Olson out at Northland

Brother Thompson,

First of all, I don’t agree that his tone is dismissive. Second, if his tone was a bit stark as you say, some people have earned the right to correct in unambiguous terms those of us who are less informed, less experienced, and less accomplished. I for one appreciated what he said and we would all do well to heed his advice. With the well-advised there is wisdom. I have no objection to Dan disagreeing with Dr. McCune; however, his tone and words far exceeded the lines of propriety which Dr. McCune allegedly crossed.

I don’t know if you know Dr. McCune very well, if at all. Perhaps, that is why in part you wrote your opinion in such terms. However, if you had any idea how offensive your words and tone were to him and to us who have sat under his ministry for many years, then you would at least have had the common decency to disagree respectfully, showing deference to a man whose personal integrity and accomplishments in theology, education, authorship, ministry, and pastoral training would take pages to list.

I have shied away from most of this conversation, but if I were the object of McCune’s diatribe, I would have taken offense. Accusations of being naive and assumptions that “your kind” will always opt for peaceful accommodation, comparisons to the spirit of Ahab, comparisons to the Spurgeon downgrade controversy, all come across as the worst form of stereotyping and generalizing. Maybe Dan should have disagreed better. But it appeared to an outsider like me that Dan’s response came in the same tone that Dr. McCune set forth. I’m sure Dr. McCune was an influential professor of the highest caliber. However, this definitely wasn’t one of his best moments………

How some long for the days when information was not so readily available. It was so much easier to control people then. They didn’t have to worry about the younger guys reading and forming opinions on their own. Opinions were handed down from on high. It hasn’t occurred to them that gaining a hearing from certain types isn’t the most important thing in their lives.

Dan and ADThompson, the dismissive attitude is part and parcel of how they deal with what they can no longer control. These are the guys who are presiding over the downfall of their own brand. In Wesley Mouch fashion, their only solution is more control.

Mike, it is great that you feel that way toward Rolland, but I am thinking that your opinion of his greatness doesn’t excuse the rotten attitude. If Dan’s words were offensive, perhaps it is Rolland and those who follow him that should reconsider.

I was pretty surprised by Dr. McCune’s post and Dan Burrell’s post as well.

That being said, McCune’s broadbrushed writing off of my group and Dan’s over the top response proved one thing - we all have a lot to learn in terms of Phil. 2 and Eph. 4. That, and we’re still good at shooting our wounded.

-edit-

By wounded, I mean both parties - McCune’s hurt at ‘losing’ more guys and Dan’s hurt at being written off as hopelessly compromised.

Friends,

I believe Matthew 18:15 applies here.

Let’s handle this the right way. As brothers.

Brother Harding,

We won’t agree and I don’t wish to waste your valuable time—tone is, after all, subjective. You find impropriety in only one party—your loyalty is both understandable and commendable.

I am less informed, less experienced and less accomplished than any of you but I am convinced that Scripture does speaks to our attitude when engaged in correction. You know better than I do that meekness and humility are essential ingredients in the process. No accomplishments entitle me to dispense with these ingredients.

My lack of discernment may be to blame, but I detect no meekness or humility in this sampling of his unambiguous correction.

[Dan Burrell]

[Rolland McCune]

Brethren,

You who are the new/next generationers have confirmed my prediction that the culprits for the Northland episode will at last be the bad ‘ole Fundies, except that now we are also the “real enemy,” all in the spirit of brotherhood I presume. But I confess that your analysis is so incredibly naive that my first response was total exasperation, to the point, in fact, of writing off any hope for the future if your proposals prevail in the next crises. And, mark my words, they will come, and your kind will again head for the tall weeds of peaceful accommodation. In the long haul, there will never be a hill you are willing to die on. I encourage you to invest in considerably more propaedeutic if you wish to gain a respectful and informed hearing.

Back to the present, your thinking, solutions, or proposals about the Northland crisis would be old news even to Methusaleh. Powerful King Ahab of Samaria, who left his mark on the Fertile Crescent for a century or more, could not bear any negative prognostications, so he branded Micaiah ben Imlah the “real enemy” of his regime in favor of a kindler, gentler, peaceful voice to whose words he could finally say amen (1 Kings 22). The spirit I feel in your responses is what Spurgeon called “the middlemen” in the 19th century Downgrade controversy, the roots of which he traced to ecclesial transactions in 1662. W. B. Riley contended with the spirit of the “inbetweenites” in the 1920s Great Controversy in the US. The same could be said of the skirmish, begun in the 1940s, with the New Evangelical experiment. The double minded are ever with us; their yes has a no in it, and their no has a yes in it, even now. But as Lady Margaret Thatcher told President G. W. H. Bush, “This is no time to go wobbly, George,” a tip I kindly pass on to the leaders and followers in our present milieu’s concerns.

All things being equal, I intend to join Dr. Doran in exiting from this particular fray.

Oh, good grief. What senseless pontification. I’m not “new” nor am I “next”. It is this kind of condescension that has driven many a fine, young, curious and yes, AUTHENTIC, fundamentalist into the arms of the dreaded evangelicals or worse. In this day of access to information across the internet where intelligent people ask difficult questions and expect reasonable and reasoned replies, this “waving of the hand” dismissal just doesn’t fly. It would take me a month of Sunday’s to respond to the mischaracterizations within those two paragraphs and for you to compare the minor issues of today’s hyper-separatism to Spurgeon’s “downgrade” (you see, some of us whom you’d label as “inbetweenites” actually know our history as well) controversy is both over-reaching and an insult to the memories of those who actually HAVE fought over doctrine. People with active and sincerely questioning minds who dare challenge the pious clingers to inconsequentials and tertiary rabbit trails can no longer be ignored and they deserve better from those who would purport to possess scholarship and represent some sort of special dispensation of “Fundamentalism”. This is the danger of the Ivory Tower of Higher Education in which some of us immerse ourselves. Eventually, we lose sight of the Messenger and the Commissioner aspects of our calling. We waste our opportunities on rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic and debating the number of angels that can be perched on pinheads. I would expect better of the scholarly…or at least hope better.

To the young and not-so-young believers who may eventually read this thread, keep asking your questions, keep searching the Word and keep challenging traditions that have no basis in Scripture. Do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, but neither be afraid as to inquire as ti why the baby might be bathed in such a way and if that is the only way in which to bath said baby. Scripture is our authority….not movements, not professors, not self-annointed spokesmen and not institutions. Finally, read the book, “Dangerous Calling” by Paul David Tripp (yes, I know he’s not exactly on the “approved” list) and it might help remind all of us of what are real missing in terms of Christlike ministry. If your church is really reaching your community for Christ instead of trying to find a position of recognition with the Body of Christ, you will never, ever be asked what version of the Bible you use, what schools your church supports, what your position on eschatology is or what music style is acceptable. You will be confronting addictions, brokenness, despair, confusion, anger, loss, pain and a thousand other maladies — all of for which the Gospel if the ONLY cure. While the other topics are not altogether unimportant, they certainly don’t rise to the level some would assign to them when one considers the broad arch of eternity.

Thank you, Dan.

As a grandson of the founder of NIU, I have a vested interest in what happens to Northland.

I have no idea what McCune is doing commenting on things at NIU. His kind affirmation of MBBC staying the course is just the kind of jab that his employer admonished us not to do. His vitriolic bitterness at those who disagree with him was pretty evident for all to see. I agree with you, Dan. We know our history as well and we aren’t falling for it. Your response to him was correct and timely. Who wants to identify with that?

As for Matt Olson, he called me several weeks ago after I posted on Lou’s sight. He was very sincere in his efforts to reconnect with this “shunned” alumnus. It meant a lot to me that he called. I was also surprised when I watched the chapel service on Monday to see the joy in the students and the songs that they sang. How wonderful that was to see. So, yes, I am thankful for the direction Matt was leading Northland. So are all of my cousins who have posted on this topic in the last few days. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t other issues that needed to be addressed. But it does mean that Matt was making the effort to regather the alumni that Northland refused to acknowledge under Ollila. In fact, I received a letter from one alumnus who poured his heart out to us (Patz family). He shared the pain and rejection that he felt upon visiting NIU after his graduation. The administration refused to acknowledge his presence or talk to him. We know what he is talking about.

Maybe Doran and McCune can focus on their ministry, and NIU can focus on theirs, bless their hearts.

As for the grandsons of the founder, we are all happy with the new direction of NIU!

I feel like Joel T.

Straight ahead!

Group:

For those who have taken offense at McCune, go back a read what he wrote. He attacked no one personally. If you don’t like what he wrote, fine, but don’t dismiss it as mere pontification. Whatever else McCune is, he is historically informed. I am sure people accused CHS of “pontificating.”

Dan, your direct comment was ad hominem. Why do YOU feel condescended toward? I did not see your name in the post at all, but you have taken his remarks personally. He is entitled to his opinion and FWIW, he has a right to be heard given his age and track record of ministry.

Don’t agree with him, fine. Neither do I (all the time). In fact, I sometimes I correct his theology in my classes ;) but we can treat him with courtesy, even if you think he is an idiot.

One of the great tragedies of the NIU affair is the personal assault on the leadership. This is no different. McCune is entitled to his opinion as is everyone else on this list.

Frankly, if we eliminated all the posts on SI where the author pontificates, there would be very little to read … and most of my posts would disappear!

From one pope to another,

JS

[Jeff Straub]

Group:

For those who have taken offense at McCune, go back a read what he wrote. He attacked no one personally.

I guess we can say anything as long as we don’t say a name, except this thread is about NIU, and McCune has made it about the supporters of NIU’s new direction. So no, McCune didn’t attack anyone.

But McCune did attack some particularly.

He is a fitting example of why so many have left or been driven out of fundamentalism.

Who needs this?

Seriously, who needs this kind of abuse?

Now excuse me as I go back to having coffee with Ahab.

There is a debt of gratitude owed to the Sr. Patz for the vision and financial endowment which is now NIU. But NIU cannot be about what makes any particular family happy.

Another lesson from our history is to see the influence of John D. Rockefeller Sr. and Jr. on Baptist life. As Rockefeller Sr. fell under the influence of theological liberalism through his pastor, WHP Faunce, Fred T Gates, WR Harper, et al (and only much later HE Fosdick), his money became attached to his sentiments. Understandably so. The pressure of losing his favor was a powerful force in determining the way organizations went. At one point JDR Jr. funded the NBC at the rate of 9% of its annual budget. “He who pays the fiddler, calls the tunes.”

For the record, I don’t know any of the Patzs, old or young. I have no doubt they are fine people. I met one member of the family in the past year when I visited a friend at NIU but I couldn’t tell you which one. This is not about these people.

I don’t know why some alumni felt alienated in the past. Could it be that, for whatever reason, they moved beyond the bounds of where NIU was?

Don … why do you have any more vested interest in what happens at NIU than the many hundreds of parents who sent their children to NIU expecting a certain kind of education? I had a phone call last week from the sister of a long time friend. I hardly know this woman but she and her husband, who had sent three children through NIU could not send their fourth. They wondered where they should send the child. Her brother suggested I might have some insight. When I asked them why they could not longer support the school, they did not mention any blog or online critic. They simply said that the changes they observed suggested to them the NIU no longer stood where it once had stood.

So I ask again Don, why is your interest any more important than theirs? I am sure many Christians invested in NIU who also feel that they have a vested interest. Frankly, I never went to NIU, but I have recommended students to go there. Why don’t I have a vested interest in what happens there? Lots of people have a vested interest in NIU.

May God extend His mercy and bring healing here!

JS

Please don’t mistake my reply to Dr. McCune as coming from someone who was offended. I was and am not. I doubt that he or others who would see things similarly care one whit about what I think and that’s perfectly fine. My real concern is for the seminary guy or the Senior who is at BJU or PCC or NIU or MBBC or wherever who may be working out his theology and philosophy and orthopraxy and who hits SI every so often and would love to engage in the conversation but is afraid to do so because he might be belittled or humiliated or even “preached at”. I remember those days in Bible college all too well. I worry that they don’t even have the opportunity to interact because we put up fences instead of lean across them for a little conversation.

Dr. McCune has every right to his opinion as we all do. I’ve considered the reasoned rebukes by Mike and others and I humbly disagree with the basis of those rebukes. I’ve apologized here and elsewhere for being a little too excitable behind a keyboard from time to time and wouldn’t be hesitant to do so here again if prompted by the Spirit. And we all know that one man’s “righteous indignation” is another man’s “temper tantrum”. Certainly, we should not deny anger or frustration or other legitimate emotions, but we should be careful not to use those emotions sinfully. I get that.

However, responding to someone else’s words and accusations is not ad hominem by actual definition. We should be able to counter someone else’s personal words or characterizations or positions without it being considered ad hominem. This kind of communication is frequently misunderstood because we cannot receive the nuances of facial expressions vocal tones and body language. Even punctuation gets difficult to decode!?. And not particularly trying to parse words here, but there IS a difference between a Predicate Adjective and a Predicate Nominative. Saying someone is speaking with an XYZ tone or manner is not the same as calling them XYZ. When one starts a statement with the words, “You, who are…”, then I would suggest we have entered into the realm of the Predicate Nominative and thusly, ad hominem. But seriously, does all of this really matter to the issues at hand? One does not post on a public discussion forum with the notion that they will not be challenged. This new world of the “internets” can get pretty wild and wooly at times. Dr. McCune stated his opinion, I stated mine, Mike stated his. Others have and will as well. We’re all big boys. We all love Jesus. We all are stinky ol’ sinners. It’s OK to disagree or agree or whatever. I truly don’t understand the idea that because someone has written a book or two or has some letters behind their name or has pastored a big church or a small one, is any more or less entitled to their opinion or exempt from being challenged for their words. So with that, like the good Dr.’s before me….I’ll disappear into the cloak of cyberspace and anonymity.

Where’s Joel Tetreau when you need him??? Dude, get over here, start up the campfire and break out the marshmallows, for Pete’s Sake!

[Jeff Straub]

Don … why do you have any more vested interest in what happens at NIU than the many hundreds of parents who sent their children to NIU expecting a certain kind of education? I had a phone call last week from the sister of a long time friend. I hardly know this woman but she and her husband, who had sent three children through NIU could not send their fourth. They wondered where they should send the child. Her brother suggested I might have some insight. When I asked them why they could not longer support the school, they did not mention any blog or online critic. They simply said that the changes they observed suggested to them the NIU no longer stood where it once had stood.

So I ask again Don, why is your interest any more important than theirs? I am sure many Christians invested in NIU who also feel that they have a vested interest. Frankly, I never went to NIU, but I have recommended students to go there. Why don’t I have a vested interest in what happens there? Lots of people have a vested interest in NIU.

May God extend His mercy and bring healing here!

JS

I never said that nobody else has a vested interest in NIU.

I said that I have a vested interest.

Do you see the difference? :)

Brother Thompson,

There is no question that McCune is a militant fundamentalist, and yet I have not known many men with the personal godliness, meekness, and humility of Dr. Rolland McCune. What exactly is militancy anyway? Dr. George Houghton says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat… . aggressively active (as in a cause). It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and which seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true (“Faith Pulpit”, May 1994).”

Nearly everyone is militant about certain things. Even the non-militant are militant about non-militancy. Everyone has his absolutes, even if his absolutes are that there are no absolutes. Those who decry dogmatism tend to be very dogmatic about it. Those who want universal tolerance are extremely intolerant of those who disagree. In society, violence often surrounds the so-called non-violent. Often those who cry for religious pluralism and love, hate those who don’t. We need to be militant about the Word of God, the Faith once delivered, the doctrine of Separation, about exposing and denouncing error. John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, and the Lord Jesus Christ were often militant (Matt 3:7-10; 14:3-4; 23:13ff; Gal 1:8-9; 2:11; Titus 1:10ff). Whether the struggles were against modernism, liberalism, new evangelicalism, ecumenical evangelism, the charismatic movement or sub-standard and inappropriate worship, militancy has always been a defining characteristic of historic fundamentalism. This is where McCune is coming from.

[Don Sailer]

I never said that nobody else has a vested interest in NIU.

I said that I have a vested interest.

Do you see the difference? :)

Of course I see a difference … this is my point … one group with a vested interest is grieved while another group with an equal interest feels vindicated. Whose interest trumps whose? This is what happens when the constituency is divided. Was the division really necessary?

JS

Brother Harding,

Thank you for your time and tone—I deserve neither. I wonder that you would line up modernism, liberalism, new evangelicalism, ecumenical evangelism, the charismatic movement and sub-standard…worship in the same breath, but I do not object to the principle of militancy.

It is this paragraph that troubled me most:

But I confess that your analysis is so incredibly naive that my first response was total exasperation, to the point, in fact, of writing off any hope for the future if your proposals prevail in the next crises. And, mark my words, they will come, and your kind will again head for the tall weeds of peaceful accommodation. In the long haul, there will never be a hill you are willing to die on. I encourage you to invest in considerably more propaedeutic if you wish to gain a respectful and informed hearing.

I don’t have your context to evaluate it, but it cannot be excused as mere militancy.

Lord bless!