The Gospel Coalition: Can God Save a Fundamentalist School?

[JoelCS]

Thank you for bringing more into the discussion than the frequent “he said” “she said”! I think many of the discussions could be much more edifying with profuse use of Scriptures!

As for Asa (and other righteous kings) the problem of not removing the high places did not always show up in the next generation. I do think there could be applications for many spiritual issues by way of extension.

Sometimes the issues that are really hotly disputed in one generation show their fruits later!

Asa was righteous! But the job was incomplete! The high places remained.

Whether or not CCM is analogous with high places (I could live with such analogies) may show its fruit in the next generation, or the one thereafter, if the LORD tarries!

How about if we bring more Bible and less opinion into the discussions?

Joel

Joel-

Been there, done that. Would you care to interact with this post that I made in a different thread? I’ve expanded it a little here (additions are underlined):

My argument is basically this:

• The ultimate goal is to fulfill passages to love the Lord with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Deut 6, 11:1, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:37). Music is a means to that end.
• The words and lyrics do communicate. They must communicate Biblical principles (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).
• The Bible is not clear on what that must sound like - it references different instruments (cymbals, stringed instruments, etc). It tells us to sing ‘a new song’ (Ps. 40:3). It tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ (Ephesians 5:19, Col. 3:16). It does not say things like choirs and orchestras are the only acceptable form of music tune making. It does reference such things as choirs and orchestras.
• The Bible tells us not to love the world. It is entirely possible to not love the world or the world’s styles and still make musical “tunes” (not the lyrics). There is no Biblical precedent (that I see) that the ‘new song’ (of Psalm 40:3) is the ‘conservative’ form of music, the ‘modern’ form of music, or any other particular style of music.
• Arguments for a music’s style based on the culture that it “came from” or “sound like” are specious because the associations with those sounds can and do change. The sound or style can also mean two totally different things to different believers (what is a great and edifying song for me might be horribly offensive to Mark_Smith - because I don’t have the background and associations that Mark does). That’s the point of Romans 14:1-13.
• Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God. Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.
• Most of the principles espoused by ‘conservative’ musicians cannot be practically applied to a culture that does not sing or speak English.

I hope that’s helpful.

[Jay]

Been there, done that. Would you care to interact with this post that I made in a different thread? I’ve expanded it a little here (additions are underlined):

My argument is basically this:

• The ultimate goal is to fulfill passages to love the Lord with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Deut 6, 11:1, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:37). Music is a means to that end.
• The words and lyrics do communicate. They must communicate Biblical principles (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).
• The Bible is not clear on what that must sound like - it references different instruments (cymbals, stringed instruments, etc). It tells us to sing ‘a new song’ (Ps. 40:3). It tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ (Ephesians 5:19, Col. 3:16). It does not say things like choirs and orchestras are the only acceptable form of music tune making. It does reference such things as choirs and orchestras.
• The Bible tells us not to love the world. It is entirely possible to not love the world or the world’s styles and still make musical “tunes” (not the lyrics). There is no Biblical precedent (that I see) that the ‘new song’ (of Psalm 40:3) is the ‘conservative’ form of music, the ‘modern’ form of music, or any other particular style of music.
• Arguments for a music’s style based on the culture that it “came from” or “sound like” are specious because the associations with those sounds can and do change. The sound or style can also mean two totally different things to different believers (what is a great and edifying song for me might be horribly offensive to Mark_Smith - because I don’t have the background and associations that Mark does). That’s the point of Romans 14:1-13.
• Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God. Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.
• Most of the principles espoused by ‘conservative’ musicians cannot be practically applied to a culture that does not sing or speak English.

I hope that’s helpful.

Thank you Jay!

I had not seen your post. Please be patient with my posting. I write from Germany, and am for that reason at least “a day behind” the discussion - although six to eight hours ahead of US time.

I am on board as far as your first second statements - and biblical support for them! I think the concern of many (such as Mark Smith - and myself) is, that in our understanding of Scripture a stated goal and some guidelines to that (those) end(s) do not equal reaching those ends. The Bible is replete with examples of worship, which was acceptable to people, yet abhorred by the LORD (Cain, Saul, late Judean Worship in OT, etc.) For that reason it is imperative for us to follow biblical mandates that what we do in the Lord’s name is, in fact, pleasing to HIM! (Psa 19:14: Prov 10:32; 21:3 vis a vie Isa 58,5; Jer 6:20.) People do, as a matter of fact, offer worship to the LORD, which He finds repugnant.

The New Testament brings many similar exhortations to us: Rom 12,1-2; 14:18; Eph 5,10; Heb 12:28; 13,21.

For that reason your arguments 3-5 help no one to come closer to the biblical exhortations! They seem to assume that cultural musical expression can be imported as acceptable spiritual offering, because the Bible does not say which “form” “style” should be used. I think the one(s) who employ argumentation that musical form or style is wide open for spiritual use have an obligation to explain how their music is “acceptable” (“euarestos”, “euarestws” in Verses above.) - not to people - rather to the LORD.

If we are commanded to make spiritual choices that are pleasing to the LORD, the goal must be attainable.

I would like further explaination about your last two points.

If I could modify your second to last point: Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God.

I would change your last phrase: … praise in a manner pleasing or acceptable to God.

Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.

I take it by this sentence, that you mean to say that musical style and form is culturally conditioned and therefore relativized. If so, it seems that you assume the culture at any point in time neutral and therefore useable. I understand the biblical term “world” to be roughly equivalent to the “culture” of the unredeemed.

Perhaps this point is where the contention lies.

As a missionary in Germany, to a German congregation I find your last point patently false!

Scriptural principles both stated and derived apply in each culture. Of course, derived principles are only applicable in as far as they are biblically accurate! The spoken language has nothing to do with the applicability of scriptural principles.

You have already stated in your statements 3-5 that you do not find scriputal principles pertinent to musical form and style. By those statements, you have relegated the applicability of the Bible to non-musical realms. Perhaps you should re-think the possiblity of whether God’s Word might be relevant to musical style, form - to any extent.

In Germany there has been “acceptable” and “not-acceptable” music through the years. Many musical models, forms, styles are imported from USA and Great Britain. We have exactly the same issues here. And face the same “cultural” pressures.

While we do sing hymns from the 12th century to the present, there were some musical adjustments I needed to make as a “conservative” American Christian. Some of their music was more conservative than was I! I had no or very limited exposure to music in a minor key. Now I find that the minor key can express and underscore truth in ways the major key cannot! I have also discovered that there have been major shifts in cultural expression in German hymnody. Some of the hymns of the past are way to emotionally expressed for the German spirit today. Change must not be complete! Hold on to that which is good!

The Word of God is not culturally bound.

Thank you for your imput!

Joel

Back on topic!

The original question posed by the article was “Can God save a Fundamentalist School?”

YES!

But perhaps that begs the question.

This is not the first attempt to “rebrand” a Fundamentalist School and turn it into an evangelical training center. If rebranding is the wish of the School, the Administration, the Board, etc. Then all should be up front and announce their intention.

If they don’t think the institution could withstand the turn-around - then the ones wishing for change should have the fortitude and foresight to leave a good school standing and start a new work with their own “branding” on the new institution from the start.

Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary = Denver Seminary

Grand Rapids Bible College = Crown College

Cedarville Bible College = Cederville University

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College = 0

Northland Baptist Bible College = Northland International University

???

How about having the fortitude to start your own work - with your own vision? That is what Fundamentalists did when they could no longer in good conscience support their Institutions.

Why certainly not. They are a pop ensemble featuring a wide selection of CCM praise favorites, careful to avoid undue syncopation or beat anticipation! :-)

Translation = Rock band (not exactly Petra…but still a rock band)

Should have been posted elsewhere. My apologies.

Grah - I lost the post. Will re-write and re-post later.

[JoelCS]

Back on topic!

The original question posed by the article was “Can God save a Fundamentalist School?”

YES!

But perhaps that begs the question.

This is not the first attempt to “rebrand” a Fundamentalist School and turn it into an evangelical training center. If rebranding is the wish of the School, the Administration, the Board, etc. Then all should be up front and announce their intention.

If they don’t think the institution could withstand the turn-around - then the ones wishing for change should have the fortitude and foresight to leave a good school standing and start a new work with their own “branding” on the new institution from the start.

Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary = Denver Seminary

Grand Rapids Bible College = Crown College

Cedarville Bible College = Cederville University

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College = 0

Northland Baptist Bible College = Northland International University

???

How about having the fortitude to start your own work - with your own vision? That is what Fundamentalists did when they could no longer in good conscience support their Institutions.

Joel,

I don’t know if you mean to do this, but you come across as if, within these institutions, there was one stripe of fundamentalism. The same one stripe that was conservative in music, the same one stripe that practiced strict separation, which are quite different than the conservative evangelical schools that they turned into. However, some stripes of fundamentalism are closer to Conservative Evangelicalism than what many traditional fundamentalists care to admit. That is why Joel T’s taxonomy of type A, B, C’s fundamentalists is so helpful in describing the current fundamental landscape.

Knowing both the histories of Cedarville and Cornerstone (did you mean Cornerstone when you typed crown college?), there were many GARBC fundamental churches that supported the changes that took place because many of the GARBC churches in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana are more progressive in their music philosophy and less strict when it comes to secondary separation. So your question about evangelicals starting their own work with their own vision doesn’t even apply with these schools……..

JoelCS - I started to reply to your post on the other thread. Here’s the link.

[Joel Shaffer]

[JoelCS]

Back on topic!

The original question posed by the article was “Can God save a Fundamentalist School?”

YES!

But perhaps that begs the question.

This is not the first attempt to “rebrand” a Fundamentalist School and turn it into an evangelical training center. If rebranding is the wish of the School, the Administration, the Board, etc. Then all should be up front and announce their intention.

If they don’t think the institution could withstand the turn-around - then the ones wishing for change should have the fortitude and foresight to leave a good school standing and start a new work with their own “branding” on the new institution from the start.

Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary = Denver Seminary

Grand Rapids Bible College = Crown College

Cedarville Bible College = Cederville University

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College = 0

Northland Baptist Bible College = Northland International University

???

How about having the fortitude to start your own work - with your own vision? That is what Fundamentalists did when they could no longer in good conscience support their Institutions.

Joel,

I don’t know if you mean to do this, but you come across as if, within these institutions, there was one stripe of fundamentalism. The same one stripe that was conservative in music, the same one stripe that practiced strict separation, which are quite different than the conservative evangelical schools that they turned into. However, some stripes of fundamentalism are closer to Conservative Evangelicalism than what many traditional fundamentalists care to admit. That is why Joel T’s taxonomy of type A, B, C’s fundamentalists is so helpful in describing the current fundamental landscape.

Knowing both the histories of Cedarville and Cornerstone (did you mean Cornerstone when you typed crown college?), there were many GARBC fundamental churches that supported the changes that took place because many of the GARBC churches in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana are more progressive in their music philosophy and less strict when it comes to secondary separation. So your question about evangelicals starting their own work with their own vision doesn’t even apply with these schools……..

Joel

you beat me on two out of five! And yes, I did mean Cornerstone! Thanks for the correction! Mea culpa!

Denver Baptist Seminary was started by the Fundamentalists to replace the Baptist Seminaries overtaken by Liberals. Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis and Pillsbury were simliar responses by Type A Fundamentalists to preserve sound biblical teaching.

While there may be exceptions, such as you mention. It appears that those who wish to steer an institution should either take the ethical high road - Start from scratch and build an institution matching their spiritual convictions and vision - or at least be honest enough to say “This is a takeover. From here on: This will be the direction, conviction and vision of this institution.”

Cedarville and Cornerstone did indeed take this second option. I find it much more pallatible than the option we recently experienced.

JoelCS

JoelCS,

In light of your inclusion of Pillsbury in the previous quote, I’m wondering if you could expand on your thoughts about Pillsbury a little bit, in light of this quote -

[JoelCS]

While there may be exceptions, such as you mention. It appears that those who wish to steer an institution should either take the ethical high road - Start from scratch and build an institution matching their spiritual convictions and vision - or at least be honest enough to say “This is a takeover. From here on: This will be the direction, conviction and vision of this institution.”

[Todd Himes]

JoelCS,

In light of your inclusion of Pillsbury in the previous quote, I’m wondering if you could expand on your thoughts about Pillsbury a little bit, in light of this quote -

[JoelCS]

While there may be exceptions, such as you mention. It appears that those who wish to steer an institution should either take the ethical high road - Start from scratch and build an institution matching their spiritual convictions and vision - or at least be honest enough to say “This is a takeover. From here on: This will be the direction, conviction and vision of this institution.”

Todd,

I am a PBBC and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (not graduate) alumnus and a MN Preacher’s boy. I grew up in the MBA and attended Pillsbury for more than the typical four years :) .

I was in the Graduating Class of 1987 when Dr. Rammel stepped down and Alan Potter preached the Commencement address to the Senior class emphasising PBBC’s Fundamental, Separatist, Baptist history. In the Commencement address he gave assurances that the course of PBBC would be in line with said heritage.

Pillsbury Military Academy was nearly wrested from the Baptist Association of Minnesota by the Liberals within the Association. The Fundamentalists stood ground, retained control and established PBBC in 1957. From the onset the college was both Fundamental and Separatist-Baptist.

During Dr. Potter’s tenure there was an attempt to move the college into broader evangelicalism. This move alone was not the death knell of Pillsbury. But the college never completely recovered from the attempted rebranding. (To be completely fair, there were enough problems with the college before Dr. Potter came. Dr. Potter did have some support from some corners for his moves. I am not privy to the movers and shakers behind his rebranding efforts.)

Whether Pillsbury could have continued without this bump or not can never be answered. But Dr. Bob Crane was able to bring the college back toward its foundational moorings.

Some wish that PBBC would have been successfully rebranded. I am not of that opinion.

Joel Sandahl

[JoelCS]

Todd,

I am a PBBC and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (not graduate) alumnus and a MN Preacher’s boy. I grew up in the MBA and attended Pillsbury for more than the typical four years :) .

I was in the Graduating Class of 1987 when Dr. Rammel stepped down and Alan Potter preached the Commencement address to the Senior class emphasising PBBC’s Fundamental, Separatist, Baptist history. In the Commencement address he gave assurances that the course of PBBC would be in line with said heritage.

Pillsbury Military Academy was nearly wrested from the Baptist Association of Minnesota by the Liberals within the Association. The Fundamentalists stood ground, retained control and established PBBC in 1957. From the onset the college was both Fundamental and Separatist-Baptist.

During Dr. Potter’s tenure there was an attempt to move the college into broader evangelicalism. This move alone was not the death knell of Pillsbury. But the college never completely recovered from the attempted rebranding. (To be completely fair, there were enough problems with the college before Dr. Potter came. Dr. Potter did have some support from some corners for his moves. I am not privy to the movers and shakers behind his rebranding efforts.)

Whether Pillsbury could have continued without this bump or not can never be answered. But Dr. Bob Crane was able to bring the college back toward its foundational moorings.

Some wish that PBBC would have been successfully rebranded. I am not of that opinion.

Joel Sandahl

Joel,

Thanks for your thoughts and your perspective.

In order to be transparent, I should confess that I was one of the ones that thought (and still think) that the changes under Potter were a good thing. I’m also a little biased, as I also have somewhat of a history with Pillsbury, and more so with Potter.

My grandfather paid a visit to campus with E. Robert Jordan in the aftermath of the dispute between Myron Cedarholm & R.V. Clearwaters that led to the formation of Maranatha. My father was a student at Pillsbury in the 70s, and I spent two of my earliest years in Owatonna - the extent of my memories from that time consist of a lot of snow, and some stitches. :) My father, incidentally, had a low opinion of Dr. Rammel. Much of my early knowledge of Pillsbury generates from that framework.

I briefly considered PBBC when I graduated high school, but chose Maranatha as they were accredited, to the dismay of my father.

I also grew up in the church Potter founded, in Lancaster, PA, and remember vividly the Sunday morning he tendered his resignation in order to assume the presidency of Pillsbury. John Colyer was my youth pastor at the time, as well.

My belief is that the decline of Pillsbury was already well in process before Potter assumed the leadership of the school, and that the changes under Potter, and the student handbook changes instituted by Colyer were well-thought and necessary. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there was a portion of the constituency that disagreed with the changes.

In some ways, that why I’m so concerned with the ongoing dust-up at NIU. At least in my eyes, the similarities are striking. Outside of the circumstances surrounding Olson’s removal (which, arguably could be attributed to some management & financial issues, if certain reports are accurate), much of it is similar. And, if memory serves me correctly, the decline in enrollment was mitigated under Potter, but continued after his departure, during the time of Gerald Carlson, resulting in the desperate straits that Dr. Crane found himself in.

I’d argue that Potter never moved Pillsbury from its foundational mooring as a fundamental separatist Baptist organization. He did however, reduce and almost eliminate, the secondary separation over minor issues that existed under Rammel. I’d also argue his move toward graciousness in all matters was a healthy move.

It’s my fear that if the cultural changes instituted under Olson at NIU are backtracked, we’ll simply see a repeat of what happened at Pillsbury. It may not happen overnight, but the inevitable result will be the dissolution of NIU as well.

Todd

“It’s my fear that if the cultural changes instituted under Olson at NIU are backtracked, we’ll simply see a repeat of what happened at Pillsbury. It may not happen overnight, but the inevitable result will be the dissolution of NIU as well.”

And you don’t see the risk of dissolution as well without backtracking the “cultural changes”? If we are to believe Mr. Sailor, if they do backtrack then a significant constituency offended. A significant constituency is now offended by the changes that have been made. For example, the NIU rock band youtube video was shared among a fundamental Baptist pastor’s fellowship in NE Pennsylvania and the pastors did not like that “cultural change”. My son is part of that fellowship and I am guessing that the pastors are from about 30 churches. That video was certainly shared all over the country.

Personally, I am very opposed to the “cultural changes” at NIU. Practically, if Olson would have moved much more slowly (over years) with his “cultural changes”, I think he wouldn’t have offended the conservative traditional constituency as much (because they would be fewer in numbers). The trend seems to me to be in the worldly direction that he was going. Even BJU employs a few music faculty that I really don’t think, in their heart, would have a problem with even with the NIU Redeemed rock band.

[dlhanson]

“It’s my fear that if the cultural changes instituted under Olson at NIU are backtracked, we’ll simply see a repeat of what happened at Pillsbury. It may not happen overnight, but the inevitable result will be the dissolution of NIU as well.”

And you don’t see the risk of dissolution as well without backtracking the “cultural changes”? If we are to believe Mr. Sailor, if they do backtrack then a significant constituency offended. A significant constituency is now offended by the changes that have been made. For example, the NIU rock band youtube video was shared among a fundamental Baptist pastor’s fellowship in NE Pennsylvania and the pastors did not like that “cultural change”. My son is part of that fellowship and I am guessing that the pastors are from about 30 churches. That video was certainly shared all over the country.

Personally, I am very opposed to the “cultural changes” at NIU. Practically, if Olson would have moved much more slowly (over years) with his “cultural changes”, I think he wouldn’t have offended the conservative traditional constituency as much (because they would be fewer in numbers). The trend seems to me to be in the worldly direction that he was going. Even BJU employs a few music faculty that I really don’t think, in their heart, would have a problem with even with the NIU Redeemed rock band.

Brother,

I don’t agree in the assessment of Redeemed as a ‘rock band’. I’m sorry that ~30 pastors from NE Pennsylvania were offended. And, I’m not denying you the right to disagree with me. Sharpen my iron, just as much as I wish to sharper others’.

Perhaps, the problem all along has been on both sides - we’re ALL entirely too easy to offend. And when we get offended, we treat friends like the enemy.

Todd

[dlhanson]

“It’s my fear that if the cultural changes instituted under Olson at NIU are backtracked, we’ll simply see a repeat of what happened at Pillsbury. It may not happen overnight, but the inevitable result will be the dissolution of NIU as well.”

And you don’t see the risk of dissolution as well without backtracking the “cultural changes”? If we are to believe Mr. Sailor, if they do backtrack then a significant constituency offended. A significant constituency is now offended by the changes that have been made. For example, the NIU rock band youtube video was shared among a fundamental Baptist pastor’s fellowship in NE Pennsylvania and the pastors did not like that “cultural change”. My son is part of that fellowship and I am guessing that the pastors are from about 30 churches. That video was certainly shared all over the country.

Personally, I am very opposed to the “cultural changes” at NIU. Practically, if Olson would have moved much more slowly (over years) with his “cultural changes”, I think he wouldn’t have offended the conservative traditional constituency as much (because they would be fewer in numbers). The trend seems to me to be in the worldly direction that he was going. Even BJU employs a few music faculty that I really don’t think, in their heart, would have a problem with even with the NIU Redeemed rock band.

dlhanson, how many of those churches send students to Northland? A problem at MBBC is that the board controls the school, even though many of the board members do not send their students to MBBC. It is poor policy to run an institution based upon the whims of an indifferent peanut gallery. From a purely pragmatic perspective, Northland recognized that their market share of a shrinking demographic (independent, fundamental, dispensational Baptists) was becoming narrower. They could die a slow death of enrollment starvation or they could attempt to break out and find a stronger demographic.

Philosophically, they realized that a lot of the issue could be better aligned with the cultural milieu of broader evangelicalism. Northland was shrinking before any of these “cultural changes” took place. I think Northland would have been satisfied to starve themselves, but they realized that their praxis was misguided. They have made a concerted effort to “major on the majors” and “minor on the minors” …. for this I applaud them.

Northland has made a big gamble…they realized that they needed to change to be more biblical. Rather than kowtowing to the capriciousness of isolated churches of decreasing relevance to their survival, they have thrown themselves at the mercy of historic fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. I hope and pray that those arms will welcome them. We need schools like Northland.

As a side note, if you have no taste for the modern hymns of today’s church, then that is your prerogative. I care not for the so-called “gospel songs” of the 1950’s. You might feel that “Christian Rock” is a pejorative term…I merely find it to be uninformed. You have no taste for their style…and that is your prerogative. But I caution you to contemplate the difference between personal taste and Scripture.