Questions Answered on the Changes at NIU: An Insider’s Report, Final

Previously, we posted Part One, Part Two and Part Three for your consideration. Today, we conclude the Q&A series with former faculty member Dr. Dana Everson on the change in trajectory of NIU, the former Northland Baptist Bible College.

Q20. Can you comment on the morale of the staff, the students?

Some staff (mainly those who have left) are disappointed with some of the changes. Others question some of the changes, but are reluctant to speak up or leave the institution for various reasons. Some are happily engaged and on board with Matt Olson. The students that most strongly objected to the “new” Northland have mostly not returned. I know several who have transferred to other schools. Some students have justified remaining because they are close to graduation or because their parents felt they should finish at NIU and make the best of it.

Q21. Are you aware of the many friends that have distanced themselves from NIU? Can you articulate why that is in your opinion?

I have heard various reports. One caution to those who would ask questions of NIU administration:

Be sure you are not relying simply on tradition, but on solid Biblical principles for expressing your concerns. 

NIU is big right now on “sola scriptura” almost as if the gospel is the ONLY thing that matters. Of COURSE the gospel is the central message of the ministry, but I like Dr. Bob Jones III’s series on Phil. 1:27 in BJU chapels [see below] last school year in which he reminds us that the gospel includes the redemption story of Christ and the immediate conduct related to the gospel. I consider this an excellent, thought-provoking message.

Q22. NIU says they still use the KJV from the chapel and classroom podiums? Is that observably true? Is the translation issue a non issue to NIU administration?

Yes, it was used regularly from the pulpit most of the time. On occasion, we would hear the ESV, or NKJV quoted. In staff meetings, the ESV and occasionally other versions were quoted.

Q23. What type of student is attracted to NIU compared to previous years?

NIU Student's FaceBook Profile

In my last 2-3 years, there seemed to be a growing interest in missions. Many sincere, God-seeking students came hoping to find God’s will for the promptings they sensed. As far as personal standards, I can only speak empirically: It seemed to me that the percentage of students coming in having already accepted CCM was growing. In my informal conversations with colleagues in other Christian colleges, this seemed to be true for them in their situations as well.

I wonder if many good-willed students come to NIU based on the reputation of the college from the Les Ollila years, but I don’t know. I do know that there are some fine teachers and staff members there who love God, love the Bible, and truly want to further the ministry of local churches by helping to train students. I applaud their efforts; but this makes it even more of a concern to me where the NIU ship is heading.

Closing Thoughts from our Guest Dr. Dana Everson:

I was and am still more concerned about WHY and HOW Northland has come to their conclusions about music than exactly WHERE they stand. There are always going to be slight differences between this school and that, this church and that, and so on. However, if a church or institution begins to accept the idea that music is amoral (or, waters down the definition of the term amoral), then eventually, anything goes. NIU’s board and ADMIN have the legal right to set their standards anywhere they wish, but in my opinion, they have changed the rules during the game and at best have created confusion by HOW they have made their changes.

I trust it’s not too late to encourage everyone associated with NIU to ask good questions of the leadership. Compare the responses with unchanging Scriptural principles. Then be willing to do what is right even if it costs you something.


Dr. Dana Everson

Site Publisher’s Close: 
This concludes the Interview series with Dr. Dana Everson. For anyone who might be interested in finding out what Dr. Everson believes and teaches about music, his Northland doctoral dissertation has been put into book form Sound Roots and is available from his son’s ministry Bible Revival Ministries.

Related Reading:

Dr. Bob Jones, III: The Faith of the Gospel, Part 4

“And if we embrace the philosophy that it’s just about the gospel we can put our arms around about every wrong, unbecoming Christian behavior in all the world. We can put our stamp of approval on counterfeit Christianity.”

Dr. Matt Olson Uninvited From BJU Baccalaureate

Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?

Questions Answered on the Changes at NIU: An Insider’s Report, Part Three

Previously, we posted Part One and Part Two of this Q&A series for your consideration. Today, we continue with more questions and answers surrounding various aspects of the change in trajectory of NIU, the former Northland Baptist Bible College.

Q16. Was NIU wrong to give demerits to students who broke rules then (under the former demerit system) when those actions then would be completely acceptable today?

I’m not sure that actions warranting demerits are considered any less offensive today, but the penalties are not enforced in the same way. I understand that the whole Student Life office is being reduced, possibly dismantled. Not sure why.

Q17. How about students who were dismissed because they listened to music they weren’t supposed to? They have never tried to rescue the large numbers of alumni who bought into what we were taught in earlier years; do you believe they have a plan to reach out to and/or help graduates who were misinformed years ago as students?

I am not aware of any students dismissed because of their music choices.

Q18. Is NIU changing for numbers? Is NIU forced to do change because of new accreditation standards?

Possibly the accreditation issue affected some choices in one case.  After I was told in late January 2011 that the music degree program was dissolved (the decision had been made over Christmas break), a few weeks later a whole new plan emerged for continuing the music degrees.  My wife and I had earlier raised the question about how the accrediting organization would view such a dismantling. It may be (though I was never told) that the accreditation agreement would not ALLOW such a change if the college was going to continue their qualification for accreditation. So, they may have been forced into a corner and therefore changed their earlier plans to reduce or eliminate the degree program.

Q19. What church did you attend and is this church like the philosophy represented at NIU? Are all the churches the students serve in like the new position of NIU?

We attended Faith Baptist in Pembine, Wisconsin for about 6 years. The music there was conservative and well-balanced. The last 6 years we attended Family Baptist in Kingsford, Michigan. The music there was conservative and unaffected by NIU’s gradual changes. It was during those years that some of Northland’s policies began to change. I don’t think ALL of the churches in NIU’s orbit agree with EVERYTHING NIU does, but most appreciate much of the college’s ministry. Almost everyone is struggling with questions about appropriate music, and some are questioning other areas which seem to reflect a more “casual” Christianity if I could use that word.

Please continue to Part 4, the final in this series.

For related reading see,

NIU’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?

NIU has opened its chapel and classrooms to evangelicals. Because NIU endorses evangelicals its students are being exposed to and encouraged to embrace doctrinal errors such as: Calvinism, Lordship Salvation and non-cessationism. NIU students will learn to disregard biblical principles of separation, tolerate and accept ecumenical compromise and worldly methods of ministry, which evangelicals teach and practice. Some of these students will become New Evangelicals because of what they are being influenced to embrace at NIU today.

Has NIU Backtracked on Its Decision to Dissolve the Music Program?

Questions Answered on the Changes at NIU: An Insider’s Report, Part Two

Previously, we posted Part One of this Q&A for your consideration. Today, we continue with more questions and answers surrounding various aspects of the change in trajectory of NIU, the former Northland Baptist Bible College.

Q10. Were you specifically told of a new direction or emphasis for music including a requirement to change accordingly?

NIU administrators were always challenging us to try new and creative approaches to fulfilling the college mission, but it seems to me that only in the last 2-3 years or so that I was there that the previously held student standards began to change more dramatically. New, more relaxed guidelines for dress and hair, loosening of some dorm restrictions, changing the word “rules” to “expectations,” the elimination of the demerit system, a ...

This seemed to coincide with Matt Olson’s declarations in chapel and in faculty meetings that “we will not separate over music,” his implication that the gospel is the ONLY really important thing, and his personal list of something like 30 issues in Fundamentalism that he did not agree with. I don’t know if he ever specifically listed all these issues (and some of these probably did need some revision; perhaps such things as certain practical dress code issues for students in the COLD north weather, for example).

Although several “music philosophy” meetings were held in the fall of 2010, my personal impression was that the direction of music standards and policies were already pretty much decided; the “meetings” seemed to me to be political protection so that ADMIN could always fall back and say they “consulted” the faculty as new directions were being considered.

I realize I am judging motives here, so I want to be careful, but I also want to say that during those music philosophy meetings I was very firm, very strong in my challenges to the president and the ADMIN (1) to take the high road, (2) to take a longer look at the ramifications of any loosening of music standards, (3) and to take more time to reconsider the counsel of conservative musicians as opposed to relying so heavily (in my opinion) on the input from students.

New directions were more set in place than discussed before being implemented. ADMIN of course has a certain right to make decisions, but in the area of music, I believed that most of the counsel the music department offered was not followed.

Q11. Why doesn’t the administration clarify their position in open, unvarnished terms?

Matt has stated clearly in chapels and staff meetings that “we will no longer separate over music.” Of course that is still unclear, but it suggests that NIU is APPLYING their principles differently if they aren’t actually changing their philosophy. I don’t think he is willing to draw specific lines about this style or that group…I think he is very “customer conscious” and does not want to offend current students or potential students. That’s my opinion.

Q12. Many churches are increasingly disappointed with the level of music style sung from NIU’s traveling music team. Are you aware of this and do you have a comment regarding under whose directive and/or responsibility it was to train the traveling singers?

Be careful to distinguish between the ministry teams (which were primarily trained by folks outside the music dept) and the Northern Lights (which was trained and prepared via the music dept). The ministry teams were hand-picked for their personalities, spirituality, and good attitudes, not necessarily for their musical skills. AFTER the ministry teams were chosen, they had some coaching from music faculty who tried to help them prepare some musical selections. This is an important difference that perhaps many pastors and churches do not completely understand. The Northern Lights was a team which focused on musical ministry and was much more intensely rehearsed and groomed for traveling as a music team. Of course each year there are strengths and weaknesses as personnel changes, but overall, their musical choices (over the four different directors they had during my years at Northland) were technically well done, balanced in variety, and spiritually driven. They made some wonderful CD recordings into the mid-2000’s.

Q13. Was the music department dismantled for practical reasons or for philosophical differences?

Around Thanksgiving 2010, the administration called a meeting of all fine arts students (essentially music and speech students) to inform them that discussions were ongoing concerning music philosophy and the exciting prospects of strengthening the music area by making it more “global” in its methods. Dr. and Mrs. Suiter (head of Fine Arts) and Shelly Beeman (voice instructor) had resigned by then, and I believe the administration was using the opportunity to begin making some changes they had been contemplating. In other words, 50% of the full time music faculty resigned and left after fall semester, and the college was trying to regroup and put a positive look on the situation. Publicly, Dr. Suiter left because he didn’t feel qualified to go in the “global” direction that Matt seemed to want to go. In my opinion, the Suiters did indeed leave because they could not agree philosophically with the direction that Matt desired to go.

Miss Beeman coached voice students by online/Skype in order to help them complete the school year. To my knowledge, Shelly was not full time and was not regularly present on campus for the Winter 2011 semester.  I believe she returned to campus briefly a few times to assist some students with their voice recitals. But the other two music faculty members (and 1-2 other part time folks) and I took up the slack where we could.

Hearing some of the news occasionally from campus this school year, I am sure that I would be actively looking for another employment/ministry situation by this time in the school year.

Q14. NIU seems to be portraying a praise and worship style of music; is this true? If the pulpit ministry is the leading indicator of the strength of any given Bible school’s emphasis (from my perspective), and the laid back style in which the platform is presented (no ties or suit coats but turtle necks, choruses, no pulpit, discussion or conversational style of presenting a message, etc) do you see this?

This is the tough part to explain. Possibly Northland chapels have always been a little less formal than other schools because of their strong camp background/ministry.

Q15. If they believe that everything they are doing today is correct, have they made any steps to apologize to those who were there 10 or 15 years ago?

Indirectly, I believe that one of the top 2 or 3 issues regarding music choices has to do with a new view of associations. I don’t know where this is going to finally settle, but it is going to be an issue probably in many other areas besides music. In my opinion, if this is unsettled, they do not have to feel obligated to “apologize” until it IS settled.


Please continue to Part Three of this on-going series.

Site Publisher’s Commentary: There are colleges where students once were taught a conservative philosophy of music that focused on uplifting the Lord and not the performer or the personal listening tastes of the hearers. Today they have become an environment where music has no moral quality, style is supposedly unaddressed in the New Testament, and institutional standards are a hindrance. NIU is on that track!

For related reading see,

Is NIU “UnChanged?” NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part One

Is NIU “UnChanged?” NIU Students Engage the Issues, Part Two

Questions Answered on the Changes at NIU: An Insider’s Report, Part One

Earlier this year I was contacted by a former faculty member of Northland International University (NIU).  I refer to Dr. Dana Everson (identity added 8/17/12). Dr. Everson shared his appreciation for a series of articles I produced on what has become of NIU. He, furthermore, offered to share with me his first hand view and opinion of the changes that Matt Olson brought to the ministry of NIU. Today, we begin with the first of a four part interview. Questions surrounding various aspects of the change in trajectory of NIU, the former Northland Baptist Bible College, will be answered by our guest.

OPEN: Is there anything you would like to share before we delve into the questions?
Brother Lou, my responses are given as best as I can frame them. If I am unclear or sound out of line on something, please ask me about it. I will try to clarify. Also, I am still constantly evaluating my own choices and philosophies to try to refine and improve where I have been wrong. I am willing to admit where I have been wrong, and stand to be corrected if I have been mistaken in my facts. I know there are good people and good students at Northland. In some cases I find it difficult to separate my personal preferences from true Biblical principles, but I believe you will be able to do some filtering when needed. I don’t know how much this will help, but that is my sincere hope. I think if we don’t have truth we don’t have anything.

Q1. Could you detail how NIU is different today than when you first arrived?
What I sensed when I arrived as an employee: A sense of teamwork/unity; much of this I am sure, was built around Les Ollila’s teaching and example…everyone from custodians to ADMIN seemed to be focused on living a “clean” life and doing whatever they could to train young people to serve God.

Q2. Did Les Ollila approve of these changes to the best of your knowledge? (Everyone wants to know this answer!)
I am almost as much in the dark about this as people outside the college. According to his public letter, nothing has changed. [Is Northland Changing? A Chancellor’s Perspective from Dr. Les Ollila] He is probably not as involved in the day-to-day workings of the details of the institution as he was 8-9 years ago, but last school year’s (2010-2011) events are so large it seems odd to me that he wouldn’t be aware of the issues. Matt Olson has repeatedly stated both in staff meetings and in chapel that he and Doc O’s hearts beat as one in the ministry. I attempted to bring up this question to Les Ollila via written communication last spring (2011). He responded to some other concerns I raised, but never answered this one. I can only assume that he is either very much out of touch with some changes at Northland or that he does indeed support Matt’s policies.
Site Publisher Commentary: What tires objective observers is letters like those from Les Ollila and Matt Olson where they used subjective imprecise language to quell any concerns. Complete details of what has transpired within the administration and on campus were obscured for the sake of the new philosophy, trajectory and agenda intended for NIU students.

Q3. Is NIU starting a music publishing company? What style of music will they be publishing in your opinion, if true?
I know nothing of plans to start a music publishing company. If they are planning to do so, I was never part of the discussion.

Q4. There is some confusion about what level of toleration the administration has toward CCM music and ministries that have a progressive music style. Is there a connection between the change in their music position and the friendship with some churches or different organizations that they have developed recently?
About three years ago, some emails and some informal conversations between music faculty and revealed that at least two members of the administration could not rule out the possibility of “Christian rap” music becoming an acceptable medium of the future. That’s not to say that this style was being pushed or planned, but it was a surprise to the music faculty that such a possibility would even be considered no matter how distant in the future.

I believe strongly that the local church should be a creative center of worship and ministry. I also believe that this creativity can be accomplished within good standards of music.

There are surely thousands of new songs which could still be composed and thousands of fresh and creative arrangements written WITHOUT resorting to the Rock clichés.

I was saved when I was in my 4th year of college as music major at Michigan State University. I had also attended a junior college and the University of Michigan before becoming a believer around Christmas of 1972. Prior to that (and with help and encouragement of my parents) I paid most of my way through college by playing and singing in nightclubs, barrooms, restaurants, dance halls, and high school gyms.

Soon after I became a believer, I began to question the environment. A few months after I was saved, I went to work for the summer months of 1973 as a performer with a marching/jazz band for Disney in Anaheim. It was during that summer work that I began to question not only the environment but also the music itself. I was baptized at a church in Anaheim, and came back to Michigan State in the fall as a changed person.

I tell you all this because many of my Christian musician friends have never been on the “other side of the tracks.” Most have not been in the environment of the barroom/dance hall and do not know the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings of that environment first hand which is supported by and associated with certain styles of music (although with all that is displayed on TV/Internet/cable few people are so isolated so as to avoid exposure).

I could have probably continued to this day to be a weekend pop/jazz musician for supplementary income just as many of my music educator friends from college years still do, but the Lord gradually weaned me away from that lifestyle in general.

Q5. Who is the number one advisor to Matt Olson on music and association?
(Since the music department seems to not be highly valued as once before) I really don’t know who he might consult on any regular basis. Possibly one of the current younger music faculty members who previously had taught some music courses part time. Some changes made which we (members of the fall 2010 music faculty) resisted included:
(1) Reduction and eventual removal of the organ from chapel services. Ostensibly it was removed because there was no one to play it. This was not true as of Fall 2010. There were at least two qualified music faculty members who could and did play organ for chapel services.

(2) According to the president, the use of the organ is not consistent with the missions’ emphasis of the college (what mission fields use organ, so why emphasize its use to our mission-minded students?).

(3) Changes in the Music Primer (short handbook on music policies for students) which removed examples of acceptable/unacceptable music.

(4) Removal of the music department chairman’s supervision of chapel music. This was done, according to the president, to take pressure off of the music department if people should criticize NIU for some of its music choices. The president would assume more direct responsibility of music style choices.

Q6. What exactly is the dorm music policy and who enforces what? Is this reasonable?
I emailed you a very general statement from the NIU website FAQ section, which attempts to put the music policy in positive terms. Of course I agree with the major points, but I do not know if there is a deeper or more specific written standard like the music primer of several years ago. When I first came to Northland Baptist Bible College, there was a music check during the first or second week of the semester in which music faculty sat in the dorm lobbies and screened the recordings of all the students. We spent hours sorting out acceptable, not-acceptable, and not-sure selections. Since the rise of the iPod and all the other computerized and electronic media, which can save hundreds of selections on a single device, it became impossible to screen the music. So, the Student Life office asked the music department for help in composing a Music Primer which was an attempt to give guidelines/limits for student use of music.

Q7. Would you still be at NIU if you were not asked to leave?
I thought I might stay another school year or so, but I could see that my days were numbered. There were at least five reasons I didn’t resign:
(1) I thought I still had a measure of credibility with the ADMIN and could still possibly influence some of their decisions.

(2) I knew of several faculty and staff members (both in music and other departments) who were also questioning the choices/philosophy changes and thought that they, too, might speak up and have some influence.

(3) I was feeling tremendous financial pressure (as many folks are) and was hesitant to move on without some sense of where I would go next.

(4) I looked at our students and saw a great need to continue to urge them to “take the high road” in their personal music theology choices. I believed that when the conservative music faculty members were gone they would be eventually replaced by less conservative ones.

(5) Several music philosophy meetings for staff and students were INITIATED BY ADMIN in the Fall of 2010 for the purpose of defining and constructing a music statement for NIU seemed to give hope that the minds of leadership were not yet made up. I was fully expecting that we would continue to have further discussions/debates/information meetings when we returned after Christmas break, but as one administrator told me, there were just too many differences to be able to come to a unified conclusion.

Also, to my surprise, when I returned in January, I was told that the music department was going to be reduced to a small fraction of its size because of economic pressures on the college. I was told I would not be needed in the Fall of 2011. I was also told that ADMIN was aware of my concerns over the direction of the college and that they believed that I “would not be happy at Northland.” I winced at that, but accepted their situation and my new “opportunity to expand.”

A few weeks later, ADMIN called a meeting of fine art students once again and announced to the students that some exciting new plans were being worked out for the music dept and that there would indeed be three (of the previous four) degrees offered in the future. (Music education was dropped.)

This seemed deceitful and political to me, and I voiced serious concerns about it. After I was reprimanded, I said almost nothing again publicly.

Q8. Has NIU moved to an amoral music position? Lyrics aside, is music neutral?
This is a question that Dr. Horn brought up at a music philosophy discussion meeting. He apparently was very concerned that Northland had always taken a pretty clear position that music is moral. He seemed to be questioning whether the new thinking about music was heading in the direction of amorality, so he indicated that the college should make up its mind. If they were going to modify the earlier position they at least should come out and say it.

Q9. Did Steve Pettit’s style of music in relationship to his Sovereign Grace affect the NIU position positively or negatively?
I can only guess. There are so many conservative and fundamental churches and ministries that accept (somewhat innocently or ignorantly) some of the “milder” Sovereign Grace music and see no problem with associations that it is hard to tell how much influence any single person or ministry might have on Matt Olson or other leaders. It seems like Tim Jordan has taken some similar direction and he MAY have influenced Matt.
Site Publisher Commentary: It has been seen that Steve Pettit’s Sovereign Grace music (SGM) appears to have had an alarming effect on some of the young men who once apprenticed in ministry with Steve. These have gone far beyond “milder” SGM in their ministries. One wonders if Steve might have some regret for having introduced them to the “milder” form of SGM. 

End of Part One, please continue to Part Two of this series.

For further reading see,
“Our Children Learn Not Only By What We Teach Them, But By What We Tolerate.”

According to NIU alumni Dr. Les Ollila said that over and over to the student body. With the change in philosophy and methods at NIU a different kind of teaching and wide ranging tolerance is being learned by impressionable students.

NIU Music Department to be Dissolved

There are colleges where students once were taught a conservative philosophy of music that focused on uplifting the Lord and not the performer or the personal listening tastes of the hearers. Today they have become an environment where music has no moral quality, style is supposedly unaddressed in the New Testament, and institutional standards are a hindrance. Is it possible NIU is on that track?

Dr. Bob Jones, III: The Faith of the Gospel, Part 4

“There is the saving gospel, which introduces us to the faith of the gospel. And if we embrace the philosophy that it’s just about the gospel we can put our arms around about every wrong, unbecoming Christian behavior in all the world.”

Questions Answered on the Changes at NIU: An Insiders Report

Earlier this year I was contacted by a former faculty member of Northland International University (NIU). This man shared his appreciation for a series of articles I produced on the disconcerting changes of philosophy and practice at NIU. He, furthermore, offered to share with me his first hand observations and opinion of the changes that NIU President Dr. Matt Olson was introducing at the school. Beginning on Monday I will post the first of a multi-part interview series. Our interviewee answers a broad cross section of questions surrounding various changes in philosophy and trajectory of NIU, the former Northland Baptist Bible College.

For a primer to the Q&A series I recommend the January 2011 article, Is NIU “UnChanged?” The Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity. The article is the most read of any at IDOTG. It is thoroughly documented in its depiction of events at NIU. For related reading see, NIU: Let's Get First Hand on the Facts.

 LM

On Summer Hiatus

From its inception in Spring 2006 In Defense of the Gospel (IDOTG) has been active without interruption. The three primary areas that IDOTG has focused on over the past six years have been the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel (originated by the late Zane Hodges). Over the past three years a great deal of effort has been put into exposing the tolerance, allowing for, excusing and ignoring of doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromise of non-separatist evangelicals for the sake of fellowship and cooperative ministry with them. Through the influence of the pseudo-fundamentalist site Sharper Iron and efforts of certain men, who still circulate in fundamental circles, this New Wave of “New” Evangelicalism gained traction in some segments of Fundamentalism.

Effective today I will begin a long overdue hiatus from writing, publishing and managing IDOTG. I am setting aside this summer season to enjoy the comforts of home and family.

To date there are 546 articles on a variety of concerns for Bible-believing Christians. Search the LABELS column for subject matter that may be of special interest to you.

Yours faithfully,

You and Sin! by Dr. Rick Flanders

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (First John 2:1-2) 

Notice very carefully what John is saying to us (born-again Christians addressed as “little children”) in the First Epistle of John, chapter 2, in the first two verses. He is telling us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit how we should deal with sin. But take note of what he is actually saying! We can understand what he means by the context.

The first great issue men must settle in their dealings with God is the issue of sin. It is the first great issue of our salvation, and also the first great issue in revival. And the Apostle John tells us plainly how to deal with it.

1. Everybody has sinned (First John 1:10). The last verse of the first chapter makes this very clear: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Let nobody claim innocence. Later on, his small book gives us the clearest definition of sin in the Bible. Chapter 3, verse 4 says, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” To sin is to break God’s law, and we all have done it. Deliberately and repeatedly we have done what God told us not to do and have failed to do what He said we should do. The Bible contains many divine laws throughout, but the places where men usually look for them are in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7). A thoughtful study of these chapters will bring anyone to the conclusion that he has broken God’s law and is justly condemned. If we all got what just we deserved when we die, it would be Hell. 

2. Sin ruins happiness (First John 1:1-7). John was the youngest of the twelve apostles of Jesus, and he did his inspired writing when he was an old man. He tells us at the beginning why he wrote the circular letter called First Epistle of John. It was “that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” The apostles told people about the coming of God’s Son so that they could experience with them the fellowship Christians can have with the Persons of the Holy Trinity! Salvation is a wonderful thing! By the Spirit, we can have fellowship with the Father and the Son. This fact is not only wonderful, but also very important. John writes, “These things write we unto you that your joy may be full.” Fellowship with God is the source of joy. We cannot be happy, really happy, unless we are walking in fellowship with God. Now “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.” Nobody can have fellowship with a perfectly holy God while he is engaging in sin. When “we walk in the light, as he is in the light” we can enjoy fellowship with Him. In other words, obedience to the law of God allows fellowship with the God Who is Light. Disobedience to His law (sin) prohibits such fellowship and ruins our chances of real happiness.

3. Everybody sins (First John 1:8). The sad truth is that everybody sins, even after they become Christians. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Salvation does some wonderful things for us, but it does not prevent us from sinning. Twice the sixth chapter of Romans says that believers in Christ are “free from sin” (verses 18 and 22) but it does not say that we are free of sin. Jesus said, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:34-37). The chains of sin are broken when a sinner turns to Christ for his salvation, but in fact he does still sin. He is in fact emancipated from bondage to sin, but he can still sin voluntarily. We still have our sinful human nature even after we have been saved, and we all do sin.

4. Everybody must deal with his sins (First John 1:9). Since sin ruins happiness and we all sin, we all must deal with our sins in the right way in order to find happiness. Sinners must get forgiveness from God, which is available only through Jesus Christ. First we must gain legal forgiveness so that we don’t go to Hell. This is the once-for-all cancellation of all our sins (past, present, and future) that happens when a sinner turns to Christ for the salvation of his soul. Read about this forgiveness in Ephesians 1:7-14. It is also promised in other scriptures, such as John 3:14-18 and Romans 3:10-26. When you trust in Christ for your salvation, the penalty for your sins is cancelled by Jesus through His sacrifice on the Cross, and the justice of God no longer has anything against you. You are justified in His sight. It is absolute and total legal forgiveness. Once you have this, you will need practical forgiveness regularly. When you sin after you are saved, you do not need to be saved again. There is no more condemnation for believers in Jesus Christ (John 5:24). But they still have a problem with the fact that God is holy, and they still sin. A holy God, even though He is now our Father and will not condemn us to Hell for our sins, cannot have anything to do with us in a practical way as long as we are persisting in deliberate disobedience. So we must get practical forgiveness. This is promised to us if we confess our sins. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The night before He died at Calvary, the Lord Jesus used His washing of the disciples’ feet to teach them the necessity of being cleansed regularly from sins. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me,” He told Peter when he objected to the Lord washing his feet. Peter then responded by saying, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” The Lord answered that those who have bathed do not need a bath when they enter the house, just a foot-washing. “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit” (John 13:1-11). When we have had the bath of salvation we still need the regular cleansing only Jesus can give. When we have confessed our sins, He will “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” so that we are “clean every whit.” To enjoy full and free fellowship with God, we must be saved, and then we must be diligent about confessing our sins. A good example of thorough contrition for thorough cleansing is found in Psalm 51. We all simply must deal with our sins.

5. Christians ought not to sin (First John 2:1-11). What does First John 2:1-2 say to believers in Christ about sin? It says that we should not sin. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” Then he says, “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The message is that we ought not to sin, with the fact of Christ’s advocacy before the Father assuring of us of our salvation even when we do sin. The message is not that a Christian should not be concerned about his sins because his salvation is secure. The message is that we ought not to sin, even with the confidence that when we do sin, we will not be lost. Like insurance, our security is presented as important in an emergency, but it does not encourage us to create the emergency! The intention of the believer should be not to sin. This message is taught again throughout the First Epistle of John, beginning in this second chapter. In verse 6 we read that one who says “he abideth in him [Christ] ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” We are told here, and again in 3:16 and 4:11, that we “ought” to live righteous lives as Christians. Now the word “ought” is an interesting word, and an important word in First John. It does not mean “will.” Those who interpret First John to say that real Christians will live righteous lives, and that those who fail to do so are not really saved, misunderstand the whole book. The theme of this epistle is how to maintain fellowship with God (chapter 1, verses 1 through 7). God is Light (chapter 1, verse 5) and God is Love (chapter 4, verse 8). Those who walk with God must walk in the Light (chapter 1, verses 6-7) and walk in Love (chapter 2, verse 10). But believers will not do this automatically. They “ought” to live this way, but the word “ought” carries with it some doubt as to whether the person “will” do what he “ought” to do. First John was not written to give us the secret for determining if a person is “really saved” or not. The apostle uses drastic contrasts to prove and demonstrate that fellowship with God is impossible without harmony with His Light and Love (as in chapter 2, verse 15, and chapter 3, verse 9), but he does not question the salvation of his readers (see chapter 2, verses 12 through 14). The concept in the word “ought” is that of moral obligation but not of certain action. Although “ought” does not mean “will,” it does imply “can.” We never say that someone “ought” to do something he cannot do. And First John does teach (as does the entire New Testament) that Christians can live lives of love and light. The power to do it is wrapped up in the phrase “abide in him” (see First John 2:6, 2:27, 2:28, and 3:6). The phrase comes from John 15, where Jesus instructs His disciples in living the abundant Christian life with the metaphor of a vine and the branches. If we will abide in Him, we will live a life of victory, understanding, peace, effective prayer, and fruitfulness, according to the Lord Jesus. The life of abiding in Christ is the life of faith and absolute submission. Since we can overcome our flesh and sin by faith, we ought to do it. Sin is harmful and we ought not to do it.

The mindset that Christianity amounts to a system for living in sin contradicts the Bible in many places. May believers in Jesus Christ reckon themselves dead to sin, renounce sin as an option, and look to God for victory over its power.
Dr. Rick Flanders Revival Ministries

Pastor John A. Ashbrook Would A Brother Lie?

Is it possible that brethren would lie to us?  Yes.  As a pastor, I have had many people speak to me about unscriptural conduct and say, “Pastor, we prayed about this and we know the Spirit of the Lord led us.”  Every time I have been invited to join ecumenical campaigns that same lie has been repeated to me.  How do I know such a thing is a lie?  Permit me another axiom:

AXIOM #12: THE SPIRIT OF GOD HAS NEVER LED ONE CHRISTIAN CONTRARY TO ONE WORD OF THE WORD OF GOD.  

The new evangelical comes to us as a brother.  He has a philosophy of ministry which appeals to the flesh.  It sounds very logical to human reason.  But it ignores God’s simple commands such as, “receive him not into your house,” “come out from among them,” “be ye separate,” and “touch not the unclean thing.”  When he tells us that the Spirit of God has led him in this new direction, we must recognize that as a lie; because the Spirit of God has never led one Christian contrary to one word of the Word of God.

THE MOST DANGEROUS DEVIATION

The most dangerous deviation is the one closest to your own position.  New evangelicalism sprang out of fundamentalism.  It is a movement of brethren.  The lie of new evangelicalism has deceived more fundamentalists than the siren song of ecumenism.  In recent years Jerry Falwell, who still desires to be called a fundamentalist, has denied the last forty years of church history and decided that there is really no difference between fundamentalists and new evangelicals.  His swallowing of the lie of new evangelicalism has led great numbers of those who follow in his train into the same compromise.

Don’t let your guard down.  Is it right to allow disobedient brethren kind words from your pulpit?  Is it right to allow disobedient brethren to use your good name?  Is it right to let disobedient brethren have dollars collected from your people?  Is it right to allow disobedient brethren to have the cream of your young people to educate and use in their enterprise?  Say a gracious “No” if you can.  Thunder out a “No!” if you must.  But, above all, don’t say “Yes.”

A SCENE OF DEFEAT

There is a third scene in this chapter.  It is a solemn warning.  We see the nameless prophet’s scene of defeat.  In this final section there are two things—a prediction and a picture.

The old prophet who issued the lying invitation had not had a prophecy to declare for the Lord in many years. But as he sat fellowshipping with his younger brother, the Lord forced him to give a prediction which must have stuck in his throat.  We have it in verses 21 and 22: “And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and has not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.”

When the meal was over the old prophet provided the younger prophet with his own donkey and sent him on his way.  It was not long until there was a knock on the old man’s door and a neighbor brought the tragic message of which we read in verses 24, 25: “And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcass was cast in the way, and the ass stood beside it, the lion also stood by the carcass.  And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcass cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcass: and they came and told it in city where the old prophet dwelt.”

I submit to you that the scene so described is one of the most unnatural scenes in the Bible.  We have a man-eating lion which would not eat the man he had killed.  We have a donkey which would not run from the lion.  Donkeys are not famed for brilliance, but they have always known enough to run from lions.  Man-eating lions eat donkeys for dessert.  In this strange tableau a man-eating lion and a donkey stood on either side of a prophet’s carcass.  The people of the area came and peered around the rocks to see the strange scene.  The aura of unnaturalness which surrounds this scene is the stamp of God upon it.  God wanted all who passed that way to know that this was not a man who happened to be killed by a lion, but a prophet who was executed by his God for disobedience.

We are always worried what men will think in any given situation.  God was not worried about what men would think.  He was concerned only that his prophet had disobeyed.

This story compels any discerning reader to ask an obvious question.  Why was it that God was so severe on the young prophet who spoke to Jeroboam so well; but, the old prophet who perpetrated the lie seems to have escaped scot-free?
Reprinted by permission, The Projector, Spring 2012

They’re Holding A Conservative Evangelical Barbeque and You’re Invited!

Never let it be said that CE’s weren’t gracious hosts, when they set their superior minds to sacrificing the very best. The menu, for a few years now, has been their own recipe for Sacred Cow; and they have become experts at gnawing/stripping the meat off the bones, leaving the bare skeletons of doctrines and practices that were once precious to Fundamentalists. Certainly not Sacred Cows in the historic sense, from the Far East, but doctrines and practices that embarrassed them in front of their Evangelical and New Evangelical friends, and whose demise they would gladly celebrate with those friends by writing them off as mere “non-essentials.” Therefore, they gladly invite anyone across the theological spectrum, from Fundamentalists to Evangelicals, to dine with them and share in the sport of destroying the distinctions and landmarks that once clearly staked out the different positions across that portion of the spectrum of theology. Since CE’s see no useful purpose in such distinctions, they want all of us to be content with piles of anonymous bones of bygone distinctives, now being carelessly discarded across the theological landscape to the accompaniment of their whine of contempt and loathing.

The expression, Sacred Cows, has come a long way from the creatures respected as gods in the Far East. In broader theological usage, it has been used to describe the principles, positions, values and practices that over time have come to have a life of their own, now somewhat remote from their origins and authors with the passage of time. They were often thought to be both the cause, as well as the effect, of their own existence but only among those who are ignorant of their history—a point to be noted, since CE’s seem to have little use for modern church history, particularly if it hasn’t yet been revised.

Sacred Cow would have been a welcome pejorative back in the days of the Modernism/Liberalism vs Fundamentalism controversy. If doctrines like the Virgin Birth or the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ were being upheld, they were but a few of the many Sacred Cows of Fundamentalism, according to the Modernists, considered no longer necessary and relegated to the scrap heap of non-essentials by those who introduced the Social Gospel in the 1920's. In fact, the doctrinal struggle of that time could be summarized as the differences between what was defined as either essential or non-essential. The nothing-essential Modernist-Liberals fought for greater latitude with fewer absolutes in doctrine and practice and more subjective and relativist applications of Scripture.

Perhaps some of the most significant events where that could be seen, were in the early controversies within the Northern Baptist Convention. When our Fundamentalist Baptist forefathers of the early 20th century were doing battle inside the Northern Baptist Convention, they fought for clear cut, unequivocal statements of belief that upheld such biblical principles as Jesus’ Virgin Birth, Substitutionary Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, Ascension, etcetera. One of those statements they recommended to the Convention was the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which was read aloud at a Convention business meeting. Its adoption, however, was defeated in favor of a cleverly worded substitute motion:

The Northern Baptist Convention affirms that the New Testament is the all-sufficient ground of our faith and practice, and we need no other statement. (A History of the Bible Baptist Union, Robert Delnay, 1974, p34, emphasis added)

Where we customarily read “the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice...,” the substitute word “ground” conveniently made the Scriptures little more than a beginning point from which they felt free to digress and redefine essential truths as they pleased. The latitude of this statement, quickly approved by the Convention, wittingly undermined any retention of the fundamental doctrines of the “faith which was once delivered to the saints.” Those who perpetrated the substitute motion would later gloat over their success in putting one over on the Fundamentalists in the Northern Baptist Convention.

While many consider all that long ago and far away, there are other Sacred Cows of doctrine and practice that are at risk of becoming an endangered species in schools, churches and agencies now, in the 21st century. Some are doctrines, others applications of biblical principles, such as: secondary separation, platform-sharing ethics, inter-church ethics, Bible versions, evolution vs creation, contemporary forms of worship (some now including dance), acceptance of psychological counseling as church ministry, proper attire for worship, modest dress in general for both men and women, feminism, social drinking, entertainment issues such as dancing and movies, gambling, freemasonry, just to name a few. If we simply ask whether we have been better off without worldly methods in our churches, and similar compromises in our homes and family life, versus the concessions already granted, the answer is resoundingly yes! Perhaps we should reexamine the Apostle Paul’s teaching:

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1 Corinthians 6:12

Doesn’t this teach that even those things some consider debatable, should nevertheless be expendable, either because they fail to contribute to my walk with the Lord or are a stumblingblock to others? We need to be careful, lest we raise up idols in becoming obsessed with and covetous of those “forbidden fruits” that have proven to be the downfall of others in the past. From passages like this, written by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, no one can accuse him of pushing the envelope of tolerance towards questionable doctrine and practice. How remarkably different from those preoccupied today with skewering the Sacred Cows, one by one.

Perhaps, we should compare the changes today with available history and ask some questions that may accurately predict the outcome of redefining the essentials. First, we must recognize both the source as well as the process begun, whereby they isolate, marginalize and then cut off ( in the words of Saul Alinsky) what were once sincerely held doctrines and applications of biblical principles. Secondly, consider where this has led before and to what end it will most assuredly bring us? During the early 20th century, the Modernist-Liberals completely undermined any reliance upon the absolute authority of Scripture. Once the process began, the whittling away of the applications of biblical principles was only the beginning, not an end unto itself. The momentum and heady success of demolishing the applications was merely a prelude to further destruction of the principles and the doctrines themselves, as they too became the objects of ridicule, isolation, then elimination and ultimately unbelief. First sold as setting aside non-essentials for the sake of fellowship, the fact was the “ravening wolves” would not be content until all biblical authority was first tokenized and then destroyed and replaced with a man-made Social Gospel.

Now, in the 21st century, we witness a new wave of similar efforts to do away with all those Sacred Cows so long irritating to those who have hungered for a broader fellowship, a wider audience and popularity, a bigger, more diverse student body, and so joined forces to suppress anything standing in the way of their success. The question we must ask, however, is even after they have taken out the Sacred Cows of “non-essentials” in doctrinal application, will they be satisfied? Will there be a clear line drawn at the frontier of “enough,” or will they simply continue, as their predecessors did, redefining essentials into non-essentials in preparation for the disposal of distinctive doctrines? History says once the process is begun, the fires will burn until everything of any historic spiritual value and sensibility has been consumed.

Perhaps Conservative Evangelicals should be asking themselves what will be left once all the Sacred Cows have been eliminated? In their rush to deny and/or rewrite history, the rationale for making unwanted practices and doctrines “non-essentials” has a genesis worth considering. First, it is dishonest to impugn the character of pastors and leaders now gone, who taught believers how to live apart from the unbelieving world and in obedience to God’s Word. It has been remarkable to read diatribes against a separated life, written by personalities currently leading the CE movement. In both their style and content, we are taken back to the serpent in the Garden, telling us that we are being deprived of some elite knowledge or experience to which we are otherwise entitled and dare not miss in our humble lives. What some in the past used to call Christian Liberty has proven to be little more than license to be conformed to this world, contrary to Paul’s words in Romans 12:2, by those who yet call themselves Fundamentalist Christians.

If we would honestly evaluate both the direction and destination of such movements in the light of Scripture, we can hardly expect anything more than a powerless form of godliness (2 Timothy 3:5) with a Church under the wisdom and headship of men, whose worship hearkens back to the days of the golden calf and whose people possess a bankrupt testimony with no tangible difference from a world that hates God and His Word. It is rank arrogance to presume that anyone can make the outcome any different, when we follow the same steps that have brought the downfall of others in the past.


Dr. Charles L. Dear, Editor, The REVIEW, May 2012.
The Review is a publication of the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America (IBFNA). Additional articles by Dr. Charles Dear will be appearing at IDOTG on a regular basis. Dr. Dear is among the newest of our regular contributors.

For Site Publisher Commentary see the attached thread.

Dr. Clay Nuttall: Plain Talk, Word Games...

PLAIN TALK

 If it is indeed true that words have meaning, then why is it that so often you can’t be sure what someone has just said? I support the use of plain talk, not wanting anyone to doubt what I mean when I preach, teach, or write. If we use words that have clear and strong meaning, people will know for sure what we are saying. They may not like it, but they will know where we stand.

 The problem is that often such clarity is not welcome in our world today. Our culture is always searching for terms that will weaken true understanding. It is frightening to realize that in the near future we may be required to use compromised words, and perhaps may even be punished by law if we are pointed and transparent in our speech. Speaking the truth, in some cases, is already considered to be hate speech. Our forefathers may have seen this coming when they wrote in stone, “The Freedom of Speech”.

  WORD GAMES

 It is one thing for our pagan society to attempt to force on all of us their secular religious views; it is, however, something else altogether when the dumbing-down of words is pressed on us by those who profess faith in Christ. The impression we get is that we are supposed to do everything we can in an effort to be unclear. I have just given you an illustration of this by using “pagan society” and “secular religious.” It takes some concentrating on meaning and content to be able to understand those statements; but then, we are trapped in word games where everything is form, rather than meaning.

 The word “murder” has a very clear definition, but we are forbidden to use it; instead, it has been replaced by “abortion”. The word “sodomy” is strong and clear; but it, too, has been replaced by terms considered to be more respectable. We are not allowed to use clear words like “socialism” and “treason.” Polite people evidently are not comfortable with the truth. You may have noted that “offensive” words have been removed from some hymn lyrics so that the sinner is painted in a more sensitive way. This may be why so many sinners don’t think they’re all that bad and why it is that today we have so many unsaved members in our churches.

 Preaching that deals with sin is now cast in an unfavorable light. We are being told that it is not polite to talk about such things in public and that people need to be encouraged, not confronted. Offending God has become the rule of the day, and it seems we are supposed to only say nice things about even the most heinous of sins. Even the devil deserves measured speech, they say.

  WHAT ABOUT LOVE

 It has been argued that the use of clear terms demonstrates a lack of love toward the sinner. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not exhibit love when we leave people to wonder what we mean. We do not express love when we let a lost man go to hell because his horrible condition was not made clear. Fire is a plain, blunt word. It may disturb people. To fail to cry “fire” when a friend’s home is engulfed in flames in the middle of the night, though, is not love. Plain talk does not offend God, but it does disturb those who see man at the center of all things. There is something wrong with the love of man that does not begin with the love of God. The love of God flows from His foundational attribute of holiness. Truth precedes love, but you can’t have one without the other.

  YOU MAY OFFEND SOMEONE

 We have been lectured by those of a liberal mindset that doctrine is not an expression of love; it is divisive. Of course it is; that is God’s point. Doctrine divides truth from error and heaven from hell. The gospel is offensive to the unbeliever who rejects it. It is so offensive that “new gospels” have become part of the “error of the month” club. The apostle Paul made the offence of the gospel plain: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

 Plain talk allows people to know exactly where they stand. Strong words lose their power when they are made nice. Compromise has a down side. If we are so pressed to be measured in our speech that we cloud the facts, why bother speaking at all? An editor of one of my books wrote to me, “You certainly have a sharp pen!” I love and respect that man and took that statement as a compliment.

 It is argued, however, that you will turn people off and they will not listen to you if you use plain language. It is not my task to convince people; that is the role of the Holy Spirit. I don’t have to be cute in my conversation in order to be effective; I do have to be clear and plain. It helps if our plain talk is about ideas, not about persons. For instance, we should refer to liberalism as the ideas and not the liberal people themselves. It also helps to remember that the liberal mind focuses on people, not on ideas or on God. For the liberal system, everything is judged on how people will feel and what they may think.

  A WORD OF CAUTION

 There is a difference between using words that offend and being offensive, but that has to do with motive. When we preach clearly about hell and judgment, we must not leave the impression that we are glad that people are going there. We can use plain words with love. Hearts that are open to the Spirit of God will sense our sincere grief over their lost state. It is possible to hate sin as God does. It is possible for us to love the lost with the love that God has expressed. There is no conflict in this, which is why we sow the seed and water it with our tears, but it is God who gives the increase.

  Shepherd's Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D.Min A communication service of Shepherd's Basic Care. For those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. Shepherd's Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com