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

[Don Johnson]

Jay wrote:

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.

No. I am not saying Dr. O is some kind of hard line separatist, and if you knew Dr. Ollila, you would know that he’s not as hard line fundamentalist as you are. Actually, if you will remember, Doc. O wasn’t really accepted by the traditional / cultural fundamentalists when he became president at NIU because he was involved in Life Action Ministries - a ministry that wasn’t fundamentalistic enough for your type of fundamentalism. It took a few years - and maybe more - before your type of fundamentalism was comfortable enough with his leadership at the school to recommend it. Dr. O did a massive amount of work to bring the school to that point and to prove he wasn’t a “new evangelical”. I know that because even when I first started considering the school, I was told things like “I think they’re OK” and “You need to be careful about….”. I didn’t know what they were talking about at the time because I was so young (both in age and in Christ), but I certainly see it now.

Do I think you tried to ‘take it over’? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that conservative fundamentalists had a clear idea that NIU was going to turn out the kinds of fundamentalists that they wanted (the type A fundamentalists, to borrow from Joel), as they thought. Instead, what they got was a steady stream of B and C fundamentalists that looked and sounded like what they wanted, so it wasn’t a big deal. And later, when Matt, under the auspices of the Board and his own conscience, which was verified by Don Sailer (last year) and again by Ken McMaster (a few days ago), decided to move to and embrace B/C fundamentalism to keep the school going, you all acted like NIU had fallen to apostasy, which is why there were so many strong reactions from your side. It hadn’t ‘fallen’ because you expected something that was never there.

Did you take the school over in some kind of coup d’etat sense? No. But you clearly wanted the school to move into your type of Fundamentalist circles and produce the kinds of fundamentalists that you wanted, but that was not what it was actually doing. You deceived yourselves about the school.

For Don:

• If NIU was your type of fundamentalist school, why was there such a heavy emphasis on the Northland heart?
• If NIU was your type of fundamentalist school, why did guys from a strong A type church that came there for school leave so often?
• If NIU was your type of fundamentalism, why have so many of the alumnae rejected your stripe and become more like myself and B/C fundamentalists?

What is with the “us” and “them” rhetoric? That’s just bizarre. You talk about Olilla being suspect - well, I am sure you know him better than I do, but I am also pretty sure I heard him preach at BJU several times before he became Northland president. I can’t remember anyone ever talking negatively about him. Maybe some did, but I think you have a very warped view of fundamentalism.

[Jay]

For Don:

• If NIU was your type of fundamentalist school, why was there such a heavy emphasis on the Northland heart?

What are you talking about? No one from “my” type of fundamentalist objected to Northland’s emphasis on heart.

[Jay]

• If NIU was your type of fundamentalist school, why did guys from a strong A type church that came there for school leave so often?

I have no idea. People leave schools for all kinds of reasons. Same thing happened at BJU.

[Jay]

• If NIU was your type of fundamentalism, why have so many of the alumnae rejected your stripe and become more like myself and B/C fundamentalists?

And I suppose that you think the alumna of BJU are all pure separatists, eh?

Jay, you need to give up this weird theory. It just doesn’t work. I know a lot of guys in “my” circle of fundamentalists who loved what Olilla was doing at Northland. I don’t know of anyone who was trying to “take it over” as you suggest. You astonish me by trying to cling to this theory.

Joel, some comments in reaction to your Response # 3.

You said, “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.”

The thing is, in a very real sense Type A/B+ fundamentalism does “own” NIU. True! When NIU built the JEC classroom/library building debt free, guess who were the primary donors? When NIU built their Founder’s Center, guess who donated the most? When NIU’s travel teams would go out and visit churches across the country, guess what types of churches they most often visited? The pastors of what types of churches were asked to speak in chapel and at camp? When NIU sent out correspondence asking for donations guess what people that made up the majority of the mailing list and donated the most? The kids from what kind of churches made up the bulk of NIU’s enrollment? For 30+ years what kind of ministry philosophy did NIU teach - including Matt Olson up until fairly recently?

The answer of course is Type A to B fundamentalism. NIU isn’t “owned” by anyone since it is a corporation. But if there is any group of people that built NIU and therefore do have a certain sense of ownership, it is Type A to B Fundamentalism. The saying goes, “Possession is 9 10ths of the law.” If there was any group that possessed NIU, it was the A & B group. it was the A & B’s that NIU courted and it was the A & B’s that built NIU.

This has been one of my main points throughout this entire thread. It is neither fair nor right for those who love the direction Olson took NIU to cry foul when there is push back. NIU could not have mismanaged themselves the last few years any worse on multiple levels. They more or less blew off the very people that built NIU and flushed away decades of work by Dr. O. And now you actually are upset at some of those people because they aren’t going to sweep this under the rug. I get it that some people may be too zealous about voicing their thoughts, on the other hand, Please remember, it was Olson himself who publicly stated NIU wasn’t changing. Also remember that many of the A voices expressing their frustration are the very people NIU created themselves over 30+ years.

Several months ago I remember reading a post by someone in favor of the changes at NIU because they didn’t want to go back to the days when Gershwin was banned. Who was asking for NIU to return to those days???? NO ONE! So, they were willing for NIU to make all those changes, which included waving off 30+ years of ministry philosophy and life work by Dr. O while in the process alienating their core base bringing confusion to NIU’s name … . wait for it … because you don’t want to return to something no one was asking for.

Now THAT is pathetic!

You said, “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 …”

That is exactly my point! If the core A-B+ people weren’t consulted, and NIU and Olson blew off those people, then exactly why should they stay?? Also, it is one thing to for an A to accept a B, it is another thing for an A to accept a C. I would strongly suggest the reciprocal is just as true - a C would have a challenge accepting an A. A close relative of mine, a B+ person, wrote Olson expressing their concerns and received a letter back basically saying “Thanks, but no thanks.”

I think this whole discussion and frustration by people has less to do with what letter of the fundamentalism alphabet they fall into than it does expressing frustration about they way the change was handled. I’ve seen many people on your side express real concern about the way the change was managed.

I can appreciate your perspective on many things, but think you are missing some key points. I think A LOT of people are not looking at several contextual issues which nullifies much of their argument.

I have three young children and Lord willing would love one day to send them off (with their consent) to a sound fundamental school with conservative standards.

The idea that I would send/encourage them to go somewhere that was ‘working through’ who they were would give me no confidence whatsoever.

In Lectures to My Students, CHS told his preacher boys to go back to SS if they didn’t yet know what they believed. How much more for a school administration?

Yes every church, institution etc, gets to choose who they will be and how they implement change- and all the consequences which inevitably follow.

[Don Johnson]

dgszweda wrote:

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.

I have no animosity to BJU. I went there, appreciated what I received and still support the school in various ways. Just because I point out areas where I felt they were off base, doesn’t mean I have animosity toward the school. Even you agree that they have been off base in the past. I also was not arguing against any of your points.

[Robert Apps]

I have three young children and Lord willing would love one day to send them off (with their consent) to a sound fundamental school with conservative standards.

The idea that I would send/encourage them to go somewhere that was ‘working through’ who they were would give me no confidence whatsoever.

In Lectures to My Students, CHS told his preacher boys to go back to SS if they didn’t yet know what they believed. How much more for a school administration?

Yes every church, institution etc, gets to choose who they will be and how they implement change- and all the consequences which inevitably follow.

My view Northland’s “heart”:

• Comes across as overstated hype
• Almost like a advertising jingle, like Coke is “the real thing”
• All real Christians love the Lord - “We love Him because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) - even the lowly student who goes to xxx local community college
• “Heart” comes across to me, “It’s OK to lie about our position on CCM - all the while promoting ‘Big Daddy’ - because our ‘heart’ is right”!
• To Northland grads: Glad you went there, glad you had a great experience! But you are no more blessed than BJU grads or other students privileged to go to a private Christian college
• My rant of the evening

So while I would have preferred to see Type A’s be willing to stay with other kinds of fundamentalist at Northland - I guess in the end if they really felt that they had to leave because of the various changes, then graciously move on without all of the drama and follow-up character accusation that we’ve seen here. That’s the point I was trying to make in my last response.

Straight Ahead

jt

mmartin, can’t your argument that the donor base of the school was fundamentalist and opposed the changes by Olson be used against you, as from what I understand the PRIMARY donors of the school, the Patz family, were the ones who wanted these changes and ended up giving the school to SBTS? So if we should go with what donors wanted, shouldn’t we be happy with what the Patz family has decided?

I for one am glad the family/board decided to gift the school to SBTS rather than sell it to someone/something else. Think about it—those buildings and grounds will still be used to prepare young people for Gospel ministry for many years yet, Lord willing!

PhilB,

This is what I heard as well. Many of the alumni were also pressuring the school to change. Because to be honest, while everyone was up in arms about the Big Daddy Weave concert, the students have been listening to that music on campus for quite some time. I think the biggest individuals up in arms was not the students or the alumni, it was what Joel has indicated were Type A fundamentalist that most likely never went to the school, but felt some affinity to the college, and maybe recommended the college to others.

Our church expressed a great deal of love to NBBC and their camp for decades. We believed NBBC was a healthy form of Baptist Fundamentalism. Now NIU is just one more of many evangelical schools already available. Les Ollila personally told me a few weeks ago that Matt had been taking NIU in the direction of reformed charismaticism. Les further stated that Matt intentionally kept information from him regarding this shift. I don’t know if the current president has reformed charismatic tendencies or not. Frankly, it doesn’t matter at this point. Les has paid a severe price financially for speaking out about these issues.

If one studies two sister schools, MBU and NIU, since the turn of the century, which school is in the better position today? Now that NIU is potentially free from their antiquated standards, perhaps they can allow their students to socially drink, have modern dances, have rock concerts, and dress the way they really want (Cornerstone). That’s real progress. Trouble is I don’t think Dr. Mohler will go for all that either. I personally know Dr. Mohler. I have had lunch with him and have been to his home. He is personally quite conservative on these issues. Some would even equate him with being a dinosaur. We will just have to wait and see where NIU and the camp end up in the years ahead. Meanwhile, I will do my best to see that BJU not follow the same path as NIU et. al. That’s because I truly love schools such as BJU and MBU, and I appreciate what those schools stand for. Appropriate change is fine. Radical change in principle or doctrine is not fine.

I’m not sure Mark intended it the way I’m going to read it, but this quote nails a lot of what is going on at Northland, Pillsbury, and for that matter, BJU:

You must admit the obvious: that gifting the school to the SBC is the wholesale rejection of everything (except the pure gospel of course) that Northland stood for as a separatist fundamentalist school.

Now let’s think about this one a minute. If we can reject everything but the pure Gospel, and that is a threat to fundamentalism, then fundamentalism has lost its way. Fundamentalism was, after all, supposed to be a set of theological propositions by which Christians were to determine who was, and was not, in the faith. And now—not to pick on Mark here, but it seems to be the implication of what he said—it is that in watching certain sectors of fundamentalism, one could at least be forgiven if one came to the conclusion that it was about everything but the Gospel.

Not an accusation I want to make, but I would encourage us—A, B, C or whatever—to chew on this one a while. If we’re separating on everything but the Gospel, why are we bothering?

Another thought; if we judge by plunging enrollments at many fundamental schools (of whatever type), it might be said that another school or two was saved by NIU’s implosion. No?

[Bert Perry] Not an accusation I want to make, but I would encourage us—A, B, C or whatever—to chew on this one a while. If we’re separating on everything but the Gospel, why are we bothering?

I believe 1 Corinthians is the answer to this query. Obviously, Paul dealt with these people as if they were believers having a true Gospel. However, they were lacking many other things that were supposed to be present with the Gospel. This didn’t disqualify them from the fellowship of the Gospel, but it certainly put them beyond the realm of free and open fellowship within Gospel boundaries. This is why we bother. Certainly, the Gospel is paramount, but it is not alone. God has given us and required of us obedience to all truth, not just the most basic truth, of scripture.