Olson out at Northland

[Jeff Straub]

[Don Sailer]

I never said that nobody else has a vested interest in NIU.

I said that I have a vested interest.

Do you see the difference? :)

Of course I see a difference … this is my point … one group with a vested interest is grieved while another group with an equal interest feels vindicated. Whose interest trumps whose? This is what happens when the constituency is divided. Was the division really necessary?

JS

You will have to ask those who are blasting the leadership of NIU if the division is really necessary. Since each school and church is independent and since there is no “network” among the churches, each are independent, why should those who disagree with NIU voice their complaints and seek to renounce Matt and the direction of NIU?

Shouldn’t they just find another school that they can pour their efforts into?

When the Patz grandchildren were marginalized and rejected by NIU, did you hear anyone complaining? You did not. We just went to wherever God was leading us to serve and we served faithfully and quietly. We didn’t make a peep, even though it was our grandfather and parents who paid the bills.

So does there need to be a division? Ask those who are railing against NIU that question. We don’t think that there should be.

Blessings!

Dan,

Thanks for your recent post.

Brother Thompson,

Thanks for your interaction. I appreciated your comments to me and words of admonition.

I agree with Jeff Straub & McCune. I think much (though not all) of their arguments are coming out of an organizational & constituency management point of view.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the NIU music issue itself that issue is secondary to the communication of the non-changes/actual changes, the timing and implementation of them, the new associations brought into play, the changes often not matching-up with NIU’s own handbook, the often lacking communication why the changes were being made, the pictures and videos on the website and then taken down (apparently). The rock band was such a huge departure from NIU’s historical teaching and philosophy. Many of those changes, some big and some small happened relatively quickly.

Beyond the music controversy, you simply can’t be one way for over thirty years, make a quick and broad departure away from that and expect everyone to be on board with it. From a strictly organizational management and change implementation perspective I think even NIU’s most ardent supporters would have to say at least some things could’ve been handled better.

What was NIU then going to be when all of the non-changes stopped changing? What now of NIU and where will it end up?

In the end it really is a trust and credibility issue and right now NIU is at a watershed moment. As others have said NIU has put itself in a difficult place. They have opened the door to two very different (opposite) constituent groups. No matter which way they end up going there will be people upset. If they go right, the left can say NIU mislead them and now has no credibility. If they go left the right can say the little remaining bit of credibility is now definitely gone. The importance of how NIU manages this keystone moment cannot be overstated. And for that they need our prayer.

This whole mess wasn’t even necessary in the first place. NIU didn’t HAVE to change as much as they did never mind how fast they were made. Change per se isn’t wrong of course, but the types of changes, the speed of them, and the degree of those changes with a place like NIU matters significantly to its supporters. That can be said with any organization.

Those that criticize fundamentalism can fuss and whine all they want, they can complain about how fundamentalists are stuck in their traditions, etc. and they may - or may not be correct. At the end of the day that really doesn’t matter. Before parents pay someone $12,000/year (or whatever it costs at NIU) to train their own kids they want to know what they are getting. Progressives can cry all day long, but the fact of the matter is that stability matters. Fact of life. To continually say NIU isn’t changing and yet continue to change as much as they did, firing the president, and laying off more employees does not communicate stability and credibility. Remember, we are talking about a constituency that NIU themselves built and relied upon to a large degree for over 30 years. Those are the people NIU used to build their program and buildings. How can you alienate those people and then cry foul when they won’t go along with the new direction? You can’t have it both ways. Progressives can gripe all they want about ‘ol Fundies while at the same time seemingly oblivious to significant and very real reasons why the ship is in trouble.

If the progressives don’t like that, tell them to start their own college, do things a certain way for 30+ years, make sudden & large changes away from that while not communicating about it all that well, and then get back to us on how that process went.

Regarding Dr. Olson’s message in NIU’s chapel on Monday, he handled it with Biblical class and honor. A very Godly response and that an honest example for us to follow.

I sincerely hope NIU rights their ship and that they will continue to produce people trained for ministry.

Don Sailer wrote above: “why should those who disagree with NIU voice their complaints and seek to renounce Matt and the direction of NIU?

Oh, if life were oh, so simple. Goes back to Jeff Straub’s point. Many, many people gave their time, talents, prayer, energy, children, support, sacrifice, & energy into a place they believed in, that they bought into. You can’t expect them to just pull-up stakes, no questions asked, and move on without a peep.

Don Sailer wrote above: “Shouldn’t they just find another school that they can pour their efforts into?”

Bingo! Isn’t that exactly what is happening and what will continue to happen with NIU’s current course?

As I said above, “Progressives can gripe all they want about ‘ol Fundies while at the same time seemingly oblivious to significant and very real reasons why the ship is in trouble.”

[Mike Harding]

Brother Thompson,

There is no question that McCune is a militant fundamentalist, and yet I have not known many men with the personal godliness, meekness, and humility of Dr. Rolland McCune. What exactly is militancy anyway? Dr. George Houghton says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat… . aggressively active (as in a cause). It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and which seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true (“Faith Pulpit”, May 1994).”

Nearly everyone is militant about certain things. Even the non-militant are militant about non-militancy. Everyone has his absolutes, even if his absolutes are that there are no absolutes. Those who decry dogmatism tend to be very dogmatic about it. Those who want universal tolerance are extremely intolerant of those who disagree. In society, violence often surrounds the so-called non-violent. Often those who cry for religious pluralism and love, hate those who don’t. We need to be militant about the Word of God, the Faith once delivered, the doctrine of Separation, about exposing and denouncing error. John the Baptist, the apostle Paul, and the Lord Jesus Christ were often militant (Matt 3:7-10; 14:3-4; 23:13ff; Gal 1:8-9; 2:11; Titus 1:10ff). Whether the struggles were against modernism, liberalism, new evangelicalism, ecumenical evangelism, the charismatic movement or sub-standard and inappropriate worship, militancy has always been a defining characteristic of historic fundamentalism. This is where McCune is coming from.

But isn’t there a difference between militancy and stridency?

I appreciate your sentiments and have to say I agree.

While many may not appreciate what was done, it appears how it was done was the big problem.

Oh this is great………

My friends are fighting with my other friends……..

You people have to learn how to fight. There is an art to sharing you heart with your brother without taking out his eye-ball.

I really don’t even know how to start……. OK, I’m just going to ramble - which seems to be one of my gifts - close your eyes imagine my walking around the SI round table campfire and in addition to passing out marshmellows and a hearty pat on the back - I’m now giving everyone morphine - (1) this will calm you and (2) this will numb everyone’s pain……which there is now plenty of to pass all around “thank you very much.”

1. A part of me wants to jump in and try to bring peace.

2. The other part of me realizes that only God can do that and there is no vacancy in the God-head.

3. But being the merciful sap I am …. I’m still inclined to try to bring peace in our ever-expanding - ever-imploding and now ever exploding “tent.” By the way - look at the mess you people have made. We have mashed evangelical over here - bleeding Baptist over there - on top of that it stinks in here!

4. Well - at least we’re all militant. God forbid that we ever once show a hint of grace instead of militancy.

5. OK - a few comments in regard to comments my other friends have made here - on all sides

6. To those that might be a bit more pessimistic about the future of a faithful version of fundamentalism in light of NIU and other similar episodes, please allow a slight “appeal” I lay at your feet for consideration (notice the tone of that was far superior than “Hey you dummy - why can’t you think more like me!) . My appeal - If you can swallow for just a moment - or if you can imagine for just a second - a historical or “proto” version of fundamentalism plus the version we’ve had for the last century (and I’m not taking any bets that we all can do this) but if you would please for just 3 minutes allow me to suggest that for the last two thousand years a “fundamentalist kind of believer” or a “fundamentalist kind of a ministry” is one who/that is “orthodox, loves & submits to Jesus as King, follows the Scriptures as accurate revelation, preaches a Biblical version of salvation and is militant about ‘the faith,’ …… let me also suggest that there has always been and will always be a remnant of believers who have carried on the torch for eternal life and godliness. The sentiment that “all is woe and no one is left standing for Jesus” or “all is woe and no one will be left standing for Jesus next week” reminds me of the prayer of Elijah in 1 Kings 19:10, “I alone am left……” If you recall there were another 7000 whose “knees had not bowed down to Baal.”

7. I’m preparing a class I’ll be teaching beginning in September on Church History. Man I love the material I’m going through. Yesterday I noted 43 major events in Church History. Here’s a reality - there has always been and there will always be a “remnant” that meet that definition of fundamentalism I’ve crafted up on #6. I’m very sure that at the end of each generation the senior leaders who have been teaching and leading and mentoring have been tempted to say, “What in world are these young guys thinking!” “There is no way that they are going to be able to hold it together.” “Our movement is doomed!” And yet the movement that counts - namely the faithful remnant of faithful men and ministries keeps on showing up despite of our clear lack of competency. Maybe this says as much about the faithfulness of our God than the faithfulness of any movement.

8. For those of us who bristle when older men who have seen the rise and fall of movements, the ebb and flow from conservative to liberal, the loss of clear testimony in the name of “being with it,” we can’t take it personal - even if some of it is personal. Friends we can’t just dismiss out of hand the observations of those that might be a tad more conservative than we. Even if we don’t agree with a point or two - even if they’ve “ticked us off” …… I think Biblical wisdom respectfully listens even and maybe especially if we think it wasn’t entirely respectfully given. So they’ve seen the capitulations of men and movements - they remember the apostasy of more students and friends and “would-be” believers and some of that capitulation is laid at the feet of those trying ….. well ….. “trying to reform a better form of fundamentalism.” And so some of us say “we want a better fundamentalism.” I mean when they have what we French like to call a “Deja Vu” moment - you can’t tell em’ to shut up! You expect them to keep silent? How do they do that and stand before the Bema with a clear conscience?

Let them talk! Better yet…..Listen to them talk.

9. God is our judge. What I am clearer on now than I have ever been at any time in my life is how foolish and fickle and near-sighted the sharpest of us can be. If you go right - some will hate you. If you go left - some will hate you. If you stand still - no one will even know you exist! I suppose that’s the smart move - do nothing. Of course that’s the option Hell wants you to take. Do nothing - be nothing. No thanks. Life is too precious. God has called us to a work. Many of us have been at this too long to get hung up on the opinions of friend or foe or frienamy…..We listen to each other but we follow God’s Word.

Final Thoughts - My guess is we need each other - and I’m talking about the guys that tick us off because they are too loose or too separate - we probably need each other more than we know or than we would ever admit. So be clear on what you believe the Bible wants you to do - head in that direction. If there are people that choose not to walk with you, they are still God’s children and as such we are to respond to them as brothers not enemies - even if there is mutual “admonition” going on (2 Thess 3).

So let the mutual admonition continue - that’s part of what SI is about - let’s just try to remember at the end of the day - even if the differences mean we couldn’t work together in the same ministry, we are brothers - let’s try to act like it.

(If it’s not enough to remember that God is watching us - you might remember that other “evangelicals” are watching - and if we think we represent a kind of better evangelicalism or a better fundamentalism that we would want to encourage them to be a part of - how does our interaction encourage that or discourage that?)

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel Tetreau,

I agree with your post.

See, there is hope for you non or semi-Fundies yet! :-)! (Tongue in cheek!)

[Don Sailer]

When the Patz grandchildren were marginalized and rejected by NIU, did you hear anyone complaining? You did not. We just went to wherever God was leading us to serve and we served faithfully and quietly. We didn’t make a peep, even though it was our grandfather and parents who paid the bills.

So Don … . how much influence do you think you should have? From what I understand of the history, it was your grandfather’s genius for invention that ultimately lies behind the story of NIU. Having worked in a dairy many years ago, I can appreciate the mucky solution that he invented. But …

I do not know why anyone was “marginalized” or even if they were. But I will take your word for it. If Northland was founded on a particular ethos, building and recruiting students, faculty, etc. around that ethos and then it suddenly changes …

What role do you think you or anyone else is entitled to? Whose school is NIU? What role does / should the board play? Are they merely window dressing? What about the doctrinal statement? Is this merely a suggestion or does it actually serve as a fence or a boundary? Fences—they keep the cows in and the wolves out! Doctrinal statements are the fences we erect to protect the herd. If we leave the gate open, we might as well not have a fence at all.

I am sorry for your disaffection with NIU … this is obviously very personal for you. But it’s personal for many other people, including those who have or may lose their jobs. And those who have or intend to send their children to NIU. Too bad the clock cannot be turned back 5, 10, 15 years? I am not in a position to say how far but back to more peaceful days. I do hope and pray that NIU will be able to weather this storm. They have sent many fine grads around the world. NIU has played its part in the Lord’s work, a part I personally hope continues.

JS

I just wanted to say something not about the topic at hand, but at how it’s being discussed here. A few observations:

1. I really thank God that the older generation of fundamentalists such as McCune, Doran, and Harding are taking the time to interact here with a relatively diverse audience of fundamentalists. This is good for all parties. This simply wouldn’t happen without the internet and without some kind of SI site. Which brings me to my next point.

2. What is driving the rapid change in fundamentalism is the power of technology. I work in technology so maybe I’m biased, but before the internet, he who blew the loudest bullhorn won the argument. Now it takes a lot more work, and you’re never assured a captive audience where your people are listening only to you. Which brings me to my next point.

3. Arguing (in the good sense of that word) is different on the internet than in person, for better or worse. For instance, however good a point that Dr. McCune may have about the “Spirit of Ahab,” that kind of argumentation really doesn’t work on this medium. That belongs in a sermon, speech, or face to face meeting where there is personal interaction and everyone knows each other. Therefore, Mike, I can KNOW Dr. McCune is a great guy (I interacted with him as a kid a few times, and heard him preach a number of times) but still disagree with him. It used to be that we would automatically trust another’s opinion more because of personal interaction, but perhaps for the worse, the internet takes that powerful force away to some extent.

What’s left is ideas, well argued. Let’s all be better at it over time.

Having never set foot on Northland’s campus, not knowing any of the players in its past and present, and having an interest in history led me to discover this Ph.D. dissertation written by a Robert “Bobby” Wood a few years ago who I presume used to or currently does work at NIU. The focus of his paper was on the presidential transition from Ollila to Olson. It details some of the history of the institution and there’s even a mention of Sharper Iron in the dissertation.

Perhaps most everyone else is already familiar with it, but it was interesting reading for me. I posted the link in this comment for informational purposes only; not for the purpose of providing ammo for any debate.

Shaynus,

I appreciated your observation and have experienced personally what you have written regarding Dr. McCune. In one medium as opposed to direct speech it comes across differently.

[Brenda T]

Having never set foot on Northland’s campus, not knowing any of the players in its past and present, and having an interest in history led me to discover this Ph.D. dissertation written by a Robert “Bobby” Wood a few years ago who I presume used to or currently does work at NIU. The focus of his paper was on the presidential transition from Ollila to Olson. It details some of the history of the institution and there’s even a mention of Sharper Iron in the dissertation.

Perhaps most everyone else is already familiar with it, but it was interesting reading for me. I posted the link in this comment for informational purposes only; not for the purpose of providing ammo for any debate.

P. 108:

This patience to act was one of the most highly noted characteristics of Dr. Olson‘s presidency in its infancy. It gave the constituents great relief to know he was not coming to change this place but rather to sharpen and improve it. Once he was established in the culture of the institution, he made some of the greatest changes in institutional history without harming his legitimacy with the constituency

Comment: Well that didn’t happen!

Proposition 1. It is paramount that the leadership of a Bible college learn the perceived needs and expectations of the constituency before pursuing a presidential transition.

Proposition 2. It is imperative to select a president who embraces the embedded culture of the institution.

“most research suggests that institutional culture is very difficult to change and attempts to change can lead to institutional termination. One could only expect that the traditional Bible college model, with its conservative-minded constituents, would be even further grounded into any embedded institutional culture and would subsequently resist such change.” p. 107