I was excited to hear recently that Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College) was formally accepted by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and will become Boyce College at Northland. Northland’s president, Daniel Patz and Southern’s president, Albert Mohler announced the news. See this link for a fuller story. The video below provides additional details.
For many independent Baptists, this step is unthinkable – and it marks the end of faithfulness. Another college has capitulated. But have they really? What is the point of breaking off of groups like the Southern Baptist Conference? Wasn’t it to preserve doctrine or take a stand for truth? The SBC turned around, and under Mohler’s leadership among others, the SBC is now a bastion for theological conservatism. Sure Southern has an emphasis on Reformed theology that many Baptists are leery of. But the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Reformed theology wholeheartedly. In many respects, the SBC is a mirror image of many groups of independent Baptists. There is a lot of autonomy in the SBC structure. And that Baptist autonomy is part of the problem when it comes to assessing the SBC. The SBC is not completely pure in every respect, because it is not an entity that can cause direct change in a top-down sort of way. The very independence and autonomy that independent fundamental Baptists prize is the reason that many of them view the SBC with suspicion.
Looking at Northland, by joining with Boyce College, Northland continues its overall mission. And in difficult financial times (for all private colleges everywhere) this decision makes sense. Both the SBC and the IFBs who have supported Northland over the years, are driven by a Great Commission calling. Both of them long to stand for truth and equip students to live courageously for Christ in today’s world. Strategic partnerships and inter-dependence among churches and missionaries — that is what we see as we read the book of Acts and study the early years of Church history.
Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the status of the IFB movement. Are churches staying independent just to be different? Are they insular and isolationist or is independence a means to a healthy end? Why must there be three, four or even five IFB churches that have virtually nothing to do with each other in the same town? Why can’t we overlook minor differences and truly stand together for the Gospel? We can respect differences and appreciate distinctives even as we work together around bigger realities and shared Gospel truths. That is what is driving Northland’s actions.
May we see more Christ-honoring inter-dependence in the future. “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).
A positive development, indeed. Congratulations to both schools on the merger.
I would not say that “The SBC turned around, and under Mohler’s leadership among others, the SBC is now a bastion for theological conservatism.” The SBC has not turned around; its seminaries have certainly made great strides and they should be aplauded. However, Mohler is not the leader of the SBC; he is the president of Southern Seminary (admittedly the largest of the SBC). I would certainly not say that the cadre of colleges in the SBC are “bastion[s] for theological conservatism.” Nor could one say that some of the other prominent and popular leaders/churches are conservative. The SBC is not monolithic, nor are the Independent Fundamental Baptists, but to join Southern Seminary there is a formal connection and financial commitment to the whole of the SBC (which is not so with the IFB). This is directly effecting the churches in the area of Northland; they will have to join (and likely eventually financially support) the SBC (including the liberal churches and colleges — not just Southern) to keep their members/pastors who are on admin/faculty.
The whole thing is not as simple as it may seem on the surface. Enjoy the moment, but it is not so much to celebrate as we are being led to believe.
As I understand it, donations to SBC are voluntary. In this case, Northland was gifted to SBTS. Supporters of Northland aren’t required to support every SBC institution. They can still support Northland as well as be helping Boyce College and SBTS without themselves officially joining the SBC.
The Cooperative Program is misunderstood by many independent Baptists, and I think my eleven years as a Southern Baptist will give me the opportunity to clear up these issues. Any church who gives to the Cooperative Program in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will NEVER give to a liberal college. The liberal colleges are owned by the states, not the SBC. When a church in the Minnesota-Wisconsin convention and the Michigan convention gives money to the SBC, they are giving to the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the six seminaries, the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives, and Guidestone Financial Resources. None of these are “liberal” causes. Furthermore, there is a completely different “liberal” sector of the Southern Baptist Convention known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. While these churches claim to be part of both, none of the churches which will support Northland will belong to this group of moderate churches. They may choose to help us out, because they are giving to the SBC, which is their option, but most give to the causes of the CBF.
Any Northland alumnus who is concerned about Northland’s local churches that choose to affiliate have nothing to worry about. They won’t be giving to anything liberal. It is logical that any faculty and staff member of Northland attend a church which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Because they are helping their job when they give in their offering. It is important to realize that the colleges are a state issue, not a national issue. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention is a very small convention of churches. It could never have brought Northland into its fold. For Southern Seminary to do this is a very awesome gesture. God has led in this endeavor, and I am thankful for what God has accomplished in order that Northland can continue its mission of “training the next generation of servant-leaders for Great Commission living.
Very helpful, Bill. Thanks!
As an SBC pastor, I can, by actual experience, say that the statement “but to join Southern Seminary there is a formal connection and financial commitment to the whole of the SBC (which is not so with the IFB). This is directly effecting the churches in the area of Northland; they will have to join (and likely eventually financially support) the SBC (including the liberal churches and colleges — not just Southern) to keep their members/pastors who are on admin/faculty” is not accurate. It is up to each individual Church to decide its level (if any) of Cooperative participation. Additionally, Cooperative dollars primarily fund local State Church planting/Evangelism efforts. Finally, the vast majority of SBC Churches and institutions are not liberal. They are doctrinally solid and theologically diverse. From my perspective, the comments made represent sterotypical and long in the past views which are often trotted out for criticism. As an affiliation of Churches/Institutions, we are strong in missions, have a passion for the gospel and evangelism, and demonstrate a strong fidelity to Biblical truth. Admittedly, there are a few Churches/Pastors with whom I would strongly disagree. As a Church, we have no direct affiliation with them nor do our monies support them. My view. God bless.
Thanks, John! There is a lot of misinformation out there. I hope the new partnership will prove beneficial on both sides.
John Janke,
You said:
“Admittedly, there are a few Churches/Pastors with whom I would strongly disagree. As a Church, we have no direct affiliation with them nor do our monies support them.”
Let me ask you a question, then. With the matter of the SBC church in California that advocated a “third way” in regards to homosexuality (http://www.bpnews.net/43416/third-way-church-disfellowshipped-from-sbc)–if you had no direct affiliation with _them_ through the Convention, why did the Convention sense the urgency to take the decisive (and commendable, IMHO) action they did? If they had not, would you have been content to remain in friendly cooperation with the SBC?
Help me understand the difference, if you could.
Bob,
You stated:
“Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the status of the IFB movement. Are churches staying independent just to be different? Are they insular and isolationist or is independence a means to a healthy end? Why must there be three, four or even five IFB churches that have virtually nothing to do with each other in the same town? Why can’t we overlook minor differences and truly stand together for the Gospel?”
These sentiments may be true in some towns or cities, but it is not true here in Minnesota. There are two separate networks of baptist separatists (with crossover and friendships across the aisles), the MARBC, and the MBA. There have been joint services with churches from both organizations at the same time. Many of the pastors attended the same seminary (several went to Faith, while others went to Central). Greg Linscott’s church has dual affiliation. And there was a recent church plant in Woodbury that is supported by both organizations. The baptist separatists in Minnesota are not at all insular or isolationist. I would hesitate from making hasty generalizations, especially those that are not true in the city in which you live.
Chris, I am happy with increased collaboration. But there are plenty of IFB churches which don’t get along and aren’t part of either of those groups.
Bob,
Does every SBC church get along with every other one, just because they are in the Convention?
I can’t speak to that, Greg. I just think greater inter-dependence is better. Unity is our calling– unity in the faith. For some isolated IFB churches, joining an association of other churches would be a good step. Getting along in general would be a good thing. Not saying the SBC is perfect. But togetherness in the Gospel with them seems wise and helpful. It doesn’t have to be a merger or transfer to SBC necessarily, but viewing other groups of churches as partners in the faith is something that hasn’t been a hallmark of fundamentalism.
“For some isolated IFB churches, joining an association of other churches would be a good step. Getting along in general would be a good thing.”
———–
That is something I can generally agree with. What I don’t like is the idea of people or churches affiliating with the Convention just to get the perceived benefits, or people who decry the ineffectiveness or problems of Associations never having made an honest attempt to invest in them.
I will say that from where I sit, the parameters of the Convention are too broad for me to encourage specific cooperation areas like church planting and foreign missions. I liken it to how I would approach a Presbyterian endeavor–I can rejoice with what God is doing, and befriend people involved in the work, maybe even get together for prayer or consideration of issues. But resources being what they are (financial, manpower), I would see the wisest investments being with those who would be closest to our distinctive principles and beliefs.
Pastor Janke and Bill,
Thank you for your clarifications. For now I will have to defer to your experience in the matter of how monies are distributed. I would be interested in a resource that would help me understand this matter more thoroughly. Unfortunately, my own experience and minimal research causes me to hesitate to swallow all that is being presented here regarding other factors.
The “too good to be true” proverb comes to mind, but even the specifics are a bit contradictory. For example, how can one say the churches are “doctrinally solid and theologically diverse” in the same sentence. I can imagine one means they are not shallow in doctrine (they believe strongly what they believe) but they believe different things. As if that is of any comfort. Alternatively this may mean that they are within orthodoxy (believing the fundamentals) but very diverse. But this suggests a kind of postmodern view to doctrine–at the least it is reductionist. The fact that a group is theologically diverse does not encourage me; it actually supports the idea that the SBC is not monolithic and Southern is not the same as the SBC.
Could one of our Southern Baptist brethren please comment on the positions of the SBC colleges. Are they “doctrinally solid” in any sense of the phrase? Are these colleges actually training Southern Baptist pastors?
Lastly, my concerns about the churches surrounding the present campus of Northland are not related to the giving of alumni. I am concerned that the move that Northland has made will place great pressure on the area churches to join the SBC (or W-MSBC). There is a requirement that all administration and faculty attend SBC churches. The fact that I may value the Gospel being furthered through the continual education on campus does not equal my happiness to have this kind of pressure placed on churches to join the SBC. The church ought to be paramount; the will of the congregation should be the deciding factor not the financial desires and policies of a college. At least one person I talked to in the Dunbar area sees this as bribery. The coercion that this and other factors bring to the table are the “bitter” in the bitter-sweet of this situation.
Christian,
Taking a step back for a minute… let’s imagine the situation in a slightly different setting. Imagine for a moment that some other institution–I don’t know, let’s say, Moody Bible Institute, or Cedarville University–was “gifted” to Maranatha Baptist University (I know it’s not going to happen, but work with me here). Would you expect MBU to leave the parameters open for students to attend where they had under previous administrations? Would MBU be bribing area churches to embrace separation and dispensationalism against their will?
Pastor Linscott,
Having only spent a few days thinking about this, my desire would be make the transition from x to y as smooth as possible for the local churches. The process would be more about doctrinal beliefs and practices than “sign up for our group and give us money and we are all good.”
The whole thing is messy, The changes have been very hard on the churches for years–and not just due to loss of numbers of students/faculty. The changes themselves have effected the body of Christ in the area. This is another blow in my mind.
The church ought to be paramount; the will of the congregation should be the deciding factor not the financial desires and policies of a college. At least one person I talked to in the Dunbar area sees this as bribery.
Christian,
I’m interested in this because of a comment made on another thread on SharperIron. We talk about “independent fundamental bible believing churches”, but then BJU exerts influence on Greenville area churches via an ‘approved’ / ‘nonapproved’ list and we’re OK with that. The FBFI recommends the use of ‘reliable’ translations to an again ‘independent, fundamental’ membership. There are associations and groups that ‘independent, fundamental’ churches can join like the IFCA or the MBA, but they act in concert to achieve greater goals than could be achieved independently.
I’m having a hard time reconciling the differences here. Yes, the local church is independent of an established hierarchy. But it seems to me that our ‘independence’ is goes out the window when ‘our guys’ are the ones doing the ‘bribing’.
I guess I’m also re-evaluating the concept and need for ‘independent’ churches in light of passages like John 17, 1 Cor. 12:12-31, and Ephesians 2 and 4. There is plenty of clear teaching in the NT about unity that would seem to trump our idea of radical individualism or independence, and I find it vaguely amusing that groups of independent churches tend to cluster into groups, whether formally recognized or not.
I don’t like what is going on at NIU and the local churches, but I don’t see it as any different from what they are doing. Do you see a difference, and if so, what is it?
As an aside, “Bribery” is a really strong term, and I’m not sure that it’s warranted. There’s nothing criminal about what the SBC is doing. You and I may not like it, but it’s not illegal, and actually, should have been expected by churches in the area. Did anyone honestly think that the SBC wouldn’t make a push into NE Wisconsin with this move?
Brother Camp,
I am familiar with the comparison you are making, but I see this as apples and oranges. The differences between what I understand BJU to do and what appears will happen in in Dunbar are stark. The similarities are superficial.
Unfortunately, I am not fully informed enough to speak to the practice of BJU, but I do feel equipped to compare the past practice of N-land and what appears to be the case now. Previously, I, as a pastor of a church in the vicinity, had three things to do to allow students to come (admittedly this is different from requirements on staff and faculty, but it is what I have to work with): Distance, Doctrine and Divisive Issues. Distance dealt with how far geographically the students would have to go, Doctrine meant I had to sign my agreement to a doctrinal statement from N-land. Divisive Issues meant I had to agree to some extent to N-land’s take on various current issues of the day. Our church was not asked to join a particular local/national/international fellowship/denomination of churches (or even have Baptist in the name) or give any money. Also previously in N-land’s history there was a discount for those students with parents in full-time service. As I recall there was no particular affiliation required in that discount. Now as I understand it if you go to a SBC church you may get a 50% discount.
Do these things bring influence on the churches to agree or disagree with doctrinal statement and issues statement, yes. Influence in the attempt to protect the integrity of the school. But I fail to see the biblical problem and actually see the wisdom of such a thing considering the stewardship of doctrinal fidelity given to the school by pastors and parents. Do I see the value of requiring admin/faculty Southern Seminary of attending SBC churches…actually, yes. But the net effect of this gifting and and change of ownership is to put churches into a quandary. Some of which may even need to change their constitutions in order to join a denomination. I am not sure this was thought through well. It appears be rescuing the school at the expense of the churches. If forced to offer a solution, I might suggest that they grandfather the present faculty/admin and require only new faculty to abide by the policy. Maybe this is what they will actually do, but that is not likely to accomplish the goal of establishing a SBC foothold in the area fast enough. If pressed and not thought through, this will be perceived as a coercive means to force a constituency for the SBC not a sincere pursuit of Gospel ministry.
Unity is a biblical doctrine (John 17; Ephesians 4:3; a great theme of Philippians) and I might even say it is a default position for the Christian with his brothers, but it is restrained by the doctrine of separation (Romans 16:17-18; 1 Timothy 6:1-5, etc). Furthermore, truths on unity are often given in the context of the local body not separate bodies in different geographic locations. Assistance to churches in need in the first century certainly appears to span geographic distance, but partnerships were geographically close not distant (Scriptural confirmation or denial of this is welcome.) The net effect of distance means we are often kept ignorant of doctrine and practice so we are not certain how much unity/separation we may have. I am always leery of claims to partnership and fellowship when every entity in the group actually has no relationship/knowledge of each other; is that really fellowship?
The term “bribery” used in context was not intended to suggest anything criminal. The term does not demand such intent. There are texts that call us to beware of such behavior without it be illegal (1 Thessalonians 2; Acts 20:23 are just a few examples). It is my understanding that the fee that is normal to join may be waived. If true, this is good. I know very little about the purpose of the minimal fee so I cannot say how good…is it yearly? will it be waived next year? etc.
Jay, I have something else to talk to you about, but not pertinent to this thread. We should try to connect soon.
As Brother Greg has stated above, “I will say that from where I sit, the parameters of the Convention are too broad for me to encourage specific cooperation areas like church planting and foreign missions. I liken it to how I would approach a Presbyterian endeavor–I can rejoice with what God is doing, and befriend people involved in the work, maybe even get together for prayer or consideration of issues. But resources being what they are (financial, manpower), I would see the wisest investments being with those who would be closest to our distinctive principles and beliefs.”
That is his conviction, Those are his personal beliefs, and I respect that. I would never expect him to join the Southern Baptist Convention because of this. However, when one looks at the Bible and interprets it differently, particularly in the areas of soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology, this is where we have issues. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 allows one to be “doctrinally sound” and “theologically diverse.” That is where John Janke gets his phrase. Southern Baptists have chosen to not divide over the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, pastor v. elder rule, and the end times. Sign gifts is also in there, but it is a very rare occurrence in the denomination. One of my very closest friends from when I was a seminary student at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is an amillennialist. I definitely don’t agree with him on the issue of Israel and the church, but he is my dear brother in Christ, who is seeking to reach people for Christ as a pastor in Georgia.
Pastors in the Northland area may see this as bribery, but I think they should look at it as a way to cooperate with others for the sake of the Gospel. I respect those who choose not to affiliate, as that is their conviction, but I am praying they will recognize their brothers in Christ do not divide over salvation by faith, the basics of the Gospel, the essentials of Christianity. They continue to be a Baptist institution by practicing baptism by immersion and upholding the Baptist distinctives. The cooperation is a missions endeavor. You are united in one person–to reach the world for Christ. Northland is now part of an entity that is owned by a Board of Trustees elected from the people in the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. One of those men happens to be a member of my church. The churches appoint these men to lead. The Executive Committee doesn’t have final say–the messengers do. The point is, people who complain in the Southern Baptist Convention that certain things aren’t done, need to go to conventions (especially state ones) to hold people accountable and make the right decisions. It is still in the hands of the churches, but the churches united together. That is what makes the Cooperative Program work.