"We have not done this perfectly, but we believe we are headed in a biblical direction that is focused on pursuing God’s pleasure."

Matt Olson wrote:

If you are talking about our being willing to separate over “cultural fundamentalism” and its demands to separate over Bible translations, music, dress, methods of ministry, secondary associations, etc., the answer is an equally resolute, “No.” We cannot. Our consciences before God will not allow us to draw artificial lines of separation where God Himself has not drawn them.

I appreciate this clear-cut statement on where NIU stands within fundamentalism. It is to the point, unambiguous and definitive.

NIU isn’t standing within historic fundamentalism. It’s taking a stand with the “conservative evangelicals,” and choosing to associate and fellowship with them.

[npaul]

NIU isn’t standing within historic fundamentalism. It’s taking a stand with the “conservative evangelicals,” and choosing to associate and fellowship with them.

How would you understand historic fundamentalism? In other words, what does historic fundamentalism stand for?

It might be more accurate to say that NIU is standing with “indifferentism”.

“We have gone from being clearly cessationist to tolerating charismatic doctrine and practice with our satellite staff members”.

Oh right, Matt forgot to address that little tidbit. Oh wait, maybe he did via his fellowship with MacArthur who has lost all credibility regarding cessationism and his book “Charismatic Chaos” with his transfers of trust in platform and ministry sharing with charismatic CJ M Mahaney.

But let’s pretend the change without controversy, I would skip NIU and go directly to Liberty if I were this kind of fundie.

[Alex Guggenheim]

“We have gone from being clearly cessationist to tolerating charismatic doctrine and practice with our satellite staff members”.

Oh right, Matt forgot to address that little tidbit. Oh wait, maybe he did via his fellowship with MacArthur who has lost all credibility regarding cessationism and his book “Charismatic Chaos” with his transfers of trust in platform and ministry sharing with charismatic CJ M Mahaney.

But let’s pretend the change without controversy, I would skip NIU and go directly to Liberty if I were this kind of fundie.

Perhaps the question that should be asked is should ones view on the gifts of the Spirit be a point of separation? If that is the case then do you separate all three ways? Complete cessastionist, partial cessationist, and continuationist. I would guess those that want to separate over this doctrine would want to be consistent, so separating in all three directions would be necessary. That means adios to men like Dan Davey who believe that all gifts have ceased—all of them.

I have no doubt that a man like John MacArthur still holds pretty tightly to what he wrote all those years ago in Charistmatic Chaos, however, he has demonstrated that ones view of the gifts should not be a point of separation. FWIW, I agree.

Well, up until now NIU has and their practice reflected it, hence it should be addressed.

MacArthur can utter all the words he wishes but his credibility is gone on the matter with his partnering with charismatic CJ Mahaney or do you not remember just what he said in his book? He is a walking contradiction and has become a hypocrite on the matter.

As to your suggestion that there are watered-down charismatics also known and labeled by themselves to hide their embarrassment as partial-cessationist, that is nothing more than a joke on such people who have zero theological/exegetical support for such nonsensical assertions. They are more ignorant and self-deceived than traditional charismatics who at least don’t try to hide their ignorance with more ignorance in claiming some water-down version of the apostolic miraculous sign gifts still operate. In fact, if I had to chose one of the two from whom to separate I would reject the partials before I would the traditional charismatics but of course no such hypothetical exists other than to make a point.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Well, up until now NIU has and their practice reflected it, hence it should be addressed.

MacArthur can utter all the words he wishes but his credibility is gone on the matter with his partnering with charismatic CJ Mahaney or do you not remember just what he said in his book? He is a walking contradiction and has become a hypocrite on the matter.

As to your suggestion that there are watered-down charismatics also known and labeled by themselves to hide their embarrassment as partial-cessationist, that is nothing more than a joke on such people who have zero theological/exegetical support for such nonsensical assertions. They are more ignorant and self-deceived than traditional charismatics who at least don’t try to hide their ignorance with more ignorance in claiming some water-down version of the apostolic miraculous sign gifts still operate. In fact, if I had to chose one of the two from whom to separate I would reject the partials before I would the traditional charismatics but of course no such hypothetical exists other than to make a point.

Well I can’t say I’m surprised you didn’t answer the questions…however, I guess in an indirect way you did.

I’m not sure you understand when I mentioned complete cessastionist, partial cessationist, and continuationist. Let me define for clarity. A cessasionist is one that believes no gifts are available to believers today, they have ceased…all of them. A partial cessationist believes that gifts continue today, however, those that people term “miraculous” aren’t for today (prophecy, tongues, & healing). Then a continuationist is one that believes all gifts are still operable today. The normative view in historical fundamentalism is partial cessationism.

So, back to my question, why is it appropriate to separate over ones view of the gifts?

Here are the changes we are talking about:

1. Northland went from being unaccredited to accredited with TRACS in 2004. Earlier this month Northland’s accreditation was renewed for an additional 10 years.

Good for them - sincerely.

2. Northland went from the exclusive use of the King James Version in the pulpit and classrooms to allowing other translations.

Not a problem.

3. Northland went from a standard that did not allow women to wear slacks on or off campus to a policy that would require them to simply dress modestly and appropriately.

Not a problem.

4. 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.

No opinion. I joined the military instead of going to undergrad out of high school. I didn’t get demerits. I got pushups … !

5. 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.

On the fence. There are areas where secondary separation in academic contexts can and should be loosened in certain circumstances. For example, if you wanted a great, experienced speaker to discuss apologetics concerning Mormons, JWs, Catholics or Islam - James White may be a very good choice. Limited atonement will be an issue at some schools, however. Is it worth excluding him for? I am doing some hard thinking on this. I won’t pretend to be able to arbitrarily exclude him or specialists like him who have things to teach us. I’m writing an article about secondary separation and haven’t come to a firm conclusion yet.

6. 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.

Disagree. This has been discussed to death here of late. I feel that contemporary, secular music arrangements are not God honoring and holy. Other good men disagree. I love you all anyway.

7. 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.

I have no personal experience to back myself up, but I don’t like it. It seems to want to deny Baptist heritage. I understand the reasons. I just don’t agree. Others with practical experience can help me out here. Gut instinct says it wasn’t a good idea.

I truly appreciate the honest and open letter from Matt Olson. The charismatic connections have yet to be answered.

On p. 12 of the Northland Graduate school catalog, we find these words:

Ecclesiastically we are called upon to refrain from cooperation or alliances with groups which do not stand unashamedly for the truths revealed in the Word of God. Thus, we cannot accept the position reflected in the Ecumenical Movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement. We believe cooperation should be limited to those of like precious faith.

The “various branches of the Charismatic movement” would appear to include Sovereign Grace the “Reformed Charismatics”. How can these words be understood to mean anything different?

The questions for NIU on this point are still outstanding. Have they changed their doctrinal and/or policy statements? Will these documents be republished with new wording?

We wait.

Hey, Don. I just looked at the 2011-2013 catalog for NIU Grad School online and the version that I saw did not have “or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement.” It just had “the Charismatic Movement.” Could you be looking at an older version or am I looking at the wrong thing?

Don,

Would it make any significant difference to you? If so, what would that difference be? Is the wording of their doctrinal/policy statements the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”? Or, is it safe to say that the litany of other changes at NIU have already earned your repudiation? If NIU “returned” to it’s previous, consistent implementation of separation from absolutely all Charismatic-like associations, would you then be supportive of its ministry?

I ask sincerely because I do not wish to assume.

Don,

There is a striking difference between the “charismatic movement” and being charismatic. The charismatic movement includes mainline Pentecostal denominations, which does not include Sovereign Grace nor reformed charismatics like you might find in the likes of Wayne Grudem, Don Carson, or John Piper. So Northland is still being consistent in remaining separated from the charismatic movement.

To this point Northland has not changed their articles of faith, however, it is something that should be considered in light of many statements that Matt has previously made, especially his post on theological triage. Changing articles of faith, however, takes time and patience.

[Andrew Henderson]

Hey, Don. I just looked at the 2011-2013 catalog for NIU Grad School online and the version that I saw did not have “or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement.” It just had “the Charismatic Movement.” Could you be looking at an older version or am I looking at the wrong thing?

My reference is the same catalog, look a bit further down on the page, I think it refers to Charismatics twice on that page. Also see p. 9 on Ecclesiastical Separation.

[ADThompson]

Don,

Would it make any significant difference to you? If so, what would that difference be? Is the wording of their doctrinal/policy statements the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”? Or, is it safe to say that the litany of other changes at NIU have already earned your repudiation? If NIU “returned” to it’s previous, consistent implementation of separation from absolutely all Charismatic-like associations, would you then be supportive of its ministry?

I ask sincerely because I do not wish to assume.

To me there is an integrity issue about going against your official policies and doctrinal statements. Better to change the documents first rather than deliberately flouting it. It’s a matter of character.

The other changes are also problems for me. The fact that Matt et al have been stonewalling up till now is a problem for me.

If NIU returned? Its very unlikely that they would, but if they did, who could trust them? They would have to rebuild trust and may not have enough time/cash to do that.