Talk:Cru (Christian organization)/Archive 4

Current Open Discussions
The discussions below should be for current subjects only. Please archive closed subjects. --Sixtrojans 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting should not be anonymous, anyone else agree? Yarman 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymity seems to be perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia. At this point, it doesn't seem like anything fishy is going on. The votes aren't binding anyway. --Seventysevens 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of such, it's looking like we've found consensus on WithChrist.org and JN. Do we need to wait longer to hear more opinions, or is it time to archive these two topics? I also think we have consensus that the two criticism sections should not be included in their current form, so I suggest we call off the voting, and instead try to come up with better criticism sections. I trust that we're all working in good faith here, and are striving for NPOV. Since Sixtrojans hinted that he knew of more credible CCCI criticisms, I look forward to his contributions in that new section or at least some pointers toward sources. We could start the new section(s) in a Talk subpage, so it has its own edit history, and so we can come to consensus before publishing in the main article. That only leaves the Which Circle? controversy unresolved, which seems like a minor issue. --Seventysevens 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC) ... Oh yeah, if it turns out that we can't come up with better criticism, then I suppose that would ultimately answer the question of whether to include the section. --Seventysevens 20:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To keep the archive dates clean, I say we leave the voting open until the end of may; then our second archive entry can be "May 2006." (I'm still bummed that no one laughed at the dates I put on the first archive... "Creation to April 2006" was a pretty clever double-meaning.) --Sixtrojans 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen Ray Comfort anywhere teach against the Four Spiritual Laws explicity. He does oppose watered-down gospel presentations, but I have read that he has been careful not to name specific ministries. If he is an opponent of Campus Crusade as this criticism suggests, why does he promote Campus Crusade materials and why does Campus Crusade sell his books? It's hard for me to imagine anyone reading the 4 Spiritual Laws and coming away thinking that sin and repentance are glazed over. Law 2 is devoted to a discussion of man's sinful nature and the third and fourth law describe Jesus as the only solution for man's sin. --Sixtrojans 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Every religious organization has its critics. I think the section should remain, and even be expanded to mention some other troublesome doctrines, such as that of "carnal man" (that one can be saved without accepting the Holy Sprit) and other items in their Holy Spirit booklet. Maybe even mention the standard opposition to para-church organizations. However, we need better sources for these items. Withchrist.org surely can't be the only place these issues have been raised. I suggest that this section should remain in discussion, not on the main page, until it's improved. --Seventysevens 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

POLL: 1 Votes YES to Include "Theological Criticisms" in Main Article
Yes. Yarman 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POLL: 1 Votes NO to Exclude "Theological Criticisms" from Main Article
No. --Sixtrojans 19:53, 7 May 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.[]


 * 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 Chapters
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)

There are several unreferenced claims in the criticsm area of this article. To quote from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy:
 * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.

I suggest that until appropriate citations are made, the whole section should be moved to the talk area. The last paragraph of the Criticsm section is completely editorial and shouldn't even be there in my opinion. Publishing that people are complaining that a student's time is being "demanded" is hardly unique and can be made against every single group on a college campus: athletic teams, fraternaties, sororities, college republicans, college democrats, cheerleading, yearbook staff, newspaper, etc. All of these voluntary groups "demand too much time" especially for those who are leaders. This portion is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and does not warrant a place in Wikipedia and should be removed. Lastly, the whole paragraph is ambiguous and doesn't sound like it's coming from a source that has "already been published by a reputable publisher" because it most likely is not. For these reasons the entire paragraph should be omitted unless references are provided. Brownone 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the majority of the subsection, "Regarding Campus Crusade for Christ local chapters" here until it is properly referenced. It's previous version is here in its entirety. The two cited statements remain in the article. I still think the last paragraph should be deleted, but I've kept it here for discussion. Brownone 14:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like these unsubstantiated criticisms could be construed as libel. I vote to remove them. Sixtrojans 03:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the criticism page and i realized something: I'm a college student myself and from what I've seen of CCC, they are no more intrusive than the annoying anti-war groups running around campus. Their tactics of 'blatantly showing of their faith' is no more offensive to me than the 'blatant showing of sexuality' by the various so called 'gay rights' groups on campus. If we as a democracy can't give the same 'benefit of the doubt' to the gay rights and anti-war groups as the Christian groups, then we're not respecting the rights that our nation was founded upon. --Posted by ???

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)

Well once again someone - Genghisgreen - has taken it upon themselves to delete the entire Criticism section. What most of you Crusade defenders don't realize is that the Criticism section was around before most of the other sections because it holds so much interest to readers. If it is that important, we shouldn't keep deleting it. Just as articles on the Iraq War contain many criticisms, so should the largest American Christian outreach group. Anyone else agree? Instead of battling over deleting and repasting, I will put the criticism section here while citations are found, feel free to update it and correct it and then soon we can perhaps bring it back into the live article. If you just showed up, don't start going crazy okay? Read the TALK section first!!! Yarman 15 April 2006

Yarman, perhaps you should follow the discussions more closely. I deleted the criticism section today as it has been sitting here for several weeks with no citations and no one has said they thought it should stay until you showed up today. Unsubstantiated derrogartory claims fall under LIBEL under U.S. law and since you keep posting them, you would be liable. I am going to ask the mods to permanently delete per Wikipdia policy. --Sixtrojans 19:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sixtrojans, your scare tactics are classic of Campus Crusade, which I am now used to. Leaving criticism under TALK doesn't threaten anyone, that is the point of TALK. Your immaturity and petty threats are not appropriate for Wikipedia as decribed in their Harassment Policy. Ask the mods whatever you would like, I am the one following guidelines and you are not. Yarman 15 April 2006 "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.” - Romans 12:10

Most points in this section lack substance (e.g. "taken over campus") or are niggling (e.g. "chalking"). With proper citations, one or two would be worth keeping ("take back the [Holy] land" is worth quoting if true). Vague accusations as suggested in Yarman's vote below still lack proper citation and wouldn't add much to the article (aren't most religious leaders called authoritarian?). --Seventysevens 21:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is basically copied from the CCCi website, just reciting the corporate line and not giving any useful information. Some criticism, and analysis of the organization's large impact, would be appreciated. CCC has been accused of cult-like tactics at some universities. This would definitely be an issue that deserves mention -- at least to cite that it exists. Jaysbro 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Among the wonderful (and sometimes maddening) benefits of Wikipedia is that if you find an article inadequate, you can make your own contributions to make it better. However, if you are going to post defamatory statements like "ccc has been accused of cult-like tactics," you do need to follow Wikipedia's libel policy and provide citations from reliable sources. --Sixtrojans 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Vote NO to Exclude "Local Chapters Criticisms" in Main Article
No. --Sixtrojans 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, unless properly documented. Otherwise I think a very broad summary would be appropriate such as: "Various CC local chapters have been accused of and (overly aggressive techniques?) although such claims have been hard to substantiate. Yarman 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, exclude it. As I said in discussion above, I also advise against making this section a summary. --Seventysevens 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

no. -webbrg

Reasons for Dispute
Authors are anonymous. Linked article is self-published material. Article does not pass the reliability guidelines. WithChrist.org may fit the definition of a personal Web site.

Discussion
I am moving a link that lacks credibility from "External Links" here to the discussion page. The Wikipedia guidelines state:
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.
 * Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.

The following Web site does not meet this criteria: --Sixtrojans 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Campus Crusade for Christ - A historical and theological analysis from WithChrist.org (Run by anonymous authors "Dan and Lisa")

POLL: 2 Votes NO to Exclude "WithChrist.org" Link in Main Article
No. --Sixtrojans 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The site doesn't seem to command much respect. At the moment, Google shows Wikipedia as the only site linking to this page. --Seventysevens 20:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)