John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

Ok, everyone, we need to talk about the anatomy of a freed-from-sin’s-slavery-Gospel-centered-worship song and band dynamics.

First, you gotta start with a clean 6 string acoustic guitar with open string chords first, just strummed—and I dunno, just go from a major to a minor or a major to a diminished chord, in 2/2 time, and then form a little intro pattern, and make it sound “meaningful, and maybe a little airy or well, “thoughtful” or did I mean “meaningful?” Oh, I said that already. But, not “deep.” (That’s coming…)

Then, (oh yeah, then…) when the artistically poignant musical tension of this repeated meaningful, airy chord pattern is just too much to take, (like ya know, 5 seconds or so) let’s break in with a Les Paul (Chinese knockoff?) electric guitar power chord reinforcement of the acoustic riff (with a little Jimmi Hendrix-distortion—piped through another knockoff —this time of a Marshall amplifier), and (note this) to make sure that the power-chords show depth of meaning in the music (because the acoustic guitar didn’t communicate “deep”—only “meaningful” and “airy” or was it “fun”? I dunno), the electric guitarist—who should be made in the image of Jonny Buckland (Coldplay for all you lame-os who don’t know)—he needs to do “deep” knee bends when he strums down on the guitar. Note carefully! This is a new move, no other rock guitarist has ever done this move, and not only is it sure to help communicate the deep feeling behind the theologically powerful and well-written lyrics, but we’re guessin’ that unsaved rock guitarists all over the world will copy this move from now on. And maybe they will want to hear the Good News because of this move—ya gotta hope so anyway.

Ok, levity over…too nice?

Some real life persecution would do the people of God, and especially pastors here in the USA, some good. Perhaps then, with the testing of our faith, all of this foolish, petty, nit-pickiness, where brothers are attacking brothers over non-essential matters, would end. When you are sitting in a jail cell together for the sake of Christ’s Gospel it won’t matter to you if your brother likes to sing Chris Tomlin songs in his church. Radical Islam continues to march onward toward complete domination here in the US and you want to fight with your brothers because they are allowing their students to use guitars and drums?

I do not get the sense that John is attacking anyone. I am not with him or the FBFI on a good many things, including how they might or might not define what to separate over or what biblical separation is. But, this is about a generation of disciples learning what worship is—which is our highest calling. As regards the priorities and traits of character which float to the top in the midst of trial, many from Vaughn’s generation have faced much of real life trial as you describe—in real life mission work where lives, health, security and safety were on the line. And, lo and behold, the Christian priorities which were birthed in their version of fundamentalism (a f’ism which I do not wholly identify with) these priorities bore them through in ways we younger men could learn from. My own remarks as to the formation of some of the more modern music are meant to speak to the lack of art, careful & thoughtful devotion in some songs, and frankly to suggest that there is a shallowness which is as thin as “I Come to the Garden Alone” or the like in so much of what I hear. (Hope things are going well with you and yours—still remember the Youth gatherings up in cold Houghton Lake, and struggling to stay awake during finals week at DBTS…)

[Dan McGhee]

Some real life persecution would do the people of God, and especially pastors here in the USA, some good. Perhaps then, with the testing of our faith, all of this foolish, petty, nit-pickiness, where brothers are attacking brothers over non-essential matters, would end. When you are sitting in a jail cell together for the sake of Christ’s Gospel it won’t matter to you if your brother likes to sing Chris Tomlin songs in his church. Radical Islam continues to march onward toward complete domination here in the US and you want to fight with your brothers because they are allowing their students to use guitars and drums?

I understand what you are saying here, Dan. At the same time, if the Islamists were persecuting, for example, it would look a little different than the Spanish Inquisition. They might put us in cells alongside Mormons, Roman Catholics, and others we might have serious foundational disagreements with. I would hope that in circumstances like that, we could find some ways to help and in some ways work together to protect families and such without denying the gospel. But that wouldn’t mean those contrasting principles wouldn’t matter. In your illustration, just because something might overshadow this difference doesn’t mean the difference isn’t one worthy of consideration in the current circumstance.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

You’re rewriting history to claim that the real fundamentalists separated — when that decision came well after the fundamentalists began fighting for in the beginning all of them fought from within.

I am not re-writing history. Not at all. You are misunderstanding the history of these two movements. The approximate period before 1930 fundamentalists attempted to purge apostasy from within denominational organizations, schools, missions boards, etc. From approximately 1930 onwards, they chose to separate instead.

That is an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it since there isn’t such a neat categorization. The continuum of when to leave versus fight from within was always incredibly fuzzy. And to make that claim (that after 1930 fundamentalists chose to separate instead( you have to make the claim that the entire wing of the original fundamentalists who stayed within to fight after some left were not true fundamentalists to begin with. But that is rewriting history.

[TylerR]

The fundamentalist philosophy of ministry is, very broadly (1) militant separation from apostasy and (2) secondary separation from disobedient brethren. There are probably better definitions, but I don’t have time to think of them now.

So the question ends up being whether NIU is a disobedient brother. And to answer this question, we might ask this “If they continue doing what they’re doing, would I practice church discipline on them? Which is to say, am I going to treat them as an unbeliever?”

Since I don’t believe for a moment that they should be treated as unbelievers, I don’t believe that you can call them disobedient brothers. The Bible knows nothing of separating from those whom we still treat as brothers.

I realize that last statement flies in the face of the strain of fundamentalism that managed to be the only one still claiming the name around the middle of the 20th century, but I submit that it is very much in line with what the earlier, broader, fundamentalists believed.

[Greg Linscott]

[Dan McGhee]

Some real life persecution would do the people of God, and especially pastors here in the USA, some good. Perhaps then, with the testing of our faith, all of this foolish, petty, nit-pickiness, where brothers are attacking brothers over non-essential matters, would end. When you are sitting in a jail cell together for the sake of Christ’s Gospel it won’t matter to you if your brother likes to sing Chris Tomlin songs in his church. Radical Islam continues to march onward toward complete domination here in the US and you want to fight with your brothers because they are allowing their students to use guitars and drums?

I understand what you are saying here, Dan. At the same time, if the Islamists were persecuting, for example, it would look a little different than the Spanish Inquisition. They might put us in cells alongside Mormons, Roman Catholics, and others we might have serious foundational disagreements with. I would hope that in circumstances like that, we could find some ways to help and in some ways work together to protect families and such without denying the gospel. But that wouldn’t mean those contrasting principles wouldn’t matter. In your illustration, just because something might overshadow this difference doesn’t mean the difference isn’t one worthy of consideration in the current circumstance.

Hi Greg. Islamification, continued secularization, growing opposition from a world that sees our beliefs as “hateful” and “bigoted.” Persecution seems inevitable for true believers. But brother, you have just listed people you might sit next to in a jail cell - Catholics, Mormons, etc… Are you really suggesting the differences you have with these groups is similar at all with the preferential difference you have with Northland’s recent musical choices? Greg, Matt Olson and the others up there are BROTHERS IN CHRIST. They love Christ. They love the Gospel. They desire to see students serve Christ and preach the Gospel. They want their students to make a difference for Christ. I stand by my initial statement.

[fljones3]

Are we confusing “fundamentals” and “philosophy”? Most mainline denominations have on paper that they adhere to some form of the “fundamentals”. Perhaps NIU hasn’t changed on the fundamentals of the faith, but they have changed in some form their philosophy (“any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation”). By definition, yes.

I assume that the NIU of old, NBBC did what they did with a conviction that it adhered to their philosophy. If that activity has changed then the philosophy has changed to some measure. They are not handling their music in the same fashion as years ago.

No, that’s precisely what I’m arguing against. Philosophy is not the same as application. My philosophy of how to approach culture remains constant. My application of that philosophy will change depending on what particular culture I’m interacting with.

So yes, they are not handling their music in the same fashion as years ago. But I don’t that that necessarily means a change in philosophy. It’s (and this is precisely what they claim) an updated (as the culture their interacting with has changed) application of the same guiding philosophy/principles.

[Jay]

I’m increasingly amused by the anti-modern music arguments that have no actual basis in reality. I am sure that someone out there thinks that they could take a song from the Billboard Top 100 and make a Christian song out of it, but I don’t know of anyone who’s ever tried. At least, who tried and was brave enough to say it.

One would think that if you’re going to argue against something, you would know at least a few of the actual arguments employed by your opponents.

This is possibly one of the best summaries I’ve seen so far.

But brother, you have just listed people you might sit next to in a jail cell - Catholics, Mormons, etc… Are you really suggesting the differences you have with these groups is similar at all with the preferential difference you have with Northland’s recent musical choices?

No- I am only saying that adversity such as you mention can change perspective on a lot of things. Potentially changed practice doesn’t mean that issues aren’t important now. I was giving an extreme example- I don’t see the music issue the same as RC or Mormonism- but neither do I see that because adversity would come and the level of disagreement diminish as an indicator that the issue is unimportant. There are a lot of things that could be said of- I doubt we would speak much of cessationism or modes of baptism if there were Islamic oppression, either. I don’t reduce baptism to a “preference issue,” though.

The World Congress of Fundamentalists November 12-19, 1980 held in Manila and Singapore passed the following resolution in respect of music,

The World Congress of Fundamentalists rejects the sensual trends of the religious music today because it contradicts and nullifies the spiritual emphasis of the preaching and teaching ministries of the church. We oppose the superficial and carnal fruit produced by this music in the lives of both those who perform it and those who are exposed to it. We oppose all such music that incorrectly places the emphasis upon the physical instead of the spiritual and that has roots in the world instead of the Bible.

I wonder would NIU sign up to that statement today. The music has not changed in the world but sadly it has in the church. We see the tunnel Matt Olson wants us all to go down but we don’s see any light there. Amidst all the fifty dollar words like “missional” and “relational” that is bandied around to cover up the sea change, lets be honest and call it what it is - expediency and worldliness.

I am reminded by the words of the late Margaret Thatcher who was known as the Iron Lady, “You turn if you will, but the lady’s not for turning.” The historical split between separatist fundamentalism and what became known as Neo-Evangelicalism started in a number of areas. One of those was music.

For instance, Moody Bible Institute quietly mutated into a Neo-Evangelical institution without ever officially renouncing Fundamentalism. In an article in Moody for February 1979 music instructor David Brackley stated, “We are trying to span as many musical tastes as possible…we use a few classical numbers, but our music is mainly more contemporary gospel music.” BIOLA founded by Rueben Torrey evidenced the same change. In the magazine Foundation was published an official statement from the BIOLA Music Department giving the University position on the use of jazz music stating,

… to a great degree, contemporary jazz has become ‘classical.’ It is also true that traditional jazz has to a great extent left its original association with the brothels of New Orleans, social dance, drinking, and other social practices which have represented ‘worldly values.’ Jazz, in effect, must be considered ‘classical’ in the broad sense of the term. It is entirely possible for college students to rehearse and perform jazz purely as another style of concert music.

One thing that I was thinking about yesterday is that Matt Olson said that NIU’s position was ‘unchanged’ back in November of 2010 - some three years ago.

Here’s the salient point (on music) of the statement:

Philosophically, it is unchanged. Let me say it again…unchanged. What we have always been trying to do, and will continue to do into the future, is to make sure Northland’s practice of music (as with every aspect of the Christian life) is built principally on clear teachings from the Bible rather than on reactionary, extra-biblical reasoning that has proven to be troublingly insufficient when exported to cultures beyond American borders. We believe the Bible is sufficient to bring us to right and God-honoring positions regardless of time and culture. Even though we haven’t changed our music at a philosophical level, we are changing our music on a missional level. Where you will see changes is in our intent to expand our training to prepare students for worship and music globally. This only makes sense because, as you may have noticed, Northland International University has become more and more an international, global ministry with a passion to take the gospel where it is not proclaimed. Over 41% of the world’s population is still without a Gospel witness. This has become our students’ burden.

I’m not going to put words in Dr. Olson’s mouth, but I do believe that he and NIU went through the same kind of musical metamorphosis that I did. I kept a lot of the underlying principles on music that I had, but the outworking of those principles led me to a more modern form of music (as multiple threads here are making clear). My journey on music was conducted completely independently of NIU’s (and other alumni), yet we have all seemed to arrive at similar places at similar times with the exception of one man that I know, who is a missionary and who is doing excellent work in Mexico. I’m not sure why that is, but it is a comfort to me in some ways that I’m not the only one ‘off the deep end’. It should also be noted that Dr. Ollila followed up this letter with one of his own (that you can read here). Apparently, not all alumni are comfortable with that musical journey, and I understand their reasoning.

It seems unfair to take a statement made from them in 2010 and accuse them of lying or being deceitful or whatever now because they made changes after the fact. Maybe further evaluation and reflection and discussions prompted these changes after the letter was released.

I’m not excusing NIU or Dr. Olson - I just figured that I should note that as we attack the school for ‘lying’ or ‘misleading’ or being ‘deceitful’ or whatever. I am troubled by the professors’ position vis a vis with the DS, but I spoke with the school and they’ve alleviated my personal concerns. Of course, that doesn’t mean that what I heard will reassure all the people who are watching and thinking about what the school is doing, or that people will assume that NIU is now OK because I spoke with them.

It seems unfair to take a statement made from them in 2010 and accuse them of lying or being deceitful or whatever /now/ because they made changes after the fact. Maybe further evaluation and reflection and discussions prompted these changes after the letter was released.

Jay,

If it were only based on that, your point would be stronger. But the posting/removal (without any explanation or acknowledgement) pattern factors into the assessment, too. What would be a justifiable reason for that kind of action?

If they are being treated unfairly, as you say, they have at the very least invited the scrutiny by their mismanagement of the public portrayal.

If they are being treated unfairly, as you say, they have at the very least invited the scrutiny by their mismanagement of the public portrayal.

I’m not saying they’re blameless or that they’ve done things perfectly. I think that they could (should!) have handled this a lot better. I just thought it was worth pointing out that the statement was made quite a few years ago.

[Greg Linscott]

It seems unfair to take a statement made from them in 2010 and accuse them of lying or being deceitful or whatever /now/ because they made changes after the fact. Maybe further evaluation and reflection and discussions prompted these changes after the letter was released.

Jay,

If it were only based on that, your point would be stronger. But the posting/removal (without any explanation or acknowledgement) pattern factors into the assessment, too. What would be a justifiable reason for that kind of action?

If they are being treated unfairly, as you say, they have at the very least invited the scrutiny by their mismanagement of the public portrayal.

BJU regularly yanks chapel messages too (even from Dr. Bob III), but I don’t hear anyone accusing them (on SI) of dishonesty.