The Project 14 Global Missions board of directors will lead Northland Baptist Ministries

Boy, I sure don’t get how one month, the Patz family was offering the place to the SBC, and next, they’re offering it to a group closer to SOTL. And when I look at the list of directors—Monte who advertises “Old Time Religion”, H-A graduate and KJVO Cazis—I’ve got to agree that it appears closer to SOTL. Not my cup of tea, but whatever.

Regarding the “business plan”, it’s not a business plan, properly speaking. Rather, it’s more of a draft marketing plan that has a few vague nods to actually running the camp—and no real explanation why the IFBs of 14 states would send campers and such an additional few hundred miles to be at Northland. I see it running into serious trouble when pastors present it before boards of deacons that might include businessmen and those with “green eyeshades”, and quite frankly I’m surprised that people who have administered entities of any size bought off on this.

I hope I’m wrong, but my gut suggests that this could be a time bomb that could end up killing off Northland and a few other camps across the upper Midwest. The data I see suggest that we have a LOT of emotional investment in Northland, but not a lot of real planning per Proverbs 21:5.

I echo Joel T’s sentiments…I pray that the gospel will advance because of this. Jeff Kahl seems like a sincere and capable Christian leader. What they have done so far (specifically as it pertains to Northland’s financial obligations) is quite remarkable. I pray that God’s fame will continue to spread through this partnership.

FWIW, this is the website of one of their board members, so perhaps they aren’t in any particular “box”

Per Mark’s comment, if indeed the participants range in perspective, we should be really, really worried, because anyone who knows Northland knows from bitter experience that the H-A, BJU, and “Big Daddy Weave” factions simply don’t play well together. No?

And while I concede that it is possible that enough adherents of these factions will repent of the sins they’ve committed in the name of their ministries to make the new Northland work, in such a case it would be the repentant parties’ first task to apologize to the people they have wronged and fix the damage done in their own communities, not to open a camp hundreds of miles away.

Such repentance would also be far bigger news than the resurrection of Northland, to put it very, very mildly. Would love to see it and am praying that I will, but I’m not holding my breath.

It’s interesting that though the “pedigree” of some of these men are SOTL IFB, the term “fundamentalist” is not even used. Instead, the term “conservative” is used. So, while we know where some of these folks have been, we don’t really know where this is going. Let’s give it some time!

Ken McCoy
Chairman
Story:
Ken is the founder of Project 14 Global Missions and is the current Chairman of the Board. He retired after 30 plus years in the coal industry

http://p14gm.org/about-us/our-team/p14gm-board-of-directors

Northland’s influence was tightly connected to one individual and his family (Patz). Something I would wonder about in light of the past is the stability of an organization so strongly influenced by a donor (2 board members are father/son). Not saying it is inherently a bad thing, or that “laymen” should have no influence. Just something that caught my eye, not really knowing the specific individuals

[Steve Newman] It’s interesting that though the “pedigree” of some of these men are SOTL IFB, the term “fundamentalist” is not even used. Instead, the term “conservative” is used. So, while we know where some of these folks have been, we don’t really know where this is going. Let’s give it some time!

Since I brought up the term conservative…let me mention discuss that briefly.

I don’t think it makes sense to discuss the various spheres of Fundamentalism (like BJU, NIU/CBTS, TMC/TMS, HAC/Hammond, etc) any more. I think that what we have largely seen is a breakdown along lines of culture and practice. (Yes, we’re talkin’ ‘bout practice. :) )

So when I say ‘conservative’ fundamentalists, I’m primarily thinking of men who are traditional in their practices - KJV, conservative music, high dress standards, more authority led than group led, etc. I could suggest specific individuals, but I’ll pass on that. Please know that I’m not using that term with malice or evil intent, although I disagree with the philosophy itself. I’m just describing the fault line as I see it.

When I refer to ‘my’ fundamentalists (‘my’ being the ‘young fundamentalist group from the 2005 survey’), I’m thinking more of men like myself who are ESV-NKJV-NIV-NASB preferred, who are more liberal with the music (although we’re not in the ‘let’s bring Big Daddy Weave to lead “worship” at our church on Sunday group), who are more group led/plurality of elders, etc.

I’m not attacking the ‘conservatives’ when I call them that. I’m using the only term that seems to fit well. If there’s a better term that they want to use, I’ll use that instead. Likewise, if someone has a better name for the latter group, then we’ll use that.

But there are a few reasons why I mention an axis instead of spheres-

• Groupings by ‘orbit’ break down too easily. I know BJU alumnae from my class I would never in a million years want to work with, and there’s probably some HAC guy somewhere that lines up with where I am on the two axes I mentioned above. Group by philosophy and approach instead of ‘orbit’.
  
• It seems to me that all men are continually moving in one direction or another. I was very, very strongly conservative when I graduated from NIU. Now ten to fifteen years later, I’ve walked away from a lot of that and am much more comfortable with the latter group. My doctrinal positions haven’t changed, but my practices certainly have, similar to the way that NIU described itself at one point as ‘not changing’ even though they were clearly were changing in how they did things. So I’m not convinced that it’s wise to say, “Jay’s a liberal” or “Jay’s a conservative” - I’m very conservative on the inerrancy debate, for example, but I’m very liberal at the same time because I have little time or patience for the textual theory stuff and a lot of time to help someone find the best translation for them.
  
• Finally, it seems like the real issues that flare up, especially here on SharperIron, are at best incidentally about doctrine and almost always exclusively about practices and philosophy. The group you work with may indicate where a person is coming from, but it’s not a very reliable barometer of where they actually are. That means that I can’t say that am with the “TMS” group or the “BJU” group or even the “NIU” group. Hammond and HAC, IMHO, are the exceptions that prove the rule on this.

Make sense now?

So…..as I noted originally if the group sticks with the gospel, bible, etc……..God bless them and even if they are too different in denominational practices for me to cooperate - the gospel is preached and great! Just a reminder - many KJV - Type A Fundamentalist Baptist while extreme in separation and careless in discernment on a variety of issues……are still none the less in the court yard of orthodoxy and as such “on the right side” of the great commission…..even if they are really on the “right” side (lol……). However….. If this new relationship between P-14 and Northland (or any ministry for that matter) jumps over the fence of orthodoxy into a cultic identity such as the ministry mentioned from Indiana then not only cannot I not rejoice but I will finally be drug into the masses of those who have mourned what has happened in Dunbar. I have no doubt we will see which way this new ministry goes - I still am hoping and praying and expecting the best for sake of the Lord’s work…….even if they are more conservative than I am (and it sounds like that may be the case). Straight Ahead friends! jt

Joel, I wish I could be as sanguine about the matter as you are, but it strikes me that there is at least one Hyles-Anderson graduate on the board who is currently shepherding a KJVO church. Now perhaps in some ways Mr. Cazis has outgrown HA, but he’s spent his entire career in KJVO churches. Hence I don’t know that he’s moved very far from the “cultish” HA you refer to.

Add Mark Monte to the mix, and the most likely outcomes are either it goes full SOTL/KJVO (it’s pretty close already in the choice of acceptable Bibles), or there is ongoing strife on the board. Could be a time bomb detonated over northwoods fundamentalism, to put it mildly.

Jay, I understand what you are saying, but I was really referring more to the fact that the P14GM uses the term conservative on their web site to refer to what they are doing It is all good and fine for us to try and characterize them, but let’s hear what they say about themselves. They haven’t really “put their cards on the table” in terms of identification. That’s not to say I’m for or against the work there. I am on the board of Camp Chetek, which might be seen by some as “competition”, but it’s just too soon to say what this effort is going to be. I’m in the “wait and see” group on this one.

But I’d feel an awful lot more comfortable with this if one of the board members wasn’t heretical on the KJV Only issue:

We believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, fully and verbally inspired of God. We believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, as found within the 66 books from Genesis to Revelation. We believe that God not only inspired every word, but that He has preserved them through the ages. We believe that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people. (Psalm 12:6; II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:23-25; II Peter 1:19-21) - International Bible Church website

That definite article makes all the difference in the world to me. I’ve clashed too many times with KJV Only folks to ignore it.

I know that Monte is strong on the KJV only position, although I don’t know exactly where he falls, and I suspect that Pastor Mendoza from Iglesia Bautista Betania is as well. Pastor Mendoza’s church website doesn’t have a full doctrinal statement online, but a review makes it look like it’s been heavily influenced by FBC Hammond. That would be three of seven that are at a minimum KJV only in practice, and I’m stopping only because it’s getting very late.

The cynical side of me wonders if the Patz family is glad to have the debt paid off and the Northland “monkey” on someone else’s back.

[Craig Toliver]

The cynical side of me wonders if the Patz family is glad to have the debt paid off and the Northland “monkey” on someone else’s back.

….wonders, if what Jay and I have been saying is true, so many men that I respect are endorsing an endeavor that is going to have the KJVO/SOTL monkey on their backs. I can see letting the Patz family do this to get the monkey off THEIR backs, but it boggles the mind that people from Fourth—which produced an anti-KJVO conference and book—are endorsing this.

And yes, let things play out, see where it goes, but history does not suggest this is going to work out well.

I’m really surprised that people want to make alliances with the KJV Only people in the first place, but that goes back to my point earlier about what are they looking for in Fundamentalism. And I’ve seen this enough to know that they’re looking for a safe cultural haven. And whatever you may think about KJVOs, they offer a safe cultural haven (even if it’s based on heretical doctrine).

Sad.

Why would anyone be transformed by Christ when whitewash is available to make them look the part? I mean, one can just keep their favorite sins and biases in the closet and live for themselves? No?

I would argue this is what these external standards facilitate. I am not saying that everyone who has good externals are covering themselves but these standards may be used that way. The argument is not to be slovenly or offensive either.

As far as KJVO issue and how I have seen it used by some adherents controls the text. I mean why do the hard work of study when the bible can be read anachronistically for one’s own purposes as they see fit or mystically mean what they want it to mean? Why not just open the bible at random, point the finger to a text and apply it to one’s situation? At least they are “getting something out of it.” None of that “dry reading.” Seems reasonable, yes?

Do I really have to supply a “lol?”

I’m trying to figure out if Alex is using a bit of sarcasm there. :^)

Seriously, it’s a good question to ask; if we insist on “conservative” cultural standards—whatever that means—we will do well to ask ourselves whether this is a Biblical requirement, whether it is simply a practical and advisable restraint, or whether it is indeed “whitewash” we apply to be a safe cultural haven. If we react angrily when someone challenges the rule, five will get you ten it’s whitewash for the tombs.

Love my KJV, love my ties and wear them, love old music (a lot of it far older than will be played at the new Northland) and can’t stand most CCM, but let’s not confuse what I like with what the Scripture says.

Regarding KJVO, the worst of it isn’t that it’s often read anachronistically or without knowledge of pre-Elizabethan English, or that a small group of people tends to control the narrative. Rather, it’s that you need to argue that the eclectic text/Alexandrian texts are corrupted. Since you cannot show that with actual evidence—the text families are different but that could be just mistakes in copying—you necessarily end up making your case with personal attacks, fraudulent “evidence”, and the like.

Get into that habit with Bibliology, you’re going to have a tough time doing any better in any area of theology or practice, no? I suggest this is one of the big reasons there are so many nasty fights in the KJVO wing of fundamentalism—they’re inadvertently or purposefully training people to be bellicose.