Has Northland Drifted Away From Fundamentalism?

Yes, there have been changes at Northland. To deny that is just outright silly. The changes that I’ve seen have been largely beneficial, I think, but I don’t follow NIU’s ins-and-outs very closely since I graduated thirteen years ago. I know they got rid of the old demerit system and when I read their explanation of that, it made sense to me. I didn’t like the name change. I’m not certain about how the new academic system will work, but I’m willing to see what happens. As for the student standards for students - I don’t know what the rules are and aren’t now…so it’s hard for me to get excited about that. One thing that is for sure - the old classroom-teacher-pupil model is breaking down, as Glenn Reynolds (professor of law at the University of Tennessee) has noted amply, and I don’t think that any Fundamentalist schools (BJU, NIU, Maranatha, etc) can withstand that as they are currently constructed.

There seems to be this idea that Fundamentalists don’t need to ever change anything - that things are just fine the way they are (and I’m thinking of other threads now). While we may not change on matters of theology and doctrine - and we shouldn’t - we have to wrap our collective heads around the facts that “the times, they are are a changin”. To hunker down and demand that our organizations stay exactly as they are is to enforce eventual irrelevance because the practice eventually becomes the principle that needs to be defended in order to maintain our comfort level. That’s when insularity and isolation become the norm to be maintained instead of enemies to be combated, and then you end up with a bunch of old people with no idea why they’re irrelevant and why they are running out of cash or prestige and why no one wants to be like them anymore.

The allegations that _____ is drifting away from fundamentalism is an old story. In the last 30 years I’ve heard the warning raised concerning BJU, Northland, the GARBC, etc. over issues (?) like: music (Soundforth and the WILDS had adopted a “worldly” style…I could go on), dress standards had been lowered, rules had been dropped, political and educational leaders who were not fundamentalists were speaking, bookstores were selling books by people who weren’t fundamentalists, and so on. When a real issue arose, it had to compete for attention with all the pseudo issues.

Perhaps the uncomfortable reality we must wrestle with is that some are drawn not so much to our doctrinal distinctives and literal interpretation of Scripture as they are conforming to the rigor and eccentricities of Fundamentalist culture. Many of the things that Ron refers to as “pseudo” issues (and I’m not debating that description) are (or have been) some of the first things people look for to judge whether or not they are in a church environment they can feel comfortable in or not. For good or bad, these are things people value.

I have listened to older men in the MBA lecture me on why it still is compromise to consider partnering with MARBC churches for something like a church planting effort. When pressed on why, things like Cedarville and music get raised (never mind the fact that the Cedarville issue was formally addressed several years ago now, and that MBA churches have just as much variety as MARBC ones do in music). I have had conversations with people about our collaborative camp effort with some other churches who protest that we are abandoning Baptist (not just Fundamentalist) practice because we let junior camper boys and girls get in the lake at the same time. These may not be the primary issues they were a few years ago, but things like that still happen here. I doubt those kind of things are isolated to Minnesota.

When someone asks “is __________ drifting away from Fundamentalism,” in one sense, it might be good to ask what is meant by that term, and even to acknowledge that yes, there are elements that are being distanced from (or on the other hand, being pursued) that some might associate with a concept of “fundamentalism.”

For better or for worse, when I was graduating from high school in the late 1980s, positionally and culturally, there was not an extreme amount of difference evident to me when I took a little college tour with our pastor and 4 other classmates and visited Maranatha, Northland, Pillsbury, and Faith. The differences between them then seemed more due to location, amenities, and so on. Whatever else is true about what is being taught in the classroom, is it safe to say that a a prospective student would come away with the same impression today on a similar tour (say, throwing in Baptist College of Ministry in there instead of Pillsbury)? I don’t think they would.

And that’s what some people are reacting to.

When someone asks “is __________ drifting away from Fundamentalism,” in one sense, it might be good to ask what is meant by that term, and even to acknowledge that yes, there are elements that are being distanced from (or on the other hand, being pursued) that some might associate with a concept of “fundamentalism.”

And that’s a legitimate question that has been and is being asked and, in this thread, not answered. Some within fundamentalism have refused to engage the younger generation and have left them with a “it’s our way or the highway” impression. I appreciate fundamentalism’s historical battle and stand for biblical truth. Sadly, in some circles, its is more known for its condemnation of anything generically labeled as worldly and its suspicion of anything new.

I just finished reading “In Pursuit of Purity” this week and started reading the “Shooting Salvationist” that I got for free on my Kindle (it was originally released as “Apparent Danger”). In both cases, the history of Fundamentalism seems to have been largely centered around reactions to things and not proactive actions. It didn’t matter if it was a theological or social change - it was always a reaction to something. I don’t remember a time or instance of Fundamentalists declaring something and “going on the offensive”, so to speak.

Just thought that was interesting and germane to this thread.

Tyler,

There have been some concerns about Rick Holland speaking in Chapel, Bruce Ware speaking at the college, the SGM connection, chapel music, changes in the atmosphere of the school, changes in the music department, and some of Matt’s posts on his blog. My concern peaked over the taking of 40 students to the Big Daddy Weave concert by Matt and Trevor and the public identification of Matt and Trevor with the group who are directly being sponsored by World Vision. This crosses many lines in my opinion. I have a very good friend who is on faculty and he is personally grieved if not alarmed. I have financially supported NBBC/NIU for many years, sent students, had their groups in, and used their camps for many years. Plus, I have been personal friends with Matt and Les for decades. I have no ax to grind. I can handle appropriate change. It seems to me that this is a shift.

[Mike Harding] There have been some concerns about Rick Holland speaking in Chapel, Bruce Ware speaking at the college, the SGM connection, chapel music, changes in the atmosphere of the school, changes in the music department, and some of Matt’s posts on his blog. My concern peaked over the taking of 40 students to the Big Daddy Weave concert by Matt and Trevor and the public identification of Matt and Trevor with the group who are directly being sponsored by World Vision. This crosses many lines in my opinion. I have a very good friend who is on faculty and he is personally grieved if not alarmed. I have financially supported NBBC/NIU for many years, sent students, had their groups in, and used their camps for many years. Plus, I have been personal friends with Matt and Les for decades. I have no ax to grind. I can handle appropriate change. It seems to me that this is a shift.

Mike-

What, exactly, is troubling about Rick Holland speaking in Chapel to you? Would you separate from him or his church? If so, why?

Also, why, exactly, should we be concerned about Bruce Ware teaching in a grad level class?

Finally, have you contacted Matt directly and does he know of your concerns?

There’s no ‘gotchas’ there - I am seriously interested why you view these as tipping points at NIU.

Jay,

Holland is a fine theologian. I did not, however, appreciate his resolved conference that gave all the appearances of a Christian rock concert. That’s my concern. Bruce Ware rejects a literal view of the Genesis 1-2. He is clearly a progressive creationist. Yes, I have both written and spoken with Matt. We are still friends. NIU, however, is bigger than just one person. There are people who are much closer to NIU than me that have these concerns. Matt’s motive for the Big Daddy event was to recruit students. He picked up about 70 plus prospects. However, he crossed ecumenical lines, theological lines, worship lines, and musical lines to do so with his students. I have one student there and I made it clear that I would not appreciate that student being taken to a Christian rock concert as part of their training at a Fundamental, Baptist, Separatist Christian University.

Finally, have you contacted Matt directly and does he know of your concerns?

Why do people bring this up when public moves are made?

No one complained when people expressed concern about Rick Warren tweeting positively about the Roman Catholic Church recently. Why is it that the only thing to do is engage privately? I understand Mike Harding knows Matt, and that might be a little different. Still, I get all kinds of impersonal things from places like Northland all the time. Attend this conference. Come to this camp. Read our magazine. Give to this project. On we could go. Why don’t they just contact me directly and let me know of their concerns? :)

(Please don’t contact me directly, by the way. Please. :D )

All I am saying is that if “they” (generally speaking) make actions that are visible to the public to some degree, “they” should also be prepared to account for them publicly, and understand that they are subject to public scrutiny. The advantage the internet gives you is that you can at least track public response somewhat more efficiently than one could before.

Sorry. That just bother me.

people recommending to write directly so you can ask specifically why these things are being done, if they really are. so basically, to know (or at least hear) the motive, you have to ask the source. then make your conclusions/applications.

i agree with you that it’s not always appropriate.

Thanks for the reply, Mike. I appreciate it.

I brought up the contact Olsen privately because I was curious - and because I’d completely missed his line about being friends with Dr. Olsen…so that’s my fault. I do agree that this is a public interest and public discussion because of the changes, and I’m fairly sure that Greg and I have both argued for public discussion of these matters (and others) on other threads and on other topics. I’m not excited enough about it to go back and look for specifics on that issue at this point.

So I guess my points are this:

1. You are disappointed in Northland (I think that’s the right term) because Rick Holland, who is ‘completely orthodox’ and completely distinct from NIU, put on the Resolved conferences at GCC on his own initiative. I guess as a result of conferences, NIU should put him on some kind of theological ‘ban list’. Isn’t there a principle of individual soul liberty at play here?

I’m going to be honest here - it seems a little…well, silly….to separate from Northland for something a guest speaker did on his own time and initiative several years before he spoke at said college. It seems even worse to be upset with Northland for associations and then turn a blind eye to other, more interesting pairings in our theological neck of the woods or to the misgivings of a few FBFI leaders in speaking venues (start with post #19).

Rather than writing a fuller post on this subject of music, maybe you can just reply to this one from a couple weeks ago, because I’m still really confused on why playing Jesus I My Cross Have Taken with electric guitars and drums is evil but playing it as a hymn (with no electric instruments) is OK. That’s before I can start talking about original and new songs by recent artists.

(As an aside - since when did music become the sine qua non of Fundamentalism? Did I just not get that memo or something? This seems like it’s come up six times in three weeks, and it seems like whenever we discuss ‘fundamentalists’ we inevitably wind up discussing music as a separation issue. Are we really that culture-driven?)

2. What class was Ware teaching at NIU? I’m not necessarily opposed to his teaching it and have been fairly vocal about Fundamentalists holding to a literal 6x24 young earth creation.

3. IF Olsen and Trevor (whoever that is) did go to a concert for the purpose of recruiting students for NIU, then yes, I have a problem with that. I don’t know who Big Daddy Weave is, but I doubt very much that he’s approved music at BJU.

Finally - yes, I know, I know. I’m bringing up the FBFI, the Sweatt issues, and a host of other stuff from the past again. At this point, I’m sick of bringing it up myself. But these are issues and problems that point to deep seated issues in the ‘Fundamentalist’ idea, and I find it well nigh impossible to buy into claims that NIU is hopelessly compromised (or whatever) when we are so completely inconsistent on our own practices that govern associations.

I’m not bringing this up to embarrass anyone - I’m bringing it up because we keep putting new siding on walls that have compromised foundations. Until we figure out the foundational principles that drive separation, music, and associations, it honestly doesn’t make sense for this conversation about Northland to go any further. I’m not sure, however, that people want to discuss or evaluate Fundamentalist culture, though, lest they be run off the farm by ‘the protectors of Fundamentalism’, whomever they may be. We have to go deeper - much deeper - than NIU before we can start saying they’re compromised or whatever.

So should we separate from Mike who is friends with Matt who associates with Rick Holland, Bruce Ware and Big Daddy Weave?

Should we separate from an association that has leaders who terribly mishandle church discipline cases or who have public rants against Calvinism that are full of bias and misinformation or who have associations with churches that are have histories as tainted as FBCH?

Can a fundamentalist enjoy watching those 50’s and 60’s music reunions on PBS or appreciate Shai Linne while not being a fan of rap music?

Ron - I don’t know about what to do with Mike himself, but I’m sure that since Calvinist Phil Johnson (of GTY fame) is a user of this website, we should separate from SI. Unless, of course, the ‘poisons’ of Phil Johnson are counteracted by Dr. Doran’s use of the site as well. So maybe we’re OK after all…but maybe not.

So…I guess what I should ask is if you want to go halves with me in starting a new fundamentalist forum without all these pesky associations? ;)

Seriously, this whole thing is beginning to remind me of The Empire Strikes Back - “Life creates the Force. Makes it grow.” Fundamentalists separating over music or associations of associates? Well…doesn’t seem to be driving a lot of guys to the banner of Fundamentalism these days, but it might, however, be the answer to another thread’s question. If someone here is offended by the Empire Strikes Back reference, jettison that line and meditate a little more on Ephesians 4:1-3 instead.

Seriously, though: Mike, why is it a problem for Ware to teach a class on models of sanctification if the issue you have with him is over a literal creation?

We could just agree that Phil Johnson is “Dead Right”:

A LACK OF DUE PROCESS
Here, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many of the best men and brightest young minds have left the fundamentalist movement. The way second-degree separation has been implemented by fundamentalists is unseemly, ungracious, and unbiblical. The machinery of fundamentalist separatism has in effect established a form of excommunication without any due process. All someone has to do to ruin your ministry in fundamentalist circles is publish a negative story about you in one of the fundamentalist gossip rags, and if it gets enough circulation, you will be branded for life as a neoevangelical; and anyone who has any kind of public fellowship with you will also then be tainted…

…But what is my duty to a fellow believer, someone who is fundamentally sound in his own doctrine, but who does not practice separation? What about an evangelical Anglican, who preaches the gospel himself, but is a member of a denomination that has ordained practicing homosexuals as bishops? Am I free to associate with him? Am I obliged to break fellowship with him?

If I do break fellowship with him, that’s second-degree separation. Now, it may surprise some of you to hear me say this, but there are times when I think second-degree separation is perfectly appropriate. There are some who have tried to argue that there’s no warrant in Scripture to separate from other Christians, so that in effect, if I believe a guy is a true believer, I should not separate from him ever, even if he holds a conference and turns the pulpit over to the Pope. But I think that’s quite wrong. Second Thessalonians 3:14–15 says: “If anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

So there clearly are times when it is appropriate to refuse to keep company with someone who is a believer—especially if that person is deliberately and incorrigibly disobedient to the clear instruction of Scripture. But notice that we’re explicitly instructed to admonish such a person as a brother. Separation from a brother should never be quick and easy.

What I object to in the way American fundamentalists have practiced separation is this: they are often rash and impulsive in the way they separate from other brethren without any kind of admonishment and without due
process. Furthermore, they try to enforce separation to the third, fourth, fifth, and fifteenth degree.

Billy Graham refuses to practice separation from Roman Catholics and liberals. OK, we won’t participate in his crusades. But Al Mohler once participated in a Billy Graham Crusade. Are we therefore obliged to separate from Al Mohler? Now you’re into the third degree of separation. And since we haven’t broken fellowship with Mohler, are fundamentalists required to separate from John MacArthur and everyone who associates with him? See how quickly we get to fourth- and fifth-degree separation? But that is exactly the way separation works in the modern fundamentalist movement.

Seriously, a fundamentalist pastor friend told me that the main reason he could never attend a Shepherds’ Conference or have anything to do with John MacArthur is because MacArthur hasn’t broken fellowship with Al Mohler, and Mohler has a connection to Billy Graham, and therefore MacArthur is not a truly separated man. How far does this go? Will every fundamentalist who attends the Shepherds’ Conference be excommunicated from fundamentalism?

That’s what happens in some circles, and believe it or not, there are actually some fundamentalists who come to this conference incognito, and refuse to tell anyone they have been here, lest it taint them forever in fundamentalist circles. And you can be branded and condemned and excommunicated by the fundamentalists without due process and without any hope of remedy.

Considerations:

1. To those of you who think it’s legit to tag Northland with the music thing - how many times do I need to tell you people you have lost that battle! You might as well lock yourself in a round room and use a megaphone. Nobody but a few very are hearing you! I am 44. Big Daddy Weave is not my “bread” when it comes to music. But my oldest son loves it - and my guess is 90% of the Godly young men going to our schools, colleges, seminaries love it. This is a personal taste issue. Is it your plan to separate from 9 out of 10 of the twenty year olds headed into Independent Baptist and Bible churches? (There is a part of me that thinks maybe you should!) My plan is to not separate from the 20 and 30 year olds over Big Daddy…….big daddy!

2. My guess is the reason Matt and younger friends went to this personally was because they could not publicly endorse the group that sponsored. For some of you guys who support our institutions who send their prof’s to the ETS meetings - uh - do you really want to talk about theological diversity? Ware, even with his views on the first two chapters of Genesis is clearly conservative when compared to the the wide range of guys (and gals) that our prof’s at DBTS, Central, Masters, BJ, etc……hang with when our guys go over to the ETS meetings. Furthermore, I trust our friends at NIU just like I trust our friends at the seminaries to be able to “spit out the bones” when it comes to theological whatever. Just because our seminaries allow the prof’s to participate in ETS meetings does not mean that they endorse every jot and tittle that is connected to ETS - and just because NIU brings in Ware or allows a group with their private time to go to a concert does not mean it endorses everything about the sponsor. This is a philosophical remnant of the second and third and fourth level separation thing. Again you’re blasting your thoughts in the round room!

3. So think of historic fundamentalism as a large round circle. Then think of a sub-group with a very small circle. In that sub-group you might write in Mike or Don or Lou or …..? Very few people in the large circle would have everything that “Mike & friends” has in his little circle. What’s happened here is that Northland thankfully has left that little circle “Mike & friends” prefer and is now in the broader company of a wider-testimony within historic fundamentalism. So those of you who like the little circle Mike likes……great…..don’t send your kids to Northland. Of course I’m not sure where you’re going to send your kids too - especially when you find out what the other kids going to that “approved” school listen too in their spare time! The rest of you, I’ll look forward to seeing you next year at Heart Conference!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Jay,

Bruce spoke on open theism which is his specialty. I think Bruce was the least problematic thing I mentioned. I as a young-earth creationist feel strongly about that position and would not bring in an old-earth progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist to speak to my ministerial students. As I said, Rick is a fine theologian, I personally feel very strongly about not using the Christian rock methodology in ministry. That would put Rick off limits for me and I would not use a speaker with impressionable undergrad students who practices that type of ministry. The Big Daddy Weave concert is simply over the line as far as I am concerned. The more recent chapel music is as well. I think the administration needs to be much more careful about these matters. That is their choice, however. I have not written them off, but it appears to me that there has been a shift. As far as the issues Ron is bringing up, I have addressed all of those issues privately, publicly, and personally.

Joel,

You are probably right about the music battle. Nevertheless, I still think it is a very important issue. Profs attending the ETS seems to be a purely academic exercise among professors. Would I personally do it? No. But one has to consider carefully the theological positions publicly championed by the profs one brings in to teach one’s own ministerial students. Is Bruce the only one who could address open theism or sanctification? Why not bring in Mark Snoeberger instead?

[Mike Harding] Bruce spoke on open theism which is his specialty. I think Bruce was the least problematic thing I mentioned. I as a young-earth creationist feel strongly about that position and would not bring in an old-earth progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist to speak to my ministerial students. As I said, Rick is a fine theologian, I personally feel very strongly about not using the Christian rock methodology in ministry. That would put Rick off limits for me and I would not use a speaker with impressionable undergrad students who practices that type of ministry. The Big Daddy Weave concert is simply over the line as far as I am concerned. The more recent chapel music is as well. I think the administration needs to be much more careful about these matters.

OK, so now I’m really confused. Did Ware speak on Open Theism or did he “evaluate the contemplative view and explain and defend the Reformed view [of sanctification] “, as per the notice that I linked to from Andy Naselli’s blog? Or did he speak at NIU two different times? Or did he just tell them he was going to talk about sanctification and then change his mind at the last minute to speak on Open Theism?

Another question - have you read anything by Greg Boyd or Bruce Ware on Open Theism? If so, is that different from listening to him explain and defend his views in a classroom?

I understand that you have problems with the decisions by NIU, and commend you for talking to Dr. Olsen about them, since you are his friend (even though you hardly need *my* commendation for doing so). I agree with you that BDW is off limits based on what I know of that concert/recruitment effort by the school.

So at the end of the day, we’re disagreeing over music standards (Resolved and BDW)?

I really need a copy of this music memo that I’ve missed.

Jay,

Regardless of whether he spoke on open theism or sanctification, it has nothing to do with my objection. I never questioned the content of his teaching while at NIU.

…great…..don’t send your kids to Northland. Of course I’m not sure where you’re going to send your kids too [sic] [.]

God made public universities precisely so one might send one’s kids someplace the profane music they’d hear would probably be non-Christian.

XD

I had never heard of Big Daddy Weave. My old man thought processor conjured up a picture of Biggie Small (The Notorious Big E) that I only knew from the news. Having been enticed by the reference to Weave, I yielded to temptation and used my Google Machine to find them and listened to “Redeemed”. While their style is outside of my old dude comfort zone, I wasn’t offended and found the message encouraging. Am I in danger?

I hear profane music every time I go to Kroger. Or Target. Or the mall.

I don’t know why we think our adult children need spiritual bubble wrap. If they love the Lord and have a solid foundation (and many of us have had 18 years to build it) then they should be able to withstand some American culture. If they aren’t regenerate, rules about going to movies or listening to rap are not going to change their heart.

I find the whole subject of Christian colleges to be problematic. Students are often training for the ministry outside of the umbrella of the local church. If they aren’t training for ministry, why do they need ‘protected’? We are not even considering Christian college for our kids. They will go to the best college for their specific career goals. And I won’t have to worry about any of this. Yeah for me.

[Susan R] I hear profane music every time I go to Kroger. Or Target. Or the mall.

Exactly, but it isn’t presented as fit for a King.

Ron,

I am out of date as well, so I just finished looking up Big Daddy Weave as well and listened to a couple of songs, including Redeemed. Perhaps a new thread on the merits of the song might be in order. Seems to be off subject here. But for the record, I found the song lacked doctrinal clarity. But as I suggested, this is off topic.

On topic, ministering in the inter mountain west has its advantages and disadvantages and sometimes there are the same thing: I am out of the loop. I have little information about NIU; but from what I have read today, I am troubled. Obviously, Northland has made a change in its direction. Are they still committed to the fundamentals of the faith? I believe so.

When I attend a Shepherd’s Conference, I go without reservation. I do not worry what others think of me, because I am not attending for their sake; but for mine. I appreciate the emphasis on expository preaching. I am encouraged to shepherd the flock God has given to me through the ministry of preaching. I believe that I have the discernment to eat the meat and spit out the bones when I go. MacArthur has never tried to use “bait and switch” tactics. His ministry is transparent. You might not like his ministry, etc; but his ministry is honest to who he is.

Northland? Now, I am not sure. My question is, are they using bait and switch tactics to promote and fund their ministry? I do not know the answer to that question and that troubles me greatly.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

You guys that are talking about BDW are missing my point, but we probably need to take that to a new thread.

I tried to make this point earlier here and on another thread - what constitutes ‘good music’? Someone’s specific say so? I alluded to that earlier. And why are the standards for what is and what is not acceptable devolving into “I have no problem with this music”? Surely there are theological principles for that which is offered in praise to our Lord!

Regardless, I think I’ve reached an impasse with Dr. Harding (and I DO appreciate the interaction). His objections to NIU seem to be because they brought in speakers (Ware and Holland) that he disagrees with and this recruiting trip to the BDW concert. I don’t have problems with Ware or Holland teaching/speaking at NIU, and do potentially have a problem with the BDW event (for which I can’t seem to find any info on other than someone’s blogposts gossip?). So I appreciate his input although I have to admit that I would appreciate some more discussion on his underlying premises and principles (what, specifically, is the objection to Resolved concerts? The lighting? The Enfield band? The preaching?)

Back to NIU now:

Northland? Now, I am not sure. My question is, are they using bait and switch tactics to promote and fund their ministry? I do not know the answer to that question and that troubles me greatly.

It seems to me that this whole NIU issue isn’t as much deliberate and malicious ‘bait and switch’ tactics (as they are being accused of) as much as poor communication from NIU regarding what they are actually doing, which makes this a totally different ball of wax and falls into the ‘restore a brother in a spirit of meekness, lest you also be tempted’ category. If someone is deliberately painting this as a malicious bait and switch on NIU’s part (and I’m not saying Jim is doing so), then they are being is schismatic and divisive - something that 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Titus 3:9-11 covers.

The whole ‘NIU is not changing but we’re changing’ missive from a few years ago has served as a confusing problem, and it would be good for Dr. Olsen or NIU to clarify that. Is it a serious issue? Yes…absolutely it is. People that invest upwards of 40K (or whatever tuition is) have a right to know what their kids are going to be expected to do. Is it worth going straight to ‘Fundamentalist jihad stage’ over? No…not if it’s malicious.

We’re still brothers and sisters in Christ here, folks. We need to be careful about how we approach these things - make sure we know what we’re talking about, make sure that the motives are actually present and are not being ascribed or imputed, and that we’re handling these issues as ‘children of the light’.

To discuss BDW some more - head on over to a brand new thread.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to side track this into yet another music debate. (At least BDW didn’t sing “Heaven came Down and Glory Filled My Soul”.)

The “meat and bones” illustration has been referred to a number of times. When I went to seminary, an older pastor advised me to look at the my training like I was going to a lumber yard to get boards to build my house. I was not obligated to use every inch of every board they gave me. Some would have to be trimmed and some would have to be rejected. I think that young adults who’ve grown up in good homes and churches have enough discernment to make their own decisions.

Ron,

If the music issue is a non-issue to you, then you won’t have a problem with NIU’s direction. Matt just had another music presentation in chapel recently that prompted a number of students to leave chapel in protest. Matt apologized for the offense, but at the same time insisted that music is not going to be an issue at NIU while simultaneously reiterating that they have not changed on music or anything else. Frankly, it doesn’t make any sense. He sounds like a guy who believes in white blackbirds. Also, Matt plans on recruiting in the future at CCM concerts. Personally, I think it is a shift. Matt says he is just trying to catch up to where his grads already are. That may be the case. Though the Northland grads employed at my church do not agree with the changes and are not where Matt is on these kinds of issues. At this point I am going to retreat back into my rubber-walled room cursing the darkness with my megaphone hoping that Joel will one day let me out.

Jay,

Regarding Ware, I won’t press that any further. Personally, I believe so strongly in a literal view of Genesis that I in good conscience could not bring in a Bible teacher who didn’t. I am not suggesting that Ware is a liberal or a bad theologian on many other areas. I do understand your viewpoint on Ware. However, I can think of many profs who could have been a guest lecturer on those subjects (sanctification and open theism) without the baggage.

[Joel Tetreau]

Big Daddy Weave is not my “bread” when it comes to music. But my oldest son loves it - and my guess is 90% of the Godly young men going to our schools, colleges, seminaries love it. This is a personal taste issue. Is it your plan to separate from 9 out of 10 of the twenty year olds headed into Independent Baptist and Bible churches? (There is a part of me that thinks maybe you should!) My plan is to not separate from the 20 and 30 year olds over Big Daddy…….big daddy!

Is this the criteria that guides our thinking? What 9 out of 10 twenty year olds think? Right.

The criteria needs to be what pleases the Lord, not what pleases twenty year olds.

And that’s where the argument should be as well.

Don, I would like to know why your opinion on whether Big Daddy Weave pleases the Lord is more credible than “9 out of 10 twenty year olds.”

From purely a musical standpoint, I would call it a tossup.

;)

The criteria needs to be what pleases the Lord, not what pleases twenty year olds.

I understand the point Don is making. To some degree, I might even share in his assessment. But, Don, let me ask you- if you had someone in your church who you knew listened to and attended concerts featuring CCM type music that you deemed did not please the Lord, and they did not give it up, would that be an action worthy of church discipline? Would you knowingly allow such a person to take service roles in the church? In practicality, is it a scandalous sin, or an example of poor judgment comparable to someone who struggles with controlling their tongue?

The Puritans used to forbid things like games- concluding that they were not “pleasing to the Lord.” I had a professor at Faith, in fact, who felt very strongly that football, because of the level of violence and damage to the bodies of those who played, was an activity a Christian should not participate in or watch. He believed it did not “please the Lord.”

My family and I home educate, because we believe that “pleases the Lord.” We attend church with several who send their children to public school, or even the local Christian school, where there is activity (like the music) that we believe does not “please the Lord.”

Is there room for Christians to allow for behavior in other believers lives that they personally would eliminate from their own because they believed it did not “please the Lord”? I think the answer migh be pertinent to how we judge NIU on this matter.

[Greg Linscott]

The criteria needs to be what pleases the Lord, not what pleases twenty year olds.

I understand the point Don is making. To some degree, I might even share in his assessment. But, Don, let me ask you- if you had someone in your church who you knew listened to and attended concerts featuring CCM type music that you deemed did not please the Lord, and they did not give it up, would that be an action worthy of church discipline? Would you knowingly allow such a person to take service roles in the church? In practicality, is it a scandalous sin, or an example of poor judgment comparable to someone who struggles with controlling their tongue?

I agree with Don too on that statement. And guess who else almost certainly does? Big Daddy Weave. Everyone across the Christian music spectrum that is authentic wants their music to please the Lord. That is why I ask the question I did. What are Don’s credentials that should make us sit up and take note that he is authority on what music pleases the Lord?

What I see from Don are lots of unsubstantiated statements that he won’t defend. I went to his website and listened to his sermons on music in which he repeatedly admitted he does not know anything about music. And yet, this is a guy that has no problems calling a fellow Christian “part of the apostasy” because he uses a few light drums and calling for a boycott of a school because the president linked to a YouTube video of that musician.

[GregH] Everyone across the Christian music spectrum that is authentic wants their music to please the Lord.

Actually I talk to lots of folks who say that the music is neutral— neither pleasing nor displeasing apart from the words, or that the pleasingness to the Lord of it is merely subjective. Are you suggesting we ought to turn the vetting of our music to experts (with proper credentials) in order that we may be confident it is pleasing to the Lord?

[DavidO]

[GregH] Everyone across the Christian music spectrum that is authentic wants their music to please the Lord.

Actually I talk to lots of folks who say that the music is neutral— neither pleasing nor displeasing apart from the words, or that the pleasingness to the Lord of it is merely subjective. Are you suggesting we ought to turn the vetting of our music to experts (with proper credentials) in order that we may be confident it is pleasing to the Lord?

I see your point but I am not following it well. Regardless of whether musicians believe that music is moral or not, they still can have a desire to please the Lord. There are a lot of factors involved in being a professional musician including performance, message, etc. I have never heard of a Christian musician that thought that the entire package could be amoral. They just don’t have the hangups with drums or whatever.

And no, I am not suggesting that we turn over vetting of music to experts. That being said, I don’t mind listening to experts; I like that actually. But I do not like non-experts pronouncing dogmatic, uninformed and inflammatory judgments against musicians.

Most colleges like this have forbidden televisions in the dorms, or strictly regulated their use. But I daresay that in most of our churches, people do not observe those same kind of parameters in their homes. If NIU was to drop or loosen those kind of parameters in their campus rules (I’m not saying they have, though I have no idea), would that be cause for similar alarm of compromise?

By the way, I don’t take the participation (at whatever level) in the Big Daddy Weave concert as an encouraging development. I don’t let my kids listen to that kind of music. We don’t feature it in our church services. But I know for a fact that people in my church do not rigidly observe those same kind of standards that I do. I know for a fact that though my alma mater had fairly strict standards on these things when I was a student 12-15 years ago, that students did not follow them when off campus- I managed a fast-food restaurant and employed Faith students who vied for the CD player after close, and it wasn’t the Wilds they were playing, generally. :)

The question educators like this have to wrestle with is how you treat the specifics of music compliance, because it isn’t going away. Is it scandalous behavior akin to viewing pornography? Is it like wearing sneakers to class instead of dress shoes? Is it like a student trying to argue Calvinism in a class where the professor is more Arminian?

[Greg Linscott]

But, Don, let me ask you- if you had someone in your church who you knew listened to and attended concerts featuring CCM type music that you deemed did not please the Lord, and they did not give it up, would that be an action worthy of church discipline?

That depends: are they trying to be divisive, teach their views to others, raise opposition to the teaching ministry of the church? If yes, then yes. If no, then it would be a matter of counseling and teaching.

[Greg Linscott] Would you knowingly allow such a person to take service roles in the church?

That also depends on the office involved and the flagrance of disagreement.

But the discussion here has nothing to do with local church involvement. It has to do with whether or not a church or individual wants to maintain an association or connection with a particular educational institution. In this case, the changes that have been made cause me to say that relationship is over.

My point to Joel, however, is that he is making a statement based on purely pragmatic reasoning. Hardly a spiritual measure by which to make decisions for ministry going forward.

Don,

To some degree, pragmatism enters into our considerations on these things, though. Even in your response about things in your local church, you acknowledge that there are scenarios in which you would tolerate some divergence in views on the music issue. Your consideration, from your perspective, seems spiritually motivated, but it would be just as easy for someone to attribute of pragmatism to that (you need people to preach too, so you learn to tolerate the divergence).

Similarly, it would be just as easy to attribute spiritual motives to a place like Northland- who wants to influence students even if they diverge from SOP regarding music. Is there a pragmatic reason? Sure. Pragmatism isn’t something we consistently condemn- schools have made pragmatic appeals to potential students for a long, long time. I would argue, for example that BJ3 had pragmatic reasons for dropping the inter-racial dating policy on Larry King Live! instead of sending letters to supporters. Pragmatism is not always a bad word.

I am commenting on Joel’s comment, not on Northland when I say pragmatic reasoning.

As far as saying that I am using pragmatic reasoning, I don’t think that is a fair charge. I take my positions regardless whether anyone shows up or not. We have seen many people walk away because they won’t agree with the teaching we see from the Scriptures. I haven’t deviated to keep them in the doors.

That is not to say I’ve always been right in everything I have taught, but I don’t make my decisions based on how it will play with others.

My disagreement with Northland has to do with their disobedience to the Lord. That is of course my opinion, but I’m not alone in seeing it as such.