You can know with absolute certainty that you helped change the world for the glory of God! Meaning. Purpose. Significance. They all come to life when you know you have helped change the world. . . when you know that you have left a legacy for eternity.”
These opening lines from a Campus Crusade for Christ fundraising brochure epitomize the activist spirituality of the largest and most aggressive of all Evangelical parachurch youth organizations. Although this movement aims primarily at college students, its has extended beyond the campus, influencing Evangelical piety and practice far greater than the size of its staff–16,000 employees and volunteers worldwide–would suggest. For this reason alone, Campus Crusade is a movement Catholics should understand.
Yet this is not the only reason. As I learned during my four-year involvement with Campus Crusade, the excitement generated by this movement’s aggressive evangelistic outreach can be powerfully attractive. This is a concern for Catholics, since Campus Crusade is willing to work with “Roman Catholic believers,” and I have seen the adverse effect involvement with Crusade can have on Catholics.
One Catholic acquaintance explained to me that he had become heavily involved in the movement but then had “backslidden”–he still believed in Christ but did not actively obey him. The Evangelical belief that backslidden Christians are still saved eased his conscience, but he was unaware that in Catholic teaching to be backslidden is to be in the state of mortal sin.
More commonly, the non-sacramental and even anti-sacramental teachings of Campus Crusade draw its members out of sacramental churches, as I was drawn out of Lutheranism. As I have learned from my own experience, all of the spiritual needs which Campus Crusade meets can be more perfectly fulfilled by one’s becoming more thoroughly Catholic.
There is another reason for examining Campus Crusade–it challenges us to turn our attention to a mission field the Church has sorely neglected: secular universities. Evangelical historian Edwin Orr shows that most “revivals” in the Protestant world began with and were sustained by college students. Evangelicals have taken his counsel to heart. During my years at California State University at Long Beach I came into contact with at least a half-dozen Evangelical campus outreaches, all with a significant exposure. The single Catholic “club” posed no serious rivalry.
To understand the influence and characteristics of Campus Crusade we must begin with its founder, chief theologian, and present leader, Bill Bright. Born in Oklahoma in 1929, Bright came to Los Angeles to start a small business after obtaining a B.S. degree from Northeastern State College in Oklahoma. His business background would give Campus Crusade its pragmatic and individualistic characteristics, from its aggressive fund-raising to its style of ministry. (A speaker at a Campus Crusade conference characterized the apostle Paul as a “rugged individualist” and proposed this as a quality worth emulating.)
Although an agnostic when he first came to Los Angeles, Bright began attending the First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood in the mid- 1940s. Here he met the church’s director of education, Henrietta Mear. Through Bright, her teaching would give the movement its insistence on aiming for the impossible, winning the world for Christ, and mobilizing college students for the enormous task of fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18- 20).
Mear’s teaching led to Bright’s accepting Christ, and in 1946 he enrolled in Princeton Theological Seminary. He returned to Los Angeles after one year, without graduating, to attend Fuller Seminary. There he studied until 1951, when, a few months before graduation, he had an intense spiritual experience while studying for a Greek exam. He says God commanded him to invest his life in the Great Commission by discipling college students.
Thus Bright left seminary without graduating and has remained a layman. He feels this has worked to his advantage in relating to college students. Campus Crusade has remained a lay organization ever since, as Bright in 1968 would decline the desire of several high-ranking leaders of the organization, including Peter Gillquist, to establish Campus Crusade as a church. These leaders left Bright to found, in 1975, the New Covenant Apostolic Order (later called the Evangelical Orthodox Church). Since then many of them have joined a branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Bright’s apparent dislike of seminary studies also exemplifies an anti-intellectualism characteristic of many Crusaders whom I met. Bright writes in The Holy Spirit that we must keep our message simple, for the “certain teaching to which some refer as the `deeper truths’ of the word often leads to a fascination with these ‘truths,’ but does not produce holy lives, fruitful witness, or a greater love for Christ and commitment to his cause.”
Even Josh McDowell, the group’s popular apologist, who is often hailed in Campus Crusade literature as its leading “intellectual,” has anti-intellectual tendencies. His works on apologetics rely almost exclusively on historical evidences justifying Christian claims concerning Christ and the Bible. Not only is there scant philosophical argumentation, but even theological reflection is limited.
For example, classical arguments in defense of the Trinity receive no attention, giving his works a decidedly non-trinitarian character. Despite the extensive compilation of quotations which adorn his principal books, Evidence That Demands a Verdict and More Evidence That Demands a Verdict, reflection on the data is limited.
All this is not to deny that his books on apologetics have value. They are simply no substitute for classical Catholic apologetics. His teaching, nevertheless, has been popular among Evangelicals. As Campus Crusade literature boasts, McDowell has “spoken to more than 8 million people in 74 countries, on 700 university and college campuses, written over 33 books and produced 22 films.” And the current edition of Evidence That Demands a Verdict proudly bears a sticker with the words, “20 Years Defender of the Faith”
Shortly after Bright’s “vision” in 1951, he and his wife, Vonette, launched Campus Crusade at UCLA. The subsequent development of the movement exemplifies their determination to fulfill the Great Commission. Establishing a pattern for future staffers, the Brights rented a house close to UCLA from which to stage their campus outreach. They organized an advisory board, which included notables such as Billy Graham, and began a 24-hour prayer chain. So great was the success of the movement that by 1952 chapters were established on several other campuses.
Substantial growth during the next decade allowed Bright to oversee the purchase, in 1962, of Arrowhead Springs, a resort near San Bernardino, California. The price was two million dollars. (Bright had the support of wealthy businessmen and generous individual pledges.) Capable of housing as many as 1,500 for training and other activities, until recently this remained Campus Crusade’s headquarters. The Arrowhead Springs facility is now used for other purposes, and the organization’s main offices have been moved to Orlando.
During the 1960s Bright replaced his earlier advisory board with one consisting primarily of business executives, and he became firmly established as the central leader of the movement after several other important leaders departed, including Peter Gillquist, Hal Lindsey (author of The Late Great Planet Earth), and Jack Sparks (later to found the Spiritual Counterfeits Project in Berkeley).
By the middle of the next decade Campus Crusade for Christ had grown into a leading Evangelical parachurch organization. (“Parachurch” describes Protestant organizations which are independent of churches and denominations).
Along with a number of other parachurch organizations founded in the 1940s and 1950s–InverVarsity Christian Fellowship, the Navigators, Young Life (associated with Billy Graham)–Campus Crusade has played a major role in the post-World War II blossoming of Evangelicalism. Its influence on that branch of Christianity owes much to the group’s conferences and programs devoted to training and mobilizing Christians both at colleges and in local churches for evangelism and discipleship.
Most dramatic of the conferences has been Explo ‘85 (1985), a global conference using a satellite hookup (costing some about ten million dollars) to train 300,000 people in 150 nations. In addition to these conferences, Crusade’s “Here’s Life, America” campaign of the 1970s brought together churches across the country in an evangelism program using the media, telephones, and personal outreach. This campaign is best known by the slogan “I found it!” created for it by a public relations firm.
Campus Crusade’s growth and influence is further witnessed by a proliferation of some forty ministries alongside its central college ministry. Some are intended to reach specific groups of people. “Christian Embassy” specializes in reaching government officials and diplomatic leaders, and “Here’s Life Hispanic America” trains Hispanic churches to evangelize. Other ministries use sports (“Athletes in Action”), music, and other forms of entertainment, such as Andre Kole’s illusionist ministry, to present the gospel.
In 1977 Bright conceived the idea of a ten-discipline graduate university for the express purpose of “educating potential Christian leaders from all nations in Christ-centeredness and biblical principles.” The first school, the International School of Theology, was established in 1978 at Arrowhead Springs. Its perspective is overwhelmingly activist; it seeks to train students “for future leadership and maximum influence.” Although the school is small, with 17 faculty members, it has branches in Kenya and the Philippines.
But the other intended schools of the university have not fared well. To establish them Campus Crusade purchased 5,043 acres of land in La Jolla Valley, San Diego, for 28 million dollars. San Diegans seem not to share Bright’s enthusiasm for the project. Fearing an influx of 40,000 in Bright’s planned residential community and thousands of workers at his high-tech industrial park–these would be built along with the university–they voted to halt development of the land at least until 1995.
Campus Crusade maintains a conservative view of Scripture–its 17-point statement of faith, obligatory for all staff and faculty, rejects liberal Protestant theology and upholds the inerrancy of Scripture and orthodox Trinitarian and Christological views. On the other hand, Campus Crusade is willing to work with individual liberal pastors and churches which accept its goals. Like Pietism, a devotional and activist movement which originated within seventeenth-century Lutheranism and which is a major source of the group’s piety, Campus Crusade minimizes doctrinal differences among Christians in order to further the Great Commission.
So open to interdenominational cooperation is Campus Crusade that, despite the statement’s adherence to legal justification and sola scriptura, in countries such as Ireland, Poland, and Columbia it has worked closely with the Catholic Church. As a result Crusade has been criticized by separatist Fundamentalists.
My “discipler” was a member of a church belonging to the General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB), one of the original Fundamentalist denominations. This church insists not only on separation from “unbelieving churches” (including the Catholic and liberal Protestant churches), but also from believers who in any way cooperate with these “unbelievers.” When my discipler decided to join the Campus Crusade staff and began raising financial support, his pastor forbade church members from supporting him.
Despite its emphasis on the Spirit-filled life, Campus Crusade can’t be labeled pentecostal. Since it takes a neutral stance on the issue of tongues, staff members and students who believe they have the gift may neither promote it nor use it in public. Even though the organization is similar to the pentecostal movement in some ways, the shared emphasis on the Spirit-filled life derives from the common influence of Wesleyan spirituality. Campus Crusade is part of the broader Evangelical movement, but its position within Evangelicalism is complicated, reflecting divergences within Evangelicalism itself.
Despite its flexible doctrinal stance, Campus Crusade in its actual practice and in the writings of Bright has a distinctive theological character, combining elements of Pietism, Wesleyan spirituality, and revivalism. It can be sharply distinguished from “catholic” Evangelicals–those who place great value on the sacraments (however they understand them) and, taking a high view of the nature of the church, embrace a classical Reformation vision of a “reformed” Catholicism. Campus Crusade’s “worldliness”–its emphasis on success, public relations, and huge budgets, presently around $100 million annually–does not always sit well with such folks.
Crusade’s spirituality is non-sacramental. A friend of mine, also an Evangelical convert to Catholicism, has related to me the story of some Campus Crusaders who celebrated “Holy Communion” among themselves–using pizza and soda rather than even the traditional and already sufficiently scandalous Evangelical crackers and grape juice. Granted, this is hearsay, but it is illustrative of the group’s attitudes nevertheless.
Not surprisingly, Campus Crusade has a tendency to draw students out of sacramental churches toward Baptistic churches. This pressure results not only from ignoring the sacraments, but from the positive teaching of many individual staff members. Under such pressure a Crusade Campus director at CSU Long Beach, a Presbyterian, declined his denomination’s practice of infant baptism when his first child was born. And my discipler succeeded in persuading me and at least one other Crusader to leave the Lutheran Church and become Baptist.
Campus Crusade’s relationship to dispensationalism, a Fundamentalist/Evangelical movement which divides salvation history into numerous distinct dispensations and which emphasizes biblical prophecy, is tangled. The majority of Crusaders I came into contact with–whether leaders or simply fellow students–espoused dispensationalist ideas, particularly in regard to eschatology. Historically, many pietists and revivalists were postmillennialist, and Bright’s own eschatological views come closer to this latter position. He rejects the dispensationalist view that Christ’s return is imminent, and hence he rejects one of Fundamentalism’s five fundamentals. Bright reasons that God would not stop the great spiritual revival he believes is now occurring.
Despite the apocalyptic fervor of many Crusaders, Bright’s personal theology shapes the movement’s essential structure and mission. His quasi-postmillennialist views allow Crusaders to insist we must change the world for Christ rather than simply snatch sinners from hell. Bright portrays Christianity as a spiritual revolution, changing the world by changing lives.
Unlike Christian Reconstructionists, Bright has no plan for establishing a theocracy; he simply insists that society be changed for Christ. Although Campus Crusade encourages Christian social action, staff members are not allowed to be involved in politics and may not endorse any particular politician. The group’s only official social position is a pro-life stance.
Bright’s interpretation of the gospel places him within the “Lordship” camp in the current Evangelical controversy over the nature of salvation. The controversy stems from the radical distinction Calvin drew between justification (in the Protestant interpretation, passively accepting Christ as Savior) and sanctification (obeying Christ as Lord). Dispensationalists, such as Charles Ryrie, teach that for salvation it is only necessary to accept Christ as Savior; even if one never obeys Christ, one is still saved. Reformed theologians, following Calvin, teach that when Christ justifies he also sanctifies; if we are truly saved we will necessarily do good works, obeying Christ as Lord.
Bright’s view conflicts with the Reformed view and, indeed, with Campus Crusade’s own statement of faith. Crusade’s statement teaches that salvation is monergistic–that is, it is wholly a work of God without any human cooperation. This is the Reformed view, in which man is a passive recipient of salvation. Bright, using the analogy of marriage, teaches that a person must make a three-fold commitment to God (intellect, emotions, and will) in order to receive Christ.
This entails human cooperation and is actually closer to the Catholic understanding of salvation by faith, hope, and love rather than to classical Protestantism’s “salvation by faith alone.” Unfortunately, Bright distorts the gospel further by insisting on the necessity of a complete assurance of salvation while ignoring the necessity of contrition and detestation of sin.
Campus Crusade’s understanding of faith, which teaches Christians to “believe God for the impossible,” is in part the “risk-taking” faith of Pietism. This notion of faith (Bright calls it “supernatural possibility thinking,” but his version is more spiritual than the shockingly secular version of Robert Schuller) shapes the way his staff members raise their financial support. They enlist a team of financial supporters, trusting God for all their needs. The consequent exaltation of accomplishing great things for God can cause serious spiritual problems.
Crusaders often fear succumbing to a “mediocre” Christian life, and Campus Crusade’s subtle message is that to avoid the mediocre life one must participate in its outreach programs. This fosters an elitist attitude among some Crusaders, a problem Evangelical historian Richard Quebebedeaux considers typical among Pietists. My discipler once described Crusaders as the “Green Berets” of Christianity. So strongly did this attitude influence me that I had difficulty leaving the organization because of guilt feelings. Dread of the mediocre life is reinforced by Bright’s understanding of what it means to have a personal relationship with Christ.
Bright emphasizes excitement, adventure, and horizontal relationships: Christ lives his life in us, seeking to reach the world through us. Consequently, our lives become an “exciting adventure” of “living supernaturally.” God’s wonderful plan for our lives–and thus our meaning, purpose, and significance–is found in living this adventure and dedicating ourselves to the cause of Christ.
This view of the Christian life as adventure is not unique to Crusade, being a continuation of Pietism’s activism and revivalism’s thirst for excitement. But excitement and adventure tend to crowd out self-denial because the desire for adventure is itself antithetical to dying to self.
This conception of the Christian life is the source of the first of the Four Spiritual laws given in Campus Crusade’s widely distributed 15-page booklet: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” It is explicitly linked with the great adventure of being a Christian. Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, dislike the suggestion of cheap grace expressed by this law. Crusaders respond that they are simply emphasizing the positive.aspects of Christianity. Both sides miss the real issue. Is it appropriate to conceive the Christian life in a manner more akin to Romanticism and Don Quixote than to classical Christian spirituality?
This distortion is partially corrected by the most powerful teaching of the movement, that of the Spirit-filled life, which exhorts Christians to yield and surrender themselves to God. Significantly, this teaching’s ultimate historical origin via Pietism and Wesley is in medieval Catholic mystics such as John Tauler and Thomas a Kempis. It was this teaching that most deeply affected my spiritual life when I became involved in Bright’s outfit, but he has distorted this tradition in several ways.
First, in the technique he calls spiritual breathing, he teaches that we must confess our sins (in the privacy of our hearts, of course, no matter how serious the sins), thank God for having already forgiven our sins at the cross (no mention is made of contrition), and ask to be filled with the Spirit, empowered once again for service. In Bright’s theology our sins are all, in the most literal sense, pre-forgiven. Confession is only necessary to experience forgiveness and to remove any obstacles to our being used by the Holy Spirit.
Second, Bright teaches that, if we are filled with the Spirit, not only will we share our faith, even with people we have known for a brief time–leading often to enormous pressure–but that we will see results. True, he tries to soften this teaching by saying that the results are up to God and that we must not become discouraged if we do not see results. But in my experience Crusaders–especially the men–invariably measured a person’s spirituality by the success of his ministry. Bright himself implies that the great success of Campus Crusade is a sign of God’s blessing upon the movement, in effect a validation of his own theology.
As a result of this emphasis on results, Campus Crusade constantly boasts about the number of people evangelized, discipled, or trained. This tallying of numbers curiously resembles the practice of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The organization’s literature stresses the excitement of evangelism and the successes achieved, dazzling the reader with numbers. I appreciate the emphasis, and, although numbers alone are not enough, they are not entirely unimportant. They indicate at least a certain seriousness of purpose, one from which we might learn.
My experience with Campus Crusade and my subsequent conversion to Catholicism have convinced me that I have found in Catholic spirituality the best of what I had as a Crusader, but at a deeper level and shorn of the distortions. It remains for the Catholic Church to come to grips with a mission field so sorely neglected by Catholics and so dynamically emphasized by Campus Crusade: secular colleges and universities.