Daniel Patz: "We will be a conservative evangelical school with a history of fundamentalism that shapes how we act, live, and love"

Joel,

Your thoughts on Bixby’s comment about Olson and NIU organizing the Big Daddy Weave concert against the wishes of the board?

Not sure that falls into the category of “taking one for the team” and “lead(ing) Northland through the change he believed was right?”

Of course none of us knows the future of Northland, but regarding your point if Northland does “die,” it won’t be because it isn’t now Type A conservative or because of its Redeemed band. It will be because people don’t know it or trust it anymore, or as Daniel Patz alluded to himself, why should people go to another version of Moody in the middle of nowhere when they can go to Moody that is somewhere.

OK - I really, really didn’t want to do this - but you will drag me until I answer this question - so no there are other options than (1) Hang with the cultural fundamentalists alone or (2) embrace Big Daddy.

A third option is the one I’m taking - walk with big or small daddy, mama, bubba and anyone else going the same way I am. Actually I still like some of cultural fundamentalism (don’t tell anyone I actually said that) - I have not handed my brain over to it’s control - I have rejected some of it - yet I’m also not ready to wave my “oh I love all that conservative evangelicalism has to offer” flag either. I pick and choose as I want to. A Baptist here, A Bible church guy there, a Fundamenalist on my right hand, an Evangelical on my left, A Southern Baptist in front of me, a Presbyterian behind me, etc……I personally - I probably would not be looking to hang with Big Daddy - now that’s not enough for me to cut my ties or support to Matt, Daniel, NIU or anyone else. I’m just saying - it’s not the group I’d want to introduce the student body too. I personally would choose a different group - if at all possible.

One more paragraph of thought,

I’m not going to comment on Bob’s comments about what was said or not said, agreed up or not agreed upon from inside the new board or the old board. Two reasons why 1) I’m not comfortable commenting in a situation like this where there is the variety of things being said by those that were there, partially there and not there. Another way of saying that is I don’t like to comment on discussions or the back and forth decisions of groups that afterwords become something of a “he said - she said.” 2) Over the years I’ve served on several ministry boards that have had to make controversial decisions - I personally am not comfortable commenting directly on issues that can only really be fully understood by board members that were there and have the minutes to prove or demonstrate what was or was not said.

Great questions everyone - Straight Ahead!

jt

I suppose that’s ok, being the looser sort as you are…

But Bixby is declaring very publicly that the BDW concert was not just an event that Matt sent recruiters to, but indeed that NIU was hand in glove in planning and promoting the event in question. I think the desire to hush the thing up when it happened was a problem, but if what Bixby says is true, it was an even bigger problem than it first appeared. It makes things look even worse than they did before.

mmartin asking you the questions is pertinent in light of your strong statements in support of Matt in the post higher up the thread.

referring to D.P.’s vision.

will limit my thoughts b/c if I say any more, it will be shredded here :D

Our young people are at Northland Camp as I type. Yesterday my Assistant Pastor (who is there with the group) told me that there is a great spirit among the camp staff. I, for one, appreciate Daniel Patz’ articulated vision and can support it 100%. And, my guess is that I’m not alone in this… Time will tell if enough new supporters will come forward to keep the school viable.

[Mike Harding] {Northland] didn’t need saving ten years ago when it was clearly a fundamentalist school.

I wonder if that’s causation or merely correlation. Perhaps the leader back then was simply more charismatic or some other (melange of) less obvious factor(s).

I actually hope for the best in their move toward confessionalism, if they’re serious about it and can pull it off. A school doesn’t seem to me to be the place for it, especially so far downstream from its origins. Then again, NIU is essentially a brand new school as of now.

And if they stick with the New Hampshire (which is more than fine with me), that in itself would, I’d think, turn away much of the non-/anti- calvinist contingency.

I feel like I’m watching the Toyota commercial: Husband “we want big”, wife “not that big’; husband “we want red”, wife “not that red”….

Dan says: (“We want big, but not that big”)
“Why Northland when you have Moody, Wheaton, Cedarville, Boyce, Cornerstone, Trinity, Liberty, and many other high quality Christian colleges and universities? Because we are not those places.”

Then he says: (“We want red, not that red”)
“There is a need for a seriously happy, passionate training ground for ministry that provides a bridge-ministry to those in fundamentalism moving to conservative evangelicalism. People formerly or currently connected with BJU, Maranatha, Pillsbury, Clearwater, etc are filled with godly people, but people who no longer embrace the old cultural fundamentalism.”

I think NIU has several problems going forward, and they really don’t have to do with being F/or CE but practicality:
1. INTERNET COURSE DEGREES: Liberty has built theirs up, Maranatha is developing theirs and Piedmont has had theirs up and going for several years. NIU shut down their internet offerings a couple of years ago. Cost is going to be the driving force for the hybrid education 2 yrs at local Community College then 2 yrs of on-line courses, all the while the student continues to be developed by a local church.
2. LOCATION: Drive the E/W 80/90 corridor or the N/S 81/95 corridor, then ask why do I need to drive 5+ hours off the corridor to the middle of nowhere?
3. PIPELINE: A bridge is fine but it simply gets you from point “A” to point “B”. The Parents, pastors and churches that are in the Cedarville, Cornerstone, Liberty, Wheaton Camps aren’t going to change now to NIU. IMHO a “happy, passionate training” bridge school to CE isn’t necessary because of the existence of BBC, Masters, and Piedmont.
4. LEADERSHIP: Cornerstone has a Stowell, Cedarville just brought on a solid man (and Bible Chair), Masters has Mac. Northland/Patz must get this part right or Dan can write all the letters he wants..

Now my ‘hobby horse’, please just simple say we are loosening the rules to reflect our new attitude, but this comment “Christian liberty (versus legalistic structure)” fails to recognize IMHO 2 things; 1) Legalism is a nonbiblical word that has historically meant you must do X,Y, or Z to be saved. 2) Having a set of rules in place does not make one legalistic. There were two thoughts I always heard expressed by Doc O and Northland students that we had come through our church (90’s early 2000’s) “take the high road” and “yes, some of our rules are not found in the Bible, but they help us maintain a certain level of order”.

I wonder if Northland is really opening a new front for “Young Fundamentalists”? There are a large number of young people (and yes they are currently attending schools like BJU), who don’t espouse to the beliefs of this cultural fundamentalism, but don’t want to abandon it entirely. They also aren’t quite ready to jump to Moody or Wheaton. They want to shake the culture but keep with the foundation. I think Northland offers that type of attraction. When I was at BJU, the school was filled with these people, but because they didn’t have much alternative, they went to BJU. I also wonder if this is really such a departure for Northland. This change has been going on for some time, and the graduates are mostly aware of this change. Most of the people I know who are graduating Northland (just graduated) were fine with the direction and really didn’t see it as such a massive change as many outsiders see it as. In fact that is what attracted them to the school. I know I am only speaking by my experience and not concrete numbers here.

[dgszweda] I also wonder if this is really such a departure for Northland. This change has been going on for some time, and the graduates are mostly aware of this change. Most of the people I know who are graduating Northland (just graduated) were fine with the direction and really didn’t see it as such a massive change as many outsiders see it as. In fact that is what attracted them to the school. I know I am only speaking by my experience and not concrete numbers here.

dgszweda,

I would heartily agree with you - I really don’t think that this is “the unexpected quantum leap” that some are making it out to be. NBBC was always like this - but it looked like the normal IFB culture that many here agree with and hold to, so it was never noticed. If there are some that graduated from NIU and went more ‘rightward’ (which isn’t the term I’d like to use, but I don’t have another), my guess is that most of them came from more ‘rightward’ churches in the first place and are more comfortable with the ‘rightward’ side of things than what the school taught. But again, that’s my experience. Of the alumni that I am aware of, less than five were shocked or dismayed at the change. The rest of us (again, that I’ve seen) were comfortable or happy with it - there’s probably 35+ of us.

Drs. Doran and Harding-

Appreciated your posts – thanks for sharing.

I think that I’m slightly talking past you both here. When I wrote what I did in the first post, I was thinking specifically of a few vocal men in ‘fundamentalism’ that have been very quick to advocate separation from conservative evangelicals (and completely agree with Dr. Doran that neither group is clearly defined). There are a few who have capitalized on the NIU issue as an opportunity to burnish their own blog or credentials by pointing out every wart or wrinkle to defend “Fundamentalism” (whatever they mean by that). Those are the people that I was aiming at, not men like you.

Pastors and men like you who had supported NIU in the past, through prayers, financially, ‘talking up the school’ to others, or some other means that I can’t think of right now, have every right to be upset or concerned by this (as you see it) unwelcome change in philosophy. As a NIU alumnus, I am heartened by the changes that I see, and it is not because I ever felt as though NIU was a ‘sectarian legalist’, ‘hyper-separatist’ or those who modeled ‘wicked manifestations of fundamentalism’ – I have never felt that way and do not feel that way now. To be completely honest, I’m not sure where those charges came from and wish that whoever wrote them would repent of their foolishness. As a matter of fact, if it were not for the form of fundamentalism that I saw modeled by Drs. Ollila, Von, Horn, and Doran in classes at Northland (I never got the chance to meet Dr. Bauder personally, although I’d happily lump him in with that group), I probably would not be a Fundamentalist at all. I might have even walked away entirely when I went through my own deep waters a few years after graduation…but I don’t know that for sure and am beginning to digress. I personally am grateful to the school and all of those men because they built a Biblical foundation that has served me well, even some ten plus years later (and counting). Along the way, I made some changes in the way that I would live and would perform ministry, and it was because of that base they laid that I could make changes that I felt were for the better. From what I can tell, NIU is doing the same.

To recommend colleges or universities to potential students is no small task, especially in light of the fact that many thousands of dollars will be spent and that those who graduate from the school will be themselves pastors, missionaries, teachers, and evangelists that will influence others eternally. I personally would heartily recommend NIU for Biblical training, and will continue to do so, the same as I would recommend DBTS, Central, Landale or Master’s (and I’m sure there are other schools as well). Being an NIU alumnus, I might have a harder time recommending MBBC, but that stems more from the old school rivalries than it does any real philosophical difference that I’m aware of.

I guess my real question – and this is off topic, but it might make things clearer – why is there a ‘divide’ between the ‘conservative evangelicals’ and ‘fundamentalists’, especially if both groups are so ill-defined? I wrote an article a few years ago about the importance of unity, and to see people lining up to take sides because they are ‘not of us’ (in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 1, not 1 John 2) disturbs me greatly, because it as an unwarranted (perhaps sinful) attitude of division, strife, and/or factionalism (as far as I can tell). As best I know – and maybe this is only because of where I’ve been – the Christianity of MacArthur, Ollila, Harding, Vaughn, Jones and others is the same thing across the board when it comes to matters of doctrine (although not in how that would present itself in a church setting). So why the controversy or quarreling? Isn’t it enough that there are believers all over the nation that are busy doing the work of the Master? Is this just a case of some falling into classic 2 Thessalonians 3:11-15, Titus 3:9-11, and 2 Peter 3:17-18 behavior?

In any case, I’ve written enough now and need to be heading towards other tasks. My questions are more rhetorical in nature, so please don’t feel as though I’m trying to paint you into a corner or broadbrush you unnecessarily; I mean no animosity towards either of you. Thanks again for the interaction.

Jay,

Time will tell, but I think your statement:

“I wrote an article a few years ago about the importance of unity, and to see people lining up to take sides because they are ‘not of us’ (in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 1, not 1 John 2) disturbs me greatly, because it as an unwarranted (perhaps sinful) attitude of division, strife, and/or factionalism (as far as I can tell).”

Is what is frustrating young people. The risk is that unity trumps everything, so you need to find that balance. Will Northland find a unique balance? I don’t know. But I can tell you there are a ton of young people in fundamentalism frustrated by the overwhelming focus of separation and the lack of drive toward unity. We all know the pitfalls that unity can bring, but I think there is a drive for a more balanced approach. They want the drive for unity, but also strong separation, they just want the line drawn a little different. I think we fool ourselves in thinking that BJU and MBBC are filled with students that are just fully aligned with BJU and MBBC or other institutions. Because that is not the case. Time will tell and we will see. I grew up all my life in fundamentalism and went to a fundamentalist institution, but I “jumped the fence” a few years ago to become a member at a church outside of the fundamentlism wrapper, and it wasn’t as evil as people made it out to be. The gospel is taken significantly more seriously and in some ways separation is greater in some conservative evangelical circles than it was in fundamentalism (and I was a member in some of the smallest and the largest fundamentalism churches, not some country 1611KJV church). The difference is that the focus is on separation where the line is drawn Biblically. We are filled in our church with kids from the area public universities, even though we have absolutely no youth, or college and career classes and even though our shortest sermons are over an hour long. There is no explanation, except that young people are yearning for hearing the gospel, growing in the Word, separating on the Truths, but not dealing with the cultural baggage or the pressure to look exactly like each other.

Keep in mind this was an official statement posted on NIU’s website. Sometime a little review on our own part will catch sentences that absolutely don’t make any sense: “People formerly or currently connected with BJU, Maranatha, Pillsbury, Clearwater, etc are filled with godly people, but people who no longer embrace the old cultural fundamentalism.” He should have at least had one of their English professors proof read it before they put it on the website.

The reason people keep fighting over labels and groups is because people keep insisting on using labels and forcing people into groups. Daniel did it in his release. Jay did it in his post. I had to do it in response to Jay.

As I’ve advocated in other places at other times, since the labels no longer are accurate they are no longer helpful to the discussion. As I hinted at above, what does conservative evangelical mean? Originally it seemed to stand in contrast to the evangelical left (or post-conservative evangelicalism). IOW, it was an evangelical who was not abandoning evangelicalism. But fundamentalists (and post-conservatives) decided to give it their own meaning, something like an evangelical who is almost a fundamentalist. :)

I’ve also advocated over at my place that the usual list of conservative evangelicals does not really distinguish between those who reject the principles of the original New Evangelicalism and those who still embrace them. That, from my perspective, is the real sticking point for me. Some folks labeled as conservative evangelical are exactly where Henry, Ockenga, and the early Billy Graham were. That is not historic fundamentalism.

Jay,

Thanks for your response and explanation.

Yes, I agree with you - using ‘conservative evangelical’ does not delineate between the two, and as far as I can tell, is simply an attempt to group and shame some that one may not agree with. That’s my theory as to why there is the resistance to defining the term (or fundamentalist, for that matter). Personally, I’m trying to avoid using those terms anymore, because there’s two groups defined in the Bible - believers and nonbelievers.

Again, thanks for the interaction. I hope that the GARBC conference goes well for you and that everyone there is encouraged.

Don and others,

So let me say this again - maybe with one more notch of clarity. I’m not commenting on what Bob said because I’ve actually now heard from other leaders who were “there” who have a different take than what Bob has given. That doesn’t mean (at least in my mind) that one or more are being dishonest. It means that like what often happens in a situation like this, we have different views of what was said or not said behind closed doors. Because I was not there, and because I’m getting a different story from multiple sources that have at least first and/or second hand story - why in the world - or how in the world can I comment with certainty. I can’t - so I won’t - at least for now.

Don - I don’t think this is because I’m a “looser” (BTW - Don congrats - I’ve been called many things before on SI - but you are the first to call me a looser - that makes you a winner [or wine-er] or something!) - it is because I’m being careful Don…..at least on this occasion. As far as dancing around the issue - I don’t dance. I’m a Baptist. My feet don’t work that way. It’s one of the reasons I’m looking forward to a glorified body - I’ll finally be able to dance.

One shout out to Dave and Jay - I appreciated the back and forth between you men. Dave and Jay - my opinion (for whatever that’s worth), the vast majority of men who I interact with who would hold the CE label (as I often do as regional coordinator of IBL West) - are indeed doing that because 1) they do reject some of the baggage that they think they see with the fundamentalist label - but 2) they do indeed reject the main of evangelicalism because they are in fact more conservative than the typical evangelical. They would almost to a man reject the original stand of Henry, Fuller, Archer, Ockenga, etc……because of it leading to a compromised evangelicalism. These men are not trying to save liberalism by way of scholarship. They are not trying to infiltrate - except perhaps those guys that are struggling against error inside a group - like the white hats w/i the SBC - who frankly have won battles. To me this is more like the historical fights of the first generation of fundamentalism than newevagelicalism. I do agree with you that a precise definition that is universally agreed upon (fundamentalist, evangelical, etc…..) is anything but a reality.

Straight Ahead!

jt