An Open Letter from Dr. Matt Olson of Northland International University

Brothers and sisters,

For the sake of transparency, let me first acknowledge that I am Matt Olson’s pastor. As such, I know him to be highly esteemed for being faithful to the gospel and as a defender of the Word – for decades. Perhaps his present leadership at Northland should not be seen as a deviation from past consistency so much as a continued and accurate response to that which endangers historic orthodoxy and fundamentalism. It is more likely that a long and deeply held desire to defend the name of God, His word and a pure gospel has stirred him to take the steps he has taken rather than some of the disreputable motives mentioned the last few days.

That some cannot see the danger of extra-biblical pressures being exerted in American fundamentalism to the detriment of sound orthodoxy does not remove the duty of those who do see it to act against it. Those who habitually suspect anything outside of their tradition and constantly warn us of every trend as evil imply that anything old is always better than anything new. That type of leadership may encourage the most ardent traditionalist among us but does nothing to equip the body for the mission ahead of us. Reaction against modernity alone is an insufficient strategy. Embracing historical arguments to the exclusion of self-criticism and contemporary analysis is a sure remedy for eventual implosion of any community. Yesterday’s battlements do not fare well in today’s guerilla warfare. While knowing the history of the battle is valuable, knowing the nature of the enemy is more so. While some are throwing up more walls as though anything old and opposite the modern world is good, others are calling out enemies within our own walls. I would suggest that Dr. Olson has made a proactive effort to be rid of extra-biblical baggage that is no mere encumbrance but a literal endangerment to the mission. Too many of his critics sound like modern Eliabs accusing David of a naughty and evil heart of presumption. As with David, history will reveal who’s heart was presumptive.

Fortunately, Matt Olson is a man of genuine conviction birthed through a devout walk in the word and much prayer. I pray he will remain steady in his resolution to equip our young people to carry out biblical, Spirit-enabled ministry for the sake of the mission we have been called to. When one who has been godly and faithful for decades leads in such a manner, those with sober humility pause and listen first. Could it be that the years and time he (and other men mentioned) has faithfully served has lent him wisdom and insight that the rest of us could gain from? May God enable us to discern who the enemies of God are today, the dangers they portend for our children tomorrow, and how we should equip them now for then.

May I be allowed to attest that he is deeply respected by our body for his wisdom, piety, and humility? May I encourage you to consider the possibility that such a man could be following God’s leadership. I am thankful for him, support him accordingly and happily defend him.

Pastor Bill Phillips

Thanks

I appreciated your post!

[Wm Phillips] That some cannot see the danger of extra-biblical pressures being exerted in American fundamentalism to the detriment of sound orthodoxy does not remove the duty of those who do see it to act against it. Those who habitually suspect anything outside of their tradition and constantly warn us of every trend as evil imply that anything old is always better than anything new. That type of leadership may encourage the most ardent traditionalist among us but does nothing to equip the body for the mission ahead of us. Reaction against modernity alone is an insufficient strategy. Embracing historical arguments to the exclusion of self-criticism and contemporary analysis is a sure remedy for eventual implosion of any community. Yesterday’s battlements do not fare well in today’s guerilla warfare. While knowing the history of the battle is valuable, knowing the nature of the enemy is more so. While some are throwing up more walls as though anything old and opposite the modern world is good, others are calling out enemies within our own walls. I would suggest that Dr. Olson has made a proactive effort to be rid of extra-biblical baggage that is no mere encumbrance but a literal endangerment to the mission. Too many of his critics sound like modern Eliabs accusing David of a naughty and evil heart of presumption. As with David, history will reveal who’s heart was presumptive.

With all due respect, bro Philips, these are only so many platitudes.

Could you please point out where Matt’s critics are simply “reactionaries against modernity”? Or that we (I include myself as a critic) are simply “habitually suspecting anything outside our tradition”? I don’t think this is an accurate reperesentation of the critics in this case.

[Wm Phillips] Fortunately, Matt Olson is a man of genuine conviction birthed through a devout walk in the word and much prayer. … When one who has been godly and faithful for decades leads in such a manner, those with sober humility pause and listen first. Could it be that the years and time he (and other men mentioned) has faithfully served has lent him wisdom and insight that the rest of us could gain from? … May I be allowed to attest that he is deeply respected by our body for his wisdom, piety, and humility? May I encourage you to consider the possibility that such a man could be following God’s leadership.

Why should we not take this as, “Trust us, we’re spiritual”?

Matt said in his letter:

[Matt Olson] 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.

My first criticism is that it is simply preposterous to believe that Matt didn’t see criticism coming over the decisions to invite Holland and Ware. All of us who have called ourselves fundamentalists for any length of time know that these invitations are a significant change, especially in light of the brouhaha that ensued for Les Olila over the same Rick Holland only five years ago.

As for the issue of the invitations itself, the reasons these men are controversial for fundamentalists are fairly well known. There are associations that have caused fundamentalists to keep their distance from them for many years. Perhaps Matt thinks this approach has been wrong. Your letter seems to imply that, but Matt’s open letter does nothing to assert that point. I would have more respect for what he was doing if it did.

Instead, Matt seeks to assure us:

[Matt Olson] We affirm that Northland stands in the historic tradition of Fundamentalism and is committed to remain as an independent, Baptist, separatist institution.

Is there some way that this should be taken other than as an attempt at assurance that Northland is maintaining the position it has been known for in all its years of existence?

Those of us criticizing the letter (and the invitations) are not branding Holland and Ware as the enemy or as “spots in your feasts of charity” (Jude 12). But we can point to specific things in their associations and practice that heretofore have been problematic for fundamentalists.

Why would you attempt to brand such critics as mere “reactionaries against modernity”?

I do think that the debate over our relationship with such men is worth having, but could we please do it with frank and honest speech and spare the platitudes?

“today’s guerilla warfare”

Truly, what a reality.

In 2010, no longer is it the red coats versus the blue coats.

If Matt Olson is reading this thread, I hope he can discern the type of fundies who are simply following orders and those who welcome the freedom of information age. See post 156 above for an example of a made man with a hit on now Matt’s pastor.

Don, I have no reservations about NIU’s overtures to Holland or Ware, and in fact I welcome them. But I do see your point about the open letter. But on the other hand Dr. Olson seems caught in the middle, getting shot at from both sides.

I’m sorry, James, but I really have no idea what you’re talking about or why it is helpful (or relevant) to the conversation.

[Todd Wood] In 2010, no longer is it the red coats versus the blue coats.

The red coats were the good guys….

heh, heh

(maybe this one will throw this thread off the rails…)

[Greg Long] Don, I have no reservations about NIU’s overtures to Holland or Ware, and in fact I welcome them. But I do see your point about the open letter. But on the other hand Dr. Olson seems caught in the middle, getting shot at from both sides

Maybe so, but I think to deny that these moves are changes is simply not helpful. They are changes. Obviously, one would think, Matt et al think they are the right changes to make. Equally obviously, there are also a number of people who do not think these moves are the right way to go.

Alright, then, let those making the moves articulate their rationale for them and convince us, if they can, that these decisions are right.

Here are some of the objections they would have to overcome for me:

1. The terrible music that Rick Holland promotes in his youth ministry.

2. The fundamentalist bashing that regularly comes from MacArthur et al

3. The cooperation of MacArthur et al with Billy Graham (speaking at The Cove, writing for Decision magazine)

4. The complicated continuing association of Southern Baptists with Southern Baptist ‘moderates’

5. The compromises of Southern Baptists like Al Mohler such as the Manhattan Declaration and other missteps

If it is a good thing to enter into cooperation with men with these complicating factors, why is it good? Why should I embrace this change? Why should I encourage young people to attend schools that embrace this change?

In the sense that NIU is committed to historic fundamentalism, they are not changes at all. NIU is shedding the identity of a neofundamentalist institution, thankfully.

Matt gave an open letter as to why they are doing what they are doing. I don’t think he was trying nor does he have to convince anyone Don. You would have to believe there are these family heads and to be a true fundamentalist you must kiss the ring. Wait, this is getting awkward. Moving right along.

Instead of explaining why it is okay to have Ware and Holland, I wish he would explain what they are moving away from:

1. The terrible music that embraces a finneyistic approach to people’s salvation/sanctification. The black plague thinks fundamentalism is bad off because of it.

2. The fundamentalist bashing of anything not contained within that particular corner of “fundamentalism.” See this thread for examples.

3. The sad attempts to connect MacArthur with heretical ideas of the blood (BJU never did actually repent of that and the fundies still tied to BJU I guess still perpetuate that lie). Seriously Don, do you really think MacArthur approves of Graham? Try again.

4. The complicated continuing association of some fundies with the fringe elements of fundamentalism.

5. The compromise of all fundies who embrace conditional salvation, or salvation as a buffet bar, which is not the gospel.

Moving away from neofundamentalism is a good thing. It is good because neofundamentalism was never a strict philosophy. It was a hodgepodge of various families, er, groups maneuvering for power to control the other families, er, factions.

Too many neofundamentalists with their hit pieces trying to remind others not to go against the family.

[James K] See post 156 above for an example of a made man with a hit on now Matt’s pastor.

James … don’t take this personally, but there is something I don’t like about this comment. You can disagree with Don Johnson but I don’t think a comment like this adds to the conversation

Don in my view has raised appropriate issues such as music in the Resolved conference and that the current direction is a departure from earlier NBBC policy

My 2 (or 3) cents

AND

[James K] neofundamentalism

What is neo-fundamentalism? (I almost had to laugh at this as it seems like any variance from the perceived norm has a prefix like “pseudo-“, “neo-“, and there are I’m sure more (like FINO - fundamentalist in name only) etc

[James K] The sad attempts to connect MacArthur with heretical ideas of the blood (BJU never did actually repent of that and the fundies still tied to BJU I guess still perpetuate that lie).

I appreciated this point and I wonder why there is no hew and cry to get BJU to publicly repudiate this!

I refer to Ben Wright’s post here with regard to the 1999 congress on fundamentalism

http://paleoevangelical.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-repent.html

Question for Don Johnson. Aren’t you a BjU grad? Have you called BJU on this lie? Separated over how Bob Jones lyingly savaged a brother?

A neofundamentalist is what those who desired to retain the name fundamentalist became when the neoevangelicals split. Fundamentalism became something different the original modernist fight. It became a hodgepodge of families angling for control. These guys separate just to separate. In fact, it is the one uniting principle.

Regarding what I said about Don’s hit piece on Matt’s pastor, I stand by it. Reread what he said to him and see if that was really being said. Maybe the hit was ordered, I don’t know.

[Jim Peet] I appreciated this point and I wonder why there is no hew and cry to get BJU to publicly repudiate this!

First a visit from the Malaprop Police: that would be ” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hue+and+cry] hue and cry ” - no axe work needed…

[Jim Peet] Question for Don Johnson. Aren’t you a BjU grad? Have you called BJU on this lie? Separated over how Bob Jones lyingly savaged a brother?

Personally, I don’t think this is that big an issue. I think MacArthur made some poorly worded statements. He has since corrected those statements somewhat, as I recall, but I think his wording in his Hebrews commentary is still not well worded. It is also my understanding that there has been some conciliatory comments between MacArthur and Dr Bob III, but I could be wrong on that.

In any case, I think far more is made of this than is necessary.

And as for Dr Bob lying, one would have to know whether he knew any statements he made were false. To make a false statement unwittingly is not a lie, although it is not a good thing to do. And he is now past the point of being able to speak to it.

Of course, the snark crowd can choose to continue to make it their BJU whipping boy point. There isn’t much that can be done about it now, even if I am mistaken in some of my facts above. One of the principles is dead. It is time to get over it.

I refuse to communicate directly with James K. His slanders are beneath contempt.

[James K] Regarding what I said about Don’s hit piece on Matt’s pastor, I stand by it. Reread what he said to him and see if that was really being said. Maybe the hit was ordered, I don’t know.

That’s just foolishness. A number of people have expressed similar statements to Don’s about Dr. Olson’s letter, whether they agreed with Don on the concerns about the actions that prompted Dr. Olson to write the letter in the first place. Bob Bixby would be a prominent example of someone who would have a definite contrast to Don.

I do think that Dr. Olson’s pastor does what most other defenders of Olson have done- appealed to his perceived motives, spirituality, sincerity and “niceness” rather than take on what Olson actually says- particularly about not anticipating the situations at hand would elicit significant response among Northland’s constituency. I say, if what everyone else is saying about Olson is true (sincerity, etc), he will at the very least publicly explain his publicly-expressed rationale that caused him to think the constituency had made radical mindset shifts since the events surrounding the God-Focused Conference in 2005.

Don, the double standard is just so obvious, typical, and expected. I was so certain the response was going to be along the lines of what you said.

Greg, what you quoted refers to what Don was saying to Matt’s pastor, not about Matt’s open letter.

Remnants of the chicago way will always exist, but thankfully more and more are leaving it.

The bottom line in this:

if you are a fundamentalist in any way and desire to move away from the chicago mentality, you better watch your back.

@James,

That is why I said this:

I do think that Dr. Olson’s pastor does what most other defenders of Olson have done- appealed to his perceived motives, spirituality, sincerity and “niceness” rather than take on what Olson actually says- particularly about not anticipating the situations at hand would elicit significant response among Northland’s constituency.

Greg, here are some highlights from Don’s interaction with Matt’s pastor:

I just did a cut and paste but these are exact quotes:

1. The bafflegab continues (confusing or unintelligible)

2. these are only so many platitudes (trite and meaningless statement)

3. Why should we not take this as, “Trust us, we’re spiritual”? (because that is exactly what Bill was trying to say)

4. My first criticism is that it is simply preposterous to believe that Matt didn’t see criticism coming over the decisions to invite Holland and Ware. (I don’t know why Don just couldn’t come out and say Matt is a liar)

5. I do think that the debate over our relationship with such men is worth having, but could we please do it with frank and honest speech and spare the platitudes? (So now Matt is deceptive and misleading with a pious sounding pastor)

No Greg, this is what I rightly referred to as a hit piece. You may still think of that as foolishness.

…while Northland has never been on my list of schools to recommend, now it is. And it’s all because of Dr. Olson’s letter. Kudos to a school that is willing to address some of the tough issues facing Fundamentalism today, and to stick to their guns even as the sharks attack (and yes, I’m sticking with that mixed metaphor).

Also, a quick comment about Dr. Olson’s statement:

What I did not expect was the testing that would follow.

I have experienced this, on more than one occasion. You have an idea that you are sure is right. You do your research, you pray, you seek counsel. Your passion for the rightness of the idea grows. So convinced are you that you find it inconceivable that anybody could have any reasonable objections. Then you are brought up short by questions you never expected, and hostility that seems to come from nowhere. In retrospect, it should have been expected. But a lot of things are clearer in retrospect.

Is not this a more charitable assumption than the accusation of lying and/or incompetence being bandied about in this thread? And don’t we owe our brothers in Christ the benefit of the more charitable assumption?

[Don Johnson] And as for Dr Bob lying, one would have to know whether he knew any statements he made were false. To make a false statement unwittingly is not a lie, although it is not a good thing to do.

So we are to understand that we should accept that Dr. Bob was not lying because WE do not know whether he knew any statements he made were false. Why is that same grace not extended to Dr. Olson? Mr. Johnson, one of your major complaints is that you claim he is not being honest about his understanding of the backlash from his statements and sermons. How do WE know what he understood would happen? We simply cannot. We can make assumptions as to what he should have known, but that is all they are - assumptions.

[Bob Nutzhorn]

[Don Johnson] And as for Dr Bob lying, one would have to know whether he knew any statements he made were false. To make a false statement unwittingly is not a lie, although it is not a good thing to do.

So we are to understand that we should accept that Dr. Bob was not lying because WE do not know whether he knew any statements he made were false. Why is that same grace not extended to Dr. Olson? Mr. Johnson, one of your major complaints is that you claim he is not being honest about his understanding of the backlash from his statements and sermons. How do WE know what he understood would happen? We simply cannot. We can make assumptions as to what he should have known, but that is all they are - assumptions.

Well put. After being frustrated by the accusatory and uncharitable nature of this discussion (and yet being inexplicably drawn to it, like a moth to a flame) it was refreshing to read this succinct piece of logic.

[Andrew Comings] You have an idea that you are sure is right. You do your research, you pray, you seek counsel. Your passion for the rightness of the idea grows. So convinced are you that you find it inconceivable that anybody could have any reasonable objections. Then you are brought up short by questions you never expected, and hostility that seems to come from nowhere. In retrospect, it should have been expected. But a lot of things are clearer in retrospect.

Is not this a more charitable assumption than the accusation of lying and/or incompetence being bandied about in this thread? And don’t we owe our brothers in Christ the benefit of the more charitable assumption?

Your scenario is readily identifiable for nearly everyone. Who among us hasn’t encountered similar situations? I’m sure your early experiences as a missionary on deputation put you in such situations, fro example.

Recently, I had a root canal done. My dentist had not done such a procedure on me before. However, I was not at all surprised when he warned me that there would be a pinch before he applied the anesthetic prior to the procedure. He anticipated the response because of prior experiences with me (fillings, for example), not to mention training and experiences with other patience. In fact, for him not to have mentioned it to me before giving the shot would have been rather unpleasant for all concerned, I imagine.

It has been said that insanity is repeating the same procedure and expecting different results. I have little reason to think that Dr. Olson is insane. But Andrew, this is not the first time Northland has encountered a controversial situation involving someone outside their established Fundamentalist circle of influence. In fact, it isn’t even the first time they have encountered controversy because of Rick Holland. Furthermore, there was evidently enough uncertainty (whatever the cause) that Olson and the Northland administration, by Olson’s own despcription, deemed it wise to arrange a meeting with MacArthur, Holland, and company before the recent chapel invitation was extended.

There are other things that could have been said. “It was not our intent to offend.” “We believed this was an opportunity to demonstrate charity and extend fellowship to a ministry that we can appreciate, even though we have some marked differences in how we approach key areas.” “It was my hope and prayer that attitudes had improved since controversies that ensued in ‘05…” But I have yet to see anyone explain how Olson could legitimately say he just didn’t know in light of 2005 and God-Focused. Instead, the responses counter to this point center around dismissing and overlooking because Olson is sincere and nice and leading them in a commendable direction. Okay, fine. Someone could be sincere and nice and have good intentions, but if he is engaged in missions ministry in Brazil and wondering why his ministry is ineffective, yet doggedly persists in doing his ministry in English only, I’m going to have difficulty accepting his explanation of “I didn’t know they spoke Portuguese here. If I had, I would have planned differently.” If he isn’t dishonest, he at the very least shouldn’t be continuing to lead in the same capacity.

Help me, here- how does the current situation differ?

[Bob Nutzhorn]

[Don Johnson] And as for Dr Bob lying, one would have to know whether he knew any statements he made were false. To make a false statement unwittingly is not a lie, although it is not a good thing to do.

So we are to understand that we should accept that Dr. Bob was not lying because WE do not know whether he knew any statements he made were false. Why is that same grace not extended to Dr. Olson? Mr. Johnson, one of your major complaints is that you claim he is not being honest about his understanding of the backlash from his statements and sermons. How do WE know what he understood would happen? We simply cannot. We can make assumptions as to what he should have known, but that is all they are - assumptions.

Interesting appellations… you call Matt “Dr.” and me “Mr.” If you are going to use honorifics, you should properly use “Rev.” for me, as you well know from past correspondence that I am an ordained minister. But I’d rather you just call me “Don”.

I am not claiming that Matt is dishonest. I am saying that what he said cannot possibly be true. He certainly ought to have known that Rick Holland and Bruce Ware would be controversial. As Greg points out, as I pointed out in my original article of complaint, as others have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, Dr. Olilla and Northland were embroiled in a controversy over Holland only 5 years ago. Greg said in an eariler post that he understood Matt to have been directly involved in Dr. O’s decision to pull out of the God Focused conference because of Rick Holland’s involvement.

Maybe Matt forgot about that. Maybe he thought sincerely that the whole fundamentalist world had changed its mind in the last five years. Who knows? Maybe there is some other reason. But it simply cannot be believed that he didn’t or shouldn’t have expected controversy over these new invitations. These are far more than assumptions.

Sorry Don,

I thought I was being respectful to both of you. Sorry that I did not remember that you were a Rev. - interesting that you pointed that out Dr. Olson to me but not Dr. Bob.

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.

[Bob Nutzhorn] Sorry Don,

I thought I was being respectful to both of you. Sorry that I did not remember that you were a Rev. - interesting that you pointed that out Dr. Olson to me but not Dr. Bob.

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.

Bob,

I feel your pain here and agree with much of what you are saying. Problem is that many in fundamentalism would rather fight even over something imaginary than be honest and just preach the word. You will see this especially in conferences and such where men will preach a sermon to other pastors and want to rile ‘em up with some “good preachin’ ”! One example of this was back in 2009 when Chuck Phelps preached up at Bethel Baptist and used a quote by John MacArthur that was an obvious editor’s mistake in one of his books. There was an update made years ago and even 5 minutes of online research would have revealed it for what it was. Instead the mistaken paragraph was used and it made for some great hootin’ and hollerin’ amongst the brethren at the FBFI meeting! Praise the LORD! This was pointed out and no apologies were needed and the sermon is still up on sermon audio. You can find it here if you would like:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermo…

Point is that the end justifies the means to some fundies. To villify someone like Piper or MacArthur is a good thing. Whereas historic fundies did battle royal over those who denied Scripture or the Virgin birth, many of the hysteric fundies like to do battle royal over drums and britches on women…

After spending some time following this topic with its variety of opinions something has come to mind. Every man who has commented here would claim some level of mature spirituality. In clear teaching 1 Corinthians 2 teaches us that only the spiritual can know the mind of Christ. If I am not mistaken, every person involved (Dr. Olson to every person who has commented) is claiming to be speaking the “mind of Christ.” If you are not speaking the mind of Christ then your thoughts and opinions are worthless to the cause of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 1 and 2) and you have no need to give input as to what is happening at NIU.

Now if every person DOES claim to be speaking the mind of Christ someone is in the wrong, and therefore in need of repentance. Thankfully, in my short time in ministry, I have seen that being able to see who is following the mind of Christ and who is not is made possible over time. I will sit and wait.

[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.

[Greg Linscott] Help me, here- how does the current situation differ?

First, kudos on knowing that in Brazil we speak Portuguese. You would not believe the number of times I hear “So you’re a missionary in Brazil. Say something to me in Spanish.” Sigh.

On to your well-thought-out analogy. I can only find one difference…but it seems to me to be significant.

Portuguese has been the language of Brazil since 1500. It was the language five years ago, and will be the language five, ten, and most likely one hundred years from now. Barring some geopolitical upheaval, Portuguese will be the language of Brazil for the foreseeable future. To be in Brazil and not know that Portuguese is the language of Brazil one would literally have to shut oneself up in a house and never have contact with anyone, which is impossible.

However, the Fundamentalist movement is just that…a movement. And movements, by definition, move. Even Fundamentalist ones. Some examples: 1) Just a decade ago I could not have dated the woman who is now my wife had we both been on the BJU campus. Not only has BJU dropped the interracial dating law and apologized, but they now actively recruit and sponsor minority students. This is a major shift in just ten years’ time. 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. 3) A recent issue of the Baptist Bulletin featured people with up stretched hands during a praise service. 4) After being out of the country for almost five years I have noticed a significant change (for the good, mind you) in the worship of the local churches we visit. They are using a wider variety of instruments and styles as well as the classic hymns of the faith. These examples are off the top of my head as a lowly missionary on furlough. I don’t inhabit the halls of academia, nor have I ever met personally with the likes of John MacArthur.

All of this to say that comparing the established language of Brazil and the Fundamentalist movement might be comparing apples to orangutans. There is another factor that inclines me to give Dr. Olsen the benefit of the doubt: Just when you think you have seen it all when it comes to vitriolic attacks from Fundamentalists, someone writes something that literally takes your breath away. Thus I have no problem believing that, even though Dr. Olsen clearly remembered the previous controversy (and perhaps because he remembered it) he was genuinely surprised at the responses he got to these recent decisions.

For all of these reasons (and further inspired by Rev. Johnson’s gracious willingness to extend the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Bob Jones in the MacArthur “Bloodgate Scandal”) I am more inclined than ever to extend the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Olsen

I’m sure he’ll sleep easier tonight…

Don’s post seems to make the most sense to me. His points are valid and the conclusions he comes to are reasonable. As I continue to read the thread, the attacks on anyone who questions Dr. Olson and NIU are what stands out. The dialogue is of utmost importance to Fundamentalism but the nasty, personal stuff is carnality, period.

The other question is who and what is truly fundamental? 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.”

Fundamentalism is a movement rooted in Bible truth. The movement moves the Bible stands and somehow we must find the balance. The enemy is not my brother, the cause remains clear and the need has never been greater. Time to move on and move ahead. I will watch NIU but I fear history is repeating itself!

CGrif, the fundamentalism of Don Johnson is the neofundamentalism of the 50s, not the historic fundamentalism that would have had Holland and Ware not only as allies, but probably leaders. When you recognize this truth, you will see NIU is consistent with historic fundamentalism. Their movement away from neofundamentalism is a good thing, as that movement has failed.

Post 156 is a picture perfect example of the chicago way mentality within neofundamentalism.

At the risk of coming off way too esoteric for the discussion, I’d like to raise a question.

[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…

[Andrew Comings]

[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.

Andrew, this is the #1 definition on dictionary.com for the word ’ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie] lie ‘:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

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.

I am not making that kind of charge. There is a difference, and words matter. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

[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.

The issue has demonstrated the double standard employed by neofundamentalists. If you are part of the family, it is okay. If you appear to be breaking away from the family, you should have known you would get kneecapped.

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?

[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.

[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.

[Andrew Comings]

[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.

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.

[Greg Linscott]

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.

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.

[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”.

Don,

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:

First, I am not at all saying that it isn’t a concern. I would suggest that you might contact Dr. Vaughn personally and see what he says. I would say that he has his reasons and he is aware of the problem. But… nothing is as simple as it seems.

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?

Let’s start with this premise:

1. Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
2. The conference features music that is “worldly”
3. Therefore Holland is a disobedient brother
4. And thus separation is called for
   Unproven to me: points # 1 and # 2
   
   What it the above is more like this:
   
   
   1. Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
   2. 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,

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?

Hi Bob

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.

[Jim Peet] Let’s start with this premise:

1. Holland is the head of the Resolved Conference
   
   …
2. And thus separation is called for
   

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.

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.

This whole matter may hinge on whether Matt Olson is a Sublapsarian or a Supralapsarian. If he is a Subblapsarian he is probably guilty of doing this the “Chicago way” which would involve Blago the former governor in Illinois and Rahm Emmanual who left the white house and may be a future chapel speaker somewhere. If Matt is a Supralapsarian he may be more prone to the “Detroit way.”

At any rate somewhere and sometime there may even be another post that will avoid both the Chicago way and Detroit way and deal with the issues. 8-)

[Don Johnson] 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.

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.

Helpful …. thanks

Wrestled with weather to add yet another post to this undying thread.

But here goes.

1. I don’t think there is ultimately much profit (hint: understatement) in speculating about weather MO should have or did anticipate much hullabaloo about the announced changes. If it were me, I’d want folks to take me at my word. So, though from my POV controversy was obvious, I’m taking MO at his word that they didn’t expect quite the response that occurred. Golden rule.

(Full disclosure. NIU did just buy an ad with us so I’m compromised and have to be nice. :D Actually I said similar things 100 posts ago… pre ad)

2. More important in my view: what kinds of changes in “locations of boundaries” ought to be made in light of changing conditions on the ground and how do we decide how to make them? KBauder’s current series is helpful. No doubt the Preserving the Truth Conference coming up will be as well.

3. When you are applying Scripture to a moving target, you have to change to stay the same. If you’re skeet shooting, keeping your focus “the same” means changing the direction and angle of your rifle barrel. This is not just true of separation issues. Applying unchanging principles to changing circumstances is like that across the board.

4. When it comes to pizza, Chicago Way is indisputably quintessential. If you think otherwise, you’re just—polite sounding British insult—daft. ;) (or maybe “barmy”)

The enemy is not my brother

Just curious, is anyone suggesting this? Or giving evidence of it? Surely one can disagree with Olson/NIU without suggesting that these men such as MacArthur and Holland are our enemies. I can’t help but think you are responding to someone who does not exist in terms of this conversation.

Jim Peet said:

2.The conference features music that is “worldly”…

Unproven to me: points # 1 and # 2

…

2.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)

“Worldly” has various meanings for various people. However, each person can draw their own conclusions by clicking this link:

http://www.worshipmatters.com/2010/07/02/resolved-music-and-enfield-and…

I consider a backbeat with drums etc. to be worldly. Its country music with the words of a hymn!