further to my cc4c post

My earlier post re: the Christian Century review of Bill Bright’s biography was picked up by Greg Linscott in the filings section of SI. (Thanks, Greg.) A bit of ensuing discussion followed, where one commenter was somewhat defensive of Bright and Campus Crusade, due to personal experiences.

I thought it might be worth clarifying the point somewhat.

I am not suggesting that Campus Crusade is/was the incarnation of evil! Nor would I suggest that local churches couldn’t learn a thing or two from their methodology, especially regarding discipleship (although one has to wonder how a local church can perform one-on-one discipleship functions when its best and brightest are siphoned off to parachurch organizations).

However, when criticism is made of parachurch organizations and their impact on local church ministry, it is Campus Crusade that historically spawned this criticism by its philosophy of ministry. It is important to note that the article I originally linked to, the liberal Christian Century review, also noticed that fact. Remember, it was Christian Century that said:

Despite the merits of helping irreligious students to become intentional followers of Christ, Crusade’s way of doing campus-based church altered young adults’ understandings in such a way that the older denominational congregations now appeared backward and culturally in accessible.

That’s not me… that’s Christian Century, a liberal rag. If the liberals can see it, clearly those who are conservative should see it also, only more so.

Thank the Lord for the spiritual benefits in individual lives, to be sure, but it is to the church and to preaching that God really assigned the task of evangelism and discipleship. The free-agent mentality that exists across the breadth of evangelicalism and fundamentalism is partly attributable to Campus Crusade and its powerful influence. I don’t think we can deny that when liberals notice it also.