Chris Bruno reflects on the future of Northland
Chris Bruno said: The centrality of the gospel was taking deeper root at the school…
I think this is what is often most offensive about this kind of discussion, and perhaps the point of greatest disconnect. The more conservative group is caricatured as abandoning the gospel in some way. Frankly, as one of the (somewhat) more conservative group, this is exactly my concern over those who embrace a looser definition of holiness. From this vantage point, it appears worldliness has been married to the gospel to make it more palatable and comfortable to its crowd.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chris,
This article appeared several months ago. Not sure why it is reappearing today. They have had a new president for months. Under Les the school was rock solid on the gospel. To imply that it wasn’t is slanderous to Les, Doug, Sam, and a host of others. Thanks for pointing this out. The school has changed from a Fundamental Baptist Dispensational school to a conservative evangelical school that is broader in its doctrinal outlook. I think they are still solid on the gospel, but less stringent on other doctrinal and philosophical issues, including some practice issues.
Pastor Mike Harding
Add me to the list of people confused as to why this article is running today…
I think this is what is often most offensive about this kind of discussion, and perhaps the point of greatest disconnect. The more conservative group is caricatured as abandoning the gospel in some way. Frankly, as one of the (somewhat) more conservative group, this is exactly my concern over those who embrace a looser definition of holiness. From this vantage point, it appears worldliness has been married to the gospel to make it more palatable and comfortable to its crowd. -Chip
Chip,
As an alumnus of NIU (2000), let me respond quickly.
When I read that article back in May, I got the idea of what Chris was saying. In the past, I think that NIU presented their rules and procedures as a way of delineating what the gospel meant and did. We acted this way because God is (for a simple and hopefully non-offensive illustration) a God of order and harmony, so therefore men will wear ties to all classes and suitcoats/ties to ‘family-style’ dinners as a result. The school wants to demonstrate that there are principles that govern appearance, and also needed policies to control the roughly 800+ students at the time.
Where the disconnect was manifest was when the heart of the student clashed with the necessary and useful rule by the school. NIU was always very strong on getting the heart attitude right, but when we graduated or got to our upperclassmen years, we found that there were people who did have a heart for the Lord and a love for His Word but who did not follow the same kinds of rules - the ‘conservative evangelicals’. We rejoiced to see that there were more believers in the world and began to fellowship with them as well since they are our brothers and sisters in the Lord and we desire the kind of organic unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17:6-12. As those discussions grew (especially on the Internet), weaknesses in both philosophy and practice were noticed. The lack of response to those questions made the questions seem more evident and harder to ignore. I remember asking some of those kinds of questions to my professors at NIU, and it was clear that we were in the same chapter even though we may not be on the same page yet…and again, that was back in 2000.
So these YF’s decided that the arguments put forth in some areas were stronger, and we made changes to accommodate the more Scripturally-defensible position or to bring ourselves into a more robust position (what good is it to decry movies in the theater as sin in an age where you could go to Wal-Mart or Blockbuster and buy or rent the same movie and avoid the associations of going to Regal Cinemas? Yet we were continually told that movie theaters are wrong with no mention about the other video delivery methods).
I’ve said this before, and Dr. Bauder has tried to write about it as well - the practices of Fundamentalism were analyzed by the Young Fundamentalists and were found to be lacking or that they could have been stronger. But to many Fundamentalists - especially in areas of music - the practices are just as much a part of Fundamentalism as the gospel itself - to even consider changing the practice was tantamount to changing the gospel. Ask Scott Aniol or any of the “conservative” (and I’m using their term) church service music people, or go back and reread one of the myriad music threads from May - there was no resolution to the debates because both sides were talking about different things.
So we don’t think that the conservative group is ‘abandoning’ the gospel. That’s never been the issue. The issue, as I and other YFs have seen it, is that a lot of other things were grafted onto gospel-based practices that should never have been added on there, and we think that for the sake of the gospel, they need to be either analyzed again to verify their necessity or un-grafted if necessary. But of course, we are the ones attacking the gospel and falling headlong into liberalism and heresy.
That’s my quick take on your comment. I can understand why you would accuse us of accusing you that you are abandoning the gospel, but I don’t think you understand Chris’ point, and I don’t know that anyone who wasn’t at NIU would necessarily understand it. I’m a member of an NIU alumni group on Facebook, where Chris is a member. I’ll PM him and see if he’s interested in reading your comments; maybe he’ll take a few minutes to register and reply.
"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
Thought these old threads might be of interest.
“Does Charles Spurgeon represent ‘Cultural Fundamentalism?’”
Cultural Conservatism, Styles and Accidental Meaning
The New Fundamentalism of “Religious Affections”
"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
NIU MEH
Don’t hold back; tell us how you really feel! :)
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
…is that the classification of what is worldly is so often mutable.
Examples?:
In the 1970’s, as a youth, I remember sermons in which any open-toed shoes on women were labeled a sign of worldliness. Men, do your wives or daughters wear any type of open-toed shoes today? Do you see a problem with it?
I also remember when, as a Christian school student at Fourth Baptist Christian School (now in Plymouth, MN), all males (students or faculty) were explicitly prohibited from having any facial hair. (It was a punishable offense, and could lead to expulsion or termination.) Today, looking at the online photographs of the professors @ Central Seminary, at least half of the full-time & part-time faculty are sporting full beards and/or mustaches.
Music, as far as I see, is likewise purely a matter of preference. I happen to prefer pianos, organs, violins, etc. (“traditional” church music). I don’t especially care for drums, guitars, etc. in church services. But as long as Psalm 150 is in my Bible, I have a difficult time castigating others who disagree.
I’m going to react more strongly here and I know I may take some heat for this but to me Chris’ commentary on NIU was pure trash. It suggested that NIU under Dr. Ollila, Dr. Von, et al was misguided, out of touch if not wrong with its philosophy of ministry.
NO organization is perfect - not even NIU in its supposed “more spiritually balanced form” All the ministries I’ve seen NIU was the most balanced. NIU was always, ALWAYS about the gospel, growing in the Lord, discipleship & serving others. NIU made a conscious effort at saying many of its rules did not equal spirituality. I know for a fact at the end of Missions Conference week all the kids planning on going into some kind of missions work would go to the front by the stage. The Entire front of the stage would be filled with students.
The arrogance of Chris Bruno’s post is horrible. It is like he is saying those old guys don’t get it, they need to be put out to pasture - but now us young guys, we get it, we are going to get Northland back on track. In his post Chris said, “Now there is more hope for Northland than ever. Along with a renewed emphasis on the centrality of the gospel …”
Anybody who knew NIU in its Dr. O years and who is intellectually honest enough would admit that Dr. O and NIU was always about the gospel. The Bible was always central at NIU.
And Bruno has the gall to suggest that NOW it is gospel centered. Yes, it is true there were rules about what music you could listen to in the dorms, etc, but I also know NIU worked hard at saying it’s rules did not equal spirituality. Bruno is coming at his argument from the wrong, dare I say, intellectually dishonest, angle.
It is like that one other comment I read on Facebook where someone expressed they were happy about the direction of NIU because he didn’t want NIU to go back to the days when George Gershwin was banned. George Gershwin may have been banned … . in the 80’s or 90’s. I’ve never read or heard of any conservative pining for those days. Who was asking for NIU to go back to banning Gershwin? I get it that the author was simply using Gershwin as an illustration, but I hope you get my point.
So, let me get this straight, you want to re-brand an entire organization, poke your historical constituency in the eye - the same people that gave of their time, prayer and money so you could build your program and nice buildings, and wave goodbye to Dr. O … . . because you don’t want to go back to the days when Gershwin was banned and you want NIU to NOW be more gospel centered?? You want to do all that based on a caricature?
Bruno’s post was garbage!
I would like to know how you get:
It suggested that NIU under Dr. Ollila, Dr. Von, et al was misguided, out of touch if not wrong with its philosophy of ministry.
…The arrogance of Chris Bruno’s post is horrible. It is like he is saying those old guys don’t get it, they need to be put out to pasture - but now us young guys, we get it, we are going to get Northland back on track.
From:
I spent my last two years on campus wrestling over the theological and exegetical foundations for these practices and felt like we needed to be somewhere more biblically and theologically robust.
You’re reading WAY too much into that article. I have yet to meet an alumnus of NBBC/NIU that ever had anything bad to say about Drs. Ollila, Von, Horn, or anyone else.
"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
[mmartin]Bruno’s post was garbage!
:)
The responses to the comment on the centrality of the Gospel is interesting. A few years ago I encouraged a young pastor to exalt Christ in his preaching. His response was that I was accusing him of not preaching Christ. Methinks they doth protest too much.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
why is this appearing in filings yet again? 184 comments before… I guess we didn’t cover it sufficiently the last time around?
Discussion