Minnesota Baptist Association Board Withdraws Approval from NIU

Greg,

Thanks for your re

spp] 0iua -] r0iuw] i8uhj0u] ronsed

[Greg Linscott]

In some ways, I understand the concern. At the same time, my understanding is JMC is on record saying he will speak the truth anywhere. I can understand the discomfort some have- but at the same time, speaking does not mean you endorse everything an institution stand for. I have heard you speak, for example, at an ACCC meeting- and I was blessed by what I heard. I didn’t assume, however, that you endorsed the variant positions on eschatology and baptism held by some in the room.

Yes, Greg, your understanding is correct. JMac has gone on record has being willing to speak anywhere - and has spoken the truth in several different venues including Larry King Live and specifically that he’d preach for the Pope if the Pope requested an audience.

My guess - and maybe Phil Johnson or someone from GCC will weigh in here - is that JMac will go anywhere, at any time, as long as he can preach the gospel. To do such is evangelism, and should be viewed and handled differently from a conference like the Strange Fire thing coming up or T4G.

My kind of follow up question, then, is how and when did speaking at a conference become a blanket endorsement of all things that go on at a place? It seems to me that we’ve all just kind of picked that up but I’m not sure why or where it came from. Is there some kind of secret decoder ring that I need to consult to find out? ;)

Greg:

Thanks for the response to my concerns about the MBA. I still have a continuing interest in Minnesota, legitimately I think, due to my 14 years at Central and the hundreds of paths that have crossed with mine then and since to this day.

Perhaps I should lay some better foundation points for why I think the MBA board’s decision not to renew approval of NIU as a scholarship designation has significance.

1. I assumed that the conservative evangelicalism of MacArthur/Johnson was practically identical with that of the new Patz/Northland. Thus it seemed inconsistent for the MBA board to withdraw its approval from Northland and still extend its approval, through its Executive Committee, to your men’s fellowship committee for Phil Johnson to headline the MBA state men’s fellowship meeting in September.

2. On the other hand, assuming the Board was acting in self-consistency, what went into its decision-making apparatus that construed something inimical and negative in Northland that set it apart from the very positive context from which came your invitation to Johnson for the the men’s meeting? Was it on doctrinal (e.g. Calvinism), ethical, moral, personal, or what sort of grounds?

I appreciate the fact that the tenor and track of your response indicated rather clearly that you know what the rest of us know, that the elephant in the room is ecclesiastical separation. I think you now have a defining moment to explain how it was implemented, especially toward Northland. I don’t think you had an Ovaltine decoder to guide the process. This can be done straightforwardly, briefly and concisely. These are not “gotcha” questions; no trick or trap overtones at all.

The application of separation can be complicated at times; there is no one size fits all. This case doesn’t seem that bad, but if it is, do your best to untangle it down to the bare principles. I think this request is fair and reasonable, in light of today’s climate on these matters. I will accept and respect your response even though it may differ from my ideas.

Dr. McCune, I’d be happy to respond. Thank you for asking, and in the way that you framed the reply. To clarify, I am only speaking for myself and not the Association, its boards, my church, etc…

A. I can understand why you would think the two “practically identical.” I don’t see it that way. From my perspective, JMc and GCC have been pretty well established in their doctrinal articulations and defense of them, as well as being very outspoken against trends and problems in American Christianity (such as continuationism, as I cited earlier). Some in broader evangelicalism tend to describe JMc and co. as “contentious,” even. In my mind, that speaks of a reputation to take a clear stand on the truth. When I take that general assessment of “which way their feet are pointed,” as some might say, and then see how some of the positions they champion that many in the Association would as well, including dispensational theology, approach to Biblical Counseling, Young-Earth Creationism, and a dedication to expository preaching (among many others), I see that Phil’s presence here will have great benefit, both in what he has to say immediately, and in the general example he provides as one who is committed to contend for the faith in his context (though that may not always be exactly how “we” would do it).

B. NIU, on the other hand, is moving away from a clear articulation of many doctrinal positions. The application of separation may be among them, but in my perspective, the more immediate concerns are the openness to forms of continuationism (including a faculty member at NIU being a member of a continuationist congregation), and an openness to hermenutic principles other than a Dispensational understanding of the Scriptures. The dropping of their previous statement for the NH Confession is evidence that things have gotten much less specific, and as an Association, we still hold to those principles as distinctive to the identity and parameters of our fellowship. NIU, so far as we can tell, continues to preach the gospel, but their distinctive emphases no longer line up with our own as they once did. Their feet, as one again might say, seem to be turned in a decidedly different direction than they once were.

EXTRA: By the way, here is something that Phil J. shared with me personally via an email that I can share with you all that is pertinent to the matter at hand.

If Northland is deliberately dropping their cessationist position and making that point of doctrine totally optional, I think that’s a terrible mistake. Moody Bible Institute quietly dropped their hard-line cessationism a few years back, and lots of doctrinal dominoes seemed to fall along with cessationism. I can understand the value of changes where the goal is to be more biblical and thus tighten the institution’s stance on sola Scriptura, but if a change is being made that undermines the principle of sola Scriptura, that has disaster written all over it.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should also note that the music issue at NIU (and the way it was handled) was of significant concern to many on the board. I share some of that, though I think the doctrinal issues I spoke of earlier that received much less attention were more serious. But even here, Phil J. observed to me:

…I do think they mishandled the music thing. Given their stance in the past, the flap over newer styles of music was predictable, and I think it would have served the administration well to acknowledge up front that this was a deliberate change and (in light of the stress fundamentalists usually place on music styles) a significant one. Better to state openly that the rigid musical restraints they held to in the past were extrabiblical and overly narrow than to try to pretend this is a change of no real consequence.

I also wouldn’t wear that particular change on my sleeve if I were them. I’d try to be more sensitive to people whose consciences have been conditioned to recoil at guitars and percussion. I’m not sure what that means in practical terms. But at the very least, it means I would have issued a position paper explaining the change and the biblical reasons for it before posting a video on YouTube with a pitchy student quintet doing “Pizza and Praise.”

You can quote me.

With interaction like this (as well as other things I’m not sharing), I have come away very confident that Phil J. is a friend from whose ministry the men of our Association who attend the event will be greatly helped. He is someone I can say with some degree of confidence is at the very least a similarly-minded collaborator, though we would have some differences in areas of emphasis and application of important principles. As it applies to NIU, I see that things they either are abandoning or leaving the impression are optional are sufficient enough to warrant the removal of our support.

If I can further clarify, please let me know.

[Greg Linscott]

Some in broader evangelicalism tend to describe JMc and co. as “contentious,” even. In my mind, that speaks of a reputation to take a clear stand on the truth. When I take that general assessment of “which way their feet are pointed,” as some might say, and then see how some of the positions they champion that many in the Association would as well, including dispensational theology, approach to Biblical Counseling, Young-Earth Creationism, and a dedication to expository preaching (among many others), I see that Phil’s presence here will have great benefit

Greg,

I agree that MacArthur often takes positions we in fundamentalism applaud, and it seems that he has done so more consistently recently. However… it’s not like he is unfamiliar with what fundamentalism is nor its positions. He has taken many positions and joined hands with many odd companions in the last thirty years. He has a track record that makes fundamentalists suspicious. When he refers to fundamentalism, it is usually negatively.

Are his feet pointed in the right direction? Maybe. But not unequivocally so.

I’m not wanting to get into a debate about how good or bad MacA and co are, but simply to point out that there is a track record which seems to have feet pointing in many different directions at the same time.

He has taken many positions and joined hands with many odd companions in the last thirty years. He has a track record that makes fundamentalists suspicious. When he refers to fundamentalism, it is usually negatively.

Are his feet pointed in the right direction? Maybe. But not unequivocally so.

I understand what you are saying. But without turning it into a JMc debate, it is rather hard to react to vague descriptors like “many positions” and “odd comapnions.” And we as fundamentalists aren’t exactly immune to criticism. Anyone want to defend BJU’s interracial dating policy again? Anyone want to defend good Fundamentalists involved with Jack Schaap and co. now? I doubt it.

And really, from my personal vantage point, it seems to me that the Ashbrook quote I provided shows that for all intents and purposes, many self-identified Fundamentalists would have effectively put people I trained under and served with in GARBC circles in the same compromising category with MacArthur. As it stands, many of the people I interact with here in Minnesota who have concerns with Phil have at other times expressed suspicion about and unwillingness to identify with Regular Baptists. I do find it interesting, especially in that context, to see how both Phil (in the quotes I provided) and the GARBC (by rescinding the invitation to Matt Olson) found no problems practicing or applying separation principles over matters of doctrine, where a lot of what generated the controversy here is essentially methodological (music).

Yeah, we can leave the MacArthur debate to other times. I used purposely vague terms there because I don’t want to derail this into a discussion of MacArthur. I do have specific things in mind, however.

Going through the list… there are points in history where there were problems with the GARBC - InterCity Baptist pulled out for those problems, remember. Times have changed, it appears that there is a more conservative direction in the GARBC now, so relationships are being forged anew (although not without hesitancy on the part of some).

So there are lots of things to sort out and the theories of fellowship/association/separation are all well and good in the abstract, but rather messy on the ground.

In any case, I think that the MBA decision does mean something, even thought it is only a small part of the story.

[Greg Linscott]

And really, from my personal vantage point, it seems to me that the Ashbrook quote I provided shows that for all intents and purposes, many self-identified Fundamentalists would have effectively put people I trained under and served with in GARBC circles in the same compromising category with MacArthur. As it stands, many of the people I interact with here in Minnesota who have concerns with Phil have at other times expressed suspicion about and unwillingness to identify with Regular Baptists. I do find it interesting, especially in that context, to see how both Phil (in the quotes I provided) and the GARBC (by rescinding the invitation to Matt Olson) found no problems practicing or applying separation principles over matters of doctrine, where a lot of what generated the controversy here is essentially methodological (music).

How about IFCA folks? Phil specifically excluded them from his “Dead Right” Lecture a few years back specifically because they didn’t espouse the kind of separatism that some do (and I’m not thinking of anyone’s separatism paradigm in particular), yet I think that most traditional IFB churches (esp. of the FBFI/BJU circles) would draw lines that would exclude them. I’m sure there are other groups as well, but that was the one that stuck out at me because they were ‘exempted’ at the time.

Appreciate the back and forth between Dr. McCune and yourself. Thanks for sharing. FWIW, I think that Phil’s observations re: NIU are ‘dead right’ (pun intended). I would be FAR more concerned about the DS changes (if/when they are announced) than I ever was about the music, but I’m going to wind up derailing the thread if I don’t stop now :).

Greg:

Thanks for the frank and informative explanation and for the other info thrown in.

Greg,

I appreciated Phil’s take on NIU - to a point.

Not sure I agree though with his language about “consciences being conditioned” and when referring to NIU’s music policy & practices that they were “rigid musical constraints” and “extrabiblical.” He also said that “in light of the stress fundamentalists usually place on music styles.”

I don’t see how anyone with a straight face say NIU preached or practiced that their policies & practices constituted THE way for Everyone to follow All the time. I think it is an overstatement for Mr. Johnson to say Northland Baptist Bible College’s historical practices regarding music were “extrabiblical.”

Regarding “consciences being conditioned,” again I think that is an unnecessary statement. Most of the people I know who do not like CCM music in church (or even in their homes) feel that way out of principles they see to be Biblical, i.e. avoiding wordliness. They are not that way because they were “conditioned.”

Also, I am tired of people commenting about fundamentalists being uptight about music as if the music issue is a Fundy hang-up only, which is definitely not the case.

I appreciate Mr. Johnson’s comments regarding the implementation of NIU’s recent changes, but to me it comes across in a slightful manner. Maybe he didn’t mean to come across that way - or maybe I’m just crabby today. :-)!