Mohler joins hands with Mormons

We have Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, the guiding citadel in the SBC for graduate work, being asked to come and speak at Brigham Young University, the guiding citadel for educating Mormon young people. And what brought about this meeting? Why, the heated debate concerning marriage, of course. Because of the ungodly push to pervert the institution of marriage, Mohler was invited to BYU to speak on behalf of traditional marriage.  Now some who call themselves fundamentalists have chimed in to say that there’s nothing really wrong with this picture, that Mohler at BYU to speak on marriage is just perfectly fine (see here and here) or not wise (see here and here). Now this same professor also stated once that he too could speak at a Mormon gathering without any qualms, given certain caveats which it seems Mohler was given or at least took since he distanced his theology from Mormon theology.[1] Mohler sound so similar to another evangelical, actually the father evangelist of evangelicalism, Billy Graham. Graham had this to say in his autobiography concerning the controversy over the 1957 New York crusade, “My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.” (Just As I Am, pp. 303, 304)

Mohler is to be applauded for his unwillingness to share any theological commonality with his audience. And far too many are quick to laud him and let this incident stand as something quite acceptable. We must however, look at what brought Al Mohler to BYU. The issue at stake that brought Mohler to BYU is the onslaught of damage being done to the institution of marriage by our modern culture. True enough, a worthy topic to be spoken on by Christians. But do we have common ground with Mormons concerning Biblical marriage? The answer is a clear, unequivocal, NO!

What is Biblical marriage? Well, let’s let the Bible do its own speaking. Genesis. 2:18-24 records the first marriage, instituted and instigated by God Himself with Adam and Eve. We see that it was one man, one woman, for life. They were to leave their parents and embark on a new life together as one. In the Gospels we find Christ reiterating this understanding of marriage (Matt. 19:3-6) and we find that marriage is for this present life only, there are no continuing effects of marriage in heaven (Matt. 22:23-30).

Now, is this also the Mormon view of marriage? And the answer is…NO. What was the audience thinking when Mohler spoke of marriage? Well, Mormon doctrine taught them that we were initially spirit babies begotten by our Heavenly Father and Mother. Eventually, these spirit babies make it into the temporal world as humans living on this earth. The Mormon understanding of marriage is that they are to make their marriage a celestial marriage by having a wedding ceremony in a Mormon Temple which will seal their marriage for time and eternity.

 “Celestial Marriage essential to exaltation Another thing that we must not forget in this great plan of redemption and exaltation, is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fullness of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and all eternity in a temple; then their union will last forever…

“Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end…No man shall receive the fullness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall receive that blessing alone;…No man can obtain that exaltation without receiving the covenants that belong to the priesthood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 40, 43 &44 {as quoted in The Bible and Mormon Doctrine, Sandra Tanner, p. 8})

So, were Al Mohler and the Mormons actually talking about the same thing when talking about “marriage”? Like so many other common words used by Christians and Mormons, they don’t mean the same thing to both groups. Believers, or more specifically the Bible has one meaning for words and Mormons, using those same words, have a completely different meaning. Mohler and the Mormons were not even on the same page in the conversation that they had. Which ultimately begs the question, Why DID Al Mohler accept the invitation to speak at BYU?

Now, for some marriage is a social, cultural issue, or at least they are trying to paint it as such so as to avoid any theological entanglements with some. But is it just a social, cultural phenomena? Well, here are the passages of Scriptures cited earlier which speak on the subject of marriage.

 

Genesis 2:18-24

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

Matthew 19:3-6

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Matthew 22: 23-30

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

 

Is it not possible to view from the Scriptures a “doctrine” of marriage? Do we not gather other portion of Scriptures and label them, “the doctrine of _________”?  Is not the very concept of one man+one woman=one flesh (marriage) a Biblical truth and not just a social construct? We get our understanding, our beliefs concerning marriage, what it is, what constitutes it, etc., from the Bible and as such, it is then a teaching, a doctrine, if you will. Al Mohler went to BYU to arguably unite together with Mormons to push back at the societal devolution of the definition of marriage. He yoked himself together with Mormons on the topic of marriage. This is not just an “unwise” decision. With the differences of beliefs as to what “marriage” is that exists between the Bible and Mormon doctrine, one then really wonders just what was Mohler doing there in the first place. He spoke of the differences that exist in other beliefs yet he ostensibly seeks to equate the Biblical definition of marriage with the Mormon definition since he does not address the vast differences between said beliefs as he speaks of marriage. Should we really be esteeming this man Mohler?

---

[1] “Yes, anywhere means anywhere. If the Mormons seriously invited me to their Tabernacle to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism), I would go—subject to certain considerations. First, I would have to be free to say whatever I thought was the truth, including that Mormonism is a cult. Second, they should never expect me to recognize them in any way as Christians, or to imply that we were seeking some common ground. Third, they should never expect any return invitation from me, especially not if it would give them an opportunity to present their views” (taken from comments at SI, can be found here).

What about the blood of Christ?

I’ve let the dust settle some on the conversation that I note further down before bringing up this question, what about the blood of Christ? This is a question in regards to John MacArthur that will not go away regardless of how many times some at SharperIron will trot out links to MacArthur’s statement. Sure, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ and only the most inane would say anything to the contrary, but what does he believe about the blood of Christ?

Over at Sharper Iron, some have brought it back to people’s attention. Some men are expecting some level of apology for past statements by fundamentalists, and fundamental fellowships (in this case the FBFI). While everyone trots out the words of condemnation by various men against MacArthur, no one is actually bringing up what John MacArthur has said. I find this quite odd. Some are quick to jump on the FBFI for their past denunciation of MacArthur yet no one is looking at what John MacArthur has said to see if it is worth denouncing. Any denunciation is simply and quickly dismissed seemingly just because it is against MacArthur. Here are links to the comments referred to above (see here and here and here and here). By using excerpts from Rolland McCune’s Systematic Theology as a support of John MacArthur, a commentor gives the reader the idea that what MacArthur believes is the same as what McCune articulates (see here). Again, this is done without one quote from MacArthur.

This does beg us to respond to the proverbial elephant in the room, that being, what does MacArthur say about the blood of Christ? It is not enough to say, yes, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ. This statement means nothing. It says nothing as to what MacArthur actually believes about that blood.

So, let’s let John MacArthur speak for himself. Here are some quotes from MacArthur himself about the blood of Christ. The first two are transcribed from this audio of Phil Johnson and John MacArthur talking about this very thing (found here).

“I have tried to make that distinction—that when the New Testament refers to salvation by His blood that it is not talking about salvation by His fluid. It uses blood as a metaphor or a synonym for death because it conveys the violence of it.” (emphasis mine)

“When the New Testament is talking about the blood of Christ it is talking about the death of Christ, but it uses blood because that is a metaphor that speaks of the violence of his death.” (emphasis mine)

In the audio you’ll notice that several times MacArthur will build strawmen arguments about his beliefs. These strawmen have nothing to do with the controversy surrounding him about his belief about the blood.

Let’s also look into MacArthur’s commentary writing to find what else he says about the blood. In his commentary on Hebrews, The New Covenant—part 3 (9:15-28) he writes,

“The second reason for the death of Christ was that forgiveness demands blood. This truth is directly in line with the previous point, but with a different shade of meaning. Blood is a symbol (emphasis mine) of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a testator’s having to die in order for a will to become effective.” (p. 236)

“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized (emphasis mine) by the shedding of His physical blood.” (p. 237)

“The purpose of the blood was to symbolize (emphasis mine) sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin.” (p.237)

“Since the penalty for sin is death, nothing but death, symbolized (emphasis mine) by the shedding of blood, can atone for sin.” (p. 237. 238)

Now, when the Scriptures speak of the blood of Christ is this what we are supposed to think? That it is simply a symbol for His death? Now granted MacArthur says many good things in this commentary about the blood of Christ but as we see with the above excerpts those good statements are interspersed with these.

Those at SI noted about how this issue of MacArthur and the blood hasn’t gone away. Well, of course it hasn’t and it’s not going to go away. Every new copy of MacArthur’s Hebrews commentary placed into the hands of each new preacher or lay person will raise this question again and again.

Now before, some go to the extremes, no, I am not of a Romanish bent that the blood of Christ is eternally being offered, okay. I am asking this question though. Is Christ’s blood merely, simply a symbol for His death? I don’t think so. MacArthur leads us to think that Christ’s blood and His death are one in the same thing with his use of the words synonym, metaphor, and symbol/symbolize.

More important than what a man thinks about a subject, what does the Scriptures say? Let’s look at several passages beginning in Genesis.

Genesis 9:3, 4

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

God gave commandment to Noah and his sons that they could eat animals now but not the blood because the life of the flesh is the blood. God sets apart blood here giving it a special emphasis.

Ex 12:7, 13, 22, 23

And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Notice that in the initiation of the Passover, God says nothing about the animal sacrifice that was consumed that night as being efficacious, but He does mention that the blood must be applied to the doorposts and lintels of their homes. The death of the animal was not sufficient, the blood must be applied.

Exodus 24:4-8

And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.

And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Again, we notice that animals are sacrificed but then specifically the blood is reserved for a special purpose, being sprinkled on the altar and upon the people. Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary make this statement;

The division of the blood had reference to the two parties to the covenant, who were to be brought by the covenant into a living unity…For this was not a mixture of different kinds of blood, but it was a division of one blood, and that sacrificial blood, in which animal life was offered instead of human life, making expiation as a pure life for sinful man, and by virtue of this expiation restoring the fellowship between God and man which had been destroyed by sin. But the sacrificial blood itself only acquired this signification through the sprinkling or swinging upon the altar, by virtue of which the human soul was received, in the soul of the animal sacrificed for man, into the fellowship of the divine grace manifested upon the altar, in order that, through the power of this sin-forgiving and sin-destroying grace, it might be sanctified to a new and holy life. In this way the sacrificial blood acquired the signification of a vital principle endued with the power of divine grace; and this was communicated to the people by means of the sprinkling of the blood. As the only reason for dividing the sacrificial blood into two parts was, that the blood sprinkled upon the altar could not be taken off again and sprinkled upon the people; the two halves of the blood are to be regarded as one blood, which was first of all sprinkled upon the altar, and then upon the people. In the blood sprinkled upon the altar, the natural life of the people was given up to God, as a life that had passed through death, to be pervaded by His grace; and then through the sprinkling upon the people it was restored to them again, as a life renewed by the grace of God. In this way the blood not only became a bond of union between Jehovah and His people, but as the blood of the covenant, it became a vital power, holy and divine, uniting Israel and its God; and the sprinkling of the people with this blood was an actual renewal of life, a transposition of Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it was filled with the powers of God’s spirit of grace, and sanctified into a kingdom of priests, a holy nation of Jehovah (Ex. 19:6). And this covenant was made ‘upon all the words’ which Jehovah had spoken, and the people had promised to observe. Consequently it had for its foundation the divine law and right, as the rule of life for Israel.

In the opening chapters of Leviticus, God lays out His instructions for how service was to be rendered in the Tabernacle. In the first 8 chapters of Leviticus, “blood” is used some 39 times (88 times in the whole book). Since the use of this word is in conjunction with the actual sacrificing (i.e. the death of an animal) and it’s use is differentiated from the animal itself, then it seems most reasonable to understand that “blood” is not synonymous with, a metaphor for, or symbolizes the “death” of the animal as John MacArthur leads us to believe by his statements. The reason is obvious, animals were sacrificed on the altar AND their blood was sprinkled on or applied to certain objects or persons. BOTH the sacrifice of the animal was necessary AND the applying of the blood was necessary. Two acts were accomplished to satisfy God’s commands to His people, not one or the other, BOTH must be done. God also makes it very clear in Lev. 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” that it is the blood that is in view here, not just the animal sacrifice on the altar. This is BOTH/AND not either/or, a synonym, a metaphor, or symbolizes.

I move on to the New Testament. We know that all those sacrifices, which could never take away sin, were a foreshadow of the One Perfect sacrifice for sin, the Lord Jesus Christ. The very fact in our partaking of communion, the Lord’s Table, shows the significance of the BOTH/AND. In the bread we remember, “This is my body, which was broken for you,” we also partake of the fruit of the vine (grape juice), “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” We do not partake of one element recognizing that they are symbolical, a metaphor, or a synonym of the other.

The Scriptures paint an entirely different picture. For in the Scriptures, both in the many OT sacrifices and in the NT’s presentation Christ’s sacrifice, we see a BOTH/AND when it comes to the blood and death. Whether it is the Passover, where the lamb is given and whose body is to be consumed by the family AND its blood applied to the doorposts and lintel or the sanctifying of the Tabernacle with the sacrifice of the animal on the altar AND the sprinkling of all things associated with the Tabernacle with the blood, to the Day of Atonement where once again an animal is sacrificed on the altar AND its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, we see that BOTH a sacrifice (the death of an animal) AND its blood sprinkled were to be done. Not one or the other but BOTH were necessary, thus eliminating the idea of just taking some blood from an animal and letting it live and also not just killing an animal and sacrificing its body on the altar. The complete fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Old Testament is seen in the sacrifice and shed blood of our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So, does John MacArthur believe in the blood of Jesus Christ? The answer is yes, but more importantly is what MacArthur believes about His blood. John MacArthur, in the very least, has portrayed a very poor picture of the blood of Christ. John MacArthur has done what John MacArthur seems to do best, over react in the opposite direction to some error of extreme. His Lordship Salvation as articulated in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, is an overreaction to easy believism. His statements on the blood of Christ are an overreaction to those extremists who have taken the blood of Christ into the realm of possessing various mystical powers.

Let’s let the Scriptures say what It has to say and not twist and pervert them to mean something It doesn’t.

Removing the question mark ? on NIU: We’re Evangelical

In a previous article I posed the question, Is NIU Fundamental? While the article went on to lay out some activities at NIU that I believe exposed the drift away from fundamentalism and into evangelicalism, now we have NIU making its own statement as to where they are in this spectrum. Howard Patz (son of Paul Patz founder of Northland camp and the college/university) is stepping down from the chairmanship of the board of directors and the mantle has been offered to Daniel Patz a grandson of the founder, alumnus of NIU, and pastor of an Evangelical Free Church in America (EFCA) which is part of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals). Daniel Patz is clearly a self-identified Evangelical and he’s been offered the chairmanship of the board of NIU. Would a fundamentalist institution of higher learning extend the offer of chairmanship of the board of directors to an evangelical? Answer: No!

NIU also has dropped their current statement of faith and adopted the New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1853. While they state that this adoption is provisionally pending a review, they have noted, “Our president, the Board of Directors, and our Bible faculty have all signed the New Hampshire Confession in support of what it affirms.” One must ask the question, why did they drop their existing statement of faith? One conjecture would be that they needed to bring their statement of faith into line with their new practice and rather than doing the obvious and remove portions of their current statement they instead adopt a new one, provisionally, of course, and thus, rather quickly and quietly have eliminated those portions which needed to be “adjusted.” Now as they adopt, change, revise this new confession of faith, they will have their “doctrine” in line with their new found “practice.” Their now “old” statement of faith put them squarely violating their own statements. Something had to be done, they couldn’t just continue to ignore their own statement, too many of us have called them out on this. But I digress somewhat.

Should we be surprised by the events of the past two weeks? In one sense, yes. On April 29^th the board had a meeting in which Matt Olson was called in and for all intents and purposes was fired. He was given notice that his termination as president was effective graduation day, May 11^th. Matt Olson was given the nod to make his termination known to the school on the following Monday in chapel. He did so in a gracious manner. Now move forward one week from that chapel announcement and according to Daniel Patz on his facebook page, the Patz family was meeting on Monday, May 6^th at 7pm and he was requesting prayer for that meeting. Two days later on May 8^th another board meeting takes place. While the events of this board meeting aren’t very public at this point, it is quite clear that there was a power struggle within the board and the Patz family board members made their desires known. It is known that four non-Patz family board members resigned at the May 8^th meeting. It looks like this restructured board then voted to reinstate Matt Olson as president to which he accepted and this was announced the following day in chapel along with the announcement that Howard Patz was stepping down as chairman and the offer of the chairmanship was being extended to Daniel Patz who has yet to give his official acceptance. Here is a link to NIU’s May 11^th announcement about the May 8^th board meeting (found here). Notice nothing was said of the resignation of 4 board members even though they apologize for their lack of communication in the past they continue with a lack of communication about what took place. Another point of a lack of communication is the financial concerns which were mentioned which caused Matt Olson to be released at the April 25^th board meeting. What about those financial concerns? Did they disappear over the course of a week and a half, so that Matt Olson could be re-hired? It is rumored about that the endowment that the Patz family set up for NIU is depleted. NIU has been running in the red and seemingly relying on the principal of that endowment rather than just the interest. I understand, this is a bit of speculation on my part, because there has been a lack of communication on the part of NIU concerning their financial viability, so much for transparency.

Matt Olson a while ago in one of his articles mentioned “transparency.” The goings on at NIU have been anything but “transparent.” Instead, some secrecy, some cover up has been the modus operandi of NIU. A rock band is initiated in January of this year but is not made public until April 2^nd only to be removed from the home page of NIU’s website two days later and left buried within their website pages. This begs the question, why wait some three months before announcing this recruiting tool? This same band was on stage with Big Daddy Weave in concerts in Oshkosh, and Wausau, WI in February. At the Oshkosh event some 40 students from NIU and Matt Olson were present “recruiting” for NIU. As the presence of the students and Matt Olson  became public knowledge, no mention of the band was given and NIU quickly downplayed their presence by insisting they just had a booth there for recruiting and Matt Olson just happened to be given the opportunity to speak to the crowd. Instead, this event was put on by Lamplight Productions which has strong ties to NIU and NIU’s own band was part of the event. The band was never mentioned in all this kerfuffle back in February, so much for “transparency.”

Then there’s the NIU chapel speaker, Guy Conn, pastor of Fox River Christian Church, and the video link of his church service which initially was open for public viewing and then suddenly that one video (link here) became members only accessible and cannot be found on the church’s webpage for sermons (link here) hmmm…

“Transparency” and “stonewalling” are not synonyms. Instead, they are more like antonyms, yet Matt Olson and crew would try to have us believe that they are synonyms by the actions that they have taken this past semester with the direction change that has been going on for quite some time at NIU. Even with the change Matt Olson and even Les Ollila initially told us that there were no changes going on at NIU. I am thankful that that “no change change” has been dropped. That makes for a little glimmer of transparency along the lines of being, say, translucent instead of stonewalling. But in the end, the change that has been ongoing has brought NIU clearly, squarely into full-orbed evangelicalism and away from any version or strain of fundamentalism.

Where does this leave us? As fundamentalists, with one less college to send our young people to for higher education; for evangelicals, it gives them a college in the north woods of WI, where they use a dog sled team to take you from Green Bay to Dunbar. Surely there will be standing room only for young people flocking to NIU to enjoy their winters instead of the balmier places available say, in Illinois, Ohio, or California. The future looks bleak for a once fine institution. This is tragic.

 Addendum:

Just today, May 13th, Matt Olson at his blog writes and notes that four board members stepped resigned at the May 8^th board meeting (link here). In this article, Matt Olson says nothing of the Patz family of the evening of May 6^th two days prior to the board meeting in question. Matt Olson states,

On the evening of May 8, the chairman of the board, Howard Patz, clarified for the rest of the board the history of Northland, as well as the direction he believed it should now take. After some discussion, four members of the board graciously and respectfully resigned. Nothing was forced, and it was a grace-filled meeting.

Right, the Patz family meets one week after Matt Olson publicly announces his termination and two days after the family meeting the board meets, Howard Patz reviews the history of NIU and four board members (all non-Patz family members) resigned. All this after constantly being reminded this past year or so by Matt Olson at his blog and NIU’s vidcasts that he and the Patz family are together with what Matt Olson is doing.

The sane ones have left the Titanic.
Read also: Is NIU Fundamental

What does the future hold for NIU?

Jay- If this story is true, I hope that all the people who were antagonistic to Olson and the direction of NIU are now satisfied.  Not that I expect that they will be, but they got their wish.  Congrats, guys...you forced a man out of his job.  Nice going! 

 

David O- Yes, a few internet miscreants steer the ship of a whole university.  If that's the case, they have bigger problems than the ones their critics have been alleging. 

 

GregH- If it was not the rabid bloggers that made the difference, what did make the difference? So let them pat themselves on the back for a while. They won a battle though I don't think there is much evidence they are winning the war.

 
Such is the nonsense being spewed at SI of late. Do these guys really think that a couple of bloggers really brought down Matt Olson? Really? You guys don’t think very highly of the current board members by such foolish statements. You make the board out to be some kind of marionette puppets with the bloggers pulling the strings behind the scenes. No NIU board of director ever contacted this blogger and I haven’t contact any board member. As a matter of fact, I don’t even know who is on the board of directors. The above listed commentators are only fooling themselves with such nonsensical keyboard ranting. Instead they are trying to shift the blame about the departure of Matt Olson from NIU. Obviously, Matt Olson caused his own departure…that we do know. Why the board dismissed Matt Olson…that remains the unknown and it is foolish to try to state facts when none are known at this time.

To be quite honest in reply, right now no one knows exactly why the board released Matt Olson at their April 25^th meeting and made his departure effective May 11^th; a rather short time by most anyone’s standards. What does this mean? We don’t know and at this point in time with all the dust still up in the air we won’t know for a while. We do know that much of what Matt Olson instituted is still at this time operative, but we don’t know if those things will continue long term. We do know that when a new president is announced a sense of the direction which the board is desirous of taking will be made known.

It will be difficult for the institution to remain a viable place of education regardless of the direction, whether continuing on its present course initiated by Matt Olson, but under the helm of another or if they seek to return to their former course. To remain on their current course but with a new president still has the challenge of gathering a new clientele of churches for the student population. If a return is sought to their former course, they are confronted with credibility, integrity issues in trying to regain that former clientele of churches, not to mention the faculty and staff necessary to put them back on their former footing.

No, the future of NIU is, I believe, tottering, like an inverted triangle trying to balance itself on a corner. Either of the two scenarios I give knock the structure over, possibly collapsing it irreparably. The equilateral triangle is one of the most stable geometric designs…when placed on a side, but is also one of the most unstable when trying to balance on a corner. NIU shifted off its base and has been tottering on a corner. The outcome doesn’t look pretty and that is a tragedy, for I do not take joy or find any sense of satisfaction should NIU cease to exist. Like other institutions which have left their solid foundation, it forms yet another sad chapter in history.

Is NIU fundamental?

“Blunt discussions of faults are not the same as attacks. I know that you believe this—you advertise your own blog as “fundamentalism by blunt instrument.” You’re certainly not afraid of tackling issues and naming names, even to the point of telling parents and pastors (bluntly!) ‘Don’t send your kids to Northland.’ While I know that decisions of Northland International University have provoked controversy, I don’t think that anyone has decided that that NIU is no longer a fundamentalist institution—and I don’t believe that you perceive yourself as attacking them.”

 

The above is a paragraph by Dr. Kevin Bauder in a posting over at SI (it can be found here). I do wish to look at what Dr. Bauder brings up, and that is, Is NIU still a fundamentalist institution? Now, just because someone claims to be a fundamentalist (or anything else for that matter) doesn’t make them a fundamentalist (or whatever they are claiming). Putting on a façade doesn’t make the case either, any more than someone living in a garage, decorating themselves with auto parts makes them a Buick.

So let’s look at what has placed NIU into this controversy. You can find plenty of material at Lou Martuneac’s blog, In Defense of the Gospel (found here). Don Johnson at his blog, An Oxgoad, eh (here), and at the FBFI’s blog Proclaim & Defend (here) has also addressed some the NIU controversy. I too have touched on this controversy (here).

I wish to list here some things that have occurred at NIU over the past 2 ½ years (which are addressed in more detail in various blog articles at the sites mentioned above) to consider for the above mentioned question.

 

Ø  October 2010 Rick Holland speaks at chapel at NIU (Rick Holland at the time was on staff at John MacArthur’s church and was the leader of the Resolved Conference which was a rock concert with a spiritual emphasis put on by MacArthur’s church. It seems to have died with last year’s conference).

Ø  November 2010 Wayne Simien, former NBA star speaks in chapel as a result of a NIU student interning at Simien’s sport camp in KS. This sports camp is non-denominational and includes dance camp for girls.

Ø  Fall of 2010 Dr. Wynne Kimbrough, dean of students, and a few students do a song from the Broadway musical, Wicked, in chapel.

Ø  Summer 2011 Dr. Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary is in for a block course to the D.Min. students. Dr. Bruce Ware espouses progressive dispensationalism.

Ø  July 2012 Dr. Matt Olson attends an SGM (sovereign grace ministries) church in Philadelphia, and on his blog site publicly commends this church, the NIU alumni who attend and specifically, Greg Dietrich, who is on staff with NIU and attending this church

Ø  December 2012 Matt Olson attends Rick Holland’s new ministry, a church in the Kansas City area. Commending Rick Holland on the services, especially a concert on Saturday night (according to the church’s website’s calendar the only concert was an Enfield concert; Enfield is the Christian rock band out of John MacArthur’s church that was the music driving the Resolved Conferences that Holland oversaw)

Ø  February 2013 Matt Olson and about 40 students attend the I am redeemed CCM concert in Oshkosh to recruit students for NIU

 

All this begs the question; is this demonstrative of a fundamentalist institution? Do fundamentalists recruit students at rock concerts? Do fundamentalists attend evangelical churches and charismatic churches and promote both? Do fundamentalists have evangelicals preach in their chapels? Do fundamentalists promote camps that teach our daughters to dance? Do fundamentalists reproduce Broadway musicals in chapel, even if done in parody?

Personally, to answer the above questions, I give an unequivocal, NO! Some may argue that NIU still has a fundamental orthodoxy and that is true. However, from our orthodoxy flows our orthopraxis and orthopathy. Dr. Matt Olson has started to introduce a different –praxis (heteropraxis?) and –pathy (heteropathy?), ones that are at odds with the orthodoxy. This tension will have to be relieved. Either the –praxis and –pathy will revert or the –doxy will change as well.

Now certainly Dr. Matt Olson and the trustees of NIU are entitled to move the institution in any direction which they desire but with that change may they also be men of integrity enough to say they are changing direction and abandoning their previous position. Dr. Olson has yet to answer the questions surrounding the promotion of a charismatic church in direct contradiction to their stated position against charismaticism. What Dr. Matt Olson has initiated over the past 2 ½ years is clearly a direction change. Just talk to any alumni or former student who was last a student prior to the above mentioned events and you will find them saying things such as, “that was never allowed when I went there.” We are hiding our heads in the sand if we try to say that nothing is changing at NIU.

Change can be good. I’m not against change. I’m 51 years old, my first dress clothes date back to the mid 70’s…change is good. Change can also be bad. I would argue that the direction change that Dr. Matt Olson has taken NIU is not a good direction. He has put in motion a change that will lead NIU squarely into evangelicalism.

For those who always wish to bring up the perennial question, have you contacted Dr. Matt Olson? Yes, I have, on numerous occasions starting back in the fall of 2010 after he had Rick Holland and Wayne Simien. I was summarily dismissed. Dr. Matt Olson was not in the least bit concerned over my concerns and was not at all troubled if the school lost our constituency. Now, I have mentioned this at times in comments elsewhere, that all of this at NIU has a direct bearing on my ministry. There have been four students from our church go to NBBC/NIU. Three have graduated; one is out working right now. One of those graduates worked for over 10 years on campus. That person did not renew their contract for the 2011/2012 school year for the very concerns mentioned above that had occurred up to that point in time. So, yes, this is indeed impacting me, though I have never been on the campus. As a church we have severed having any ties with NIU. They are no longer on our list of recommended colleges for our young person or anyone. This is not fun. This grieves me very much. Thankfully our church family is united in this. We haven’t left NIU. NIU has left us.

Addendum: NIU just introduced their latest recruiting tool: Redeemed, a rock band (the link is here) Here is also a link to a video presentation of this group here
So, another question, does a fundamentalist institution use a rock band for recruiting students? Answer: NO! Northland has left the station that was once fundamentalism and has arrived at a new station, which is an old station, called evangelicalism. Clearly NIU is not where it once was, a tragedy, truly a tragedy.

See also: Removing the question mark, we're evangelical