1994 & 1995 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1994)

While applauding the attempts of conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention to reemphasize the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, we do not believe that these men are “fundamental” Southern Baptists. Our reasoning is twofold: first, they still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals; and second, they do not desire to be known as Fundamentalists. Writing in “The Church God Approves,” James Draper, conservative in the Southern Baptist Convention, condemns Fundamentalists for their divisiveness, bigotry and unfairness; and says that they have a wholly negative approach and show little love and compassion. Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.

REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1995)

The FBF applauds those in the Southern Baptist Convention who fought a battle for the inerrancy of Scripture, but disagree with Jerry Falwell and Tim Lee who attempt to convince followers that the SBC conservatives are Fundamentalists. At best, conservative Southern Baptists are New Evangelicals who cooperate with and promote the ecumenical evangelism ministry of Billy Graham. The Southern Baptist Convention dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the two Southern Baptist leaders who signed the 1994 ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together* agreement (the furor created caused them later to ask to have their names removed), and statements made by Convention leaders embracing charismatics indicate dangerous drifts in the SBC.

We believe that statements made by Charles Stanley, twice elected president of the SBC, such as, “If it’s a Southern Baptist seminary, it should be balanced in its approach. If you’re going to have liberals, you need strong conservatives . . . if you’ve got people who don’t believe in the virgin birth, you need people who do,” lead to unscriptural confusion. Adrian Rogers, elected to two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said, “I don’t want any witch hunt to purge the seminaries.” Statements such as these reveal that even conservative leadership in the SBC will not take the strong stands necessary to rid the Convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions. Until this happens, we do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.

In recent years some strides have been made to rid the “convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions,” but not all of them.** Many of the “dangerous drifts” described above, however, remain in the SBC.

What is glaringly left out of this issue is the matter of separation. [Kevin] Bauder claims that the “conservative evangelicals” aren’t New Evangelicals and he conveniently defines New Evangelicalism in a way that proves his point (whereas his predecessors at Central, Richard Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, understood New Evangelism much more clearly).

While there are many aspects of New Evangelicalism, the defining principle from its inception was a “repudiation of separatism.” That was the way that Harold Ockenga put it. That is Billy and Franklin Graham’s foundational working principle.

And by that definition, every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical. That is evident by the simple fact that they remain in the SBC, which is an unholy organization that encompasses theological liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, Amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils. (David Cloud: Conservative Evangelicals, Jan. 27, 2011.)

On February 22-25 at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale, PA) Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder will be participating in a cooperative pulpit ministry with SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever. The 1994 FBF resolution above warns of compromising the cause of biblical separatism. Dever maintains close friendships with and participates in cooperative efforts with ecumenical compromisers and charismatics. Does the common cause cooperative ministry of Bauder and Doran with Dever at Lansdale compromise the cause of biblical separatism? How do Brothers Doran and Bauder justify their “cooperation in pulpit ministries” at Lansdale with SBC pastor Mark Dever?

Dr. Rick Arrowood details the current posture of SBC pastor Mark Dever,

Just because a man like Dr. Dever is seen by some as a “conservative Southern Baptist, who fights for truth in the SBC,” does not mean he fits in as a separatist and should be called a fundamentalist. Matter-a-fact, he would not want to wear that name tag. He is a leader among Southern Baptists:

•He serves on the Board of Southern Theological Seminary under the direction of Dr. Al Mohler. (Dr. Mohler signed the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration and watches over the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Home Missions at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. [Mohler served as chair for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville])

•Dr. Dever also willingly teaches at Gordon-Conwell College in Massachusetts, long known as a leading institution for New-Evangelicalism and compromise.

•To add to the matter, Dr. Dever is quite reformed and a-millennial, which, of course, is a far-cry from the position promoted by the founders of Calvary, Detroit, Central and Northland.

•He has spoken it [sic] the past and is slated to speak in the future with Dr. C.J. Mahaney, one of the founders of the Together For The Gospel [T4G] Conference where he states that his desire is to start churches that are reformed in theology and charismatic in doctrine. T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music.

(Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)

Does that read like the personal resume of a man who is committed to the theology, application and cause of biblical separatism? It appears troubling inconsistencies among evangelicals such as Mark Dever are no longer a barrier to fellowship and cooperative ministerial efforts for certain men in Fundamental circles who profess allegiance to the cause of biblical separatism as defined in the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the Southern Baptist Convention.

Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, “mixing and mingling?” If it is right for us to “platform fellowship” with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him. If our position has been wrong, then we have missed the placating of well-organized denominationalism with its comforts and retirement benefits. Perhaps we should go to those retired fundamental Baptist missionaries, who have sacrificed term after term on a foreign field, who may be physically and financially struggling in some nursing home, and apologize to them, admitting the Lottie Moon Missions Program would have been a better choice for them. Can you see the shifting of the sand and how it strikes at the foundation of our fundamental Baptist history? (Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)

For those who may not be aware the 1994 FBF resolution on the SBC was prepared and submitted by the resolutions committee that included Dave Doran. Brother Doran signed on to and therefore endorsed the 1994 resolution on the SBC, which closed as follows,

“Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.”

The 1995 FBF resolution was prepared and submitted by the committee that included Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan. The 1995 resolution closed with,

“…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.”

Yet, Matt Olson will be featuring SBC theologian Dr. Bruce Ware at NIU later this year. In a matter of days Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder will join SBC pastor Mark Dever, invited by Tim Jordan, in a ministerial effort at Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale.

"Changing?"

Who’s changing? The men who co-drafted and signed the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the SBC, or the non-separatist evangelicals in the Southern Baptist Convention? Brother Dever, what do you say?

We will continue on these themes later this month.


LM

*In 2009 Southern Baptist leaders including Dr. Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD). The MD is the first cousin of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Signing the MD extended Christian recognition to Roman Catholics and apostates. Mohler and other SBC signatories have been admonished by their peers, but have not repented of their deed, which compromised the Gospel. (See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration)

**2001- 01.6 Regarding the Southern Baptist Convention

The FBFI expresses gratitude to God for the changes in the Southern Baptist Convention nationally since 1979. We commend the reaffirmation of inerrancy, now a confessional requirement for its agencies—the seminaries, Mission Boards and its publishing arm. Furthermore, we applaud the repudiation of homosexuality and the confessional commitment to a biblical role for women. However, we exhort our brethren to continue reformation by opposing the ecumenism of Billy Graham and “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” We also urge perseverance at the state and local levels, purging the theological and moral decay. And, where purging is not possible, we urge Southern Baptists to withdraw and rebuild, showing fidelity to the Scripture. Until Southern Baptists fully recognize and repudiate the destruction of Neo-evangelicalism that has weakened their churches and seminaries, the Scriptural response of Fundamental Baptists must continue to be separation.

Site Publisher’s Note:
See the FBFI Resolutions for access to the resolution archives.

Rick Arrowood’s Editorial Accompaniment to Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing In Fundamentalism

With Dr. Rick Arrowood’s permission and enthusiastic support, and in the sprit of bringing a balance to the Christian blogosphere, that you will not find at Sharper Iron, I am reproducing Dr. Arrowood’s new editorial note that accompanies his original, Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing In Fundamentalism. His editorial commentary below is followed by a sample of encouraging contacts received by Dr. Arrowood since the publishing of the original. God is using a simple local church article for His glory.

EDITOR’S NOTE – January 24, 2011

Dear Reader,

I love my calling – “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Romans 10:14-15a).

I love my title – Pastor (my favorite), Under-shepherd, Overseer, Bishop, Elder.

I love my local church – Crosspointe Baptist Church of Indianapolis -- “The Church That Believes the Bible and Loves People!”

I love my duty as an under-shepherd – “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock,” (1 Peter 5:2-3).

I love my people (the sheep of the CBC fold) – It is a privilege to serve them, feed them, lead them, protect them, love them, pray with them, cry with them, counsel them, and answer their questions. My focus and ministry is Crosspointe Baptist Church. Never have I sought to be any type of national spokesman for fundamentalism, just a good pastor to the people the Lord has entrusted to my care.

As you may know, on January 19, 2011, SharperIron, without my permission,* put up a link to our website, making available to their readers “My Burden for Fundamentalism,” which gives access to my open letter that was written as a Postscript to the two timely messages that I preached on January 9, 2011. Be assured, I put it on our website for our people and anyone who would visit our site; however, the Lord had other plans that I did not know. When SI linked to our website, “My Burden” expanded into another dimension of the world-wide-web.

As of this morning the link has had 1,715 reads, with 36 comments having made by 17 different bloggers. I must say I was overwhelmed that it would be read that much. Most of the bloggers did not focus on the context of “My burden,” but rather chased rabbits on the teaser that SI used on their Filings Column. While some felt it necessary to instruct and/or correct me, others sought to correct the correctors. I was amazed at the mindsets of the bloggers, and found myself chuckling at the threads and the stitching of them.

I do not have the time (or the desire) to enter into the blogosphere. Remember, my focus and my responsibility is to be a good pastor to the sheep in the CBC fold. Personally, I am amazed at the amount of time some people give to what Dr. O rightly calls -- “gossip on steroids!”

Because SI and their bloggers do not see my inbox, text messages, and/or have the privilege of listening in on the phone calls I have received, I thought it would be fair and balanced to share a selected portion of the scores of communications I have received. Below are 17 e-mails from men around the world (some I do not even know) that will allow our readers to see a more balanced response to “My Burden.” I have withheld their names, and any personal message out of respect for them.


Pastor Rick Arrowood
Crosspointe Baptist Church
Indianapolis, IN

*The irony here is that SI, without waiting for the permission that Aaron Blumer requested from Dr. Arrowood prior to posting the original, has for some unknown reason not posted the new editorial. Why is it that SI will not allow for this editorial edition and the letters to follow appear at SI? It this yet another example in the long history of bias at SI? Details and commentary to follow in an article at Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet.

LETTERS (bold added)

A seminary professor wrote:

Dear Brother Rick,
I found your article on SharperIron this morning. I have already heard from some folks about it. It is well written, well reasoned, and exhibits a godly spirit and a pastoral heart. Thanks for being a biblical shepherd to your people.

A pastor from Georgia wrote:

Brother Arrowood,
Very brave, bold, and accurate article. Be prepared to be “thrown under the bus” [by some]. I am glad to see a few others speaking up and even stating the obvious, which seems so far from the consciousness of those who believe Bauder’s present reality. Ridicule from the New Fundamentalists is not at all surprising, but most of our friends are keeping their head down hoping all this will pass over. In five years you will hear a large collective “Oops” after we have lost an entire generation of our preacher boys.

(Site Publisher’s Note: Pay close attention to the bolded portion above, this man is right! While many of you say and/or do nothing the next generation, some of those in your own sphere of ministry are presently being influenced by Bauder, Doran, NIU and Lansdale to embrace evangelicalism with tolerance for its aberrant doctrine, worldly methods of ministry and ecumenical compromises. (Acts 20:30-31)

A young evangelist wrote:

Dear Pastor Arrowood,
Thank you so much for your open letter that you posted on your church website recently. Its truths and its spirit were a welcome breath of fresh air. There was a time when I asserted that in the battle between New Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, the battleground had shifted from being ecclesiastical separation to being personal separation. I believe that the training I received in the churches in which I was reared was very weak on personal separation while it was strong on ecclesiastical separation. It was not until college that I began to really understand personal separation enough to be able to defend it from Scripture. It seemed that many Fundamentalists of my generation (I am 34) knew all about the dangers of ecumenical evangelism, but they saw no problem with filling their minds with wicked entertainments through film or music. An evangelist friend of mine warned me, however, that the issues of ecclesiastical separation have not gone away; your letter has provided the evidence that his warning was accurate. So much of what is available to read on the internet written by men who claim to be Fundamentalists is discouraging, so much so that many my age are gladly jettisoning the name “Fundamentalist” because of its modern associations with men like Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Matt Olson, et al. If these vocal men represent Fundamentalism, then the young men want something new. But not something that compromises, something that takes a right stand. In short, your letter has been a huge breath of fresh air in a cyber-world of discouragement. It has reminded me that not all of the old guard are capitulating. (My apologies for the term “old guard,” but when you were on your knees deciding to live a life of separation, my mother was changing my diaper; I was only a few months old.) As a Baptist historian, I have come to appreciate the fact that the stand I take today is not some doctrinal anomaly, but is essentially the same field of lentils for which Baptists have fought for centuries. Your article only adds to the assurance that not all hoary heads are surrendering, not all seasoned warriors have tired of the fight. Thank you, and may God bless the ministry of Crosspointe Baptist Church.

A missionary from Africa wrote:

Dr. Arrowood,
This brief message is to commend and to thank you for your recent open letter to your flock concerning the changes going on in fundamentalism right now. I was recently faced with a decision concerning an issue of separation (directly related to your letter) regarding some men that I deeply love, and my decision was not easy. Perhaps living so far from the controversy and not realizing that others were seeing and facing the same issues led me to feel kind of like the lonely Elisha of Romans 11:3. However I know this feeling is wrong. If I keep my eyes on Christ, instead of the raging waves and wind around me, I will never sink or be discouraged (Matt 14:30-31). Your letter was a HUGE encouragement to me last night! You reminded me, by your personal testimony and by your boldness to put it in print, that there are still 7,000 who have not bowed their knee to the idol of compromise (Rom. 11:4). God bless you, your family and your church, Dr. Arrowood. Your testimony was a tremendous blessing to me this week and I felt I should let you know. I am sure you will receive a backlash for your public position, but I assure you that your letter was written in a Biblical, loving and meek spirit. Thank you again.

A pastor from Minnesota wrote:

Dear Dr. Arrowood,
I today read your paper posted on SharperIron regarding rewriting the history of fundamentalism and Kevin Bauder in particular. I whole-heartedly agree with you and congratulate you. You have said what has been needed to be said. Kevin Bauder is like the guy in the Civil War who put on grey pants and a blue jacket. He won the support of neither side. But that is what he is trying to do — garner support from both the old northern fundamentalist movement as well as his beloved ― “conservative evangelicals.” You may or may not be aware that he has stepped aside as president to be a ― “research professor,” whatever that is. I attribute the change at Central (as well as at Detroit and Calvary et al.) to be rooted in two related issues. (1) The open pursuit of the critical text which usually leads to; (2) the exaltation of intellectualism. Both are closely related. These schools and others in their orbit virtually worship at the shrines of scholarship, academia, and intellectual reputation. Concomitantly, most of them have abandoned any interest in personal evangelism and openly disdain vocational evangelists. But, as Bob Jones Sr. once said, ― “Evangelistic unction is necessary to make orthodoxy function!” I believe that the tap-root of the compromise of Central and its sister schools began when they long ago embraced the critical text. It has taken a full generation to reach fruition, but we are witnessing that sad compromise of separation before our eyes. It started 40 years ago when they compromised on the textual issue in the name of scholarship and superior academics. We see the results today. I will guarantee that if any of these schools or men upheld the traditional texts of the Bible (i.e., the Received Text), there would be no dialogue between them and Southern Baptists. And the separation would be mutual.

A Christian businessman wrote:

Dr. Arrowood,
I just finished a careful read of the letter to your church family. It is the most biblical, eloquent, graceful and powerful response to what is happening in our circles that I could have ever hoped to read. In these pages you have identified the danger at our door and the tragic results of similar compromises from our past. There is much more I could express my appreciation for in every paragraph. Your message to your church family is sorely needed to be read by the entire NT church family especially our young people in Fundamentalism who are being influenced to change and move in a new direction, i.e. evangelicalism with all of its doctrinal and practical ramifications. If I may, what is needed sorely in the current day are more voices that articulate the very questions and answers that you have in that address. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and SI, which is a friend of evangelicalism, almost completely dominate the Internet discussion and many of our young people are having their thinking and theology reshaped by those men, as well as the scores of evangelicals that have sites and/or blogs. Again, I truly appreciate how you have answered the issues for those under your watch care.

A pastor from Nebraska wrote:

Bro. Arrowood, Thank you for the article that I saw referenced on the SharperIron web site. I appreciate your stand and your spirit. Your message is very timely today. I realize that some might criticize you but I wanted you to know that I appreciate the article and agree wholeheartedly. Keep up the good fight. While those who are changing seem to be high profile, I believe that there are many pastors and others who will resist this realignment of fundamentalism. Dr. Bauder calls us hyper-fundamentalist. Call me what you will – I will keep on standing where I have always stood. I appreciate what you wrote and want to encourage you to keep writing.

A servant of Christ wrote:

Dr. Arrowood,
May God richly bless you for ‘Crying aloud’ in this day of compromise and falling-away. A voice raised in warning is a blessing; many of us are perplexed by the silence that has characterized the average response to the current departure from Fundamentalism. It seems alleged Fundamentalists have forgotten what a Fundamentalist is and does. As I read your open letter I saw in you a Fundamentalist of the kind that was once commonly seen in America, but now has become an endangered species. A great softening has descended on the religious landscape of America. As in the 1940’s so in the 2010’s good men are turning from militant to soft. Thank you for being faithful to our Lord.

A pastor from Indiana wrote:

Dear Pastor Arrowood,
I am SO GLAD SharperIron has posted a link to your good article. I hope a lot of people wake up and take notice. God bless you!

A Bible college president sent a brief text message:

Pastor Arrowood,
Your article on the Conservative Evangelical drift in fundamentalism is right on! Amen!

A missionary wrote:

Dear Dr. Arrowood,
I want to thank you for the open letter you wrote on Dec. 20th. I read it yesterday for the first time and was very encouraged to have someone voice a concern like unto my own in such a good way. I am sure you will receive much flack for what you wrote. So, I wanted to write to encourage you and help lift up your hands. Your perceptions are wise, your discernment is precise, your love is evident and your boldness is to be commended. May God bless you. I am praying for you.

A pastor from Illinois wrote:

Dear Pastor Arrowood,
A fellow pastor directed my attention to your ― “Open Letter” on your church’s website. I read it and was greatly encouraged. I want to thank you for your position and stating it so clearly. I pastor a small church in Illinois and have become greatly concerned with what I see taking place in fundamentalism. It appears to be a capitulation of militancy. It seems to be a longing for some sense of legitimacy on the Christian landscape. In my limited experience, I fear that many fundamentalist leaders are becoming more hesitant to speak out about separation, or they are choosing going along with the current tide of compromise. It is a grief when dear brethren begin to make poor choices. Anyway, thank you for your letter and thank you for your time. My heart has been strengthened by your ministry. May the Lord continue to bless and use you.

A mission director wrote:

Thank you, Bro. Rick, for the article on the changes in Fundamentalism. I am greatly encouraged by the many true Fundamentalists who are standing up and saying “Enough is enough!” and setting the record straight. I am with you brother!

A pastor from Washington wrote:

Dr. Arrowood,
I want to thank you for your excellent Open Letter of concern which you recently released to your church family. I appreciated the spirit in which you wrote it and I agree wholeheartedly with its sentiments. In spite of the fact that the pseudo-fundamentalists over at SharperIron are hammering you for it, I am thankful for your courage to say what needed to be said. I have downloaded the two companion sermons that you preached and will listen to them soon.

An evangelist writes:

Pastor Arrowood,
I just read your open letter “Answering Questions about the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism” and wholeheartedly agree with what you have said, and at the same time am thankful for the awareness you have brought with the naming of names and to their associations of compromise. I will look for your articles in the future; continue to “fight the good fight of faith!”

A pastor from New York wrote:

Dear Dr. Arrowood,
I received an email from a pastor who referenced your open letter, so I just went to your web site and read it. Thank you. These things do need to be said, in the spirit with which you said them. I am just a little guy in a big city, trying to be a pastor, much like you, and wondering what in the world is going on. I want to stand on the truth of Scripture with you, and I agree with you. May the Lord continue to give you grace in the fight.

A Blogger wrote:

Dear Pastor Arrowood: I’ve just read the article on your website “Pastors Burden for Fundamentalism;” thank you for taking this stand. I’m a long ways from your church - several states away. I was encouraged that there is a Pastor somewhere who is willing to stand. Just wanted to say it was an encouragement.

Site Publisher Addendum:

From his blog Pastor Dave Doran reacted to the original open letter by Dr. Arrowood. Pastor Don Johnson from his blog An Ox Goad, eh has posted and responded to Doran’s reaction. Please see, Something I Don’t Understand

Brother Johnson asks, “I don’t understand how it would be acceptable [for Dave Doran] to preach in a conference with a fellow when you have refused to speak for him in his church…. The two venues are different: one is a conference at a seminary; the other is an invitation to speak in a church. What makes speaking with Dever at the conference acceptable and the speaking for Dever in his church unacceptable?”

Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

UPDATE (1/24/11): At the Crosspointe Baptist Church web site Dr. Rick Arrowood has published an editorial follow up to his Open Letter, Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism. In addition to his personal commentary he has posted several letters of appreciation, support and encouragement he has received in recent days. I encourage all readers to visit Rick Arrowood’s Editorial Accompaniment for his editorial and the letters that follow. Also available at the CBC site, click on the link under Pastor’s Burden for Fundamentalism, scroll down to UPDATE! Response to Pastor’s Open Letter for the PDF.

Dr. Rick Arrowood is senior pastor at Crosspointe Baptist Church (CBC) located in Indianapolis, IN. Pastor Arrowood recently preached a sermon series highlighting his concerns for Fundamentalism. There are three relayed media types you can access via the Upcoming Events page at the CBC web site.

The two part sermon was titled Prove All Things,1 which can be accessed at Sermon Audio. Power Point slides accompanied the two part sermon. Both Prove All Things and the Power Point slides are downloadable at the CBC site.

In an open letter to his church family Dr. Arrowood offered a pastoral perspective on the issues that confront Fundamental Baptists. At the CBC site there is a downloadable (PDF) copy of the open letter by Dr. Arrowood titled, Pastor’s Burden for Fundamentalism: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism.

Answering Question About the Changes…in Fundamentalism is well written, sensible, and helpful. Fundamentalists, the younger generation in particular, need to give serious consideration to the things Dr. Arrowood is saying because very few others are saying them. His article poses with clarity and precision thought provoking matters that most are no longer thinking about. For example, the fact that just as today, there were “conservatives” in the Southern Baptist Convention when our independent fundamental Baptist forefathers left it. That was never our issue. Association with known error was the issue then as it should be today.

There will be no comments allowed under this article. I do, however, encourage each of you to visit the CBC site, download the PDF and share it with as wide a circle of friends and family as possible. With Dr. Arrowood’s permission are sample excerpts from Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism for your consideration (bold added).

Excerpt 1:

Is there a difference in a man who makes a mistake or bad judgment call, and the development of a man’s patterns that turns one onto the slippery slope of compromise? When we see those obvious changes, especially by our friends, why is it that we talk more about our friends than to our friends? (We all know that many of us, especially preachers, are often “walking news in shoes”!) When we discern that compromise is driving our friend’s ministry decisions, how long do we allow the changes to go on without speaking to him about our concerns? As we pray about when and how to address these tender issues, we should always do it as the Lord leads, and in the spirit of Galatians 6:1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted, keeping in mind: (Proverbs 17:17) A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. (Proverbs 27:6) Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Excerpt 2:

As I read the blogs of Dr. Kevin Bauder, I see an attempt to re-write the history of fundamentalism in America. No one has that privilege. Are we not hypocrites when we deprecate the secular intellectual for attempting to re-write our American history, only to set ourselves up to do the same with the history of Baptist fundamentalism? We are who we are, regardless of how some may want to re-define or re-name us. These types of changes have a way of lowering personal standards of holiness, and will change our music, our worship, our dress, and even our choices of entertainment. I recognize that in the fragments of fundamentalism, there are some who may push an envelope, over-emphasize, and/or become imbalanced (even heretical) from whom we distance ourselves. Therefore, I loathe being lumped together with those who take hyper views in regards to the text issue, Calvinism, and dispensationalism.

Excerpt 3:

The most recent changes that concern me are the messages on music and the letters sent to me by Dr. Matt Olson, who is also my friend. I have spoken to Dr. Olson about my concerns, and we agreed to agreeably disagree as to his reasons for having Dr. Rick Holland who serves as Staff Elder at Grace Community Church, where Dr. John MacArthur is Pastor-Teacher, Staff Elder) speak in chapel at Northland International University. We came to another impasse when he explained his reasons for having Dr. Bruce Ware, a professor from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary teach a block course to the graduate students. My heart breaks! Never did I believe that we would be placed in such a corner in our fundamental circle as we are being placed in today.

Excerpt 4:

Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, “mixing and mingling”? If it is right for us to “platform fellowship” with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him. If our position has been wrong, then we have missed the placating of well-organized denominationalism with its comforts and retirement benefits. Perhaps we should go to those retired fundamental Baptist missionaries, who have sacrificed term after term on a foreign field, who may be physically and financially struggling in some nursing home, and apologize to them, admitting the Lottie Moon Missions Program would have been a better choice for them. Can you see the shifting of the sand and how it strikes at the foundation of our fundamental Baptist history?

Please continue to, Rick Arrowood's Editorial Accompaniment

1) Sermon Audio, Prove All Things, Part 1 and Prove All Things, Part 2

Is NIU “Unchanged?” Redux- NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part Two

Previously we heard from and the response to Northland International University (NIU) sophomore Phil Palmer. Please refer to Is NIU “Unchanged?” Redux- NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part One. Today we direct our attention to the second NIU student, Ethan Kimbrough, who participated in the thread under, Is NIU “Unchanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity and was the fourth in a series about the new direction, trajectory of and practices at NIU.

In the Is NIU “Unchanged” discussion NIU students, Phil Palmer and Ethan Kimbrough, posted comments in which they offered their view of what is unfolding at their school. Both Phil and Ethan were sincere in their comments and we can all appreciate the good spirit with which these young men expressed themselves. To reiterate from the first in this two part series- Their concerns and comments deserved well-thought out answers, which IMO will be to the benefit of every reader who is interested in and/or concerned with the change at NIU. Today we will review Ethan Kimbrough’s comment and the reply to him from myself and Brother James Floyd. To set the table for the original discussion the following comment from James Floyd was his first in the thread. Brother Floyd wrote,

“Lou, Thanks for the article. I was concerned by the video in that they were using the skit as a way to then talk about what Northland is. It came across that they are willing to engage culture to reach the lost. This is code language for compromise. I remember skits and parodies that were done at times in the past at Northland that would have raised a few eyebrows had they been recorded and put on the internet. There were times where students went a little too far with their society recruiting skits but this is unacceptable. I would be more upset if I didn't know Dr. Kimbrough. I appreciated his ministry at Northland while I was there. I'm sure that he felt that there was nothing wrong with the skit but it looks very bad from the outside looking in. I understand that this is not an actual chapel service but it does convey that Northland has changed. I had a hard time making out what the young man was saying toward the end but it sounded like more of the same hype and philosophy that Matt Olsen and others are putting forward.”

Following is Ethan Kimbrough’s full (thread) comment to James Floyd:

I think you are definitely reading into things, like many people have been doing recently. Northland, like it has done for you in the past, is changing lives for the better - In this country and in over 70 other countries from Northland’s alumni. I am a current student at Northland, and I am seeing the amazing things that God is doing there. A guy named Peter Cushman just graduated from Northland, and he is already doing missions work, just like plenty of other students who are on fire for God will be doing next year. We send out so many ministry teams to different countries throughout our Christmas, Summer, and Spring breaks, and will continue to do that no matter how many people disagree with it.

All I know is that Satan would love to use trivial matters to bring down such an influential institution. Students are on fire for God here at Northland, and I can see that. Northland is an amazing place and I feel like it would be wrong for me not to defend it on here.

I know Dr. Olson personally, and I know he has spend hundreds of hours on his knees in regards to Northland’s future and it shows that he spends that much time with God in the way he speaks, and in the way he deals with the attacks on his character. I love that man, and I love Northland. I have been here for 19 years now and can tell you all that Northland really is changing, but for the better. Thanks and God bless all of you as you discuss this further. I'd love to see some of you come out and see for yourself all the amazing things that God is doing, instead of just speculating.

-Ethan Kimbrough

You may view Ethan’s original comment HERE which originally was submitted by him into the previous discussion thread. My response was the first to Ethan, which follows:

Ethan: Thanks for sharing your perspective, your comments are welcome.

1) No one I am aware of questions the intention that NIU has for its student body. Many do, however, question and are alarmed with the new way of doing things at Northland. I speak primarily of alumni and friends of Northland. I am not, speaking just for myself, and I suggest to you we are not “reading into things” at Northland. What is happening at Northland is in plain view.

2) “Attacks on his [Olson’s] character.” I trust you are not suggesting there are attacks on Dr. Olson’s good character in this or any of the articles that have been presented here. I do not and would not allow any personal attacks on the character or motives of Dr. Olson…. I hope you can understand that what is happening at and what NIU is becoming is under scrutiny and legitimate criticism not the character of men who are making the decisions for change at NIU. When what one does or the words he says come under scrutiny those who love and appreciate that man might feel as though his person and character are under attack, when it is in fact not so.

Ethan, are you aware that I sent an advance copy of this article (Is NIU Unchanged?) to Dr. Olson almost two weeks prior to publishing? I asked him to review it and inform me of any factual errors. I promised to rectify any verifiable errors in the article prior to publishing. We exchanged several cordial e-mails and Dr. Olson did not identify any errors or misrepresentation in the article.

3) For many observers the changes at NIU are not “trivial matters,” they are perceived as radical shifts away from the stands articulated in the NBBC Position Statement.

4) You wrote, “I have been here for 19 years now and can tell you all that Northland really is changing, but for the better.” I appreciate you recognize and acknowledge that NIU is changing. I think you appreciate that many alumni and others close to the school do not see these changes at NIU as for the better. I refer specifically to the items detailed in this and a previous article: John MacArthur, Rick Holland, Wayne Simien, Wicked, Bruce Ware, et. al. May I ask: You recognize that NIU is changing, but-

Why do suppose Dr. Olson and Dr. Ollila insist that NIU remains “unchanged?”

Finally, just as you have invited Brother Floyd to visit NIU…Dr. Olson invited me to visit, which I cordially declined due to family and professional responsibilities. I was on campus for several days in 2000 and again in 2001. What I saw then and can see now at the NIU website, through the video and other sources from NIU shows me a college that has changed dramatically from what it a when I last visited. IMO, we are not “speculating” at what is happening at NIU, it is plain for any objective observer.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective.

Kind regards,


LM

Brother Floyd then responded to Ethan as follows:

Ethan, Thanks for articulating your point of view. I think it is great that your family has been at Northland for so long and that you are learning valuable truth there. I also love Northland and what it stood for. I am grateful for men such as your father, Dr, Ollila, Dr. Horn, Dr. Von, and Neil Cushman. I am saddened to see though that things have changed in philosophy at Northland. I personally don’t mind certain changes in application as they are called, but the most important core factor is what is being taught at a more foundational level. Subtle changes in belief there can then result in outward changes in application – for the better or worse. Northland is also under pressure to attract students. I’m wondering how far they will go to do so.

I will also say that I have nothing against the students or those who are truly trying to serve the Lord. I just would caution you as a student to search out the scriptures for yourself to see what is truth, and what is not.

Be careful of politics within fundamentalism and of overarching movements toward compromise, all while under the cloak of unity for the gospel’s sake.

I remember clearly Dr. Ollila preaching about the danger of Northland becoming an institution that no longer teaches the truth. He would bring up places like Yale and Harvard where truth was once taught, but now have become anything, but what they were in the past. He stressed the importance of not compromising on the truth. Not that Northland is anywhere near that level of compromise yet, but they have taken a posture that has open arms toward conservative evangelicalism and all that goes along with it.

I remember Neil Cushman teaching a lesson on black and white vs. gray issues in a men’s Christian service class. He made the point that there is really very little that is truly a gray area. I remember Dr. Horn teaching us that the biggest problem in ministry/fundamentalism lies with each of us men if we allow sin to corrupt us. Where does error fit into the picture?

If someone like MacArthur teaches error concerning Lordship Salvation, then why would men at Northland meet with him and decide that they agree with him enough to invite Rick Holland, one of his right hand men to speak at Northland – unless they don’t see a big problem with his [soteriology] views?

Dr. Olson basically confirmed this to me himself through email. While Olson does not articulate exactly what MacArthur does, he does not see MacArthur’s views as being a big problem.

What about Rick Holland’s Resolved conference? Do they support that? They would not have before.

I have not made pure assumptions about Northland. I originally wrote your father and my questions got passed on to Matt Olson. I have had cordial e-mails with Matt and I understand now where he is coming from, but we will have to agree to disagree about certain things. I told him that I would indeed like to come and visit Northland and talk to him about issues. I don’t know how soon that would be possible or if that would do any good. He seems resolute in his desire to take the school in this “new” direction. I have also talked to a recent graduate and he confirmed that things were getting worse there. I noticed a few things just a couple years back when I came up for the Heart conference.

There are others that have issues with Northland’s change, i.e. alumni and pastors around the country. Their concerns are warranted. My friends are divided. Those of them who favor things like reformed theology, Lordship Salvation, Calvinism, Acts 29 network, sovereign grace music, covenant theology, leaky dispensationalism, have tended to like Northland’s changes. Others that are more traditional fundamentalists do not. It is pretty simple to me to see what is going on.

This isn’t just confined to Northland. These issues are at play at seminaries like Central, Detroit, and Calvary of Landsdale.

My overall concern is that Satan is indeed getting a victory if the gospel message is being clouded at these four fundamental institutions.

LM

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Just prior to posting this article, I did take note of one particular excerpt from Ethan. He wrote, “We send out so many ministry teams to different countries throughout our Christmas, Summer, and Spring breaks, and will continue to do that no matter how many people disagree with it.” I do not know of anybody who would object to or disagree with NIU doing all they can to carry out the Great Commission unto the uttermost parts of the earth. When I was a missionary in South Africa (1996-1999) we would have welcomed a ministry team from Northland.

Previous articles in the series:
Is NIU “Unchanged?” ReDux: NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part One

Is NIU “Unchanged?”: The NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

Our Children Learn Not Only What We Teach Them, but by What We Tolerate

Northland Int’l. University’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?

Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

Is NIU “Unchanged?” Redux- NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part One

The previous article on current events at Northland International University (NIU) stirred a great deal of attention and discussion, both public and private. That article is Is NIU “Unchanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity and was the fourth in a series about the new direction, trajectory of and practices at NIU.

In the Is NIU “Unchanged” discussion thread two NIU students, Phil Palmer and Ethan Kimbrough, posted comments in which they offered their view of what is unfolding at their school. Both Phil and Ethan were sincere in their comments and we can all appreciate the good spirit with which these young men expressed themselves. Their concerns and comments were primarily directed to Brother James Floyd.* Both Brother Floyd and I shared some reaction to their comments. The comments submitted by Phil and Ethan and our responses cover a fairly wide cross-section of issues with NIU. I believe those interactions contain elements that will be beneficial to every reader who is interested in and/or concerned with the new direction and practices at NIU.

Today we will review Phil Palmer’s comment and the responses to him. Because of the length of Phil’s two part comments in the original thread I will provide a direct link to it for those who wishes to read it in full. Later, in a separate article, we will consider Ethan’s comment and our response to him.

I believe there is value in reviewing and discussing what these two young men raised and the responses they were provided. This is why I am converting that thread discussion to the main page for your consideration. The opening comment from James Floyd follows, which elicited the response from NIU student Phil Palmer. Brother Floyd wrote,

Lou, Thanks for the article. I was concerned by the video in that they were using the skit** as a way to then talk about what Northland is. It came across that they are willing to engage culture to reach the lost. This is code language for compromise. I remember skits and parodies that were done at times in the past at Northland that would have raised a few eyebrows had they been recorded and put on the internet. There were times where students went a little too far with their society recruiting skits, but this is unacceptable. I would be more upset if I didn’t know Dr. Kimbrough. I appreciated his ministry at Northland while I was there. I’m sure that he felt that there was nothing wrong with the skit, but it looks very bad from the outside looking in. I understand that this is not an actual chapel service, but it does convey that Northland has changed. I had a hard time making out what the young man was saying toward the end, but it sounded like more of the same hype and philosophy that Matt Olsen and others are putting forward.

NIU sophomore, Phil Palmer, submitted a two part comment, which can be viewed in it’s entirety here, which was Phil’s reaction to Brother Floyd’s comment above. Brother Floyd and I responded to Phil as follows, with my response imediately below, preceding Brother Floyd’s.

Phil, Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’ve had some discussions with a particular pastor, whom I appreciate, along the lines of your core point(s). I’d like to share some thoughts from these discussions.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I hear you saying that NIU is standing true on matters of philosophy and principle but changing on matters of application and that changes in application shouldn’t be of any great concern. You are saying that NIU’s philosophy has not changed, but its practice has. Since many people define “philosophy” as “that which I believe which impacts what I do,” one is led to wonder if what Northland’s philosophy has changed because it seems evident to a great many that what Northland is doing has changed.

If the positional statements that Northland once published were being followed today there would be a difference in what is being practiced (inclusion of Southern Baptists, allowances for contemporary music and those that promote it, dance or “stage movement” in a “chapel” service). Northland’s published position statements have been public indicators of the expected philosophy and practice of the institution. It seems evident to those who read them and then read, listen to (or see) what’s being said today that things have changed.

You seem to be saying the changes are a matter of “practice” and that we shouldn’t really be concerned about that because the cause of the gospel is of greater consequence than a few seemingly insignificant practices.

Phil, you realize, I trust, that Peter’s unwillingness to eat with the gentiles while in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14) (“they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel”) was a matter of practice and not a matter of philosophy. His practice was so wrong that the gospel was at stake. You realize, I trust, that Aaron and the children of Israel said that they were worshipping Jehovah while they built a golden calf. There unorthodox practice (building what God called an idol) was destroying the orthodoxy of their position. You realize that Ananias and Saphira believed in giving but their practice was so tainted as to cause their death. The church in Corinth was challenged to come to the Lord’s table in a “worthy manner,” (practice) as well as to come believing in the substitutionary sacrifice of God’s Son.

Plain and simple, practice matters! It is not just the “meditation of our heart,” (Psalm 19:14) but the “words of our mouth” (Psalm 49:3) that needs to be “acceptable” in God’s sight.

You seem to be arguing that the priority of the gospel ought to be a license for conduct that many believe unbecoming the gospel. A theme and influence that is becoming common place from some men in IFB circles.

Next is Brother Floyd’s reply to Phil.

Phil, I appreciate your comments. Here is my response.

1. The problem is that men like MacArthur and Holland put forth a Lordship view of salvation. You have to ask yourself if men can work together in ministry while some put forth this view and others teach salvation without adding in things like discipleship and a decision for total commitment before being saved. There are those of us who have trouble working with those who hold flawed views on soteriology. You must be careful to watch out for error no matter how subtle. I’ve seen some people confused to the point of frustration by those proclaiming a so called “Lordship gospel.” Why muddy the clear waters of the gospel just for the sake of unity?

Northland basically approves of John MacArthur and Rick Holland along with much of their work or Rick Holland would not have been allowed to speak in chapel. The same can be said for Wayne Simien. He also fits with their new direction.

2. Rick’s invitation shows that Northland values what he has to say. Many people like Rick use a “focus on Christ” in the gospels to justify their views on lordship salvation or things like reformed theology. You should consider Rick Holland's overall body of work and decide if you agree with him or not at that point. Anyone can sound good for one sermon. Some are also very good at hiding their more controversial beliefs.

3. I listened to Wayne Simien’s message and he said some good things, but he does present a view that is consistent with Northland’s new direction. Be careful to understand what it means to “advance the kingdom.” It can mean different things. Some use this to justify compromise. They say that we should engage the culture around us in order to further the kingdom of Christ.

I say that you should be Christ-like and let the world notice that you are different. Don’t be so worried about culture as it can steal your focus from things that matter.

4. I’d say that Northland’s philosophy has changed. Their change in actions point to their change in philosophy/beliefs. It is undeniable. I have talked with Matt Olson on this. Northland is doing exactly what it wants to do. The application/philosophy argument lacks relevance.

The real issue is that there is disagreement in fundamentalism over Lordship Salvation, Calvinistic soteriology, and biblical separation.

People need to decide where they stand on these issues and move forward with the courage to be what they really are.

Next time we will review the thread commentary and discussion with Ethan Kimbrough.


LM

*James Floyd graduated from Northland in 2000 with a degree in Biblical Counseling. He has been involved in church planting work and is now serving in the discipleship ministry of his home church.

**NIU students and staff dance to the Broadway play, WICKED.

Previous articles in the series:
Is NIU “Unchanged?”: The NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

Our Children Learn Not Only What We Teach Them, but by What We Tolerate

Northland Int’l. University’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?

Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

Is NIU “Unchanged?” Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

An individual recently provided me with an official document used at Northland International University. The document is titled, Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity. This document was originally prepared by the college and endorsed by the NBBC board. This document was once and still may be distributed to visiting guests with questions about Northland’s stand on issues. Topics that the NBBC Position Statement address, but is not limited to, but includes: Accreditation, Divorce, Promise Keepers, Social Drinking, Billy Graham, Jack Hyles, Calvinism, Bible Versions and Navigators. For today’s purposes, however, I am highlighting four topics from the document. Let’s review these four categories from the NBBC Position Statement and then consider certain current events at Northland in light of those official position statements.

BOB JONES
Bob Jones, Jr. and Bob Jones III speak on campus occasionally. We are a Baptist school but appreciate their strong stand on Fundamentalism.1

MUSIC
1. Principles of Music- We believe that all music must glorify and be a direct reflection on the life of a Spirit-filled believer (Ephesians 5: 18-20). We do not believe that music is amoral or “Value-neutral,” but that music plays an important role in the spiritual life of a believer. The style in which a piece of music is written and the manner in which it is performed strongly colors the message of the music. Or desire is to promote the style and type of music that will edify the believer and encourage holy living, and to avoid styles that contradict or hinder the spiritual well-being of the Christian. With these principles in mind, we have developed the following guidelines:

2007 Resolved, "Rock Out?"

2. Types of Music- Sacred music must be conservative in style. The music should support the message, and the message should be scriptural. We avoid music classified as “Contemporary Christian Music”- sacred music which is written or performed in a popular or worldly style. These styles include rock, Blues, Jazz, “big band,” rap, New Age, and other styles normally associated with worldly entertainment or dancing. We also avoid “pop” or rock arrangements of traditional hymns, recordings with the typical rhythm section of bass and drums used in pop and dance music.

Some styles of secular music, such as classical music, marching band music, fun songs, or traditional folk songs may be appropriate for certain occasions. However, some styles, such as jazz, rock, rap, punk, dance band, or New Age are never considered appropriate.

3. Music Performance- We do not encourage a singing or playing style which mimics the style of popular musicians. This includes scooping, sliding, breathiness, unnecessary syncopation, “scat” singing and other techniques common to nightclub, jazz, and other popular singers. We do encourage a style of singing and playing based on traditional, legitimate principles of good musicianship, including rhythmic precision, breath and tone support, proper intonation, and a direct, unaffected mode of expression.

From Resolved 2008

4. Music Performers- Because of our conservative stance regarding music and performance, we do not endorse “Contemporary Christian” artist who use worldly techniques in performing or recording their music.

Christian Rock Music
We view this as a contradiction in terms and reject it as being Christian.

John MacArthur
We have no institutional ties with Dr. MacArthur. We disagree with his view of church polity, but see value in his writings and in his expository preaching. We disagree with his neo-evangelical associations.2

With those NBBC Position Statements in mind, please consider the following four events that took place on NIU’s campus in 2010. Read objectively, and as you do ask yourself, has anything changed in principle and application at NIU?

1) NIU Initiates and Establishes Institutional Ties with John MacArthur
In April 2010 NIU President Matt Olson with Sam Horn, Les Ollila and Doug McLachlan traveled to the Grace Community Church to meet with John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland. This meeting was not publicly disclosed until Matt Olson’s Friends in Ministry open letter (Nov. 2010).3 See- NIU’s Convergence with Evangelicalism and Our Children Learn Not Only By What We Teach Them, But by What We Tolerate

2) Rick Holland, executive pastor of Grace Community Church Founder/director of John MacArthur’s CCM/Rock youth conference Resolved was presented to the undergraduates in an October chapel meeting.4

While NIU views Christian Rock “as a contradiction in terms and reject it as being Christian” by putting Rick Holland in the chapel pulpit NIU’s leadership, at the minimum, gave tacit endorsement to his Resolved conference. Dr. Peter Masters correctly describes Rick Holland’s Resolved Conference as an,

“...extreme charismatic-style worship…sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert.... Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. Pictures…betray the totally worldly, show business atmosphere created by the organizers [Rick Holland].”5

3) Wayne Simien Speaks in Undergraduate Chapel
Simien’s Called to Greatness, among other ministries, offers dance classes for girls age 8-12, “intended to instill in young people a love for dance along with the fundamentals of ballet and jazz,” as well as Jazz/Contemporary dance instruction for girls 13-17. See-
Former NBA Player Speaks in Chapel 6

4) NIU Students and Staff Perform Music From and Dance to Broadway play Wicked
In the video link you will see Wynne Kimbrough, dean of students, on the platform with another student performing the duet lead role along with four off stage (student) dancers. You will see Dr. Kimbrough and five students performing a song and dance selection from Wicked, What is This Feeling, Loathing.

From the Music section of the NBBC Position Statement above, “We avoid music...styles normally associated with worldly entertainment or dancing.” Not anymore! One might assume that since this was Spirit Week on campus that this was done as a parody. Nevertheless, there is no justification whatsoever for this presentation on the campus of a fundamental Christian college. As the NBBC Position Statement indicates, “…some styles, such as jazz, rock, rap, punk, dance band, or New Age are never considered appropriate.”

In his Friends and Fellow Followers letter Les Ollila wrote, “…the foundational principles and historic theological positions to which we have always been committed remain unchanged.” In Matt Olson’s Open Letter to Friends in the Ministry he stated,

Our Music Philosophy: Philosophically, it is unchanged. Let me say it again... unchanged. What we have always been trying to do, and will continue to do into the future, is to make sure Northland’s practice of music (as with every aspect of the Christian life) is built principally on clear teachings from the Bible…. 7

CLOSE:
Has NIU remained unchanged? In 2010-11 school year would NIU hand the Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity to a visiting pastor and/or parent and state that the university still abides by the philosophy and practice it defines? Is the NBBC Position Statement still in force, or has it been set aside to allow for what has the appearance of a change in direction for NIU? Did the name change from NBBC to NIU negate and dissolve the Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity?

NBBC was so “Baptistic” that when the NBBC Position Statement was written they found it necessary to offer an explanation for having in Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. Bob, III. Today, NIU presents non-Baptists and Southern Baptists in the classroom and chapel pulpit who are not known as, and do not want to be indentified as fundamental Baptists or with Fundamentalism. Yet NIU’s president and chancellor insist the university “is unchanged.”

The happenings of recent months from Northland’s campus strongly suggest that NIU is moving in a direction that is at odds with some elements that the NBBC Position Statement articulates. In light of tangible evidence that NIU has embarked on a new course in its philosophy and has formalized ties with evangelicals, the administration must decide to either:

1) Publicly disavow the NBBC Position Statement or,

2) Repent of recent activities identified above and live up to the NBBC Position Statement in principle and application. Cease and desist immediately from the new trajectory the administration has set for the university.

What tires objective observers is letters like those from Les Ollila and Matt Olson where they seem to use subjective imprecise language to quell any concerns. Complete details of what is transpiring in the administration and on campus are obscured for the sake of the new philosophy, trajectory and agenda for impressionable NIU students.

“Northland’s new trajectory has a historic parallel. The devastating effects of introducing Evangelicalism’s philosophy and practices into a biblical Fundamentalist setting are no more stark than the demise of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.”8

LM

Related Reading:
NIU Plunging Headlong Into a Liberal Entertainment Approach Ministry

Is NIU Opposed to and “Reject[ing of] the Modern Day Charismatic Movement?”

Sharper Iron & NIU: Censorship by Omission

Headline: Update, May 8, 2011
For details see, Dr. Matt Olson UnInvited from BJU Baccalaureate

MAJOR Development, See-
NIU Students RAP to “Jesus Loves Me” and it’s Blasphemy!

FOOTNOTES:
1) Northland identified itself as a, “Baptist school but appreciate their (Bob Jones, Jr. and Bob Jones, III] strong stand on Fundamentalism.” Fall 2010 semester’s guest speakers on NIU’s campus (Rick Holland and Wayne Simien) are not Baptists and do not have a “strong stand on Fundamentalism.” So, what is it that NIU appreciates about Holland and Simien that would have them invited to speak on campus?

2) NIU disagrees with John MacArthur’s “neo-evangelical associations.” Yet, NIU officials (Olson, Ollila, Horn, McLachlan) flew to California to meet with John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland. the meeting resulted in establishing “institutional ties” with the invitation to MacArthur’s executive pastor, Rick Holland, to speak in NIU’s chapel to the undergraduates. Who changed? It wasn’t MacArthur, Johnson and Holland!

3) Dr. Matt Olson’s Open Letter to Friends in the Ministry

4) See- NIU Presents executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to Its Student Body

5) “Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff [Rick Holland], 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, show business atmosphere created by the organizers.)” (Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness)

6) See Wayne Simien’s Called to Greatness Event Information tab, CTG Dance link.

7) Dr. Matt Olson’s Open Letter to Friends in the Ministry

8) Discussion Over the Closing of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College

The Leapfrog Directly to non-Fundamentalist Evangelicalism

In the current (12/31/10) discussion thread at the paleoevangelical blog, Dr. Kevin Bauder posted a comment that included the following statement:

“Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that I have seen a tendency to reject Fundamentalism in all its versions tout court, and to leapfrog directly to some version of non-Fundamentalist evangelicalism. To me, this is a disappointing trend.”

In part I replied to those remarks as follows:

“In my opinion, you are not mistaken. Brother Kevin isn’t it possible that, from within IFB circles, you are a significant contributor to the ‘disappointing trend’, the ‘leapfrog’ that is happening as you describe it?”

I believe Dr. Gerald Priest’s remarks help us evaluate the legitimate concern Kevin Bauder raises. Following is an excerpt from Dr. Priest who was reacting to Bauder’s (3/10) article Let’s Get Clear on This.

Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism…. Like Kevin, I would give credit to the conservative evangelicals where credit is due. I say ‘Amen’ to everything they have done well in defense of the gospel of Christ. But not at the expense of discrediting fundamentalism for the valiant battles it has fought against some of the very things many conservative evangelicals are espousing which compromise the gospel, yet which many of the current generation do not seem to take very seriously.”

The following review by Dr. Rolland McCune would IMO be another very helpful consideration to Kevin Bauder’s wondering why there is a “disappointing trend…to reject Fundamentalism in all its versions” what he called a “leapfrog” effect.

Dr. Rolland McCune, in the Spring '95 Sentinel, reviewed Dr. Douglas McLachlan’s Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. After crediting McLachlan with offering many good insights and saying some needed things about the shortcomings of Fundamentalism, McCune says: “There are some concerns, questions, and suggestions that should be raised. The tone of the book comes across as decidedly negative for the most part, almost anti-Fundamentalist at times. It bears the marks of frustration and reaction. One would think that Fundamentalism today has been led into a wasteland of spiritual declension and practical ineffectiveness. It would have been better to acknowledge the contributions and sacrifices of past leaders than to imply they were a cadre of name-seeking ladder-climbers. It would also seem to be more appropriate to call for some in-house self-corrective measures than to cast Fundamentalism into an ‘us-them’ configuration that could easily facilitate a breakaway mentality....” (Source, Calvary Contender, July 1995.)

Please take a moment to carefully, objectively consider the review excerpt above by Dr. McCune. Does it have relevance, merit and application in the current day Fundamentalist community? I have great personal regard for both Drs. McCune and Priest and have benefited greatly from their commentary above as applied to the dialogue, new direction and influences being offered by Drs. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran.


LM

A Growing Association Between Some “Fundamentalists” and “Conservative Evangelicals”

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS- (Friday Church News Notes, December 24, 2010 www.wayoflife.org)

There is a growing association toward between some “fundamentalists” and “conservative evangelicals.” 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 invited Bruce Ware, Southern Baptist Seminary professor, in to conduct a seminar for pastors. Calvary Baptist Seminary invited Southern Baptist pastor Mark Dever as a speaker at their National Leadership Conference. And Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist has used his blog this year to praise “conservative evangelicals” such as Southern Baptist Seminary head Al Mohler. What is glaringly left out of this issue is the matter of separation.** Bauder claims that the “conservative evangelicals” aren’t New Evangelicals and he conveniently defines New Evangelicalism in a way that proves his point (whereas his predecessors at Central, Richard Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, displayed greater wisdom in their understanding of New Evangelicalism). While there are many aspects of New Evangelicalism, the defining principle from its inception was a “repudiation of separatism.” That was the way that Harold Ockenga put it. That is Billy and Franklin Graham’s foundational working principle. And by that definition, every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical. That is evident by the simple fact that they remain in the SBC, which is an unholy organization that encompasses theological Liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, Billy Graham ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils. The Southern Baptist Convention is filled with men who have the same unscriptural philosophy as Ed Young Jr., with his non-judgmental, downplay doctrine philosophy and his close association with heretics such as Pentecostal Word-Faith preacher Brian Houston of Sydney, Australia. Brian’s wife is his “co-pastor”; he preaches a prosperity gospel; he thinks vain muttering is “tongues speaking”; and his worship leader participates in Roman Catholic conferences. The “conservative” Southern Baptist Ed is fine with all that. If you think I am wrong on this, send me a book or a preaching series by a “conservative evangelical” on separation. Typically, the only thing they have to say about separation is ridicule for those who try to practice it. They refuse to be restrained by separation. They don’t have a heart for it. They want a big tent, but God’s Word doesn’t allow it. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

Courtesy Way of Life, Brother David Cloud. Reprinted by permission.

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS (Friday Church News Notes, December 24, 2010, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

Site Publisher’s Notes:
*This “vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel” that men like Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Lansdale and Northland International University's administration are heaping lavish praise upon evangelicals for is the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Lordship Salvation is the so-called “pure gospel” that self-described fundamental Baptist separatists are rallying to and converging around with evangelicals.

**In one of the closing parts of his Now, About Those Differences series Kevin Bauder mentions 2 Thessalonians. Then, however, he states, “my present purpose is not to expound these texts.” It was expected from the beginning of his series that he would never expound upon or give series attention to 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15 or Romans 16:17 when addressing the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. If Bauder did expound these texts honestly he IMO would have to throw out vast sections of his accolades for and defense of evangelicalism in his series. It is amazing that certain men with advanced academic training cry “sola Scriptura” with great passion, but then follow the same vein as the Reformers and rely on human reason and logic to tell us what the Scriptures really say. It becomes increasingly clear that Kevin Bauder’s Fundamentalism Worth Saving is one that casts off fidelity to the principles of God’s mandates for separatism by redefining applications to legitimize his influencing a convergence with evangelicalism and its star personalities. For related reading see, It Won’t Fly With Us Who Know … Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of Separation by Dr. Lance Ketchum … Excusing the Brother for the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separation Principles?