Minnesota Baptist Association Board Withdraws Approval from NIU

I don’t believe the MBA has as much influence as it once had so this decision may not carry much weight in the grand scheme of things related to NIU. However, I don’t think this is an insignificant decision either.

2 questions:

• The MBA approves schools? Nothing on their website about it. What are the approved schools?
• The MBA gives scholarships?

My take: not that significant.

that this includes the men who invited Phil Johnson to speak to them, I think it has some significance.

Why not have the messengers vote on this? Why the board only?

KTB posted the notice on Religious Affections, he might know. Greg probably knows the answer to that one also.

1. It would be good for the Minnesota Board to explain why this step is necessary. Otherwise, people will take from their position whatever they already see or believe to be true. Perhaps a statement is forthcoming?

2. It would be good to know who exactly is on the Board, and how they get there. Is their structure similar to the FBFI, where the Board selects their own members, or are the Board members elected by the membership? If the former, I wonder if the position of the Board lines up with the constituency.

As for me, I find this act grievous, although I certainly do not expect everyone to cheer the direction Northland has taken. I think it widens an artificial chasm between Christians without addressing the underlying issues that cause the division. It simply reiterates that there are sides on this debate and makes clear where they have chosen theirs. It is, of course, their right to do so.

From a Facebook post by Greg L: “[The MBA] had a list of three schools- Northland, Maranatha, and Faith- and that was only because the ladies fellowship (the only scholarship offered in the MBA) didn’t know what to do with collected monies after Pillsbury closed. Even BJU didn’t make the original list. I strongly suspect the whole list will be gone in 2014, as will the lone scholarship.

• 
  The board is suggested by a nominating committee, and approved by the messengers (representatives sent from member congregations). Terms are 3 years. One can serve 2 consecutive terms before taking a mandatory 1 year off.


• 
  I am a board member, but my explanation is informal and indicative of my personal perspective, and not the official position of the Association or Board of Trustees.


• 
  The only reason we began to approve schools was because the Annual Ladies Fellowship has for years taken an offering for a scholarship awarded to one or two (I forget) young women. This always used to go to Pillsbury students before it closed. Since its demise, the ladies fellowship (affiliated with the Association, but like the men’s fellowship, a distinct entity with its own board and budget) asked the MBA board of trustees for direction. The solution arrived at was a short approval list- Northland, Marantha, Faith- three schools that were geographically local and deemed to be in general harmony with the positions and direction of the Association.


• 
  I strongly suspect that the approval list (and for that matter, scholarships) have a short shelf life expectation.


• 
  While this was a decision of the board, I strongly suspect that had the matter been posed to the messengers, the outcome would have been no different.


• 
  The Phil Johnson invitation was made by the Men’s fellowship board (which is elected by the men who attend the event, and I currently chair), and approved by the MBA executive committee, but not unanimously. It is a topic of some discussion. I believe Phil will be a blessing to our men. He was able to sign our position statement “without reservation” (his own words), a document that dates back to the mid-1990s, and contains some rather pointed statements on separation (including defining what a “disobedient brother” is), among other things. As I mentioned to an inquiring individual last fall, Phil has said, “I’m a young-earther, a cessationist, and a pre-trib premillennialist.” His public statements (such as this recent one) identify him as one who takes a clear position against doctrinal compromise. This is someone the Men’s Fellowship committee think is worth identifying as a friend and collaborator, though we realize there will also be occasions where we differ on issues (something which is true even between churches in the Association). The pastors and churches who have most consistently taken advantage of the Men’s event over the last 3-5 years were consulted before the invitation was extended. Many (not all) of those who find the decision most controversial have also been conspicuous in their lack of representation in the Men’s meetings of the last several years.

Can individual churches in the MBA still support NIU? If there had been a vote by the membership, what would have happened if the vote hadn’t been unanimous?

Baptist associations are interesting things to observe.

Can individual churches in the MBA still support NIU?

Sure. There are several examples of schools individual churches support or identify with that aren’t on the list- BJU, Clearwater, PCC, Baptist College of Ministry, Ambassador… some examples that immediately come to mind.

The “approval list” was in itself somewhat controversial among the board as a concept when it was introduced- many were reluctant to the very notion at its inception. But it was the solution arrived at by the board at the time.

To answer Ron’s last question, majority vote wins. Another observation: though this was a board vote and not messengers, I would also say that most of the churches with messengers at the meeting this year also had representation on the board (and not all of the board members are active pastors). This is the group that attended:

More photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151503690521769.1073741825…

[Greg Linscott]… and a pre-trib premillennialist.

Is this point a test of fellowship for the MBA or would it depend on the “whole doctrinal package” more than one point?

[DavidO]

Is this point a test of fellowship for the MBA or would it depend on the “whole doctrinal package” more than one point?

The Association is committed to Dispensationalism, and a pre-trib/pre-mil position in its documents, yes. It is conceivable that a speaker could be approved who was not in wholehearted agreement with a specific articulated position of the Association.

Thanks for the answers. I appreciate it.

Seems like a weird way for the MBA to issue a news item … via the Religious Affections site. Is R/A the “the official organ” of the MBA?

Also … so easy to be misunderstood.

Comments?

As I understand it, Kevin was just reporting on the decision the board made. He is a board member along with Greg and your pastor if I read their website correctly.