"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

Whatever. Way to spin.

Don, got it, thanks. I had looked at the section on Ecclesiastical Separation and the first time it was mentioned on page 12, but did not look down far enough to see the “various” statement. Appreciate it.

[Don Johnson]

Whatever. Way to spin.

Wow Don, that was extremely uncharitable and lacking in grace.

[Don Johnson]

To me there is an integrity issue about going against your official policies and doctrinal statements. Better to change the documents first rather than deliberately flouting it. It’s a matter of character.

The other changes are also problems for me. The fact that Matt et al have been stonewalling up till now is a problem for me.

If NIU returned? Its very unlikely that they would, but if they did, who could trust them? They would have to rebuild trust and may not have enough time/cash to do that.

Thanks for clarifying, Don. If I understand correctly:

• You insist that NIU deal with the alleged discrepancy between their doctrinal statements and practice.

But regardless of how they deal with this concern…

• You cannot associate with them because of the other changes.
• You wouldn’t be able to trust them even if they announced the back-tracking you recommend.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into your comments, but is it your belief that the school’s leadership lacks integrity, character and honesty?

“opinion” would be better. I had thought better of them, but am sadly disappointed by the changes and the way they have been implemented.

I guess I would have to say that if there was a reversal, trust could be regained, but it would take time.

And on “insisting” - well, they can do what they like. I’m not really presuming to insist they do anything. I am expressing my opinion on what they have done.

I don’t know Matt Olson, and know Dr. O. only slightly. So I’m relatively nobody when it comes to this whole discussion. But I do want to ask a sincere question.

It seems like NIU has had in mind catering to a different constituency for some time now. The changes Dr. Olson mentions are not all new. In fact, a number of them happened years ago. So, at what point did this effort begin? Obviously, there have been NIU apologists advocating for them (in places such as SI) for quite some time as well.

If it has been a goal for some time, why has there been an effort to try and “keep up appearances” toward those who would not support their change of direction? Why the time of rope-a-dope for quite some time up to now, saying in effect, “we’re not changing”, and not really producing a clear statement and vision?

While what Dr. Olson produced has some clarity to it, it really doesn’t lay out how the vision has changed, or how their constituency has changed. It’s more of a statement that, yes, we have changed, and here’s how. It feels more reactive than proactive to me (maybe I’m wrong?). If this has been the case for some time, why the delay in saying it? This is why it seems to those who would not support the changes that they are being used, with NIU saying, in effect, “we want your students and resources, but want to use them for a different vision.”

It might explain why it might be hard for trust to be gained (or regained).

Link to comment in context

Greg, do you think that NIU would consider the brand of continuationism that is prevalent in the SGM to be different than that brand of the charismatic movement that we grew up with? I realize that many may not agree with him, but I know a lot of people see a significant difference in those two groups. If that were the case, they may not see a disconnect between what is contained in their doctrinal statement (in opposition to charismatic movement) and having one of their off-campus staff as a member in a SGM church or even having someone in to speak on a different topic altogether who may hold to the SGM view of continuationism. Just curious.

I don’t know what they think now. Back when I was younger, though, there were people who were more conservative in the continuationism than others- not everyone went to the extremes of say, the Toronto Blessing, or Benny Hinn, or what have you. Calvary Chapel or elements of the Assemblies of God denomination, for example, would be more Arminian than Calvinist in their soteriology- comparable perhaps, in that arena, to some IFB churches (especially CC). I had some classmates in my youth who were AoG- in many ways, it was difficult to distinguish them from my southern IFB friends, even when we went to each other’s VBS programs, for example. I have a good friend here in town here who is the bivocational pastor of a Calvary Chapel congregation- we share many similar emphases, including a love of expositional preaching.

But Northland’s old statement did not distinguish that they were distinct from only certain continuationists… rather, they identified the various elements of Charismatics- in all the extremes, regardless of soteriology. The issue, as I would understand it, would be the way that the activity of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the life of a believer today. And that perspective, as far as SGM type churches go, still remains the point of distinction until they clarify whether they have changed that too- unless none of it matters anymore.

[gadietrich]

I have no doubt that a man like John MacArthur still holds pretty tightly to what he wrote all those years ago in Charistmatic Chaos, however, he has demonstrated that ones view of the gifts should not be a point of separation. FWIW, I agree.

I wonder, though, if they might not be reconsidering on this issue. They are holding a conference this year on the Charismatic movenment- see http://www.tmstrangefire.org/ - and it is interesting to me that is there is a difference between, say, SGM type churches and other Charismatics/Continuationists, why they didn’t bring, say, Joshua Harris or Dave Harvey (CJ Mahaney may not be a good fit at the moment for other reasons) or even John Piper to help make that distinction clear. But they aren’t on the speaker docket.

To take it a step further, JMac and co have not been involved in T4G of late, and do not to my knowledge have involvement in the efforts of The Gospel Coalition, either. I know from past personal correspondence that there (not to mention posts on Pyromaniacs) that GCC has had increasing concerns with some of Piper’s affirmations of continuationism.

Aside: Wouldn’t it be ironic if Masters actually became more distinct in this arena than NIU?

Could I read your article on secondary separation when you are finished? After reading some of your other contributions here on the forum, I would be genuinely interested in where you come down. I am still thinking a lot about the issue myself. It has only been in the past few years that I have discovered that I just might be a Fundamentalist myself, since I have had a tendency to opt more and more for what I think most here would call “secondary separation.” But, as I said, I am still thinking some things through.

Matt Olsen is saying what a lot of the younger generation of fundamentalists are thinking. One day, regardless of Don Johnson, young people will be sending their kids to school - or not. It will likely take 20 years to find out if this is a slippery slope, or exactly the right move for Northland vs. other “fundamentalist” colleges.

Any college will need to deal with the internet revolution to remain in business in the coming quarter century. Some treat the fundamentalism issue as the main event. They’re playing checkers, while the internet education revolution is where the chess is being played.

[Steve Newman]

If it has been a goal for some time, why has there been an effort to try and “keep up appearances” toward those who would not support their change of direction? Why the time of rope-a-dope for quite some time up to now, saying in effect, “we’re not changing”, and not really producing a clear statement and vision?

While what Dr. Olson produced has some clarity to it, it really doesn’t lay out how the vision has changed, or how their constituency has changed. It’s more of a statement that, yes, we have changed, and here’s how. It feels more reactive than proactive to me (maybe I’m wrong?). If this has been the case for some time, why the delay in saying it? This is why it seems to those who would not support the changes that they are being used, with NIU saying, in effect, “we want your students and resources, but want to use them for a different vision.”

It might explain why it might be hard for trust to be gained (or regained).

I’ll take you at your word that it’s a serious question, and offer this response in all seriousness. My experience has been (at our church even) that when you commit yourself to a biblical, rather than cultural, fundamentalism, you’re not at all sure up front what the ramifications are going to be. You see clear teaching of scripture, for example, on separation being for the purpose of unity (and not being from those we still consider to be brothers.) But what does that look like? In all honesty, it’s not at all clear up front where that philosophy will lead you in application.

And so in a lot of ways it’s a very slow learning process. And things change practically sometimes in ways that almost surprise you as well when they happen—because you’re working on something, and you realize that to consistently apply what you’ve learned in that situation that you won’t be doing the same thing as before. And this is happening week in and week out.

On top of all that, even when you’ve come to conclusion that certain things are perfectly acceptable scripturally, that doesn’t mean you’re personally comfortable with them yet. A great example is music—let me give a quick anecdote from my own experience. While many have said that people like myself change their music standards because they just really want to listen to “rock”, my experience couldn’t be more opposite. As I studied scripture, I came to the conclusion that these various genres weren’t at bad. But I was still very uncomfortable with them. It took the course of another year at least to be comfortable with some of them—and longer yet for others. My conscience had to be retrained by the truth I was seeing in scripture.

So these kinds of changes often happen slowly, as you take steps tentatively in the direction you see somewhat less clearly at first, sometimes faltering along the way. From the outside, this can very much look like someone trying to hide what their doing, but in reality it’s a desperate attempt to just allow scripture to guide you. When the crutches of your tradition have been knocked away, a lot of your steps are more like stumbling than walking.

So I don’t think that it’s at all an attempt to keep up appearances or deceive. It’s just the way the process works.

Steve Newman,

You mentioned my name in connection with the word indifferentism. The term is actually Machen’s. He used it of people who believed the gospel, but who were indifferent to its function as the boundary of Christianity. The word could rightly be applied to Billy Graham, but I don’t think it can rightly be applied to Northland.

I read with interest your remarks about those who have tried to “keep up appearances” while NIU was changing. In fact, I can remember specific conversations with you in which I came to the defense of NIU. I accepted the bona fides that the leadership at Northland simply wanted to abandon some of the practices that were held over from “right-ditch” fundamentalism. Well, here we are.

Greg Dietrich,

You are mistaken on two counts.

First, secondary separation is one of the differentia of historic fundamentalism. It is what distinguished the GARBC from the Conservative Baptist movement. It is what that distinguished the ACCC from the NAE. At a later point, it was what distinguished Robert T. Ketcham from Alan Redpath. For more than seventy years it has been the point that has differentiated historic fundamentalists from moderate or conservative evangelicals. A person or institution that rejects secondary separation has no right to claim the name historic fundamentalism.

Second, the Charismatic Movement is much broader than old Pentecostalism. That was only the First of the Three Waves of the Charismatic Movement. The Third Wave began with the Vineyard movement, but has of course spread beyond it. One of the principal theologians in the Vineyard movement up through the 1990s was Wayne Grudem, whose pneumatology is virtually indistinguishable from that of Piper, Mahaney, and others. Grudem has not altered his views, but only his associations. These individuals may not be old Pentecostals, but they are certainly part of the Charismatic Movement. SGM is squarely Third Wave.

Furthermore, and for what it’s worth, fundamentalists have always considered charismatic theology to be a serious error in all its permutations. It is not always a denial of the gospel, and some forms of it are less obnoxious than others. But there are no versions of charismatic theology that should be treated as incidental errors or mere idiosyncrasies. While I would not wish to truncate all fellowship with the better sort of continuationist, I cannot think of a circumstance under which the truth would be served by fundamentalists engaging in public, organized cooperation with charismatics. To put it bluntly, I could not teach for an institution that employed faculty or staff who were open to continuationism, however cautiously.

With all due respect to Kevin, his statement regarding who has the right to call himself an historic fundamentalist is just plain wrong.

My family came out of the Northern Baptist Convention. My relatives served as missionaries in the Conservative Baptist Association. When the secondary separationists started calling for separation from other fundamentalists, my relatives refused to budge. It was my relatives who were in the main stream of historic fundamentalists. They didn’t fellowship with apostates. But neither were they going to separate from believing brothers and sisters in Christ. The more they refused to budge, the more vitriol and bitterness came spewing out of the mouths of the hyper-separatists. Soon, the only ones worthy of the name “fundamentalism” were those bitter enough to fight for it. Meanwhile, my relatives were too busy serving Christ as missionaries than to be concerned with what label they were flying under.

So Kevin’s statement about secondary separation and who can lay claim to the term “historic fundamentalist” proves my point. Only “his” branch of fundamentalism had the right to the term. How do we know? They told us so. Left with the choice of what to call one’s self, it just wasn’t worth the fight. And Kevin’s branch redefined thousands of fundamentalists right out of the movement. And they are doing it again today.

But we know who we are. And we know what we believe. And we know our roots. And we know where we came from. And we know that we stand with the historic fundamentalists who refused to make secondary separation the key distinguishing factor of what it meant to come together for the fundamentals of the faith.

So Kevin not withstanding, I am an historic fundamentalist! History proves it.

You called me a new evangelical in the 80s.

You’re calling me a conservative evangelical in the 2000s.

But your names can’t change the fact that I am an historic fundamentalist who refuses to budge.

To the praise and glory of God my Savior.

Blessings in Christ!

Whatever else, by your reply, it certainly seems you and your relatives wished to be distinguished from those you identify as the “hyper-separatists.” I mean, in one sense, it seems like Republicans insisting that they are more for democracy than Democrats, so they should have the right to the term as much as anyone!

Whether we are talking about “hyper-separatists” or “neo-evangelicals,” it seems all sides would recognize that there are distinct categories and ways of thinking that define those categories. Secondary separation is a defining characteristic of the movement you identify as “hyper-separatist,” and is a characteristic rejected by those who called themselves “neo-evangelicals.” Northland, for good or ill, has fully embraced and identified with “hyper-separatists” for quite some time. My use of the distorted terms aside, that was the gist of what I took in from Kevin’s post as filtered through your descriptor grid.

jcoleman: Excellent points. I think you’re exactly right.