FBFI: Questions for Matt Olson and Northland International University

I think the melodrama by those protesting the inquiry regarding inconsistency at NIU and Matt Olson with respect to their historic and still present policy concerning charismatic doctrine, practice and association is simply an embarrassment to claims, stated and assumed, of integrity in dealing with the matter.

What is somewhat stunning is that the very tactics of the sycophants and lapdogs of Hyles and other discredit Fundie leaders as well as the leaders themselves, are being used to attempt to simply silence the stated objections of Olson. As some Fundamentalists rise to a better level of good thinking, we are watching another group sink and imitate the very thing they claim to eschew in Fundamentalists of days gone by and of recent isolated incidents.

What part of…

Come the beginning of September Greg Dietrich and his wife will be relocating to Philadelphia to attend Grace and work remotely for us at Northland.

…is still not connecting with those who wish to pass this off simply as “commending” or “complimenting” a ministry. It is beyond that and most of that most know it is not merely complimenting.

It is a partnership, limited or otherwise but a partnership with a charismatic church buy NIU at the approval of Matt Olson. End of story.

If you cannot bring yourself to say that, fine, but that how it is.

The question then is, why is there a contradiction in policy vs practice? Don Johnson clearly documented the policy and demonstrated in this case the the practice of this partnership is contrary.

But wait…let’s instead, question the motives of those raising questions. This is Jack Hyles/Schaap FBHC Hyles/Anderson all over again except with different story lines but still ending outside of fundamentalism, only in a different place.

If Matt Olson and NIU wants to be something else, more power to them but be honest.

As to unilateral changes, certainly no one can unilaterally make changes because rarely is that how it is done in any organization other than very critical and lifesaving restructuring, even with the most dynamic leadership. It is done incrementally.

So though this is a singular event it is pivotal. The pivot is not toward fundamentalism but away from it. SGM is not fundamentalist.

So at some point, Matt Olson will be answering these concerns. You can afford to pretend he only gave a compliment but he won’t be able to because the questions will not go away.

Brother Alex,

I think, frankly, that you’re creating some of the drama here. Comparing this in any way, shape, form or fashion to the Hyles/Schaap situation is absurd beyond any reasonable limit. There is no need to make such a ridiculous comparison. In fact, even making it softens the impact of the incredibly serious problems at Hammond, which go infinitely beyond intricate theological differences and the wording of a doctrinal statement in a catalog.

Good grief!!! Would you come up with something better than that!!! This is what I was talking about in post no. 41.

FYI – I am not a lapdog of Olson. I have never even met the man or heard him preach.

Let me begin by saying I appreciate much about and have benefited greatly from C. J. Mahaney and SGM. He is probably the best preacher I have ever heard and I highly recommend his book Living the Cross-Centered Life (in fact our small group just finished studying it). I love SGM music, too.

HSAT, I think Don raises at least one legitimate question. I have no problem with Olson commending an SGM church, but the issue of a Northland employee a member of an SGM church would raise my eyebrow given Northland’s doctrinal statement (if that is indeed the situation).

What would we think about an NIU employee joining Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian?

I have no personal problem with these ministries as I believe overall they are advancing the cause of Christ but it is a matter of consistency with the institutional doctrinal statement.

At the very least further explanation is needed.

Wow…I agree with Don and Alex? I am stunned. :)

Thanks for that Greg.

I’m disappointed to see so many emoting so much in the thread. If there is anything at all worth talking about here (and “if” is the right word) it’s what Don’s post asserts, and how he makes his case and some larger questions like what sort of relationship should historically cessationist (passionately cessationist) institutions have with organizations like SGM.

(But I guess talking about silly things like ideas and principles is just too boring when you hiss and spit about people.)

I seem to be increasingly alone in believing this, but attacks on Don’s motives or Matt’s motives or anybody else’s motives do not belong here. You all agreed to the Comment Policy. Some of you need to review it.

Some have reacted here without apparently even reading Don’s piece. It’s about more than MO saying nice things about some SGM guys. If I were Don, I’d have skipped that part entirely just to increase the chances that the weightier questions would not get lost in the inevitable furor.

The situation calls for reining in tempers and making measured statements (if any at all).

Chances are good the thread will close before much longer.

Edit… OK, that sounded worse than I intended. There are some pretty good observations in the thread and I don’t want to too broadly criticize it. I do appreciate what many of you have contributed here. (It’s been a really hard week and I probably need a vacation)

Could God choose to give a gift of the Spirit today? If no, why not? A simple and scriptural answer is requested.

[Greg Long]

… the issue of a Northland employee a member of an SGM church would raise my eyebrow given Northland’s doctrinal statement (if that is indeed the situation).

I agree that this is a very good question. Maybe it’s a science geek thing, but I don’t want to just look at an instance of something, I want to know if it is part of a larger picture. Is it fruit or a root?

I do hope that Mr. Olson addresses some of the questions posed, but I hope we keep asking questions that get further into the heart of the matter.

Barring some unforeseen twist or turn on this subject, I plan for this to be my final thought on the matter.

Aaron, Thanks for the admonition in post no. 50. It was very thoughtful, and if you were thinking of me, I apologize.

On one level, this should not be a subject I am passionate about because I don’t have any real connection to the issues at hand. Nor did I look at this, apparently, as thoughtfully as Aaron did, as I do not see this as the tip of a deep, philosophical iceberg. I guess I am more in Joel T.’s camp on this one. I saw it more as an instance where a voice representing a Fundamentalist institution was able to tie enough connections together to see a problem with Olson commending this Bible church – if they dug far enough into the implications of the whole arrangement. From there, the leap was made to call for a reaffirmation of NIU’s doctrinal statement – as if that were ever in question to begin with! Using this type of approach, theological investigators could probably find enough evidence to accuse any Christian leader with gross inconsistencies.

Having grown up in the WELS and then spending the last 25 years within separatist, fundamentalist Baptist and Bible institutions, I think I have the doctrine of separation down pretty well. I am not proposing an ecumenical movement, and I do not think we need to push for cozier relationships with non-cessationists. I also have no desire to fellowship with SGM. But I also think I have grown in my own implementation of separation to become a little more balanced, and I think that the article is out of all proportion in its response to Olson’s act of Christian grace.

As for the NIU staffer continuing with both institutions, that may be another matter on an institutional level, but it’s not something I’m prepared to lose sleep over until I see more evidence of a concerning nature. Probably all of us have bigger problems than that swirling right here around our ears.

Just a few observations…

1. When was fundamentalism reduced to terminology? It seems like this has fast become a discussion—not of the actual distinctions between SGM and NUI but the terms they use.

SGM “charismaticism” is not much different from what I experienced in Bible-based fundamentalism growing up. (Which is also precisely why so many young fundamentalists can easily make the transition to SG churches—they do not really have to embrace anything distinctly different about how the Spirit works, only the extent to which He plays a role in everyday life.) Let’s not forget our own holiness/revivalist roots.

We were recently part of a church that was in the early steps of adoption into SGM. Part of that process included educating the congregation (formerly reformed baptist) about the way SGM embraces the Holy Spirit. The examples they gave were no different than all the examples I heard growing up from missionaries who experienced miraculous gifts, to camp speakers who called for us to respond to the moving of the Spirit at alter calls, to church testimony time where people shared what “God was speaking to them about.” I left scratching my head, not so much about how SGM engaged the Holy Spirit, but how this congregation apparently had not for the last thirty years.

Still, there are a lot of reasons I’m not a fan of SGM just as there are a lot of reasons I’m not a fan of FBC in Hammond—ironically most of them have to do with polity and leadership paradigms—but I think if we’re honest, the differences between NUI and SGM are not as huge as the words each are using imply.

And just to stir the pot…

2. How much of the concern is fueled by the exodus of NUI graduates (and young fundamentalists) to churches outside the constituency?

(If #2 goes too much against Aaron’s admonition to avoid evaluating motives, feel free to ignore it.)

Joel,

Matt and I both attended and graduated together from BJU in the late seventies. We both served together on summer evangelistic teams. I have served on three separate board of directors with Matt. We are friends. We have enjoyed meals together. I have supported Northland financially, sent students, and have used their camp for many years. I have deep respect and appreciation for the church Matt started years ago in Colorado. I am also well acquainted with Les Ollila and count him as a dear friend in the ministry. Needless to say, I have always appreciated Northland and have spoken there on numerous occasions as well as had Northland reps. speak in our church, Christian school, etc. Also, I have no problem with a culture of appropriate change. All the schools I am familiar with go through change. I don’t have an ax to grind here.

If Northland is changing to the extent that Dr. Steve Davis (earned) has written, it would be appropriate for the leaders to say so clearly. Steve and I have also been close friends for decades. I know and love Steve and his family very much. I supported Steve as a missionary all over the world for many years. Steve graciously informed me several years ago that he would be starting a church with his brother John (whom I also know). Both Steve and I knew there were enough differences between us that it would be best if I gave that support to someone else, namely his brother-in-law who is serving out of DBTS in China. What I appreciated about Steve was his honesty and transparency and integrity in the matter.

Frankly, I liked Northland the way it was under the direct leadership of Les Ollila. It was a strong separatist, Baptist school both culturally and theologically. It had a strong separatist stand, an excellent theology, and a warm-hearted servant’s spirit under Les’s leadership. To what extent that has changed I cannot say for certain. What I can say for certain is that the policies cited by Don in Northland’s documents are on target. It is not unreasonable for us to expect the current leaders to follow, believe, and espouse those policies. How hard would it have been for Matt to simply say there are some wonderful things he appreciates about this particular SG church while at the same time bemoan the acceptance of their charismatic, non-cessationist views? Doctrine is also a big deal. When SGM allows for prophets and apostles today, that is a big deal! It may be as Shayne has suggested that this particular church is a reforming influence in that denomination. I hope so. Still, it is incumbent upon Northland that the Bible faculty be members of churches that are of like faith and practice with the institutional documents of the university for which they work.

I remember having a conversation with Dr. Bill Combs at DBTS several years ago when they were interviewing a brilliant young professor for possible faculty. One of the issues that came up was the fact that this professor was not clear on the cessationist question. Combs told me that they could never seriously consider hiring a professor who was not solid on that issue. I appreciate the doctrinal clarity and militancy of that institution. I think Northland would do itself well to hold to its historical doctrinal positions with the same clarity and consistency as it did under the previous administration.

Mike,

This is a big deal because you are making it a big deal. NIU is not charismatic! They hold the same doctrine they’ve always held. The only difference is that they are extending certain grace that others (like you) would not extend on a personal level to other “sub-groups” within wider evangelicalism. You guys are driving a truck into this! Movement fundamentalism does this - scare tactics - you hate that NIU is ministering within your orb and they dare to practice a bit differently than you - so now we are going to tag them with this “pro-charismatic” label and you do that by throwing them under the bus - or maybe in this case - under the snow plow! You did the same thing when Pillsbury was doing a few things differently. I’ve heard the same kind of stuff being thrown at Calvary of Lansdale because they had Dever in. This is what you and others do! So what is telling about this note is your continued accusations:

1. You set up this dualism explaining that Matt is dishonest and Steve was honest. Matt has clearly stated publicly and in private who he is and where he’s going. NIU is not changing who they are in essence merely how the accomplish that in mission.

2. What’s up with highlighting Steve’s doctorate was earned? Are you trying to use the fact that Steve’s was earned as a shot at Matt or someone else? Mine was earned but I don’t wear it on my lapel and I certainly don’t use it to whip others who were either given a doctorate or who haven’t been able to earn one yet because of the particular demands of their ministry in their corner of the vineyard. Besides wasn’t your doctorate given to you Mike? Maybe you’ve earned one sense one was given to you. I’m sorry for not staying in touch with you. I probably should know this. My simple point here is that even if your doctorate was given to you, I wouldn’t imply less than “rose-y” things about you just because yours was not earned!

3. We get it. We understand that you and others wish that Matt was Dr. O. Matt is not Dr. O! Matt is Matt. Most of us out here - we love them both - as well as the other Godly leaders who have and continue to serve at NIU.

Nothing else to say that I haven’t already said before. I think I’m going to just start using “short hand” for these responses. I’ll note the year and the thread post where I’ve already said this. Something like - “3 Lines - 09’ post #2.” That would be much better. Yep - think I’ll do that from here on out. That way only those who are really motivated will look up my past logic (or non-logic).

Straight Ahead

jt

”The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man and never fails to see a bad one. He is the human owl, vigilant in darkness and blind to light, mousing for vermin and never seeing noble game. The cynic puts all human action into two classes: openly bad and secretly bad” (Henry W. Beecher)

Joel .. you are ascribing motives here: “you hate that NIU is ministering within your orb and they dare to practice a bit differently than you” (previous post)

Please refrain. Thanks

So Mike,

Per moderation - which moderation is a good thing!

I don’t know for sure why you put the “earned” comment with Steve’s doctorate - my fear is that you were setting up a kind of veiled whatever contra Matt - it may have been a completely honest descript. If it wasn’t that then I apologize for reading that which I read into that……

Also - friend Jim here is correct.

There is no way for sure that I know for sure that “you hate NIU for ministering outside your orb.” My fear is that you “really, really, really dislike” NIU for such n such - but the mod’s are good for making sure we don’t assume or attack motive…….which maybe others have done towards NIU……but we’ll let others decide.

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - Jim thx for the help there - sorry to cross the oncoming lane of traffic there officer! :)

Joel,

Just a clarification or two for you. I mentioned that Steve Davis’s doctorate was earned because Steve and I had a misunderstanding in a previous thread about a comment cited by me that was originally made by David Wells. I have a B.A, M.A., M.Div. and Th.M. Folks around here call me Pastor Harding, some call me Mike, and some like you call me a hate mongering cynic.

I had no knowledge of, participation in, or remote liability regarding the demise of Pillsbury. I love their cakes, however.

I have never gone after Tim Jordan over the Dever issue and defended my friends (Bauder and Doran) who spoke at that conference.

Cessationism/non-cessationism is a big deal as reflected in Northland’s institutional documents.

I think Matt did make himself clear in part three which I just read a few minutes ago.

The problem with taxonomies is that you attach everything in your ABC labels to individuals as you just did with me. Junk the taxonomy; it’s not new revelation.

One final comment, I just read your latest point. Thanks for the clarification on your side.

Mike,

You think I see you as a hate-mongering cynic. You wound me. I don’t see you as hate-mongering!

I’m grateful you are a pastor who loves the gospel, stands for truth and cares for the sheep. Despite our differences (which seems to be growing) I love you both in the Lord and within the “Aug-ust” orb of we humble DBTS grads!

And in the words of one of my favorite Puritans, Jeremiah Burroughs - “variety of opinion and unity of opinion are not incompatible”

Straight Ahead!

jt