"It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming."

I am wondering who got to decide for all people and for all time that John MacArthur is not a fundamentalist.
He is a member of a self-declared fundamentalist group of churches — IFCA International.
If we believe in the authority, autonomy, etc. of the local church, shouldn’t that count for something? 8-)
Oh, but the drama of it all…

but carry on, regardless…

I don’t know who decided that, but I’d guess half their congregation uses a MacArthur Study Bible.

[DavidO] I don’t know who decided that, but I’d guess half their congregation uses a MacArthur Study Bible.

Is that NKJV, NASB or ESV? We can’t have a congregation using different kinds of MacArthur Study Bibles!
I should think that the MSB-NKJV-only crowd should consider separation from the rest…
 :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :p

I have no idea who Don Johnson is, but his condescending and obnoxious tone is the EXACT reason why so many genuine fundamentalists do not want to be associated with the name anymore. This ridiculous quibbling about who invites whom and whether or not they pass the “purity” test is why thousands of our young people would rather go to a dentist than listen to or read this kind of rubbish. Rick Holland not a fundamentalist? John MacArthur not a fundamentalist? Ware is suspect because he dare teaches at an SBC seminary? What planet does he live on?

In the real world of academics and ministry, such discussions are smirked at for the trivial pettiness they embody.

Sounds to me like Matt Olson is doing a fine job at Northland and doing the right things in making it an international institution with a Biblical Worldview that doesn’t get caught up in these extraBiblical and petty political spitting matches.

Interestingly, I did some Wiki-research on The Fundamentals this week. Original authors included Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Episcopaleans, Presbyterians, etc.

Doesn’t seem to be as nearly as separtistic a group as today’s fundamentalists.

Dan,
I am one of those who “would rather go to a dentist” than read some of the vitriolic responses that arise in issues like this. I have never understood the attitude that is so characteristic of many such discussions (for the record, I am not singling Don out—he’s not alone). It would be interesting to hear if anyone finds this method of polemic “evangelism” to be either helpful or holy.
Concerning Northland, I agree with you 100%. Matt Olson is one of many godly men that God has placed in leadership there. May God continue to grant them wisdom as they serve through leading.

Don,
Dan laid the charge (which I am sure many agree with) that it is this kind of attitude and tone which are responsible for many either distancing themselves from fundamentalism or leaving altogether. How do you answer this charge? I think it may be helpful if you could share why you think this is the right way to go about maintaining personal, ecclesiastical, and institutional purity. It would be presumptuous of me to believe that you haven’t thoughtfully and prayerfully considered the benefits of your approach to disagreement. Thanks.

Cordially,

E.

[Paul J. Scharf] I am wondering who got to decide for all people and for all time that John MacArthur is not a fundamentalist.
He is a member of a self-declared fundamentalist group of churches — IFCA International.
If we believe in the authority, autonomy, etc. of the local church, shouldn’t that count for something? 8-)
Oh, but the drama of it all…

The IFCA International was formally the “Independent Fundamental Churches of America.” They changed the name to “IFCA International” in order to no longer be openly associated with the term “Fundamental.” They are composed of moderate Evangelicals and conservative Evangelicals. Most all are graduates of Evangelical schools such as Biola, Multnomah, Western Sem, Talbot, Dallas, and Masters.

After the release of MacArthur’s book “The Gospel According To Jesus Christ” in 1988, in 1990 the IFCA had a committee meet to study the issues of Lordship Salvation. The statement was against the Gospel as presented by John MacArthur and the MacArthurites. It was titled “The Nature of Saving Faith.” It is still on the IFCA website. The committee members listed are impressive including Dr. Robert Thomas of Masters seminary. Though the statement puts the IFCA at odds with the LSG of MacArthur, they took no steps to sanction MacArthur. MacArthur remained in the group. Some of the more Fundamental members left the IFCA over the MacArthur teaching issues. Today the IFCA has several Masters Sem. grads. However, some have been problems in churches. Many come out with an elitist Militant Calvinism. They feel a compulsion to change doctrinal statements and push their Calvinism in churches. It has been observed by several that Masters Sem. grads lack compassion and love as part of their ministry.

As noted above, MacArthur is not a member of a genuine Fundamentalist group. Further, his ministry involves an arrogant elitism that has caused numerous problems. His books are filled with exaggerations and attacking straw men. He remains popular with a certain segment of Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals through his radio programs. However, on the West coast, and especially in So. CA., he is viewed by many with caution.

If you read the notes in the MacArthur study Bible and his commentary regarding 1John 2:2, you will see that MacArthur is a 5 point Calvinist. A reviewer in Bib. Sac. also pointed this out. He also has a position on salvation assurance like the English Puritans that places assurance on us and our self examination of works rather than on Christ and our affirmation of faith in His work. Instead of a believing that involves knowledge, assent, and trust He espouses a faith that involves knowledge, assent, and submission.

It is difficult to believe that after all that has been written regarding the LSG, especially of the MacArthur hyper LSG, that there are those in Biblical leadership that are indifferent to the errors of such and desire to initiate some fellowship with MacArthur and his church staff.

At the heart of a genuine Fundamentalist stance are the Acts 20:17-35 admonitions. Such watch care over souls would certainly involve a discernment that uses great care regarding speakers at training institutions.

So when the representatives of Northland paid their visit to MacArthur, they were either asking the wrong questions or did not understand the full consequences of the answers. MacArthur’s assistant, Phil Johnson is a member of the Reformed Baptist Association and a wild eyed Reformed theology advocate. To come away from such a discussion with a desire to have a MacArthur associate come speak does not speak well of their discernment and wisdom.

We believe the Bible is sufficient to bring us to right and God-honoring positions regardless of time and culture. Even though we haven’t changed our music at a philosophical level, we are changing our music on a missional level. Where you will see changes is in our intent to expand our training to prepare students for worship and music globally. This only makes sense because, as you may have noticed, Northland International University has become more and more an international, global ministry with a passion to take the gospel where it is not proclaimed. Over 41% of the world’s population is still without a Gospel witness. This has become our students’ burden.

How did Northland “used to teach” their students in worship (not globally)? So how does one teach students how to worship globally musically? I wonder if it means they learn the Asian musical scales, etc. I don’t understand how this is to be played out. What does it mean?

Maybe I don’t know enough about music to understand. At least in the area of “pop” music, much of the world “follows America” and doesn’t actually originate their own. (I can’t believe how much American pop/rock is played here on the radio—in English. — I’m in Poland)

Does anyone know? And why couldn’t the director of Fine Arts go along with that? Does it actually mean a change in direction in practicality? I’m just asking, as I’m curious. I’m not “fighting” or being controversial—I much prefer that people just say what they believe and be done with it. If it is a change in direction, pastors can either accept it or leave them alone and go somewhere else.

Since I didn’t go to Northland, I’ve not really any experience with their music philosophy anyway. All I knew was that people raved after visiting there how the students were “all so spiritually minded”. That’s a nice compliment. (However, I’m not naive enough to believe that all students in any school are “so….)

Thanks for posting the link and I’m thanking Don for posting the original links on SI from 05 and 06.

[Dan Burrell] I have no idea who Don Johnson is, but his condescending and obnoxious tone is the EXACT reason why so many genuine fundamentalists do not want to be associated with the name anymore. This ridiculous quibbling about who invites whom and whether or not they pass the “purity” test is why thousands of our young people would rather go to a dentist than listen to or read this kind of rubbish. Rick Holland not a fundamentalist? John MacArthur not a fundamentalist? Ware is suspect because he dare teaches at an SBC seminary? What planet does he live on?

In the real world of academics and ministry, such discussions are smirked at for the trivial pettiness they embody.

Sounds to me like Matt Olson is doing a fine job at Northland and doing the right things in making it an international institution with a Biblical Worldview that doesn’t get caught up in these extraBiblical and petty political spitting matches.

I couldn’t agree more, Dan. It is also very interesting that those who have all the separation issues in line with the fundies get far more lattitude with their errors. Case in point being those who are KJVO—a simple reading of the original “Fundamentals” provides a clear idea of what the early fundamentalists believed concerning the Holy Scriptures and it is polar opposite to the KJVO heresy. I have a novel idea for those leaders in Fundyism—separate from those who are unorthodox and fellowship with those who are not. Wouldn’t it be great if we just cut the political garbage and actually used Scripture as our guide?

I am encouraged to see that Northland seems to fear God more than man—we all need a good dose of this, IMHO.

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

It’s fascinating how quickly this conversation is shifting to a debate on “music standards” and “Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism”. Thankfully, Matthew referenced the KJVO issue as well and so the triumvirate of controversies is now intact. I teach hundreds of young seminary students from myriad evangelical backgrounds, many of whom are already in ministry, and I can testify that these three issues are dividing churches well beyond the small Independent Fundamental Baptist world into much of the rest of the conservative Christian universe.

I am not implying that these topics are not worthy of discussion, I just question why they are such a cause for division. These are not doctrinal (in most cases) and the debate for two of the three matters is centuries old. All of them, taken to an extreme (that is rarely found though most of us could probably agree does exist) can be heretical. Matters of discussion? Yes. Matters of civil debate? Yes. Matters worthy of division? Hardly.

Until fundamentalism deals with the tone, political posturing and dogmatic enforcement of our discourse, we are consigned to the cheap seats at the banquet where little input is noticed or frankly, desired.

Mr. Johnson said in his condescending and obnoxious rant that he and Matt Olson have “some issues between us.” I am not wondering if it is more likely that Mr. Johnson has issues with Matt Olson verses the other way around.

My point here is that Mr. Johnson does not describe one bit of how he has biblically talked to Matt Olson about these perceived issues and the responses that Matt Olson has given him. Unless he can do that his post is merely a clanging gong.

[Dan Burrell]
I am not implying that these topics are not worthy of discussion, I just question why they are such a cause for division. These are not doctrinal (in most cases) and the debate for two of the three matters is centuries old. All of them, taken to an extreme (that is rarely found though most of us could probably agree does exist) can be heretical. Matters of discussion? Yes. Matters of civil debate? Yes. Matters worthy of division? Hardly.

Until fundamentalism deals with the tone, political posturing and dogmatic enforcement of our discourse, we are consigned to the cheap seats at the banquet where little input is noticed or frankly, desired.

On many if not most topics such as these, I’m more interested in what interpretational/applicational method was employed in order to reach one’s conclusions, rather than the conclusions themselves. There are some that I believe are mistaken in their conclusions, but because I see their respect for Scripture, compassion, and humility, I walk a whole lot further down the path with them than with someone who is ‘right’ but lacking in the fruits of the Spirit. I have faith that someone with the right attitude will eventually come to the right conclusions (my computer screen suddenly turned into a mirror- ha ha!) but someone who is angry, aggressive, combative, proud… (and I am not talking about Bro. Johnson here- capiche?) can be right all the live long day- but what good is it? Wasn’t that the problem the Pharisees had? They were so ‘right’ but also so coldly arrogant that it seemed like they weren’t worth shootin’- and yet Jesus took the time with them, and some of them were converted.

On the OP- I agree with Bro. Johnson that Bro. Olson’s statement appears naive.

[Greg Linscott]

[ Matt Olson] We did not see that having these speakers would be a significant problem. Biblically, we worked through a process of decision making and felt these choices and the context in which they were made were consistent with what we have always believed. Knowing now that these decisions might be confusing, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, we would likely have planned differently. We have no desire to distract from our focus here or on the field of ministry.

[Don Johnson] It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming.

I think Don is right in this statement. Whether or not you agree with what Olson is doing at Northland, it seems incredibly naive at best to think that this would not evoke a response from Northland’s established constituency, who were used to previously established practices that (for whatever reason) did not include practices or invitations such as have recently occurred. Even if you agree with these changes Olson has implemented, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that a better job could have been done at explaining the rationale prior to the events, or at least acknowledging that some will differ and disagree with the choices made. Appealing to “oh, we didn’t know” strikes me as incredibly lame.

I agree. I also note some clever rhetorical moves, such as the detail about how much prayer and fasting and so forth went into the decision-making process. I believe the story is true and I commend whoever participated for their sincere spirituality, but the presence of it in this letter, combined with the feigned surprise, make it seem more like the old-school Fundy move: How can you disagree with the spiritually mature man of God? It’s very similar to Billy Graham’s story of his night in prayer before deciding to go ahead with his first ecumenical evangelism rally. The whole letter strikes me more as a move to forestall further criticism than as a genuine explanation for recent actions.