Matt Olson: "to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ"

What Matters Most: How We Draw the Lines

I can visit a church on Sunday morning, fellowship with believers, love what I am seeing, encourage fellow believers in what they are doing—and still choose not to join that particular local assembly. When we start separating over every belief and opinion we soon find ourselves standing all alone, criticizing the rest of body of Christ. I don’t think that is what God intended

Discussion

I am curious as to why the issue of charismatic gifts is not a gospel issue. I am not saying that a charismatic necessarily disbelieves or cannot believe the gospel. But the gospel is summarized as:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…

The gospel is historical revelation. Out of all the mere men in Scripture, why is the only named in the Apostle’s Creed Pontius Pilate? It anchors our faith in history. We do not believe in a mythical demigod. We acclaim as Lord and God a real man who lived at a certain point in time. All of this is revealed, grounded, and settled in Scripture. It is historically examinable. The gospel has been revealed.

What is the point of apostles or tongues or other sign gifts? Don’t they serve and function as forms of revelation?

At Northland Baptist Bible College I was taught about individual soul liberty and the priesthood of the believer. As a believer, Dr. Olson certainly has the freedom and responsibility to worship wherever he decides.

As president of Northland, however, I think Dr. Olson needs to be accountable for upholding the written standards of the school. Praising, endorsing, having a staff-member join, a church that is not in agreement with the written standards of the school is a problem.

Accountable to whom? Well if the board doesn’t mind I am not sure what there is for anyone else to do about it. Except blog.

That always seems effective.

[Steve Davis] Alex: It seems that Matt is trying to practice biblical Christianity as is TGC.

Well Steve, no one is asserting he is not trying to do what he believes is biblical Christianity. The affectation that, “Matt is trying to practice biblical Christianity” implies those objecting are not. This kind of posturing actually makes no argument other than trying to claim some moral high ground without an argument.

But hey, if he is trying to practice biblical Christianity, here is a start. How about making NIU’s policy reflect their new practice. Honesty and integrity in ministry is quite biblical.

It is a beautiful morning! I hope you all are encouraged in our Lord. He is so faithful, even when we have these little “internal Christian Family chats!” A quick thought before I say what I want to say.

Sidebar - I appreciate you who are willing to think openly and go back and forth on a deal like this. I feel bad for the guys in our circles who say, “We hate blogs!” “You should hate blogs!” “Don’t read blogs!” “Blog people are mean!” So - the cool thing is 1) They are usually ignored because they aren’t willing to go back and forth with “the wee people!” and 2) They don’t participate here….so we don’t have to be burdened with the fact that they are burdened. Of course some of the guys who say that - have their own magazine or whatever so you can read what they think - about once a month. I’ve often wondered if having that approach to modern social media is like saying - from now on if you want to know what I think about this topic - you’ll have to come to such in such church - I’ll post a few thoughts on the door!

The main point - In reading you guys - I get the sense that some of you think Matt is anything but open. You can hear him, read him, call him, text him, write him, email him, fax him - use your “air miles’ and fly to him - of course you’ll have to drive for a while if you don’t fly into Green Bay. (And for you who have never been to Dunbar you have to go - you will then have a greater appreciation for how Hansel and Gretel could get lost in the forest!) The point is Matt is not hiding. At 6 foot whatever - (which is very tall if he were a Tetreau) - He’s a big guy! Hard for the big guys to hide! He has been very open about how Northland on the one hand will never change yet how Northland on the other hand must change. Anyone in ministry that has experienced leadership for any length of time has to understand that dualism. Matt not only has been clear to the “outside world” (that would include we “blog people-group folk” (and Brad your last line made me laugh when in reference to blogging you noted, “that always seems effective!” - I don’t know if you were trying to be funny - but I thought that was hilarious!) - so as I was saying, Matt not only has been clear to “we” on the outside - but most importantly Matt has been clear to staff, faculty, students, alumni (i.e. “Northland-Type People”) about the “sharpened pencil approach” that NIU is taking these days. I”m not suggesting everyone who have been NIU “people” have necessarily have “buy-in” yet or ever. That always happens when a ministry sharpen’s it’s pencil! You will have people who like the duller pencil - there was great comfort in being what they knew. When one is challenged to change - well, “change for improvement” is often hard, especially if you don’t see the need “to improve” as the leadership does. Looking at NIU’s doctrinal statement - I don’t think Matt and gang need to change anything. Some of you guys are saying the “implication” of NIU’s view undermine’s their belief system - real and written. I don’t see that all. Here’s the reality - you don’t like Matt? - you don’t like NIU? - fine, go somewhere else! There are plenty of schools that would take a view of separation that is more consistent with a Type A fundamentalism. For me and my house - we love Northland and if my kids believed God wanted them in a Christian College you better know that Northland would be a serious consideration. One of the reasons why historically the GARBC and the IFCA has been superior to other sub-groups within fundamentalism - is that those groups have worked hard to honor both “unity of the body” and “separation from error” at the same time. Other fundamentalist groups have emphasized “separation” almost to the “placing one’s head in the sand” when it comes to the Scripture’s teaching on unity in the faith. It seems to me that NIU is saying the same thing - “We will separate when a ministry is consistently violating the fundamentals of the faith - when a ministry is consistently “disobedient” to the faith - but we will not cut off all connection just because they may be “different.”

One more point - to me it’s a bit inconsistent for some of you to cry “foul” at NIU because of their willingness to reach out to some degree to those who are a bit more “open” to some modern form of “prophet” (which by the way is not equated to Scriptural authority in the same sense that the modern day Charismatic movement holds too - in all fairness!) - so you’ll cry fowl when Matt reaches there - but many of you - if not most of you, you would have no problem with the Type A school of your choice reaches out to those who believe in or are connected to the King James Only heresy and you’ll say, “well -it’s OK because our Type A school is not KJV only - but we’ll reach out to those kids and ministries who are KJV only.” I would say that the KJV only heresy is frankly much more dangerous than CJ’s view on a modern form of prophecy. I’m not saying Type A schools are wrong when they try to help kids who come in from Type A+ ministries with a bizarre Bibliology. OK - my “blah, blah, blah” internal alert just went off. That means I’m repeating myself and everyone (including friend and foe) is starting to gag!

Well - I need to look over the college football scores from the last 3 days, and then it’s off to the office for a day of ministry - with God’s people - some of them having a more active “pneumatology” than some of you could handle! A thrill! Of course the good news is that nobody confuses me with the “Minor Prophet Joel!” :)

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;

Here’s the reality - you don’t like Matt? - you don’t like NIU? - fine, go somewhere else!

Wake me up when the ad hominems are finished, someone, please. Yeah, its all about “not liking Matt and NIU”. Good grief.

So for the rest of the readers who have not opted for ad hominems for their reality but wish to deal with the objections, those objections and concerns are coming from people who have invested their life and/or careers in NIU. They have a vested interest but oddly and discourteously they are told simply to go somewhere else if they don’t like it. Jack Hyles and FBCH anyone?

To speak of them as if the true force of their concern is tantamount to not liking Matt or NIU is as offensive a form of condescension as it gets in my book. It steals any real consideration they, as esteemed Teachers, Students and Alumni along with other concerned fundamentalists, may have.

Don Johnson clearly documented the contradiction between policy and practice in another article.

Matt Olson isn’t being disliked, Matt Olson’s contradictions are being called into question. Those concerned acknowledge his gifts and leadership skills, that isn’t being called into question nor is his likability, it is the contradiction in policy and practice.

Now, maybe Matt Olson will eventually say more and address these outstanding issues. It appears he is doing things incrementally which is how change goes. But those increments are away from their history to something else.

Charismaticism is not fundamentalism in any form. Its implications and consequences are anti-fundamentalist (even anti-conservative Evangelicalsm in its historical theological expression), even in its sorriest form of “continuationism light” (meaning magically the apostolic gifts can occur just in limited form though the Bible never presents any such polluted or diluted argument for this lukewarm version).

It is clear Matt Olson is redrawing lines for NIU but he needs to demonstrate some integrity and formally change their policy. What they will eventually be is despised by separatist fundamentalists instead of understood as different but with integrity. No, not aberrant fundamentalists but separatists fundamentalists.

But lest someone think separation over doctrinal distinctions beyond the gospel are not important, here is an institution that emphasis their distinctions without compromise. They are not antagonistic toward other groups who hold to basic doctrines but they separate from them.

Chafer Theological Seminary

On staff are some very qualified and esteemed men. But maybe they separate because they don’t like other people. LOL.

No, they hold to convictions which have determined the course of their institution.

Maybe Matt simply holds things beyond elementary doctrines loosely and believes his call is to lead a successful institution. Fundamentalists historically aren’t seen as romantics, rather principled people, though aberrant forms have gotten their noses rightly cut off.

NIU is one of two things, distinctive or Generic Evangelicalism. I believe Olson is opting for the latter. Can good come out of that? Obviously it can but that isn’t the argument. The argument is about its distinctive history and its change from that.

Alex,

I don’t think I have the energy to go back with you very much. So I’ll answer you this one time.

OK…This has nothing to do with liking or not liking Matt. You don’t have to be pained my man. This is hardly “ad hominem.” I am comparing the charge with reality. That’s all. If it pleases you - I’m willing to admit I’m defending NIU - I don’t think you or Don or any of you who are charging them with “Generic Evangelicalism” are right. You don’t have to like it, but don’t tell me I’m not dealing with the attack. Also - I don’t think I’m being unfair when I say, “if you don’t like NIU” - “if you don’t agree with NIU” - and “if you insist on demanding the expectations that some of you demand - send your kids somewhere else!” I’m being as honest as I know to be. And Alex if you really want to demonstrate “reality vs. ad hominem” I dare you to call Matt himself (by yourself) and ask if Tetreau is rightly picturing his view. Then you come back here and tell everyone I’m blowing smoke! (my guess is you won’t do that - and you can crow “ad hominem” all you want!)

If I had to lead a school, and I had men like you and Don that wanted to influence or approve - you wouldn’t be courted and I would have no qualms in telling you that. I wouldn’t necessarily broadcast that publicly unless I had to. This is not “ad hominem” it is simply saying, “you guys are too different and have expectations we aren’t living with - period!”

Alex - there’s your break - go in peace - try!

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;

You are not dealing with the objections. I will say it again. Don’t let that pain you “my man”. But your attempt to respond is acknowledged. Thank you.

P.S. The policy at NIU is that Olson’s secretary fields calls of this nature and then they are assigned to a representative to answer so having Matt Olson personally respond to calls like this is both unlikely and an unreasonable expectation on his part. But no doubt, contacting NIU for an explanation is quite worth the while.

Alex G. keeps challenging everyone to deal with the issue that he is raising and that is the integrity of Olson and NIU being called into question if Olson doesn’t change their official policy statement. Here’s my humble attempt to deal with it…

Ecclesiastical Separation
….Northland International University does not accept the philosophy, position, or practice of the National Council of Churches in America or the World Council of Churches. Further-more, Northland is opposed to Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and the Charismatic Movement.
2011-2013 Graduate School Academic Catalog, Northland Graduate School of Northland International University, p. 9,

… Among the gifts listed in the Bible, we believe that sign gifts (miracles, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy) were temporary in nature and given to the church in its infant state before the completion of the canon of Scripture. Therefore, we reject the modern Charismatic Movement and the confusion it has brought. (Romans 12:6–8; I Corinthians 12:1–11, 13:8; Ephesians 4:11–12)
2011-2013 Graduate School Academic Catalog, Northland Graduate School of Northland International University, p. 12,

Ecclesiastically we are called upon to refrain from cooperation or alliances with groups which do not stand unashamedly for the truths revealed in the Word of God. Thus, we cannot accept the position reflected in the Ecumenical Movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement. We believe cooperation should be limited to those of like precious faith.

Is Matt Olson acting in contradiction to their stated position? The school’s position is to reject the Charismatic Movement, to refrain from cooperation and alliances with the said movement and not to accept the position of the said movement. Here is Matt’s latest statement:

Matt Olson: “I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship.”

He uses the word “fellowship”. The question is…does he mean individual Christian fellowship or Ecclesiastical fellowship? Ecclesiastical fellowship would necessitate cooperation. Since he went to visit the church and did not even speak there, then he is not in violation of any of his own school’s principles because nothing is happening on an ecclesiastical level. All Christians have liberty to fellowship individually regardless of someone else’s scruples about it. If Alex, Don and the whole FBF want to make the words “accept and cooperate” = “fellowship” then Matt’s integrity isn’t in question and he doesn’t have to change anything. You all can define these things however you want, but if he hasn’t engaged his school in cooperation with this movement, if he has not accepted their position, and if the school still stands in opposition to the movement as a whole, what has he done that contradicts it? He visited and said some good things about them….*shudder*….how aweful!

Let’s say, Alex is right…he is “clearly” moving away from the stated position. The more you keep nipping at his heels the faster you’ll push him away. The FBF’s behavior of bashing Calvinism (Sweate’s speech a few years ago) and being silent about the Hyles heretics that they have been courting (Baptist Friends Conference) and then having the nerve to call him out on something like this….I wouldn’t blame him for wanting to fellowship elsewhere. If he is going away from the NIU stated position, either he will announce that change sooner or later or he will leave. But I agree that if he leads the school to start cooperating with the “Charismatic Movement” then he needs to announce a change of position.

William

No, Olson has gone beyond visiting and saying something nice. He has sombody who is on staff with NIU, working for and representing NIU at a charismatic SGM Church in Philadelphia. He has partnered with a charismatic ministry. End story. It is not just saying nice things. The practice of partnering is in direct contradiction and conflict with NIU’s policy

I agree with Matt on the point that a lot of fundamentalists will be ashamed in heaven. It is crazy the level of separation, when at the milisecond moment after your last breath you will be fellowshipping with that same brother in heaven.

The Holy Scriptures do teach only immersion for baptism. So many of our predecessors in salvation gave their lives to be odedient

to our Lord in this way, that in itself makes it a big deal.

I personally believe that if one decides that the mode of baptism is not important, then he either does not know the Holy Scriptures

teaching on this, or is a compromiser or a coward.

Part of our Redeemer’s statement, I believe, to ‘fulfill all righteousness”, included the mode, This is certainly on a par with using

only unleavened bread for the Lord’ Table.

[Alex Guggenheim] William No, Olson has gone beyond visiting and saying something nice. He has sombody who is on staff with NIU, working for and representing NIU at a charismatic SGM Church in Philadelphia. He has partnered with a charismatic ministry. End story. It is not just saying nice things. The practice of partnering is in direct contradiction and conflict with NIU’s policy

Ok, you’re right. He should either abide by his own rules or change them

Joel, I’d like to address your comments primarily as you say a lot of things that have been said by others in one way or another. I think you are overstating the case about what I am trying to say with my article. I’ll also address Matt’s article that is the basis of this thread.

[Joel Tetreau]

I’m willing to admit I’m defending NIU - I don’t think you or Don or any of you who are charging them with “Generic Evangelicalism” are right. You don’t have to like it, but don’t tell me I’m not dealing with the attack.

Joel, where am I charging Matt/NIU with “Generic Evangelicalism”? I am asking questions. Matt’s words and actions seem to be inconsistent with the Northland Statement of Faith. I am not proposing any course of action towards Matt/NIU, I am simply asking questions. Obviously I am concerned about the direction that it seems to me Matt/NIU seem to be headed, but my concerns could be allayed by some answers to my questions. Of course, other answers would likely heighten my concerns, but in any case all I am doing is posing questions. I am not making charges.

Furthermore, these questions are on the minds of many others who have had some interest in NIU in the past. Mike has identified himself as one of them, others have written me privately. offering the same kinds of questions. I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask questions, even public questions, when a significant portion of the “NIU public” are concerned about what they perceive to be happening. You can say, as you did in another comment, #21:

[Joel Tetreau]

Here’s the reality - you don’t like Matt? - you don’t like NIU? - fine, go somewhere else! There are plenty of schools that would take a view of separation that is more consistent with a Type A fundamentalism.

That’s true, there are other schools (not sure about “plenty”, but we’ll leave that point…). However, a lot of the folks who have questions about NIU are alumni, people with a vested interest in the school. They aren’t sure exactly what to make of the things they are seeing at NIU. They aren’t sure they like it, but they aren’t entirely sure they don’t like it.

Shouldn’t they get some kind of public assurance allaying their fears or else at least a candid confirmation of them? All very well to tell them to go somewhere else. But shouldn’t they have the opportunity to know that the die is cast and the Northland they once knew is gone forever? Shouldn’t they have some clarity on this point?

You also said in comment #21:

[Joel Tetreau]

One more point - to me it’s a bit inconsistent for some of you to cry “foul” at NIU because of their willingness to reach out to some degree to those who are a bit more “open” to some modern form of “prophet” (which by the way is not equated to Scriptural authority in the same sense that the modern day Charismatic movement holds too - in all fairness!)

On the “charismatic credentials” of SGM, I acknowledge that they have a watered down view of apostles/prophets. They obviously get it that the true New Testament gifts of this sort imply some kind of direct authority to ‘words from the Lord’ given to real New Testament apostles and prophets. They are trying to back away from claiming full authority for present day “apostles”/”prophets”. Why?

What benefit is there in having an “apostle” or a “prophet” today if he can’t really speak for God? Isn’t the authoritative message from God ​the distinguishing mark​ of apostles and prophets? If the SGM “apostles” and “prophets” carry no such authority, what is the point of having them?

From SGM’s teaching on these subjects (have you investigated what they actually teach?), it seems that they believe some kind of authority rests in present day “apostles” and “prophets”. Where do such men get such authority? Isn’t it more than a little troubling that a modern church body would claim authority for its leaders in this way?

​Finally:

With respect to Matt’s piece… someone said they thought I wouldn’t be satisfied with it. Well, no, I am not. Here’s why:

  1. It is not evident that Matt is answering my questions at all - he is writing the third in a series of articles on “what really matters” or some such theme. He doesn’t address my article at all (not that I am anything or that he is accountable to me). But if he were addressing my article, wouldn’t he at least make some reference to it?
  2. The substance of Matt’s article does seem to confirm my fears about the direction Matt himself is headed, but it doesn’t address the inconsistency of Matt’s words and actions with Northland’s doctrinal and policy statements. Are we to expect those doctrinal/policy statements to be changed in the near future?
  3. If those doctrinal/policy statements aren’t changed, what is up with Northland continuing to employ someone who is (or will be) a member of a Charismatic church? Presumably Northland staff are required to affirm Northland’s doctrinal/policy statements, are they not?

Again, Matt has no obligation to answer me. But a lot of people with vested interests in Northland would sure like to know for sure what are the answers to my questions.

An oblique, sort of on the same topic blog post doesn’t really address the questions clearly and directly.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

we don’t have to defend CJ’s belief about modern prophecy … we would say it is wrong belief - but that doesn’t mean we can’t commend them for what is otherwise a healthy Christianity. You guys kill me with your doctrinal reductionism.

This is a masterpiece of non sequitur. You’re really saying that insisting on agreement with a larger body of truth* rather than a more minimal body of truth is reductionism? I’d love to hear that explained, if you have time.

*which, by the way, is not what Don or the others are insisting on. They simply want Dr. Olson to explain how having a faculty or staff member attend a SGM church jives with their controlling documents. Easy-peasy, as the kids say, even if it wouldn’t be the number one topic I’d address if in their shoes, but, ifs and buts …

[dgszweda]

I agree with Matt on the point that a lot of fundamentalists will be ashamed in heaven. It is crazy the level of separation, when at the milisecond moment after your last breath you will be fellowshipping with that same brother in heaven.

This argument gets used a lot. The missing ingredient is that a millisecond after your last breath, you will both know indisputably what is right and be in total agreement on the point. Until then, disagreement about the understanding of scripture means someone (maybe everyone) involved in the dispute has/have been wrong.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

I read a funny line today about Christopher Hitchens in the WSJ. The writer, Henry Allen, said about Hitchens:

Hitchens’s contrarianism worked well among Washington’s dinner-party liberals, though, who loved to receive a spanking from a man who refused to share their fraidy-cat tolerance of all points of view.

I am reminded that a publicly avowed nonbeliever (only God knows what Hitchens did with his last breaths) understood the nature of those who believed and acted as if tolerance of all points of view was a virtue or a form of enlightenment and definitive and certain answers and positions on many matters was a lack of virtue or Neanderthalsim. Even he comprehended, whether he had the answer or not, that accepting-as possible-many answers to many things, is no answer to anything.