Talk:Cru (Christian organization)/Archive 4

 This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Campus Crusade for Christ. It is not for discussion about the organization itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Campus Crusade is a "good" or "bad" ministry; or advocating a particular view on theology or spirituality.

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.  Before asking a question here concerning what can and cannot be posted in this article, please refer to the following Wikipedia rules:

• What Wikipedia Is Not (Policy)
• Neutral Point of View (Policy)
• No Original Research (Policy)
• Verifiability (Policy)
• Reliable Sources (Guideline)
• Disruption of Wikipedia to Prove a Point (Guideline)

Archive of Past Discussions

• Archive 1 (Creation to April 2006) :

Current Open Discussions

I am in the process of cleaning this page up; I'll be working on migrating the current open discussions to this space over the next couple of hours. Thanks.--Sixtrojans 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Background

Formerly, the Campus Crusade article was dominated by a long section of criticism. That section was finally moved to the talk page during the spring of 2006 for discussion so the Neutral POV warning could be removed from the main article and because many of the criticisms could not be verified with citations.

Criticism of Campus Crusade Theology

The theology section in dispute reads as follows:

Some have voiced concern over the distillation of the gospel in the "Four Spiritual Laws," claiming that the tract promotes an unbiblically self-centered gospel. Others like Ray Comfort have taught that the Four Laws have glazed over key Biblical concepts such as sin and repentance, as well as the Ten Commandments and much of the Bible's historical context. However, many Christians see the Four Laws as a standard representation of the message of salvation.

Discussion of Theological Criticisms

What an interesting observation. CCC is at the center of Christian evangelicalism (a charter member of ECFA, and a source of material and ministry philosophy for countless organizations) and I have only seen serious wholesale criticisms of this CCC coming from either (1) non-evangelical sources or (2) those factions within evangelical Christianity that are strongly against any sort of parachurch organizations. That is hardly the sort of thing that brands it a cult. Of course, individual campus staff members or groups may be over-the-top, but even in those cases, the majority of critics are skeptics and others who simply don't appreciate the "initiative evangelism" style that is prominent within CCC. And that is quite often simply a free speech v. annoyance issue, like so much that happens on college campuses.--Gandalf2000 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections by definition will represent a point of view. They should be inserted when the article itself does not accurately reflect the neutral point of view - in other words, where the article tells us everything that is good about something but not that which is bad, or disliked, or criticised. They should be supported by references - "some people think" does not fly unless there is a quote from an influential publication showing them saying it. Some of the criticism section in this article needs better external support. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section documents only incidents that are verifiable at local chapters. These criticisms would only be appropriate in this article if these policies of homophobia and "intimidating tactics" were documented policy by the organization of Campus Crusade for Christ. --Genghisgreen 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Local Chapters in the U.S. Campus Ministry

The criticisms of local Campus Crusade groups reads as follows:

Individual campus ministries have been criticized for intimidating tactics and refusal to cooperate with other religious organizations. At Miami University and at Ohio State University (Marion campus), some claim that the group has "taken over campus". At Ohio Wesleyan University, both students and the administration have expressed criticism of the organization and complained of being bullied by the ministry's members. At OWU, Campus Crusade's "Do You Agree with Adam?" campaign encouraged Christians campuswide to openly display signs of their faith. Some felt these actions were somewhat intrusive, and the campaign allegedly incorporated chalking, which is against school policy. As a result, several activist groups protested the organization's presence on campus. Another example occurred at University of Minnesota: Twin-Cities where a ministry leader asserted that those of the Islamic Faith were hopeless and that Christians must enter the Holy Lands of the Middle east to bring hope to the people and take back the land that is rightfully theirs. At Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, a former member was accused of making "homophobic" statements towards a roommate.[[1]]

Complaints are sometimes made against staff members demanding significant amounts of time from students in voluntary positions of leadership. Students are also frequently asked to submit themselves to a set curriculum designed to help them grow as Christians. Some leadership in local campus chapters have been criticized as being authoritarian and non-consultative, which does not play well in more egalitarian cultures such as Australia and New Zealand. Some members feel it is implied that the decisions of the leadership accord with the will of God and should therefore be obeyed, a symptom widespread among other large Christian ministries.

Discussion of Criticisms of Local Chapeters

The description seems fairly dry to me and the criticisms section is almost longer than the entire rest of the article - On that note, the criticisms section could use some links or quotes to support the allegations.

I would need to agree with the previous comment to some extent. In quantity of content, the criticism seems abundant. That may be warranted. However, the critism focuses almost exclusively on just one ministry under the Campus Crusade umbrella, the campus ministry.

Given that it's a campus crusade, having a lot of information on the campus ministry seems reasonable. --Zippy 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to make the article seem more fair, a more detailed explanation of each ministry would be appropriate. Or, some recognition that this type of criticism is very common with many religious groups. Does anyone have an opposing opinion? Justin Custer 01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the entire criticism section without comment. I have reinstated this section. I am fine with a discussion of this section here, or reasonable edits to the text, but blanking the entire section without discussion or comment is not appropriate. --Zippy 06:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree. There is room for critism and we should not be intolerant of dissent. Justin Custer 04:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but the Criticism section doesn't seem to fit with the neutral format of Wikipedia. To clarify, I am on staff with CCC (and obviously a proponent of the organization) but I realize that some of these criticisms are valid as well. Something seems off about the way it's written, but I can't figure out what. It may just need some heavy editing. Jaysonwhelpley 17:32, 11 January 2006

While the nature of this site is to give a variety of opinions, I was surprised to see the criticism section near the top. I looked at entries for several other organizations of different types, and found none that had a whole dedicated criticism section. Markww 11:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)