"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

I thought to be a Charismatic you had to treat speaking in tongues as a necessary evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace?

Also, does the NIU policy re the “various branches of the Charismatic Movement” pre-date Sovereign Grace and the Third Wave Charismatics? If so, is it even fair to apply the policy to that group/those groups?

Don’t tell me. I’ve never heard of a “harismatic” either.

Also, does the NIU policy re the “various branches of the Charismatic Movement” pre-date Sovereign Grace and the Third Wave Charismatics? If so, is it even fair to apply the policy to that group/those groups?

So let me get this straight- are you saying that NIU should not or would not want to distinguish themselves, not only from people like SGM, but also from C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, and the Vineyard movement?

That’s what your missing, Greg.

The huge fundamentalist middle that wasn’t new evangelical or hyper-separatist (secondary separation).

Now why does the secondary separation branch of the movement have the right to define the movement?

Who gave them the keys to the movement?

The branch of fundamentalism that didn’t move to the right or the left has just as much right to define the movement as the more outspoken group.

Blessings!

[dmyers]

I thought to be a Charismatic you had to treat speaking in tongues as a necessary evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace?

Also, does the NIU policy re the “various branches of the Charismatic Movement” pre-date Sovereign Grace and the Third Wave Charismatics? If so, is it even fair to apply the policy to that group/those groups?

The ubiquitous Wikipedia:

Although specific teachings will vary from group to group, charismatics generally believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs at the new birth and prefer to call subsequent encounters with the Holy Spirit by other names, such as “being filled”. In contrast to Pentecostals, charismatics tend to accept a range of supernatural experiences (such as prophecy, miracles, healing, or “physical manifestations of an altered state of consciousness”) as evidence of having been baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit.

Link

SGM statement of faith:

Empowered by the Spirit

In addition to effecting regeneration and sanctification, the Holy Spirit also empowers believers for Christian witness and service. While all genuine believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion, the New Testament indicates the importance of an ongoing, empowering work of the Spirit subsequent to conversion as well. Being indwelt by the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit are theologically distinct experiences. The Holy Spirit desires to fill each believer continually with increased power for Christian life and witness, and imparts his supernatural gifts for the edification of the Body and for various works of ministry in the world. All the gifts of the Holy Spirit at work in the church of the first century are available today, are vital for the mission of the church, and are to be earnestly desired and practiced.

Link

Don,

You still acknowledge there is a “secondary separation branch.” Whatever else, they are distinct, even in your mind.

I would observe that whether you think it was legitimate or not, the “huge middle” that you speak of conceded the fundamentalist label a long time ago. For that matter, even many in the “secondary separation branch” have been looking for another term to use for years.

Put aside the label for the sake of this segment. The point is not so much the label for this discussion, but the “secondary separation branch” as distinct from your “huge middle.” Which, by saying, I do not presume to speak of your waistline, just to be clear. :)

NIU is within their purview, certainly, to appeal to the “huge middle.” Admittedly, though, that has not been their modus operandi dating back at least to the Ollila administration, which even you have acknowledged in other posts. Regardless of labels employed, the change in institutional mo by MO is what seems to me to be in focus here, and is somewhat de-railed when we get into who the real Fundamentalists are (especially when it seems almosr no one is really crazy about the label in the first place).

[Greg Linscott]

Don,

You still acknowledge there is a “secondary separation branch.” Whatever else, they are distinct, even in your mind.

I would observe that whether you think it was legitimate or not, the “huge middle” that you speak of conceded the fundamentalist label a long time ago. For that matter, even many in the “secondary separation branch” have been looking for another term to use for years.

Put aside the label for the sake of this segment. The point is not so much the label for this discussion, but the “secondary separation branch” as distinct from your “huge middle.” Which, by saying, I do not presume to speak of your waistline, just to be clear. :)

NIU is within their purview, certainly, to appeal to the “huge middle.” Admittedly, though, that has not been their modus operandi dating back at least to the Ollila administration, which even you have acknowledged in other posts. Regardless of labels employed, the change in institutional mo by MO is what seems to me to be in focus here, and is somewhat de-railed when we get into who the real Fundamentalists are (especially when it seems almosr no one is really crazy about the label in the first place).

So true, my friend. Those of us in the “middle” branch of fundamentalism may have conceded the label long ago, but it wasn’t necessarily by choice. When I see how these debates go on and on, I remember why we chose not to fight our brothers and sisters over secondary separation. What a tiring, abusive place to be.

As to being derailed, I was answering Kevin’s polemic against those of us who contend that historic fundamentalists is that middle branch who would rather unite with brothers and sisters than divide over who was fellowshipping with whom.

I’m glad Northland is changing. I’m glad that my relatives can once again feel welcomed at Northland. It is a wonderful thing to be in the hands of a loving God.

Blessings!

For what it’s worth, there is a difference between belief in “secondary separation” and belief in completely open-ended separation over absolutely anything. (e.g., quite a few who believe in secondary sep. do not believe in separating over the Bible translation you use)

Usually, when I’ve had the opportunity to have an extended discussion with someone who claims to be opposed to “secondary sep.” we’ve found that they actually do believe in it after all, under certain conditions. (That is, they are usually able to eventually imagine a scenario in which fellowship must be limited with a brother who is disobedient in some way and unrepentant.)

There just tends to be a lot of use of terms w/out clear definitions.

I personally believe in secondary separation as a biblical teaching, but would not attempt any kind of punitive separation from an individual or ministry over their choice of translations, their use of contemporary music (for the most part—there are extremes there that would put it on the table as a potential punitive separation issue), their use of alcoholic beverages (without drunkenness), their view of the cessation of gifts.

However, while I would not separate punitively from these folks, the reality is that we all have limits on how much “cooperating” we can do. So we are selective. Whatever you want to call these things, there is a difference between “separation due to unrepentant disobedience” and “choosing to work with people who are more like minded.” I doubt the latter is properly termed separation, but it is certainly a reality, and an important one. There are all kinds of folks and groups I would not partner with simply because I can, instead, work with folks who see these matters as I do.

This is article traces Charismaticism from a Charismatic perspective. Not being in the movement, I don’t understand all the nuances and acronyms but one thing is apparent: charismatics view themselves much more diversely than those on the outside do.

http://churchrevolution.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/a-charismatic-view-of-evangelical-history/

The guy who runs this site studied at Duke and Gordon-Conwell and is Pentacostal himself. From what I can tell, he has good historical perspective and an “insider’s view” on the movement and can distinguish between the different streams.

Personally, I am very wary of SGM (and I hope Northland doesn’t form too strong bonds there), but not because of typical fundamentalist issues about music, etc. The history of SGM is problematic and too strongly built on core personalities, IMHO. Their shift toward Calvinistic doctrine is also relatively recent (in light of church history) and somewhat of an aberration in charismaticism. This kind of huge shift leads to instability and I think we’re seeing the fruit of that in the current upheaval.

What I mean is that SGM is seen as a place where the strengths of reformed doctrine and an emphasis on the Holy Spirit meet but I think it’s more probably a place where the weaknesses of Calvinistic doctrine and Charismatic teaching meet. When movements develop over time and are faithful to the gospel, they tend to develop theological mechanisms within their systematic to cope with their weaknesses. But when you have such a huge shift—as in the case of SGM—you can easily bypass this process of maturation.

Case in point, SGM holds to the “shepherding movement” paradigm of strong pastoral leadership and the idea of a spiritual covering (e.g. elder, husband etc.). This finds parallel in Reformed ecclesiology of plurality of elders and covenant family structure etc., but Reformed doctrine also includes the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer that holds the doctrine of strong leadership in tension. Because SGM didn’t come out of Reformed tradition, they haven’t developed this doctrine organically and so it isn’t present in their churches and is, in fact, a HUGE weakness. This is precisely what Covenant Life in Gaithersburg is wrestling through—what role does the congregation and the individual play in church governance.

[Greg Linscott]

Also, does the NIU policy re the “various branches of the Charismatic Movement” pre-date Sovereign Grace and the Third Wave Charismatics? If so, is it even fair to apply the policy to that group/those groups?

So let me get this straight- are you saying that NIU should not or would not want to distinguish themselves, not only from people like SGM, but also from C. Peter Wagner, John Wimber, and the Vineyard movement?

I’m actually not saying that NIU should or should not separate from SGM or the others you mention. My question was simply whether SGM and what Kevin Bauder described as Third Wave Charismatics existed at the time NIU’s policy was written. If not, my next question was whether NIU’s policy necessarily even applies to Third Wave Charismatics, because critics are using the policy to say NIU’s recent actions violate it’s own policy. I was asking people to think about whether that charge is logical based on chronology, regardless of what people think NIU’s policy should be regarding Third Wave Charismatics.

I gather from your response that Third Wave Charismatics include Wagner, Wimber, and the Vineyard Movement, and that those folks were on the scene at the time NIU’s policy was written, so that a fair reading of NIU’s policy’s reference to “various branches of the Charismatic movement” included Third Wave Charismatics and therefore, by extension, includes SGM. I’ll have to take your word for that; the reason I asked the question in the first place is that I’m not familiar with the term “Third Wave Charismatics,” did not know who is or is not included in that group, and did not know whether that group existed at the time NIU adopted its policy.

[Aaron Blumer]

For what it’s worth, there is a difference between belief in “secondary separation” and belief in completely open-ended separation over absolutely anything. (e.g., quite a few who believe in secondary sep. do not believe in separating over the Bible translation you use)

Usually, when I’ve had the opportunity to have an extended discussion with someone who claims to be opposed to “secondary sep.” we’ve found that they actually do believe in it after all, under certain conditions. (That is, they are usually able to eventually imagine a scenario in which fellowship must be limited with a brother who is disobedient in some way and unrepentant.)

There just tends to be a lot of use of terms w/out clear definitions.

I personally believe in secondary separation as a biblical teaching, but would not attempt any kind of punitive separation from an individual or ministry over their choice of translations, their use of contemporary music (for the most part—there are extremes there that would put it on the table as a potential punitive separation issue), their use of alcoholic beverages (without drunkenness), their view of the cessation of gifts.

However, while I would not separate punitively from these folks, the reality is that we all have limits on how much “cooperating” we can do. So we are selective. Whatever you want to call these things, there is a difference between “separation due to unrepentant disobedience” and “choosing to work with people who are more like minded.” I doubt the latter is properly termed separation, but it is certainly a reality, and an important one. There are all kinds of folks and groups I would not partner with simply because I can, instead, work with folks who see these matters as I do.

This is why I’m still confused about the criticism of NIU that they’re violating their own policy by however it is that they’ve failed to separate from someone affiliated with SGM. That criticism is apparently premised on the position that continuationism = Charismaticism. But Aaron, if I’m understanding correctly, says that secondary separation does not require separation based on “their view of the cessation of gifts.”

So, back to my original question: Does continuationism = Charismaticism? If not, am I right in thinking that NIU can associate with continuationists without violating its policy against associating with Charismatics? (Then the next question is whether SGM is merely continuationist rather than Charismatic. On that question, the Wiki and SGM quotes by Greg Linscott above aren’t parallel, I don’t think, so I’m still not sure whether SGM is Charismatic.)

Forgive my ignorance of current Charismaticism. I haven’t had occasion to pay any attention to it since high school, when I was the token Nazarene student and my best friend was the token Assembly of God student in an IBF school and we delighted in arguing with the Baptists about eternal security and sanctification as a second work of grace. In God’s providence, those high school debates played a role in my later progression from Wesleyan/Arminian to Baptist to Reformed (or Reformed Baptist?).

I am a graduate of Northland and will be forever in debt to the faculty and staff who helped a ruff edged, recently converted believer. I attended during the end of Dr. O’s tenure through the beginning of Dr. Olson’s. I also have revisited Northland six times in the seven years since my graduation for various reasons. That is about the end of my credibility to enter into this discussion.

For me, none of these changes catch me by surprise and many were talked about while I was a student there. There was a face on the school that showed itself to be still in the “cultural fundamentalist” circle but practically it had already begun to distance itself from unbiblical Armeninism, Revivalism, KJVism, and many other “isms.” In my visits since I graduated I have seen only some subtle shifts in theology, but a lot in the area of practical separation. In my personal opinion, Northland needed some changes, my hope is that they do not go too far.

I will be entirely honest, I am not sure the school will survive this. From just a practical perspective, they have shifted from being one of a few schools in one circle of fellowship, to being one of many schools in a wider circle of fellowship. On the other hand though, after sitting through the “Papa Pats” play four times, I know God can do anything.

On that question, the Wiki and SGM quotes by Greg Linscott above aren’t parallel, I don’t think, so I’m still not sure whether SGM is Charismatic.

What is it that doesn’t line up? The formal SGM statement articulates the generalization of the Wiki entry pretty clearly, I thought.

Someone - I’m not sure who - talked about the early Fundamentalist movement at the beginning of the thread.

The early Fundamentalists were united in responding to the inroads of theological liberalism that denied, among some things:

* The virgin birth

* The deity of Christ

* The infallibility of Scripture

It should be noted that some of the Fundamentalist volumes took positions that were not normative for believers (and, frankly, need to be defended against as well). I know someone argued for day-age creation for starters.

I say that to note that anyone who wants to make issues of pop or Fundamentalist culture (music, dress, translations, etc) true ‘Fundamentals’ worth separating over, they do not know, or care, about what the original Fundamental volumes were. Separation is a Fundamental, but separation is different from other doctrines because in order to separate, a person has to be convinced in their own mind as to what is and isn’t ‘important’ and when the time has come to make a break with ‘apostates’.

If anyone on this thread is arguing for ‘separation’ from Northland, I think that charge only works if you’re convinced enough about their errors to never communicate with them again. Ever. If that’s what the person is willing to do, then I doubt any degree of rapprochement will be sufficient to dissuade them.

This is a good letter by Dr. Olson, and I’m glad that he put it out. I think it will make things clearer now on where everyone on both sides of the Fundamentalist divide will stand.

[Aaron Blumer]

For what it’s worth, there is a difference between belief in “secondary separation” and belief in completely open-ended separation over absolutely anything. (e.g., quite a few who believe in secondary sep. do not believe in separating over the Bible translation you use)

…

I personally believe in secondary separation as a biblical teaching…

Doing some study a year or so back through the 7 churches of Rev 2 and 3, this stuck out (Christ Himself, of course, doing the communicating here): “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. “ Rev. 2:14

Now it appears to me that you have at least 2 levels, if not 3, of separation demanded here, the lack of which is quite problematic to the Savior in regards to His church.

One guy, Balaam, though of the household of faith, has false teaching that influenced the children of Israel to immorality and idolatry.

There are those in the church who have not repudiated that teaching, though Scripture here stops short of accusing them of promulgating it as it does with “Jezebel” in the church of Thyatira later on in the chapter (identical scenario—idolatry and immorality).

However, this church is in error because it tolerates (fellowships with) those that hold to the teaching of a believer that was in serious error.

I am not a big fan of labels, and I am not a big fan of separation (I hate the conflict, which seems strange coming from a guy that officiates sports at all levels for a living). Primary separation? Secondary separation? Tertiary separation? Why don’t we stick with Scripturally demanded separation, which, at least in the case of potential idolatry and immorality infecting the church, seems to be demanded somewhat downline from the source (Balaam in the above mentioned scenario).