Campus Crusade for Christ
1951 - 2012
Campus Crusade for Christ is changing its name to cru.
No, I don’t know what “cru” means. That’s kind of the point, apparently. The official scuttlebutt is that “like . . . other abstract names, we expect to fill Cru with meaning as it embodies all that we are as we go to the world with the gospel.” And the official reason is:
Our name presented obstacles to our mission. The word “campus” does not adequately represent all our ministries in the United States and confuses our constituency as well as potential partners. The word “crusade”-while common and acceptable in 1951 when we were founded-now carries negative associations. It acts as a barrier to the very people that we want to connect with.
http://www.ccci.org/about-us/donor-relations/our-new-name/qanda.htm#1
So, Campus Crusade for Christ is dead, long live cru!
A number of people are not happy.
Those opposed immediately moved past the offered lure of getting rid of “Campus” and “Crusade” (as obstacles) to an outcry about “taking Christ out of the name.” The Biblical citation bandied about is the one about being “ashamed” of Jesus, of course. You know, the “if you’re ashamed of me, I’ll be ashamed of you. . . .” threat of Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26. The organization appeared stunned. They were thinking only of getting rid of “Campus” and “Crusade” and apparently never considered that anyone would object to the removal of “Christ”.
Many questioned the validity of the stated intent to remove “Crusade” because of course the new name is “cru” – a diminutive of the word crusade. The answer to that objection from the organizational level was that surveys showed that people did not attach the same adverse association to “cru” as they do to “crusade”. I can’t help but wonder if that is before or after they learn that “cru” is a nickname for “crusade?”
Some fewer people object to the fact that “cru” doesn’t really mean anything. In objecting, however, they don’t move much further with that objection beyond stating it. All in all, it’s been an “is not!” - “is so!!” squabble among believers, with accusations of ill-will flying from both sides.
Interestingly, cru headquarters paints the squabble as one born of the media: “Recent media reports have questioned our commitment to Jesus and our calling as ministers of the gospel. Those who know and partner with us realize that this is simply untrue.” (http://www.ccci.org/about-us/donor-relations/our-new-name/commitment-to-christ.htm) Unfortunately, the comments in the comment section of the announcement pages did not bear that out. After an initial attempt to censor comments to only those that are helpful, all comments were then disabled and will be taken down in a few days.
I would note that my own take on the name change was not initially favorable, but was not informed by any media reports which, quite frankly, I still have not seen. I have made every effort, though, to read the explanations given by the organization itself.
One justification I read came from the head of a Campus Crusade ministry, Keynote (the music ministry), who tells his personal story of how hard it was to grow up with a different name than that of his mother and step-father. Chris speaks of the relief he felt when he was finally able to shed the offending name and thereby [presumably] shed the constant need to explain. Having worked with him for many years, I know Chris, and by correlation, I know he means to speak only of the difficulties presented by the “campus” and “crusade” parts of the Campus Crusade for Christ name, and not the “Christ” part. Still, there is something about a name change merely to make things easier that sticks in my craw. It seems underhanded somehow, a false attempt to escape history and one’s background.
Again, I know that’s not what Chris would intend and it is the farthest thing I can imagine from what I know his character to be. I want to pursue this line of thought, though, to see if perhaps it helps explain the outcry about the death of the Campus Crusade for Christ name.
Name Changes, Generally.
By law, we are allowed to call ourselves pretty much anything we’d like, so long as it does not offend society generally, act as an injury to another, or is undertaken for purposes of fraud or some other illegal purpose.
Consider, however, the general disdain with which the average personal name change is held, unless it’s for an “accepted” reason, like marriage or even divorce. Most people resist it, and old friends will often refuse to call the person by the new name they have chosen. There is often a sentiment of “Who does he think he is, to suddenly want to go by __________? What’s wrong with his real name?!”
For whatever reason, I’ve known four people who have changed their names; I’ve seen how it goes. The man I married rejected his childhood nickname, and affirmed his given name and a new nickname taken from shortening that name. It’s been a tough road. Many of his family and old friends refuse to call him anything but his childhood nickname. My younger brother’s name went through four incarnations – all based on versions of his first and second given names – I ended up calling him something else, entirely. My first boyfriend went by a childhood nickname, always hated his given name, and eventually also rejected the childhood nickname and took on a single, rather flamboyant stage name. That went over well! The fourth example was a family friend who suddenly decided that she was really much more of a ‘Sonja’ than a ‘Marge’. She was ridiculed for years, but now I have to think long and hard before I remember what she used to be called. . . .
I can sympathize with those who want to change their names. I wasn’t fond of my own name when I was young. . . . I tried to change it when I changed schools in the 10th grade. It was a golden opportunity – no one knew me, I could be whoever I said I was! The problem was that I kept forgetting who I was supposed to be, and my chosen nickname – (don’t laugh, now) Sami – didn’t stick. Thank God.
I surmise that mostly pro-cru-name-change readers read Chris’ blog – there was no real discussion of pros or cons, but 51 “likes” and only modest questions in two comments.
Out in the larger world, however, with attacks leveled from both sides, the conversation on the official site became first heated and then bogged down. Chris acknowledges that certain types of attacking comments (as well as those that question motives or suggest that the name might be less of God than of the Devil) were removed. This, he says, is because
“Campus Crusade for Christ, first and foremost, is concerned for how non-believers respond to this conversation. “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Disagreement…absolutely!! But we still need to speak to each other in “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”….”
I struggle with this. How can you have a real conversation if cru “blocks” the parts of the “conversation” that don’t fit that picture it wants to show “nonbelievers?” It makes sense if you’re working within accepted guidelines and using only authorized arguments. But unfortunately you might then end up fighting only authorized or even imaginary battles.
To wit, the “cru-team” official response at the official site seemed canned – referring endlessly back to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) they’d pre-provided answers for, providing links to the 4 Spiritual Laws (which refer to Christ), emphasizing that the gospel message hasn’t been changed, and occasionally saying “Sorry you don’t like the name.” Those responses didn’t really deal with the objections. Perhaps that is why people became angry. Those commenting had been asked for their input, but what seemed to be wanted was their approval. What was also communicated in this process was that any disapproval was either wrong, irrelevant, or a matter of subjective taste. It was also rather obvious that no change to the name is contemplated, although it won’t come into final effect until early 2012.
I am not in favor of the name change. Here’s why:
1. Authority.
2. Prophecy or propaganda?
3. Only one creates ex nihilo.
1. Under What Authority? A question of proper authority.
It’s interesting to consider that one of the first privileges God gave man is the authority to name things. (Genesis 2:19)
To name something is inherently an assertion of authority over it, an authority that must first be actual, but which carries with it a responsibility. I am not allowed to name other people’s children, and when I name my own, I must care for it. The act of naming requires relationship. Bill and Vonnette Bright were a proper authority for initially naming Campus Crusade for Christ, because it was an organization they started. They named the organization as parents name their children.
Organizations are not children, however. They are comprised of people, although the organization takes on a flavor and character of its own. Still, the organization can only act through the people who are associated with it. The argument that Campus Crusade for Christ puts forward about the new name (in its frequently-cited Frequently Asked Questions) is that the people who comprise the organization have acted to rename the organization. This is an argument of “proper authority”:
In 2009 our Board of Directors approved a recommendation from U.S. leadership to begin the process of evaluating our name. In 2011 they approved the recommendation of our new name.
A select team of 30 staff representing all organizational levels and a broad cross-section of ministries was involved throughout. They worked closely with outside survey and branding agencies. A smaller team including President, Steve Douglass and Vice-President, Steve Sellers signed off on all decisions. At key points in the process we invited input from ministry partners, volunteers and all of our U.S. staff. During the spring, we invited our staff and friends of the ministry to join us in 40 days of prayer and seeking the Lord together as we prepared for the name change.
The problem seems to be coming from the people who weren’t in-the-know, and to whom the name change came as a surprise. These are people who were in individual relationship to Campus Crusade for Christ, who were suddenly told they would be calling it another name soon, a name they had no input in choosing. Neither did they get a vote in determining to abandon the old name. The Board of Directors and “select team” may be the proper authorities – legally – to rename Campus Crusade for Christ organizationally, but they have no authority to rename the organization on the personal, relational level. I think this is part of the push-back they’re experiencing. The organizational big-wigs do not have authority to un-name Campus Crusade for Christ on my behalf – or the behalf of so many others who know it as such.
Having taken the authority to rename the organization, each of us individually has a choice to make: accept the death of the old and embrace the new, or simply to grieve the death as a death. In helping individuals make this determination, it is not helpful for the organization to emphasize their organizational authority. What must be done is invitational, not dictatorial. Unfortunately, Campus Crusade for Christ tends to choose proclamation over conversation. That statement will likely annoy many people associated with the group; I’m sorry. I think they’re trying to change, but it’s been part of their evangelical DNA for some time now.
2. Is it prophecy or propaganda? A question of identity.
When Simon recognizes Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus calls Simon by a new name: Peter – or ‘rock’ – “and on this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18)
In speaking a new name, it is helpful to have that kind of authority (Jesus’) and to be speaking prophecy as to the meaning of the name. We’ve already touched on authority, let’s speak now about prophecy, about meaning.
A question to ask about Campus Crusade’s name change is whether it arises out of spiritual victory – as did Simon’s new name – or whether it’s an attempt to escape their past and the hindrance of words in their name that they find now bound them. “Campus” is too limiting they say, and “Crusade” has an unsavory tang to it. By “escaping their past”, I refer to a study they commissioned that showed that a statistically significant percentage of people are less interested in talking to Campus Crusade for Christ once they hear who they are talking to. At least part of that reduced interest, however, could just as easily be attributed to Campus Crusade for Christ’s reputation, and not just to the descriptive aspects of the name or subjective preferences of the person being polled.
It would be different if Campus Crusade for Christ were leaving an old part of themselves behind, in making this name change. Peter, for example, was moving into a new realization: that of Jesus as the Christ – the anointed one of God, the Son of God. This was a realization that Simon did not have; this was the reason for the new name. What new realization justifies the cru name? How is cru different than Campus Crusade for Christ? Or is it? In fact, the organization seems eager to assure the public that nothing else will change except the name: the mission is the same, the message proclaimed is the same, the heart of its staff is the same.
In renaming Simon, Jesus spoke prophetic meaning into Peter’s name and life. In the renaming to cru, by contrast, the organizational heads say they hope that the old organization will speak meaning into the new name.
Philosophically, however, a renaming without a renewal of some kind feels like a shell game. It is difficult not to question motives. I am reminded of the response to Blackwater’s name change to Xe (pronounced “Zee” – which was not alleged to mean anything). (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2009/02/behind_the_blackwater_name_cha.html) You remember Blackwater? That was the private military contracting company headed by (former SEAL) Eric Prince, which brought us the Wild West in Bagdad, complete with main square shootings and ambushes.
After the death of some 17 civilians in just one incident, Blackwater understandably tried to move out of the public eye. The name “Blackwater” alone was enough to poison any well and even those government officials who wanted to do business with the company were forced not to. A name change was clearly in order. But with the same company, same mission, and same tactics, no one was fooled. Blackwater Xe at least pretended that there was something new to their business, to justify the name change. Campus Crusade for Christ makes no such claim. They merely cite the name as an “obstacle” to their mission. I don’t know that their old name is any more of an obstacle than is already present inherently to any proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Neither is there a specific scandal that makes it desirable to distance oneself from the name like in the Blackwater example. At the same time, though, I suspect that any one who would object to the old name will eventually find reason to object to the new one as well. What’s more, they will undoubtedly object even more when they discover that cru is the same group as Campus Crusade for Christ, just under a trendy new name and patchwork cross. A new name ought to mean a new identity of some sort, not the attempt to imply a new identity, in order to make new friends.
I keep dancing around a feeling of unease, that there’s something that feels rather underhanded about the name change. Imagine Romeo changing his name from Montague to Montag, say, because he [rightly] believed the Montague name was an obstacle to his mission of courting a Capulet, namely Juliet? In changing his name (absent more) Romeo does not renounce his heritage or change in any other significant way, he has merely taken on a disguise.
I do not believe that it is the intent of Campus Crusade for Christ to be either underhanded or deceitful – far from it! At the same time, I believe the Campus Crusade for Christ situation is inherently troubling from the perspective of true and honest identity. Having started with the name Campus Crusade for Christ, any change would have to be for a good reason, and should relate openly to who/what the organization is and always has been. The renaming in this instance feels more like a disguise that the organization hopes will not long be remembered.
3. Only One creates ex nihilo – a question of meaning.
Finally, we get to the meaning underlying this new name. What does cru mean? Nothing, apparently. It’s a nickname, supposedly. It’s a nickname we are told was given to the organization by the organization itself – by those participating in the campus ministries (those same ministries that supposedly no longer dominate the organization’s focus and which was used as part of the justification to change the name to begin with). It’s a placeholder sound into which to pour new ‘meaning’, by which it is hoped the newly-named group will be able to shrug off the negative meaning associated with the organization formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ.
Good luck with that.
I’m not going to do the intellectual work here of outlining the problems underlying choosing a nonsense word to mean something, when meaningful words have been allowed to degenerate into an adverse meaning. I will point to C.S. Lewis’ work on the subject, as well as Lewis Carroll’s and George Orwell’s. And I will also point out that allowing the organization to name itself is kind of like letting your child pick his or her own name. You might end up with “Sami.”
Finally, I would point to the original naming of the organization – an organization whose mission and name was given to Bill Bright by revelation, a creation ex nihilo – out of nothing. Although we can ask for renewal, we can not produce it ourselves. But neither can we come up with a new – otherwise meaningless – word, in order to force God to create. That would be like expecting a child supernaturally to appear to fill a new name we’ve pronounced.
Conclusion
If you’ve stayed with me this far, you would be excused for thinking I was in favor of keeping the old name. Not really. I never liked the old name. It’s too in-your-face with the evangelical zeal and agenda of the movement which gave rise to the name in the first place. But that name still feels a whole lot more honest to me than this recent “branding” attempt, no matter how much spiritual fervor was poured into the process or how many up-to-date marketing surveys, preference measurements and predictions of the current trend of what’s cool accompanied it.
Not that “cool” is cool any longer – I’m sure there’s a new term these days. Perhaps “cru”. Well, that’s “cru” then. My overarching question is whether Campus Crusade for Christ is changing its name because they have moved away from the evangelical zeal and agenda of their original name, or whether they seek to disguise business-as-usual with a cru-sounding moniker? I sincerely hope that I have not unfairly stated those alternatives. I don’t believe that there is another, viable choice. The alternative of ‘bigger and better business-as-usual because of our new name’ just doesn’t seem appropriate. I may be wrong, though, and would be happy to continue talking about that.
My point in writing down my reservations about the name change is not to argue for my preference of another name or to otherwise accuse or condemn the organization, but to point out that naming in a Biblical sense is a process. It’s about authority, relationship, and prophecy (in terms of ultimate meaning). The jump to cru seems to have missed a couple of steps, not to mention stepped on a few toes. I think the organization is figuring that out, especially with the bit of a firestorm that occurred upon the announcement of the new name. We’ll have to see how it ultimately plays out.
So: R.I.P. Campus Crusade for Christ. The name is gone; long live the Name.
