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

[Mike Harding] 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. … Les has paid a severe price financially for speaking out about these issues.

Shouldn’t you let Les O speak for himself? Any documented proof that Matt O is a “reformed charismatiic”? How has Les O paid a “severe price financially”?

I do think it’s good that alumni be a stabilizing force in the life of an institution. Organizational drift in schools and churches can happen frighteningly fast, and American history is full of institutions that went from vibrant to apostate in a generation or two. To be conservative is often a good thing. I’d much rather a conservative president of a school make slow, methodical, principled change, than to be caught away in the zeitgeist.
This is a great book documenting the collapse of Christian university after Christian university.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-American-University-Establishment/dp/019…

Chip, I get your point, but I’ve got a couple of issues with the analysis. First of all, nobody separated from the Corinthian church—chapter 5 details a case of church discipline, but nobody said “don’t bother going to the Corinthian church if business takes you there.” Nobody said “since Apollos has bad doctrine, why don’t you go with the church down the road with better teaching?”

More importantly, the issue in the first few chapters is implicitly a Gospel issue, where Paul notes that the division, apparently over who baptized each believer, was indeed a Gospel issue because none of us were baptized into Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, but rather Christ. Note here that a Gospel issue was corrected without separation.

Now don’t get me wrong; I am all for separation on truly Biblical issues like the Fundamentals, the Solas, and the Baptist distinctives. I just don’t see the same importance when it comes to “Big Daddy Weave”, even though I detest most CCM. If it’s bad musically, lame poetically, or unsuitable lyrically, that’s an issue of confrontation within the church, not separation.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Mike Harding] 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.

Mike,

You and I would disagree on the changes at NIU, and that’s fine, but I completely agree with you here on this, and as an alumnus, I would not want NIU to go that route, simply because while we have different ways to get there, we land at the same position. I do not think that Dr. Mohler or Daniel Patz will go that route either. Frankly, I think that people who expect NIU to move to that direction don’t know what they are talking about, and I wonder if the people who are so opposed to Al Mohler and the SBC are even paying attention to what has been going on there over the last couple of years as opposed to the famous “SBC: House on the Sand” book of yesteryear.

As an aside, here’s a quote from another NIU alumnus, Chris Bruno, in his TGC article on Northland from a while back, to support my arguments:

(After moving to Bethlehem Baptist for his training)…I knew this move would lead to a separation from Northland. While I certainly maintained relationships with many on campus, I assumed that I would never be able to have close ties to my alma mater. There was much about Northland to love: a unique emphasis on servant leadership; a humble administration, faculty, and staff; a strong love for the Word of God; and a radical commitment to world missions. But it seemed like the strict separatism and all that went along with it would keep me, and many other alumni from my generation, from having close relationships with Northland. It was a fundamentalist school in every meaningful sense of the word, and none of us expected that to change.

But God was at work in ways many of us alumni never expected. The centrality of the gospel was taking deeper root at the school, and the results we have seen are encouraging. Over the course of three or four years, Northland underwent some important transformations, including receiving accreditation and changing some of the unnecessary rules.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I think Bert makes a great point on the care and context of separation in connection to the gospel. So - I actually can understand and respect those who felt like they had to walk away because of doctrine issues. That is while I might be able to minister in a context that had a bit broader theological reality - if indeed staying in a ministry that allowed a Piper view of gifts continuance violated your conscience and if indeed you knew that NIU was going to stay “there” (which - I’m not sure you really knew - and now that NIU is connected to Southern I don’t think you know that ….. at all)…..then I can see it would be right for some to walk away for conscience sake - especially if you see that very closely tied to a level of doctrine that has to be there for you to minister. I’m sorry my last posts didn’t flag that. Having said that - what it looks like to me was Type A’s blasted a fog-horn that NIU had dumped the Type A subculture and so Type A’s bolted - with or without the doctrinal concern. I don’t know this but I wonder if the doctrine question was a nice cover to make legitimate your bolting out of there because of a rejection of sub-culture. My hesitancy with Type A fundamentalism is in large part connected with what I’ve witnessed - I have seen far too many young people that have been blasted out of their walk with Christ in large part by a legalistic and performance-based acceptance “sub-culture” from too many within “Type A” fundamentalism than by sliding away from Christ by means of a “Type B and C” fundamentalist sub-culture. What I’ve actually seen is young people (and older people) “experience” (I know not everyone likes that term!) the worship of Christ and a walk with Christ in a fresh and “free” way like they never had in Type A fundamentalism. This is the deal - even when Northland was still connected with Type A fundamentalism they had a real sense of freedom on the campus of NIU in the area of worship. It’s one of the things that has always made Northland different than many other “ministries” that included the Type A element.

So I’m probably not going to say much more on this thread because I’m fearful I’ll just be repeating myself. My wife tells me the older get the more I repeat myself. That’s very disconcerting! You know….I don’t want to bore any of you. So Keep Smilen! - enjoying our round-tabled campfire time of koinonia and s’morse (sometimes spelled “smorse”) here. I wonder if the ratings at SI are better when we all throw marshmellows at each other. Showing those evangelicals how to be militant! oh yeah baby! I wonder if we don’t all need some form of group therapy? You know we start off the meeting saying our name…..followed with “I am a recovering fundamentalist”…..or……”I am a strong fundamentalist” …… or ……. “I am a weird fundamentalist” and then of course we all clap for each other encouraging one-another for our courage! Forgive me if I move on - have to do a bit more work on the Lawn 4000! Later brethreim!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

My background with Northland is lengthy and broad. As an elementary student and junior higher, I was able to observe my dad along with Dr. O, Dr. Von, Mr. Patz, Mr. Herron, Coach Phillips, Dr. Schmidt, Dr. Mac, Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Arndt, and many others truly serve the students and each other. I got to see it in their homes as well as around campus. As a college student, I saw this a little more close up in the classrooms, as an athlete, and in working in the public relations department daily with both Dr. Bennett’s, Dr. Jacquot, Coach Scott, and Mr. McQueary in addition to the others mentioned earlier. As a Christian school teacher/coach and then administrator, I was able to still see it on my periodic visits to the campus.

There was a unique “oneness in mission” and humility and this uniqueness was noticed by guests, including then-current students, prospective students and their parents, and area pastors. The guests are the ones that began the “Northland heart” phrase because they truly noticed something different. They liked the philosophy with a balanced viewpoint. They appreciated the standards with the common sense. And they especially liked the servant’s heart that was evident all over the campus from Dr. O and Mr. Patz in the office to Mr. Steinwand in the Maintenance department and Mr. Bladine in the Kitchen and everyone else in between. The “Northland Heart” publication and the “Heart Conference” came later after the frequent comments.

There was a noticed “change of heart”, not with the hiring of one person but probably several. Whenever there is leadership change, there will be personality change and focus change. That is always going to happen and that is ok. We are no longer in the 1980s and 1990s anymore either. Yes, doctrine never changes but society does and how we related to it does as well. Some practical and relational changes did need to take place.

As for the Alumnus, many of them left Northland appreciating their standards but certainly most were not carrying them on to their new endeavors, either ministerially or personally. As for the “fundamental, temperamental,” Baptist pastors who jumped off the Northland bandwagon, I believe that most never really understood what and who Northland truly was. It was not BJU or Hyles-Anderson, or PCC or MBBC. It was Northland. It was conservative with balance. There was no pretense. They were out in the boondocks, and unique in most every way. They focused on servantude and real “boots on the ground” ministry - not following a man, not focusing on what fork to use at a nice dinner, and not focusing on a perfect haircut. Northland was Northland and proud of it. Yet Northland has had graduates work in the White House and speak before federal cabinet departments as well as pastor hundreds of churches, big and small, and many did “go out of the way” to foreign fields. Hundreds of others are working faithfully in their local churches as they dutifully work their occupations. Northland really filled a unique niche.

As for the changes, some change was needed. I and hundreds of other alumni could see that. Unfortunately, the speed at which they changed just did not follow good leadership principles, and the transparency around the changes left a lot to be desired. Bob Jones on the other hand is making some changes, but they are doing it at a slower pace and it is probably more palatable to its constituency. Additionally, Northland should have sought regional accreditation. That probably hurt them more than they realize.

We could go on for days on the factors that played a role in where Northland is at currently. These could include its remote location, its lack of jobs for students, no regional accreditation, economic downturn, rule changes, leadership failure, etc., but ultimately most of us want this place to continue producing servant leaders for Great Commission living, and steering people to a life of wisdom, honesty, obedience, and service. We’d prefer it to be Northland but ultimitely want it used of God. I know Daniel Patz and Scott Dunford well as well as Ken McMasters and believe they have done and will do everything to maintain what is left of the heritage and legacy of Northland.

I do hope Boyce College at Northland thrives along with the Northland Camp and Conference Center. It is sad that the Northland that we knew and loved will not be there but I hope it is used of God for many years to come! That is a perspective of a staff kid turned college student turned supporting Christian school leader. That is my story and I’m sticking to it!

As Brian said above:

As for the “fundamental, temperamental,” Baptist pastors who jumped off the bandwagon, I truly believe that most had their head in the sand as to what Northland truly was. It was not BJU or Hyles-Anderson, or PCC or MBBC.

There was a lot of wishful projection going on.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

About Cornerstone, Mike you are misinformed. They do not allow social drinking for the students. They do not allow them to dress anyway they want. They do allow dancing and they do allow rock music.

[Mike Harding] If one studies two sister schools, MBU and NIU, since the turn of the century, which school is in the better position today?
​ Well, Mike, this is all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Many can argue that NIU is in a better position.

[Mike Harding] ​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.
​​ Ehh. Mike, it is through this cultural conservatism that many are seeing through. You are pinning your conservatism as the biblical way of living and all others as sinful. In a way, it may be progress—for the move is away from cultural conservatism to biblical authority and Christian liberty. Too bad you missed this concert at Boyce a couple years ago.. http://www.boycecollege.com/2012/09/13/trip-lee-concert-sept-17/

[Mike Harding] ​​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.
​​​ Go for what? For one, drinking is prohibited in the SBC. Mohler can’t change that. And second, don’t equate your conservatism to Mohler’s. Al’s would be “I choose to be culturally conservative but don’t see it as the only biblical way of living. I’ll give others grace as they practice their liberty.” Is that your position, Mike? I doubt it is. I recall hearing your defense of abstention on Moody Radio a few months back and it was obvious that you were struggling to build a biblical argument. Nobody has a problem with cultural conservatism if they appropriate it. If it’s not, it’s just plain legalism. Something Mohler will not stand for.

iK

Ecclesia semper reformanda est

[Greg Long]

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!

Greg, good question.

In other words we are describing two different “ownership” groups of NIU. One group is the historical base & constituency - the group that “built” NIU in terms of sending students and support base. The other group is the Patz family, without which NIU never would’ve begun in the first place.

My arguments are not about the recent gifting of NIU to SBTS. I have said that some concern over NIU now being under the SBTS (& SBC umbrella) does have merit. The SBC and even up until fairly recently SBTS is known for being soft on its stance on various Biblical issues. It is my understanding that Mohler is working hard at pulling SBTS towards a more conservative position.

Also, to a point I agree with you that if this is what the Patz family (board) wanted to do, then they have enough skin in the game to make that choice.

However, one of the main points of my arguments is to address the thought that NIU doesn’t owe fundamentalists an explanation for what it does - including the idea that NIU needs to change because no one wants to go back to when Gershwin was banned. As Brian Keith suggested change needs to happen in an appropriate manner. I have seen people on BOTH sides of this issue say the changes were too much & too fast sometimes in a questionable manner and with questionable transparency.

The way the way the changes happened and supported, many people said in effect, NIU was content to poke its constituency in the eye. This constituency is the other “ownership group” I am speaking of. This is the group that sent their students, their children, donated their money, prayed for and supported NIU - the types of churches NIU courted for 30+ years including the types of churches planted by NIU’s own alumni.

Yes, the Patz family has their skin in the game. But so do the very people that the Patz family themselves courted and cooperated with to build the ministry. NIU was not built on the Patz family alone.

If you were a pastor of a church - you put your heart and soul into it for 30 years, week in and week out you worked hard at it believing you were doing right to the best of your ability before God. You taught and mentored the people in your congregation for years and years and you labored to build a new church facility. However, within a few short years another group in your church suddenly wants to move it in another direction that you and the foundational group of people do not want. Don’t you think there would be push-back and frustration by yourself and the foundational members? Shouldn’t that other group in your church demonstrate some patience, gratitude, and grace in how they approach what they are trying to do?

My argument is all about the way and the attitude behind the changes. The very same lack of grace people often point to fundamentalists (fair point) we have seen towards the foundational group that allowed NIU to flourish.

Do I want NIU to continue to train people to serve the Lord? Absolutely! Did NIU need to make some changes, as Brian Keith stated? Yes! But, there is a right way and a wrong way.

It is silly, naive, and reckless for anyone to default to the idea that the A Fundies wouldn’t allow change! Change for anyone or any group is hard. It takes time. It needs to be done in an appropriate manner. If new leadership went into UC Berkley and started to make it republican, don’t you think they would have people angry too?

There is enough blame and fault to go around on both sides. I just wish more people would admit it. On the one side you have the Hardcore A types and on the other side you have people perfectly content to blow off what made NIU in the first place so Gershwin wouldn’t be banned. Trouble is, most people don’t want to acknowledge it. They would rather keep looking at the issues through their keyhole while ignoring the contextual issues.

Joel Tetreau said, “My hesitancy with Type A fundamentalism is in large part connected with what I’ve witnessed - I have seen far too many young people that have been blasted out of their walk with Christ in large part by a legalistic and performance-based acceptance “sub-culture” from too many within “Type A” fundamentalism than by sliding away from Christ by means of a “Type B and C” fundamentalist sub-culture.”

Personally I’ve seen enough behavior by the B- & C types in this issue alone that pushes me away from them, not towards them. I am not and don’t want to be an A+, but really not sure I want to be what I’ve seen by many B’s or C’s either.

[iKuyper]

Mike Harding wrote:

If one studies two sister schools, MBU and NIU, since the turn of the century, which school is in the better position today?

​ Well, Mike, this is all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Many can argue that NIU is in a better position.

The eye of this beholder sees that MBU is/has been growing and is even more sustainable for the future (online education, regional accreditation, reasonably located near large metro areas, stable leadership & direction) … and NIU has less than 200 students and if it didn’t ask someone to take them over would’ve shut down by the end of the year if not sooner. The Boyce version of NIU is more or less starting over from scratch.

Are you sure NIU is in a better position?

​​​ Go for what? For one, drinking is prohibited in the SBC. Mohler can’t change that. And second, don’t equate your conservatism to Mohler’s. Al’s would be “I choose to be culturally conservative but don’t see it as the only biblical way of living. I’ll give others grace as they practice their liberty.” Is that your position, Mike? I doubt it is.

Now wait a minute, iK. I think you’re being a bit harsh toward Harding. How exactly do you know that Mike wouldn’t demonstrate grace like Mohler would? What does that look like- grace, I mean? Just a few years ago, could you have pictured a leading FBFI man publicly acknowledging that he was a personal friend of a leading SBC seminary president? Just because Mike has a conservative position when it comes to some of these things doesn’t mean that he cannot have conversations with those he disagrees, or that he considers their salvation suspect if they don’t agree with his conclusion.
Now, perhaps Mike can clarify… but until then, I think you’ve made some assumptions that may not be true.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[mmartin]

The way the way the changes happened and supported, many people said in effect, NIU was content to poke its constituency in the eye. This constituency is the other “ownership group” I am speaking of. This is the group that sent their students, their children, donated their money, prayed for and supported NIU - the types of churches NIU courted for 30+ years including the types of churches planted by NIU’s own alumni.

Yes, the Patz family has their skin in the game. But so do the very people that the Patz family themselves courted and cooperated with to build the ministry. NIU was not built on the Patz family alone.

I’m just an interested observer. My only connection with Northland is from the teens that have gone out from our church to that institution. I would say that with only the information I previously had, I would also have thought that Northland’s “new” direction was a betrayal of sorts. However, if the information that I read in this thread about Northland’s direction never having been really type-A is true, then it sounds as if the type-A’s sending their students there just didn’t truly understand what type of school it was in the first place. I didn’t either — I would have done more research if my children had been considering Northland for their college career (I am more of a B+).

That doesn’t change the fact that it was still a risky move to alienate their main constituency, even if that constituency was either uninformed or blissfully ignorant, since it appears, at least in hindsight, that their apparently “new” direction (even if it wasn’t new) was not something that would attract more students, but rather less. Of course, in this current climate, it may just have been a choice between either dying slowly or taking a risk that might either pay off, or result in a massive flameout (which is apparently what happened). Either way, it appears that Northland has never been the school that many thought it was.

Dave Barnhart

[mmartin]

iKuyper wrote:

Mike Harding wrote:

If one studies two sister schools, MBU and NIU, since the turn of the century, which school is in the better position today?

​ Well, Mike, this is all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Many can argue that NIU is in a better position.

The eye of this beholder sees that MBU is/has been growing and is even more sustainable for the future (online education, regional accreditation, reasonably located near large metro areas, stable leadership & direction) … and NIU has less than 200 students and if it didn’t ask someone to take them over would’ve shut down by the end of the year if not sooner. The Boyce version of NIU is more or less starting over from scratch.

Are you sure NIU is in a better position?

Not in any particular order but these would be why someone like me sees NIU better positioned:

1) NIU will be on the “map” now since affiliated with Southern

thus,

2) Their constituency will grow beyond fundamentalism and now will include conservative evangelicals

thus,

3) potential for huge growth and reach

4) oh, did i mention their affiliation with Southern? =)

Ecclesia semper reformanda est