Uncategorized
The Church of England in the UK is moving further and further from the truth of the Word of God. The following are examples of this.
‘It was just over 50 years ago that the leader of the radical German Student Movement, Rudi Dutschke (aka ‘Red Rudi’) called for a “long march through the institutions” to realise the ideal of what has become known as cultural Marxism. This was the brain child of the Italian neo-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci whose key idea was that of ‘hegemony’ – the process whereby a dominant class could exert and maintain its influence over people through non-coercive means, such as schools, the media and marketing.
The aim is to get people to think, and especially feel, for themselves that certain values and practices, such as same-sex ‘marriage’, are ‘obvious’, ‘common sense’, ‘fair’ or even ‘natural’. Whereas Marx spoke of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, Gramsci’s vision was to undermine and eventually take over the ‘commanding heights of culture’. One of the main cultural heights in the UK is the Church of England. And it would seem that with the appointment of Stephen Cottrell as the 98th Archbishop of York, the long march in this institution is more or less over – the progressives have their man in place.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/stephen-cottrell-a-crisis-of-confidence/?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=ebe5ae83f3-WN-20200103&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-ebe5ae83f3-127681039
‘Mermaids has trained professionals in the NHS, Police Service, Social Services, Schools, CAHMS and the workplace. We tailor all of our training to the specific needs and timeframes of each enquiry, if you are interested please get in touch by emailing us on training@mermaidsuk.org.uk or complete the contact form with a summary of numbers, location and a general overview of your current situation. For example, if you are a school supporting a child to transition, or an NHS trust, wishing to skill up key staff members with information and understanding of gender variance in children and young people.’ https://www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/transgender-training.html
‘John Parker, vicar and school governor explains what happened at the Mermaids training session’
Some ‘new’ fundamentalists have surrendered to the new Calvinist conservative evangelical scholarship that is so prevalent today. Much of that scholarship is in the Southern Baptist camp. Therefore, many of those who think they are whatever a fundamentalist is supposed to be, have sought unity with Al Mohler, Mark Dever, T4G and TGC crowd.
Southern Baptist & New Calvinist Mark Dever
However, not all Bible believing Baptists have conceded Biblical truth for ‘scholarship’.
Southern Baptist & New Calvinist Al Mohler
‘Three or four times, I think, an anonymous person has posted a comment in which he writes a short paragraph to say that I’m not a scholar, except in a very small circle of KJVO churches. His evidence of this is the lack of acknowledgement received from evangelical scholarship. I’m not recognized in scholarly circles, he says, which proves I’m not a scholar. His point for these comments is to discredit what I write with hopes that no one takes what I write seriously.
Whether I’m a scholar or not had not occurred to me until this person had written these anonymous comments. I’d like to address this, because now it seems like an interesting subject to me. It brought back to memory an article written by Aaron Strouse, “What Is Biblical Scholarship?” Does it matter if someone is considered a scholar? What matters to me is if what I’m writing is true, hence the title of the blog, What Is Truth.
Obviously the idea behind anonymous’s comments is that recognition from certain association is what makes someone a scholar. This reminds me of how the religious leaders dealt with Jesus. To them, Jesus wasn’t a scholar, because He didn’t receive the imprimatur of the sacral society of the day. These men essentially quoted each other and received their endorsement by approved person. The Lord Jesus on the other hand spoke with direct authority, proving His doctrine from scripture. I call this making your cake from scratch versus making it out of the box. Jesus went directly to the source of authority.
A long time ago I knew that I would not get the acceptance of mainstream scholarship. It gives its approval to its own people, which must take “correct” positions. It’s very much like the accreditation of the state schools. Almost all of it relates to power and money. Darwinism is a prerequisite for inclusion in the scientific establishment. We all know that a establishment exists in Washington, DC that protects itself from outside competition.
The money factor in establishment scholarship relates especially to the schools and the publishers. Schools need a broad position to attract the most possible students for more tuition and money to pay for buildings and faculty. Accreditation relates to size. Publishers, as one might understand, need books that will sell enough to make money. The two are interrelated and scholarship means fitting into positions acceptable to a larger group of people. The power lies in positions that will bring the money that pays mortgages. Someone who does not toe the line will lose out. He should know that in advance as he makes his decision to elevate the truth above acceptance and power.
I’m saying that the truth trumps so-called scholarship. The real power is in heaven, and the approval should be Jesus Christ. Moses rejected the court of Pharoah for the people of God. When I go door to door, the people I talk to don’t ask me if I’m a scholar. I’ve got to stand and show them the truth from the Bible, where they believe it because it is God’s Word. I don’t quote and footnote and explain that so-and-so Dr. Scholar says. When someone does discipleship in the church, he doesn’t say, let’s do this because “most scholars say.” He opens his Bible and proves things straight from the Bible.
The Lord Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them. When He said that, He was saying that you judge someone by what kind of fruit is produced, the followers. Are the people following you obedient to the Word of God? As a result, are the people following you living obedient, holy lives in surrender to Jesus Christ? That’s also what builds a church.
My approach on this blog is to present a biblical and historical position. That will stand up to scrutiny. If I write something here that is true — it is biblical and historical — and someone says, “that’s not scholarly” or “you aren’t a scholar,” that doesn’t overturn what I’ve written. What should matter is whether what I’ve written is true.
I could point to at least five or ten different issues or matters where I have proven something from scripture to overturn a “scholar.” Daniel Wallace, who is considered a scholar in the mainstream, wrote an article that said that God did not in fact preserve every Word to be available for God’s people. I dealt with every one of his arguments in a biblical manner without getting an answer, except for personal attack. What I wrote stands, whether he is a scholar or not.
Many years ago, I unveiled the gender discord argument between Hebrew noun and pronoun that backs up the position of a masculine pronoun as antecedent of a feminine noun in Psalm 12:6-7. I sent a paper out by email that made its way all over the country. With clear proof of that gender discord position with numerous examples relating to the Word of God, I never received an answer from those who took the wrong view. Proximity of antecedent to the noun comes back into play. I debunked the argument of gender discord, but “scholars” would not rescind. This dishonesty is scholarship, I’ve found. What is more important? Being a scholar or telling the truth?
I’ve written many articles proving from scripture that unity is based upon all the teaching of scripture and not the “essentials.” There is no biblical proof of unity based on “essential doctrines.” This is very important if unity is very important, which it is.
I understand that I’m defending unpopular positions here, but that doesn’t mean that what I’m writing is false. The “scholars” should prove that what I’m writing is wrong, based upon scripture. They don’t do that. Are they really scholars? Is that what we want scholarship to be?
Even if I’m not a scholar, which I’m happy to agree, that I’m not one, I believe Thomas Ross, who posts here on Friday, is a scholar in a class of anyone who might be called a scholar. He has his personal devotions in Hebrew and Greek. I believe he has large portions of scripture memorized in the original language. I’ve read a lot of scholarship, and he is a scholar. He stands up easily to other so-called scholars, except actually being a scholar. Thomas Ross writes here, perhaps because he recognizes that I write the truth. Is in a regular, consistent way proving the truth, scholarship? That should be what matters.
In the end, we’re going to stand before God, and He’s going to judge. That’s the judgment I’m concerned about. Many, if not most of these scholars, will stand before God, but not at the bema seat judgment. They’ll stand before Him at the Great White Throne Judgment. They aren’t even saved, and this is evidenced by their elevation of “scholarship” ahead of truth. God is going to judge based upon the truth, not what men agree is scholarly.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2020/01/does-it-matter-if-someone-is-scholar-or.html
Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
This is the conclusion to the demise of Northland Baptist Bible College. What instigated these articles was the installation of Dr. Les Ollila as Chaplain at Faith Baptist Bible College, Ankeny, Iowa. Being a graduate of this school when Dr. David Nettleton was president it was of interest as to what effect Ollila will have on Faith’s future and especially as to separation.
Until he became chaplain at Faith Dr. Ollila was pretty much an unknown to me. However, Northland Baptist Bible College was known to me in that a friend of mine had
received an honorary DD from the school. When he received that degree, I became aware of two things, the school was in the northern part of Wisconsin and it was considered a fundamentalist school.
It was sometime in the 2000’s that I learned of Northland dropping the name Baptist and changing to Northland International University. That in itself meant (at least to me) it was moving away from its foundation and that other changes were or had already occurred. Dr. Ollila was president from 1984 to 2002 and chancellor from 2002 to 2013. In the video of the Q & A of July, 2013 Dr. Ollila says over and over that he was just being loyal to the leadership. Well, that isn’t really an excuse for not saying something when things are not Biblical! He also said he was a ‘simpleton’ which supposedly gives one a pass on certain matters.
Of course, whether something is Biblical or not is determined by the doctrinal glasses one wears. For instance, ‘There is a lot of noise today among some “fundamentalists” about “conservative evangelicals,” and there is a growing association between the two groups.
Central Baptist Seminary of Minnesota, Calvary Baptist Seminary of Lansdale, Pennsylvania, and Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) have all recently praised “evangelical conservatives” for their “vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.”
Northland recently invited Bruce Ware, Southern Baptist Seminary professor, in to conduct a seminar for pastors. To justify this, former Northland president Les Ollila sent out a letter in December 2010 stating:
“At Northland we have chosen to keep our focus on the highest concerns facing our generation while keeping Fundamentalism centered on the historic fundamentals of our faith that best articulate our core understanding of biblical truth.”
That is the “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty” philosophy. To say that it was the position of “historic fundamentalism” is true, but that does not make it right.’ https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/conservative_evangelicals.html
Of the three schools mentioned above two have closed their doors. Central is the only one still operating. The doctrine that is missing from these new fundamentalists is Biblical separation. ‘Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote how the New Evangelicals showed a disdain for the ‘Bible Institute mentality’ and had little use for Bible colleges. An increase emphasis on scholarship was the need. This reminds me of Northland Baptist Bible College in Dunbar, WI. For many years I spoke there in an Urban Ministry block class, chapels, and mission conferences. The last time I was there I felt the shift. Innocently, the name was changed to Northland International University. Then a Southern Baptist was invited to speak at a block class. Matt Olson the president, visited a Sovereign Grace Church ministry of a young man who had split from a good fundamental church. Recently, Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary (Southern Baptist and co-founder of the Together for the Gospel Conference) spoke at the convocation. A contemporary rock band was formed and played on campus and soon the school had moved from its fundamentalist roots.
We must remember that just as King Jehoikim took his penknife to shamelessly shred God’s inspired words, so the world will not blush to disregard His truth. “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness,” and “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.” (1 Corinthians 1:18; 2:14). Time will not change this truth, and neither will writing New York Times best sellers, tolerating false teachers like N.T. Wright, or playing academic games in the lust for respectability. We live in a day where it is thought to be a ‘hate-crime’ to speak the truth in love that God alone has the right to define the definition of marriage. These are serious times. What is needed is not the persuasive words of man’s wisdom, but to stand and speak by the power of His Spirit.’ https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/08/06/new-calvinism-best-sellers-scholars-and-compromise/
Those who were the leaders of Northland when it met its demise are in the NEW FUNDAMENTALIST camp! They have bowed the knee to what they see as scholarship, outward success and have an attitude of inclusivism. These new fundamentalists are comfortable with new Calvinists such as Al Mohler, Mark Dever, John MacArthur and Tim Keller. These four men are prominent in either or both the Together 4 the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition. These gatherings are a mixture of denominations which brings with it a concoction of various doctrinal beliefs. If we will be true to God’s Word ‘We must not join with those who unite with those unfaithful to the Word of God. They may be popular. They may write good books or commentaries. But we must avoid assisting them in their compromise.’ https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/09/10/the-ringing-call-of-new-evangelicalism-repeated-in-the-new-calvinism/
The present president of Faith is a graduate of Northland Baptist Bible College and has received an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones. So, with Dr. Les Ollila as chaplain and a Northland graduate as president the future of Faith will be interesting to watch. For instance, Faith will be holding a REFRESH CONFERENCE January 28-31, 2020 and of the nine speakers five have some connection with the old Northland, one with Central Seminary, and three with Bob Jones University. This is what I view as just another ‘good ole boys club’. It is not a healthy situation for fundamentalism in general, the schools involved and especially the students. Too be honest, Spurgeon’s Downgrade Controversy of the 1800’s has not really ended.
https://www.icr.org/article/11696/
Evolution like climate change, are only a fact to those who wish them to be.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
You won’t read this in the mainline news for it doesn’t fit their narrative. Here it is; ‘This month the first person to obtain a legal “non-binary” sex designation has successfully petitioned the court originally responsible for his “non-binary” status to order that the sex on his birth certificate be restored to “male.” In documents exclusively provided to PJ Media, James Shupe’s petition described his “non-binary” designation as a 
“psychologically harmful legal fiction.” He told PJ Media he hopes this decision will prevent a woman currently seeking “non-binary” recognition from following the same lies.
“The charade of not being male, the legal fiction, it’s over,” James Shupe told PJ Media on Tuesday. “The lies behind my fictitious sex changes, something I shamefully participated in, first to female, and then to non-binary, have been forever exposed. A truthful accounting of events has replaced the deceit that allowed me to become America’s first legally non-binary person.”
“The legal record has now been corrected and LGBT advocates are no longer able to use my historic non-binary court order to advance their toxic agenda,” he added. “I am and have always been male. That is my biological truth, the only thing capable of grounding me to reality.”
While he became a hero for the transgender movement, Shupe now aims to dispel the lies of gender identity and reverse the harm caused by the precedent of his “non-binary” legal designation.
He referenced the case of Jones David Hollister, a woman who identifies as non-binary and is currently fighting to change her legal designation to non-binary. Hollister’s brief to the Oregon Court of Appeals cites Shupe’s case.
“I hope that Hollister and all the others are denied the right to change their sex to non-binary because it’s fraud and legal fiction based on pseudoscience,” Shupe said. “I was indoctrinated to believe that I had this thing called a gender identity and that suppressing it was causing my mental health problems. It was all a lie.”‘
‘Shupe went public about his detransition in an interview with PJ Media’s Bruce Bawer earlier this year after he asked for his official Florida documents to restore his legal sex to male.’ The whole article may be read at https://pjmedia.com/trending/ex-trans-man-reverses-non-binary-sex-designation-in-blow-to-lgbt-movement/
This is a continuation of Northland Baptist Bible College’s demise and Dr. Les Ollila relationship to it. What occurred at Northland did not transpire in a corner. The college had a president, a chancellor and a board to oversee the operation of the school. Someone took their eyes off the ball and the school eventually had to close its doors. The following is an expose of a video 9th July, 2013 Q & A with Dr. Les Ollila who related what he saw occurring at Northland which eventually ended in its demise.
‘Monday, June 24, 2013 Debriefing the Les Ollila Interview
Les Ollila is the former president of Northland Baptist Bible College, now Northland International University. When I was in high school, our family had Ollila in for a meal when he was in Watertown, WI to speak at the Wisconsin State Youth Conclave. I think it may have been the first ever WSYC. At that time, I think, Les Ollila was some type of “youth evangelist,” who spoke all over the country in meetings. He was a well-known fundamentalist leader and popular fundamentalist conference speaker.
NIU has made a massive change in leadership and direction in the last 5-10 years. Ollila is not at Northland any more and he doesn’t support its changes. Recently, he was invited to Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, IN, where Chuck Phelps is pastor, to speak at the Crossroads Conference. There Ollila was given time in a brief Q & A to answer questions especially relating to what’s happening in relationship to NIU. That I know of, this is the first public revelation of where Ollila stood and stands on the NIU situation.
What makes Ollila endearing is that in many ways he’s a sort of one-of-a-kind speaker or person in fundamentalism. He’s got a campy and out-there sense of humor. He’ll say things in a very unique way that often times covers for the poor content of what he says. You’re too busy thinking about his funny and forget that he just said something you don’t agree with. At one time in the Q and A, he sent everyone reeling with his in depth exegesis of Alf, illustrating something with the television show that I’ve never seen. I think I remember the puppet-like figure Alf (sp?), which was enough to spur intense disinterest. Ollila seemed to love Alf. It was funny watching Dr. O go into a total Alf machination to make a point that was totally lost without Alf knowledge.
Since I’m on comedy, another funny moment was the outburst of Ollila about bloggers. Get a life! I don’t know who the people are who he’s talking about. I’ve not read a blog post critical of Ollila. He doesn’t blog. The technology is past a lot of guys his age, no disrespect. Phelps started to cry on this point, wiping his eyes with a handkerchief. That didn’t connect with me like it did Phelps. I had no unction to well up with tears, so it got me thinking about how much blogging there has been about Phelps and how that connected with him emotionally. I’m sure he wished blogging didn’t exist as it related to the Tina Anderson issue back in his Trinity days, so he had true empathy with Ollila’s feelings about blogging.
Ollila did not take questions from the crowd and there was little to no follow-up to the questions he answered from Chuck Phelps. Phelps appeared to have his own questions and some with him from the audience. All the interaction was with Phelps. It’s obvious that Ollila doesn’t like what’s going on at Northland. My overall analysis of the Q & A is that it seemed to be an opportunity for Ollila to reestablish his fundamentalist credentials and to reconnect with the mainstream of the FBFI branch of fundamentalism. He’ll need it for his future parachurch endeavor, as he hooks himself up to another ox-cart in fundamentalism. At the same time, Ollila was able to and will be able to remain a kind of hero among young fundamentalists with so much of what he said and how he said it.
Important aspects of what Ollila said did not jive with what I thought fundamentalists believed. Where he clashed with typical fundamentalism, he used humor to deflect. Phelps could have easily cleared all that up, but he just let it go. I can’t imagine that Phelps agreed with Ollila, but perhaps he didn’t want to embarrass him in public. Even though Ollila detached himself from NIU, I don’t see how he’s much different in principle. His answers bothered me and they should be a problem for fundamentalism. However, I would think that most young fundamentalists would have liked what he had to say.
In no particular order, first, Ollila said that CCM wasn’t a sin — it just wasn’t wise. That’s a hard one to work through, but that does almost nothing to eliminate CCM. It’s either false worship or it isn’t. If it is false worship, it is sin. If it isn’t false worship, then it is acceptable. Ollila didn’t explain how it was unwise, and Phelps didn’t follow up at all. I would have asked, “Is CCM fleshly or worldly lust? If so, then it is sin, isn’t it?” Or, “How is it unwise? What do you mean by that?” Ollila gave a big permission for CCM in fundamentalism with his statement on CCM. That Phelps didn’t disagree showed Phelps to either agree with him or to indicate that it is a liberty issue in fundamentalism. You are free to use CCM fundamentalism, because it isn’t a sin. I think this is where fundamentalism is at now.
Second, Ollila talked about his visit to John MacArthur. I don’t think there is any problem with someone visiting with John MacArthur. Ollila was checking him out. It’s his conclusion that was a problem. Right there in a fundamentalist meeting, Ollila gave a complete endorsement to MacArthur with zero disclaimer and he was not challenged at all by Phelps. Lots of cheering had to be going on from conservative evangelicals and young fundamentalists. Phelps asked Ollila, “Are you a separatist?” Ollila: “Yes.” Phelps: “Are you a fundamentalist?” Ollila: “Yes.” So there we go. Penetrating, probing analysis complete.
Ollila’s defense of MacArthur was three-fold as I heard it. I could defend MacArthur too, because there is a lot I like about him. But that’s not the point here — it isn’t what we’re talking about. Ollila defended MacArthur with moral equivalency. Ollila wasn’t going to the Hyles pastors’ conference. What? That came out of left field, but it seemed to be a shot at those who have appeared with Jack Schaap at various functions, including the president of the FBFI. Ollila has a point to be made there, a legitimate one, but it doesn’t stand as a defense of fellowship with MacArthur. At most, it scares away criticism, because it says that you can’t criticize me for MacArthur because others did worse with Schaap. Tit for tat politics. It should have been argued by Phelps, but he just laughed it off.
The next part of his defense was that MacArthur’s music, the one day Ollila was there, was better than a BJU vespers. Who knows if that’s true or not, but we know that on other days that Ollila was and is not there in Southern California, MacArthur uses rock music. That’s not hard to find out if you’re just the slightest bit curious. I guess one day is enough to evaluate all of MacArthur’s music for anyone, according to Ollila.
Lastly, he said that MacArthur preached a true gospel, and although MacArthur might be Calvinist, Ollila himself isn’t one. This was again fundamentalism being reduced to a defense of a true gospel alone, gospel centered fundamentalism. Is that truly all that fundamentalism is? Because if not, someone should step up, but Phelps does not. Crickets.
Although Ollila really didn’t clear up the music issue, this was not and is not the main problem with MacArthur for fundamentalists. MacArthur is the most conservative, conservative evangelical, but he does not practice separation like a fundamentalist. If that were the case, then fundamentalists would be having MacArthur in to preach for them. He fellowships with Southern Baptists. He fellowships with Charismatics. That has been a no-no for fundamentalists. Ollila left that out of his evaluation, maybe because he is a simpleton, like he referred to himself. If you are simpleton, you get a pass. You get to preach at the conference, but you are excused for everything else because simpletons can pull the simpleton card. It’s a sympathy card, very convenient.
Why Ollila left NIU was because of pragmatism. He’s death on pragmatism. I’d be happy to believe that. I would call Ollila selectively death on pragmatism. Why? He’s so pragmatic. He signed on to the name change of NIU. He defended it. Why? It was pragmatic. It all depends on what kind of pragmatism you’re talking about. He blamed the changes on the PR guys that Olson brought in. Olson brought them in, but it was the PR guys’ fault. Why? He knows Olson’s heart. I know Northland had the heart conference, and I never attended it, but I hope that wasn’t the essence of it. As long as your heart is in the right place, you really, really are sincere and want it all to be good in your heart, then you’re fine. What you actually do, like hiring the PR guys that cause the demise and fall, that is excused by your “heart.” This kind of goopy sentimentalism is a big issue in fundamentalism.
It might not be the worst, but the worst part of the interview of Ollila to me was Ollila’s explanation of the superiority of being a moderate. You aren’t in the right ditch. You aren’t in the left ditch. The Bible teaches balance (where?) and you stay away from the right wingers and the left wingers and keep right down the middle. That’s the explanation of fundamentalist unity, I believe. You can unpragmatically (of course) take the right course by lopping off the extremists on either side. Who are the right wingers? They’re probably the ones who take strong positions on cultural issues. Who are the left wingers? Those are the almost-anything-goes guys. Suddenly Northland was considered right ditch as it stayed in the middle of the road. What to do? When you are a parachurch organization, looking to keep your enrollment up, you’ve got to find that sweet spot. Northland had it when Ollila was there. Success is found in finding the middle of the road, bridging the gap between both sides. That’s not how I read it in the Bible, but this is a generally acceptable idea for fundamentalism. It’s not the model for a church with the Bible as sole authority.
More could be said, but the Ollila Q & A was very informative and educational. It doesn’t speak well for the future of fundamentalism.’ https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/06/deconstructing-les-ollila-interview.html
If you have been following this blog you read what Dr Les Ollila, former president of Northland Baptist Bible College (NBBC), had written in 2010 seeking to explain the condition in which NBBC found itself after Dr. Matt Olson took over the presidency. Three years later, 2013, a former student of NBBC wrote this for The Gospel Coalition (TGC). This is the voice of one who moved from the NBBC ‘fundamentalism’ into the ‘evangelicalism’ found in the TGC.
‘Most readers of The Gospel Coalition probably aren’t familiar with the story of Northland International University. In fact, many readers of this blog have probably never heard of Northland at all. But for more than 50 years God has been doing some amazing things in northeastern Wisconsin at Northland Mission Camp, then Northland Baptist Bible College, and now at Northland International University.
As the camp ministry grew and a small Bible college launched on the property, the school had a decided emphasis on the proclamation of the gospel and servant leadership. Along with that, however, the college was also connected to the fundamentalist movement. This connection led to an uncompromising position on separation from the world in nearly every way and a strong stance against certain types of music and ministry. Not only did the school take strict positions on many of these less-than-clear issues, but it also drew strict lines of separation from those who did not. By the time I arrived on campus as a freshman in 1998, Northland was a pretty separated place. Most types of modern music were off limits, as were most movies, TV shows, and other popular media. In the classroom, we read books by authors like John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur, but they always came with a disclaimer. I spent my last two years on campus wrestling over the theological and exegetical foundations for these practices and felt like we needed to be somewhere more biblically and theologically robust. So in the summer of 2002, we packed up and moved to Minneapolis, where I started the apprenticeship program at Bethlehem Baptist Church. But I knew this move would lead to a separation from Northland. While I certainly maintained relationships with many on campus, I assumed that I would never be able to have close ties to my alma mater. There was much about Northland to love: a unique emphasis on servant leadership; a humble administration, faculty, and staff; a strong love for the Word of God; and a radical commitment to world missions. But it seemed like the strict separatism and all that went along with it would keep me, and many other alumni from my generation, from having close relationships with Northland. It was a fundamentalist school in every meaningful sense of the word, and none of us expected that to change.
Deeper Root
But God was at work in ways many of us alumni never expected. The centrality of the gospel was taking deeper root at the school, and the results we have seen are encouraging. Over the course of three or four years, Northland underwent some important transformations, including receiving accreditation and changing some of the unnecessary rules. But more importantly, Northland became a place where the gospel is at the center, and rules and regulations are not. In a recent letter, outgoing Northland president Matt Olson listed some of the changes the school underwent in the last few years. He explained:
- Northland went from the exclusive use of the King James Version in the pulpit and classrooms to allowing other translations.
- Northland went from a demerit system to a discipleship platform for our students. Yes, we still have rules: we still confront, and we still have consequences. We just believe we have a better and more biblical model now. It is built on relationships. We are always looking for better ways to accomplish our mission.
- Northland went from practicing some forms of “secondary separation” to what we now understand to be a more biblical separation. Where we would not have had men like John MacArthur, Rick Holland, Ken Ham, Bruce Ware, or Mark Dever, we would now. We see no reason to separate from these men. We would consider them to be in the spirit of historic fundamentalism; they believe in the orthodox faith, will separate over it, and live godly lives.
- Northland went from only allowing “traditional” styles of music to accepting more modern styles as well. A blend of traditional and current music is used in our programs and chapel.
- We created an overarching name of Northland International University to give our students greater opportunities with the gospel worldwide. The change was driven by our passion to reach every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.
To many TGC readers, these changes might sound obvious. But at Northland, they reflect something deeper. They reflect the way the gospel, rightly applied, will eventually work itself out at the institutional level. While some of the parallels break down, Michael Horton’s explanation of semper reformanda was applied at Northland: “It is not because the culture is always changing and we need to be up with the times, but because we are always in need of being re-oriented to the Word that stands over us, individually and collectively, that the church can never stand still.” In the same way, an institution must always be re-orienting itself to the Word and asking whether its practices and policies could reflect greater fidelity to the Word of God. And when this practice is taken seriously, great things can happen.
Now there is more hope for Northland than ever. Along with a renewed emphasis on the centrality of the gospel, the school is still committed to a unique emphasis on humble, servant leadership; strong love for the Word of God; and radical giving to world missions (in a 2009 survey, 44 percent of the student body planned to serve overseas). So Northland is worth knowing about and praying for. Especially now. The school is facing some significant challenges in the coming months. In just a few weeks, Olson will be moving on from his role as president of the school. Also, it is no secret that most Christian colleges live and die by their constituencies, and making changes means alienating some of those constituents.
Re-Centering
I don’t pretend to speak for Northland. I have recently re-connected with some of the leaders at the school and teach an occasional course for their distance program. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything the school says and does. But I have seen the way a re-centering in the gospel can transform a school, and for that I praise God.
Some of my fellow Northland alumni are upset because the school did not change fast enough or pursue change in the way they would have done it. Others are upset because they thought nothing should change. Ever. Still others are upset because of Olson’s departure on the heels of many of these changes. To those alumni and friends, I would simply ask that you to grant the same grace to the institution that you would to a fellow Christian who is growing in grace. We will all make mistakes, and we all have room for growth. We can all learn from the example of an institution that is willing to further submit itself to God’s Word—in spite of the criticism and challenges these changes will bring. So pray for Northland as it searches for a new president and be praying about God’s continued work there, knowing that when the gospel moves to the center, amazing things can happen to an individual, a church, and even a fundamentalist school.’ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/can-god-save-a-fundamentalist-school/
whatyareckon 