with CCC, I worked in the aerospace industry as a mechanical designer, pastored churches in the U.S. 18 years, and I’m currently serving as a missionary with in Mindanao, Philippines. Over the years I have come into contact with scores of people whose have come to know Christ through CCC’s ministry and who now serve faithfully in local churches and many are in key leadership positions–some on a national or international basis. A number of people I know here in the Philippines were radical communists on their university campuses until they were confronted with the claims of Christ by CCC and as a result they became radical followers of Jesus.
I’m not a blogger and I think over the years I’ve only commented two or three times on blogs, but this time I’d like to express my thoughts.
Do I like the name change of CCC? To be honest, the new name does resonate with me. I personally believe a name should communicate something. Cru doesn’t communicate anything, and in this postmodern age, I believe that so much meaning has been stripped from everything, why do we need to strip the meaning from our own identities? In reality, maybe the reason I don’t like the name change is because I’m simply getting old……
Now here’s my real concern: We live in a fallen world and God calls His people to be “salt and light” and to go into this sin-sick world with the message of the only hope, Jesus Christ. One can get on the internet and Google “Campus Crusade for Christ” and probably find thousands of comments on the blogs concerning the name change. Or one could Google “John Piper,” “John MacArthur,” “J.I. Packer,” “R.C. Sproul,” “D.A. Carson” or any other prominent Christian leader, or educator, or even the dead guys like Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, A.W. Tozer or Martin Lloyd-Jones and spend from now until the end of the age reading, for the most part, a bunch of vindictive drivel concerning a comment taken out of context or a disagreement with some fine fine point of theology. The self-righteousness and arrogance is overwhelming, and what’s even more troubling is the incredible amount of time some people spend behind a computer screen spewing their venom while the world goes to hell! When are we going to wake up, and in obedience step out in faith and simply go into the world? I know many CCC staff members who have taken that step of faith and have served Christ well. Maybe it’s time to pull the plug on our internet servers, humble ourselves before a Holy God, seek His face on how we should serve Him and then go.
Working in a turbulent, needy part of the world has given me and my wife to work with Bible believing Christians across a fairly wide spectrum–Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Methodist, Mennonite, Charismatic, Independent, etc. What we’ve seen is real cooperation and a deep commitment to bringing the life transforming message of Jesus Christ to a hurting world. We’ve seen brothers and sisters in Christ who have experienced severe difficulties and sometimes persecution, and have been willing to leave home and families to serve the King of kings and the Lord of lord. I think what we’d really like to see here is more people who are willing to say “yes” to Christ’s command to “go.” Or if they can’t go, then we’d like to see an army of prayer warriors who would storm the gates of hell for those who serve, whether at home or oversees.
Is CCC perfect? No! And neither is any mission organization, denomination or local church. We all all a bunch of sin-sick, fallen people who are desperately in need of God’s grace. Does God use weak people who may not have all the answers? Yes! He’s used me and I’m as weak as they come!
God bless you Cru! May He bless you and may you grow more and more into His likeness, and may you continue to be “salt and light” around this world. And above all, may Jesus be glorified in all that you do!
A fellow servant, Timothy
July 28th, 2011 | 9:56 am | #49
>>So, blame should be laid at the feet of brother Bill Bright for not keeping Campus Crusade for Christ within his denomination or local church? And the same is true of all para-church organizations?
No. Rather, every effort should be made to return fulfillment of the Great Commission to the Church, and to that end we should right now stop supporting organizations that refuse to fulfill it while making lots of noise about reaching “billions.” Here’s how I put it at the end of the blog post:
“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.’”
It’s a modest proposal, but in the power of the Holy Spirit, it’s doable. Ask the Apostles.
>>What are the practical implications of trying to bring these para-church organizations back into a local denominational fold?
First, no one has said a word about denominations. We’re talking about the Church. But yes, having made the distinction between the Church and denominations, you’re pointing in the right direction; this is what we must work on. Here in Bloomington, it means starting up a campus ministry that fulfills the Great Commission by, among other things, putting the preaching of the Word of God and the Church back at the center. Each of us has a part to do to carry out this reform, and it starts with understanding that Scripture requires it.
>>It seems like even if the leaders of Cru were to agree with you…
The leaders of Cru will never agree with returning to the Great Commission and the Church of the New Testament. But really, if the officers of Christ’s Church man up for the work, it’s almost immaterial what Cru leaders think or do. Our Lord promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, so why would we worry about the approval of Cru’s leaders? They’re old and in the way.
>>>different doctrinal beliefs of those in it’s organization.
Yes, this is the rubric all parachurch organizations us to justify forsaking the Great Commission and the Church, and it all begins with forsaking the Sacraments. Jesus put Baptism at the center of the Great Commission, but because of doctrinal disagreements over Baptism, we disobey His command while making a big show of reaching “billions.”
There’s an excluded middle between the know-nothingism of Evangelical parachurch organizations and the split pea soup of Roman Catholicism or my own Presbyterian churches–both of which endlessly divide over the smallest parts of our dogma. Let’s work in the middle as the Apostles did.
To paraphrase Chesterton, the problem today within Evangelical churches isn’t that churches have tried to fulfill the Great Commission and have found it difficult, but that Evangelical churches have found obedience of the Great Commission difficult and have removed it from their plate, paying Campus Crusade for Christ International to be their Shabbos Goy.
There’s much more to be discussed, but really, it’s a book.
Love in Christ,
July 28th, 2011 | 10:44 am | #50
Again I refer readers to these biblical and strategic insights (PDF) from one of the most respected men of global missions in recent generations, Dr. Ralph Winter.
July 28th, 2011 | 11:09 am | #51
>>I refer readers to these biblical and strategic insights…
Ralph’s piece is good, but it’s almost forty years old, now, and therefore impossibly disconnected from the present reality in which even the church has become the parachurch and Campus Crusade for Christ International/Cru preens itself on being the largest mission in the world, reaching “billions” for Christ.
Ralph said things that needed to be said back in 1973, but the problems we face today are categorically different and Ralph didn’t begin to forsee them, let alone address them, in this piece.
Thanks for the link.
Love,
July 28th, 2011 | 11:10 am | #52
Pastor Tim,
This seems logistically impossible as we find ourselves today. It’s one thing to point out the errors in what may have occurred in the past, and yet quite another thing to try to rectify it today, even if everyone agreed with you. I’m not disagreeing with your ability to see a problem and point it out, but how does one logistically bring all these para-church organizations back into the Church, which really boils down in Protestant circles, to denominational folds? Have you written of a plan that solves the logistical problem?
The other question that hasn’t been discussed is the question of the believer’s conscious. The history of Protestantism, let’s say, is replete with groups of individuals whose individual conscious’s compelled them to break from their denomination and form a new group of like minded individuals. I understand that they then understood for the most part the need for Church discipline, authority, the Sacraments, and so forth, and formed their own ‘new’ denomination, but what of a believer convinced in his conscious that none of the denominations accurately and consistently upholds the Word of God, or is fulfilling the Great Commission as it should be fulfilled? Would he not then be free to set up his/her own organization to meet an unfulfilled perceived need? Is this not how the Reformation got started?
July 28th, 2011 | 11:49 am | #53
Pastor Bayly, I’m sorry to hear that you have that perspective of Campus Crusade for Christ. I could assure you that it is an inaccurate view—that for example, I just sat through 20+ hours of conference will all our U.S. staff and I can’t remember one time anyone even mentioning (much less “preening”) CCC’s large size as you have said here. There was a lot of Bible and worship. I doubt you would find that convincing, based on what you have written here and elsewhere. So be it.
I do hope other readers here will investigate for themselves. I do hope we can maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and I do hope you will pray for us. I will pray for you.
July 28th, 2011 | 12:13 pm | #54
I just became aware of this issue a few days ago (yes I live under a rock sometimes :)) I used to work with an inner city branch of CCC a long time ago (so long I had forgotten). I ask some Cru members to reconsider the highly defensive posture I am seeing in some of your posts and threads. Its pushing people like me who really were on the fence away from understanding where you are coming from
A great deal of the dialogue I am seeing from CRU isn’t open. Its taking the criticisms entirely too personal. This in light of our culture IS a HUGE deal. One of the largest christian organizations has stated they are dropping the name of Christ in order to become more effective.
As I just stated on Tom’s blog I don’t understand the biblical reasoning there (If i’m allowed I’ll address the attempt made to draw biblical comparison’s in his piece later). I realize I am having a harder time with that then even the name change itself. Let me say that again lest it gets lost
The name change itself is less troubling to me than the rationalization behind it.
I’m not concerned with Nike and Google. Those are man made organizations that don’t claim to rely on the power of God’s spirit to draw their “customers”. We claim daily, weekly incessantly that we can do nothing without Him, that we operate by his power, that people come to him when they are drawn by his spirit, that we can do nothing without him.
I am just trying to wrap my head around the biblical implications that the lack of his name will make any organization MORE effective given our alleged power source.
and how God will bless a ministry less if it decides to keep his name. It just doesn’t compute to what we say from the pulpit makes us effective
Secondly I find this strategy very insular and a bit self centered. If dropping the name of Christ is a more effective way of ministering to the lost then should every organization in the body of Christ do so? and if not then exactly how does Cru help the greater body of Christ correct the negative connotations that Tom claims stands in the way of reaching the world for Christ.
Don’t we help the WHOLE body of Christ and his church by instead of ducking the name coming up with ways to combat the negative connotations of the Christ we have come to know and love and they must to know in order to be saved.
If I could see a strong biblical principle here rather than not very unevenly formed comparisons to Jesus and the blind man and to apostles (who never shied away even in their first speeches from naming the name) it would allay not only mine but many others concerns. I see more solid references to marketing and branding principles than anything spiritual. I’m not claiming it can’t or doesn’t exist just its not being presented
July 28th, 2011 | 12:18 pm | #55
Mr. Gilson,
If that “lot of Bible” you heard this week in Colorado included the sort of teaching generally coming from the speaker you had who thinks Wendi Deng (the third Mrs.Rupert) Murdoch is the sort of woman we should praise, “as a courageous ezer-warrior” because she protected her husband by taking a slap at his pie-wielding assailant, you’ll have to forgive me for thinking Tim Bayly has a strong argument.
July 28th, 2011 | 12:39 pm | #56
The Bible we heard was Bible, Kamilla. I have no idea what else you’re talking about.
July 28th, 2011 | 12:47 pm | #57
Mike,
You put me in quite a bind. You say we should not take a defensive posture, and then you lob missiles our way.
For the record, there are answers to your questions here. Some of your questions come out of misconceptions/misperceptions concerning Campus Crusade/Cru. But other than that general statement, and this answer I have already written elsewhere, I don’t think I can help matters by answering each one of them individually. It’s funny: you say that the more we explain, the less you understand where we are coming from. I don’t understand that, myself, but I’ll accept it for what it is.
We know we are human and we might be wrong. We love Jesus Christ, we search the Scriptures just like you do, we desperately long for the day when the knowledge of the glory of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. We have made a decision that we think supports that mission. Could we be wrong? Of course. We’re only human.
In the end what I really hope is that we will maintain unity in Christ, encourage one another, exhort one another, and pray for one another.
July 28th, 2011 | 12:49 pm | #58
Tom,
That’s the pr
July 28th, 2011 | 12:53 pm | #59
Tom,
That’s the problem. An awful lot of bible people think they are hearing isn’t.
July 28th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #60
Your response saddens me, Kamilla, for your sake. You seem to be judging Bible teaching that you didn’t hear.
I pray that we can all commit to live in the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
July 28th, 2011 | 1:00 pm | #61
Great point, Tom. Your last sentence is beautifully put.
July 28th, 2011 | 1:05 pm | #62
Tom,
I think if you re-read what I wrote you will find that I did not judge something I didn’t hear but offered an if/then assessment. That was based upon my familiarity with what a certain speaker teaches through her books and blog.
Kamilla
July 28th, 2011 | 1:16 pm | #63
Tom thats the precise defensive posture I was talking about. in that posture you just ignored this
“If I could see a strong biblical principle here rather than not very unevenly formed comparisons to Jesus and the blind man and to apostles (who never shied away even in their first speeches from naming the name) it would allay not only mine but many others concerns.”
In regard to your piece (and other pieces you allude to) I am not someone that believes that everything you do has to have a scripture and a verse but your passages are not convincing biblically and I say this gently because i have great affection for you and your blog but you are bending them to an assumed strategy not deriving them from the Bible as I can see so far. Your Jesus example in particular just doesn’t hold up well. The person of Jesus was standing right in front of the born blind man. today the closest we get to that in physical presentation is to talk about him and mention his name. the blind man CLEARLY has a devotion to the man physically identified in front of him who was Jesus. Christ CERTAINLY was not withholding his name because it might offend or turn off
Also There is no unfolding of Christ identity as the messiah – the christ. John the baptist at the beginning of Christ ministry identifies him clearly. His first disciples that were called clearly understood who he was. Nathanael states it openly in the first chapter of John. At Pentecost Peter is up and personal with the name of christ mere weeks after leaders had seen to his excecution and none of the apostolic examples you have cited indicate any desire to hide the name of Christ. Your Acts 13 reference is strange because The apostles as soon as they are given opportunity to speak do and mention the name of Christ but a minute or two into the speech. In acts 17 the message is interrupted prematurely because of mockers when he mentions resurrection. There is zero indication if he had completed the speech he would have withheld the name. No one is suggesting you have to hit an unbeliever over the head each time dialogues start.
Can you point me to where you answered any of my two questions. I’ve read everything you have written on your blog and I can’t find it.
July 28th, 2011 | 1:46 pm | #64
I don’t know how to answer without taking a defensive posture, and apparently I can’t not answer without taking a defensive posture. I’m sorry.
Two quick answers, which I fear will seem defensive, because I’m not sure quite what that means in this context anymore.
One: just as Jesus and the apostles did, we in Campus Crusade/Cru move very, very quickly to talking about Jesus Christ. We are known for that. Other ministries have been known to encourage gradual, work-up-to-it slowly “friendship evangelism.” We’ve been known for emphasizing Jesus Christ from the beginning. The apostles did not hang the name “Christ” around their necks; they brought him up conversationally and/or through preaching. We have always done that, and we’re not changing it now! This name change has nothing to do with that.
Concerning the unfolding of Jesus’ identity as Messiah: different audiences caught on to it at different times. Jesus presented himself differently to different audiences. Those who heard John the Baptist did not hear a message of Jesus as Messiah, by the way. Not in terms that they would have understood as Messiah. The understanding that we have now of Messiah was not there at the beginning. It developed (one might say unfolded) through his ministry and through the continuing revelation of the New Testament.
Here is the misconception/misperception of which I spoke earlier. I have no idea where it was from which you got the idea that we might even think of a desire to “hide the name of Christ,” or “shy away from naming the name.” As soon as we get the opportunity to speak of him, we do!
” No one is suggesting you have to hit an unbeliever over the head each time dialogues start,” you say. Perhaps you’ve never seen it yourself: the name “Campus Crusade for Christ” has become, for many, a strong whack on the head; and if it’s in all our online postings, all our posters, all our materials, it functions like hitting unbelievers over the head each time dialogues start. You spoke our own reasoning (part of it, I should say) in your own words; you probably just haven’t seen how it applies to the situation, as we have seen it.
We love the Lord in Campus Crusade/Cru; we desperately long for and work toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission; we are committed to obedience to God’s word, and we pray for the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
July 28th, 2011 | 1:55 pm | #65
I missed one of your points.
Well, you’re right about that. I didn’t use that passage to try to make that last point; it would have been wrong and foolish. All I was trying to do with it was show that there is biblical precedent for entering into ministry with someone without mentioning the name of Christ right at the beginning of the interaction, or even identifying our connection with Christ in the very first interaction. Remember, the man born blind did not know (as far as we can tell from the text) that this was Christ; not until much later.
That’s all I was trying to say. It wasn’t about avoiding the name on account of avoiding offense. It was only about a biblical precedent for ministry in which the connection with Christ was not the first thing brought out in the interaction.
July 28th, 2011 | 2:39 pm | #66
Tom wrote: “I just sat through 20+ hours of conference with all our U.S. staff and I can’t remember one time anyone even mentioning (much less ‘preening’) CCC’s large size as you have said here.”
Dear Tom,
Here’s how you ended your piece, above: “For sixty years, Campus Crusade for Christ has led in taking Christ’s Name to billions of people around the world.”
Did you get that? Churches serve their twenties and maybe hundreds while Campus Crusade for Christ International serves their “billions.”
Honestly, I think you Cru men are so addicted to justifying your methods by the citation of huge numbers that you aren’t even aware of it when you do it.
I think you should stop it. The numbers are lies, anyhow.
Speaking the truth in love,
July 28th, 2011 | 2:48 pm | #67
Pastor Bayly,
I will acknowledge the numerical error in my post and correct it now that you have pointed it out to me.
I did not, nor would I ever disparage the church in the manner you have attributed here.
As you have requested, I think it is time for me to stop interacting specifically with you. You have your position. As I said from the first time your position was mentioned from here, I encourage those who agree with you to follow their consciences. I pray God’s best for your ministry, and I pray that we will all work to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
July 28th, 2011 | 3:08 pm | #68
Dear Tom,
Thank you for the correction. It would be good to note this correction at the end of the post so the rest of the discussion here will make sense to your readers. Something at the bottom of the post like this: “This post has been changed to correct the number of people Campus Crusade has served from “billions” to “many millions.”
Also, you wrote: “As you have requested, I think it is time for me to stop interacting specifically with you.”
I didn’t request that you stop interacting with me, but that you stop claiming “billions.” Thank you for doing so.
May God bless you as you serve Him,
July 28th, 2011 | 3:33 pm | #69
Done.
July 28th, 2011 | 3:34 pm | #70
Tom can you just stop with the passive aggressive. This is so unlike anything I have seen of you before. I at no time implied that any answer you gave would be defensive. You should know exactly what I disagree with – that somehow the concerns people are expressing are because of distortions rather than a difference of opinion and legitimate concern
Your claim that you make Christ known right of the bat confuses me more HONESTLY… SERIOUSLY – no lobbing of missiles – because of your stated reason for removing the name. Not my stated reason Cru’s – that the name Christ turns off people. I’ve asked several times and I never get an answer – if the strategy change expressed in the name is to not turn off people then why would you put out any where in the beginning the same name? Its incoherent. It only makes sense if the new policy is not to begin with that name at all
“We’ve been known for emphasizing Jesus Christ from the beginning.”
Isn’t that exactly what you are looking to “correct”?
In regard to your biblical alleged (thats not a lob I just don’t agree) examples -
Who caught on when has absolutely nothing to do with any sentiment anywhere in the bible that you pull the name of Christ for anything to make it anymore effective. Some people never catching on makes no statement as to what was presented. The first disciples who were followers of John the baptist were cognizant of who he was. John 1:45 nails this to the ground. John the baptists “voice in the wilderness” was a clearly messianic reference making way for the kingdom. When Simon goes to Natanael we get a glimpse into exactly how they evangelized. They IMMEDIATELY Identified him as messiah to those they shared with.
Where did I get the idea that you are hiding the name of Christ??? This really is baffling to me – Aren’t you removing it from your name where its out in the open now? true you’ve given reasons why you are pulling it and shying away from but how can that be MY perception when the essence of it is fact?
I’m lost on that accusation – honestly lost at how you are reasoning that.
July 28th, 2011 | 3:47 pm | #71
I think I want to make a distinction with some other people point and my own. I don’t hold a definite aversion to para church organizations and I don’t post here to take shots. I am of the opinion that given that the name has not officially taken full effect that CCC could be open to finding a way to address the concerns that some for the body of Christ has. As you know I think that using an acronym – Christ, Redemption Unity is just one of many – would have had (and still could have) all the benefits and none of the downsides.It would preserve the place of Christ in the name and the organization and would have been an even more authentic and meaningful way to transition to any conversation from the name to the meaning elegantly with out having to wait years to infuse the word with meaning as alleged will happen.
Unity of the body in peace is centered in Christ. Nothing else and I think that Cru has the opportunity and perhaps the obligation to unite the body on this issue by addressing the real concerns in a way that does nothing to hurt any strategy. Unity of the body requires listening to the entire body not shutting off a part of it and saying instead – pray for us. Thats already a given and is pointless to resolution of any issue. Way too often its the christian version of saying shut up now.
July 28th, 2011 | 3:51 pm | #72
Mike, you are not understanding what I am writing. Perhaps that is my fault. It seems that I lack the ability to explain it in terms that will make sense on your end. Maybe someone else will want to try.
I am genuinely confused, and certainly not being “passive-aggressive,” about this defensiveness thing. The reason it is “so unlike anything” you have seen in me before is because being passive-aggressive really is unlike me. There’s something else going on. Maybe we are both having some trouble getting our point across, or maybe this confusion is my fault, too.
I will predict this much. If there were any truth to your supposition that we have some intent to hide the name of Christ in what we do, and if that were in any way an objective or goal of ours, five years from now we would be sure to turn out to be the biggest failures on earth. Failures at hiding Christ or his name, that is. For in spite of how it seems to you, that is not our intention, and it is not our heart.
I have tried many times to explain to you how that makes sense from our perspective, and is not inconsistent with our mission and our heart; and I have not succeeded. It is a failure in my communication skills. I am sorry about that. I pray that we can at least pray for one another, love one another, and seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
July 28th, 2011 | 4:12 pm | #73
In view of your most recent post, Mike, I must clarify that I am not saying “shut up.” I am saying that I’ve come to a conclusion that I don’t have what it takes to explain myself to you successfully—even when I make an appeal for prayer and unity, apparently.
July 28th, 2011 | 5:17 pm | #74
Tom I give up as well. My point i thought was clear. In light of our culture , in light of the response the name change has received, in light of many of our young Christians feeling they need to hide their Christianity, and their embarassment at mentioning the name of Christ in public, in light of the fact that CCC does not harbor the only individuals able to hear from God, in light of CCC being an example to young people, CCC has the opportunity to do more than ask and appeal for unity it has the opportunity to address the issues of concern and cement that said unity by listening and adjusting accordingly. If there is disunity now then its based on a move that CCC decided to make. If its more than talk then the unity is easy to fix by CCC itself unless CC is just beyond the point of thinking that the many people who see issues with this
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/julyweb-only/campus-crusade-name-change.html?allcomments=true&start=1
have any point to be made or might actually have a spirit filled point of view and they are all just missing it
July 28th, 2011 | 5:48 pm | #75
I think you’ll agree with me, Mike, that it’s impossible for a name to please everyone or to serve every potential purpose and every good purpose. I agree with you that it does not serve all the purposes you have named here, for the people you have in mind. I hope you have seen this and point 4 here. I think that might be where we’ll have to leave it.
July 28th, 2011 | 7:39 pm | #76
:)
Tom I appreciate the discussion and the desire to find something to agree on. No hard feelings but we are miles apart. I don’t view this issue as merely an instance of a name not suiting every potential purpose. That trivializes the issue of an organization dropping one of the defining names of Christianity in order to “be more effective”. This isn’t some simple name being subtracted but THE name.
July 28th, 2011 | 7:53 pm | #77
oh — and yes I have read everything and still find the biblical references forced, the rational strained and the spiritual clarity lacking (stricly in regard to the name change that is). You make a far more compelling argument on marketing, branding and polling but that actually makes my two unanswered questions in post 54 even more pertinent.
By the way I have read it several times and besides implying by the questions that I may not agree with you I find no missiles being lobbed
My take after reading a number of your response here and on your blog is that as a strategist that might have had a hand in the name change you are taking things more personal than is required and its clouding your judgement.
We have stood shoulder to shoulder in debates with atheists on your blog and your logic is usually much clearer.
July 28th, 2011 | 8:19 pm | #78
Mike, I was not part of the name change process. I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to come to agreement in this. I hope we can continue to work well together on other topics.
July 28th, 2011 | 8:55 pm | #79
Won’t be a problem on my side Tom. Although I tend to get very focused on the issues in a discussion I still have enormous respect for you and I was never one of those claiming you had departed from the faith once delivered :). Hope your daughter is doing well. had a short conversation with her when she posted a few months back and she was a delight!! When she takes over your position I will take up the issues with her.LOL.
July 28th, 2011 | 9:09 pm | #80
That gave me a smile–Thanks! It won’t surprise me if it happens one day.
July 28th, 2011 | 9:12 pm | #81
And as a final note—you mentioned something quite recently about my taking this personally and maybe not being objective about it. I am sure you are right about that, even though you guessed wrong about my being part of the name change process. I apologize for anything I might have misconstrued as a result of that. I have certainly tried to represent our position objectively, but I’m just a guy with a computer to write on, a history with a lot of genuine men and women of God in Campus Crusade for Christ, a heart to help reach the world for Christ, and a host of imperfections to go along with it all.
July 28th, 2011 | 9:32 pm | #82
“and a host of imperfections to go along with it all.”
Get behind – way behind me – in that line :). though I didn’t draw any conclusion merely on that and mentioned it only as a possibility I thought you indicated having been pretty close to the decision in a number of things you have said. My last post as well. thank you for your time. One thing you have always been is accessible and engaged. I will always appreciate that and many other things about you.
July 28th, 2011 | 9:35 pm | #83
Dear Tom,
I am a first time poster and would like to correct a bad piece of information that you used in your blog and also fill you in on a little of what God is currently doing in the YMCA.
“The Y (its official name now) was originally the Young Men’s Christian Association. Its Christian roots are all but invisible now.”
The YMCA did NOT change its name… it changed its logo. Several media outlets falsely created this story instead of just reporting what was released. In fact, if you look at our new logo (I tried to put it in my post but was not able) you would see that the letters YMCA are now actually on the new logo whereas they were never on the old logo.
As far as our Christian roots, it would be true that several YMCA’s are not focused on living out our Christian mission. But I am proud to report that there is a re-birth of the Christian mission going on right now. Several YMCA’s across the country have now hired full-time Pastor’s/Chaplains/Christian Emphasis Directors that are solely focused on spiritually impacting YMCA members, staff and volunteers with the Gospel.
Please pray for us as we continue to return to our Christian heritage!
Actively living out the “C” in the YMCA,
Pastor Joshua Heaston
Christian Emphasis Director
YMCA of Greater Toledo
July 28th, 2011 | 9:58 pm | #84
Thank you for that good news, Pastor. I was misled by media reports, the very thing that I regretted happening when people were misled by false reports about Campus Crusade for Christ/Cru. I repent with apologies.
I was aware of some encouraging things happening at the YMCA of Charlotte, but I did not know it was very widespread. Can you direct us to a good source of further information on this?
(I found the logo here, by the way.)
July 28th, 2011 | 10:17 pm | #85
One more note. I’m a little confused by these statements that indicate the YMCA (USA) really is calling itself The Y now, in spite of what’s in the logo. It looks like the official corporate name remains the same, but not the name for public use.
Can you help us with that? Thanks.
August 1st, 2011 | 10:06 am | #86
After being criticized for the false claim of “billions” reached for Jesus, Tom changed the number from “billions” to “many millions.” But then he went and changed it back again to “billions,” sending me a private e-mail saying his source for “billions” was a Campus Crusade for Christ International/Cru Jesus Film marketing site.
We’ve posted on Cru’s Jesus Film numbers here:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/07/campus-crusades-jesus-idol.html
And here:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/07/its-important-to-remember-that-pride-is-made-clear-by-both-word-and-deed-and-not-by-word-alone-we-must-be-remember-this-beca.html
As I said to Tom in my e-mail response to his justification of “billions,” they should repent of this decade-long dishonesty.
Love,
August 1st, 2011 | 1:22 pm | #87
Mr. Gilson, thanks for your time.
Blessings,
Albert
August 6th, 2011 | 5:32 pm | #88
I am a long time contributor to CCC and I have read all the posts on this site as well as many others and I have a couple of questions. First, since you contend that it was important to drop the name “Christ” from your name, can we now expect CCC/cru to change the name of the Jesus Film to something equally meaningless, something like “flick” and if not why not? The name Jesus must cause the same reaction as “Christ” and could be the same “obstacle” to creating a dialogue with unbelievers.
I have been told that the requirement for working/serving at CCC is that you “support” the decisions of your leadership and to do otherwise is regarded your resignation from the organization. Is that true? Next, if it is true, wouldn’t that compel you to “support/rationalize/justify” any decision that is made and compromise your objectivity in seeing any other points of view?
I have supported CCC for the past 12 years, not because it’s CCC but because I felt it my best way of supporting the spread of the gospel. Now I sadly have to decide if my support will have a greater impact elsewhere.
August 7th, 2011 | 6:11 am | #89
Howard,
I have heard nothing of the requirement you speak of hear to support the decision or else resign, and I’d be shocked if anyone had said it anywhere in Campus Crusade/Cru. That sounds to me like one of those false rumors that unfortunately tend to crop up around events like this one with.
As I wrote in the article, we are holding close to Jesus Christ. I hope you’ll re-read the full context. I did not say, and no one in Campus Crusade has said, that it was “important to drop the name ‘Christ’” from our name. I wrote this later; maybe it will help explain the name change.
August 7th, 2011 | 7:31 pm | #90
Tom:
Thank you for your response. However, in my note, I asked if we could now/also expect CCC/cru to change the name of The Jesus Film to something that doesn’t include the name Jesus. Actually, this was the third time I have asked this question. In each case I got answers to my other questions but no response at all to this question. I would appreciate any information you may have.
August 7th, 2011 | 8:16 pm | #91
Howard,
There will be no change to the name of the Jesus Film.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact