"Matt Ols[o]n would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school"

Sorry, PCC’s position on the KJV (and their spurious attacks on BJU regarding that issue) disqualify them from consideration for all but a very small segment (plus some who are ignorant of PCC’s position).

[Andrew K.]

On a side note, I don’t quite know why people make a big deal about the change from college to university.

If Northland really desires to have international impact, it was a wise move. In China, people were always asking me where I went to university. And if I said I went to a college, they were often confused.

Note Wikipedia on this matter:

…in the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth nations, “college” may refer to a secondary or high school, a college of further education, a training institution that awards trade qualifications, or a constituent part of a university.

That.

NIU explained its change in name. They stated that missionaries overseas were having issues with the name of the school.

The name change doesn’t have anything to do with what an American university is all about. It has to do with what foreign countries think the name means. So we see Trinity International University instead of TEDS and Trinity College. We have Columbia International University instead of Columbia Bible College.

Northland is not unique in this regard. I accept their reason for the change and don’t see why this is an issue.

[Greg Linscott]

[Andrew K.]

On a side note, I don’t quite know why people make a big deal about the change from college to university.

Do you really think it was over college to university? I mean, if they had become “Northland Baptist University” would most of the current objectors have made a peep? I think as things go, it is probably pretty low on the list of current concerns, but I don’t think the name change was ever about dropping college.

But in regards to the college/uni distinction, I do keep wondering when Ivy League Dartmouth College is going to wise up and become a university… :) or all the schools listed here… How do their graduates make it in the world?

Their graduates aren’t generally missionaries, are they? Sure, some are in business overseas. But I’ve never heard anyone have to explain where they went to college once they are hired by Microsoft or IBM. The Dartmouth grad simply states that he works for Microsoft. I bet his college never comes up.

But I would think missionaries experience a closer look by foreign officials. Why are you here? What do you want to do? Where did you go to university?

Northland International University is much better than Northland Baptist University if one is going overseas.

[Jim]

http://www.pcci.edu/CollegeInfo/ArticlesofFaith.html

We believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired and infallible, authoritative Word of God and that God gave the words of Scripture by inspiration without error in the original autographs. God promises that He will preserve His Word; Jesus said, “my words shall not pass away”—Matt. 24:35. We believe God has kept that promise by preserving His infallible Word in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and that the Authorized Version (KJV) is an accurate English translation of the preserved Word of God.

Some call this KJVO … I regard it more of a KJV preference. It’s definitely not Ruckman’s position. But leave your ESV, NASB etc at home.

If anyone is interested in an alternative to the raw musical pragmatism and the pursuit of a popular culture that has already betrayed those Christians who have fastened their sensibilities to it, I recommend the writers over at Religious Affections Ministries. In fact, one of Scott Aniol’s ebooks is being given away on Amazon today.

With NIU going the direction it has, this seems like an appropriate time to underline the contrast.

Kevin: The title of Dudding’s post was a poor choice of words (and he has since modified it, sort of). But no one else here has endorsed or repeated the use of “Nazi” (or “KGB”). You are normally a very careful thinker who deals graciously with those who disagree with you on a given issue. Your comment above, disappointingly, doesn’t live up to that standard. Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you about musical style is engaging in “raw musical pragmatism and the pursuit of … popular culture”? You don’t acknowledge the possibility that many Christians have thought long and hard about the issue and try to be rigorous about their music choices even within the category of CCM — i.e., they don’t endorse every artist or song (just as opponents of CCM shouldn’t endorse every traditional artist or song/hymn)? If so, I don’t know whether that’s because you haven’t explored the issue enough or because the CCM proponents you have discussed this with haven’t been articulate enough. Whichever the case, I hope it changes.

Kevin, thank you for giving the information about the free Kindle book on Christian music. I agree completely with you about the ungodly music in question. A certain college (or is that university) is losing students — the president decides to attract students with “entertaining” rock music — and suddenly the old music standards (and faculty) are out the window (with denials that nothing has changed). It will be interesting although disheartening to see where this all leads.

[Don Sailer]

Northland International University is much better than Northland Baptist University if one is going overseas.

I understand, Don. My whole point in responding was that it seemed like, in the comment, that whatever controversy there was here in the US among supporters was because of the change from college to university, rather than the drop of Baptist. In the end, I think the point is somewhat moot in light of the recent circumstances- I’m sorry I even responded.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

If anyone is interested in an alternative to the raw musical pragmatism and the pursuit of a popular culture that has already betrayed those Christians who have fastened their sensibilities to it, I recommend the writers over at Religious Affections Ministries. In fact, one of Scott Aniol’s ebooks is being given away on Amazon today.

David,

As you point out, some defenders of CCM think they have thought about the problem of Christian music. The also think that they have found a rationale for putting the Lord’s name to musical idioms that have arisen from contemporary popular culture. Let us grant for the sake of the discussion that they might be right.

Nobody that I have seen is suggesting that those are the kind of people who are driving the bus at Northland. Nobody has even tried to show that Northland has people who are capable of offering a reasoned defense of CCM. And the recent activities at NIU are what this conversation has been about, are they not?

My guess is that Scott Aniol is one of those people who was dismissed as a “music Nazi,” though I certainly believe that his work needs to be distinguished from the typical Fundamentalist griping about “worldly music.” In contrast to the marketing people at NIU, Aniol is a competent musician, theologian, and aesthetician who actually has though through his ideals in a rigorously academic environment.

Like Peter, Paul, and Mary, I dig Rock and Roll music. Still, affections, like ideas, have consequences (apologies to Richard M. “Big Daddy Weaver”). The thing one likes is not always the thing that one should do. If anyone in the marketing department has entertained this distinction, I see no evidence of it.

I was a sophomore at Northland when Dr. Ollila was inaugurated. That puts me right in that unique generation after the founding and the “real small school” Northland, but before the great influx of students and of the “BJU influence” that is being so widely talked about here.

My thoughts here may be somewhat detached from one another, but I want to speak as a person who forever appreciative of the ministry Northland has had in my life both during my tenure as a student and even up to the very recent past.

1) One of the things that Dr. Ollila brought to Northland was the four core value words that appear on the Northland seal. He preached often on them and we were reminded of them on an almost weekly basis. Those four words became deeply ingrained in my life and the the lives and ministries of many fellow students. I want to visit the word “Honesty” for a minute. On northlandyou.com it is defined as “Honesty: Being transparent with God and others.” Dr. Olson—you and Dr. Ollila both stated that nothing was changing with music. Yet, it is more than obvious that it has. Although I am conservative musically (and I was even before I started at Northland so don’t blame it on the “BJU influence” of Mr. Hawks), I have grown enough to accept that others can hold different preferences in music. But please be HONEST and say, Northland’s music changing.

Northland’s associations are changing also. Now, while I disagree with the changing associations I will defend Northland’s right to change. But don’t say Northland isn’t changing—it’s not honest. Furthermore, doesn’t HONESTY demand that the changes are announced, not hidden or removed from publication at the first blush of criticism?

I have also heard that there is a faculty member who does not hold entirely to the doctrinal statement. As a teacher and mentor, I witnessed the spiritual destruction of two of my former students by a prof in another Christian college. Said prof was allowed to stay at that college even though he disagreed with their doctrinal statement. As a parent, the first thing I look at in a college is its doctrinal statement. But now, how can I trust the HONESTY of doctrinal statement that isn’t required to be held in all of its parts by every faculty member? Doesn’t HONESTY demand that you not hold on to such a faculty member or changing the doctrinal statement, esp. if said doctrine is in fact, as is implied by some, a secondary or tertiary issue?

Some people in this thread have tried to reduce this to a simple music disagreement. This, to me, is a core value issue.

2) The idea of “catching up to the alumni” or “doing what is already part of the student’s lives” seems to me to be nothing more than a market driven mentality. WISDOM is defined as “Skill, ability, and insight gained from God’s Word for the purpose of living a life that honors and glorifies God.” Doesn’t the Bible call us to “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”? Doesn’t the Titus 2 pattern of mentoring call the older men and women to set the example for, not take their example from, the younger men and women? Jeff Myers, in his book Cultivate says, “It’s embarrassing to hear adults try to curry favor with the emerging generation by excusing its excesses and imitating it’s style. Not only is it embarrassing but it rings hollow to a generation that craves authenticity and thus wants adults to be adults , not knock-off versions of themselves.” Doesn’t WISDOM demand a truly biblical, not market driven, base? Doesn’t being an educational institution imply that you be the trend setter, and not the trend follower—the mentor and not the mentoree? Yes, a mentor should respect a mentoree and his or her position, but should never sacrifice convictions or principles in the mentoring process.

If you’re going to change, change for biblical reasons and for serving as an example, not to “catch up” or to “cave in.” Again, to me, this is not as much about the change as it is about the core value.

My heart is hurting because I see an institution that I love changing in ways with which I disagree, and I see the changes (or at least the way the changes are being implemented) as being vitally connected with the core values of that institution. Am I demanding that they change back or fit my standards? No! But until the core values issue is satisfied in my mind, this change means that our relationship must also change.

But I can still love and appreciate what Northland has meant to me. I can still cling to what I learned there and to the core values it instilled in me and hope that God will continue to work His will in that “Out of the Way” Bible college up north, as well as in my life.

I used the term “music Nazi” earlier in this thread and it was unnecessary and inflammatory. I withdraw it.

What I should have said is that many people are no longer going to be held hostage by those music “experts” who mean well but cannot prove their case for what godly music is and is not.

Aniol falls into that category. I read his book Worship in Song and came away very unimpressed from the perspective of scholarship.

Don’t get me wrong. I would agree with him on most of his theological conclusions in the book. People across the spectrum of Christian music largely agree with him on the theology of music. But where he fails is in trying to connect the dots from theology to the science/theory of music himself. He really does not even attempt to do so.

There is only one study provided in the book and it connects different music styles to primary emotions. I don’t take issue with the study. I think every musician knows that music can impact primary emotions. But primary emotions are amoral without context. In other words, joy can be either an appropriate or inappropriate emotion based on the situation. So there is little in that study that proves his argument.

I am not surprised that Aniol does not try to connect theology to music specifics. After decades of the music experts making indefensible claims about music specifics, today’s music experts are probably a bit scared of getting very specific. One can hardly blame them.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

David,

As you point out, some defenders of CCM think they have thought about the problem of Christian music. The also think that they have found a rationale for putting the Lord’s name to musical idioms that have arisen from contemporary popular culture. Let us grant for the sake of the discussion that they might be right.

Nobody that I have seen is suggesting that those are the kind of people who are driving the bus at Northland. Nobody has even tried to show that Northland has people who are capable of offering a reasoned defense of CCM. And the recent activities at NIU are what this conversation has been about, are they not?

My guess is that Scott Aniol is one of those people who was dismissed as a “music Nazi,” though I certainly believe that his work needs to be distinguished from the typical Fundamentalist griping about “worldly music.” In contrast to the marketing people at NIU, Aniol is a competent musician, theologian, and aesthetician who actually has though through his ideals in a rigorously academic environment.

Like Peter, Paul, and Mary, I dig Rock and Roll music. Still, affections, like ideas, have consequences (apologies to Richard M. “Big Daddy Weaver”). The thing one likes is not always the thing that one should do. If anyone in the marketing department has entertained this distinction, I see no evidence of it.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

David,

As you point out, some defenders of CCM think they have thought about the problem of Christian music. The also think that they have found a rationale for putting the Lord’s name to musical idioms that have arisen from contemporary popular culture. Let us grant for the sake of the discussion that they might be right.

Nobody that I have seen is suggesting that those are the kind of people who are driving the bus at Northland. Nobody has even tried to show that Northland has people who are capable of offering a reasoned defense of CCM. And the recent activities at NIU are what this conversation has been about, are they not?

My guess is that Scott Aniol is one of those people who was dismissed as a “music Nazi,” though I certainly believe that his work needs to be distinguished from the typical Fundamentalist griping about “worldly music.” In contrast to the marketing people at NIU, Aniol is a competent musician, theologian, and aesthetician who actually has though through his ideals in a rigorously academic environment.

Like Peter, Paul, and Mary, I dig Rock and Roll music. Still, affections, like ideas, have consequences (apologies to Richard M. “Big Daddy Weaver”). The thing one likes is not always the thing that one should do. If anyone in the marketing department has entertained this distinction, I see no evidence of it.

Kevin: I gather this is a hot button issue for you. Only “some defenders of CCM” merely “think they have thought about the problem of Christian music”? Your rhetoric remains disproportionately harsh, both toward other Christians in general and toward NIU folks specifically. Is this also Scott Aniol’s position — that only he and those who agree with his conclusions have actually “thought about the problem of Christian music”? If so, I don’t really need to read anything he has written on the subject; he is an extremist who has no credibility, because — regardless of anyone’s ultimate conclusion about biblical music standards — any fair-minded person has to acknowledge that there are godly, talented, knowledgeable, skilled, Bible-loving musicians, theologians, and aestheticians who have thought very carefully about the problem of Christian music and have come to conclusions at odds with Aniol’s (and apparently yours). (I’m not one of those experts and make no claim to be, so I probably don’t even know the best books to refer people to on this issue. But I am familiar with at least one that would likely be somewhere on the list: Charlie Peacock’s At the Crossroads: Inside the Past, Present, and Future of Contemporary Christian Music (2004). Peacock is a musical genius, something that is acknowledged even by those who don’t necessarily appreciate his music. (I personally don’t care for much of the stuff he himself does, but he has served as producer on some other artists’ stuff that I think is great.) Peacock is very much an insider in the CCM genre, yet his book is both a defense of contemporary style as biblical and a critique of the biblical and artistic deficiencies of much CCM and of the CCM “industry.” I expect you would agree with much of his critique. But you cannot dismiss him (or others) as not having thought carefully about the problem of Christian music.)

As for NIU, I’m struck by your negative assumptions. Do you seriously think that no one in the administration or on the faculty or staff of NIU has done more than “think they have thought about” biblical music standards? I don’t know anyone at NIU and don’t have any stake in the fight over their supposed change in direction, but I would never simply assume that no one there has thought carefully about the music issue. I don’t see how it’s logical, intellectually fair, or biblical for you to make such an assumption. Why not instead assume that at least someone there has thought carefully about the issue and simply come to a conclusion that you don’t share?

As I mentioned before, this kind of gracelessness is uncharacteristic of you. Unless I’ve misunderstood you, you have staked out an absolutist position on music — it’s either your conclusion or the wrong/unbiblical conclusion. This approach is indistinguishable from the BJU, et al. position when I was a teen and college student. (The specifics of your position may or may not line up with what BJU’s were then, but the absolutism is the same.) And, as with my generation and (even more so) as with the subsequent generations, you thereby sacrifice a serious amount of credibility. As I’ve attempted to point out in a couple of previous comments in this thread, the students know that your position on CCM (or Garlock’s position, or Aniol’s position) is nonsense. (As GregH and David Barnhart have pointed out above, Aniol (and you?) may have some good points at the 30,000 foot level, but still fails to connect the dots between there and his position at ground level.) My understanding of Matt Olson’s reputed comments about music is along these same lines — he recognizes (now?) that late-20th century fundamentalism’s categorical rejection of CCM is indefensible AND that volubly defending the indefensible calls into question everything else that you’re trying to teach, so the wise and principled thing (not the “raw[ly] pragmatic” thing) to do is to drop the indefensible position and concentrate on things that God and the Bible actually are concerned about.