(Campus Crusade for Christ staff members are welcome to borrow this material freely under these guidelines.)
Why is Campus Crusade for Christ changing its name to Cru, and what does the change mean? The leaders who made that decision have presented their perspective (with FAQs). Sara and I have our own to share with you here.
1. What was wrong with the old name?
Although the last two words, “for Christ,” certainly still apply, we are no longer primarily a campus ministry, and the associations many people have with the term “Crusade” have changed since our founding in 1951.
When Sara and I stand in front of a group to explain our ministry, the first words out of our mouths are, “Campus Crusade for Christ is much more than a campus ministry.” We’ve had to emphasize that because our own work has been with much more than the campus ministry. We’ve served and/or worked directly with dozens of Campus Crusade’s ministries, including Athletes in Action, the Christian Embassies in Washington and at the U.N., Here’s Life Inner City, the Music Ministry (now called Keynote), and many others—all of the U.S.-based ministries, actually, except for the Campus Ministry. People commonly ask whether we work with students at William and Mary. It’s a natural question, an obvious one, even, in view of our ministry’s name, but it’s based on an incorrect impression.
“Crusade” was a religiously neutral term in the 1950s and for several decades following. But awareness of Islam has risen steadily since then. The Christian Crusades to Muslim lands in the 11th through 13th centuries raise unhelpful sensitivities. There’s a lot of misinformation concerning the Crusades (see here on that), but still they are a stain on Christian history. It hinders our mission when people associate our name with that.
2. Does the new name have any history connected with it?
Many of our local campus ministries have been calling their meetings “Cru” for more than ten years. Students like it. It works.
3. Have you checked to see whether the new name works any better?
Our leaders brought in good outside help and did a lot of research. The name “Cru” seems to work well with other people we’re connected with: volunteers, donors, partners, and so on (see #5 for more on that, though).
4. Why are we dropping “Christ” from the name?
The word “Christ” is not essential to a mission agency’s name (few agencies use it). What matters is whether He is exalted in the leaders’ and members’ hearts and actions, their motivation and their outreach.
I wish you could hear the way our ministry’s leaders have presented this name change in our staff conference this week. Over and over again, in worship, in prayer, and in spoken presentations, the word has been that there is really only one Name that matters: Jesus Christ. Our mission is not changing. We are as focused as ever on glorifying Christ and helping to fulfill the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus Christ is no less at the core and the heart of our movement now than he ever was.
Our mission is primarily to reach non-Christians. Experience and research both show that the word “Christ” puts them on the defensive. They don’t know who He is, after all; and they don’t always have the best thoughts about Him. We want to open doors, not close them, to opportunities to tell the truth about Jesus Christ.
Update: I’ve written more on the biblical basis for this name change here.
5. What does “Cru” mean?
Not much, really. Not yet, anyway. This is the hardest part for Sara and me. The name is an empty vessel with hardly any meaning in it. But here’s the good part: we get to fill it.
Here’s what I mean by that. We all know the Nike swoosh. I’ve been told that when someone first brought that graphic to Nike’s founder and suggested it as their logo, he said something like, “It doesn’t do much for me now, but I suppose it will grow on me.” Then it was a meaningless curved stripe. Now it means everything we think of when we think of Nike. The same will happen with “Cru.” Over time it will acquire meaning, a meaning that will come from who we are as a movement.
Our colleague Shawn McGrath has posted a very helpful reflection on this topic.
6. What does this mean to donors?
As our vice-president said (tongue in cheek) at the conference last night, if someone writes a check to Campus Crusade for Christ, we’ll cash it. 
We still own the name, and we will continue to own it for as long as we exist. On the other hand, if someone writes a check to Cru, we’ll cash that, too! We have legal ownership of the new name established already.
7. How is the transition being managed?
Sara and I have less information on this. What we can tell you is that the change is just beginning now, and it will proceed in phases in over a period of months. Until Tuesday night, only a few dozen people knew what the name would be, so obviously we have no stationery or other printed materials for our new name, and our websites have not been transitioned. We don’t want to waste money throwing away old materials. Our various ministries have not had opportunity to work Cru into their own identities.
Tuesday evening’s announcement was in some ways just the beginning of the transition. I was wrong in my previous post on this to say that we have changed our name. We are beginning the process of changing our name. Officially we are still Campus Crusade for Christ, and we will be until sometime next January or February. In the meantime our leaders are encouraging us to use both names side by side so that the new name can get properly connected to the existing organization.
8. What do Sara and I think about all this?
Change is always a challenge, but this change was due. The new name seems empty now, as I wrote in #5, but it won’t stay that way for long. Our leaders have handled this in an exemplary way at every phase: doing the research, brain-storming names, involving the right people in the decision, and finally in announcing the change this week. Christ has been at the core, and prayer has undergirded the whole process. We believe this is of God.
9. What about our own funding?
We’re counting on your partnership as much as ever. Nothing about our mission has changed, and our policies are still the same too. Thank you for joining with us to glorify Christ and help fulfill the Great Commission.
Great job explaining this, Tom! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Chris. We’re missing you this summer, by the way. For a host of reasons too long to explain here we are missing the conference, except we’re seeing you and everyone else up front—and all the main sessions in Moby—by way of Internet streaming. It’s almost like being there during the sessions, but we sure miss the interactions in between.
Hey Tom and Sara,
Thanks So much for this. What a great help to us as the mantle passes now to us to lead others in the name change process. thanks again. Shawn
Thank you, too, Shawn. I’ve just added your branding link into the middle of this post—very helpful!
Good job, Tom. As always, you’ve got such a gift explaining all-things-potentially-controversial. Beyond the FAQ, this helped us understand YOUR understanding. We appreciate you taking time to publish your thoughts…and as always, we’re 100% behind all that you and Sara are doing!
As a twenty + year supporter of the organization let me give you a diiferent point of view as an invested stakeholder and more importantly as a believer.
I believe the biggest issue I personally have with name change has everything to do with the fact that many organizations did not have in there name. The reasons given that many other ministries do not have it as part of their name is like my son coming to me and saying his friend at school doesn’t have to do it. I am not trying to be disrespectful of the reason, but using other ministries names as a basis begins to look like rationalization.
If Christ had not originally been in the name the backlash received would have likely been minimal. But, it was in the name. Further, it was in the name of probably the greatest ministry of it’s kind. The explanations have mostly to do with appearance and ease of ministry (at least based on the phrase hinderance to the mission and the statements that the mission will not change). So we are talking about first impressions. Let’s face it, as soon as the staffers began to go down the road of sharing the gospel, it will quickly become apparent what the organization is about. You must understand that believers like myself who face ridicule at time, persecution in the workplace and downright disrespect for the name of Christ understand that, we were called to be apart. Yes we have to minister and spread the word, but the work place can be far more hostile than a campus, and the consequences far more impactful. No matter the reasons given the perception by many donors is that the organization has bowed a knee to political correctness. Evn if there was no intent to do so, it has the appearance. People and organizations are judged by their actions. After all isn’t that exactly what the organization is trying to do, minimize first impressions ( the name was a hinderance to the mission). Their action of changing the name (no matter what the new name was going to be) says to the target audience “we are not really what the old name implies”. Couple that with removing Christ from the name and then expecting an overwhelming positive response from a base support group of evangelical Christians is not logical, no matter how sincere.
How many times have we fought to keep the name of Christ in Christmas, or been asked to hold our Christian meetings off premise because it offended others. How many letters do you think the support base has sent out to companies and businesses asking them to reverse course on their policies.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but the comment about cashing the checks is not going to help. It smacks of corporate greed. I know you don’t intend it to do so. But it seems the organization wants to walk in two worlds.
I see again and again the comment that Bill wanted to change the name. The fact is he didn’t. Using his name to promulgate the change indicates o me that folks knew this was going to be tough sell.
I guess to sum it up, the fact that other organizations don’t have Christ in their name, and the leveraging of Bill’s name (especially when we don’t know if he would have approved or not) are very weak positions. Those are defensive positions around the committed act.
As a supporter ( former now), this change looks and feels so much like what goes on in a corporate boardroom. Rebranding, managing the message, etc.. The marriage of the church with the ways of the world never go well. They are two different economies. Constantine tried it. It created a mess. I hope this does not.
I have tried express my opinion and point of view respectfully here to brothers and sisters in the faith. If I have offended in the way I said something, I apologize.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, CW. There’s a lot I could comment on. I think I should begin with this:
I don’t know what your source for this is, but mine was Mrs. Vonette Bright.
I hope this additional perspective helps: the decision is genuinely intended to advance our mission. I know that not all will agree it will do that. But consider this, please. There is no good biblical or theological basis for disagreement, but strategies are different than biblical principles. I am a missions strategist by vocation, and I know that from a human perspective, every strategy is really an educated guess: if we do x, we expect y to result. Since it is to some degree a guess about what will happen in the future, opinions are bound to differ. That’s normal. I hope we would all see it as normal, and as (at worst) a dispute among friends about the best way to accomplish a mission.
That’s from a human perspective. God knows the outcome. He gives us biblical principles to follow to achieve the best outcome, but within them there is considerable freedom. I believe we have followed biblical principles with this name change, and I know that a whole lot of prayer has gone in to it too. Did we gain the mind of Christ in the process of praying? We believe we did, but we know we are not infallible; we are not like the prophets of biblical times. If we are wrong, time will tell. In the meantime I assure you we are not being dishonestly wrong or unbiblically wrong.
We’re all humans, aren’t we? We’re all seeking the Lord. Can we not accept that in one another?
Absolutely, We certainly can accept differences of opinion, even when we respectfully disagree with them. Let’s leave it at that. I just wanted to put forth another point of view that I had, and what appears to be a large number of others who have supported the ministry. By the way, I had previously read about Vonette’s support. I would sincerely expect no less from her.
Thanks for the update Tom! Makes sense to me.
Note to a recent commenter whose comment I have removed: I welcome questions or comments about our name change, whether supportive or critical or in-between, as long as they are civil and courteous. This is not the place, however, just to tell us without explanation that you take offense. Thank you.
Ah…communication!
Tom? With regards to Dr. Bright and “he didn’t” change the name, I believe you need to carefully re-read CW’s post. I can see how, from your defensive position, you would read that CW was calling into question your facts about what Dr. Bright did and didn’t say/do about the name change; hence, your “Vonette told me” rejoinder. Friend, I believe you’ve misread CW’s post.
It is obvious to this neutral reader that CW was not questioning your report that Vonette said Bill considered a name change. What he meant was (something like) this.
“While Dr. Bright considered carefully the possibility of a name change, the key point is this. In the end Dr. Bright decided not to make such a change during his tenure as leader. Since he did not act on a name change, these post hoc statements as to what Dr. Bright intended, or would have done/thought are mere speculation.” (or some such)
Anyway, great and civil thread capturing the range of emotion about this difficult issue.
Keep the Faith delivered to you!
Ockham
Ockham,
You captured my thoughts exactly. Sorry for any confusion. Thx
And I apologize for misunderstanding, CW. Thanks for the clarification, to both of you.
I just want to say what an incredible impact Campus Crusade for Christ has made for His kingdom. I know it impacted my life tremendously through Athletes in Action and the pastors and pastors’ wives who so graciously loved on myself and my wife for 11 years. I can’t think of another ministry that has impacted so many different lives. So whether it’s called Campus Crusade for Christ or Cru, their mission is still to reach those who don’t know Jesus. So if it helps to reach more of those who are lost, then why wouldn’t you change the name. Even though change can be hard, often times it is very necessary.
I just want to say a heart felt thank you to all those who have given their lives to help further the kingdom through this ministry and a heart felt thank you to all the donors who have helped make it possible. I truly hope anyone who is thinking about stopping being a supporter of Cru would prayerfully reconsider.
In Christ,
Jason