An Open Letter from Dr. Matt Olson of Northland International University
Dear Friends in Ministry,
Thank you for your demonstration of true friendship over these past few months. So many of you have called, emailed, and written me. Yes, God has been doing great things. Yet, when He does, the pot gets stirred. Conflict often follows.
What God has been doing among us…
I thought it would be helpful for me to share a few thoughts concerning recent events at Northland as well as our process of thought. My prayer each day is that God would give us grace to work through our present opportunities and challenges in ways that fulfill His purposes for us and that please Him most. Never has there been a more exciting day to prepare this next generation for Great Commission living or to advance kingdom causes!
January 2008: I began praying for God to do “greater things” here at Northland. It seemed to me that the church as a whole had grown cold with the works of men and was crying out for the works of God to be manifest. I prayed to that end:
- For God to give us vision and clarity for what He wanted at Northland.
- For wisdom in navigating from where we were to where we needed to be.
- For boldness and grace—as we knew the process would be difficult.
- For abundant provision.
- For His name alone to be magnified.
In many ways God has been answering those prayers and has blessed Northland beyond our expectations. We felt, however, that this was only the beginning.
August 15, 2010: I began a forty day journey of fasting and prayer for the works of God to be manifested and for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I took this step of faith with some uncertainty—not really knowing how I would do or what God would do. I was certain that I was not content to coast through this final stretch of life and ministry without seeing God do something much more. I have been longing for “greater things.” Dr. Ollila, the administration, faculty, and staff joined me in this. I wish I could share all that has taken place. It has been an incredible time!
What I did not expect was the testing that would follow. Yet, now I realize this to be a familiar pattern in scripture and in history. So, we take it from the Lord and respond with strength and grace that He gives. Sometimes our motives and actions can be misunderstood and miscommunicated. I know that happens. I have always felt that the best response would be to communicate in a positive way. The following are a few points of clarification on what is happening at Northland:
1. The Way of Discipleship
We have superseded our demerit system with what we feel is a biblical model of discipleship. In reality, it is a re-commitment to a means of discipleship that has already been present at Northland. We just took away an artificial demerit system that was awkwardly laid on top of our student system of governance. Our standards and expectations remain the same. But, the way we confront and encourage is relational and the consequences practical. Quite honestly, it is a lot more work with this new way. But, it’s more biblical. And it already appears to be yielding better results. We see “The Way of Discipleship” in the spirit of Matthew 5 where Jesus “raised the bar” from the Old Testament law. We believe grace expects more—and deepens more. While we see our system as a “work in progress,” we have been very pleased with the responses of our students, faculty, and staff.
2. Our Music Philosophy
Philosophically, it is unchanged. Let me say it again…unchanged. What we have always been trying to do, and will continue to do into the future, is to make sure Northland’s practice of music (as with every aspect of the Christian life) is built principally on clear teachings from the Bible rather than on reactionary, extra-biblical reasoning that has proven to be troublingly insufficient when exported to cultures beyond American borders. We believe the Bible is sufficient to bring us to right and God-honoring positions regardless of time and culture. Even though we haven’t changed our music at a philosophical level, we are changing our music on a missional level. Where you will see changes is in our intent to expand our training to prepare students for worship and music globally. This only makes sense because, as you may have noticed, Northland International University has become more and more an international, global ministry with a passion to take the gospel where it is not proclaimed. Over 41% of the world’s population is still without a Gospel witness. This has become our students’ burden. Our Director of Fine Arts, Kevin Suiter, has recently informed us he does not believe he can take us forward in this way and thus has announced his plans to move on. We wish Kevin and Grace the best and thank them for the investments they have made here.
3. Our Guest Speakers
We invited two speakers that have generated some questions.
a. Rick Holland. Dr. Holland is the Executive Pastor at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, where John MacArthur is senior pastor. Since we get many questions concerning John MacArthur and where he is in regard to fundamentalism, we decided that the best way to address this was to meet him face to face. In April of this year, Les Ollila, Doug McLachlan, Sam Horn, and I went to California and sat down with Dr. MacArthur, Rick Holland, and Phil Johnson (Executive Director of Grace to You). We had an excellent visit and found that while we did not agree on everything, we did agree on the most substantive issues of life and ministry. While we realize we function in different circles and with different constituencies, we appreciated what they were doing. I invited Rick to visit our campus to see what we were doing at Northland, meet with our Bible faculty, and speak in chapel. This was an opportunity to get to know one another and discuss significant issues of our day.
b. Bruce Ware. Dr. Ware is a professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. He is a well-recognized teacher and author. We have invited him to teach half of an advanced-degree seminar on a specialty subject our leading pastors need to be fully versed in. Why? Because Dr. Ware has written so skillfully and authoritatively on this particular topic. This seminar is for experienced, mature pastors who are presently in ministry. We see this as appropriate in the academic context and the type of thing we have done in the past for the very same reasons. In fact, most seminaries bring adjunct professors in to address key issues that they believe helpful. Never has this been intended as a move to align with any other group.
We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem. Biblically, we worked through a process of decision making and felt these choices and the context in which they were made were consistent with what we have always believed. Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently. We have no desire to distract from our focus here or on the field of ministry.
We affirm that Northland stands in the historic tradition of Fundamentalism and is committed to remain as an independent, Baptist, separatist institution. We will do our best to serve the local church, which we believe is the primary institution ordained of God to carry out the Great Commission. We respect the autonomy of the local church, the priesthood of the believer, and individual soul liberty. We know that other Fundamentalists will develop different applications based on biblical authority and the principles that flow from it. We will do our best to defer to our brothers in Christ but refuse to be swayed by party politics, threats, and pressures. While deference brings unity, the fear of man paralyzes our ability to serve Christ. In the spirit of Galatians 1, we will serve Christ.
Sometimes I have to smile when I think about the politics in college ministry. Early on I found that I had to just keep it simple: do the right thing, keep a right spirit, communicate the best I can, and leave the results to God. That is all I can do. That’s what I will do. I am not disappointed with differing views and opinions or even challenges that come from healthy critics. These help me grow. What I do think needs to be confronted in our movement is the lack of biblical process in responding to one another when we have questions or disagreements.
We must keep our focus. A friend of mine shared this with me, and I found it to be a great encouragement:
Stick with your work. Do not flinch because the lion roars; do not stop to stone the devil’s dogs; do not fool away your time chasing the devil’s rabbits. Do your work. Let liars lie, let sectarians quarrel, let critics malign, let enemies accuse, let the devil do his worst; but see to it nothing hinders you from fulfilling with joy the work God has given you. He has not commanded you to be admired or esteemed. He has never bidden you to defend your character. He has not set you at work to contradict falsehood about yourself which Satan’s or God’s servants may start to peddle, or to track down every rumor that threatens your reputation. If you do these things, you will do nothing else; you will be at work for yourself and not for the Lord. Keep at your work. Let your aim be as steady as a star. You may be assaulted, wronged, insulted, slandered, wounded and rejected, misunderstood, or assigned impure motives; you may be abused by foes, forsaken by friends, and despised and rejected of men. But see to it with steadfast determination, with unfaltering zeal, that you pursue the great purpose of your life and object of your being until at last you can say, “I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do.”
If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to write or call me. I welcome that. We have never been more excited about our future than we are now. Doc O and I believe that God is moving in a very special way and that the evidence is seen in both the abundant blessing of God and in the attacks of the Devil. We have the greatest and most exciting opportunity in the world—preparing this next generation of servant leaders for Great Commission living. Pray with us as we move boldly forward for the cause of Christ.
Your friend and fellow servant,
MO
- 270 views
Post 156 is a picture perfect example of the chicago way mentality within neofundamentalism.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[CGrif] The comments shared on this thread seem to come from a broad spectrum of thought, with the one common desire, to lay hold to the title of true fundamentalism. The actions at NIU vary greatly from the fundamentalist thought and actions that I have grown up in, and believed and practiced in my 20 plus years in ministry. Yet, they are laying claim to historic, traditional, separatist, Baptist fundamentalism. The winds of change are obviously blowing. I think it a bit disingenuous to claim the “old” but try and practice something “new.”CGrif, if I may, I’d just like to ask if it’s possible that “the fundamentalist thought and actions that [you] have grown up in, and believed and practiced in [your] 20 plus years in ministry” might not actually be “true fundamentalism”?
I completely agree with you that there is a broad spectrum of thought on what constitutes true Fundamentalism here on the board. If you grab five Fundamentalists off the street you might get six opinions on what it means to be a Fundamentalist, and once the discussion is over you might find that one or two have separated from the others over that definition. The most helpful thing would be to come to a consensus on what it means to be a true historic fundamentalist, then compare that to what NIU is doing and see if they are or are not acting like the first people to be called “fundamentalists.”
[Andrew Comings] 2) The GARBC has had non GARBC speakers at their national conference. Five years ago when I left for Brazil that would not have happened.I know this isn’t the main point, but the GARBC has had that kind of diversity for some time, at least in certain locales. Masters College was once the GARBC-approved Los Angeles Baptist College before it was essentially handed to Grace Community/MacArthur. Grand Rapids/Kent County, Michigan is the tightest concentration of GARBC churches in the country, and there has been a lot of diversity in practice and speakers there (including, but not limited to Cornerstone/Grand Rapids Baptist College prior to it ceasing to identify with the GARBC officially). Western, Cedarville and Clarks Summit also drew from wider spheres prior to 5 years ago. Not the national conference, true, but there has been that kind of influence there. Even Faith has brought in speakers from outside the GARBC for quite some time (though usually of a different caliber).
Now, back to the topic at hand-
I’m not sure that the comparison is as different as you say. While the recent practices of the sphere of Fundamentalism Northland operates in don’t have the same kind of weight of history that Portuguese does in Brazil, there is certainly some sense of establishment surrounding those operating principles. Even if one argues they are changing, one can still recognize that change takes time- it’s a process. BJU may have changed their policy, But I imagine there are still many in the constituency body of BJU who would be at least somewhat alarmed or uncomfortable if their son followed your example (or that of my parents, for that matter). It’s a good thing that it’s changing, but one should not be surprised to find people who had not changed their mindset on the issue.
As one would have to isolate themselves to fail to grasp the significance of Portuguese in Brazil, one would have to be similarly isolated from other Fundamentalists to fail to understand the practices that have shaped the trajectory to where we are today. As I have said before, even those who applaud the minor shifts in the practice of NIU have been hard-pressed to see that they haven’t been just that- deviations from established habits and practices. But consider the precise wording of Olson’s letter:
We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem. Biblically, we worked through a process of decision making and felt these choices and the context in which they were made were consistent with what we have always believed. Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently. We have no desire to distract from our focus here or on the field of ministry.What this statement does not say is whether the decision was ultimately right or wrong. Essentially saying “We didn’t know” seems to me a statement akin to “I’m sorry if you were offended.” Perhaps there is genuine remorse or regret for the action, or perhaps the individual simply wishes you wouldn’t have responded to the action as you did. Maybe it was a bad reasoning to invite Holland. But, perhaps he doesn’t regret inviting Holland in the least, but only wishes the flak from constituents would have been lighter. That’s what I see this statement doing- speaking in vague and ambiguous terms. It can serve both to pacify traditionalists (“we would likely have planned differently”) while exciting the younger, comparatively progressive incoming student clientele (“We (don’t see) having these speakers (is) a significant problem”). With no clear statement, it seems much easier to maintain the status quo.
However, I have a hard time believing that with as many years of ministry experience as Olson has (not to mention the other Administration members Olson has at his disposal), that he would be unfamiliar with the trajectory of his constituency. Pastoring gives you certain expectations for controversial situations- even some that may not come to fruition. I am sure similar things are true when presiding over colleges. Olson (and Horn and Ollila and…) are not spring chickens. Even up these in Dunbar, I am sure they have enough contact with other Fundamentalists to expect that not everyone is on board with changes being made…
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Andrew Comings]Andrew, this is the #1 definition on dictionary.com for the word ’ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie] lie ‘:[Don Johnson] I am not claiming that Matt is dishonest. I am saying that what he said cannot possibly be true.I’m not saying he’s a thief, I’m just saying he took something that didn’t belong to him.
Please note the bolded word. When you accuse somebody of lying, you are accusing them of stating a falsehood with intent to deceive. It is deliberate.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
I am not making that kind of charge. There is a difference, and words matter. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Bob Nutzhorn] Anyway, I am not arguing that Matt/Dr. Olson did not know what would happen with all of this. What I am saying is that this situation and the blood issue are very similar. Those who attacked in that situation could, and some would claim, should have known what John MacArthur really believed and taught. Just like in this situation, Dr. Olson should have known the end. In the Dr. Bob issue you say, well we don’t really know what he knew, and in this situation you say that what he is claiming could not be true. I am not saying which reaction of yours was right, just pointing out an observation.Just two reactions to this:
1. I don’t know how much you know about the ‘blood’ issue, so it is difficult to give a meaningful response.
2. The issue, regardless of similarities, is really irrelevant to this discussion. It only serves to distract and is, in my opinion, an attempt to distract from Northland and Matt’s letter. (BTW, I am not so sure that the two issues are at all similar, but even if they are, the ‘blood’ issue isn’t the subject of this thread and only serves to distract.)
As an attempt to distract from the argument, it seems to me to be a classic propaganda device used by those who don’t really have an argument.
And… as you say: “Just like in this situation, Dr. Olson should have known the end.” … in saying that you are conceding my point. So what is the point of the ‘blood’ issue? It serves as a red herring.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Don Johnson] Please don’t put words in my mouth.Perhaps a little more thinking on my part would have helped me avoid putting words in your mouth and my foot in mine. I still disagree with your basic premise, but I now see where you were going with that post.
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
[Bob Nutzhorn] Don the issue I was raising is how you react to those who you believe have erred. One you have graciously looked past his fault, the other you have not reacted in the same why. Why the difference?Bob, the MacArthur/BJU blood issue is old news. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I think Jim asked me if I had raised it with BJU, I should have just dismissed it as irrelevant rather than giving any explanation.
We are all too defensive in these discussions, I am afraid.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Andrew Comings]Communication is difficult at the best of times! It is very easy to fail to say things clearly the first time also. Disagreement is fine. Keeps us all from being redundant.[Don Johnson] Please don’t put words in my mouth.Perhaps a little more thinking on my part would have helped me avoid putting words in your mouth and my foot in mine. I still disagree with your basic premise, but I now see where you were going with that post.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Greg Linscott]Right…and yet honest, competent people are often caught off guard. It happens. It goes with the territory. Then we realize it, admit it, learn from it, and move on.
It’s a good thing that it’s changing, but one should not be surprised to find people who had not changed their mindset on the issue.
[Greg Linscott] However, I have a hard time believing that with as many years of ministry experience as Olson has (not to mention the other Administration members Olson has at his disposal), that he would be unfamiliar with the trajectory of his constituency. Pastoring gives you certain expectations for controversial situations- even some that may not come to fruition. I am sure similar things are true when presiding over colleges. Olson (and Horn and Ollila and…) are not spring chickens. Even up these in Dunbar, I am sure they have enough contact with other Fundamentalists to expect that not everyone is on board with changes being made…I believe I understand where you are coming from. My point is this: there seems to be no bottom to the well of bitterness that is regularly hurled by the recipients of God’s Grace at those with whom we disagree. And while, looking at it from the outside, it does seem like Olsen et al should have expected something of the sort, I find it very easy to believe that they were caught completely off guard.
Every time I read his letter my mind goes back to a 20 page treatise—complete with graphs and illustrations—that was written by a vocal pastor against a Christian college I served. The anger, bitterness, jealousy and outright dishonesty contained therein were staggering to those of us inside. We knew of him, knew of his discontent, knew that decisions we made would not please him. We were just stunned by the extremes he went to to express his discontent. We could easily have written a letter such as Olsen’s, although I personally would have been hard put to be as gracious as Olsen has been.
And that is just one instance of many where, in my admittedly limited experience, I have found myself in similar circumstances. To borrow a phrase I heard once in Portuguese, “It is much easier to be a sling shot than a window”. And I have been the window enough times to sympathize with other windows when the slingshots start “twanging”.
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
Since it seems you don’t want to address my questions because of it being so long ago, I will use something more recent. Below are quotes from a recent discussion you had on SI about Pastor Vaughn and Schaap:
Second it is quite true that we could say the same about incidences of cooperation between fundamentalists and some of the CE men … nothing is as simple as it seems. I have spoken directly to some of them over their involvement on some occasions. These men likewise have their reasons for what they are doing. While I can see their reasons, I am not sure I always agree with them. Nevertheless, I wait and see if they will eventually be justified in their reasons. (No holding of my breath, however…)
Finally, I have to acknowledge that the situation we are discussing is a concern. It is a concern because of the association. I have a lot of misgivings about it. I hope that time will make the rationale for continuing to participate a little clearer. I don’t know if the rationale would satisfy anyone here. I am not sure if it entirely satisfies me. However, I do have a lot of confidence in Dr. Vaughn and am willing to wait and see.
Does this seem to you to be the same kind of approach that you have had with Dr. Olson because they seem to be very close to the same type of situation?
- Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
- The conference features music that is “worldly”
- Therefore Holland is a disobedient brother
- And thus separation is called for
Unproven to me: points # 1 and # 2
What it the above is more like this:- Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
- The conference features music that is not my preferred style (I don’t personally like it and I wouldn’t incorporate that style in my church)
If one were to follow the second scenario, then points # 3 and # 4 would not be valid
Thoughts?
[Bob Nutzhorn] Don,Hi Bob
Since it seems you don’t want to address my questions because of it being so long ago, I will use something more recent. Below are quotes from a recent discussion you had on SI about Pastor Vaughn and Schaap….
Does this seem to you to be the same kind of approach that you have had with Dr. Olson because they seem to be very close to the same type of situation?
Ok, that’s a better parallel. The difference that I would see is that Dr. Vaughn hasn’t said anything publicly in response to criticism he has received for that decision. Plenty of people have been talking to him directly, just as plenty have been talking to Matt directly.
So far Dr. Vaughn has said nothing. I hope he will say something about it at some point.
Matt’s public letter is what we are discussing and as many have noted, it failed to accomplish its purpose for the reasons I and others have repeatedly asserted.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jim Peet] Let’s start with this premise:I have repeatedly differentiated between separation and non-cooperation. I think we have made a mistake in using separation lingo when it comes to brethren.
- Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
…- And thus separation is called for
But in the case of ministries that use music like the music of the Resolved Conference, I wouldn’t knowingly be in eccliesiastical partnership with them. I think they are wrong for using that style of music and I wouldn’t want the people for whom I am primarily responsible (the people of our church) to get a mixed message were I to cooperate with them. I wouldn’t want to be criticized as hypocritical for my own position on music, while tolerating theirs.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion