The campus and assets of Northland International University gifted to Southern Seminary

[Jay]

The separatists that tried to turn it into what they wanted instead of letting it be what it was from the very beginning?

I think that someone else said this somewhere in these threads and you are running with it. So, how do you know this is true about the history of Northland?

Basically, what you are saying when you keep repeating this is that the “fundy hordes” invaded Northland and took it on a radical separatist trajectory which the Patz family finally rescued and brought us to where we are today.

Ok, so who are you talking about? As I understand the history, Paul Patz started the school and presumably had some people running it. Then he brought in Les Olilla for a brief interregnum (how long was that?) and then in came Matt who began to change things “back” to where they used to be.

Is that the way the history works? So who are you calling out as the hardline separatists who “tried to turn it into what they wanted​”? Presumably it is Dr. Olilla. I see no other candidates on the horizon, but maybe you know better.

So are you saying that Les Olilla is some kind of hard-line separatist who was out of sync with the Patz vision for the school? How many years did he serve there? If he was so out of sync, why didn’t they fire him long ago?

I think there is something wrong with your theory.

You sure read a lot into my post!

[alex o.]

The remoteness of Northland probably initially (for the fundamentalists) looked attractive for their idea of “separation from the world”. It (the idea) follows the old institutional monasticism of the Romanists. It (the idea) has an appearance of wisdom but lacks the power to transform lives.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement! Fundamentalists liked Northland initially because its remote location fit their idea of separation from the world?? It lacked the power to transform lives?

Sir, do you even know what you are talking about?? Wow!

I know this may come as a surprise to many people here, but Yes, it is true, fundamentalism did and does have problems. I am saying this as a fundamentalist.

How about discussing it while admitting acknowledging it that many people’s concern about Southern and SBC is not entirely without merit? (Southern and SBC does have a history of having a more liberal bent on things. Correct?)

What about discussing it while acknowledging that “B” and “C” versions of fundamentalism have their own problems too?

What about the idea that Dr. O and Northland were never, ever known for being a hardcore Fundy center? (Northland was never, ever in the same category as Hyles or PCC.)

Folks, can we please … . please get away from basing our discussion on this topic from our recollection of fundamentalism of 1975 or even 1995???

Joel T. said, “Matt and the majority of the board came to an understanding to continue to be connected with Type A fundamentalism was not most consistent Biblically - and so they changed where they had too.”

OK, but why did that mean Olson and NIU felt then they needed to start a rock band and hang-out with Big Daddy Weave?

In other words, if position A for them was “bad” or “wrong,” then why did they feel they needed to jump to position D?

It was a fairly big jump from where NIU was to where it went in short time.

Don,

lets be honest. When I was at BJU in the 80’s and 90’s we all saw Northland as a different style of fundamentalism than what we were being exposed to. Of course, as a young kids, the biggest difference we saw were on the focus of rules at BJ. There were many rules at BJ that were just “Do it”, with no explanation. Obviously the biggest one at the time was interracial dating, but there were others. In addition, we all felt BJ was rules focused. Do the rules and you were fine. We all had many friends that did the rules on the outside, but on the inside were anything but. They were left alone. People who were really struggling, we sometime booted out. Personally, I had zero issues with any of the rules, but we all knew that was a focus. We also were all cognizant of the fact that Northland took an entirely different approach. They were focused much more on discipleship, and less focused on specific rules. We had friends there, and we had friends that moved between the schools. So we were exposed to it. Whether right or wrong (and I am not defending Matt or stating that what he did was good or bad), but I see him continuing as an extension of that, granted he brought it much further along than Dr. O. Some of the specifics that Matt actually did, could be called into question (for me personally I had concerns with a few), but the general principle seemed liked a further extension. In many ways, Boyce is not much different. The fact that the Patz family, who has been there all along with both Dr. O and Matt, seem to have been leaning the same way, by gifting it to Boyce. I remember a year or two ago, people were saying that NIU was looking more like Boyce and that this was in violation of what the Patz family wanted. Well low and behold, what do the Patz family do? Gift it to Boyce.

I know I only bring up the rules portion, but there are many other examples where Northland was definitely in a different vein from the likes of BJ. I think we are naive to think that Northland was in the same fundamentalism as the other schools. Practically that was not the case. I can even remember friends who had left BJ to go to Northland, call me and tell me what a refreshing difference and special place they had found and how it was entirely different than there experience at BJ. And to further make the point, we saw changes that Stephen Jones was making at BJ, that were indicative of changes that Northland had made in the past. There were even comments on campus that there was a feeling that BJ might slowly be moving toward what Northland had achieved (obviously not to the practical steps that Matt had made). And there was some excitement.

When we look at Dr. Petit, he appears to be making some of the same steps that he saw at NIU. Is he going to bring in Big Daddy Weave? No, but his style toward the growth of a believer is almost a 180 degrees compared to Bob Jones Jr or the III. Will it lead to all of the changes we saw at NIU? No, I am confident of that, nor would I want to see all of those change done in that way. But I can tell you there is some excitement on campus from large swathes of the BJ population about the changes that they are expecting to see under Dr. Petit.

[dgszweda]

Don,

lets be honest. When I was at BJU in the 80’s and 90’s we all saw Northland as a different style of fundamentalism than what we were being exposed to. Of course, as a young kids, the biggest difference we saw were on the focus of rules at BJ. There were many rules at BJ that were just “Do it”, with no explanation. Obviously the biggest one at the time was interracial dating, but there were others. In addition, we all felt BJ was rules focused. Do the rules and you were fine. We all had many friends that did the rules on the outside, but on the inside were anything but. They were left alone. People who were really struggling, we sometime booted out. Personally, I had zero issues with any of the rules, but we all knew that was a focus. We also were all cognizant of the fact that Northland took an entirely different approach. They were focused much more on discipleship, and less focused on specific rules. We had friends there, and we had friends that moved between the schools. So we were exposed to it. Whether right or wrong (and I am not defending Matt or stating that what he did was good or bad), but I see him continuing as an extension of that, granted he brought it much further along than Dr. O. Some of the specifics that Matt actually did, could be called into question (for me personally I had concerns with a few), but the general principle seemed liked a further extension. In many ways, Boyce is not much different. The fact that the Patz family, who has been there all along with both Dr. O and Matt, seem to have been leaning the same way, by gifting it to Boyce. I remember a year or two ago, people were saying that NIU was looking more like Boyce and that this was in violation of what the Patz family wanted. Well low and behold, what do the Patz family do? Gift it to Boyce.

I know I only bring up the rules portion, but there are many other examples where Northland was definitely in a different vein from the likes of BJ. I think we are naive to think that Northland was in the same fundamentalism as the other schools. Practically that was not the case. I can even remember friends who had left BJ to go to Northland, call me and tell me what a refreshing difference and special place they had found and how it was entirely different than there experience at BJ. And to further make the point, we saw changes that Stephen Jones was making at BJ, that were indicative of changes that Northland had made in the past. There were even comments on campus that there was a feeling that BJ might slowly be moving toward what Northland had achieved (obviously not to the practical steps that Matt had made). And there was some excitement.

When we look at Dr. Petit, he appears to be making some of the same steps that he saw at NIU. Is he going to bring in Big Daddy Weave? No, but his style toward the growth of a believer is almost a 180 degrees compared to Bob Jones Jr or the III. Will it lead to all of the changes we saw at NIU? No, I am confident of that, nor would I want to see all of those change done in that way. But I can tell you there is some excitement on campus from large swathes of the BJ population about the changes that they are expecting to see under Dr. Petit.

Which is exactly my point that NIU was never a hardcore fundamentalist place.

I do agree with Don’s question to Jay about Northland originally intended to be more evangelical.

I think Steve Pettit is great for BJU. A fresh name, a fresh face, and fresh ideas.

A cursory look at the SBC website reveals that there are 79 SBC churches in Wisconsin and more in surrounding states. I was surprised.

[Quote]

Which is exactly my point that NIU was never a hardcore fundamentalist place.

I do agree with Don’s question to Jay about Northland originally intended to be more evangelical.

I think Steve Pettit is great for BJU. A fresh name, a fresh face, and fresh ideas.

Yep. I look back at my time at BJ and think about the energy wasted in worrying about whether men should wear ties off of campus on the weekends, and the message it would send if they changed that rule. At the time, Northland was so far ahead in their thinking. I don’t know how evangelical they wanted to be, but there focus (for as long as I can remember) was very different. Granted Matt took it from a practical perspective much further than Dr. O, would have probably guessed. I know one of the biggest changes right now at BJ, is the approachability and genuiness that Dr. Petit brings to the institution. As students we were afraid to go up and talk to Dr. Bob III or Jr., or other senior staff. And I can remember saying something one time, and getting torn apart by pieces by senior leadership at BJ. I made the statement, “I wanted to thank you guys, for what you have done” - I was torn to shreds for saying “guys”. I don’t see that from Dr Petit at all, and I think that change of focus, is a glimmer of what set NIU apart. If he can institutionalize the concept of focusing growing in Christ, not by man-made rules, but through a genuine walk with Christ - if he can drive that, that may be one of the greatest legacies of NIU.

“But will the historic fundamentalism that the founder and people who attended and supported it over the years be advanced? Not at all.”

Historic fundamentalism will be advanced; cultural fundamentalism will not. As an NIU alumna, I can vouch for what’s being described: what made Northland stand out was that Northland did not approach fundamentalism from the same perspective that many others did. Some cultural preferences (dress, music) matched cultural fundamentalism on the outside but were approached from an entirely different premise. We were taught to honor biblical principles and were specifically told that we were not expected to continue following those institutional guidelines when we graduated. As long as those cultural externals matched, cultural fundamentalists were confident that NIU was in line. When the biblical principles were applied differently in a new generation, cultural fundamentalists no longer viewed NIU as a fundamentalist school, even though it was (and still will be under SBTS) a historically fundamental school.

[mmartin]

alex o. wrote:

The remoteness of Northland probably initially (for the fundamentalists) looked attractive for their idea of “separation from the world”. It (the idea) follows the old institutional monasticism of the Romanists. It (the idea) has an appearance of wisdom but lacks the power to transform lives.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement! Fundamentalists liked Northland initially because its remote location fit their idea of separation from the world?? It lacked the power to transform lives?

Sir, do you even know what you are talking about?? Wow!

Yes, monasticism as a method is powerless to transform lives. Fundamentalism, in the end, is mostly a method and therefore carnal (fleshly, something which people can accomplish in their own power). Fundamentalists think they have found a formula but they have taken their eyes off of the truth.

Some of this debate is “Who is the purist Fundamentalist?”:

• They are!!!
• No they are!!!

In my mind a fruitless debate!

And some of the debate is about the interplay between music and Fundamentalism:

• They’re CCM … not a true Fundamentalist
• I’m not!

To me this:

• Smacks a bit of “Phariseeism”
• And speaks to the realative worthlessness of the term itself (it lost it’s meaning)

One of the frustrating things about communicating in blogs is that often we are limited in sharing thoughts on multi-dimensional issues that make it so that people just hear one side of your brain. So in my last note I explained that Matt & leadership at Northland changed in part because they became dissatisfied with Type A fundamentalism. Notice I’m not saying dissatisfied with all Type A fundamentalists! I’m also not suggesting Dunbar decided it was done with anyone from that wing of the separatist movement. No - what seems to have happened is that a decision was made to no longer hold back the internal Type B and Type C belief’s/practices that used to be kept in check because of not wanting to upset the Type A part of their constituency. What you men who are frustrated with the likes of Matt, myself and others need to know is “we” are not interested in burning bridges to “you.” If the bridges have been removed from you to us the burn marks start on your side of the bridge! Now that might begin to change if you don’t stop acting so spoiled. Type B and C fundy’s are more than willing to minister with Type A’s as long as you keep the heresy out of the picture. Most of us can even live with your tighter views on this or that as long as you don’t make those non-exegetical absolutes out to be functional absolutes as binding on all of us. What is ironic to me is that many of the well-known ecclesiastical Type A leaders who are doing some of the loudest crowing about NIU’s departure to Southern act as if they owned the school and the school had some kind of moral obligation to check with them for their vision and philosophy. Here’s the deal “Vern” - You left them! When the board or Matt or Daniel decided to do what they believed was in the best interest of Northland and they did not go along with your outside advice, you gathered your holy garments around yourself, shook the dust off your feet and moved on. You weren’t there because you left them! Instead of accepting an institution that would allow a combination of Type A, B and C fundamentalists - you decided to bail on Northland because the B’s and C’s would not longer bow to your every wish but to make it sound spiritual you accuse a Godly institution and Godly men of being guilty of “compromise.” You are the compromisers! You have elevated non-binding doctrine and practice to the level of “real” fundamentals…..and they aren’t! And now you spew your anger publicly against Matt accusing him publicly of private and sinful duplicity? You and God know that? Really! I want to say “Pathetic!” However in an attempt to be less abrasive - I will say, “how disappointing!” This is what we’ve come to expect from many of you. You act……well I want to say “spoiled.” I can’t think of a more pleasant way of saying that so I’ll stick with it. It’s OK - you still have 3 or 4 schools you can control……I mean support. For now.

Straight Ahead

jt

[alex o.]

mmartin wrote:

alex o. wrote:

The remoteness of Northland probably initially (for the fundamentalists) looked attractive for their idea of “separation from the world”. It (the idea) follows the old institutional monasticism of the Romanists. It (the idea) has an appearance of wisdom but lacks the power to transform lives.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement! Fundamentalists liked Northland initially because its remote location fit their idea of separation from the world?? It lacked the power to transform lives?

Sir, do you even know what you are talking about?? Wow!

Yes, monasticism as a method is powerless to transform lives. Fundamentalism, in the end, is mostly a method and therefore carnal (fleshly, something which people can accomplish in their own power). Fundamentalists think they have found a formula but they have taken their eyes off of the truth.

This is a complete misrepresentation of fundamentalism. No one has argued for fundamental monasticism. Fundamentalism, in the end, is mostly about doctrine not methodology. And all Christians are susceptible to formulaic thinking; this is not unique to fundamentalism past or present.

and we wonder why this brand of Fundamentalism is declining? *roll eyes*

Plain and simple, the guard is changing. NIU and many other younger fundamentalists are joining others who have the Gospel at the center. That’s it. Thank God. Hopefully, other schools who have whatever “isms” dominating or overshadowing the gospel, follow suit. Fundamentalism needs to change its emphasis if it wants to be anything other than a small chapter in Church History. May there be more men like someone like Bauder in Fundamentalism—men who can actually THINK through issues and who aren’t afraid to critique and challenge the movement..

Godspeed, NIU!

Keep on keeping on for the sake of the Gospel.

[dgszweda]

Don,

lets be honest. When I was at BJU in the 80’s and 90’s we all saw Northland as a different style of fundamentalism than what we were being exposed to.

Dave, I don’t get the animosity to BJU, but I see very little relevance to my point.

Except, perhaps, this: If Northland was a “different style” it could hardly have been a “takeover” by hardcore “separatists”, now, could it? That’s the point I am making.