Very busy week, but I cut a swath of time and made you this. Hope it finds you well and leaves you better!
- So much has been happening lately, it's as if things are all... I don't know... jumbled together.
- One of the fun aspects of the week, of course, has been the early release of WTG on Kindle and in the flesh... er, processed timber. Amazon appears to have sold out of their initial shipment, which is cool; and last I checked there were three reviews, all positive (in different ways). Reader Susan pointed out to me that Amazon is already selling "used" copies, and that they're more expensive than the new copies. Hunh. Plus, Julie commented that she got her actually copy in hand last night via UPS. (See also here.) Which is also cool!
- All that to say this: I've gotten several chuckling requests for autographs from Kindle readers. Facebook friend (are you one yet? do be!) Kevin Jackson points out that this might actually be possible, in a way. If Kregel wanted to do it, and I got a dime for each autograph... I could quit my job and write that full commentary on Proverbs! And everything else I want to write!
- Okay, that was crazy talk. Sorry.
- Anyway, from what I've heard so far, WTG is being read in three languages: American, Australian, and Canadian. Which is cool too!
- Reader JTW found some crazy-fit guys in a crazy-hard competition.
- As long as there is this page on Amazon, no one should have problems picking a gift for me. (Not that anyone should pick one; just sayin'.)
- From Laura Kelleher: Bacon jam.
- I'm sure there's a story here. I'm not sure I want to know it.
- Irony on Irony Alert: convicted murderer stops breathing, guards revive him, he sues. (Thx Chris Carney.)
- So: dog-bites-man is not a story; man-bites-dog is. How about dog-bites-shark? William Dicks brought this to my attention, and links to an article about the event.
- Wow, is this ever a good-news/bad-news scenario.
- Reader Susan found herself captivated (not in a good way) by last week's singing Saruman. She found a profile of the singer (brief bad-taste image), as well as an invitation to write lyrics for it.
- And that in turn, led me to a discovery for which surely no one will thank me: a live version of the song. It's actually more endurable than the better-known version. Note the relative phrase "more endurable."
- A number of readers, starting I think with Michaela Ratcliffe, noted to me Colorado woman Yukari Mihamae, arrested for doing to the TSA roughly what the TSA does to women with impunty and government authority. Mihamae wanted to go through a metal screening gate rather than be exposed to radiation. Her request was denied, she was surrounded by TSA agents, and one tall woman advanced on her, at which point the assault/self-defense took place. Contrary to initial reports, Arizona prosecutors will not file a felony charge. Mihamae denies the charge.
- Some sane GOP legislator needs to move to get the TSA dissolved.
- On the subject of legislators and sanity, just remember: Harry Reid is nuts.
- Also remember, as you listen to the MSM: there is no "Obama proposal" or "Obama budget."
- Governor Rick Perry leads Texas to become the largest state to defund Planned Parenthood. It isn't everything but it's something.
- So, 66% of Americans support the House GOP approach to the budget "crisis." But 99.9% of the MSM believe that Obama is the Messiah, and statist totalitarianism is the way to Utopia, so... don't expect much to be made of it.
- We finally saw the movie Secretariat last week. Overall, good movie. Nothing like this:
- Reader Al Stout found a video of a real-live 3D printer that prints up objects... kinda like a Star Trek replicator. Kinda. (Also thx John.)
- Campus Crusade for Christ drops "Christ" from its name in favor of CRU. Hunh. I wonder why. I mean, really, why. (Thx Mike Westfall.)
- Update: well, Chris Carney pointed out more of the "really why" for me in this story. Seems the vice-president of "Cru," Steve Sellers (I am not making that up) "said researchers found that 9 percent of Christians and 20 percent of non-Christians were alienated by the name Campus Crusade for Christ." Well, so, there y'go. If non-Christians don't like it, it goes! Further, they say "We were not trying to eliminate the word Christ from our name. We were looking for a name that would most effectively serve our mission and help us take the gospel to the world." So: in eliminating the word Christ from their name, they're "not trying to eliminate the word Christ" from their name — because nothing says taking the Gospel to the world like... "Cru"? Yeah, got it.
- Now, whyever would this make Jim Hamilton think of us?
Posts
53 comments:
I like that Amazon page: Ostrich, Elk, Bison, Buffalo, and Rabbit jerkies...Mmmmm. Thank God for Genesis 9:3.
wv: sultseex-- as in what a jerky fan does.
Now for the real reason for Campus Crusade for Christ's name change:
We believe wholeheartedly that God has given us this new name. -- Steve Sellers, vice president for the U.S. for Campus Crusade for Christ
To be honest, I thought the FoxNews story on Campus Cr
usade was rather manipulative. Most people refer to that organization by the shortened name I just used, and it was clear from reading the quotes in the story that the problematic word was "crusade." The board of Campus Crusade did not sit down and say, "We need to get 'Christ' out of our name." They did sit down and say, "We've got to get rid of 'crusade.'" That was a bigger problem for them, because it is the word most associated with their identity. The adoption of "Cru" as a name is arguably silly, and it does just happen to eliminate "Christ" from their formal name, but that was the result of what they found a necessary re-branding, not of a decision to hide their Christianity.
As for "crusade," I'd be happy if all Christians forever abandoned the word. I'm embarrassed that my kids' Christian school (and so many others) have the Crusader as their mascot. (The school where I once taught wisely ditched that particular name.) Aside from the multicultural nonsense that suggests that people are right to be offended about wars fought centuries ago, the fact remains that the Crusades were an embarrassment for Christianity and that the very idea of promoting and defending the gospel with the sword is ludicrous as well as counter-biblical. Why on earth would we want to adopt that symbolism?
I see this story through optimistic eyes. Campus Crusade came to their senses. That doesn't lead me to think that they will abandon their unbiblical theology and practices, but at least I don't have to cringe every time I hear college kids talking about going to a Crusade meeting.
The Fox headline, though, didn't match the story at all. They seized on the missing word "Christ" which was never central to the Campus Crusade brand. Is a Christian organization required to have the word "Christ" in its name? Do we need to picket the offices of Ligonier Ministries, Grace to You, and Crossway Publishers?
FoxNews is useful because it has chosen to present news from a distinct perspective from the otherwise monochrome media. However, journalists are still journalists, and sometimes Fox journalists are as guilty as any others of deceptive headlines aimed at creating hysteria over a non-story.
Oh well, Stan — there y'go. If God told them, then I guess we're done here, nothing more to see, move along.
Though, it is curious, isn't it? They're assuring us all that they're all about "Christ" as they drop "Christ" from the name. It's all about barriers.
Yet what are the images summoned up among Muslims by the word "Crusade"? And yet that is the part they retain?
But then again, you know, if God reopened the Canon to make this one further revelation, who can apply things like reason and facts?
I had not read Tom's comment when I wrote mine; interesting both for our parallels and divergence.
I appreciated the Fox story because it dug a little deeper. The thing about the organizations you mentioned, Tom, is that (as far as I know) they didn't have and then drop Christ's name, retaining another element.
And again, if they were most concerned about "Crusade," isn't it odd that that is the element they retained? Because what's "Cru" if not short for "Crusade"?
Well, as I said, I think "Cru" is a dumb name. It's an advertisers idea to try to keep the most recognizable element of their brand while abandoning it because it has become unpopular. It's like "Kentucky Fried Chicken" becoming "KFC" in a health-conscious era.
The way they did it was silly - ridiculous even. But I do think they were wise to abandon "Crusade," I doubt that in ten years unbelievers who encounter "Cru" will think, "Hey, that must be short for 'Crusade'," and I still think the Fox headline suggests something that its own story does not support: that the folks at Campus Crusade set out to find a way to eliminate "Christ" from their name. I'm kind of glad they didn't choose "Cru for Christ." Too trite. Actually, don't tell them I mentioned that; I can see that happening.
I think you may be on to something there, Dan. They have not removed themselves far enough form the negative imagery.
Next step: apply for a frat house and change the name to KRU.
Kappa Rho Upsilon
All the guys will wanna join, all the girls will wanna be where the guys are. No more negative connotations... just, cool (or kool) kids --not in anyway associated with the violent "evangelism" of the Dark Ages. And perhaps they'll have a Bible "study" every other Tuesday night.
Okay, maybe I need to go drink another cup of coffee.
Hmm...so Campus Crusade for Christ took a poll and decided their name was offensive to people so they change it to CRU? I'm sure that is what Paul had in mind when he was talking about the Gospel being a stumbling block and only wanting to know Christ and Him crucified, right? Who are these guys modeling themselves after?
I can understand where you are coming from, Tom, but I agree with Dan that the choice to keep a shortened version of crusade surely shows they are more inclined to keep that identity than the name of Christ.
"Cut, Cap and Balance" makes more sense if you take out the first comma and add a letter to the second word. And maybe add an exclamation point.
Murderer sues?
Man alive could we ever use a world tilting gospel! cuz that's just nuts.
re: Cru - i had not read Tom's comments (or Dan's), but thought the very same thing. Let's keep Cru.........[sade], and not think that anyone would ever look into the etymology of the name of the ministry. And yet, ostensibly, this part has been an egregious problem in the last 50 years? eyes rolling.
I love the "expecto dafaultum". That cracked me up.
Then, the way my browser scrolled, I saw that lady with the two cellphones and thought "idiot", and then, one more scroll and "public safety" hit the screen. I feel like Otis the cat in the Bloom County comic strip when I see that.
If I had a blog, I'd permanently link to that Amazon meat page as part of my profile. Some of that stuff looked great. Although, I'm not sure what to do with empty escargot shells. And, a skinned rabbit doesn't have the same draw, as say, watching Robin Hood's men cook one rotisserie style over an open fire.
Personally I am struggling to understand the problem with the Crusades. Strikes me as a perfectly valid use of force to keep the Holy Land under Christian rule. Not to mention the obvious benefits of having oranges in the diet.
Gee Dan, that rare meat page? You should come up north. I think I've got something in my freezer that might interest you. If the venison and elk are too common, I still have some caribou.
You mentioned Secretariat. We saw that movie recently too. In that last race, where the competitor's jockey thought they'd run him too fast? Did some reading about that. Turns out they time the horses on each lap. At the end of the race Secretariat was far from slowing. In fact, he was still accelerating!
Had heard that CCC wanted to eliminate 'crusade' from their name, but Cru? Is that supposed to be, "Come join my crew/krew/cru/(choose other alternate spelling)" or what? Dumb, dumb, and dumber. Wonder if it'll stick, or be like New Coke.
And, is it bad that I'm laughing at the Dairy Queen photo?
Happy Friday,
Julie
PS Must show Grasshopper boys the Lego LOTR... amazing.
RT,
Crusades = bad to modern Christians (but not to Protestants before globalization?)
More disturbing than the abandonment of the perfectly useful, descriptive and honorable name "Crusade" is the imputation of such dreadfully poor taste to the Almighty. Honestly, "Cru"? What was God thinking? Maybe the revelation was cut off in mid-word; possibly Sellers woke up before God was finished -- perhaps the name was supposed to be "Cru . .dite International" to bring the Vegans on board, or "Cru . .mmy Attempt at Continuing Revelation to Justify an Otherwise Bad Decision" - I don't know - but "Cru"? I doubt it.
I received an unsolicited email this week announcing the "Cru" name change. I thought it was odd because I have never signed up to be on their mailing list. I'm assuming they bought my name from some list re-seller. The letter was jam packed with words like "market" and "branding." I found it to be very "icky" and "commercial," but I'm of the ilk that believes it's the supernatural work God through the Word and the Holy Spirit that saves people, not slick marketing.
~~
Harry Reid thinks CCB is the worst legislation ever? As a Mormon, is he unfamiliar with LDS history. Like the Idaho law that banned Mormons from voting, serving on juries and holding elected office? Or how about the Missouri law that ran his people out of that state? It's tough being a liberal.
~~~
DS spoke to our state senator this week and was told that Ohio is working on a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood here in Ohio. This week, Gov. Kasich signed a bill outlawing abortions on preemie babies (i.e. post-viability). And the House passed the Heartbeat Bill, which bans all abortions after a heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound. It will go to the Senate in the fall. This is truly a historic year for the unborn in this country. While the nation is focused on the budget and the debt ceiling, state legislatures are quietly passing laws to protect the unborn.
I guess if we're gonna give up the "crusade" then we might as well shed the whole armor of God as well. No need for that Helmet of Salvation, Breastplate of Righteousness, Shield of Faith, Belt of Truth, Sword of the Spirit, etc. if you're not gonna actually use 'em...
Nope. Let's just hang out together and play video games and watch contemporary praise videos and generally show the world how cool and trendy we are...
I loved the word "crusade" and think some people hogtie it to the worst possible historical understanding of that word. This type of neglect of history, lazy categorization and being frightened of words, I just don't understand. Seems like it bothers more liberals in our country than so called people who would be categorically offended by the terminology. Ministries within CCC that geographically would be offended by that word "crusade" don't hear the phraseology "Campus Crusade for Christ" to often already. So why do it? Bigger deal is dropping the Christ part.
Honestly, I thought the Stateside campus ministry should have been the only thing called CRU (sounds like it was largely happening) and the CCC moniker was a big ole container filled with multiple ministry names anyway. But parachurch is as parachurch does, and I don't have dog in that fight.
I have to say, when I was in college and involved with campus ministry, CCC was also on our campus and they referred to themselves as "Cru" the entire time I knew of them as an organization. Of course, we would talk about this with them, and it always came up that "crusade" came with baggage, and they felt that "Cru" was a nice way to shorten the name and eliminate the baggage.
As Tom does, I think the name "Cru" is meaningless (as is "InterVarsity" to an American audience) and is pretty dumb. Also, however, I must agree with him that the name change itself was always about eliminating "crusade" and not Christ.
Now, could they have come up with a new name that used "Christ" or "Christian" in the title? Of course.
I don't have time to do much more than skim through quickly right now, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to put it together.
And I really like the Amazon page. I also like that you can get anything through Amazon.
Oh, and I did respond elsewhere to someone quoting Acts 23:6 for Paul not saying "Christ" at that exact second being support of dropping the name of Christ for CCC. Seemed petty and unproverbslike. Goofy and a stretch yes, but I think I would have at least liked to have heard something similar to that than "Dude, God renamed us!" as they nod at their inerrancy statement.
I don't approve of them eliminating the word "Christ", but I definitely support eliminating the word "Crusade". And I'll argue that even just shortening it to "Cru" actually does make sense--it accomplishes something worthwhile.
They're eliminating the historical & emotional baggage in the word "Crusade". The name of the organization is the first thing that someone reads on a flyer, the first thing they hear when you tell them "I'm with _____". A name like "Campus Crusade" brings up all the historical & emotional baggage of the Crusades, before you can even start speaking the Gospel.
Even if you think (like RT) that the Crusades were a "perfectly valid use of force", that's not the argument we care about.
Of course people can easily find out that "Cru" comes from "Crusade". But:
(1) That won't be the initial association when someone reads or hears the name. "Cru" won't immediately derail the goal of getting to the Gospel, like hearing "Crusade" sometimes will.
(2) If someone looks into the name enough to find out that it came from "Crusade", they'll also find out that the organization changed the name, and why.
I wish they would have picked a new name with specific meaning, related to Christ--even indirectly, like "Navigators". But dropping "Crusade" is a good thing for the Gospel, and it does make sense--even when they're just shortening it to "Cru".
On dropping "Christ" from the name: I think we should judge primarily based on the content of the actual meetings and conversations they have with people.
If they clearly, directly, and quickly proclaim Christ, we can't accuse them of being ashamed of Christ or afraid of offending people.
And if they don't, then keeping the name "Campus Crusade For Christ" isn't much of a virtue.
One final thought, along the lines of judging by the actual content of the "Cru" meetings and interactions with non-Christians:
DJP makes a valid point that groups like "Crosswalk" and "Navigators" and "Ligonier" didn't remove the name of Jesus from their groups. (Though if any of those groups specifically decided not to include the name of Jesus in their group name for the same reasons as CCCI, then that would be basically the same thing.)
But, it might be that removing the word "Christ" from the name of the group is similar to deciding to stop wearing Christian symbols & words on your jewelry & clothing.
Suppose you moved to a Muslim country, and found that when you wore your cross necklace and Christian-themed t-shirts, everyone avoided talking to you. In the market, at restaurants, walking around your neighborhood--you couldn't start a single conversation. But on the days where you didn't wear those clothes, people were generally open and friendly--and once they actually started talking to you, you could quickly get to the Gospel.
Does anyone here see a problem with deciding to stop wearing Christian symbols in that circumstance?
Considering the state of public education in this country, I would venture to say that a large majority of college students have no idea what the crusades even were. For example, to earn a high school diploma in Ohio, students are not required to take a single class in world history. Maybe they learn it in "social studies" class. And many (if not most) college majors don't require world history either.
Of course, if they are getting a steady diet of Bill Maher,Jon Stewart and Keith Obermann, they probably do have a very negative view of Christians and the Crusades. I don't think changing the name to Cru is really going to help with that.
I was under the impression Campus Crusade switched to "Cru" because that was the shorthand that many people involved with Campus Crusade have been calling it for years, and it made for an easy way to ditch the word "Crusade".
Of course, now schools with rowing teams will have to explain whether they mean "Cru" or "Crew".
I would have had a hard time choosing between "Campus Crucified" or "Campus Teutonic Knights" personally, but that's just me.
Also, jugulum's comment at 10:42 am is excellent and concise.
I never know which of the 63 pieces and graphics I put up might become a sole focal point.
Crucified. ru? Gal. 2:20
"Hey dude, sorry about that crusade thing, here, have a copy of #TWTG"
Hey, how 'bout those Legos?
There y'go.
My first thought when I came to H&T was "Eep! Dan and Tom broke into my mind and stole my thoughts!"
The comments about CCC have been hitting way very very close to home for me (not in a bad way). They agree with a lot of what I was thinking and express them better than I could.
I can add a few things to the conversation. First one, CCC says the Gospel is a high priority (Cru?, whatever). However
"being relevant" seems to trump all. This is not true across the entire organization, but I could make a case that that is the trajectory.
Also, in this CNN article I see something else to add: Bill Bright knew that the CCC name might be offensive 60 years ago. I know for a fact that the name was chosen because "God told him so." That is just beat my head against the desk frustrating.
Julie, if you could have seen the other names being suggested, the cringe factor would be too much for H&T to contain.
To recognize the rest of Dan's hard work this week: Buffalo burgers are delicious. I would take one any day over beef. Gator is really tricky; if it was wild, it will taste really swampy. I've always wanted to try emu.
To avoid the problems that Dairy Queen will bring on, I plan to make my own, more delicious, more cookie dough filled ice cream.
The article on Jeff Sessions was pretty good. There is always the possibility that his speak was political motivated, but at least he has facts and is willing to be honest about the problems we have. Bipartisanship amongst the top Democratic leaders seems to mean, "I talk, you agree."
Oops, forgot the CNN article.
The Canadian incarnations of CCC changed their name in 2007. For much the same stated reasons: powertochange.com
Your bluffing poster reminded me of something when President Obama was telling the Republicans to not call his bluff. Isn't the point of bluffing to keep it secret and not tell people you're bluffing?
"CRU" is what we've always called ourselves on campus... The new name simply acknowledges that. Come and see what we are doing.
Isn't the point of bluffing to keep it secret and not tell people you're bluffing?
Yes. And it also requires having a plan.
And why not even one conservative politician could apply at least several brain cells to calling out that fact in any number of ways is why I'm still profoundly pessimistic about next year.
And what in the name of all that is nutritionally holy is in that bacon thing at SBTS? It honestly looks like some kind of horrific Southern savory eclair. I'm telling you - if I was a donor, I'd want a word with the cafeteria lady about her strategy to turn all those young guys into human ovals (to quote a friend) before their time.
I've created a monster. A bacophobic misovalist monster!
Well! Our Dear Leader isn't bluffing anymore! He just held a press conference and did the POTUS equivalent of what DS used to do when he was 3 and Candyland didn't go his way. He would pound his chubby little fists on the table and flip the game board over, sending Queen Frostine and Plumpy tumbling across the Molasses Swamp and onto the floor in a heap.
Those were the times we'd get out the (literal) pity pot and have him sit until he was done feeling sorry for himself. I wonder if Michelle could find one in the WH kitchen and have her hubby sit for a bit of contemplation.
I'm reading an article on MSNBC about the Norwegian tragedies, and the suspect in custody is a self-proclaimed "'Christian, leaning toward right-wing Christianity, on his Facebook page.'"
Yikes.
Maybe CCC's name change to "Cru" isn't so bad after all.
This isn't to say that I completely agree with the name change. Yesterday on the way home I was listening to Frank Pastore's program, and he had no qualms about CCC's name change to "Cru". He thought it was fine as long as it could make them more effective in their ministry. When I heard that, one thought that came to mind was that our theology forms the way we live. Will the ministry indeed be more effective because of a name change? Isn't that man-centered thinking? And speaking of being man-centered, the soft-pedaled message in CCC's Four Spiritual Laws pamphlets made me think twice about handing out the pamphlets I had purchased years ago. The idea that man cannot experience God's love and plan for his life because he is sinful (cf. Law #2) misses the bigger and more crucial picture that the Lord is angry with the wicked every day (cf. Psalm 7:11, KJV). Maybe instead of a name-change, CCC can focus on revamping The Four Spiritual Laws?
Re: WTG
I hope Amazon doesn't sell out of the Kindle edition so fast.
Re: delivery by UPS
It seems we never get too old to be excited when UPS delivers something!
Re: Cru
God told me that Cru was a good, meaningful name because of the immediately clear association with:
- The Tom Cruise Fan Club
- The Penelope Cruz Fan Club
- The prophetically predicted Condoleezza Rice University.
- And, most significantly, the Congregación Religiosa Universal (see website)
No...He didn't really tell me that.
Susan,
For what it's worth, I have saved myself from hours of aggravation by not listening to Pastore's program any longer. I just became so sick and tired of trying to find trace amounts of truth in that silly show, and/or waiting for guests who are actually gospel-embracing Christians (of the WHOLE gospel). Rather, he mostly parades one degree of compromise or heresy after another, appearing to be objective and balanced in his discourses with with every one of his errant guests. While it is certainly fair enough to do that with a particular guest, I'd like to know why there is no objective balance on display weekly/monthly in his overall guest lineup. Interesting selections, they are, as about 80% of them all have heresy, to one degree or another, in common--or he simply invites unbelievers on the air to express their theological views without an ounce of scrutiny. Interestingly, he gives guests with liberal political views quite a debate, and I frankly agree with every word he says in such debates! But, why have I never heard a debate like this from him on heretics' postmodern abberations? In my opinion, this comes from an absence of either discretion or courage (I don't know which--maybe both).
Pastore frequently welcomes and converses with the carnal (at best) or apostate (at worst), as though they are indeed brothers and sisters in Christ, and one thing that stood out to me is the fact that his tone/inflections so strongly and frequently affirm some of the most outrageous examples of contextualized, postmodern, emergent nonsense imaginable (intentional?). He often calls such things "cool," and he soapboxes to his thousands of listeners when he interjects his opinions about how the church really needs to adopt whatever brand of relevancy his guests serve-up on a particular day.
Nonetheless, Pastore is enigmatic, though, because I do believe he is a Christian who loves Christ; he likewise affirms the minority number of guests who are true, gospel-affirming believers as well. So, my aggravation always stemmed from trying to figure him out (combined, of course, with the aggravation of driving Southern California freeways)."Where he is coming from on this show?" I'd ask. Ignorance? ratings? orders from the radio station boss? fear of man? or a genuine belief in so much of the junk he broadcasts to his large audience? I always hoped he would challenge even one of these erroneous beliefs and/or guests, but never. Nope. Just affirmation. Sad.
@Rachael - we'll see what happens with the debt talks. The President and the Treasury Secretary hold all the cards of which budget cuts they could force. They could choose cuts that would politically damage most Republicans since the media is on their side. They don't have to cut social security and we could still make our debt payments.
The other risk is a debt downgrade. Not as bad as a default (which we won't do unless Obama wants to) but it could send interest rates higher and cause investors to panic. Boehner doesn't want to send interest rates higher because that would hurt a lot of money and he knows the Republicans will probably get blamed by the mass media machine.
meant to say, hurt a lot of Americans, not "money" - have not had my third cup of coffee yet, only got up an hour ago.
I think Geithner and Obama are putting our country at great peril by playing "Chicken Little" with the "sky is falling" talk about default. They ought to be reassuring the market and our creditors that no matter what, we'll be making the interest payments on our debt and we will not default under any circumstances.
Instead, they are fomenting a premeditated panic for political gain.
I loved the word "crusade" and think some people hogtie it to the worst possible historical understanding of that word. This type of neglect of history, lazy categorization and being frightened of words, I just don't understand.
Personally I am struggling to understand the problem with the Crusades. Strikes me as a perfectly valid use of force to keep the Holy Land under Christian rule.
Put me down as an Amen. To add, there were many crusades. Almost twenty if recall correctly. Some of them were simply to repel the muslim invaders who were taking over Europe. The embarrassment to Christianity came from Catholic superstitious dogma directed and promoted by the Pope that said you'd earn special divine dispensations for you and your family by fighting.
I've been a supported of Campus Crusade for Christ for several years now. I've been supporting specific missionaries and felt it was important to bring the gospel to College Campuses and nobody else was really doing it. I knew about the seeker sensitive mentality that infects it as it does most evangelical circles these days, but again, nobody else seemed to be doing campus evangelism so I kept supporting it. (Plus I was hesistant to defund a particular missionary family because I know how desperately they depend on the money).
I'm disturbed by the name change and even more disturbed that they would bring in Bill Bright postmordem to defend it.
My wife and I are discussing whether we will pull our funding and move it elsewhere. And it is with a heavy heart that I even consider it.
@CR and @Rachael: I think Obama knows it is the Republicans bluffing. Rule #1 of hostage taking: Don't take a hostage unless you are willing to kill the hostage.
Refusing to raise the debt ceiling will have very real consequences, mostly short term. But nobody is quite sure what the extent of those consequences will be and so Republicans are unwilling to risk that running up to an election. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't appear to have much to lose.
Sir Aaron - republicans like most if not all of them like all other politicians are concerned about the political fallout. But reps like Boehner are concerned about the downgrade of our debt (even if we dont default which we won't unless Obama intenrionally does so) which would impact interests and affect every American that wants to buy a home and has a credit card balance.
Chris,
1. I don't listen to Pastore's show every day, but I get the sense that he is trying to be friendly and gracious with his guests/callers (to the point where he'd call them "bro" even if they were atheists) so that they will let down their defenses and be comfortable and say what they really want to say.
2. That being said, one of Pastore's personal heroes is Dallas Willard. I know very little about Willard other than he is associated with the concept of "spiritual formation", and whenever Pastore has Willard or other guests who supports "spiritual formation" on the show, the subject matter kind of goes over my head. And after having read this review of Willard's book, it doesn't surprise me all that much that Pastore takes the approach he does on his show. To his credit, Pastore has openly condemned Rob Bell's recent heretical magnum opus, but that's only after the book's release and not during the promo video period.
I'm slowly cutting down on listening to his show, now that I tend to listen to my iPod during traffic, but I probably won't wean myself completely from the show just yet. Like you said, he does have some good guests on sometimes (like John MacArthur), and one time he even had on one of my friends' pastor-cousin!
(Okay, Dan, feel free to not post this comment should you think I've exceeded the Turk Derail-O-Meter scale!)
Is it still alright if I weigh in on the sole topic of this focused article? OK then. There are different aspects of the Crusade name change that we should probably keep separate for clarity.
1) What they changed it to. I'm not a huge fan of the name CRU - the campus ministry I was saved through changed to that shortly after I left, I wasn't a huge fan then, now I'm generally apathetic towards it. It's basically an obama of a name - the name itself inherently means nothing, the meaning will come from what they do. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - although I can imagine people getting mad at the early church for going with a meaningless name like "The Way" (and plenty of cults have really good biblical names). The name will take its meaning from what the group does.
2) About dropping the word 'Crusade'. Unhesitatingly in favor of this. Look, we can debate the merits of the Crusades, and whether the term itself should be an offense to certain non-believers (especially muslims). But that would miss the point. The fact is, it is an obstacle preventing many people from even listening to the gospel. Attempts to witness to such people (again, largely muslims) will be immediately derailed to heated debates about the crusades, the appropriateness of using the term (I had more than one compare it to talking to a Jew while part of a group with 'holocaust' in the name), etc. Instead of proclaiming the gospel, you wind up debating 1000-year-old politics.
1 Peter several times makes the point - if you're going to suffer, let it actually be for Christ. The same principle should apply to our witness. If someone is going to reject it, let them actually reject the gospel. Don't put something else out there that gives them a convenient excuse without ever being confronted with the full truth. I've been threatened by muslims for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus the Son of God, and I've been threatened for being associated with a 'crusade'. Neither is fun, but at least with one I know I've been faithful.
Let's consider Paul's example on this in Acts 16. He wanted to take Timothy with him, but Timothy was uncircumcised, which would infuriate the Jews. Were they wrong to be so upset? Sure. Did Paul just take him along as-is, give the Jews a ready excuse to reject everything out of hand? Of course not. Paul, the great proponent of freedom with regard to circumcision, refused to let Timothy's foreskin stand in the way of the gospel. He weighed the value of Timothy remaining intact versus the likely offense it would cause, and broke out a knife (cf 1 Cor 9:19-23).
Anything non-essential which has proven to be a hindrance to the gospel can and should be on the chopping block. The name 'crusade' undoubtedly did. Don't shed any tears to see it go.
Trogdor: Agree with #2. I'm not against the changing of that name, although I don't hold any prejudice towards it.
I would have prefererd though, that they just change crusade to something else. Campus Club for Christ or something less blurry than "Cru."
Post a Comment