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

A couple of comments:

(1) What I don’t see anywhere these days, at least as far as I know, is a commitment of a Bible college, institute, or seminary to see to it that graduates are FLUENT in the Bible. Students study the languages, hermeneutics, survey, etc., but they are not immersed in reading and studying the Scriptures themselves. Textbooks about the Scriptures are no substitute for absorption with the Scriptures.

I graduated from Moody in 1979. To pass OT Survey I, OT Survey II, and NT Survey, students had to sign a statement that they read through the Biblical text (all of it). When I had Renald Showers for Pastoral Epistles, for example, a class requirement was to read through each epistle 40 times. I also took shower for I & 2 Corinthians, and I think we had to read through them 10 or 15 times.

I know too many folks with advanced theological degrees who are not fluent with the Biblical narratives and texts. This is ridiculous. Better to know the Scriptures than to know all the other stuff.

(2) Everything is moving LEFT. Anything perceived as arrogant or snobby or trite (like secondary separation — whether it is or is not snobby, it is being perceived as such) is on the way out. Hanging onto the fundamentals is the best case scenario, IMO. Still, it grieves me that we are into arguing about music or how much grace we give to people who do questionable things, and we are not really focusing upon the Word. It is our weariness with the Bible that will do us in, not Christian rock groups. And both fundamentalists and evangelicals are branching into other emphases because they are tired of the Word or no longer believe in its power (practically).

[Joel Tetreau]

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.

Fair enough, and I am not accepting Bob’s viewpoint verbatim, but just thought you might be less strong in defense of Matt as a result of these developments.

but on to the main point of my reply…

[Joel Tetreau] 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.

I don’t think I called you “a looser” but described you as “looser” than folks like me. I pondered over the term to use, and I admit that it is perhaps not the best one. I am glad to know you don’t dance! Except perhaps on posts online… but I guess we all might do that from time to time.

Ed,

As a Bible major/Greek Minor I had a total of 64 credits in Bible and Greek during my undergrad at BJU. This included a great deal of English Bible courses. In undergrad Greek we translated the entire books of 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, John, Galatians, Philippians, Romans, 1 and 2 Peter, James, 1-3 John and portions of Luke and Acts. In one two-credit undergrad course on the minor prophets taught by Jesse Boyd we had to read all the minor prophets every week. In my undergrad Acts class we had to read the entire book each week. When I did my MA at BJU in Bible we had to learn the chapter content of the entire OT/NT and take repeated exams on it, including comp tests at the end of the MA on the entire chapter content of the Bible. In my M.Div. and Th.M. courses at DBTS we took many Hebrew and Greek exegetical courses on whole books of the Bible which included full translation, exegesis, and systematic theological study of those books, not to mention the rapid Hebrew reading/rapid Greek reading courses. My point is that I didn’t experience in my training the concerns that you voiced. However, I think your concerns are valid in some cases at some institutions. My OTI teacher at BJU and Hebrew History teacher both assigned the entire OT to be read as a requirement for each course.

Ed, at FBBC we had to read through the OT for OT Survey and the NT for NT survey. Like Mike, my experience was the opposite of what you said is happening nowadays (of course this was way back in 1994-1998).

When I was at BJU, we had to read the OT for OTI and the NT for NTI, plus there was a list of chapters and the corresponding content which had to be memorized for ‘easy’ quiz and test points. I still have both lists and refer to them often.

I played too much basketball and studied too little!

Oh yeah…….

Well when I was at IBC…..in my MA program

Not only did I have have to read the OT in OTI and OTT - and I also had to read the NT in NTI and NTT - but we had to memorize the whole Bible and had to quote it - blindfolded!

As a matter of fact I almost was turned away from DBTS because I actually had too much Bible knowledge.

OK - beat that you fish slayers you! :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

(please and for the three of you who never know when I’m joking - I’m joking on this post)

the vagaries of English. Two words with completely differentiated by one “o”. Don meant the one with two and Joel misinterpreted it to mean the word with only one.

[Don Johnson]

[Joel Tetreau] 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 - SNIP

I don’t think I called you “a looser” but described you as “looser” than folks like me. I pondered over the term to use, and I admit that it is perhaps not the best one. I am glad to know you don’t dance! Except perhaps on posts online… but I guess we all might do that from time to time.

As a whole, the statement is very encouraging and gives many of us some hope. Daniel Patz (and board) evidently labored hard before the Lord to discern God’s will for Northland. Right. That’s a no-brainer. But consider that they knew the statement would be “red-flagged” and publically judged. Yet, they resisted taking a side that would please many, most, or even a major constituency. Before you write me off as simple and superficial (though I am), let me ask if that is not the most encouraging factor to be found in this statement? After all, this is evidence of what has driven leadership at Northland for years and, hopefully, still does. Pleasing God matters more than pleasing men.

Even as a camp ministry in the north woods under Paul Patz, the goal was a humble obedience to God alone. This a huge step in the right direction at a crucial time. Having closely observed Northland these last years, I can affirm Doc O’s comments concerning PR and pragmatism at the recent Q & A. Hopefully, this signals an end to reliance on what God has proven already to be foolish – man’s wisdom. The vision being articulated presently seems to be one birthed from a perspective on the Bema and obedience to the commission and commands of scripture given to present day believers. Principles seem to be taking precedence over public relations and opinion. I am encouraged! Imho, this is a “hinge” to turn on if future ministry at Northland is to be fruitful. That is why I find it encouraging. This vision is nuanced and couched in a sincere servant sprit and genuine humility that fears God and honors His word. It is good to see some of the old Northland in the new soil.

Conservative evangelical? How can one even explain himself today with labels? Recently asked by a search committee about fundamentalism and separation, I know the difficulty in being understood with words freighted by every listener’s experience and theology. It does take some explaining. I used both labels in my answer and still came down differently than Daniel. Yet I take no issue with his definition of future direction and will wait, with all, to see what it really means. Northland has never been an institution to take knee-jerk positions nor align itself for the sake of being politically correct or popular. Steering clear of the ditches (which some readers here seem to think are driving lanes) in pursuit of biblical obedience has always been a stewardship principle guiding its leadership. That is why some have never been comfortable with Northland. They don’t do “party-speak.” Pressure has often been exerted but never appreciated. Many have been the self-appointed leaders who have pressured Doc O and Dr. Olson to take their “pet” positions and camp on their campgrounds. Both worked hard at discerning the Lord’s mind and stewarding the ministry according to God’s mind as revealed in His Word. Did they do so perfectly? (If you need an answer to that question, you’re asking the wrong questions.)

Hope lies in what appears to be an honest consideration before God alone as to who and what Northland should be. Biblical wisdom is being sought with humility in an effort to discern a servant’s responsibility. This is far more important than a position on music, labels, and second-degree separation. Does the present direction please me? Does that even matter? I will not answer at the Bema for Doc O, Dr. Olson, nor Daniel Patz. Whether or not Northland’s direction proves to be God honoring and fruitful is something we all must wait to see. Are there concerns? Yes. God’s grace is sufficient if they pursue it. I pray and hope they discern obedience to mean separation and purity before God and before men. But I pray they get their definitions and directions from God and not men. It appears they are trying to do so while under fire. That’s a good sign.

BTW, Some have mistaken a lack of grammatical precision to be serious enough to publicly chide Northland. Actually, this may indicate something positive. Perhaps it was a mistake of passion getting ahead of precision. That can be a good thing. Speak with your heart or speak with your head. One is a harbinger of grace (if biblically sound) while the other is a harbinger of nothing necessarily spiritual whatsoever (even when biblically sound). Unregenerate men can speak precisely but they cannot discern God’s wisdom precisely. Not all of us are insulted by Daniel’s choice of words and punctuation. I’d be more insulted if his motive was to speak precisely first and wisely second. Passion pulls back the curtain of a man’s heart sometimes and lets you see what he is really thinking. Rare is the man who can identify the core needs of a ministry’s soul and apply scriptural truth to it. But many can say something precisely with speaking principally. Give me the latter any day. An honest man can find a proofreader but a finding an honest and humble man is not so easy. Only a spiritual man can speak God’s wisdom. Amen to Daniel. His “slip” gives me assurance of sincere character and vision (which is always of greater value than mere intellect)! For others who took issue with his “slip,” well, let’s say some may wonder if they did not have a “slip” of their own. (As grammarians can see, there is no hope for me.)

Bill Phillips

As usual, your thoughts encourage me, brother Phillips.

In the last paragraph I typed, “But many can say something precisely with speaking principally.” It should read, ” …without speaking principally.” My slip this time!

[Wm Phillips]

In the last paragraph I typed, “But many can say something precisely with speaking principally.” It should read, ” …without speaking principally.” My slip this time!

Not only did I mess that up but my proofreader noticed this morning, I used “latter” when I should have said “former.” Passion and exhaustion are not a good combination. Thanks. I often serve as my best example but not always in the manner intended!

[Ed Vasicek]

A couple of comments:

(1) What I don’t see anywhere these days, at least as far as I know, is a commitment of a Bible college, institute, or seminary to see to it that graduates are FLUENT in the Bible. Students study the languages, hermeneutics, survey, etc., but they are not immersed in reading and studying the Scriptures themselves. Textbooks about the Scriptures are no substitute for absorption with the Scriptures.

I graduated from Moody in 1979. To pass OT Survey I, OT Survey II, and NT Survey, students had to sign a statement that they read through the Biblical text (all of it). When I had Renald Showers for Pastoral Epistles, for example, a class requirement was to read through each epistle 40 times. I also took shower for I & 2 Corinthians, and I think we had to read through them 10 or 15 times.

I know too many folks with advanced theological degrees who are not fluent with the Biblical narratives and texts. This is ridiculous. Better to know the Scriptures than to know all the other stuff.

(2) Everything is moving LEFT. Anything perceived as arrogant or snobby or trite (like secondary separation — whether it is or is not snobby, it is being perceived as such) is on the way out. Hanging onto the fundamentals is the best case scenario, IMO. Still, it grieves me that we are into arguing about music or how much grace we give to people who do questionable things, and we are not really focusing upon the Word. It is our weariness with the Bible that will do us in, not Christian rock groups. And both fundamentalists and evangelicals are branching into other emphases because they are tired of the Word or no longer believe in its power (practically).

WELL SAID Ed.

[Jay]

When I was at BJU, we had to read the OT for OTI and the NT for NTI, plus there was a list of chapters and the corresponding content which had to be memorized for ‘easy’ quiz and test points. I still have both lists and refer to them often.

Hope it is still that way at BJU. I think at one time this Bible content fluency was more universal in Bible colleges and conservative seminaries. Not sure it still is, which is my point. My suggestion is that things have changed since the new millennium. Perhaps not in SI circles.