Talk:Cru (Christian organization)/Archive 4

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Campus Crusade Theology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of Theological Criticisms 

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

message: No. --Sixtrojans 19:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLL: 1 Votes NO to Exclude "Theological Criticisms" from Main Article 

message: 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.McMurtrie, Beth. "Crusading for Christ, Amid Keg Parties and Secularism." Chronicle of Higher Education 47, no. 36 (05/18/ 2001): A42. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Local Chapters in the U.S. Campus Ministry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of Criticisms of Local Chapters 

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

message: === WithChrist.org ===
==== 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:
* Campus Crusade for Christ - A historical and theological analysis from WithChrist.org (Run by anonymous authors "Dan and Lisa")
--Sixtrojans 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Sources in Dispute 

message: ==== 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:
* Campus Crusade for Christ - A historical and theological analysis from WithChrist.org (Run by anonymous authors "Dan and Lisa")
--Sixtrojans 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WithChrist.org 

message: 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:
* Campus Crusade for Christ - A historical and theological analysis from WithChrist.org (Run by anonymous authors "Dan and Lisa")
--Sixtrojans 00:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

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