Family
All posts tagged Family
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/
It is again worth quoting Dr. David Nettleton when he wrote ‘Today we are choosing between two alternatives: A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP. If we preach all of the Bible truths, there are many places where we will never be invited. If we join hands with the crowd, there will be the limiting of the message of the Bible.’
This limiting the message to expand the fellowship is a vast web which includes Baptists, Pentecostals, Protestants and others. A very popular and prominent Christian gathering today is Together for the Gospel T4G. The T4G web site says ‘Pastors and church leaders from over 25 denominations…gather at Together for the Gospel every other year. While we have many differences on issues like baptism and spiritual gifts we are committed to stand together for the main thing—the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ https://t4g.org/about/
Can you imagine 25 denominations that gather under the T4G banner for the sole purpose of upholding the Gospel of Jesus Christ and no other doctrine is mentioned! Other doctrines such as ‘baptism and spiritual gifts’ are not an issue at T4G or so they say.
If these ‘other’ doctrines are not important why does the Word of God mention them? Are there truly non-essentials when it comes to the Bible? Nevertheless, with this compromise being so prevalent today many Baptists have dropped the name Baptist along with other long held beliefs. This supposedly is more appealing to the unsaved and those Christians who desire not to be identified as sectarian. There is certainly a current infatuation with abandoning the name “Baptist” to be more accommodating to the wider community. This dropping the Baptist name along with other beliefs seems to be a contemporary effort to minimize doctrinal differences and in turn to hopefully magnify similarities with other Christians. This is compromise and disobedience to the Scriptures.
There is a saying today ‘Go woke, go broke’. There are many examples of Christian organizations going woke (contemporary compromise) and in turn going broke. One example of this is, Northland Baptist Bible College in Dunbar (NBBC), WI which at one time had an enrolment of eight hundred under the leadership of Dr. Les Ollila. Dr. Ollila was called to be president of NBBC in 1983 but in 2002 Dr. Ollila became chancellor and Dr. Matt Olson became president.
In 2010 Dr. Ollila wrote ‘For the past nine years, I have had the joy of helping him to carry out the vision and to implement the principles that have always been true at Northland.
I have been spending countless hours in discussion and prayer with Dr. Olson and with Northland’s administrative team. I do want to make one thing clear to you: what you might perceive as “news” about Northland is actually not really news at all. In recent days some are questioning whether Northland has departed from the original vision and historic position that shaped us as an institution. Though this does not surprise me, frankly, it saddens me.
As we have attempted to responsibly adjust the way the vision and philosophy is applied in certain settings at our institution, the foundational principles and historic theological positions to which we have always been committed remain unchanged. These adjustments reflect our desire to be faithful to a vision and to truth in ways that keep vision and truth in front of a new generation facing new challenges in ministry.
What we see happening at Northland is the realization of many years of teaching and concerns that many of us have had throughout our years of ministry. Northland has always been a Bible college at its core. It has always been committed to the authority and all-sufficiency of Scripture. It was true for Northland when I served as president. I’m excited to say that it remains equally true under Dr. Olson’s leadership today.’ NOW, THIS IS NINE YEARS AFTER OLSON HAS TAKEN OVER THE REINS OF NBBC AND DR. OLLIA HASN’T DETECTED ANYTHING IN THOSE NINE YEARS THAT JUST MIGHT GIVE HIM CAUSE FOR CONCERN!
‘What God allowed my generation to see and teach, God has given Northland’s current leadership team the ability to put it into action in the lives of our faculty, staff, and students. Throughout Northland’s history we’ve tried to be as biblical as we knew how—given the light the Holy Spirit made available to us at the moment. Even so, we are human. We haven’t always done it perfectly, and we’ve made mistakes along the way. But when we’ve been wrong, we’ve made corrections. We will continue to do that as long as we keep maturing in the faith as a team. One thing has remained constant: since Northland’s beginning its leadership’s commitment to biblical Christianity has never wavered, and it’s not wavering now. If anything, it’s getting stronger—especially as we see an increasing number of our students passionate to “go where the Gospel isn’t.”
If you think that you are seeing a change in philosophy at Northland, I ask you to visit our campus and take a closer look. The philosophy that I, and others, have attempted to formulate and teach during years of service continues to be taught and implemented by the current Northland administration. They are making adjustments in application just as my generation had to do from time to time in our day. Should the Lord tarry, this process will continue for future generations. However, it is our passion and prayer that when we all stand together in Glory and look back on what God has wrought, we will look back to observe an unchanging commitment to the biblical principles and philosophy from administration to administration.
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.
I want to assure you that Northland’s emphasis has always been on building the inner man. From that emphasis, we know there will result a God-pleasing walk. Northland has been attempting to put a means into place that better prepares its students to follow the mind of Christ and to not be driven by the fear of man.
Some years ago, Dr. Doug McLachlan and I teamed together to reach out to a group of younger men who were growing increasingly disillusioned with Fundamentalism. We heard their frustrations first hand as we ministered around the country in pastors’ conferences and meetings. It was out of such experiences that Doug’s book Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalismwas born. God used that book to help encourage many young men to remain committed to the true and biblical essence of historic Fundamentalism. Over the years several hundred of them have come through our graduate program. When Doug published Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, there were a few who expressed genuine, heartfelt concern. There were also critics who wrongly interpreted the intent of the book and, consequently, assumed Fundamentalism was being compromised. Almost two decades later, the results speak for themselves. Some may doubt those results, but I know of many young men who are now serving in churches or on mission fields or leading ministries—who might otherwise have departed for New Evangelicalism—in part because of what Dr. McLachlan had the courage to say. Though some warned that his book was a departure from historic Fundamentalism, it was in fact a refreshing and healthy corrective to the Fundamentalism of my day. It is my belief that the future will reveal the same to be true of some of the adjustments that Dr. Olson has had the courage to implement under his leadership. Time will prove this out.
In the meantime, I plead with those of you who care about the big picture of God’s work to keep in mind the main thing: we live for God’s glory, in response to the Gospel, directed by the Great Commission, and motivated by the Great Commandments. Pray that God would grant us wisdom as we seek to advance the cause of Christ.’ https://sharperiron.org/article/northland-changing-chancellors-perspective-from-dr-les-ollila
It was then in 2013, three years after he wrote the above article, Dr. Ollia answered questions at Colonial Hills Baptist Church, Indianapolis, IN’s Crossroads Conference: Q & A concerning his involvement with the changes at Northland Baptist Bible College. NBBC went woke and is now broke. There will be a review of the Crossroad Conference: Q & A in a future article. In closing, it is worth remembering Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Is there an Islamist nation on this earth where a Christian is as free to be a Christian as they are in Australia or the USA? I think not! Some years ago we had a couple move to Saudi Arabia for his job and they couldn’t take a Bible or the material their children used in our church youth programme. Not much freedom of religion there and yet the leftists are as quiet as a church mouse on this. Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American Council on the Middle East, says;
- ‘Three of the Islamist judges known to preside over the trials of Christians are Mashallah Ahmadzadeh, Mohammed Moghiseh, and Ahmad Zargar. The international community needs to consider imposing sanctions on them.
- Converts to Christianity from Islam, according the Iran’s Islamic law, can face the death penalty. The Iranian Islamist judges generally resort to verses from the Quran and Hadith (Muhammad’s sayings and acts) to justify their verdicts.
- Iran systematically violates the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act and this is why, since 1999, the U.S. has designated the Islamic Republic as a “Country of Concern.”
- Under international law, the Iranian government has an obligation to respect freedom of religion. Yet, while Christians are being increasingly persecuted and their rights are violated in Iran at an unprecedented level, the international community still remains silent.
- The Islamic Republic of Iran is unleashing a sweeping crackdown on Christians, particularly those who have dared to convert from Islam to Christianity.
Most recently, nine Christians in Iran, possibly converts, have been convicted by the Islamic court, and each sentenced to five years in prison. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) arrested them for attending church services at a private house. According to a report by Article 18, an Iranian NGO which promotes religious freedom:
“The arresting officers introduced themselves as agents from the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS).
“They stormed the Christians’ homes in a coordinated operation at around 9am, confiscating Bibles, Christian literature, wooden crosses and pictures carrying Christian symbols, along with laptops, phones, all forms of identity cards, bank cards and other personal belongings.
“Arresting agents also searched the work offices of at least two Christians and confiscated computer hard drives and security-camera recordings.”
Christian families are generally dehumanized and humiliated in the community during the agent’s raids. As the Article 18 report explained, “The officers are reported to have treated the Christians harshly, even though small children were present during the arrests.”
Across Iran, Christians are being arrested and jailed on trumped-up charges, such as “promoting Zionism”, “spreading corrupt Christians beliefs”, “propagating against the Islamic Republic in favor of Christianity”, “orientation toward the land of Christianity,” or “endangering national security”. Open Doors USA stated that one particular charge — “acting against national security” — is often used by the Iranian authorities “to prosecute Christians for their house church activities.”
The claim of Iranian leaders that the peaceful religious practices of a minority group pose a grave a threat to national security is totally unacceptable. Iran’s total population is roughly 80 million, with anywhere between 117,000 and 3 million being Christian, according to various estimates. Even though Christians make up an extremely small part of the population, however, they have always been viewed, under the Islamic law of Iran, as a threat to “national security”.
The activities of Christians in the Islamic Republic are closely monitored by the Iranian intelligence service (MOIS) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG). They are not permitted to share their faith with others or to conduct church services in Farsi, Iran’s national language.
It is important to hold accountable those Iranian individuals and institutions who are responsible for persecuting Christians.
Three of the Islamist judges known to preside over the trials of Christians are Mashallah Ahmadzadeh, Mohammed Moghiseh, and Ahmad Zargar. The international community needs to consider imposing sanctions on them
The NGO International Christian Concern (ICC) submitted the names of these judges to the US Treasury for consideration of sanctions. ICC stated:
“These three Revolutionary Court judges, and Evin Prison, have a long record of human rights abuses toward Iranian Christians. The judges are responsible for convicting Christians on trumped up charges. They wield Iran’s legal system as a systemic tool of repression against religious minorities. Often, when Christians stand firm in their faith, Iran’s judges send them to the notorious Evin Prison, located on the outskirts of Tehran. Stories of those who survived Evin Prison are heartbreaking; the wide variety of abuse faced by inmates is chilling.”
Converts to Christianity from Islam, according the Iran’s Islamic law, can face the death penalty. The Iranian Islamist judges generally resort to verses from the Quran and Hadith (Muhammad’s sayings and acts) to justify their verdicts. One particular verse in Qur’an states:
“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
A hadith attributed to Muhammad says: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him”.
Even though the international community labels the government of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a moderate administration, and even though Rouhani claims that the Islamic Republic treats all religions justly and fairly, Iran is one of the worst places in the world for Christians. According to the World Watch List compiled by Open Doors USA, Iran is currently ranked as the ninth-worst country for faith-based persecution. Iran systematically violates the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act and this is why, since 1999, the U.S. has designated the Islamic Republic as a “Country of Concern.”
Under international law, the Iranian government has an obligation to respect freedom of religion. Yet, while Christians are being increasingly persecuted and their rights are violated in Iran at an unprecedented level, the international community still remains silent.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15229/iran-christians-persecution
Most politicians probably do not really know where the tax dollars go and if they did would they seek to change anything? For instance; the ‘Diversity Council Australia is 
urging employers to drop “Christmas parties” in favour of “holiday season drinks” so Muslims and other non-Christians “feel included at this time of year”.
“If you’re having a Christmas celebration, try to make sure it’s inclusive of other faiths as well because the office is for everybody,” hectored Lisa Annese for the Diversity Council, in comments to the Herald Sun reported by MailOnline.
Following the backlash which Annese’s comments provoked, the Diversity Council issued an irritable statement insisting that they “At no stage… ever urged bosses not to mention Christmas.”
“Lots of organisations celebrate the end of year holiday break with a Christmas party,’ the Council, which has received Australian taxpayers’ money to advise government agencies, explained testily.
“We are simply saying that it’s worth remembering that many Australians do not celebrate Christmas religiously, either as followers of non-Christian religions, or as individuals with no religious affiliation.
“There is a lot organisations can do to make them feel included at this time of year.”
Diversity Council Australia has previously advocated banning the word “chairman” and innocuous expressions such as “you guys”.
“Imagine a world in which sexist language was replaced by racist language,” the Council mused.
“Instead of saying ‘chairman’ and ‘you guys’, people would use ‘chairwhite’ and ‘you whiteys’… If we cringe at ‘you whiteys’ and would protest such terms, why don’t we work as hard at changing ‘you guys’?”
The Council has even claimed that “Frequent non-inclusive experiences at work have just as harmful effects as more intense but less frequent experiences” — including “sexual coercion and harassment”.
“For [the Diversity Council] to be pretending that somehow people are offended by all of this, there’s something wrong with Christmas, they’re making this up to try and get some petty relevance,” commented Mark Lathan, a New South Wales MP for the national populist One Nation party.
“They’re funded not just by big businesses who are wasting their money and should have better regard for their shareholder value — they’re actually funded by a whole bunch of government agencies,” Latham complained, branding the Council “very extreme — extreme in their delusion.”’ https://outragedpatriot.com/look-what-diversity-council-just-did-to-christmas-parties/
In Part One Dr. David Nettleton was quoted saying ‘Today we are choosing between two alternatives: A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP. If we preach all of the Bible truths, there are many places where we will never be invited. If we join hands with the crowd, there will be the limiting of the message of the Bible.’
The doctrine of separation and especially that separation from other Christian believers is almost an anathema today. The thought of separating from another Christian conjures up all sort of thoughts and questions. Who do you think you are? Where’s your love? What about grace?
Nevertheless, separation is a necessity in the Christian life. As Dr. Earnest Pickering wrote in BIBLICAL SEPARATION page 106 ‘Separation requires severance from that which is wrong.’ Around 57 A.D. Paul wrote in 2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
A year later Paul wrote Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
These passages along with many others tell us there is a difference, or should be, in the life of a believer from what they were before salvation. So, what are we to do with professing believers that seek to mix the world with the church and the believer’s life? One would have to be a blind Freddy not see how much influence the world has on Christians. This worldly influence has reached into the theology of Puritan piety. Today, there is a resurgence of Calvinist teaching which was the teaching of the Puritans which included holy living. However, according to Dr. Peter Masters this resurgent Calvinism is not the Puritan Calvinism of old especially in its matter of sanctification. This New Calvinism is the foundation theology in two fairly new organizations, The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. Now, I am not defending Calvin or the teaching that has taken his name but it is well worth reading what Dr. Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London has to say on this issue of New Calvinism. He writes,
‘A new form of Calvinism took the shape of a movement from about 2005, but it differed from the original in its acceptance of ‘the world’. This critique written in 2009 was sharply attacked by new Calvinistic preachers but strongly endorsed by conservative preachers worldwide.
When I was a youngster and newly saved, it seemed as if the chief goal of all zealous Christians, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, was consecration. Sermons, books and conferences stressed this in the spirit of Romans 12.1-2, where the beseeching apostle calls believers to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world. The heart was challenged and stirred. Christ was to be Lord of one’s life, and self must be surrendered on the altar of service for him.
But now, it appears, there is a new Calvinism, with new Calvinists, which has swept the old objectives aside. A recent book, Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen tells the story of how a so-called Calvinistic resurgence has captured the imaginations of thousands of young people in the USA, and this book has been reviewed with great enthusiasm in well-known magazines in the UK, such as Banner of Truth, Evangelical Times, and Reformation Today.
This writer, however, was very deeply saddened to read it, because it describes the New Calvinism as a seriously distorted Calvinism falling far, far short of an authentic life of obedience to a sovereign God. If this kind of Calvinism prospers, then genuine biblical piety will be under attack as never before.
The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, but the scene is certainly not a happy one.
The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine. This gives a clear picture of what New Calvinism is about.
We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.
Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. As one who regularly visited American seminaries to speak from the early 1970s, I constantly met many preachers and students who loved the doctrines of grace, preaching also in churches of solid Calvinistic persuasion. But firmer evidence of the extensive presence of Calvinism is seen from the fact that very large firms of publishers sent out a stream of reformed literature post-war and through the 1980s. The mighty Eerdmans was solidly reformed in times past, not to mention Baker Book House, and Kregel and others. Where did all these books go – thousands upon thousands of them, including frequently reprinted sets of Calvin’s commentaries and a host of other classic works?
In the 1970s and 80s there were also smaller Calvinistic publishers in the USA, and at that time the phenomenon of Calvinistic discount Christian bookshops began, with bulging catalogue lists and a considerable following. The claim that Calvinism virtually disappeared is hopelessly mistaken.
Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.
The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.
Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)
In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.
C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.
It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. The New Calvinism movement or The New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.
One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology [see endnote 1].
This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus t-shirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship.
Most of the well-known preachers who promote and encourage this ‘revival’ of Calvinism (or New Calvinism) have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:
- They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.
- They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].
- They reject the concern for the personal guidance of God in the major decisions of Christians (true sovereignty), thereby striking a death-blow to wholehearted consecration.
- They hold anti-fourth-commandment views, taking a low view of the Lord’s Day, and so inflicting another blow at a consecrated lifestyle.
Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle. Truly proclaimed, the sovereignty of God must include consecration, reverence, sincere obedience to his will, and separation from the world, and the New Calvinism has very little of that.
You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism (also known as The New Calvinism).
Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.
Has the New Calvinism come to Britain yet? Alas, yes; one only has to look at the ‘blogs’ of some younger reformed pastors who put themselves forward as mentors and advisers of others. When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts. Years ago, such brethren would not have been baptised until they were clear of the world, but now you can go to seminary, no questions asked, and take up a pastorate, with unfought and unsurrendered idols in the throne room of your life. What hope is there for churches that have under-shepherds whose loyalties are so divided and distorted?
Aside from pastors, we know some ‘new’ young Calvinists who will never settle in a dedicated, working church, because their views live only in their heads and not their hearts. We know of some whose lives are not clean. We know of others who go clubbing. The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.
These are harsh words, but they lead me to say that where biblical, evangelical Calvinism shapes conduct, and especially worship, it is a very humbling, beautiful system of Truth, but where it is confined to the head, it inflates pride and self-determination.
The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.
Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.
A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.
True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites. Preparation of heart is needed if we would search the wonders and plumb the depths of sovereign grace. We find it in the challenging, convicting call of Joshua:
‘Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’ https://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/New-Calvinism-Merger-of-Calvinism-and-Worldliness/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine
The Bible has not changed but Christianity has! Nevertheless, believers are still to come out and be separate from the world and not to be conformed to this world!
In 1974 I graduated from Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, Ankeny, IA. Dr. David Nettleton was President and the school was in its hay day with over 500 students enrolled. Dr. Nettleton wrote a pamphlet in 1955 entitled A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP which is still very applicable for today. He wrote ‘I was brought up as a Presbyterian. I was saved at a college that was interdenominational in student body but was managed by the Church of the Brethren. From there I went to a seminary that was not a denominational school, and from there to another seminary that was United Presbyterian. I entered the Baptist pastorate with no Baptist training except that which came from reading the Scriptures.
A few years later I was drawn into an interdenominational youth movement and was given the leadership of a local Saturday night rally. I cooperated with any who were evangelical, regardless of their associations. I was advised by top leaders in the movement to seek the names of outstanding modernists for my advisory committee. I didn’t do that. But I did follow advice that led me to send all converts back to the churches of their choice, churches I knew to be liberal in some cases. This greatly troubled my conscience, and I prayed and thought about it.
Another problem connected with this work was the failure on my part to instruct any converts on the matter of Christian baptism, which in the Scriptures is the first test of obedience. I felt that I should do this inasmuch as Peter and Paul did it. But how could it be done when on the committee of the work there were close friends who did not believe it? By such an association, I had definitely stripped my message and my ministry of important Bible truths that many called “nonessentials.” In the follow-up work it was not convenient to speak of eternal security in the presence of Christian workers who hated the name of the doctrine. Thus the ministry was pared down to the gospel, just as if there were nothing in the Great Commission about baptizing converts and indoctrinating them. I had found the least common denominator and I was staying by it. But my conscience had no rest. Then it was that Acts 20:27 came to mean something to me.
The great apostle had never allowed himself to be drawn into anything that would limit his message. He could say with a clean conscience, “I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Why cannot many say that today? In my case, and in many other cases, it was due to a desire to reach a larger audience and to work with a larger group of Christians. Many have been carried away from full obedience by a noble-sounding motto that has been applied to Christian work: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” Some things are not essential to salvation but are essential to full obedience, and the Christian has no liberty under God to sort out the Scriptures into essentials and non-essentials! It is our duty to declare the whole counsel of God and to do it wherever we are.
Paul had a wonderfully balanced ministry. In his preaching he would never please men, for he knew he could not be pleasing to God if he tried to please men. Yet in his living he testified, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (1 Corinthians 1:33). What a happy balance this is in the ministry! It is true, humble, and wholesome.
Today we are choosing between two alternatives: A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP. If we preach all of the Bible truths, there are many places where we will never be invited. If we join hands with the crowd, there will be the limiting of the message of the Bible. Bear this in mind—it is the Baptist who lays aside the most! It is the Baptist who makes the concessions! Think this through and you will find it to be true. We believe in believer’s baptism. We believe in separation. We preach eternal security. We believe in the imminent coming of Christ. We consider it an act of obedience to reprove unbelief in religious circles. The Sadducee and the Pharisee are to be labeled. But according to a present philosophy, we must lay these things aside for the sake of a larger sphere of service.
Which is more important: full obedience or a larger sphere of service? And yet I do not fully believe these are the only two alternatives. It is our first duty to be fully obedient to God in all things, and then to wait upon Him for the places of service. It may be that we will be limited, and it may be that we will not. Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not travel as widely as some men of his day, but his sermons have traveled as far as the sermons of most men.
I have recently read a religious article by a great evangelist. He deplores the moral conditions in America. He deplores the conditions in our schools. He speaks against the liquor traffic and against juvenile delinquency. But nothing is said against America’s greatest enemy—THE MODERN UNBELIEF THAT GOES FORTH FROM SUPPOSEDLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. The strength of the nation lies in its love of God. That love has grown cold in many churches, and Jesus Christ our Lord is called an illegitimate child, a confused young man, and a dead teacher. That kind of thing needs to be rebuked at the cost of reputation and even at the cost of life, if need be. But as soon as it is rebuked, the man who rebukes it will lose the majority of his following, if he is gaining that following through cooperation with modernistic churches.
It is my belief that some of our great evangelists today are thorough Bible-believing Christians. They accept nearly every truth in the Book. It seems they refrain from preaching all the counsel of God for one reason. To them, it is important to reach farther even if we reach with a smaller message.
The breach within so-called Protestantism today is as great as the breach between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. We need to make this fact known. But every time we promote the inclusive type of ministry we are covering up a fact that needs to be known. God has given us a great message to preach. It contains the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it is not limited to that gospel. He has commissioned us to preach the gospel, baptize our converts, and indoctrinate them (Matthew 28:19, 20).
He has given us the very best system of follow-up work, which is the building of Bible-believing churches and joining converts to them. He is calling us to loyalty and obedience.
We need no new message. We need no new method. We need only the spirit of obedience found in Paul when he testified, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel for God.” https://baptistbulletin.org/the-baptist-bulletin-magazine/a-limited-message-or-a-limited-fellowship-2/
This is the first of several articles to follow.
The whole story may be read at https://www.churchinchains.ie/prisoner-profiles/bakhrom-kholmatov/
Not all people are stupid or anti-Israel! ‘Trader Joe’s Israeli made “Pastures of Eden” feta cheese has been on the BDS list for quite some time. BDS has called upon its supporters to boycott the cheese because it is owned by the Tnuva group, the largest dairy producer in Israel. And boy did it backfire.’
whatyareckon 