Archival Series: Has John MacArthur Promoted the Creation of the Young, Restless & Reformed Who, “Embrace the World’s Fashions and Values?”

Last time we considered Pastor Steve Lawson’s rebranding of the centuries old Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P. See- It’s Called “Calvinism,” & It’s Not That long of a Line.

From reading that article some have asked, “what is ‘New’ Calvinism?” Today, we are looking back to July 2011 when I republished an article by Dr. Peter Masters from 2009 where he warned of the “New” Calvinism and its alarming effects on modern day believers. The Gospel Coalition, T4G and their members like Steve Lawson, Kevin DeYoung, Andy Naselli and John Piper, exemplify what Dr. Masters coined as the New Calvinism. Let’s begin.

From his Grace to You blog Dr. John MacArthur laments what has become of the so-called “young, restless and reformed [Calvinists],” (YRR). Did John MacArthur contribute to the creation of what the YRR have become? John MacArthur now tells the YRR to “settle down.” In his introductory article, Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming. Advise for the Young, Restless, Reformed he says,

The YRR, “cannot be genuinely ‘Reformed’ and deliberately worldly at the same time. The two things are inconsistent and incompatible. To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being ‘missional’—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4).”

In 2009 Dr. Peter Masters wrote The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness that addressed what he saw then that MacArthur only now acknowledges, but accepts no responsibility for having contributed to.

With Dr. Master’s permission I published his article here (July 2009). In it Dr. Masters names John MacArthur, and by inference Grace Community Church Executive Pastor Rick Holland as contributors of the worldliness that would infect the young Calvinists. This article aggravated many of the so-called "conservative" evangelicals, the very like-minded Stateside Calvinists whom Masters was admonishing for their excursion into aberrant theology and worldliness. His article was prophetic. The only question remaining is whether or not men like John MacArthur will continue the same pattern of contribution(s) to the worldliness he fostered that he now laments. Read this article for that and further details on the problem with the YR&R.

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness:

An alarmed assessment by Dr. Masters of the ‘new Calvinism’ promoted among young people in the USA

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 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.

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.

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 teeshirt, 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 have in common the following positions that contradict a genuine Calvinistic (or Puritan) outlook:

1. They have no problem with contemporary charismatic-ethos worship, including extreme, heavy-metal forms.
2. They are soft on separation from worldliness [see endnote 2].
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.

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 this form of 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.’

Endnotes
1. His resolution of the question of divine sovereignty versus human free will, however, is much nearer to the Arminian view.

2. A recent book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C J Mahaney and others, hopelessly under-equips young believers for separation from the world, especially in the area of music, where, apparently, the Lord loves every genre, and acceptability is reduced to two misleading and subjective questions.

(Italics his, bold and underline mine. Images have been added to illustrate some of that which Masters warns of.)

The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness is a clarion call to “young people in the USA” and especially timely for young American Fundamentalists. This is a sermon in print, a “ministry of warning” that has been nearly non-existent in American IFB circles. This is a much needed “ministry of warning” to men in Fundamentalism who are rapidly moving toward increased dialogue, fellowship with and tolerance for the “new” Calvinism of “conservative” evangelicalism.

LM
Originally appeared July 25, 2011.  See the comment thread there for an extended discussion.

Please continue to the next in this series, Dr. MacArthur, “Reforming” Is Not The Answer. Repentance Is!

This is Not Your Father’s Bob Jones University, A Continuation (ReDUX)

As we begin this new article I encourage all readers to visit or re-visit the previous article.

“This is Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile,” and Neither is Bob Jones University

In it we detailed several examples of BJU abandoning its foundational separatist principles.  Among them was this reference, “Dr. Sam Horn participating in a local Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) conference.” That reference required editing, it has been, and is the opening subject of this article.

What we have learned is that BJU president Steve Pettit participated in this (PCA) conference that being, Here We Stand: Greenville Conference on Reformed Theology held October 11-13, 2019 at the Second Presbyterian Church. Who are the two men whom Steve Pettit shared the platform with?

Dr. Joel R. Beeke, “President and Professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a pastor of the Heritage Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, editor of Puritan Reformed Journal and Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth. His PhD is in Reformation and Post-Reformation theology from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia). He is frequently called upon to lecture at seminaries and to speak at Reformed conferences around the world.”

Dr. Richard D. Phillips, “Among his many activities, he serves on the board and council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, the council of The Gospel Coalition, and the board of trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary.”

What has BJU president Steve Pettit shown us by taking an active role in this conference, with these speakers? First, he has removed any lingering doubt of having led the University to embrace Reformed Theology. Second, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) includes men in its leadership who are some of the most egregious of ecumenical compromisers among the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. (More to follow on The Gospel Coalition) Steve Pettit has, by his example, diminished biblical admonitions (Romans 16:17-18; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) that once protected BJU students from cooperative ministry with evangelicals who actively reject the principles of biblical separation. 

To date, I have kept these next comments private until such time as seemed appropriate.  Steve Pettit’s speaking at the Greenville Conference on Reformed Theology (GCRT) is the appropriate time. Following the Spring 2019 semester, through mutual acquaintances, I crossed paths with two BJU students, one in the seminary and the other in the university as an undergraduate preacher boy.  Both said Covenant Theology (CT) is tolerated and being taught at the university.  Through an intermediary I posed another question to the undergrad because he may have misunderstood the lectures with dispensationalism and CT possibly being contrasted and compared, and he was confused.  He said, “No, CT was being taught as the correct lens through which to interpret Scripture.”  I know of no reason to doubt either of their accounts.

At 37:45 Steve shared some of his early background.  He grew up in a Presbyterian Church where the gospel wasn’t clear. Yet, he is now building bridges with the PCA crowd by referencing the apostate church in which he grew up. Without explanation – what Steve was saying could have possibly been interpreted by the reformed theologians in front of him as something of a covenant relationship since his childhood. Steve trusted the Lord during his freshman year at the Citadel after a college student witnessed to him. Has he subtly or unwittingly denigrated his born-again experience?

It would do well for Steve Pettit to be reminded of Dr. Bob Sr.’s disagreement with the Billy Graham crusades. His complaint with Billy Graham was not his preaching.  It was with his associations. Dr. Pettit’s conference message might be something we would agree with, but his appearance with the GCRT crowd, is proof positive that he has an affinity with this crowd. Drs. Pettit and Horn continue to engineer associations with the Southern Baptist Convention and the PCA.

As if we haven’t seen enough of BJU’S direction, Dr. Andy Naselli was the guest speaker at the Seminary for the Dr. Stewart Custer Lecture Series held Nov. 11-12.

Andy Naselli was trained in fundamentalist schools with a BA from Baptist College of Ministry, an MA & Ph.D. from Bob Jones University, and followed with a Ph.D. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Today, however, Andy walks a different path.

Andy Naselli is associate professor of New Testament and theology at John Piper’s Bethlehem College & Seminary (BCS), and an elder of Bethlehem Baptist Church. Upon joining BCS in 2013 Andy posted on line five reasons for doing so.  Among them include, in his words,
“The doctrine BCS affirms and celebrates is what we affirm and celebrate.” Among the things Andy Naselli affirms and celebrates we find at the BCS site, which Andy linked to, including, “Reformed in our soteriology, baptistic in our practice, and charismatic in our affections.”

Andy is, furthermore, on staff of The Gospel Coalition (TGC). BJU honored him and gave him a platform presence, a man who has rejected the biblical separatism he was taught at BJU in favor of John Piper’s doctrinal aberrations and The Gospel Coalition’s ecumenical compromisers.

To any objective observer surely enough has been seen to erase any lingering doubt that BJU has abandoned its foundational, separatist principles.

Pastor Travis Smith recently posted, Lunging Toward the Cliff of “No Return.” 

Make no mistake…Andy Naselli was privileged to serve as the highlighted guest speaker at BJU’s Seminary. The University and its administrative leadership has accepted the baggage that goes with [John] Piper and his cronies- The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel to name two. 

Under Dr. Steve Pettit’s leadership, Bob Jones University continues to follow a path of ecclesiastical compromise, embracing the spirit of Neo-evangelicalism, and rejecting its historical legacy as a Bible fundamental, separatist institution.

At least we who were in classes and privileged to be challenged by separatists like Drs. Bob Jones., Bob Jones III, Gilbert Stenholm and Richard Rupp can take consolation in this: Whilst the current administration has sadly tarnished the reputation of Dr. Stewart Custer, they have so far spared the Jones’ of that humiliation.

The Jones era always took and stressed a strong separatist position. A number of pastors recall Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. strongly challenging preacher boys to come back and shut the school down if it departed from the fundamentals.  Of course, the current administration would argue, what are the fundamentals on this point?

Some alumni hold the opinion that Steve Pettit has already done enough to alienate the alumni to the point of ensuring the university’s demise whether or not the preacher boys come back to do it.

Ian Paisley


The University has always been theologically broad. So – that’s not new. What is new is the association with compromised denominations that have never espoused fundamentalism. Dr. Bob, Jr. loved Ian Paisley (Free Presbyterian). No one waved the fundamentalist-separatist flag more boldly than Paisley. What Steve Pettit is doing is different in that he embraces those who never have identified as fundamentalists (PCA/SBC/The Gospel Coalition). Thus, the university is being lead away from the Fundamentalist camp into the evangelical camp, which is the avenue to new evangelicalism.

“He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth,” (Proverbs 10:17).

“The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise. He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getting understanding,” (Proverbs 15:32).

Alumni and friends of BJU have reached out to Steve Pettit personally about the direction he and Sam Horn are taking the university. On hearing the reproof of friends they have chosen not to change, and instead stepped on the gas-pedal. The trajectory the university is set upon can have only one of two outcomes, neither good.

1. The university will continue to lose students, and fold like Northland, Pillsbury and Clearwater.
2. Or the university will become ecumenically compromised like Fuller, Liberty and Wheaton.

May God help the administration and board of BJU heed the reproofs of those who love the school, its heritage and what it can still be for the cause of Christ.

LM
(Originally published Nov. 2019)

Related Reading:

Analysis of BJU's Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology

“After reading BJU’s position paper, I feel that it reflects a style commonly employed by many New Calvinists. Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, while maximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply his or her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones that would reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJU’s paper appears to use a similar strategy concerns me.”

Fundamentalism vs. Apostasy: Ian Paisley March 2, 1969

“I am quite happy to be identified as a Fundamentalist. I like to be identified with those who are fighting the Lord’s battles. You know there are some fellows who would like to be called fundamentalists, but they have no right to the name. They are pseudo-fundamentalists. They come into the fundamentalist nest, they would use the fundamentalist’s money and they would destroy the fundamentalist’s stand.” (8:40 of the message)

The Joseph Zichterman Issue

“On May 7, 2007 It was suddenly announced Joe Zichterman was leaving the IFB movement and would transfer his church membership to the Willow Creek Community Church. The announcement was made by Joe himself through a website he opened, which has since been taken offline.”

Is NIU, “Opposed to and Reject[ting of] the Modern Charismatic Movement,” Part 2

Earlier we saw that Dr. Matt Olson, Northland International University’s (NIU) president, praised a Charismatic church, its pastor and by extension the Sovereign Grace Ministries, founded by charismatic preacher C. J. Mahaney.1 Praising a charismatic ministry is a stark contravention to NIU’s current Articles of Faith, its Faculty, Staff and Student Handbooks,2 which state,

“Among the gifts listed in the Bible, we believe that sign gifts have ceased for today. Therefore, we reject the modern charismatic movement and the confusion which it has brought. (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11; 13:8; Ephesians 4:11-12).” 

“The university’s position is not to cooperate with any organization or movement that is connected with apostasy or that places less than primary emphasis on the authority of the Word of God…. Furthermore, Northland is opposed to Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and the Charismatic Movement.” 

“Therefore, 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. (1Thessalonians 4:16–17; Revelation 3:6–19, 19:11–16, 20:1–6, 11–15; 21:1–8).”

Let’s take a closer look at Pastor Ian McConnell. First, I am sure Ian loves the Lord and wants to please Him with his life. Second, I believe we will see Ian in Heaven worshipping our Lord together.  Ian has, however, gone off into what I believe to be doctrinal error. Ian is [senior] pastor for preaching and vision of the Grace Bible Church. The Grace Bible Church is listed among the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) membership of churches. SGM is unashamedly a Charismatic organization, with roots in the Catholic/Charismatic movement, believing the sign gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing are active and should be sought after today.

“The organization of over 70 member churches grew out of the charismatic renewal of the 1970s under the leadership of Catholic Charismatic Larry Tomczak and has its roots in the Gathering of Believers (now Covenant Life Church) in Maryland. It was formally established in 1982. CJ Mahaney and Larry Tomczak were the co-founders of both Covenant Life Church and People of Destiny International (PDI), the former name of Sovereign Grace Ministries. Mahaney describes himself as a ‘former pothead.’ Both Mahaney and Tomczak withdrew from the Charismatic Catholic scene shortly before the creation of Covenant Life Church.”3

Ian McConnell

Ian McConnell is closely tied to the modern Charismatic Movement and SGM. Ian serves on the SGM board of directors and he is scheduled as a special speaker at SGM’s 2012 Pastors Conference (Oct. 30-Nov. 1) in Orlando.4 In 2011 Ian McConnell spoke briefly at SGM’s PLANT conference. At 2:30 into the video (link below) Ian describes himself as a, “Twenty-Eight year old guy holding a seminary degree from a fundamentalist institution, who’s a Reformed Continuationist.”5 On the platform, seated to Ian’s right, is CJ Mahaney. It is a Reformed Continuationst pastor, and his charismatic SGM church that Matt Olson praised and stated that he has, “great confidence in this next generation [and] they get what matters most.”

How can NIU’s president, in good conscience, personally and publicly praise a charismatic church and its pastor when the official doctrinal position of the university opposes, rejects and cannot accept the modern Charismatic Movement?

Pastors/parents it seems you can expect impressionable NIU undergraduates to be influenced to accept and praise the “modern Charismatic Movement” just as the university president has done. Will NIU students will be encouraged to tolerate the aberrant theology and practices of the modern Charismatic movement? This is new wave New Evangelicalism in stark relief.

Are you prepared to send your student to a school where “Reformed Continuationists,” gives the university president “great confidence” and that they, Charismatic pastors and churches, “get what matters most?”

If acceptance of the “modern Charismatic Movement” is a component of the education you want for your young person then NIU appears to be the right choice for you.

At some point Dr. Olson must begin answering questions. Until Matt Olson answers questions in precise terms he is causing confusion and uncertainty about where Northland is headed and/or going to stand. Clearly, NIU is not what it once was as Northland Baptist Bible College. It has changed! Under Matt Olson Northland has changed, “radically” some would say.

In the next article I am going to post a short series of questions that any pastor or parent can ask Dr. Olson. They are brief, simple, but penetrating questions that can’t be answered with imprecise language or vague terminology. These questions get right to heart of the actual changes at NIU and others that may have already taken place or appear to be just over the horizon.


LM

Footnotes:
1) Is NIU, “Opposed to and Reject[ing of] the Modern Charismatic Movement?”
2) Northland Undergraduate Catalog, Articles of Faith 
3) Source, Wikipedia, accessed August 23, 2012
4) SGM’s Pastors Conference

Ligon Duncan is the keynote speaker for this conference. Among non-separatist evangelicals Ligon Duncan is best known for co-founding T4G, but especially for ecumenical compromise in having joined with Al Mohler to sign the Manhattan Declaration alongside apostates and Roman Catholic priests.

5) Ian McConnell: Revitalizing Instead of Planting

Is Northland International University “Opposed to and Reject[ing of] the Modern Charismatic Movement?”

Beginning in October 2010 IDOTG has exposed and addressed a number of significant changes at Northland International University (NIU) the former Northland Baptist Bible College (NBBC). Most recent was the Q&A Interview Series with former NIU faculty member Dr. Dana Everson. Today, we are going to consider another change in trajectory for NIU by President Matt Olson.  Dr. Olson has moved beyond issues of music, discipline and legalism into compromise of doctrinal and institutional fidelity. On July 2, 2012 from his personal blog Dr. Olson wrote, 

“I have great confidence in this next generation. They get what matters most. This was evidenced in my visit Sunday to Grace Bible Church in Philadelphia, where Ian McConnell serves as the pastor for preaching and vision. It was great to connect with some Northland alumni at Grace as well. Danny Adams (and his wife Becky [Dillabaugh]) serves as the the [sic] pastor for children’s ministries. Jesse Trach is currently an elder in training and being evaluated for pastoral ministry and Nathan Branine is attending Grace while making much of Jesus in the Philadelphia school systems. Come the beginning of September Greg Dietrich and his wife will be relocating to Philadelphia to attend Grace and work remotely for us at Northland.”1

A first read the paragraph seems harmless until you review the doctrinal statement of the Grace Bible Church.  There you find that among its, “Beliefs: We are evangelical, Reformed, and continuationist.”2

“Continuationist” is a contemporary term for those who believe and teach that the 1^st century church sign gifts of tongues, prophecy, miracles and healings have continued without interruption. The “continuationst” believes the sign gifts are presently active and should be sought after today. This teaching has been gaining traction in some circles of Fundamentalism.3

The Grace Bible Church site lists itself as one of the family of Sovereign Grace Churches.  C. J. Mahaney is a charismatic and co-founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). Mahaney, like John Piper is another who believes the 1^st century sign gifts are in operation today.  The Grace Bible Church links to SGM where you will read that, “One of the primary connections among Sovereign Grace churches is our commitment to a common Statement of Faith, which we summarize as evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic.”4

Is it possible Matt Olson unwittingly endorsed the Grace Bible Church legitimizing sign gifts theology of the Charismatic Movement? 

Let us consider whether or not NIU’s board of directors faces a serious doctrinal problem?  Each of the following paragraphs appear in Northland’s 2012-2013 Undergraduate and 2011-2013 Northland Graduate School Academic Catalogs.5

“The university’s position is not to cooperate with any organization or movement that is connected with apostasy or that places less than primary emphasis on the authority of the Word of God. Northland International University does not accept the philosophy, position, or practice of the National Council of Churches in America or the World Council of Churches. Furthermore, Northland is opposed to Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and the Charismatic Movement.” (Ecclesiastical Separation, p.9.)

“We believe God has given spiritual gifts to Christians to serve in and through the local church. Every believer has at least one gift, and the use of the gifts is always for the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to God. Among the gifts listed in the Bible, we believe that sign gifts (miracles, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy) were temporary in nature and given to the church in its infant state before the completion of the canon of Scripture. Therefore, we reject the modern Charismatic Movement and the confusion it has brought. (Romans 12:6–8; I Corinthians 12:1–11, 13:8; Ephesians 4:11–12)” (Articles of Faith, p. 12.)

“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. (Romans 16:17; I Corinthians 6:19-20; II Corinthians 6:14-17; I Thessalonians 5:22; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; I John 2:15, 17; II John 9, 10.) (Articles of Faith, p. 12.)

We have three statements from the Northland Graduate School Academic Catalog that unequivocally opposes and rejects the Charismatic Movement signs and wonders teaching.  The academic catalog explicitly rejects cooperation with the Charismatic Movement.  Yet, Matt Olson has honored the men and embraced the ministry of a church within the Sovereign Grace, Charismatic Movement. If he made a genuine mistake he needs to realize that his blog article has created a great deal of confusion and dismay for his own constituency and take immediate steps to clarify NIU’s position on the Charismatic Movement.

There is, however, another consideration. A current Northland staff member (Greg Dietrich) will remain employed by Northland while in Philadelphia and a member of this church. Northland will pay salary to a man who will be actively participating in and under the authority of a church that is advancing the Charismatic Movement.6

At present my understanding is that every Fall during In-service meetings NIU staff and faculty are asked to sign a statement affirming they read the Handbook and their acceptance of it. The Handbook includes general information, policies and the doctrinal statement of the school. Matt Olson himself would have been required to sign this agreement when he came on board at Northland.  I believe students have an exit process when they graduate in which they reaffirm their agreement with NIU’s doctrinal statement.

Any school and its board has the right to set their standards and statement of faith.  Unless something has changed faculty, staff, and students must sign their agreement with the doctrinal statement, which includes rejection of the Charismatic Movement. Have the employment requirements changed? Has the language on the Charismatic Movement been revised or removed from the Articles of Faith and Handbook?

How can NIU include a member of a Charismatic church on its payroll when the application for and renewal of employment requires opposition to and rejection of the Charismatic Movement?

Not so long ago Matt Olson and Les Ollila insisted NIU is “unchanged” in philosophy of music and theology. On Northland’s music philosophy Matt Olson wrote, “Philosophically, it is unchanged.  Let me say it again...unchanged.” (An Open Letter from Dr. Matt Olson of NIU, Nov. 2010.) Dr. Ollila wrote,

“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.” (Is Northland Changing? A Chancellor’s Perspective from Dr. Les Ollila, Dec. 2010. [bold added])

Historically changes in music and association eventually lead to a change in doctrine or reveal a doctrinal change that has already taken place. This has happened at NIU. It began partially through new associations with non-separatist so-called “conservative” evangelicals.7

The NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity, NIU’s Handbooks and Articles of Faith state that Charismatic theology is opposed and rejected by the University. Today, Northland’s president enthusiastically lauds a church and NIU graduates who are Reformed and charismatic.

“We believe God has given spiritual gifts to Christians to serve in and through the local church. Every believer has at least one gift, and the use of the gifts is always for the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to God. Among the gifts listed in the Bible, we believe that sign gifts have ceased for today. Therefore, we reject the modern Charismatic Movement and the confusion it has brought. (Romans 12:6–8; 1 Corinthians 12:1–11, 13:8; Ephesians 4:11–12).... Thus, we cannot accept the position reflected in the Ecumenical Movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement.8

“Sign gifts have ceased...we reject the modern Charismatic movement,” was the position of the former NBBC, but apparently NOT anymore.  Dr. Olson wrote that the Grace Bible Church, a Charismatic church, and these Northland graduates give him, “confidence in the next generation...they get what matters most.” That is no mild or grudging acceptance of the Charismatic church and NIU graduates serving there. Charismatics, “get what matters most?” 

This is a major change of a “historic theological position.”  

Matt Olson’s statements on the Grace Bible Church are a clear contradiction of published NIU doctrinal positions on the Charismatic Movement.   Do the NIU Articles of Faith stand for something or will they be pushed aside? In my opinion, it is fair to ask Matt Olson, any NIU administrator and board member:

Does Northland International University Stand “Opposed to and Reject the modern Charismatic Movement?”

The NIU board of directors has a decision to make: Insist Matt Olson 1) Correct the mistake he has made in regard to NIU’s position on the Charismatic Movement or in his capacity as NIU president, live by NIU’s stated doctrinal positions. 2)Ignore or revise NIU’s current position on Charismatic theology to allow for cooperative fellowship and efforts with Charismatic ministries such as Matt Olson has initiated.

What Should You Expect if Your Young Person is Enrolled at NIU?

Current NIU Student's FaceBook

NIU’s recent changes have shown us that its student body will be taught and influenced to tolerate, accept and/or embrace CCM’s “rock” styling, Calvinistic theology,9 the “Lordship Salvation” interpretation of the gospel10 and Charismatic sign gifts.  These things have made inroads at NIU. Matt Olson has yoked the university to ministries, opened the university’s classrooms and chapel to guest speakers who believe, preach and defend these views. 

If the parents and/or pastor of a local church reject those things, but has their young person attending NIU he/she may have already been influenced to embrace what Matt Olson is embracing.  Years of nurturing and teaching can be undone in just one semester under the kind of influence now wide spread at NIU.

NIU is becoming the 21^st century equivalent of Tennessee Temple, Cedarville and Liberty University.

Open Questions to Dr. Olson and Ollila:

Dr. Olson: Can you state in unequivocal terms that your comments in regard to the Sovereign Grace Ministry’s (Charismatic) Grace Bible Church and employment of Greg Dietrich are consistent with the explicit statements from the NIU Handbook and Articles of Faith?  In your capacity as NIU president do you:

1) “Reject the modern Charismatic Movement and the confusion it has brought?
2) Are you: “Opposed to the Charismatic Movement?” 3) In doctrine is NIU “philosophically unchanged?” 4) Can you, in good conscience sign agreement with the NIU’s Handbook statements on Ecclesiastical Separation and the Articles of Faith on “spiritual gifts to Christians?”

In December 2010 Dr. Ollila stated that, “…the foundational principles and historic theological positions to which we have always been committed remain unchanged.” In light of NIU president Matt Olson’s lavish praise of a Charismatic Church and pastor, directing NIU funds to a graduate/employee who will put himself under the authority of a Charismatic ministry, 

Dr. Ollila: Do you stand by your Dec. 2010 Chancellor’s Perspective that NIU’s “historical theological positions…remain unchanged?

These are questions that every concerned pastor and parent should be asking Dr. Olson and Dr. Ollila. In his 2010 Open Letter Dr. Olson wrote, “If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to write or call me. I welcome that.” We trust they welcome an opportunity to acknowledge a mistake was made in regard to the Charismatic Grace Bible Church or affirm that NIU presently finds the modern Charismatic Movement (sign gifts) a legitimate theological position today.

Does the convergence with a Charismatic church exemplify the kind of “Great Commission Living” NIU is teaching and preparing its student for?

May the leadership of Northland International University be awakened to, repent of and reverse their course away from the new wave of New Evangelical compromise. I hope and pray that pastors, parents and college students will prayerfully consider how God would have them respond to the changes in philosophy, adjustments in application and deviation from historic theological positions of the former Northland Baptist Bible College.

LM

Please continue this discussion at Part Two

Site Publisher Addendum:

Don Johnson of An Ox Goad, eh blog published on this subject August 13, 2012.  I highly recommend Getting What Matters Most for Don’s treatment of the subject.

Related Reading:

NIU Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to Its Student Body

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

Sharper Iron & Censorship by Omission

Footnotes:

1) Confidence in the Next Generation, accessed August 12, 2012.

2) Grace Bible Church: Our Family of Churches

3) Because of their cooperative efforts with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals and consequent silence on the aberrant theology of their new friends in evangelicalism Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and Tim Jordan have also contributed to the influence of Charismatic theology in fundamental circles.

4) Sovereign Grace Ministries, accessed August 14, 2012. Of SGM Wikipedia notes: 

“The organization of over 70 member churches grew out of the charismatic renewal of the 1970s under the leadership of Catholic Charismatic Larry Tomczak and has its roots in the Gathering of Believers (now Covenant Life Church) in Maryland. It was formally established in 1982   CJ Mahaney and Larry Tomczak were the co-founders of both Covenant Life Church and People of Destiny International (PDI), the former name of Sovereign Grace Ministries. Mahaney describes himself as a ‘former pothead.’  Both Mahaney and Tomczak withdrew from the Charismatic Catholic scene shortly before the creation of Covenant Life Church.”

5) Northland Graduate School Academic Catalog, accessed at the NIU website, August 14, 2012, bold added. Northland Undergraduate Catalog, p. 11.

6) At his personal blog 5Solas Greg Dietrich relates that he decided, “to move back to Philadelphia and put ourselves under the care of the elders at Grace Bible Church....” Greg is placing himself under the authority of a Charismatic church.

7) NIU Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to Its Student Body

8) NIU Faculty & Staff Handbook, 2010-2011, p. 6. Articles of Faith, paragraph 12, Accessed Tuesday, August 14, 2012, bold added.)

9) Calvinism includes extra-biblical teachings such as: a Limited Atonement, regeneration prior to and apart from faith and double predestination. Some Calvinists do not embrace all of these.

10) Lordship Salvation is a works based message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21.) See- Summaryof Lordship Salvation From a Single Page and Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?