Crossroads Conference: Q & A with Dr. Ollila

I do appreciate Dr. O.

This Q and A demonstrates that a ‘cookie cutter’ mentality does not need to exist within the framework of historic fundamentalism. Dr. O’s answers were his answers.

I am hopeful for a fundamentalism with the IBF movement that can embrace a Chuck Phelps (with all the varying strong opinions about his actions/lack of actions with the incident in NH) and a Dr. Ollila (with positive statements about John MacArthur & and an honest view about CCM).

I may have points of view that are variant from Phelps, Ollila, Olson, and others; but I will continue to give each of these men a wide path of liberty to follow Christ Jesus in their ministries.

Just for perspective, I was at Shepherd’s Conference a few years ago and heard Dr. Mac minister the best message on Biblical separation that I had ever heard.

While there is much good about the new media, there is a real lack of accountability. Bloggers can say whatever they want, and they have the reins of the comment section, which many of them use freely to censor virtually all opposing views. Blogging can be a good thing. I do it myself, and I read others, and don’t read some because I don’t find them helpful. But it is true that some (not all, but some) bloggers are despicable in their attitudes and their actions, even when they are right. They should make us all sick. There needs to be great care and concern taken by bloggers because of the influence. Those who desire to teach will be held to a higher standard, and incur a greater judgment. So beware about your use of the virtual tongue, because it creates a great fire that cannot be put out.

I don’t know how accurate this observation about “lack of accountability” really is. In this specific instance with Northland, how often have we heard the invitation/lament to “just call” one of the Os or someone with the institution, when doing so was really not going to address the wider concern? The institution could easily- easily- establish a measure of accountability to the naysayers and detractors by establishing and maintaining a voice on the same platform their perceived opponents do.

Looking at another example- I’m not sure when BJU exactly decided they should do this, but for several years now they have had people serving in the role of “official spokesperson” or whatever the title they bestow on such people would be, whose job is to handle media relations. Their perception may still not be entirely favorable with every demographic across the country, but I think it could be said that their reputation has improved significantly over the last couple of decades because they have made an effort to communicate, correct misperceptions, and generally make an effort to “maintain accountability” with the news media, and even at times to engage them directly (BJ3’s appearances on LKL come to mind).

Is it time for a place like Northland to consider hiring an “official blogger”? I don’t know. But insisting on personal phone calls wouldn’t have worked when BJU was embroiled in many of the national controversies that they have been over the years. They needed something more significant, and complaining about the injustice of the press or their bias or what have you may give vent to frustration, but really doesn’t change or solve anything. But complaining about ambiguous “bloggers” without ever naming anyone specifically ultimately accomplishes nothing. Is the frustration with Lou Martuneac, Don Johnson, Kent Brandenburg, Bob Bixby, or Ryan Martin, for example? Each one commented on situations at hand at different points, and each one comes from a very different perspective. Each one has a voice that many people listen to and are to some degree influenced by. Is Doc O frustrated with them all? We really don’t know, because he never gets specific or engages either people or their points. Instead, he attacks the vague windmills of nameless “bloggers”- the process and platform rather than the matters at hand.

If there is “no accountability,” it is not because there is no opportunity for there to be so. I submit it is because there is an unwillingness to get acquainted with new ideas and engage on unfamiliar platforms. Like it or not, the day where you could control information by quarterly newsletters and personal representatives speaking in churches and setting up tables at conferences is gone. Those methods may not be completely irrelevant, but neither are they sufficient on their own. Institutions and individuals that ignore the opportunities of the new media and scoff at those who engage on it do so to their own detriment.

Greg, My point accountability is only that there is no consequence for being wrong or being ungodly in demeanor or approach.

Sure there are consequences. There are people I would not put in positions of leadership or influence, or listen to their speaking ministry, or purchase a book they have written, because of how they have represented themselves on platforms like this one. On the other hand, there are people who I have sought out because of the way they have handled themselves in this medium.

Looking at the wider internet- could someone like Tim Challies have the level of ministry he has today without the influence of the internet and blogs? Did Phil Johnson have the level of influence he currently has before Pyromaniac? I suspect Kevin Bauder’s influence has been enhanced to a great degree because of the benefits of internet interaction and distribution. Even Don Johnson’s influence in the FBFI may not be what it currently is without his online presence.

On the other hand, there are bloggers out there, who if they called you to set up a missionary deputation meeting, I suspect you would reject because you know about them and their demeanor from what they have revealed about themselves online.

So I’m still chewing on what I’ve heard here. I have always loved Dr. O and will continue to do so. Without saying anything about Dr. O and this forum he was at and what he said or didn’t say about NIU or Matt or Mac….Let me just point out a few “pre-comments.”

1. I can understand Dr. O’s frustration with bloggers in general. This is a new approach to communicating ideas if you are from his generation. My dad and Les were buds back at BJ (in the 60’s). Men from that era responded differently to institutional/leadership issues. Man - listening to Doc O talk about how one should be loyal to his institution reminds me of my Dad. My father - chancellor at IBC has worked with men with whom he loves and I’m sure with whom he from time to time disagrees - but I would never know that because he would never share that. That generation of leaders were taught to be loyal. Maybe to a fault. There is a sense in which that is commendable. So in “their” day only a few leaders with a national or regional voice would interact (on a certain level) by way of newsletters, etc…..each group would have it’s “readership.” The “Big Guys” would try to influence each other and both their specific “readership” and maybe the “readership” of others - but they would at least try to be respectful (unless they were in the midst of an internal associational war - like what happened in Minnesota) because they would see each other three or four or five times a year at this “Fundamentalist Big Shot Meetings” (board meetings, fellowship meetings, conferences, etc….). So in a sense these guys were held accountable because if they fought “unfair” they would loose friendships and even respect from this group of leaders/ministries/readership of that group.

OK - compare that with today. Any young or middle age or senior saint leader who may or may not have any leadership responsibilities and/or accountability now has been given a little key. All he has to do is put the key in, turn it and hit the “red” button and a cyber-relational “nuke” goes live and if he deems necessary - he detonates it. He has no worries about the damage done by “the blast” or even the “cyber nuclear fall-out” for his brother in Christ. Let’s call him “bubba.” You see “bubba” could care less about this hurting his national or regional reputation - what reputation? Who knows “bubba!?” So I understand what Dr. O is saying about bloggers being reckless. There is no question that each and everyone of us who engage in this kind of medium realize there is a dynamic and there is a layer of responsibility that goes beyond just a “one-on-one” conversation. We sometimes think we can say anything we would say if the conversation was just “one-on-one.” I don’t think we can do that. We have to consider that a wider audience is watching and reading.

2. So on the other hand….there is a sense in which the blog thing has leveled the field. It used to be that only a few could comment. Do you understand the power that gave those few leaders? Was that really healthy for those few leaders to wield that kind of power and influence? Let me help you - no, that was not healthy. In one sense Dr. O is asking for accountability - I get that and have commented “that’s a far comment.” However, to a degree blogging is a form of accountability for the national and regional leaders and their ministries. Back in the day, if a significant ministry wanted to black ball a (so-called) “rogue” member of the alumni, all they would have to do is send out a note - “so in so” is on the black list. Today (thankfully) national and regional ministries cannot do that (to the same degree with the same amount of freedom) - otherwise those rogue alumni will publish a blog and a web sight explaining that your institution should be renamed “Diotrephes University!” They might even sue you in court. That’s accountability and there is a sense that this is a good thing (not the suing in court but the accountability). All of this places a real “check” on national and regional ministries violating their rightful place of influence.

3. In my opinion - with blogging putting more and more checks on national and regional ministries a benefit has been the rediscovery of the significance and authority and place of the local church. That’s a thrill and is exactly as it should be.

Again notice I’m not commenting on anything Dr. O said or didn’t say about Matt, NIU, etc……I’m still chewing and thinking on that. I will say I’m grateful that Dr. O worked hard at not directly attacking Matt. I’m wondering if there may have been an indirect shot at Matt - but I’m not ready to say that yet. Still thinking and listening carefully to what was said/not said.

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Greg Linscott]

I don’t know how accurate this observation about “lack of accountability” really is. In this specific instance with Northland, how often have we heard the invitation/lament to “just call” one of the Os or someone with the institution, when doing so was really not going to address the wider concern? The institution could easily- easily- establish a measure of accountability to the naysayers and detractors by establishing and maintaining a voice on the same platform their perceived opponents do.

Is it time for a place like Northland to consider hiring an “official blogger”? I don’t know. But insisting on personal phone calls wouldn’t have worked when BJU was embroiled in many of the national controversies that they have been over the years. They needed something more significant, and complaining about the injustice of the press or their bias or what have you may give vent to frustration, but really doesn’t change or solve anything. But complaining about ambiguous “bloggers” without ever naming anyone specifically ultimately accomplishes nothing. Is the frustration with Lou Martuneac, Don Johnson, Kent Brandenburg, Bob Bixby, or Ryan Martin, for example? Each one commented on situations at hand at different points, and each one comes from a very different perspective. Each one has a voice that many people listen to and are to some degree influenced by.

If there is “no accountability,” it is not because there is no opportunity for there to be so. I submit it is because there is an unwillingness to get acquainted with new ideas and engage on unfamiliar platforms. Like it or not, the day where you could control information by quarterly newsletters and personal representatives speaking in churches and setting up tables at conferences is gone. Those methods may not be completely irrelevant, but neither are they sufficient on their own. Institutions and individuals that ignore the opportunities of the new media and scoff at those who engage on it do so to their own detriment.

Greg and others,

I actually contacted NIU about this very issue when the kettle started to boil in March or April and asked why NIU wasn’t directly responding to these allegations on blogs. They told me (and I want to be careful here because they asked that I not disclose specifics) that they felt as though responding to the allegations of bloggers would distract them from their stated purpose of training servants for Great Commission living and that to respond to the bloggers would empower/embolden them. I told them that I felt that not responding was damaging their reputation and empowering the critics, since there was no voice to rebut the foolishness/ignorance being espoused by some. I also told them that to not respond in some way was shortsighted.

I can and will say this, though - Northland did approach at least one or two people (that I know of - it may have been more) and offered to bring them up to the school on NIU’s dime to try and hash out the misunderstandings and confusion. At least one person refused those offers and continued to blast NIU on their blog.

I do think that part of the problem is that NIU doesn’t get the nature of blogging or that they need a communications person, but I’m not sure how to cut the Gordian knot either. Maybe that’s something that the Board and new President will figure out.

Several more “one answer” questions were asked like, “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Dr. O answered, “Yes,” and then went on to clarify his position on CCM and CCM style of worship and a couple other fundamental issues.

(Emphasis added)

This continues to be the crux of the issue, that self-proclaimed fundamentalist leaders are no longer clear on what the fundamentals are.

I had never heard Dr. O before this and was pleasantly surprised by some of his answers. I found his thought process impeccable on the idea of cooperating with Hyles vs MacArthur or conservative evangelicals. When Garlock, Binney, and Hamilton were flocking to Hammond many here didn’t see a problem with it. I found it interesting that Dr. O believes that Hammond preaches “another gospel” of no repentance and that it is nothing to wink at. I got tickled when Phelps said he didn’t ever hear of anyone going to Pastor’s School in Hammond and then all of a sudden he remembered it! Hilarious.

I found it interesting that Phelps seemed a wee bit uncomfortable with Dr. O going on and on in a positive way about JMac. He just had to get a dig in on Calvinists (which he always lumps in with hyper-Calvinists) in the name of “balance” by referencing something that happened at Northland back in the day. In regular Fundy form it turns out that this was a dust up over hyper-Calvinism and not JMac’s reformed theology. Of course I am still waiting for Phelps to publicly apologize for misquoting JMac in that sermon at the FBFI 89th Annual Fellowship at Bethel Baptist in Schaumburg. You can find the sermon here (it is still up and running on sermon audio) and Phelps obviously thought that JMac was a false teacher of “works salvation”.

All in all, I thought Dr. O was fair and balanced. I see now why so many here speak so highly of him. I couldn’t help but think when he mentioned the word, “Circus”, that he may have stumbled upon my old Bread & Circuses blog at some point in time ;-)

Matthew

Matthew, yes, you are correct about Dr. O being fair and balance. Of all the fundamentalist organizations I’ve been exposed to Dr. O & Northland were by far the most balanced when it came to explaining the purposes for rules, policies, and that the attitude of the heart was most important, not outward compliance. Dr. O was about life touching life and a heart submitted to the Lord, not about following rules.

And yet so many people are perfectly content to now marginalize Dr. O and flush away his thirty-five years of life service to NIU. They want NIU to get rid of its legalistic practices and be more gospel centered now than ever. Those are things Dr. O and NIU never was (legalistic) and always was (gospel centered). Dr. O and NIU were never characterized as being legalistic. The Dr. O (& thus NIU) you saw in the video clearly presents a man who is all about the Lord, heart of a person (especially his), and the gospel.

So why are people willing to unnecessarily throw the baby out with the bath water and walk all over Dr. O’s legacy and in doing so wreak senseless havoc on a once thriving institution.

It does not make any sense! But hey, as one blogger said, there is more hope for NIU now than ever. OK … … … . .

Meanwhile more long-time employees of NIU are resigning or are being let go.

As a graduate I always appreciated him during my time there. Very loving, yet committed to the truth. I totally get his point about loyalty. I think it’s easy to critique from the outside saying he should have jumped ship earlier, but after pouring so many years into that ministry wouldn’t most good people want to stay and see if they could help it turn back around before leaving? I appreciate him, and I hope the Lord blesses him in this hard time with good friends to uplift his spirit.

http://bobbixby.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/yeah-northland-friends-and-foes-i-was-wrong/

This to me seems an example of a blogger providing a measure of institutional accountability in the situation at hand…

Not sure how well it reflects on the character of the previous administration, though.

Greg, your question about the character of the previous administration is a valid one.

I disagree with the directional changes of NIU. I also disagree with NIU putting on the Big Daddy Weave concert and being so quiet about it. If anything it comes across as trying to hide the truth if not be outright deceitful.

Bob said that NIU was the driving force for this Big Daddy Weave concert and it was in direct opposition to the board. What does that say then about the leadership integrity of Dr. Olson (because he was at this concert) and then the remaining board members that re-hired him?

I disagree with Bob about the new direction of NIU but I respect his honesty here.

At the end of the day this NIU mess is not about music or standards or what side you are on. It all boils down to trust and integrity. Can we trust the leadership to have integrity (see my point above)? Can we trust anymore the word of NIU’s leadership about where they are going and how they will get there? Can we trust NIU to be honest and open about what they are doing? Can we trust NIU to not be borderline deceitful of what they are doing? Can we trust NIU to have logical & rational reasons for their activities? Are you willing to trust the current version of NIU with your child and $15,000/year of your hard earned money?

Since Bob brought up this issue and the comments about the BDW concert, I believe these are fair and reasonable questions.

The Bixby article was submitted as a Filing this morning when I saw it. Not sure if/when it will get put up.

I found this insightful

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/06/deconstructing-les-ollila-i…