2 Live CRU - Spreadin’ Love or Fueling Campus Division?
February 20th, 2008
By Carl Carpenter
When I left my small mid-western town to attend the U of M Twin Cites, it was for the greener pastures of cultural diversity and open-minded discussion. This objective was largely achieved. I’ve made new friends of varied upbringings and beliefs, and I feel a more well-rounded and educated person for it.
However, not all who attend the U of M need face the realities of life at a public university, nor of the world-at-large. They’ve got a student group to keep you safe from that. It’s called Campus Crusade for Christ, or Cru, and within its cushioned social circle, you needn’t let college change you at all. You can meet hundreds of students who think just as you do, and will gladly reinforce everything you learned in your sheltered home town.
Now before you start taking me for an angry atheist lashing out from behind a keyboard, let me tell you a little about myself. I hold no religious affiliation whatsoever. I look at religion as a natural extension of every human’s quest for understanding, and fear of the unknown. I’d gladly attend and participate in any religious service or ceremony, and chalk it up as cultural experience. I have no problem with anyone’s personal beliefs, so long as they don’t mind that I don’t believe the same. And therein lies my grievance with Cru. My comment about students leaving college the same as they came in was merely an observation. If you’re content to live having never challenged what you learned as a kid, then who’s to argue. Happy is happy. The problems come with things like the roof-spanning banner that resides across the front of the Cru campus headquarters on 11th and 5th in Dinkytown.
“Jesus Christ Is The Lord Of The University Of Minnesota,” it reads, spraying like spit into every blind eye we all turn, either too busy with the school day to pay it mind, or too accustomed to this kind of fanaticism to care. Think about what an international student must think reading that upon their arrival. It might as well say, “Welcome to America, home of the crazy Christians. Leave your beliefs at the border.” It was this wildly offensive statement that first prompted my interest into the matter of Cru. Well, that and one particular Coffman Union run-in with the culprits.
I was walking towards the bookstore when I spotted a table full of candy. Each individual piece was spaced in just such a way as to suggest, “Hey, why don’t you come over and take some of this… for free.” Jolly Ranchers and Starbursts, BOWLS full of mini-candy bars, REGULAR-SIZED bags of Skittles… who could possibly resist?! I walked hastily towards the table, my eyes fixed to a particularly tasty looking Twix single.
“Hey there!” beamed two 25 to 35-year-old men in similar button up dress shirts. “Oh, hey,” I stammered, feeling guilty, and deciding I had better at least half-heartedly inquire about the bevy of brochures and pamphlets that were also up for grabs. “What’s all this about?”
Over the next 5 minutes, I nodded politely, fixating with believable interest upon each of the leaflets presented, all the while trying to decide how many pieces of candy I could take without provoking objection. I had concluded that 4 or 5 pocketfuls should be safe, and then it hit me. “Sweet Moses!” I thought, trying to conceal my revelation, “These are the clowns responsible for that horrific banner I’m forced to read every day on the way to class.” I decided I had no choice but to raise some Christian blood pressure. My garlic to their Vampire being the fool-proof foil to every Christian argument: exposing the inherent intolerance and unsupported nature of their ideals.
Never mind that it’s obnoxious and aggressive to proclaim a place as big and diverse as the U of M as your own… they’re not in the business of rationality.
“Oh yeah, I saw this house the other day on my way to class. It said ‘Jesus Christ is the Lord of the University of Minnesota.’ Is that you guys?” I asked, wearing the most sincere of interested expressions. Their welcoming smiles grew even wider. Like frothing wolves to a wounded deer, I could sense their excitement. A new recruit! They moved in for the kill. “Oh yeah, that’s us!” “Yeah that sure is!” they proclaimed, tripping over each other’s sentences in anticipation of another successful conversion. “Yeah, you should stop by next time! Anytime!” “Yeah, we’re always there! Ha.” “Yeah, we sure are. Ha ha.” “Actually, our next meeting is coming up! It’s this.. . . .” But I cut him off before he could go any further. “Well… don’t you think that’s really offensive?” I interjected, prompting confused glances to be exchanged. “No.” “Of course not.” They assured. “How would that be offensive?”
“Well, what would you say if there was an… oh, I don’t know, a Muslim student group across the street, and they decided to put up a banner that said, ‘Allah is the Lord of the University of Minnesota?’ Would you be all right with that?” Their faces cringed in nearly comic disgust. “Well that would just be wrong.” “Yeah. That’s just simply not true.”
In the momentary silence that followed, there was a distinct change in their attitudes toward me. It was a palpable distain. I was the enemy. I didn’t believe, I wasn’t going to be converted, and I was no longer of any purpose. I was just there to instigate. Never mind the potential logic behind my statements. Never mind that it’s obnoxious and aggressive to proclaim a place as big and diverse as the U of M as your own. But they’re not in the business of rationality. They’ve no time for fair discussion involving open-minded consideration of opposing views. They deal strictly in the art of persuasion.
The other students circled around the table sensed the tension, and were now listening intently. I let the moment linger, and the stupidity of their argument settle in. How could I possibly respond to such a ridiculously groundless statement? They were essentially saying, “No, you see, everyone else is wrong because we’re right.”
The other students at the table were now staring at me with unabashed disgust. I decided to concede the fight for the time being. I stuffed my pockets with mini-Nerd boxes and made a break for the escalator.
Over the next month and a half I attended various Cru events in an attempt to gain further understanding. I approached these events as any prospective new member would, and incurred through this process the journalistic spoils of unguarded quotes and an insider’s perspective.
My first event was one of their weekly meetings held in the cavernous lecture hall, Wiley 175. Out in the hallway I was greeted by a name-tag-sporting duo. The boy introduced himself as, “Funzo.” He pointed to his name tag, on which the name was spelled. The girl laughed knowingly and apologized for her welcoming partner’s wackiness. “Oh don’t mind him; he’s crazy.” She then explained that they often write wild and crazy names in place of their own. We talked for several minutes, but it was quite a struggle. I couldn’t seem to find the flow of their conversation, as hard as I tried. The whole ordeal was like an extended flirting session with Ross Geller. In a world of mandatory sobriety and exclusion from edgier pop culture, this type of “kooky” behavior isn’t uncommon. At a long-awaited break in this tireless charade, I escaped through the lecture doors.
The telltale strumming of camp counselor guitars indicated a praise band in full swing. I walked cautiously forward, hoping not to draw too much attention. I took the corner and found myself face-to-face with a full room. 500 or more students turned to look directly at me. I darted up to the top row to observe in safety. The songs they sang were primarily Jesus-related. I knew many of them well from my younger days of youth groups and Young Life gatherings. I could even recite some of the classics, such as “Open the Eyes of My Heart Lord,” and “Prince of Peace,” without a single consultation of the lyrics.
There’s a really interesting dynamic among the students as they sing these songs. Some of them close their eyes. Some sway from side to side. But only a few are willing to go as far as to hold both hands in the air, and grimace as if overwhelmed by emotion. It reminded me of a time when a youth leader made one of the most memorable comments I’ve heard. I was at a similar youth-worship type gathering. As the songs intensified, several of the kids began to close their eyes and hold their hands up while singing. The youth pastor/lead singer issued a warning. It was right in the middle of the song’s peak. He leaned into the mic and cautioned with a concerned tone in his voice, “Now don’t just put your hands up because the person next to you is. Only put ‘em up if you can really feel Christ inside you.” Everyone looked around to see who had been genuinely filled with Christ’s love, and who had just been pretending to fit in. You can see that same sense of uncertainty with-in the Cru crowd during their sing-alongs. The students observe each other anxiously to see who’ll be the first to “feel Christ’s love.”
After the music, one of the Cru leaders gave an address, rallying the Cru faithful to take more aggressive actions in their personal relationships to spread the word of Christ. “Your fellow classmates here at the University of Minnesota are lonely. They drink and do drugs and have sex to fill the empty void where Christ would be. We all know that Cru is a safe place to make authentic relationships. We here at Cru are a guiding light on campus. We need to be brave enough to be honest. We need to take that risk to open up to the people we meet, because if you do, I can assure you that they will open too, and we can show them the light of Christ.”
It reminded me of a documentary I’d seen about an Evangelical camp in Devils Lake, North Dakota, not far from my hometown in Minnesota. Jesus Camp, filmed in ’05, released in ’06, and Oscar-nominated in ’07, is an objective depiction of the camp’s purpose: training children to join “God’s Army.” The camp, officially known as Kids On Fire School of Ministry, was founded on a belief that, “Children will play a major role in ushering in the last great revival and soon return of Jesus.” The unwavering commitment shown by such young, impressionable kids is an eye-opening experience. At the film’s conclusion, one of the little girls talks excitedly about how she can’t wait to get back to school and pass leaflets and talk about the church and fulfill her duty to the Lord.
Isn’t this what causes wars? Isn’t this what leads to hatred and violence? The teaching of blind, unyielding faith to someone too young to fully comprehend the consequences of her own actions. This is catastrophic. Not just to our society, but to this poor girl’s own life. After the film, I sat for the longest time thinking about what her coming years would be like. She’d grow up alienating herself from her classmates because of the social growth her parents, and this upbringing, had stunted. Think of all the people she won’t be able to meet, and learn from, simply because they don’t believe what she was taught. She hasn’t even graduated elementary school and she’s already as confrontational and narrow-minded as those Cru reps at Coffman. She’s already prepared to stand proudly under any banner her pastor or youth leader (or Cru house owner) might pin up, with out thinking twice of its isolating effects.
Campus Crusade for Christ… a shining light or blinded youth? Part 2 coming soon.
*The banner mentioned in this story is not actually the property of Campus Crusade for Christ, though I was under that impression at the time of these events. The true owner of that house will be identified in part two of this article.*




Comments & Discussion
I enjoyed reading this article. It was both an interesting and familiar take on Christianity from the “outside in” if you will. I don’t mean that to sound exclusionist, but that’s kind of the tone you set. I am a Christian, but can relate to the sites and sounds you described at the Cru event. Never having partaken in a Cru event, I’m not passing judgement on them, but I’m not sure I’d ever feel comfortable going.
Currently, I’m reading the book “Blue Like Jazz” by Donald Miller. He makes a strong point that the negatvie connotation of “Christianity” out-shines the reality of what it means to truly be Christian. Christians are taught to love one another, to be tolerant and patient and understanding. Exclusion was not part of the original plan if you ask me. For me, God did not want us to judge one another and develop a self-righteous attitude because we’re Christians and somebody else isn’t. My faith is extremely personal and I’ll share it if anyone would like to know, but I don’t feel the need to pass judgement (if it can be helped-we’re all human here) or shove it down somebody’s throat. I’m always willing to learn about other beliefs, cultures, and religions as well.
Although I enjoyed this article, I would like to ask you not to lump all Christians together. That may not have been your intention, but that feeling comes across. Just because you saw the “500″ or so students at the Cru events, doesn’t mean they’re all proudly wearing that banner. And just because they’re all at the Cru event doesn’t mean that they aren’t growing through the college experience. Most likely there were also people there that had never been Christians before college. I agree that that banner is offensive and presumptuous, but faith and Christianity can be wonderful things. Please don’t let your current experiences affect your view of all Christians. That wouldn’t make you any better than the person who hung that banner in the first place.
Can you please make a case in support of tolerance, diversity, pluralism, pacifism, etc.?
Of course as a Christian I have a huge beef with your misrepresentation of a Christian group which I’m not part of but I can vouch for to some extent. (Not completely) But the main issue I have is that even if your assessment of CRU is accurate, how do we know that means anything?
I mean, Obama and all his Postmodernist ilk have still not made the case that what they perceive as unity, diversity, tolerance, etc. is the right way. I’m still not really buying it. Obama runs on “uniting the country” but I’m really not sure it’s necessarily a good thing if the country is united.
Diversity- well I’m sure there’s plenty good about diversity but it’s become an obsession we’ve taken to the extreme in this culture.
Tolerance- well Postmodernists really aren’t any more tolerant than anyone else when it comes down to it. And I don’t know whether tolerance is good or bad in every case.
No one has ever demonstrated that tolerance is this great virtue like they say it is in today’s culture. I will continue to wait for Obama and everyone else espousing this worldview to make their case, until then, I’m sticking with my exclusivism.
Aaron,
“No one had ever demonstrated that tolerance is this great virtue like they say it is in today’s culture”?…
Ghandi’s work to improve tolerance between classes in India… Martin Luther King Jr’s fight for tolerance amongst races during the Civil Rights movements… You don’t think tolerance amongst all religions would serve to the benefit of everyone involved?
I think tolerance is a hell of a lot more solid a stance to base a campaign on then to take issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage and to turn them in to rallying points to scare Christian voters into automatically voting Republican.
What’s even more ridiculous is that these same Republicans are so blatant about how little they actually care about these Christian agendas, they’re only in it for the votes:
http://young.anabaptistradicals.org/2006/10/13/tempting-faith-shows-bush-exploitation-of-christians/
Watch that and then try and tell me that religious tolerance, and the rightful exclusion of religion from influencing politics, aren’t obviously for the best. Religious intolerance elected George Bush… Nice one.
Oh, and Chelsea, you’re for sure right about not lumping everyone together. I’m getting to that in the second part. Thanks for reading and taking the time to give feedback.
Carl, again, I applaud you for writing an article about Cru from the outside point of view but please get some of your facts straight.
1) “Jesus Chris is Lord of UMN” is on a different house, not the Cru house.
2) Cru does not have tables in Coffman. Those are different groups.
3) Wilson 175 is a library.
Carl,
Broadly, you bring up a good point. I wonder how Cru would respond to claims of divisiveness. Maranatha is another clear instance of a group whose proselytizing intentions may be well (since they truly believe others are going to hell, it is kind of them to try to relieve us of that fate), but whose outcome alienates those around them who do not believe Jesus is the Lord of the University of Minnesota. They should truly weigh what they are doing and wonder whether unity and finding the commonalities between us is less or more important than patronizingly trying to save some of us from a debatable philosophical outcome.
I have heard a Christian explain proselytizing as “giving a drink of water to a desert wanderer.” They assume too much when they say this: that we are in an unforgiving world that cannot be lived in and enjoyed without Jesus/God; and that we are desirous of Jesus/God. The world is harsh and unforgiving, but it can be born without a lord and savior, and I am not desirous of a herder because I am not a sheep.
Nothing made me realize this more than having Christian firmly tell me I was incomplete without Jesus.
Will
Joe, the first installment was written from my perspective under the impression that both the Coffman run-in and the banner were Cru related. I decided to write it in that way because that was my understanding at the time while I was doing the research on Cru.
The second installment clarifies the matter. It also continues with my thoughts on Cru inlight of that revelation, along with analysis on the actual owner of the “Jesus” house. It would have been run as one peice but it’s far too long, which is why I opted for the note at the bottom of the page.
The “Wilson” instead of “Wiley” was simply an error in memory. I don’t have too many classes on the West bank.
That’s not the Cru house. The people at Coffman are from Maranatha, not Cru. Please check your facts before publishing something like this.
In this first installment, Carl attributed certain aspects of Maranatha’s Ministry to Campus Crusade for Christ, which is explained in the beginning of part two of this article. The Wake apologizes for any confusion and perceived misrepresentation.
I don’t know how much funding The Wake gets from the U of M, but the sheer lack of editorial oversight and fact checking that allowed this article to be printed borders on libel.
I’d love to do my part to make sure this article, and the complete lack of any in-print retraction from the editors, gets into the hands of the people who dole out the money come Sprint.
In response to Constance’s post, we have printed a retraction with the second article. You can find it at the bottom of the article.
Thanks,
Scottie Tuska
Multimedia Editor
The Wake
Constance,
The second article explains the reasoning behind my decision to write this article from a chronological perspective, with the reader gaining info in time with how my understanding was gained. I wrote it in this step by step, unfolding manner as an attempt to show the formation of my thoughts on each group. It was an approach that would have been best served in one 4,000 word piece, but that doubles the limit of one piece, thus the two-part approach. Read it in its entirety; all is explained.
As you might know if you’ve ever read any copy of the Wake, it’s commonly reffered to as an alternative news source, sharing as much in common with The Onion, as it does with The Daily. The Wake is home to all kinds of experimental takes on Journalism, and my peice was nothing out of the ordinary. Everything in it was supported and factual, it was merely presented in an alternative manner than you’d read in The Daily or other formal newspapers.
Please give the article a second chance in light of this explanation, and feel free to comment on anything other than that which has already been addressed.
Also, You should hop over to the message board for part two, we’ve got a full blown Christian smear campaign circa Scientology, and it’s great! A little passion, no fair-minded contemplation or critical thinking yet from any of the admitted Cru or Maranatha members on board, but plenty of smears.
Here’s what I’m talking about in the Scientology comment, merely a thin relation between the attacking natures when someone brings these two religions into question. But mostly this is more of just an interesting documentary on a Religion; this was widely talked about throughout the U.K:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pG49lg5AU&feature=related
great… reminded me a lot about the home schooled girls who i worked at dairyland with.