Olson out at Northland

Greg:

You wrote:

It’s not that some didn’t have a doctrinal basis for doing so, but that many more or less conformed to the perceived standard, and now that the standards lack the degree of apparent uniformity they had among leaders a few years ago, there is a sense that many things are up for grabs, practically speaking. For some, music and culture appears to be a better platform for unity than dispensational hermeneutics or the precise outworking of secondary separation.

Ouch. That does hurt!

I personally “go along” with the KJV at church, though I would prefer to preach from the ESV. My Pastor and I differ on this issue, as do our some of our church members. I believe “for the sake of conformity” characterizes our church’s use of the KJV.

I do not feel our very conservative music is merely conformity to a standard. It is a generally agreed matter of holiness in worship with our folks.

I also do not believe separation, from whomever, is seen as conformity either with us. Separation always complements evangelism, and I believe this is generally upheld at our church as well.

Your challenge is an important one. We should each examine our own lives, not just our corporate worship, and be honest with ourselves.

Don,

It is a little hard to take you seriously regarding Northland and especially about graciousness toward Matt. Have you forgotten all of the stuff you’ve written about him? Have you forgotten that you were aggressively, publicly campaigning for his resignation/removal not that long ago?

For the record, I take no pleasure in what has and is happening surrounding Northland. My concern near the top of this thread was simply to challenge us against rumors, speculation about motives and behind the scenes moves, etc. You think that challenge has not been heeded. I disagree. We’ve said our piece to one another, so I’m content to let others judge.

Sadly, I think the whole situation at NIU is like an ink blot test for fundies and former fundies. People tend to see mainly what they want to see, ignoring other portions of the picture that don’t fit as well into their view of it.

Time for me to bow out and move on to things I am actually responsible to do.

[Rolland McCune]

And the final culprit in cyber-land and elsewhere is “bad ‘ole narrow-minded, ultra hair-splitting separatist, unloving, unity-destroying” Fundamentalists/ism. Meanwhile the institution founders and often dies.

This recent scenario at Northland only replicates what has happened in the past decade or two. Other institutions (churches, schools,mission agencies and Fundamentalism itself) are presently in the same contractions. Some may survive by micro-change administration policies, or may do so by reason of age and accumulated financial resources, or may be merged into larger organizations. Others may try and carry on with a much more “slender apparatus” (Spurgeon’s phrase). In some cases a new institution may arise with the old faith but new (or greatly used) furniture. Unfortunately, in some instances the old institution will simply collapse and die.)

When the “baby” is brought before the King and the question as to what is necessary in order for it to have a future is presented, consistently the “bad ‘ole narrow-minded, ultra hair-splitting separatist, unloving, unity-destroying” parent chooses to have it cut in two and die rather than to allow it to live and perhaps have the possibility for them to remain an influence in its life. We have too few Solomon’s in fundamentalism these days and one party is quite willing to split the kid rather than “compromise” for the good of the baby. So what happens when there are no more babies to split and the uncompromising “parent” is too old, feeble or alone to ever reproduce again?

If someone chooses to die on a hill of their own narrow self-interest, they should not be surprised when the next generation doesn’t even recall the name of the battle, let alone the “issue” over which it was fought.

As one of the current generation, but also closely related to the past generations, including men such as John R. Rice, but also intimately involved with the next generation, I have a very personal approach to issues such as the recent condition of NIU, and areas of separation. That being said…

We seem to have forgotten who our enemy is.

And what Dan posted above, needs to be reposted again, and again, and again…

[Dan Burrell]

If someone chooses to die on a hill of their own narrow self-interest, they should not be surprised when the next generation doesn’t even recall the name of the battle, let alone the “issue” over which it was fought.

And don’t be surprised, if you choose to die on that hill, if some of the next generation choose to turn around and bulldoze said hill.

First, a general comment – This conversation is starting to get a bit personal. I wonder if this is a good thing? Rolland McCune is well-known to most of us as is Dave Doran. Don Sailer on the other hand is unknown to me. But Don, you appear to have inside information. Mind identifying your connection with NIU? Moreover, maybe we can all check the sarcasm a bit?

Now for the historical perspective – institutions come and institutions go. At the turn of the 20th century, there were many Northern Baptist schools. Today, there are few. As for the seminaries, they have all collapsed into either the Colgate-Rochester-Crozer Divinity School or they faded away (Newton Theological Institution, which today is a part of Andover-Newton and is a shell of its former self).

Why are they gone … because they changed in radical ways. To be sure, theological liberalism is in the mix in the NBC. But remember, change occurs incrementally. No school wakes up and decides to be radically different overnight. We are talking about a process of gradualism. When change begins how far will it go? Old Princeton did not set out to become a haven Peter Singer. I am sure john Witherspoon is twisting in his grave these days!

Anytime a school deviates from the principles (whether these principles are articulated or merely de facto principles) of its founding, it is bound to go through an upheaval. Those associated with its past are grieved, those who are progressive think that changes do not happen fast enough. This process inevitably brings a division in the constituency. Splitting the constituency is a dangerous practice for anyone in academic leadership. It’s a calculated risk but one that can be fatal.

Some change is both inevitable and is necessary. The matter of which Bible to use was a hard fought battle, but not one that any particular institution stood alone in making. Witness the videos and books put out by a cross section of several of our schools defending modern versions. Plus the fact that our schools from their beginning never were KJV Only. Not CBTS and not BJU nor even TTU. For others who made these kinds of changes in the “group,” the change was easier to justify. But this change also had a significant theological basis.

Other changes a school may make are harder to manage, especially when there is no clear theological issue at stake. Church worship in general and music in particular is an intensely divisive issue, dating back in Baptist circles to the 17th century. And it is very personal. To not expect an upheaval of cataclysmic portions is naïve. What drives this kind of change? A few theological/biblical principles can be articulated that help us come to a proper worship philosophy.

This cannot be about merely cultural relativism vs. cultural archaism. There has to be more that drives our thinking than merely giving people what they want, whether we are talking about Martin Luther or Casting Crowns.

Finally, on the landscape of changes in broad academia … there are many reasons in today’s world why schools are in financial trouble. Recently here in Minneapolis, Luther Seminary’s president resigned amid a serious financial shortfall. We are living in Walmart world. Big schools get bigger, while smaller schools will struggle. Schools that are tuition driven either raise the tuition significantly or raise a lot of money. If you cannot do either, in this economy, those schools will struggle. No one person is accountable for the total financial picture of any school.

A key a school’s survival is its constituency. You cannot alienate your constituency without seriously undermining the stability of a school. Any changes made need to be carefully crafted and slowly implemented and only those changes that can be biblically justified in the most explicit of terms ought to be attempted.

Anytime a school deviates from the principles (whether these principles are articulated or merely de facto principles) of its founding, it is bound to go through an upheaval. Those associated with its past are grieved, those who are progressive think that changes do not happen fast enough. This process inevitably brings a division in the constituency.

But did Northland ever make recruiting or music ‘the principles of its founding’? I don’t think so, and I’m an alumnus. That’s why I’m so disturbed/disappointed by all of this.

A lot of this, I think, is driven by people who decided NIU was going to be BJU 2.0. And they missed the point of what NIU was teaching, at least when I was a student there. We diverged and then came back together on the praxis because the foundational principles of service and a right heart were shared.

-edit-

As for Don - he mentioned this:

It seems that you have read my comments at Lou’s site. I think you got some things wrong.

I am not an insider.

I am not well-connected to the leaders at Northland.

I have never spoken with Matt Olson.

I did not disdain BJU style fundamentalism.

I don’t have insider information from the leaders of Northland.

I am a grandson of the founder.

I do know what the Patz family believed about fellowship and unity with other denominations.

I do know that Northland was a reflection of Harold Patz’s beliefs and not those of the family in general.

I am hopeful with regard to Northland’s “reconnecting” with alumni.

First, before I make an attachment, thanks to Jeff Straub for an (mostly historical) analysis that makes sense without pietism dripping all over and other extraneous comments.

Brethren,

You who are the new/next generationers have confirmed my prediction that the culprits for the Northland episode will at last be the bad ‘ole Fundies, except that now we are also the “real enemy,” all in the spirit of brotherhood I presume. But I confess that your analysis is so incredibly naive that my first response was total exasperation, to the point, in fact, of writing off any hope for the future if your proposals prevail in the next crises. And, mark my words, they will come, and your kind will again head for the tall weeds of peaceful accommodation. In the long haul, there will never be a hill you are willing to die on. I encourage you to invest in considerably more propaedeutic if you wish to gain a respectful and informed hearing.

Back to the present, your thinking, solutions, or proposals about the Northland crisis would be old news even to Methusaleh. Powerful King Ahab of Samaria, who left his mark on the Fertile Crescent for a century or more, could not bear any negative prognostications, so he branded Micaiah ben Imlah the “real enemy” of his regime in favor of a kindler, gentler, peaceful voice to whose words he could finally say amen (1 Kings 22). The spirit I feel in your responses is what Spurgeon called “the middlemen” in the 19th century Downgrade controversy, the roots of which he traced to ecclesial transactions in 1662. W. B. Riley contended with the spirit of the “inbetweenites” in the 1920s Great Controversy in the US. The same could be said of the skirmish, begun in the 1940s, with the New Evangelical experiment. The double minded are ever with us; their yes has a no in it, and their no has a yes in it, even now. But as Lady Margaret Thatcher told President G. W. H. Bush, “This is no time to go wobbly, George,” a tip I kindly pass on to the leaders and followers in our present milieu’s concerns.

All things being equal, I intend to join Dr. Doran in exiting from this particular fray.

[Rolland McCune]

Brethren,

You who are the new/next generationers have confirmed my prediction that the culprits for the Northland episode will at last be the bad ‘ole Fundies, except that now we are also the “real enemy,” all in the spirit of brotherhood I presume. But I confess that your analysis is so incredibly naive that my first response was total exasperation, to the point, in fact, of writing off any hope for the future if your proposals prevail in the next crises. And, mark my words, they will come, and your kind will again head for the tall weeds of peaceful accommodation. In the long haul, there will never be a hill you are willing to die on. I encourage you to invest in considerably more propaedeutic if you wish to gain a respectful and informed hearing.

Back to the present, your thinking, solutions, or proposals about the Northland crisis would be old news even to Methusaleh. Powerful King Ahab of Samaria, who left his mark on the Fertile Crescent for a century or more, could not bear any negative prognostications, so he branded Micaiah ben Imlah the “real enemy” of his regime in favor of a kindler, gentler, peaceful voice to whose words he could finally say amen (1 Kings 22). The spirit I feel in your responses is what Spurgeon called “the middlemen” in the 19th century Downgrade controversy, the roots of which he traced to ecclesial transactions in 1662. W. B. Riley contended with the spirit of the “inbetweenites” in the 1920s Great Controversy in the US. The same could be said of the skirmish, begun in the 1940s, with the New Evangelical experiment. The double minded are ever with us; their yes has a no in it, and their no has a yes in it, even now. But as Lady Margaret Thatcher told President G. W. H. Bush, “This is no time to go wobbly, George,” a tip I kindly pass on to the leaders and followers in our present milieu’s concerns.

All things being equal, I intend to join Dr. Doran in exiting from this particular fray.

Oh, good grief. What senseless pontification. I’m not “new” nor am I “next”. It is this kind of condescension that has driven many a fine, young, curious and yes, AUTHENTIC, fundamentalist into the arms of the dreaded evangelicals or worse. In this day of access to information across the internet where intelligent people ask difficult questions and expect reasonable and reasoned replies, this “waving of the hand” dismissal just doesn’t fly. It would take me a month of Sunday’s to respond to the mischaracterizations within those two paragraphs and for you to compare the minor issues of today’s hyper-separatism to Spurgeon’s “downgrade” (you see, some of us whom you’d label as “inbetweenites” actually know our history as well) controversy is both over-reaching and an insult to the memories of those who actually HAVE fought over doctrine. People with active and sincerely questioning minds who dare challenge the pious clingers to inconsequentials and tertiary rabbit trails can no longer be ignored and they deserve better from those who would purport to possess scholarship and represent some sort of special dispensation of “Fundamentalism”. This is the danger of the Ivory Tower of Higher Education in which some of us immerse ourselves. Eventually, we lose sight of the Messenger and the Commissioner aspects of our calling. We waste our opportunities on rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic and debating the number of angels that can be perched on pinheads. I would expect better of the scholarly…or at least hope better.

To the young and not-so-young believers who may eventually read this thread, keep asking your questions, keep searching the Word and keep challenging traditions that have no basis in Scripture. Do not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, but neither be afraid as to inquire as ti why the baby might be bathed in such a way and if that is the only way in which to bath said baby. Scripture is our authority….not movements, not professors, not self-annointed spokesmen and not institutions. Finally, read the book, “Dangerous Calling” by Paul David Tripp (yes, I know he’s not exactly on the “approved” list) and it might help remind all of us of what are real missing in terms of Christlike ministry. If your church is really reaching your community for Christ instead of trying to find a position of recognition with the Body of Christ, you will never, ever be asked what version of the Bible you use, what schools your church supports, what your position on eschatology is or what music style is acceptable. You will be confronting addictions, brokenness, despair, confusion, anger, loss, pain and a thousand other maladies — all of for which the Gospel if the ONLY cure. While the other topics are not altogether unimportant, they certainly don’t rise to the level some would assign to them when one considers the broad arch of eternity.

[Dan Burrell] This is the danger of the Ivory Tower of Higher Education in which some of us immerse ourselves.

And this is the danger of mixing metaphors. :D

Yes, totally off topic. But c’mon!

Dan,

I don’t know if you know Dr. McCune very well, if at all. Perhaps, that is why in part you wrote your opinion in such terms. However, if you had any idea how offensive your words and tone were to him and to us who have sat under his ministry for many years, then you would at least have had the common decency to disagree respectfully, showing deference to a man whose personal integrity and accomplishments in theology, education, authorship, ministry, and pastoral training would take pages to list.

Brother Harding,

Your concern for Dr. McCune resonates with me. I wanted to express my appreciation to him earlier on his thread because his Systematic Theology has been a true blessing to me, but I found myself taken aback by his postings. I don’t know him but would gladly go out of my way to hear him lecture. My concern is, do accomplishments entitle any of us to speak with such a dismissive tone?

[Rolland McCune]

And, mark my words, they will come, and your kind will again head for the tall weeds of peaceful accommodation. In the long haul, there will never be a hill you are willing to die on.

I would suggest quite the opposite. Only when stop staking out our position on hills that aren’t scripturally defensible will we be able to regroup in a way that allows us to truly defend the hills worth dying on.”

Mike,

I do know who Dr. McCune is. I respect the whole of his work. I have used it in the past and will use it in the future. The same with Dave Doran and the Seminary they represent. Any offense taken was not intentionally offered. At the same time, we all should be held accountable for the accusations we make. I carefully weighed my words and reread them multiple times. They were not typed in a fit of pique. They were strong and I believe they are necessary. Past accomplishments, history, heritage, position, intellect nor education do not entitle someone to arrogantly dismiss the concerns of legitimate brothers in Christ with such dismissive monikers as were used. And indeed, I could, if pressed, cite dozens of young men who have gone to other places where they do not fit still, because they were “run out of Dodge” for wanting to discuss legitimate concerns and wanted to respectfully ask about or even debate the difficult topic. I could have written under a pseudonym (I have one registered here) as many do. I chose not to do so. I’m certainly not an academic anywhere near Dr. McCune’s stature and make no claim to be. But I do travel extensively in the circles of higher Christian education (well beyond the particular institution that employs me) and I see the dangers of Ivory Tower dismissals of young ministers. So I called him out on it. It’s not personal, but it is pointed. It is not right.

SI fully has the right and duty to pull any comments that they feel cross whatever line they want to draw and I invite them to do so in this case, if I have inadvertently crossed it. In many academic and other arenas, hearty give and take is encouraged. If this isn’t one of them, then so be it. However, I also think that when one offers scathing, broad-brushed dismissals of a significant and important span of the brotherhood, one should be prepared to receive counter perspective. Put yourself, if you will please, in the shoes of some young man trying to figure out where he fits in our messy little corner of Christianity and ask him whether or not he would feel welcomed, encouraged or invited to participate in the fellowship of fundamentalism as it currently exists. As for me, I’m terribly weary of seeing good young men whom I love and whom show great potential leave us by the droves because they aren’t even permitted a seat in the conversation without fear of being summarily dismissed by the “leaders” of the moment into which many of them were born and reared. Thank God, for the godly, patient, loving mentors I had in my life as a young pastor who let me ask my silly questions, postulate nonsensical theories, chase dangerous rabbit trails and generally make a fool of myself repeatedly and did not abandon me, nor upbraid me, but continued to skillfully and Biblically offer me counsel and direction. If I accomplish nothing ever again in my ministry, I pray to God that He would let me do that to a few more young men while I tie up my own journey.

With Sincerity….

Dan

I wonder what St. Paul would think of credentials and what they’re owed..