Matt Olson: You have probably heard the expression, “hurt people, hurt people.”

I mean THEY TOOK THE ORGAN OUT OF CHAPEL

(from a yellow press blog!)

With an interview with an anonymous former music professor.

This is serious serious compromise! NOT!

Jim,

What are you talking about? Your link goes to a wiki page.

I’m not going to link to the NIU criticism site because I don’t want to give the man a platform

I linked to the yellow press wiki because that’s how I regard it.

I would think that somewhere in that list of responses to attack would be a point about taking time to search one’s heart for ways in which one has wronged the attacker and making those wrongs right.

Extremely predictable article. The devil is really after the fundies. None of these “attacks” are warranted. These are just misguided people with an axe to grind that want to destroy all IFB menagawd. Here is another idea. When questioned during said “attack” make sure as a minister you tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

Matthew

I may have misunderstood this article. I know nothing of NIU and there recent changes. I was only hearing in the context of an “attack” like the Tina Anderson issue. I read it in light of that since that hit so close to home with me. Some deacons at Colonial Hills Baptist repeatedly referred to that as an “attack against Fundamentalism”. Sorry if my interpretation caused any confusion.

I read the article, at Lou Martuneac’s blog, (and if it is an SI policy and not just Jim Peet’s decision not to permit a link to the article, forgive me and remove it but I was not clear) and I didn’t find it filled with Satanic attacks but I did find it to be someone who used to work there who does not believe it is headed in the right direction and communicating his concerns. Ugliness was not the substance of the objections though not being ugly does not mean someone is right but the hyperbole of referring it to Satanic attacks or even just attacks is rather high drama.

I agree that anonymity weakens the impact of the interview but I do understand, at times, the need to protect one’s identity, even in the world of Christians. That aside I read with some interest, the concerns. And I do believe that there is a segment of people within traditional fundamentalism which is accepting of this ministry profile, that is the one being embraced by NIU, so NIU is not alone, that is for certain.

This obsession with music in ministry, it simply escapes me. It seems for some time it has become the “in thing” to attract people. I simply do not get it which is why I do happily attend a church which understands the distinction between music for sacred use and music for personal entertainment.

My ultimate question is why are these bad concerns? Why are they considered attacks? They seem like they are quite part and parcel of the kinds of concerns changing religious institutions have. Not necessarily these specific ones but ones much like these.

[Jim]

With an interview with an anonymous former music professor.

Well it might of said “anonymous” but it was far from that. The interviewee gave away his education background and it clearly reveals that Dana Everson is the one behind the “yellow press” blog.

A helpful link

Garlock teaches plainly that music is not a-moral. Its character is moral. What’s the difference? A knife is a-moral. It’s neither good, nor bad. Depending on who’s holding that knife, it can do things that are either good or evil. It can accomplish good things by freeing the bonds of a captive, or slicing a tomato for a sandwich. But - in the hands of a fiend - a knife can also murder the innocent. It’s a tool. In Frank Garlock’s world, however, music is NOT just a tool. Music is a powerful entity that - in itself - is either holy or evil. He teaches that music is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There’s no middle ground. He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That’s Frank’s Theorem. (Note: for fun, try Frank’s Theorem with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here’s one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank’s Theorum at home: (a) Rudolph is a reindeer, and (b) Rudolph has a red nose. Therefore, (c) all reindeers have red noses! Donner and Prancer might disagree, but I digress.) Frank’s Theorem gives birth to Frank’s Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and “acceptable to the Lord” and (b) the style which is immoral and “unacceptable to the Lord.” It’s a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: “Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” For those who don’t agree with what he’s proven, he’s obviously adopted the next verse in context: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” So the battle’s on; we’ll either accept what Garlock’s “proven” or be “reproved.” With no middle ground, his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of “worldliness.” He will also define this. To avoid being reproved by Frank Garlock, we’ll have to: 1) agree with his premise about the morality of music, 2) accept his definition of “worldliness,” and finally we’ll 3) penitently adopt the styles of music he authorizes Agreeing with any of these three is a tall order, and that is putting it kindly. Teachers who openly focus such bizarre views on topics other than Christian music would be be considered cultic. (Col. 2:23).

The Q & A revealed little more than speculation and accusations. I am not sure why I would expect less. For some, the ends justifies the means.

Remember, we can’t control what people say about us or what they do to us, but we can control how we respond. The best way to expend our energy is not by fighting back but by praying for our antagonists and then looking for ways God is working. Even though an attacker may be carnally motivated, dishonest, and hurtful, God is still sovereign over all and is working in our lives and all around us. Don’t miss that!

There’s a saying that I heard somewhere and that is also reproduced in the TMS book on pastoring -

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 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.”

I don’t know anything about whether the accusations that are circulated against Olson and others are true; I’d tend to believe otherwise. That being said, the little poem that I cited above has kept me in good stead since 2000, when I first read it. There are a lot of times - especially in ministry - where the only really right response to unjust or ignorant or malicious (or ​whatever) rumors and slander is to keep the example of Christ in mind (Hebrews 13:12-18). I doubt that is news to anyone on this site, but I am glad to see that Olson seems to be reacting to whatever the issues are in the right way. This may or may not have anything to do with Martuneac’s blog (I didn’t take it as such originally), but Olson’s advice is still good advice either way.

We have work from the Master that needs to be done. Let’s concentrate on that.

Why do Christians waste their time bickering on preferences. Doctrine is one thing, but this? If Lou doesn’t like Broadway shows, then he doesn’t need to watch them. If Lou doesn’t like choreographed movements, then don’t watch any of the 1950s movies. If Lou doesn’t like Northland, he doesn’t have to have anything to do with the place. But why blog about it? Proverbs 29:11 is a help when thinking about blogging or any other form of communication.

Brian,

Your post begs the question, if you don’t like Lou blogging about it then why are you commenting about it? You seem to want Lou M. to deal with his objections by being silent and not blogging but you happily give yourself the license to publicly comment about it at a blog???

The fact is, whether one agrees with something or not, the internet is a very public forum which provides opportunity to reach many people with concerns. And if Lou M. is a fundamentalist it seems quite reasonable he would blog about fundamentalist concerns.

To me, I doubt this series of interviews is going to derail any changes or the future outcomes of those changes. But it is important to hear all voices. What I do see absent in the interviewee’s tone is one of a personalized agenda, that is, it is not personal but a far larger concern, for the college and a historical view of certain things stemming from convictions and principle that the school maintained for along time. This person invested their life, as did others, so they came to expect, rather reasonably so, a certain continuity though changes were going to be made.

I like how Lou tried to build up to the mystery guest similar to how Romney did with Ryan. Maybe Lou should have made a mobile app letting everyone know.

Who is this mystery man who will rat out the speculation and motives we know are corrupt? Tune in for Part 4. Dun dun dun.

As gadietrich already said, there was no doubt who he was.

Good for Everson for not falling for the obvious baited questions asked to tear at NIU.

Bad for Everson for failing to understand the difference between gospel centered and gospel only.