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.

Christian Century magazine (yes, that CC, the liberal magazine to which Christianity Today was supposed to be the conservative counterpoint) publishes a review of Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America by John G. Turner.

The review is well done, and offers insight concerning Bill Bright and his ministry. I’ll highlight two quotes that illuminate the impact Bright had on the shape of modern Christianity. Unfortunately, these impacts plague us today, rather than help us.

On Bill Bright’s theology, or lack of same:

By the time of his death in 2003, Bright was a doctrinal nonpartisan, calling himself not an evangelical but instead a classical or New Testament Christian, and he was on friendly terms with Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and diverse other Christians with whom he had partnered around the world.

On Bill Bright’s attitude toward the church, perhaps the most devastating aspect of his ministry:

As early as the late 1800s, pastors warned that parachurch campus ministries would hinder students’ participation in existing congregations. Turner writes that early in Bright’s career he had little faith in the ability of established churches to effectively disciple their converts. 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.

Part of the problems we face in trying to build churches in this environment stems from the influence of Campus Crusade and its new-evangelical cohorts.