FBFI: Questions for Matt Olson and Northland International University

Don’t you love just minding your own business! The older I get - and I’m not really old yet - but the older I get I would much rather just sit around agreeing with everyone. I had a great evening! ASU whipped up on NAU for our first home game….and then I see Don’s post. For the record, I hate getting in the middle of these discussions. I used to love getting in the middle of these “chats.” Now at 44, I really don’t like speaking up…….but once in a while you have to say something. Oh brother - Here we go again:

OK - I am not Matt - and he’s a big guy and can answer for himself. Don, this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say Type A’s are “all or nothing.” Either you are a fundamentalist to the degree you are - or you are a new-evangelical - or even worse - a “Charismatic-leaning and/or a Charismatic loving new-evangelical!” To equate CJ’s group with the “C” word (charismatic) is misleading at best. They are not charismatic in the sense of the typical “wacko-theology” of the Charismatic movement that is found “in the main” of the Charismatic Movement (such as represented by what you typically see on TBN). As a matter of fact - CJ’s approach to an active Pneumatology would fit right at home with many of the Type A evangelists and other ministries, I’ve heard over the years from within the main of fundamentalism - i.e. “the Holy Spirit told me to stop my car - I went to the door and led 3 people to Christ.” If I remember correctly we had a whole wing of the Type A fundamentalist movement that believed the Holy Spirit had some kind of an active, dynamic (dare I say “charismatic”) kind of a ministry today by empowering for “Soul Winning” - the term this group would use). We have another Type A fundamentalist “wing” that sees the Holy Spirit come alongside the “deeper-life’d” believer for “victory” through a “fresh oil” kind of anointment for those who “let go and let God!”. Yeah - I don’t like everything CJ and his group does - including his view of a present apostle - my guess is Matt doesn’t either. However, I’d actually take a CJ‘ish kind of a church that honor’s the Bible, protects the gospel and believes in the ongoing power of the Holy Spirit than a Type A fundamentalist church that believes in a performance-based, man-made/ legalistically-leaning false sanctification devoid of any “dynamics” from the Spirit of God. Of course Don, I’m not sure why you Type A guys are upset at CJ’s belief their are ongoing apostles - I’ve meet several Type A’s that act like they are apostles! To be honest, its’ hard to trust you guys here. I get the sense that you FBFI boys don’t like the fact that Matt has expanded his “orb” which is a bit broader than the FBFI (which unfortunately isn’t very hard to do). As a result of this you are “ticked off” by it and so with your best “gnat radar detection equipment” you have Matt and NIU under your microscope. You’re just waiting for them to make the next non-fundamentalist move so you can blow your trumpets and point your fingers. On behalf of at least myself and the two other people that view this like I do, what would be far better use of your time is for you FBFI guys to police your own leaders and the ecclesiastical sphere of their ministry! So maybe if I was Matt, I’d agree to answer your question right after various FBFI leaders explain why they hang out with that Baptist cult of Hammond, Indiana. Oh - and for the record - I’d take a CJ Church over a Hyles Church in a New York Second!

But that’s just me. I’m sure Matt will speak for himself……or maybe he won’t.

Straight Ahead!

jt

An SGM or PCA church would stand head and shoulders above the cultic FBCHammond and typical Type A churches. Its been over 5 years now since Ron Hamilton, Frank Garlock, and Jim Binney began cooperating with First Baptist Church of Hammond. When it all started everyone was quick to say that we needed to give things time—they were going to change FBCH for the better. Maybe I am just missing it, but did P&D run any articles decrying these good historic fundies on their associations with apostates? I could be wrong but I have searched the site and found nothing yet.

What about Chuck Phelps? Any good articles discussing his hatchet job on the Tina Anderson situation? Any public rebuke of the obvious problems there? I have searched the blog for that topic and only come up with articles that Chuck has written. It appears that P&D is dropping the ball in more areas than just one.

Oh well, nothing new here. Let’s strain at gnats and continue to be a laughingstock to thinking people.

I love Joel’s thoughts—straight ahead buddy!

Matthew Richards

I wouldn’t consider myself a “Type A” IFB, but I have questions about Northland. I know others of the same stripe who do as well, but have not always voiced them. I won’t put them all out there now, but don’t assume only FBFI folks are concerned about where Northland is headed.

[Joel Tetreau]

However, I’d actually take a CJ‘ish kind of a church that honor’s the Bible, protects the Gospel and believes in the ongoing power of the Holy Spirit than a Type A fundamentalist church that believes in a legalistic, non-Holy Spirit, man-made legalistically-leaning false sanctification devoid of any “dynamics” from the Spirit of God.

I’ve not been to Don’s church. My hope and prayer is that it is not as you describe and/or imply here.

[Joel Tetreau]

you Type A guys

you guys here

you FBFI boys don’t like the fact that Matt has expanded his “orb” which is a bit broader than the FBFI (which unfortunately isn’t very hard to do).

…you FBF guys to police your own leaders and the ecclesiastical sphere of their ministry! So maybe if I was Matt, I’d agree to answer your question right after various FBFI leaders explain why they hang out with that Baptist cult of Hammond, Indiana.

I’ll admit I am likely a bit newer to Fundamentalism than most people on here. I can honestly say I don’t personally know who “you guys” and “you boys” are, but you make them seem like scary people to be avoided. Don does not strike me as such, but I do not know him personally. Perhaps you do.

It seems that your response to Don’s article crossed over to the personal. Tell me if I am sticking my nose in where it does not belong. I read his article, and it came across as fair and not full of debate fallacies. If there were ad hominem attacks, or appeals to emotion, or others, I missed them, and will go back and re-read. The initial response I have seen to Don is not as fair. No doubt you two are mature Christians, and can figure out repentance and forgiveness where necessary.

I applaud you for being blunt, no doubt how you feel on this topic and article. It is healthy to read passionate beliefs on various sides of issues. I also enjoyed your defense of SGM’s positions, how they might be applied, it was edifying to me. I learned something, which is good. And then in the midst of all the teaching are the attacks, which again, leads me to think maybe there is something personal beneath the surface that I do not know of, have no need to know of, and would best stay out of. As I do not know Don, I do not know you, either, and can only go by what I read, a limited medium at best. Could be that you two are long-time friends and have had this discussion for years, for all I know.

In essence, maybe it’s just me; the positions and decisions seem like they can be debated without getting personal, and I thought Don succeeded in doing that, compared to some others who will tend to be more vitriolic toward NIU.

If Don is actively linked to the church in Hammond, that would be disappointing. If he is not, I would prayerfully considering telling him you are sorry for the potential mis-characterization. Like Matt, Don is a big boy and can speak for himself, so I’ll stop now.

Personally, with a teen considering colleges, he and I are interested to follow NIU’s take on this, see what both sides say about these and other issues, and then we’ll take time to “think well”, as my son puts it. People can and should read all sides and be discerning, if they will simply take the time and effort to do so, IMHO.

CS

1 Cor. 1:18

There are several pitfalls to avoid in our relationships with our own or near neighbors:

1. being preoccupied which fundamentalist might have a hair out of place
2. addressing real problems in a such a sloppy way that the actual problem is lost in the bluster
3. letting real problems that are truly of concern to fundamentalists in general go unaddressed

I’m sure several others could be listed. They’re all pitfalls and one is not much better than another.

An irony worthy of note: folks often complain that the FBFI fundamentalists always defend themselves by pointing out that the evangelicals are worse. But here we’ve got some folks defending NIU by pointing out how bad Hammond is. Hmmm. See #2 pitfall in the list above.

If I follow the logic of this article then Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and the III were compromising with forms of pentecostalism for speaking for Dr. O Talmage Spence and having Spence speak at BJU.

This type of stuff is just getting old for too many of us.

[Pastor Joe Roof]

If I follow the logic of this article then Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and the III were compromising with forms of pentecostalism for speaking for Dr. O Talmage Spence and having Spence speak at BJU.

This type of stuff is just getting old for too many of us.

Non-sequitur

Are we to look for a modified statement of faith from Northland International University that removes the doctrine of separation from the Charismatic Movement?
Are we to expect any change in the teaching in the classrooms of NIU concerning the Charismatic movement and separation from it? Will cooperation with the Charismatic movement be encouraged or at least tolerated by the administration and faculty of NIU?
In the event that no change is to be made to the NIU statements of faith and policy, or in the classroom instruction, are we to look for the dismissal of the current NIU staffer when he joins the Charismatic Grace Bible Church of Philadelphia?

I would also ask if “word from the Lord” type language is going to be stricken from the Fundamentalist Lexicon. In my experience, various claims of special revelation abound from IFB pulpits, such as “God told me”, the language of the altar call (I can feel that someone in this room needs the Lord”… duh) and expecting church members to ask permission about personal decisions, claiming that they have God-given special knowledge about the lives and futures of their congregants, especially about ‘callings’ to the ministry (this is usually used in conjunction with “God told me”).

At least the SG folks seem to be honest about their beliefs. I’m much more suspicious of those who shoot arrows from behind a doctrinal standard that they themselves do not uphold.

I believe that the doctrinal inconsistencies tolerated because of IFB cronyism has given rise and root to many erroneous views. Let’s take responsibility for how we may have contributed to this doctrinal confusion first. The way I see it, modern Fundies greased the plank for folks like SGers to slide on down. In that sense, why shouldn’t Mr. Olson hold hands with them?

Disclaimer- having read Bro. Johnson’s blog and posts on SI, I want to clarify that this post is not aimed at him.

A good deal of irrelevant points are being made this morning. The issue is pretty simple:

SGM and Grace Bible Church are quite open about their Charismatic self-designation.

Northland’s ​published​ documents explicitly call for separation from Charismatics and the Charismatic movement.

Hence my questions.

[Don Johnson]

A good deal of irrelevant points are being made this morning. The issue is pretty simple:

SGM and Grace Bible Church are quite open about their Charismatic self-designation.

Northland’s ​published​ documents explicitly call for separation from Charismatics and the Charismatic movement.

Hence my questions.

Valid questions

[Don Johnson]

A good deal of irrelevant points are being made this morning. The issue is pretty simple:

SGM and Grace Bible Church are quite open about their Charismatic self-designation.

Northland’s ​published​ documents explicitly call for separation from Charismatics and the Charismatic movement.

Hence my questions.

Hence my post- this is nothing new. Fundamentalism doesn’t shy away from not doing as they say (or publish) that they do. Many an IFB church and institution claim to be cessationist while still practicing ‘word from the Lord’ type pronouncements. I guess the answer is “Be that as it may…”

Perhaps calling out the more obvious doctrinal wanderings of IFBdom ‘leadership’, such as Mr. Olson’s, will result in some trickle down?

1) I would not join the SG movement and do not commend the church for doing so.

2) Nowhere (correct me if I am wrong) do we see that Olson was aware of the church’s relationship with SG — much less that he was speaking to that point when he commended them.

3) I do not appreciate the tone of the article. It reads like a prosecutor building a case against a defendant. It also seems, quite frankly, to be blowing this situation completely out of proportion.

4) I think the reason many of us are weary of this type of approach is seen in the comments above. Fundamentalists have too often been quick to go to such great lengths to pick at a problem that requires a long list of logical connections to explain, while at the same time seeming unwilling to address their own serious shortcomings through thoughtful self-examination. When errors are discovered, change is often implemented in terms of a PR strategy — not in terms of humble repentance and renewal.

5) The only possible reason I see for this situation to be remotely relevant is that “a(n) NIU staffer will continue to be on the staff of Northland while moving to Philadelphia and becoming part of this church.” This sounds quite unusual, so I don’t know what this means or what level of responsibility this person has at either institution. Until we know that, the statement is rather meaningless.

6) I appreciate and applaud NIU’s new openness to Biblicist people who are slightly outside of the traditional IFB movement. I believe it is part of a healthy trend and I urge its continuance.

One common root that much of Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism/Chasimaticism share is revivalism. Their theologies differ on important points, but I think there are some theological and ecclesio-cultural commonalities between them. (Various pockets of Evangelicalism share this root, too.)

Wayne Grudem argues that some charismatics and non-charismatics share common pneumatical experiences but label and understand them differently (e.g., “God spoke to me” type situations). I don’t endorse Grudem’s pneumatology, but I think he may be right at least in some respects about charismatics and non-charismatics “experiencing” the same things. The scripturalness of those experiences is another matter.

Interestingly, I’ve heard anecdotal reports that in the early days of BJU, the student body was populated with a notable percentage of Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Weslyans, Baptists, and others; and that the no-tongue speaking rule was intended to prevent flash-points between them. Somewhere along the line, the University became more exclusionary toward Pentecostals. But along the way, there were exceptions made for people and groups like O Talmage Spence.

I know all of this is an aside, but I couldn’t help but think of these larger picture connections.