Crossroads Conference: Q & A with Dr. Ollila

“After 50 years in ministry, this is not how I expected to run my last mile.” Les. Ollila

Thank you for your honesty and transparency

“I’m not hurt” followed by “You bloggers make me sick! Get a life!”

Who is Olilla responding to? Has Olson publicly attacked Olilla in his blog? If so, I haven’t seen that attack posted here at SI. Have attacks on Olilla by others been posted here at SI? If not, why is this Q&A here?

As an outsider watching this, this just makes Olilla look bad. Charging unspecified others with personal agendas, controlling him, using him, taking advantage of his loyalty, “turn[ing] from biblicism to pragmatism,” etc., *without any specifics whatsoever*. This is just complaint and carping by innuendo and implication. He repeatedly claims to have been ignorant of whatever unspecified changes he now disagrees with because he was traveling on behalf of the school. Really? He couldn’t ask questions by telephone or e-mail? Never?

Interestingly, for those who have said that CCM wasn’t the issue, CCM is the only issue he actually identifies, though he acknowledges “CCM isn’t a sin.”

To dmyers, I certainly wouldn’t assume the “bloggers” that were vexing were on the left, but on the right…

The interesting thing to me was listening to him speak about “PR people” at the school whom he felt had a lot to do with the change in direction. Also, that he hadn’t been involved with the board for 8+ years. He felt “somewhat used” by those who had him put out statements that the school hadn’t changed direction when it clearly had.

I respect that he didn’t duck any questions and that he tried to handle things in as honorable way as possible.

At this point, I’ll take the advice from the video and not speculate, but talk to primary sources as much as possible…..

He repeatedly claims to have been ignorant of whatever unspecified changes he now disagrees with because he was traveling on behalf of the school. Really? He couldn’t ask questions by telephone or e-mail? Never?

It is a little bit perplexing that at one point he claimed to prescient enough to warn the “PR” guys that in 2 years the school would be closed, but then seem to claim shock and surprise at things that happened.

I am thankful that this was posted and for the questions that were asked and answered. I wish it would not have raised the further questions though. Still a lot of fog.

NBBC Class of 1998.

on blogs… blog has been a word in dictionaries for more than a decade, and it’s definitely not going away. so people just need to move on and interact with the world as it is and not as they wish it to be. informal publishing has been a thing for much longer than blogs. some people will publish disparaging nonsense in paper. that doesn’t make it any better.

actually, a lot of the world has moved past blogs and on to twitter. even major outlets rely on tweets in their news cycle.

but i wonder whether some of ollila’s statements put him outside of most of fundamentalism already. he praises middle-of-the road, but is there such a thing as a middle-of-the-road fighting fundamentalist?

is saying that ccm is “not sin” but also not welcome/wise/whatever (minute 12) a more welcome view in fundamentalism?

waning enrollment in christian education? he conveniently skipped over liberty university’s growth.

overall, it sounded like a lesson in why not to be a yes-man

Wow. Doc O a ‘yes man’? You clearly don’t know Doc. O.

I think Ollila was right to be angry. He specifically mentioned the fact that many people were gossiping and slandering the school without any idea of what was going on - and that people were content to call other people ‘for the scoop’ instead of contacting the school directly. He specifically mentioned the fact that there were times when he found out about changes at the school that he had not been informed of, and also mentioned that there were things that he was deliberately not informed of. That’s legitimate, and I’d be angry too, if it were me.

If you were working to defend a place that you had put 30 years of your life into, and you were getting bad information from that place and then being called on the lies by constituents, I think you have every right to be angry, and angry in the right way. While it was obvious Doc was angry on occasion, he didn’t do or say anything that attacked or slandered another or anything that was sinful (at least that I noticed). His reaction reminds me a lot of Peter’s admonition in 1 Peter 2:21-25. I have no doubt that there are some who wanted Doc to get up there and throw everyone under the bus or to come crawling with a “woe is me, I have sinned, please forgive me attitude”, and I’m glad that he didn’t do so. He took the high and painful road to admitting where he saw the issues and some of his own shortcomings, which is a clear testimony to his character.

I’m also glad, in a way, that Dr. Olson resigned. It’s obvious now that there were clear communication problems (to be kind) at Northland, and I don’t see any way that these kinds of issues could be discussed as long as he was there. At the end of the day, all of this is stuff that should have been clearly communicated - especially to Doc O, since he was the chancellor - and as a result, NIU is in a real bind.

I think Doc is right to warn the school of pragmatism in music and especially with the “PR people” that he mentioned. If the consultants don’t understand the heartbeat of the school or what it’s trying to do, and they’re telling the school to change based on ungodly principles instead of Biblical principles, then he should be at the head of the ship yelling and screaming and warning. That’s his responsibility, even if most of us weren’t aware of it, and I credit him for doing that.

The shots at bloggers, I thought, were warranted. Especially when you read this drivel, posted so soon after the Q & A session:

In the question and answer time, most of us were disappointed that we didn’t have an opportunity to ask Dr. O some questions. This made the question and answer time appear somewhat synthetic and contrived. Dr. Phelps was only able to ask a few of the really hard questions, and they appeared to be sanitized to the point that Dr. O’s answers were less than forthright. The first question that was asked, “Are you still on Staff at Northland?” The answer was brief, “NO!” But the follow-up question never came. “When did you sever your relationship with Northland and why did it take so long to do it?” That was never asked…

The answer to Dr. Phelps question concerning Dr. O’s meeting with Dr. John MacArthur and Rick Holland back in [April] 2010, was put on the same level as going to the Hyles Pastor’s School or some other religious event. In his answer, he heaped praise on Dr. MacArthur as being a godly leader, despite the fact that Dr. MacArthur preaches a “Lordship Salvation” gospel and despite the fact that his church polity is Elder Rule.

He likewise heaped praise on Dr. Olson for his leadership despite the fact that Dr. Olson is the reason that NIU is where it is today. What surprised us the most was that Dr. O had no regrets about anything he did. While we commend Dr. O for his clear-cut, passionate sermons, the time for passion was when the downgrade of the school became obvious…There were many lessons we could have learned from the demise of Northland, but sadly, we learned precious few of them today.

Dr. O made much of humor in answering his questions, which is a good way to direct people’s minds away from the real issue. He also made much about being under authority, as if to say that his culpability in helping to destroy NIU as a strong, fundamental Baptist school was simply “being submissive to authority.”

Loyalty to leadership can be commendable, but culpability in compromise is not.

He pleaded ignorance on knowing what was going on and believed that he was being used and even acknowledged himself as being a simpleton on occasion, (which we know he isn’t) but not once did Dr. O apologize or show any remorse for his silence over the last three years as Chancellor, while Dr. Olson methodically changed the philosophy, as well as the direction of the school from being a strong, fundamental, Baptist Bible College to a weak, generic, New Evangelical school. To that end, we went away disappointed.

Nevertheless, we both wish Dr. O good success in his future ministry of “Building Leaders” for tomorrow’s churches. Personally, we believe that Dr. Ollila has time to repair the breach he has put in his own ministerial life. Just because he’s made some serious mistakes, doesn’t mean that he’s out of the game. He has something to contribute, if we let him do it. He can still have a measurable impact on fundamentalism if we let him. You Pastors have to decide that. Like Fox News says, “We report, you decide.”

Dr. Lawrence Hufhand and Dr. Marc Monte

I appreciated Ollila’s admitting that not all CCM is evil or pragmatic. To even hear that kind of statement is a breath of fresh air to this CCM listener. I was thankful that he could meet with Dr. MacArthur and have a solid day’s exchange with them, and appreciate the ministry and work of GTY/GCC without having to couch it with all the standard warnings the ‘conservative evangelicals’.

The big takeaway that I received from it is this - this issue is not going away. The issue isn’t even really about music - it’s about acceptability, boundaries, and (yes) secondary separation. Until “fundamentalists” (whatever that means anymore) can stop talking about “deviating from the standards” as signs of the upcoming Evangelical/Fundamentalist apocalypse and start dealing with the theological underpinnings of some of these standards, we’re going to be fighting an endless civil war, with a lot of yelling and blogging and excommunicating without ever getting at the core of the issues. Otherwise, we’re just going to see more angry exchanges over those “compromising, liberal CCM types” or those “backwards and un-with-it conservatives/traditionalists”.

The question is - who’s going to do it? Is anyone even willing? And where can those kinds of debates occur?

The answers remain to be seen.

[dmyers] Who is Olilla responding to? Has Olson publicly attacked Olilla in his blog? If so, I haven’t seen that attack posted here at SI. Have attacks on Olilla by others been posted here at SI? If not, why is this Q&A here?

Answers as far as I know:

• Has Olson publicly attacked Olilla in his blog? Response: No
• If so, I haven’t seen that attack posted here at SI. Response: N/A see above
• Have attacks on Olilla by others been posted here at SI? Response: Haven’t seen any
• If not, why is this Q&A here? Response twofold: 1.) Follow on to this filing; 2.) See about Filings: “SharperIron Filings are links to current Web wisdom and folly chosen for their likely interest to SI readers. (Per Web custom, we do not seek permission to link to content.) Views expessed are those of the linked sites and quite often not those of SI.”

[Jay] Wow. Doc O a ‘yes man’? You clearly don’t know Doc. O.

i don’t know who lawrence hufhand or marc monte are either, but it seems like they’re upset that northland has not only left their fundamentalist roots but also their baptist roots. maybe the faction with loyalty to baptist polity and arminianism was bigger than i thought and why ollila decided to tell his story about that arminian who was actually a practicing hypercalvanist.

and maybe the pr folks that ollila didn’t like were actually right, that northland needs to find an identity that can be marketed so people understand why they would want to survive –20°F when they could be in florida, south carolina, ohio or virginia instead of trying to be a middle-of-the-road hodgepodge that everyone can criticize.

I don’t think you really understand what Dr O was talking about with that line. NBBC under his leadership was no hodgepodge. It was never perhaps as hard line on some areas of application as were some other fundamentalists, but it had a well defined testimony as a fundamentalist institution. The hodgepodge came after he stepped down as President.

[ChrisC]

and maybe the pr folks that ollila didn’t like were actually right, that northland needs to find an identity that can be marketed so people understand why they would want to survive –20°F when they could be in florida, south carolina, ohio or virginia instead of trying to be a middle-of-the-road hodgepodge that everyone can criticize.

Chris,

Don’t you realize? God never promised an easy path!

While I greatly respect Dr. Ollila, I think the loyalty angle is a feel good, sappy statement. A Christian Bible College is not a Biblical Institution, it is a recent construct by Christians, and God never promised that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. We don’t owe our fidelity or loyalty to a man made institution or any man. Our purpose is to by loyal to Christ, follow our convictions and do right. When we start having other feelings that is when we go astray. We are all called to full time service for The Lord, and whether that is in the secular institution of a public company or the secular institution of a Bible College, we shouldn’t let loyalty to a man or the institution cloud our convictions. These places will come and go, and men as well as leaders are but a vapor (50 years or not). While it is very easy after working somewhere to have that loyalty develop, what this has further reinforced in me, is to not let that loyalty cloud my true loyalty. I think that Dr. Ollila’s admonition is dead on here.

1. Doc O has not lost his self-deprecating humor. Who knew he and A.L.F. were related.

2. The number of occurrences that happened around the time of his stepping down from presidency. (Patz money steeply declined, wife’s health-which took him out of the loop for a year or more…)

3. Now Howard’s words back in May make since, “we have to give more” in reference to the Patz family & money to the school

4. As to the “blogging” it seem to be a specific swipe, but also the undertow seemed to be blogging allows for IMHO “one can shoot their mouth off and not handle things one-on-one” (This one really seems to have hurt him)

5. Liked the part about loyalty, even as he spoke he seemed to work very hard at not pushing Matt under the bus. yes he was “chancellor” but put that in good context, that he no longer ran the show but accepted people’s word for why things were being done. He definitely comes from the time when a “man’s word meant something”…again I think this is where his disdain for blogging flows out of.

6. Good explanation on going to CA and meeting with John McArthur…

7. Certainly thinks PR people with no theological foundation, but driven by pragmatism was the death-nil.

Just to further clarify, my previous statement, it is commendable that he did not try to throw people under the bus. While you are working, being supported and being paid by an institution you need to support that institution. He did a fine job of that. After he left, he is not bad mouthing anyone.

A few further things though. He made the classic mistake of staying on with good intentions while changes were being made under new direction. Some of the harm that was probably done, was that by staying, it was assumed that he supported these things. Obviously, it appears that this was not true.

This is the old “come out/stay in” discussion, and it isn’t a new thing. The FBFI of today actually started as the FF, which was a part of the NBC. In the 1920s, they stayed in the NBC to try to exercise influence. In fact, they stayed in far longer than Doctor Ollila did, and in the face of far more significant battles than music and John MacArthur. Even to this day, there are factions in the FBF who remain in fellowship with those from whom they should probably separate, at least in my view. I have friends in the FBF who are exercising helpful influence, but the fact remains that there are problems that are not insignificant as Doc O pointed out. I am not sure of their motivations or what goes on behind the scene in terms of influence, but let’s at least acknowledge the issue that historically, the exact moment of “come out” has been a matter of disagreement and wisdom, even among men committed to separation.

We should also remember that Dr. Bob Jones Jr was a vice-president of the NAE ten years after it’s founding, long after the seeds of its own demise had been sown (actually in its founding). Again, the issues in the NAE were far greater than music or John MacArthur. Those complaining that Doctor Ollila did not come out fast enough should probably have the same complaint with Jones Jr. I don’t know if they do or not. I simply point out that someone with what is generally considered to be impeccable fundamentalist credentials maintained fellowship with men like Okenga, Henry, and others for a period of time to exercise influence. Bob Jones Sr maintained his relationship with Billy Graham long after the seeds of his demise had been sown.

Interestingly, one of the people who wrote complaining about Doc O’s participation at NIU and his Q&A continues to this day in ministry participation with D. James Kennedy’s organization, alongside of men like Chuck Colson. And I haven’t seen anyone pointing this out, calling for separation, or insisting on change, though perhaps it is going on behind the scenes. He continues to get invitations to speak at fundamentalist institutions. Now I don’t insist that they (or anyone else) do what I do. And their failures do not lessen the importance of other people’s failures (if indeed they be failures).

Now, what’s the point? That the timing of “coming out” has not always been agreed upon, and those lambasting Doctor Olllila for his continued connection when they think he should have come out are missing the history that they profess to be a part of.

There is also the fact that institutional change is rarely a cliff, more often a sloping gentle hill. Let’s assert up front that not all change is bad. But even when it is, it isn’t always evident early on. It is entirely possible that Doc O was kept in the dark on some of this. Who knows … Certainly not those with the loudest mouths about it, who weren’t there to know. If Doc O says he didn’t know about some of this, then who are we to say he was lying?

There is also a connection to the biblical role of leadership, which requires influence. When you have shepherded and devoted your to life to something for thirty years, it is worth trying to continue to influence it. And that often is not best done from outside, though sometimes it is. A “one-size-fits-all” answer is not workable, as seen in the inconsistencies even of the critics.

Which brings me to Doc O’s point about bloggers, however, indelicately it might have been expressed. While there is much good about the new media, there is a real lack of accountability. Bloggers can say whatever they want, and they have the reins of the comment section, which many of them use freely to censor virtually all opposing views. Blogging can be a good thing. I do it myself, and I read others, and don’t read some because I don’t find them helpful. But it is true that some (not all, but some) bloggers are despicable in their attitudes and their actions, even when they are right. They should make us all sick. There needs to be great care and concern taken by bloggers because of the influence. Those who desire to teach will be held to a higher standard, and incur a greater judgment. So beware about your use of the virtual tongue, because it creates a great fire that cannot be put out.