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
- 350 views
I am glad many within fundamentalism actually are committed to the authority of scripture instead of the authority of their respective family heads.
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.
[Bob T.] The problem here is that the landscape is riddled with Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries that began well and had very Biblical foundations but have changed significantly. The history of this in North America is constant and very long, going back to very first such institutions. This degenerative course continues to our very day.Yes Bob T., and the landscape is equally littered with destroyed churches, broken lives and not a few Christian colleges, universities and seminaries that elevated issues that you find sacred that were or are indeed extra-Biblical and at least simple traditions. Using your reasoning, churches and colleges would still be segregated (hey, it was PREACHED) in much of America. I wish people like you would have squalled with the same level of vehemence over “institutions” which gladly propagated racism from our shores to the missionfields. (And BJU’s apology not-withstanding, the stigma of those positions is alive across the South and remains unrepented in many churches because of the previous influence.) You have no problem making music a standard for separation when there is no sound hermeneutic that demands it as practically practiced by your types. You sniff at the evangelistic pragmatism of Hyles-Schaap (as you well should) and yet swallow the camels of your hyper-fundamentalist roots. And then when someone calls you on it, you cop an attitude of theological superiority while denying others the opportunity to explore, question, converse, debate and interact with others who might see things slightly differently.
I am convinced that much of the preoccupation with Calvinism is due to the shallow teaching that many (and in some circles and parts of the country, most) have been taught as it relates to the Gospel. Far more souls will be in hell because of the revivalist theology of Finney-through-Hyles than those who see issues of election, sovereignty and Lordship in Scripture. Your clan twists the words of MacArthur as surely on Lordship as you did on the “Blood” controversy and then wants to deny others the opportunity to hear him personally explain and expound and even defend what he has written. MacArthur is not some sort of conservative evangelical/fundamentalist pope to most of those who have arisen to his defense. At the same time, those of us who have personally interacted with Phil Johnson, John MacArthur and Rick Holland know just how off base you are in your characterizations of them and what they believe about Salvation, the Blood and Lordship.
Like Olson’s letter, no man’s sermons or books are a complete explanation of the issue at hand — they are simply an attempt to move us toward greater clarity. As someone pointed out earlier, in today’s modern media, those of your stripe have lost the bully-clubs of intimidation, ostracization and isolation that used to be used with the zeal of Amish shunners. Many of us, who are as deeply committed to the fundamentals as you claim to be will simply not sit back and let someone else do our thinking for us nor will we be kept from exploring, asking questions and challenging the conclusions. We are actually DRAWN to men like Olson and Tetreau and others who believe that such interactions will teach us, not ruin us. After reading the responses of those who want to pretend that this is really an issue of Olson’s communication and not his audacity in treating his students like scholars and grown-ups, I wonder if you think we both smoke and inhale that which is the stale substance of academic and theological constipation. We will read, we will question and we will consider while using the fundamentals of Scripture (not a movement or institution) we will also discern. In doing so, this generation of fundamentalism may well own their faith and doctrine in ways that the previous generation never did.
You sell men like Kevin Bauder short as he articulately points out differences and calls for closer examination of evangelical tenants. They also provide impact and perspective. How can we be expected to produce men of Bauder’s skill if we only permit indoctrination and not interaction with those who, while still brothers, have reached different conclusions.
I keep saying to myself that I will not respond again on this thread and yet I keep doing so. Hopefully, I’ll keep my word from here on out.
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
[Bob T.] This is why some no longer post at SI and have labeled it by spirit and membership to be Pseudo Fundamentalist at best and possibly merely young New Evangelicals looking back as they seek to justify their compromises and present ministry and associations.Yes Bob, this is a very teachable moment. Many have quit posting here only to continue lobbing grenades at SI. The problem is that these other “made men” must protect their territory. Many of them have blogs, written books, have blogs, and have even written books and don’t cease to tell you that they have blogs and have written books. They cannot put forth a scriptural defense of their beliefs, so they retreat. These men say there is a lion in the street when in reality there isn’t one.
The bottom line though is that the ability to muscle people into conformity is losing. When given the option of the soteriology of the MacArthur/Holland types or the conditional salvation type of those who actually believe Ryrie’s position on the matter, well, the issue is clear: believe the scripture and identify with those not ashamed of the gospel of Christ and turn from the conditional gospel of others.
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.
Very good questions my man. I love it when you get all “energetic!” You remind me of me - It’s fun to see the passion - bravo! Hey, this thread reminds me of the days when Janz would hire the cartoon guys - and then we’d go from holding hands around the fire to shooting at each other. Man….those where the days! Then everybody would make up, we’d have this group hug, until someone would talk about beer, Type B fundamentalism and CCM.
OK…..to your questions -
Yeah - on the one hand you’re right. There is a sense in which he may have been better to not write the letter at all. So that’s why I called him this morning. (Did you Greg….did you call? I bet you didn’t call! I bet you if you did call, he’d love it. Everyone likes you Greg, call him!) I’ll let him say things his own way. However, without violating private conversation, let me put my personal “Tetreau-touch” to why I think…..President Olson does what he does here:
1. Remember these are my words - as I listen to Matt, it seems like we have an expansion of the mission there in Dunbar. Have you been to Dunbar? Other than Northland people, do you know how many people live in Dunbar? 2 - One guy named Guss and his twin brother Russ -they are these bearded snow plow drivers paid by the county. That’s it. Do know how many times Guss and Russ have been witnessed to by the Northland Ministry People Group? So that being the case, Matt and company are wanting to expand the net beyond the twins. Well…when you do that, you have to think broader than Dunbar. Who do we reach and how do we do that without violating God’s Word? The expansion is really all connected to the mission of building into leaders God honoring character and effective ministry skills. So every now and again, institutions that care about how they’re doing things - they bring in new tools, they expand the list of partners with new leaders. It’s not “un-natural” here. This is normal. However this time, Matt and company have reached over and expanded a portion of their partnership to a circle that is a little diffent than some are used to. So does that mean Matt, Dr. O, Doug, etc….these guys have forsaken the Scriptures and it’s teaching conserning responsible koinonia, ministry and discipleship? I think not. All that to say this is what it looks like to me - He’s made it clear they’re not changing “who” they are. They’re not even changing “what” they do. They’re simply making alterations in route to accomplish a better Biblical path to what they already do well.
2. The reason (my guess) Matt explains all of this publically is probably for his friends - i.e. those that assume the best of Matt, but may have a question or two. Perhaps the Northland family of current and former graduates, students, etc…..had a question or two and Matt saw this as an opportunity to simply communicate the “why’s” or the “what’s” of these decisions. Writting an open letter on a forum or two is a quick way to get the word out. Look even if Matt had not invited a brother from the MacArthur world and another from the SBC world, he still would need to communicate all that he did because of the approach to the discipline issue (which is like a breath of fresh Canadian air to the partched and dying of those stuck in the desert sun without water - thank you very much!) When you lead through even an expansion of “mission” you communicate before, during and after. Nothing senister here - as a matter of fact communication is an act of consideration.
3. It’s not inconsistent to say both (1) Here’s an expansion on our mission and (2) Wow…we were surprised by some of the response to this so we will review with you publically some of what our thinking was privatly. Any leader that has lead for any length of time has had to do this……It is responsible. You simply cannot know everything that will happen ahead of time - Matt works for God….He is not God.
4. Any time you introduce change of any level, it often shakes up people. Oh brother, do I know this one. So, you continue to lead. You try to help friends that might be unsettled. You encourage people to listen primarily to what you are saying, instead of what others are saying, you are saying….which is sort of what I’m doing Greg, so let me stop and just challenge you and other other “brethreim” here and encourage you guys to ask Matt yourself!
You really ought to call Him. He’s a nice guy - I’m sure he’d love to talk to you. Besides you’re just in the state next door. You could go see him - I know for a fact the Wisconsin schools love the Minnesota pastors.
Straight Ahead!
My best to Sid!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Joel Tetreau] Other than Northland people, do you know how many people live in Dunbar? 2 - One guy named Guss and his twin brother Russ -they are these bearded snow plow drivers paid by the county. That’s it…You really ought to call Him. He’s a nice guyCompletely agree on both counts, especially the latter. (granted, it is a small campus, but he takes the time to memorize every student’s name. I don’t think he once asked me my name, and when I was there we had talked a number of times. Talk about a nice guy.)
My own take on the letter I’ve already expressed on my blog, but in my opinion this is a case of bad politicking. Not immoral. Not dishonest. Just typical of Northland’s “aw shucks” approach to any time they happen to get flack. But it was politicking or there would have been no letter in the first place. Leaders write public letters for specific reasons and for a specific hoped-for effect. Whether or not they got the effect they want depends on how well they “played politics.” And most commentators or going to play politics in how they spin the letter. On the one hand, all the critics will spin it as deviant and sinister. On the other hand, Matt’s friends spin the letter as a stroke of genius and the negative effect as martyrdom for good leadership.
Matt is nice, I agree. And I’m not willing to assign a bad motive because I have gotten to know him personally and respect him. But, I’d be dishonest if I didn’t think that the letter was not helpful and does give fodder to anyone who wants to see a conspiracy theory. NIU will never be able to placate its harshest critics in hyper-separatism, but they could at least garner the respect of both friend and foe for a direct style of communication.
My good friend Joel has said that this is fearless leadership, but I don’t see it that way. Fearless leadership states things as they are and doesn’t bother to preempt criticism with statements of month-long fasts, lots of prayer, and “we’re not playing politics” rhetoric. As one has already pointed out, Billy Graham did the same thing. Are we supposed to give pause to all criticism of Graham because he prayed about it? I don’t even practice that kind of leadership style with the people in my church.
Normal readers of that letter see
1. An admission or announcement of Change
2. An attempt to say that there is no change
3. Defensive posturing with the prayer claims, etc.
4. An an ‘Aw, shucks! I didn’t realize this would be such a big deal, guys!’ nice guy shrug.
That’s my take on it. And, personally I think everyone should refrain from disagreeing with me because I have spent a great deal of time in prayer over this and I have peace about it. Plus, you should also hesitate to refute me when because I refuse to play politics. I’m just trying to serve God and stay out of it all. That’s why I posted.
[Todd Wood] Does anyone know what Bruce Ware will be specifically teaching? What is the specialty subject?He will be team teaching a course with Andy Naselli on “Models of Sanctification.” The schedule is accessible at http://ni.edu/schools/graduate-school/course-schedule/dmin-course-sched… here .
(That’s a joke.)
@Joel,
I haven’t called him, and I don’t plan to. I know he’s nice- I met him back in Concord, NH when I lived in Maine. He hasn’t offended me personally, so there’s nothing we need to resolve that way. I haven’t felt the need to contact him any more than I felt the need to call John Piper when he brought in Rick Warren or Voice or Albert Mohler when he signed the Manhattan Declaration or Ron Hamilton when he went to Pastor’s School. These are public matters being handled in public fashion, and Matt Olson, nice as he may be, made a statement and chose words. Those words are now being evaluated. Frankly, if he or other Northland administrators are reading this, I believe it is a valuable service being provided to them, should they take advantage of it, because they have the opportunity to further consider how their public statement is being evaluated by others, most of whom will not call, either.
I might feel differently about calling if I had students there from my church, or children enrolled there, or if I was a graduate. As it stands, I will continue to watch and evaluate and take it into account as I have opportunity to recommend such institutions. Northland is one of many options, and circumstances like this affect how people prioritize their options.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
My family Baptist heritage in the late 19th century had a good dose of Finney. The doctrine of sanctification is in complete disarray in the I-15 Corridor.
Looking over the NIU DMin requirements, I am interested. One of these years in the future, when my kids are out of the house, I would like to write a 150 page paper related to God and Gospel issues here in my area.
NIU needs to utilize Bruce for a class on the Trinity. The Trinity is the loving, holy Center of glory.
et
Jay,Greg,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I am not saying that the meeting was spur-of-the-moment-incidental (which is what “cookies and tea” sounds like to me when you used the phrase). I am not criticizing the fact they saw the need for the meeting. I clearly understand why they thought that meeting was a good idea.
I’m not feeling well and wasn’t horribly clear in that post; so I apologize for that. My point there - and I should have made this clearer - is that I’m surprised that so many would seem to think that this meeting between Olson, Mac, Holland, and Johnson just happened entirely out of the blue. Maybe that’s naivete at work on my side; I personally think we *should* cooperate on some level with them…esp. since most IFB institutions are already using Mac and TMS books as Seminary and College texts. (Well, I don’t know that about NIU, but I DO know that is true for BJU).
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there seems to be this idea that we need to avoid the MacArthur orbit at all costs, and I just don’t see that as either practical or desirable. So this idea that NIU and Mac would even have meetings isn’t as horrible as some want to make it out to be.
What I didn’t mention, and I think you later did, is what is the benefit for making NIU’s making this decision? Did NIU just decide that perhaps this is an opportunity to reach out for more students? Did they decide they should try to broker an actual “peace treaty” between the two uneasy “sides” of the Fundy world? Is Olson just the world’s biggest MacArthur fan ;)? If I had to guess, I’d assume that there is other stuff going on that we aren’t aware of yet - maybe TMS is going to start supplying some teachers for NIU’s Seminary program or something - and that this will make more sense once the dust settles and the last of the pronouncements are made.
What I am having trouble understanding/believing is why they thought that other people in their constituency, who didn’t have any of the benefit of the meeting, would have immediately reached the conclusions held by Olson and co. just because Olson and co. decided to implement the “mission changes” they did. The perception of differences (even if only slight) between Fundamentalists of the variety of Northland and Grace Community go both ways. It is not good leadership to assume people will follow unquestioningly when you yourself had questions that required thinking through.Good point(s). I mentioned before that being willing to take a hard position and defend it is a sign of good leadership, but you’re right in that if Olson et al just expected everyone to assume this was OK, then they were naive - and a quick perusal of SI would have made that clear. So in that regard, Don’s blog post was spot on.
Oh, and Bob Bixby? Stop making so much sense. :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Bob Bixby] I personally affirm the niceness of Matt, but what does that have to do with anything being discussed here. As far as I know, even his harshest critics have not accused him of non-niceness. And, or course, there’s politics going on. Let’s be real. We all do politics and measure and contemplate the effect of our public decisions. The very statement, “I don’t play politics” is playing politics. We all do politics. Perhaps we “play” it in the sense that we are calculating and disingenuous, but most leaders do politics in the sense that they ponder the ramifications of what they are going to say and do. Nothing wrong with that.This is where criticism ought to be made, from all sides. I made some similar points on a different thread. My problem with the letter is just that, with the letter. The changes themselves are of course open to discussion, but the rhetoric of the letter should be alarming to all readers. If I were to identify the single greatest problem in Fundamentalism, it would be the unwillingness of leadership to be honest and open. Rather, manipulative tactics, calculated lying, and deflection are the norm. This letter reeks of “man of God” justification for actions as a forestallment of further criticism. Also, as others have noted, there is certainly much more change going on than Olson wants to admit. Your music director (or whatever his title was) doesn’t part ways with you over no change in your philosophy of music. If he didn’t expect serious criticism, he’s stupid. I think he’s lying, or at least fudging the truth. I don’t mind the content of the changes, but the leadership style seems no better to me than that of the oft-abused “hyper-fundamentalists.” The point is that you don’t have to be KJVO, bash MacArthur, or have bus ministries to engage in rotten leadership. The supposedly sane or main-stream Fundamentalism does the same, just smoother.
My own take on the letter I’ve already expressed on my blog, but in my opinion this is a case of bad politicking. Not immoral. Not dishonest. Just typical of Northland’s “aw shucks” approach to any time they happen to get flack. But it was politicking or there would have been no letter in the first place. Leaders write public letters for specific reasons and for a specific hoped-for effect. Whether or not they got the effect they want depends on how well they “played politics.” And most commentators or going to play politics in how they spin the letter. On the one hand, all the critics will spin it as deviant and sinister. On the other hand, Matt’s friends spin the letter as a stroke of genius and the negative effect as martyrdom for good leadership.
Matt is nice, I agree. And I’m not willing to assign a bad motive because I have gotten to know him personally and respect him. But, I’d be dishonest if I didn’t think that the letter was not helpful and does give fodder to anyone who wants to see a conspiracy theory. NIU will never be able to placate its harshest critics in hyper-separatism, but they could at least garner the respect of both friend and foe for a direct style of communication.
My good friend Joel has said that this is fearless leadership, but I don’t see it that way. Fearless leadership states things as they are and doesn’t bother to preempt criticism with statements of month-long fasts, lots of prayer, and “we’re not playing politics” rhetoric. As one has already pointed out, Billy Graham did the same thing. Are we supposed to give pause to all criticism of Graham because he prayed about it? I don’t even practice that kind of leadership style with the people in my church.
Normal readers of that letter see
1. An admission or announcement of Change
2. An attempt to say that there is no change
3. Defensive posturing with the prayer claims, etc.
4. An an ‘Aw, shucks! I didn’t realize this would be such a big deal, guys!’ nice guy shrug.
That’s my take on it. And, personally I think everyone should refrain from disagreeing with me because I have spent a great deal of time in prayer over this and I have peace about it. Plus, you should also hesitate to refute me when because I refuse to play politics. I’m just trying to serve God and stay out of it all. That’s why I posted.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I respect my good friend Bob. I don’t think he’s right on this one point…..He needs to pray a bit longer! :)
I stick with my original view. Matt demonstrates leadership in both the direction he plows (notice the pun “plow,” very nice…opps….I said “nice”) and in the way he responds to those for whom decisions have “hurt.” The reason I differ with Bob here is that one can be both assertive in leadership while at the same time seasoned with a touch of sensitivity and care for others, hence Matt takes the time to communicate to some who might be confused or otherwise hurt. You can do this. I’m not saying Bob never does that, but I would say Matt does that well here.
You can lead and at the same time reach out to those in your sphere who might not understand a decision or two. Yes, this is a different approach than some of us would take. Matt’s older than many of us, and perhaps their is a wisdom lesson we could learn from Matt in this episode. I’m taking notes as I watch Matt deal with this. There are some good lessons for all of us who are priviledged with the task of ministry leadership.
BTW - some of you seem to be saying you think Matt and Northland has been two-faced on this issue. I think Greg made the point earlier that he was suspecious because several years ago a decision was made to distance themselves from Rick. Now they’ve come to a different conclusion. Can a ministry not change it’s view on a leader or a ministry without their motives being questioned? It’s almost like you’re saying these guys are trying to be one thing with one group and another thing with another group. There is no way on this planet that you guys can make that judgment call - No way. I just don’t see that with Northland at all. Perhaps Matt is doing more “explaining” than some of you would…..but I really don’t think this demonstrates something of a disingenuine approach to explain publically, decisions made in private by the leadership on the inside. Also, I’m not ready to call into question Matt’s linking the season of prayer and fasting with all of this. Furthermore, Matt isn’t linking his season of prayer and fasting with issues that were as clearly anti-Scripture as Billy Graham’s ecuminical evangelism was. I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. It’s OK to differ with the decision or even to say your take of Scripture would lead you to make different decisions. Prayer is a legitimate part of decision-making both as individuals and ministries. I’m actually including this component to “prayer” in my work on “Decision-Making Process of the NT church.” Yes Northland is not a church, it is a ministry that reaches out to churches. Matt’s bringing this out just explains the attitude that he and the leadership of Northland had when they were making these decisions.
Hey, it’s OK some of you are bothered here (I think someone used the word “alarmed”). I get it - while I am not “alarmed” you’ve made your points well at to why you are alarmed. I’m sure Matt understands.
I leave you guys with two final thoughts - (1) I would hope that it would take much more than a disagreement with these few issues to view Northland as suspect here. It’s fine to disagree with Matt. You guys have the right to do that. He would probably disagree with many of the decisions you’ve made in your ministry - but we’ll never know because God hasn’t given any of us the audience Matt’s been given - which I’m grateful for. (2) This is a far better approach to disagreement than we’ve had from others (“too bad - get over it!”). I would much rather have a leader who explains what’s happened than a leader to say, “I’ll not answer your questions.”
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I’ve seen lots of “politics” at its worst and little “politics” that even attempt to be biblical. Matt and the Norhtland staff have tried. They’ve not had many good examples to follow, have they!?
Could Matt and the Northland staff have communicated better beforehand? Again, maybe. But they weren’t obliged to seek permission. If their constituents, former students, etc. don’t initiate personal conversation it leaves everyone shooting in the dark (and guess who gets hurt the most?).
Is this the first step toward the “dark side” (ha)? Doesn’t have to be—but the fighting fundamentalists HAVE driven away individuals and institutions over non-essential issues. The “bullies” tolerate very little noncomformity. And they usually exert a pressure that is “politics” at its worst. No wonder so few stay around to endure the mudslinging.
Norhtland, in my estimation, has always exemplified a kind and humble fundamentalism. They are teachable. Doesn’t have anything to do with Matt being a “nice guy” or not. It’s just their track record.
Finally, who has mentioned prayer? Who has prayed for Matt (and the staff) on a daily basis concerning this issue?
Well, this is Post # 73, I think. We’re probably way past “done”.
gdwightlarson "You can be my brother without being my twin."
Here is what I am smelling.
I am smelling at how troublesome it can be for fundamentalist leaders to try to get together with those outside their respective camps.
It seems, there are men at Northland who have been exploring and perhaps some of them newly discovering that they might not be too far apart from brothers outside of their ministry circles, like Rick Holland, etc. - men who hunger for scriptural exposition, appreciate baptist heritage (Spurgeon, etc.), yet operate within a dispensational framework, and who actually do strive for a tone of humility before the Saviour.
Sometimes, we are shocked that others are not discovering the same things that we are discovering, or at least shocked that they are not at least allowing us to discover.
I am also smelling a “standing without apology” but also a yearning to grow in grace and knowledge.
We are all on different paths. I think of Paul rebuking Peter for his dissimulation. But if Paul were here, I don’t know if he would be rebuking Matt Olson for an aggressive pride (my way or the highway) man of God syndrome. But I do offer up my prayers for the men of Northland tonight. Let them be free from the fear of man, specifically the fear of their constituency. And let them grow in one fear alone. The fear of the Lord.
And this is a process … often messy.
I have read many empty diatribes through the years and experienced some really stupid and nonsensical personal attacks. I would rate yours as among the best. Since I do not know you and have never named or addressed you on SI or in any other media, I can only guess that such an attack was initiated by something I said stepping on your toes.
First, before attacking someone have some sense of who they are and what they believe.
Dan Burrell stated:
Using your reasoning, churches and colleges would still be segregated (hey, it was PREACHED) in much of America. I wish people like you would have squalled with the same level of vehemence over “institutions” which gladly propagated racism from our shores to the missionfields.Did you not read what my post said?
There are of course good changes that can be a desire to conform to a first premise, clear Biblical principle. This is seen in BJU changing its racial policy. Such clear scriptural principle is not in play here.I was saved while serving in the US NAVY. I have no so called Fundamentalist roots you alluded to. I was stationed in Virginia in 1958. I was brought up in So. Ca. I was shocked by the Jim Crow laws. I have a along story about a black buddy and I that went on liberty together.
I pastored here in So. CA. starting in 1977. As our church grew I brought on a black Associate Pastor. We also had a black Deacon. We had a very multi ethnic church with Asian, Middle Eastern, Hispanic, and Black members and attenders. We had a black and white mixed family. Race and ethnic issues were subservient to our unity in Christ and attendance based on our Bible teaching and evangelism. People in the area looking for Expository teaching with doctrinal emphasis often chose our assembly of believers. I have never supported BJU. I still do not recommend them or several other schools. So I consistently have spoken against racial segregation since becoming a Christian and made an actual difference in church ministry.
After the NAVY I attended Biola College (University) from 1962 to 1966 I became a Fundamentalist just before and during attendance at Central Baptist Seminary, Minneapolis, when Doc Clearwaters was there. I graduated from there then also from NW Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, then also Fuller Seminary. Also, from John Marshall Law School. I have done additional study in history at the Univ. of Washington and USC. I also served on the Faculty of Talbot Sem. of Biola U.teaching theology and NT for a time. I have repented. I would not do so again. I am probably not a person with Fundamentalist roots just proclaiming traditions as you seem to allude to.
I have Pastored in So. CA for many years. I am familiar with John MacArthur and have had conversations with him. I also very personally knew some of the faculty at Masters Seminary.
However, perhaps you are not fully familiar with the issues involved with the LSG issues of MacArthur. You seem to lump those who had criticized his teaching on the blood of Christ with those are opposed to his brand of the LS Gospel. Many from Talbot, Dallas, Western, Central, and Calvary Seminaries have opposed the LS Gospel Earnest Pickering opposed it and wrote against it. Earl Radmacher has also. As for the Doctrine of “the blood” I have always held that the blood of Christ is that which speaks of His death and the word blood in scripture is used of violent death from the time of Cain and Able. I was also taught this by Dr. Rolland McCune at Central Seminary. This is essentially what MacArthur teaches and is today the mainstream evangelical teaching.
Many who oppose the Hyper Lordship MacArthur gospel do so for very definite Biblical reasons. I am also quite sure that I know exactly what MacArthur believes. I have also had interaction with Masters Seminary graduates on this subject and with some people in churches in this area and in the Seattle area where church splits occurred over the militancy of Reformed soteriology, including the LS gospel, as pushed by Masters graduates. I was involved in the IFCA for a time. John MacArthur is still a member. However, in response to John’s 1988 book the IFCA appointed a committee which brought in a statement titled The Nature of Saving faith. It was a rebuke of the MacArthur position and agreed to by 93% of the members. The statement is available at the IFCA website and lists the committee members. They were all seminary professors but one, including Robert Thomas of Masters. We had Robert Thomas give a five part lectureship in our church some years ago. It was on Bible translations.
There has also been some distress caused by those trained in the Masters College counseling program, and the Seminary, as they have spoken of mental illness as a myth(see the book Biblical Counseling edited by MacArthur pages 374-376). Pastors of conservative Evangelical churches, have many concerns about the graduates of Masters.
Those who oppose the MacArthur Hyper LS Gospel are not necessarily of some right wing or KJVO Fundamentalists as you appear to have assumed as part of your diatribe. You attempt to classify me with some I have very little in common with.
You, Dan Burrell, further said:
You have no problem making music a standard for separation when there is no sound hermeneutic that demands it as practically practiced by your types. You sniff at the evangelistic pragmatism of Hyles-Schaap (as you well should) and yet swallow the camels of your hyper-fundamentalist roots. And then when someone calls you on it, you cop an attitude of theological superiority while denying others the opportunity to explore, question, converse, debate and interact with others who might see things slightly differently.How do you know I have no problem making music an issue for separation? As far as I can recall I have never posted on SI or elsewhere about music. Then you talk of sniffing at Hyles-Schaap but then swallow the camels of my Hyper Fundamentalist roots? Where are those roots? The US Navy? That statement is so without fact or reason that it is just nothing but an inappropriate attack upon another. Then you talk of avoiding discussion. I have discussed on SI since almost its inception. I am one of the few who have taught at a graduate level and still post on here. I may also be the oldest poster. How about you?
I think the bottom line here is that you made a post that is nothing but a personal attack on another poster. The attack was compounded by the fact of its total ignorance of the one you were attacking. It is further compounded by the fact that I have never mentioned your name or posted about you in ant post of mine.
Discussion