Daniel Patz: "We will be a conservative evangelical school with a history of fundamentalism that shapes how we act, live, and love"

Well, now we’re going to find out just how strongly Fundamentalists / Fundamentalism sees Conservative Evangelicals as a threat or enemy…with NIU as the stakes. Are they enough of a threat that we’d rather see the school shut down/fail? Or can we actually cooperate with them and keep the school going?

They definitely need a media team to spin this statement …

Why must there be a Northland? Why keep a school in the middle of nowhere with poor surrounding jobs, small churches, and cold weather? Why Northland when you have Moody, Wheaton, Cedarville, Boyce, Cornerstone, Trinity, Liberty, and many other high quality Christian colleges and universities? Because we are not those places.

• “middle of nowhere”
• “poor jobs”
• “cold weather”
• Not among “high quality Christian colleges and universities”

Jay,

I read Dan’ entire statement twice. I think he is endeavoring to be completely transparent as to their direction. I commend him for that. One of his goals is to be a place for those who desire to leave the fundamentalist orbit for the conservative evangelical orbit. Those who agree with that direction now have a school with which that they can identify. As a pastor of our church, I am in more agreement with BJU and MBBC. Those are the schools that I will recommend first. I don’t think I am obligated to save Northland. It didn’t need saving ten years ago when it was clearly a fundamentalist school. I don’t think that I could ever consider the former supporters of Northland as sectarian legalists, hyper-separatists, or those who modeled the wicked manifestations of fundamentalism: Men for instance such as Marty Vaughn, Sam Horn, Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and Les Ollila. For decades Northland had already separated itself from the wicked manifestations of the Hyles form of fundamentalism. I have no ill-will toward the school. I trust that they will follow through on their new agenda, and I am sure they they will accomplish much for the gospel.

To frame the matter as you’ve framed it, Jay, is not very helpful. While not discounting all of the spiritual benefits connected to a Christian education, academic institutions sell a product and if the credibility of that product has been damaged, it takes many things and time to regain the confidence of those who are being asked to promote and/or purchase the product.

Daniel could do everything right and might not be able to overcome the damage that has been done. That would not be an indictment of him. It would not be an indictment of the conservative evangelicals who are slow to trust this new edition of NIU. It would not be an indictment of fundamentalists who lost confidence in NIU. It would simply be reality in a sin-cursed world where things don’t always work out the way we’d like them to work out.

Practically speaking, why would someone who doesn’t agree with conservative evangelicalism (whatever that is—since no one seems able to define it nor arrive at some clear circumference for it) promote a school which articulates within its own vision a rejection of fundamentalism? That doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Just so I’m not misunderstood here, I’d say the exact same thing with the labels reversed. I don’t fault my “conservative evangelical” friends for not promoting schools which would teach their students that their home church is wrong. That would be unwise pastoral leadership. The local assembly is more important than any educational institution, so congregations should encourage young people to attend schools which will strengthen the church, not empty it.

I’m glad Daniel is communicating clearly. I am grateful for it. A clear vision will draw and energize people that agree with that vision. Others will not be comfortable with it and won’t be drawn to it. That’s the way life is. A vision alone, though, is not enough. Intention must be translated into reality. NIU has some hard work to do to rebuild and translate this vision into concrete expression. I have no hesitation in saying that I’d rather see it succeed as a conservative evangelical institution than fail. I also don’t hestate to say that the challenge right now isn’t about conservative evangelicalism vs. fundamentalism; it’s about a viable, credible education.

This is about a school, not fuzzily defined movements.

Edited to reflect Dave’s intention as reflected in a subsequent post.

[Dave Doran]

To frame the matter as you’ve framed it, Jay, is very helpful.

Hi Dave, I agree with your post, but I am wondering if you overlooked a “not” in this sentence, since you seem to be taking issue with Jay’s statement.

Yes, Don, there should be a not in that sentence (and a knot in my head!). I tried to edit it but can’t do so for some reason.

Posted without comment (but not without reason)

“Through the halls of Temple U

Hear the Savior’s call,

Send the Gospel to all people,

Show them Christ is all.

~~~

Temple U, Temple U

Colors red and white

A distinctive Christian school

Giving truth and light.”

Could it be that there are many born-again Bible believing Christians who love Christ and love the Gospel, who hold steadfastly to the fundamentals of the Christian faith and have no association with those who do not hold to those fundamentals, who have little knowledge of or use for terms like fundamentalist or conservative evangelical, and who don’t even know that “we” exist?

Could it be that the Body of Christ is bigger than fundamentalism?

Could there be life outside “The Village”?

Good comments by Mike Harding and Dave Doran.

Jay, to your point the cooperation goes both ways, not just the fundamentalist side cooperating with the evangelical side. Having said that, I doubt that will be a reality in the case of an organization like Northland. Northland has opened the door to two very different constituent groups. As Dave Doran said, “Practically speaking, why would someone who doesn’t agree with conservative evangelicalism (whatever that is—since no one seems able to define it nor arrive at some clear circumference for it) promote a school which articulates within its own vision a rejection of fundamentalism? That doesn’t really make sense, does it?”

I felt Daniel’s vision was generally well written, except for the parts as noted by Jim above. To me the biggest issue is not the words on paper about a vision, but how that vision will be implemented. What will reality be like? As an illustration Northland recently said they were not going to separate over music. Saying that and starting their own rock band are two different things.

I would not send my kids to Northland anymore, but that doesn’t mean I want NIU to fail. I do want it to stop putting on a charade telling everyone everything is OK when it is not. I do want it to have a reality that matches-up with its words. I do want it to have well thought out and rational reasons for what it is doing. I want it to have leadership integrity. Mr. Doran’s point about the work NIU has ahead to regain the credibility of a product that has been damage cannot be overstated.

Words are one thing, reality is another. Time will tell.

There’s no reason for me to comment on the substance of the statement, but the dreadful prose certainly grabbed my attention. Daniel Patz is in desperate need of a copy editor. The second sentence in the sample below isn’t even a sentence. When my students hand in stuff like this, I suggest they read what they write out loud to themselves.

“There is a need for a seriously happy, passionate training ground for ministry that provides a bridge-ministry to those in fundamentalism moving to conservative evangelicalism. People formerly or currently connected with BJU, Maranatha, Pillsbury, Clearwater, etc are filled with godly people, but people who no longer embrace the old cultural fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is our history. We own it and love it, even if we lay aside aspects of it. I have a heart to bless that form of Christianity while being faithful to our convictions that has (what I think is) a healthy understanding of the body of Christ (versus secondary separation) and Christian liberty (versus legalistic structure). We want to love and appreciate the past while confidently obeying God’s leading for us into the future.”

Several of you seem to get irritable when ideas are not perfectly built or do not professionally flow with logic and symmetry from point to point. I also see with the last comment some of us struggle when a writer fails in the area of syntax. I don’t know that I’ll be a help to you there. I also do not have the aid of a copy editor - of course I did have one for my book and that was amazing! For you I add a few random “happy” thoughts that will push your ability to handle such unorganized argumentation to the limit - you may not want to read this because this is even more random than I usually post - which is ….. nevermind.

So I’m grateful for the statement as is.

Churches like the one I lead will rejoice in the statement made by Daniel (even though apparently Daniel did not have the editing help some readers wanted). NIU was and still is one of our first choices of institutions because the ethos and philosophy is very similar to what congregations like SVBC believe is a right spirit, theology, approach to a variety of issues that Daniel brings up in his article here. The only real difference here is that I would not be too quick to give up the term fundamentalist. I believe that NIU’s view and SVBC’s view is frankly more historically consistent with what fundamentalism was initially and when fundamentalism was/is most Biblical, healthy, etc…..the reality is however, in the eyes of most believers today right and left, that reality is missed. The majority of the ones making the most “noise” about fundamentalism will want to send their kids to an institution that verbalize a certain sub-cultural loyalty to “cultural fundamentalism.” Matt has been clear - now Daniel adds to that clarity - NIU no longer has “the heart” :) to do that.

I think this is as clear as anything that has been written, spoken, etc…… Having said that - I remain a supporter and defender of NIU and for the record I also remain a supporter of Matt Olson. I’m not on the bandwagon of those who seem to know Matt was disingenuous or even derelict in his duty, leadership, etc…. Often times the one that leads the charge, the one with the courage to lean forward in the foxhole - or to even come out of his foxhole is the one that takes the hit. In my mind, Matt “took one for the team.” He was been and was willing to lay his reputation on the line and lead Northland through the change that he believed was right and that he believed the majority of the Northland family believed was right. I just told Matt the other day I am confident God has great things in store for Matt by way of future ministry. I have massive respect for Matt - he is who he is. I have less respect for leaders who privately would say to Matt or I - oh yeah we agree with you - but as soon as the Type A hoards begin to howl, you tuck your tail in between your legs and run the other way. (There was some emoting with that statement - I apologize for the temporary bust of emotion - I have that in check now - we continue……)

Sure we know some things now the supporters and antagonists did not know a few months ago - we are now understanding that some (I’m guessing a vocal few) did not agree with “this or that” - but it sounds as if the majority of “stake holders” were and are in a agreement with the direction by Matt and now by Daniel. In my view what Daniel wrote is nothing that wasn’t already being said by Matt. Of course some of the brothers couldn’t hear what Matt was saying (at least in my view) because Matt was saying it. Now that Daniel is saying it a little different some of the brethreim are now saying, “Oh……I get it!” or “Wow that’s so clear.” To be honest I’m not sure how you couldn’t have got it before…..but I’m (sort of) happy you get it now.

Also for the record, it doesn’t bother me (at all) that Dr. O or Mike Harding will not be in Northlands corner (as it were). I’d be surprised if Dr. O becomes hostile against NIU just because he no longer is attached to the school. Even if he has disagreements I’m confident he will not become antagonistic. I’m also confident that NIU will not become hateful towards Les. That’s not part of the NIU heart! Oh yes - back to my point. They (guys like Harding, et al) and their ministry should support those schools that reflect their philosophy. For example - hypothetically - Let’s say there is a ministry out there that believe’s that “strumming a guitar” is dangerous musically (or spiritually - like it messes with one’s righteous affections) then you probably don’t want to go to NIU - of course you might have difficulty in the majority of churches across the planet - but that’s another issue entirely.

Actually I would say the same Mike has said in reverse. No as much as I love BJ and Maranatha, those aren’t my first choice of learning institutions if you are headed into undergrad ministry preparation……however if you choose to go to either Greenville or Watertown you have our blessing, our prayers, our hopes and we might even help you with your bill. You see even though some of you BJ/MBBC supporters are hostile towards those of us with the NIU/SVBC view, we aren’t hostile towards BJ or Marantha. Why? Well - just because Stephen or Larry Oats might be a tad more conservative than we are at SVBC, they are not our enemies! Those brothers are brothers. We’re actually friends and frankly the few difference we might have in our view are very slight. Those that want to make the NIU/SVBC position as an enemy view against the BJ/Marantha position are schismatic. You are dangerous and frankly I don’t think you are healthy to the body of Christ. The views are different but frankly not that different! How in the world we have allowed an ethos of separatism to make these two positions into a”hostile relationship” is bizarre and maybe more than that.

This direction of Northland can actually be a help to Bob Jones and Maranatha (and maybe even Faith). Leaders and college students that are uncomfortable with the direction of NIU can most certainly head off to Greenville or Watertown. For you saying NIU will die because it’s no longer as conservative - there is no way you can know that. First, you are not an apostle - (unless you SG - which most of you are not!) Second, other examples have played out differently. Pillsbury died after it went from a Type A view to a type C view back to a type A view (Bob actually may have been a B+ on the Tetreau scale - not that that matters at all). My guess is with some of the issues that Dr. O mentioned in the “Phelps gathering” we will begin to see a variety of institutions merge or close. In the end that may have little to do with exactly where you end up on the “Tetreau Scale” but in many cases has more to do with how the institution continues it’s relations with alumni, friends both old and new, etc……Of course an institution moving philosophically will “warm the hearts” of some and “tick off” others.

I am prayerful that not only does NIU “make it” I pray that God’s rich blessings fall on the institution. Perhaps another discussion that could be had here - as the cloud of dust finally begins to settle (hopefully) is what was all of this? Was it really about one institution? I don’t think it was. I believe this was a manifestation of what’s happening nationally and even internationally.

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - I warned you all - random thoughts!

I lament that Northland traded in their biblical fundamentalism- all for Big Daddy Weave and ‘Pizza and Praise’.

Robert,

Lament not my brother……..

They did not trade their biblical fundamentalism for Big Daddy or his Pizza.

They traded cultural fundamentalism for Big Daddy and his Pizza.

That’s a big difference from God’s perspective.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel,

Are “cultural fundamentalism” or Big Daddy and Pizza Praise the only two options?

Seems to me there are other options available. Just because one doesn’t like the former that must mean a leap over to the latter. Neither of these two choices are the best.

Northland only offers a subpar quality to institutions such as Boyce and TMC. It might come down to affordability. If Northland is smart, they will undercut the cost of the other institutions so they can have that as a selling point. Adopt the WalMart strategy.

Frankly, given what Cedarville just did, that school is in much better shape to help conservative baptistic types.