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

[Lee]

[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…

…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).

The problem with dismissing all the distinctions is that we’re dealing with application of principles. When you apply Scripture to a variety of scenarios, or want to discuss how to apply it to different scenarios, it becomes important to achieve some precision so people can understand one another. Unfortunately, the more we need precision (emotionally charged topics) the more we tend to resist it. Human nature.

[Steve Davis]

Now that Matt has spoken will the detractors be satisfied? I wonder.

Hi Steve

What do you mean by “satisfied”? I am glad Matt has finally been willing to admit that things have changed at Northland. To me, they look like changes in direction and philosophy. I think Matt is saying that their direction and philosophy haven’t changed. We are all entitled to our opinions, but either the former Northland was misrepresenting its direction/philosophy to the fundamentalist churches from which they were recruiting, or else their direction/philosophy has indeed changed.

It is progress, at least, that change is admitted, at least to some degree.

But if you mean by “satisfied” that the criticism will stop, then hardly likely. The ties are too close, too many people are concerned, and too much anxiety will rise over further errors for it not to spark concern and calls for correction.

[Steve Davis] Is Matt disobeying Scripture in the changes undertaken? Is God displeased by what has been done at NIU? I would answer with a resounding “NO.”

Well, brother, now that we have your resounding ‘no’, the rest of us will wait on God to see what he might say.

[Steve Davis] We can disagree, debate, and argue, but without the need to separate. I don’t separate from a brother over millennial views and our church does not take a millennial position. We may have some dispensationalists among us but we do not fly that flag or make that an issue.

Well… I went to your website. It seems that you do take some positions on this point. This is from your constitution/bylaws in the statement of faith:

We believe in the personal and glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels, when He will fully establish His kingdom and exercise His role as Judge of all.

That sounds premillennial, at least. Your church is also affiliated with the Evangelical Free denomination and a bit further down in the document you say:

As a church identified with the Evangelical Free Church of America, we also uphold the doctrinal statement of the EFCA. The Evangelical Free Church of America is an association of autonomous churches united around these theological convictions: …

We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial* return of our Lord Jesus Christ. …

* Note in regard to #9 (“Christ’s Return”): Our understanding of premillennialism is that the coming of Jesus Christ precedes the establishment of His kingdom, without a settled position on the immediate temporal or eternal nature of that kingdom.

All of that is fine, but would you allow an amillennial position? Postmillennial? Would you allow a staff person, an elder, a deacon, or a pastor to hold these views?

It would seem to me to be consistent with your own document, you could not. Or does your written, constituted word mean anything? Or does it mean nothing? Is it just a suggestion?

That is the point of the issue with the Charismatic connection with NIU. They are acting contrary to their own documents. To me that is an integrity issue.

Further, given what you now know about the changes Matt has admitted, what do you think of the last several years of recruiting and fund-raising all the while assuring friends and supporters that “we haven’t changed”?

This isn’t just knee-jerk separation. It really isn’t even about fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism or worse. It is just a very sad, disappointing spectacle.

[Pastork]

Alex,

I think the problem with the use of the different terms for Cessationsim and Continuationism is that they have been changing.

I agree with you that for a long time the two primary camps were simply called Cessationsim and Continuationism (and many still use the terms this way), and I can see why Gadietrich’s use of different terminology might have thrown you a bit. However, as the discussion and debate over the issues has progressed, it has become necessary to establish more specific categories because, as it turns out, what most used to call Cessationism really does only involve the cessation of only some of the gifts and because, as it turns out, there are some who have actually argued that all of the gifts have ceased.

Gadietrich was thus correct to note the corresponding change in terminology. In fact, there needs to be updated language as developments like this have occured on the other side of the debate as well, and some have already attempted such. I would suggest distinguishing, for example, between Pentecostal Continuationists, Charismatic Continuationists, and, perhaps, Conservative Continuationists (such as the “open, but cautious” types I mentioned in an earlier post).

Keith

[Don Johnson] It would seem to me to be consistent with your own document, you could not. Or does your written, constituted word mean anything? Or does it mean nothing? Is it just a suggestion?

That is the point of the issue with the Charismatic connection with NIU. They are acting contrary to their own documents. To me that is an integrity issue.

Further, given what you now know about the changes Matt has admitted, what do you think of the last several years of recruiting and fund-raising all the while assuring friends and supporters that “we haven’t changed”?

This isn’t just knee-jerk separation. It really isn’t even about fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism or worse. It is just a very sad, disappointing spectacle.

It seems to me that no one made an issue of the Charismatic thing until CAWatson brought it up in a different thread (page 2, 3/30, 12:36AM). Even then, 95% of the discussion revolved around music, recruiting, and secondary separation type stuff. Don, if I remember right, you had already bowed out of the conversation by that point.

So…either it’s the charismaticism, or the recruiting, or the demerit policy, or the translation thing, or it’s something else. But the charismaticism (as serious as it is), was never what kicked off the conversations here on SI.

Jay, what are you talking about? There have been multiple threads on NIU in recent weeks, and several over the last several years. I believe I was one of the first to raise the Charismatic issue with this post. That post was picked up here and discussed at length.

All the issues have been on the table, accumulating over quite a period of time. No one is alleging that the charismatic issue kicked things off, I am not asserting that, it is simply part of a package of what some of us see as problems.

Your comment doesn’t make any sense.

I was first made aware of the SG issue back in September of 2012, in a private conversation with a friend who is in a doctoral program at Central and is also a Northland alum. It wasn’t until recently that I started posting at SI more frequently than I had in quite some time, so I did not raise it here. However, the Charismatic issue has been spoken of at least that long in some setting or another, if not here at SI.

[Don Johnson]

[Steve Davis]

Now that Matt has spoken will the detractors be satisfied? I wonder.

Hi Steve

What do you mean by “satisfied”? I am glad Matt has finally been willing to admit that things have changed at Northland. To me, they look like changes in direction and philosophy. I think Matt is saying that their direction and philosophy haven’t changed. We are all entitled to our opinions, but either the former Northland was misrepresenting its direction/philosophy to the fundamentalist churches from which they were recruiting, or else their direction/philosophy has indeed changed.

It is progress, at least, that change is admitted, at least to some degree.

But if you mean by “satisfied” that the criticism will stop, then hardly likely. The ties are too close, too many people are concerned, and too much anxiety will rise over further errors for it not to spark concern and calls for correction.

[Steve Davis] Is Matt disobeying Scripture in the changes undertaken? Is God displeased by what has been done at NIU? I would answer with a resounding “NO.”

Well, brother, now that we have your resounding ‘no’, the rest of us will wait on God to see what he might say.

[Steve Davis] We can disagree, debate, and argue, but without the need to separate. I don’t separate from a brother over millennial views and our church does not take a millennial position. We may have some dispensationalists among us but we do not fly that flag or make that an issue.

Well… I went to your website. It seems that you do take some positions on this point. This is from your constitution/bylaws in the statement of faith:

We believe in the personal and glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with His holy angels, when He will fully establish His kingdom and exercise His role as Judge of all.

That sounds premillennial, at least. Your church is also affiliated with the Evangelical Free denomination and a bit further down in the document you say:

As a church identified with the Evangelical Free Church of America, we also uphold the doctrinal statement of the EFCA. The Evangelical Free Church of America is an association of autonomous churches united around these theological convictions: …

We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial* return of our Lord Jesus Christ. …

* Note in regard to #9 (“Christ’s Return”): Our understanding of premillennialism is that the coming of Jesus Christ precedes the establishment of His kingdom, without a settled position on the immediate temporal or eternal nature of that kingdom.

All of that is fine, but would you allow an amillennial position? Postmillennial? Would you allow a staff person, an elder, a deacon, or a pastor to hold these views?

It would seem to me to be consistent with your own document, you could not. Or does your written, constituted word mean anything? Or does it mean nothing? Is it just a suggestion?

That is the point of the issue with the Charismatic connection with NIU. They are acting contrary to their own documents. To me that is an integrity issue.

Further, given what you now know about the changes Matt has admitted, what do you think of the last several years of recruiting and fund-raising all the while assuring friends and supporters that “we haven’t changed”?

This isn’t just knee-jerk separation. It really isn’t even about fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism or worse. It is just a very sad, disappointing spectacle.

Don:

Let me briefly respond. I think Matt has clearly stated that their vision and values have not changed. Their commitment to the fundamentals of the faith has not changed. Their mission has not changed. How they apply those principles has changed and they have charted a course they believe is more biblical. I’m not sure what you mean by “further errors” but it seems you have already determined that they are in error. Since I have no connection to NIU I can’t comment on how they have represented themselves to churches. One thing is sure. They do not represent what you and some other lcritical voices represent. I’m glad for that. Maybe it’s time to get over it and move on. You won’t support NIU or recommend students. Fine. Find a place you an recommend.

Yes, we must still wait and see what God says about these changes but since neither of us have a pipeline to God apart from the Bible I do not see anything that would be described as disobedience. If you think you know better, so be it. I hesitate to call a brother disobedient just because he disagrees with me.

As for our church, yes we are with the EFCA. Their position on the millennium is premillennial. For that reason we added where we diverge. We believe that Jesus is coming again to establish his kingdom. Whether there will be a literal 1000 year kingdom preceding the eternal kingdom or if his coming ushers in the new heavens and new earth is where we do take a position. I lean historic premillennial. We have other elders who lean amillennial. I don’t know anyone who holds to postmillennialism so that is a bridge we have not had to cross. If there is a 1000 year kingdom or Jesus ushers in the eternal kingdom I don’t think we will be disappointed either way. for us it is not a separation issue and we can disagree on details on how future events play out.

Blessings,

Steve

Alex,

You have asserted: “The adjustment is not with redefining already ratified words and their meaning but adding a new term. Hence, Gadeitrich errs and is not justified in attempting to change already established words and their meaning. That is both linguistically and scholastically inferior.”

Frankly, I have no wish to debate the matter with you. Your mind is clearly made up on the matter, and so is mine. I will only point out that I have heard such language elsewhere for some time. In fact, I have actually seen some Continuationists accused of being inconsistent and in reality being Partial Cessationists since they do not believe that the office/gift of Apostle — as seen in the New testament — continues today. At any rate, I do not think that Gadeitrich himself has altered the language. I think he is just using the language with which he has become familiar, just as you are.

With that, I will let him respond on his own behalf if he so desires and embrace a cessation of this discussion for the time being.

God bless you as you seek to serve Him, brother.

Keith

Steve, thanks for the reply.

On this point:

Since I have no connection to NIU I can’t comment on how they have represented themselves to churches. One thing is sure. They do not represent what you and some other lcritical voices represent.

It isn’t just me and a few other critical voices. There was a thread on the NIU Facebook page this evening (since taken down). Alumni and NIU supporters appeared to be evenly divided in their opinion of Matt’s recent “transparency” post. It appears that there is a significant group of alums and supporters who feel betrayed.

You have changed your views from earlier in your ministry. You have been pretty candid about it throughout. I appreciate that.

On the point about your church, I was trying to illustrate how important it is to follow one’s founding documents. I see now that your statement is a bit more ambiguous than I thought. Let me try just a straightforward (albeit hypothetical) question: if your documents stated a certain position clearly and dogmatically and yet you operated completely contrary to them, would that inspire trust or suspicion of you?

That’s why the NIU doctrinal statement and inconsistent practice vis a vis charismatism is troubling.

[Pastork]

Alex,

You have asserted: “The adjustment is not with redefining already ratified words and their meaning but adding a new term. Hence, Gadeitrich errs and is not justified in attempting to change already established words and their meaning. That is both linguistically and scholastically inferior.”

Frankly, I have no wish to debate the matter with you. Your mind is clearly made up on the matter, and so is mine. I will only point out that I have heard such language elsewhere for some time. In fact, I have actually seen some Continuationists accused of being inconsistent and in reality being Partial Cessationists since they do not believe that the office/gift of Apostle — as seen in the New testament — continues today. At any rate, I do not think that Gadeitrich himself has altered the language. I think he is just using the language with which he has become familiar, just as you are.

With that, I will let him respond on his own behalf if he so desires and embrace a cessation of this discussion for the time being.

God bless you as you seek to serve Him, brother.

Keith

[TylerR]

#71!

Well, I was close. 85 posts! :-)

It seems to me that this entire issue is over secondary separation. I am inclined to believe this principle is trickier to implement in academic contexts. I am pondering where the line should be drawn. A school has a responsibility to help students actually engage the theological issues, not merely regurgitate rote doctrine.

I have found Dr. Doran’s article very interesting in this regard. Among other things, he remarks,

As an academic institution designed for assisting local churches in training pastors, missionaries, and educators, DBTS is committed to carefully balancing our separatist commitments with the task of providing a thorough education. A seminary education will involve a student in research that includes a wide range of scholars from diverse theological and ecclesiastical backgrounds. Critical exposure to influential works is a very important element of an excellent education. Because interaction in an academic setting is not an ecclesiastical relationship, we do not believe that using works by non-evangelicals and non-separatists violates our commitment to ecclesiastical separation. On this point, we believe that we stand precisely where most separatist institutions have always stood.

The issue of academic lectures and presentations is a more difficult one for separatists. Using a book for a class involves no personal relationship; bringing its author in for a lecture series does. DBTS has exercised some latitude on this matter, based on the principle that an academic context and purpose is different from an ecclesiastical context and purpose. Inviting an acknowledged expert to lecture in an academic setting on a specific subject inherently narrows the relationship and does not qualify as a complete endorsement of the lecturer’s other beliefs and practices. The invitation should be evaluated on the basis of the task at hand, and, as with all choices regarding the use of educational resources, wisdom and discernment must be carefully exercised.

It is a short piece - I actually quoted half of it! It is food for thought.

How should secondary separation function in academic context? Is there a practical difference between ecclesiastical and academic contexts when it comes to separation? NIU now repudiates secondary separation in general.

In response to posts up the thread a ways… Words are just tools, folks. If you need to build a bird house, you’ll never get it done by arguing about whether the thing that cuts wood is really a jigsaw, a ripsaw, a hand saw, an abrasive saw, or by arguing the history of saw terminology.

2Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether one group or ministry or individual’s beliefs and practices can properly be called “A” or not. The vital question is what beliefs and practices are (a) biblical and wise and (b) what beliefs and practices are consistent with a particular heritage.

The latter does matter in various ways, and that’s where we tend to get most distracted by terminology. But the debate worth having is not about which heritage properly owns which term. We know that one heritage—one tradition, if you will—that is important to many of us here is the one that has been strongly concerned not only with upholding the fundamentals of the faith but also with rejecting certain trends that threaten those fundamentals, i.e., the charismatic movement and a variety of cultural trends.

We all know that heritage exists and that Northland was positioned squarely in it. And I think we also know that it is no longer related to it in quite the same way it was formerly. What to call that heritage… well, it isn’t entirely irrelevant, but it tends to be a distraction.

[Don Johnson]

Steve, thanks for the reply.

On this point:

Since I have no connection to NIU I can’t comment on how they have represented themselves to churches. One thing is sure. They do not represent what you and some other lcritical voices represent.

It isn’t just me and a few other critical voices. There was a thread on the NIU Facebook page this evening (since taken down). Alumni and NIU supporters appeared to be evenly divided in their opinion of Matt’s recent “transparency” post. It appears that there is a significant group of alums and supporters who feel betrayed.

You have changed your views from earlier in your ministry. You have been pretty candid about it throughout. I appreciate that.

On the point about your church, I was trying to illustrate how important it is to follow one’s founding documents. I see now that your statement is a bit more ambiguous than I thought. Let me try just a straightforward (albeit hypothetical) question: if your documents stated a certain position clearly and dogmatically and yet you operated completely contrary to them, would that inspire trust or suspicion of you?

That’s why the NIU doctrinal statement and inconsistent practice vis a vis charismatism is troubling.

Don:

Ok. There are other critical voices but I’m not sure FB counts :-) . Anyway, there are some voices louder than others.

On your document question. I think we try to adhere to the documents but there are times I’ve been surprised by what’s in there. It’s like the US Constitution. We hold to it but when was the last time we read it.

In NIU’s situation I have a different view on the “branches of the charismatic Movement.” I’ve been around long enough to have seen the movement and its branches develop. I’ve never had time for any of its branches. And although SGM has a view of gifts that would classify it as “charismatic” in some sense I have never considered it a branch of the movement. I think Matt can commend particular churches and/or individuals in SGM, T4G, FBF, EFCA, GARBC, etc. without wholesale approval of everything they believe and practice as long as they are not in clear violation of Scripture, which gets us back to disagreement or disobedience.

Anecdotally, when I was at BJ the school had a good relationship with Foundations Bible College and O. Talmadge Spence. It was well known that they were old-line Pentecostal but decried the errors of Neo-Pentecostalism. They believed in speaking in tongues as a prayer language. Before starting the college in 1974 he was connected with Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. It may be he separated from them to start his own church and college. I don’t know. Likewise I think SGM has some charismatic views but has nothing to do with the wacky movements associated with the movement. I don’t know SGM churches well but do know of the one in Northeast Philadelphia that was commended by Matt. I would commend it as well. I know the pastor as a godly man. They are one of the few churches in that part of the city planting churches. Since we are in West Philly, about an hour away we don’t have much fellowship or any partnership in church planting. Yet I see no reason why the church can’t be commended even if one has reservations or disagreements about some of their teaching and practice. In my mind as I understand the Bible these are not separation issues.

Bear one more anecdote. In 2006 I spoke in an evening session at Heart Conference. I preached out of Romans 15 on pioneer church planting and the signs of the apostles. I expressed my view that God may (and I believe does) work in ways analogous to the 1st century in pioneer areas untouched by the gospel. At the same time I made a clear distinction about what takes place today in the US where we have the completed Word in our language. After the service a few of us went to Matt’s house for fellowship. We had some lively discussions and some of the men disagreed with me. If I recall Dave Doran and Dan Davy were among the men there. Disagreement is fine. I really wasn’t looking for agreement and enjoy a good theological conversation. One pastor told me that his theology wouldn’t let him believe what I believe in that particular area. My tongue-in-cheek response was that was because it was his theology and he needed to let the Bible speak into that. It was good natured and brotherly. I don’t think my view makes me charismatic or associates me with the nonsense in the branches of the Charismatic Movement. Of course I haven’t been invited back to Heart Conference since but maybe can get back in the rotation :-). Seriously, I don’t have to defend the school and am certainly not beholden to it in any way. Yet as I see the vehemence of some critics it’s no wonder that the fewer people want to be connected with what they perceive rightly as making much ado about so many things where grace should produce more graciousness.

You see, one of the reasons I am not IFB is because I believe that lines are drawn that go beyond Scripture and there is little room for guys like me who are fundamental in doctrine but more open in areas where we can disagree. And since NIU is not a church I see no reason why they should not have broader latitude than can be expected in a local church. No school can satisfy everyone’s preferences or distinctives. No one has to like everything a school does or changes. I didn’t when I was at BJ and students/pastors won’t at NIU. NIU may not be the school it once was in some respects. But if it’s in areas that needed change, let it be.

Blessings,

Steve

[Aaron Blumer]

In response to posts up the thread a ways… Words are just tools, folks. If you need to build a bird house, you’ll never get it done by arguing about whether the thing that cuts wood is really a jigsaw, a ripsaw, a hand saw, an abrasive saw, or by arguing the history of saw terminology.

2Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether one group or ministry or individual’s beliefs and practices can properly be called “A” or not. The vital question is what beliefs and practices are (a) biblical and wise and (b) what beliefs and practices are consistent with a particular heritage.

The latter does matter in various ways, and that’s where we tend to get most distracted by terminology. But the debate worth having is not about which heritage properly owns which term. We know that one heritage—one tradition, if you will—that is important to many of us here is the one that has been strongly concerned not only with upholding the fundamentals of the faith but also with rejecting certain trends that threaten those fundamentals, i.e., the charismatic movement and a variety of cultural trends.

We all know that heritage exists and that Northland was positioned squarely in it. And I think we also know that it is no longer related to it in quite the same way it was formerly. What to call that heritage… well, it isn’t entirely irrelevant, but it tends to be a distraction.