Les Ollila in conference at Colonial Hills Baptist Church: "Our schedule also includes what will no doubt be a very interesting Q&A. "

I’m not interested in your question Jay.

You’re not interested in defending your accusation of unethical behavior for a Christian institution led by brothers in Christ?

That participants in this thread are posing as newcomers to this discussion, as if they have never seen nor participated in the many threads on this subject. As a friend of mine is wont to say, “I’m like a baby duck, I wake up to a new world every thirty minutes.”

I’m not interested in two things: rehashing discussion that has been thoroughly hashed through elsewhere, and bothering with Jay’s question, whatever that is.

[Don Johnson] I’m not interested in two things: rehashing discussion that has been thoroughly hashed through elsewhere, and bothering with Jay’s question, whatever that is.

def·a·ma·tion

On the matter of fractionalism within fundamentalism:

I’m reading George Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism now, where he used the history of Fuller Seminary as a foil to discuss the evangelical movement at mid-century as a whole. Marsden made mention of Carl F. H. Henry’s disdain for the so-called separatist “fascination” with division and strife. Marsden cited Henry as being pained by a protracted argument at Wheaton College over whether the game of Rook constituted a card game, and therefore, whether it should be banned from campus.

but it seems to me the appearance of a praise band singing Hillsong music, recruiting at CCM concerts, firing then rehiring Olson accompanied with the mass resignations of board members and the appointment of a new Board director who is the pastor of an EFCA church signals SIGNIFICANT changes. Don Johnson’s statements stand in light of just those issues in my eyes.

I raised the integrity questions in this post on Proclaim & Defend.

SI picked up that post in this filings thread. In which thread I continued to raise the integrity question here and here. In the same thread, Greg Long acknowledged that I was raising a legitimate question here.

In this filings thread, in reply to Steve Davis, I raised the integrity question again here. Jay asked why I raised the issue here. I responded to Jay here, and I responded yet again to Steve Davis here.

I think my charges have been adequately supported and widely discussed. For Jay to pretend that he is ignorant of them is incomprehensible.

I recall that you stated, on numerous occasions, that your concerns about NIU’s doctrinal stance was far more important than their music stance.

I agree with you. I am interested to see how this shakes out.

From the SI comments policy, the following seems pertinent:

C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:

1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic

For Jay:

• They had stated position against CCM (I’m not digging all around S/I to find this but this is well-documented) …. but rolled out “the band”.
• They had a stated doctrinal statement with regard to cessationism (again thoroughly documented) all the while having a staff member who took a different position.

So I’m with Don (at least on the integrity issue)

It’s water over the dam as they say. Then now have simplified their doctrinal statement and washed the CCM position clean.

But they changed their practice before they changed their stated positions. It’s flakey, they were dishonest, and it’s weird

More on “the band”: Anyone notice the similarity between them and “The Monkeys”? (knitted cap on one band member) - what’s that about?

http://www.ni.edu/about-us/ministries/redeemed/promotional-video/

[Don Johnson]

From the SI comments policy, the following seems pertinent:

C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:

1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic

Don, just curious. Do you consider this blog post Christ-like?

[Don Johnson]

[dgszweda]

I see no reason why Dr. Olsen needs to follow an organizations vision or strategy. It is up to him to set this with board approval. These are often changed all the time. There is no congregation that needs to review these things.

David, the integrity issue are the NIU constitution and bylaws and statement of faith. If you can’t abide by them, it is unethical to operate in contradiction to them. DMD doesn’t name who he is talking about, but his comments can be applied directly to the NIU situation. The integrity issue is bigger to me than the doctrinal/cultural disagreements I have had with Matt and NIU.

First, Don, I am not sure this is an integrity question. Dr. Olsen doesn’t report to you, students, congregations, churches….. He reports to the Board of Directors. They obviously knew what he was doing, new their published standings. In addition, we now know that at the same time they we in the process of changing those. You as an outsider may have wanted it to be more transparent and felt that they were not forthcoming, but Dr. Olsen doesn’t need to be forthcoming with you. The board seemed pleased with the direction, even though not everyone on the board was aligned. This happens all the times in corporations and is a normal flow of practice. I think we are trying to fit this into the confines of how we practice in regards to a church or a mission board.

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

From the SI comments policy, the following seems pertinent:

C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:

1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic

Don, just curious. Do you consider this blog post Christ-like?

based on this post Don, it doesn’t appear that you understand how boards and corporations run. Yes, board of directors don’t run a company. They represent the shareholders. The true owners of a company, and the shareholders can wipe out an entire board in one fell swoop. In addition, the majority of shares don’t control a company, it is the majority of voting shares. A classic example of this is Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Many people think that it is a public company, and that the shareholders run it. Fact of the matter is, Mark owns a majority of the voting shares (or preferred stock), and he doesn’t need to report to anyone, including the Board of Directos. As long as he doesn’t break any laws or violate an SEC requirement, he is free to do as he wishes. The board of directors only found out that he bought Instagram for $1billion when they read it on the news.

Let’s recap:

Don, your accusation of NIU’s disregard for their constitution, statement of faith, and bylaws is both libel and slander if you can’t prove it. That’s a sin. I’m not asking you this because I want to rehash the whole debate. If I wanted to rehash it, I’d go re-read one of the myriad threads on SI, and you and I have both spilled enough ink on the subject. I’m asking it because you are publically slandering another group of believers in violation of Eph. 4:31 and Col. 3:8.

I did not object to Don saying it was an ‘integrity’ issue. For the record, I agreed with Don’s ‘lack of integrity’ charge on his blog (8.14.12, 3:15 PM and 3:19 PM; 8.19.12, 2:11 PM). I also agreed with others that raised that charge here on SharperIron.

I DID object - twice - to Don saying that they had disregard for their constitution (5/26 9:43 PM, 5/27 9:13 AM).

I DID object - twice - to Don saying that they had disregard for their statement of faith.

I DID object - twice - to Don saying that they had disregard for their bylaws.

To say that NIU has a ‘lack of integrity’ and therefore has ‘violated ___________ documents’ is a logical jump; they are not the same. It is at best unkind. At worst - and I don’t think Don’s doing this on purpose - it’s malicious slander, and a sin against Matt Olson directly.

Asking Don to prove his statement is not a violation of CP. All I want is for Don to point out where NIU violated their Constitution and Bylaws (which he reproduced in part on his blog) by making these changes. I don’t think he can do that, which is why I’m objecting.

Pointing out that Don is libeling or defaming NIU is not a violation of CP. At least, not the last time I checked.