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

DMyers,

Given that SGM folks regularly refer to themselves as “Reformed Charismatics,” and given the background out of which their group originated, I think it is safe to say that they are Charismatics, even if many of them have been drawn back from some of the more extreme manifestations of Charismania.

However, I personally would not refer to all Continuationists (or Non-Cessationists) as Charismatics. For example, there are many who are not convinced by Cessationist interpretations and see themselves as “open, but cautious,” whose practices would not differ from most Fundamentalist churches, and who would definitely not want to be called Charismatics, and for good reason.

On another note, as a Reformed Baptist, I am glad to hear about your journey, especially since it sounds somewhat similar to my own.

Just my “two cents.”

Keith

I, personally, have no problem with Matt’s statement, though I would like to see them clarify their view on the “various branches of the Charismatic Movement.” I can see people’s concern with that even if I think some of the angst is nothing more than a smokescreen on some people’s part. I would like to see where they are coming from in that regard as well.

Whether or not you agree with some of the changes being seen at NIU, I would much prefer a Christian organization (church, educational institution, etc.) that is willing to change to do what they strongly believe to be Biblical over one that will not do what they feel to be right because of the fear of men. Give me that every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I know of churches and colleges who see the need to change to be, in their estimation, truer to the Scriptures but are simply afraid to do so because of the backlash of some vocal group who would hold them in bondage. Some have said that they would have a hard time trusting NIU again. I find it a lot easier to trust an organization who is willing to be uncomfortable to do what they feel is Biblical than one who knows what they need to do but fears man too much to do it.

NIU may not make it, only the Lord knows. I find it a little humorous, though, that people are both questioning why they would make changes that would alienate their base and thereby put the institution in danger (pragmatism) and accusing NIU of making those changes in an attempt to broaden their base and thereby get more students (pragmatism).

First of all, to Kevin Bauder, I owe an apology for misusing the term indifferentism as a statement from Bauder and not Machen. We’ve discusssed the issues, and many have had a “wait and see” attitude. We have waited, and we have seen. I don’t think I know any more than anyone else where this is really going, though.

I didn’t have you in mind specifically when I spoke of “apologists”.

I spoke inaccurately and I confess it is so. I would certainly like the opportunity to make that right.

Hopefully, as we discuss and describe those things that are worth keeping and not keeping from what we have been given, we can discuss then charitably.

[gadietrich]

[Alex Guggenheim]

Well, up until now NIU has and their practice reflected it, hence it should be addressed.

MacArthur can utter all the words he wishes but his credibility is gone on the matter with his partnering with charismatic CJ Mahaney or do you not remember just what he said in his book? He is a walking contradiction and has become a hypocrite on the matter.

As to your suggestion that there are watered-down charismatics also known and labeled by themselves to hide their embarrassment as partial-cessationist, that is nothing more than a joke on such people who have zero theological/exegetical support for such nonsensical assertions. They are more ignorant and self-deceived than traditional charismatics who at least don’t try to hide their ignorance with more ignorance in claiming some water-down version of the apostolic miraculous sign gifts still operate. In fact, if I had to chose one of the two from whom to separate I would reject the partials before I would the traditional charismatics but of course no such hypothetical exists other than to make a point.

Well I can’t say I’m surprised you didn’t answer the questions…however, I guess in an indirect way you did.

I’m not sure you understand when I mentioned complete cessastionist, partial cessationist, and continuationist. Let me define for clarity. A cessasionist is one that believes no gifts are available to believers today, they have ceased…all of them. A partial cessationist believes that gifts continue today, however, those that people term “miraculous” aren’t for today (prophecy, tongues, & healing). Then a continuationist is one that believes all gifts are still operable today. The normative view in historical fundamentalism is partial cessationism.

So, back to my question, why is it appropriate to separate over ones view of the gifts?

One separates over the gifts because of the theology behind it which is far-reaching both explicitly and implicity.

[TALyzenga] 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 Patz” play four times, I know God can do anything.

ha ha ha…I remember that play.

Yes, I also came to NIU as a rough-edged, recently converted believer too, and I’m thankful for the discipleship that they put into me. I graduated from then NBBC in 2000.

I can’t really say that any of this has caught me surprise either with the exception of the charismatic thing on the DS. I figured they would come eventually, but didn’t expect them to draw this much attention (infamy?). These kinds of discussions held by the students, and they were occasionally conversations that the students brought up in class and that were openly discussed by the professors. I know I had quite a few conversations like this with my ‘campus dad’ and other professors that I had when we were not in classes. Northland always emphasized ‘heart’ and ‘discipleship’, and it’s totally understandable to me that they would make changes that would better reflect that emphasis, even if many don’t like it because it challenges ‘Fundamentalist’ norms.

I think maybe people are shocked because they thought NBBC = BJU North. It’s not, and never will be. I wouldn’t want it to be, either.

So this could be one of those long posts I too often write - but those are usually distracting and a pain in the neck to write and no doubt even worse to read. So I will try to keep this ….. well like my height - short!

This probably deserves it’s own thread - but my guess is we’ve already done this at least once.

Here is my hypothesis:

The accusation by certain fundamental baptist that NIU is inconsistent with it’s anti-Charismatic doctrinal statement because it is has an individual or two who is somewhat connected to a ministry of SGM is potentially hypocritical/inconsistent/etc….

Why would I say that?

1. Does it make sense to trust the typical fundamental baptist to be able to discern the edges of a “vibrant pneumatology?” Does a fundamental baptist even know what a vibrant pneumatology is? If God was to visit a typical fundamental baptist ministry with a visitation of a vibrant pneumatology - what would that look like? would that fundamental baptist remain a fundamental baptist after said visitation? To be clear - we (the editorial use of “we”) haven’t done well with that doctrine over the years. Have you seen the average systematic theology when Baptist speak of Pneumatology? You know the Holy Spirit gets like 3 pages - Eschatology gets about 75 pages. To quote my mentor Dr. Singleton - “we have been so sub-Biblical standard on the Holy Spirit for so long - if we actually preach and teach and practice what the NT shares about the Holy Spirit - many will consider us charismatic!” (That is a Tetreau paraphrase of my dear mentor on this topic - I can dig out the quote from my notes somewhere if I had too - BTW in all candor that does not mean that Doc would be in favor of everything present at either NIU or SVBC - I’m sure one or two people would want me to be clear with that - so there you go).

2. OK - some of you would say that because SGM has leadership that believes God directly speaks to His leaders or His church outside of the Scriptures - yet that is not the same level of authority that we take God’s Word - that alone means that we can still classify SGM as “Charismatic.” I’ve said this before - uh - guys - we’ve had men in our own movements that have said pretty much the same thing in our schools chapel services - all of them! So if NIU is opening it’s arms to that which is “charismata” then if we are open, honest and transparent (which some of you really want) - then it means that all of our churches and schools and institutions that have ever partnered with one of our evangelists or missionaries who have stood behind our pulpits and said “the Holy Spirit told me to “stop” and “witness” to these people over here.” - If you are consistent you’ve had charismatic fundamentalists as well. We’ll have to separate from each other and ourselves - which in the end may not be a bad idea to everyone concerned.

3. Most of you guys that are having a cow over the supposed relationship between NIU and SGM are guilty of the same crime. God burdened you about being “called” to ministry and he burdened you to serve in a “specific” ministry. No audible voices - but most of you will say that God gave you extra-Biblical direction in a specific decision of ministry and you know it is/was authoritative yet not the same level as Scripture. How is that really “that” different than what the soft-cessationalists (spelling?) or the careful SGM guys are saying?

Be warmed and filled!

Straight Ahead in the Spirit!

jt

Joel,

To add to what you just said, from time to time a receive a Fundamentalist publication that often comes across to me and others as Charasmatism without the tongues. Yet, because there music is right and dress is right, no one bats and eye. Thank you for pointing that out.

OK all, back to the sidelines for me. :)

[Joel Tetreau]

2. OK - some of you would say that because SGM has leadership that believes God directly speaks to His leaders or His church outside of the Scriptures - yet that is not the same level of authority that we take God’s Word - that alone means that we can still classify SGM as “Charismatic.”

Joel,

Again,it is more than that. In their own words from their statement of faith:

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.

[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.

The secondary separation issue historically wasn’t about translations, music, alcoholic beverages or views on gifts. It was about who you wouldn’t separate from or who you were still fellowshipping with. Those middle branch fundamentalists who refused to be badgered and bullied by the self-professed leaders of secondary separationist fundamentalism were called new evangelicals solely because they refused to separate from brothers and sisters in Christ who held the same views on the above issues as the proponents of secondary separation.

This divisive, bitter, brawling cry and demand to separate from fellow believers for no reason other than who they fellowshipped with was the tone and rallying card of the hyper-separatist branch of fundamentalism. They called it secondary separation and claimed that it was a fundamental of the faith. They spent endless hours crafting their “disobedient brothers” doctrine to justify their devouring actions. They were known as militant, fighting fundamentalists. And their fight was against “disobedient” brothers who believed in every way just like they did. Except they wouldn’t obey and separate from other believers over who was with whom.

Where does that leave us today? With moderate fundamentalists trying to distance themselves from their past leaders (Just read Kevin’s articles). These new “moderate” fundamentalists also want to call the “middle branch fundamentalists” conservative evangelicals. They admit that they were wrong to label this branch “new evangelical.” But they still can’t get themselves to admit that this middle branch actually is the historic fundamentalist branch of fundamentalism.

But Northland is.

But they still can’t get themselves to admit that this middle branch actually is the historic fundamentalist branch of fundamentalism.

But Northland is.

What do you mean to say here? Northland is what? That Northland is admitting the middle branch is Fundamentalism, or that Northland is representative of that Fundamentalism now, or that they have always been…?

Where does that leave us today? With moderate fundamentalists trying to distance themselves from their past leaders (Just read Kevin’s articles).

I would disagree. Bauder may be distancing from some past leaders, but Kevin has sprung from a slightly different tradition than some of the leaders you read him to be distancing himself from, with his GARBC roots. If anything, I read Kevin to be in many ways hearkening people to consider that manifestation of separatist Fundamentalism (indicated by people like Ketcham, Van Osdel, and outisde of Baptists, Machen) rather than some of the others that have been prominent of late.

So Greg,

I get your point - that is fair. One more thought for you - most of us here believe that the majority of the gifts are for today. The gifted offices are given to the church and the gifts that were given for the purpose of building the church are here. The only gifts most of us don’t believe are still with us are the revelatory gifts (tongues, interp, word of knowledge, etc….). They (SGM) per the point of the doctrinal statement you quote - reveals they believe the rest of the gifts are for today. However if you listen to their explanation of that - they emphasize that even the “revelatory gifts” (when expressed) are not practiced with the same level of authority as Scripture. Other than tongues - I’m not sure how this is different than the examples I noted. When you have fundamentalists that say “God told me X, Y and Z” that’s no different in implication as SGM. Now I disgree with it no matter if it’s VanGeldren or SGM - the point is it’s interesting NIU is being partially tagged by men who will note with eyes wide open NIU’s small connect with SGM and these same men will turn a closed eye towards their “school of choice” when that school has a fundamentalist in who is very “experiential” in the ways I noted.

BTW - I agree with Blumer earlier - just because I would not say “a different view of gifts,” or whatever is not enough of a reason for marking out a brother as disobedient - the more different we are in belief….the more different we will be in philosophy. The more different we are in philosophy the less we can co-labor together. Still - at the end of the day - we are still brothers and it hardly means that I or NIU is less fundamental because we have a connection with a connection with some leader or ministry who has a more active pneumatology than I.

Straight Ahead,

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

The only gifts most of us don’t believe are still with us are the revelatory gifts (tongues, interp, word of knowledge, etc….).

So, you would say that the majority here would believe individuals today are granted the gift of healing? The ability to perform miracles? I’m sure some here would, but I have never had the impression that it would be a majority. It’s not that all here would deny that God isn’t capable of healing or performing miraculous deeds, but many here would acknowledge that God does not equip individuals with those capabilities in the same fashion he did in the Apostolic age.

Again, SGM’s own statement would testify to the fact that they believe what many refer to as “signs and wonders” are in play today. I don’t see how you can get around that. It’s more than just supernatural revelation.

[Greg Linscott]

But they still can’t get themselves to admit that this middle branch actually is the historic fundamentalist branch of fundamentalism.

But Northland is.

What do you mean to say here? Northland is what? That Northland is admitting the middle branch is Fundamentalism, or that Northland is representative of that Fundamentalism now, or that they have always been…?

Yes. Northland is recognizing the “middle branch” as historic fundamentalism.

[Greg Linscott]

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.

Greg: Perhaps a moot point if in fact, as someone else has pointed out above, SGM describes itself as Reformed Charismatic. FWIW, my understanding of the Wiki description of Charismatic beliefs was that they expect every believer to manifest a sign gift to demonstrate having been filled by the Spirit, whereas SGM believes that those gifts are still operant today but not necessarily in or for every believer. In other words, that SGM was closer to what pastork described as the “open, but cautious” view than the classic Charismatic view. But I was probing for my own information/understanding, and your responses and others have been helpful, so thank you.

I said to my wife yesterday, “This thread will have 100 posts by the end of the day tomorrow.” So, c’mon guys. I’m doing my part… :-)