Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

So are you saying that Dean never intended to start a Mennonite church at all?

Correct. Although if some Mennonite group within Dean's parameters would have wanted to come in and start a church, he would have gotten behind it. Since no other Mennonite group was interested in planting a church in Boston, Dean decided to plant one himself in south Boston where no FOTW churches were located.

Was there more than one church that Finny opposed starting? Or is this the one everyone is talking about?

In short, "the one everyone is talking about".

The founder of Sattler was opposed to Dean being part of a church other than FOTW. He wanted the President and dean of students to be members of FOTW. At one point the founder of Sattler and the founders of FOTW did get behind Dean's church planting vision, whenever Dean told them that the dean of students he had recruited was welcome to join FOTW. Dean did not require that the dean of students help him start the new church plant. Dean also welcomed the founder of Sattler to be one his new church plant's advisory board. At this point, the FOTW founders said all sorts of nice things to Dean about how great a guy he was, how forgiving he was, etc. But when the FOTW founders could not convince the dean of students to join FOTW, and they found out that Dean was planning to start a "kingdom Christian Anabaptist church" with weekly communion, etc., then they adamantly opposed the endeavor. They did not want the President and the Dean of Students at the college (two former FOTW members with great influence) to start a church that would compete with FOTW in Boston.

I'm not in a position to say whether or not this was once a position of Sattler or Finny, because I wasn't involved in these discussions and decisions.
What I can tell you is that Sattler just named Dr. Jesse Scheumann to be the new Dean of Students. Dr. Scheumann, for those who may not know, is an elder at Tremont Temple Baptist Church in Boston.

[jahertz]

My understanding was one of the goals was to form a church where BMA and Keystone type of students would feel comfortable (and their parents and ministers back home would also feel comfortable with it). That left a lot of room for differences like weekly communion but didn’t leave space for “one true church” teaching, belief that full immersion baptism is required for salvation, nor the teaching that there can only be one true church in a given city and that a second church that starts in the same city is illegitimate.

Is the above highlighted text an actual doctrine of FOTW?

If so, seems rather problematic, not to mention ridiculous in a city as large as Boston.

Context: I am neither a member nor a prospective member at FOTW and have no involvement in Sattler. I personally have zero tolerance for any of the three doctrines Josh attributes to FOTW above.

I have engaged in countless hours of discussion, including many vigorous disagreements, in person and online, with members of FOTW including their church planter Matthew Milioni, on a broad range of subjects. I suspect I have been privy to more unguarded non-public non-official interactions with current FOTW leadership over the past few years than all but one or two people posting in this discussion.

And I can say unequivocally that FoTW believes none of the three doctrines Josh just attributed to them, and that I have personally heard FOTW leadership candidly repudiate each of those beliefs at different times in both personal and public forums.

It's tempting to conjecture what might motivate someone like Josh, whose chosen denomination does officially espouse One True Church doctrine, to leverage accusations of that doctrine in the service of discrediting a church group which has never to my knowledge hinted at such a thing, but I'll merely remark on the oddness of it and leave it at that.

I've personally shared Eucharist as a visitor in a FOTW congregation in Boston. All things considered, if they really are crypto One True Churchers as alleged here, it's difficult to imagine a sloppier application of the doctrine than theirs.

[barnhart]

Thanks JAH, I am encourage to hear that report.

[jahertz]

FOTW doesn't believe any of those things.
Not the "one true church" idea.
Not the "full-immersion is required for salvation" idea.
Not the "other churches are illegitimate" idea.

I don't expect that my denial is going to stop these claims from continuing to be made here. But I thought you should know.

I have heard and published that they require a “valid “ baptism to be saved. Millioi made a half baked attempt to refute the historic Mennonite view on this matter, and we know that FOTW only baptized by immersion. So that conclusion is a logical step.

SO if what you are saying is true, let FOTW publish it openly. In writing . Otherwise all we are hearing is an employee trying to cover for his boss.

Let them bring this into the open. If they don’t, then people are free to try and piece together what they can.

I suspect the “apostles “ of FOTW won’t. That leaves anyone free to try their best to figure it out, not making their teaching available to the larger community site does not help. If we see no denial forthcoming, we could conclude it is true.

I'm not employed by FOTW, so any defense of them is just because I have a lot of respect for them.

No one from either Sattler or FOTW has asked me to be here, and I'm not acting in any official capacity on this thread.

I think that your "logical conclusion" is a spectacular logical leap. Having a preferred method of baptism doesn't make other baptisms invalid.

Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring, but recognize other valid baptisms. (Example of an invalid baptism would be infant baptism.)

I think it's also odd to believe that something must be true since someone somewhere didn't specifically deny it.

One could make preposterous claims all day long faster than anyone could deny them.

As of this morning, FOTW's YouTube channel has over 300 videos on it, so it's odd to claim that they are "not making their teachings available."

Having worked in Menno publishing, I am familiar with the widespread compulsion among fundamentalist types to not only choose a narrow church position on each issue such as mode of baptism, but also to dogmatically assert that any group who takes a different position is not only wrong but illegitimate, and that all ceremonies performed by any sufficiently dissenting group are therefore null and void.

I notice that in the conservative Anabaptist world this paradigm is often unwittingly projected onto church groups who do not in fact share it; thus, "we believe immersion is the correct default mode of baptism" gets automatically interpreted by many Plain listeners as "your pouring baptism didn't count."

(In this vein I'm reminded of one discussion in which an Anabaptist man with a strong Sunday-Sabbath belief implied that those of us who disagreed with him were plotting to force him to mow his lawn on Sunday. I'm not sure why it's so hard for some of us to imagine holding a belief without trying to force it upon everyone else, but here we are.)

This kind of dogmatism should not be taken as a given, even, believe it or not, among immersion baptizers. Despite the sometimes caustic off-the-cuff tone of certain FOTW personalities, I have not found that kind of dogmatism to be a given among their leaders.

[Nomad]

The controversy around Dean is far less concerning to me than some of the other things I've seen and heard surrounding FOTW. If Dean wanted to start a church badly enough then he would have. I don't know what proof I could glean that Finny was against this without hearsay.

However, the thought of indoctrination to Finny ideology is more concerning. Years ago I had a friend who described Finny as the "perfect Christian" after reading his book (King Jesus Claims His Church) and promptly left the church he had been a part of all his life and moved his family to Boston. Just before doing so, he gathered all the elders of the church he attended to his house in an attempt to argue them into the views that he had learned from Finny Kuruvilla and others of the movement. Much like Finny and Milioni he was very passionate, young, good with his words, and persuasive...however that doesn't necessarily mean everything he said was true and when the ministers didn't bite he immediately packed up. At the time it didn't really bother me and I chalked it up to him developing an interest in theology for the 1st time in his life after spending years only hearing it on Sundays. He became on fire as the excitement of a new movement began and the feeling of being "alive" as a Christian was addictive...much like many other "revivals" that begin with a new ideology and excitement surrounding it. The problem is, there's a small amount of "smugness" that surrounds these movements as the people involved tend to want to critique the others who don't follow in their footsteps who are then labeled as "not on fire" or "dead" if they don't give their full blessing to the movement. Or at least that's how its insinuated. I've listened to quite a few sermons from FOTW and many of them have a shadow of critique behind them along with a apologetic-type approach. When preaching this way, where the other side can't defend themselves, and then posting it on YouTube so all the world can see... this can be a little bit like a sucker punch where the individuals you are critiquing have no chance to publicly defend against what you are carefully laying out via PowerPoint sermon against them. I don't mind the apologetic approach to sermons but if you do it and give access to the public...you better be prepared for feedback from others eventually. Especially when young people are listening and then bringing the arguments to the church they attend causing controversy and thus creating frustration for the elders at these churches. Then adding in a College that advertises to young believers to boot, those whom you have been critiquing are going to be critical in return. Unless, the churches or individuals already agree with you then you probably applaud whats being done...of course.

I knew eventually this would boil over if left unchecked for awhile...I only mention my friend because fast-forward several years later, and I've heard several situations from other Anabaptist churches that mirror what happened to him.

I also read Finny's book, and while I thought it was fine, I wasn't necessarily wowed by it. Nor was I going to staple it to the back of my Bible like some Anabaptist were appearing to elevate it at the time. To me, it seemed like a mishmash of Reformed thought (Kim Riddlebarger, Horton, etc...) and Anabaptist thought(David Bercot). I didn't see what the big deal was. It was good, and gave some great practical Christian living advice but it wasn't necessarily the greatest "Kingdom" book I've ever read. I both appreciated it and wasn't overly impressed by it...but that was just 1 persons opinion of it and I'm sure if I wrote a book it would probably recieve both positive and negative feedback as well.

[brothereicher]

The controversy around Dean is far less concerning to me than some of the other things I've seen and heard surrounding FOTW. If Dean wanted to start a church badly enough then he would have. I don't know what proof I could glean that Finny was against this without hearsay.

However, the thought of indoctrination to Finny ideology is more concerning. Years ago I had a friend who described Finny as the "perfect Christian" after reading his book (King Jesus Claims His Church) and promptly left the church he had been a part of all his life and moved his family to Boston. Just before doing so, he gathered all the elders of the church he attended to his house in an attempt to argue them into the views that he had learned from Finny Kuruvilla and others of the movement. Much like Finny and Milioni he was very passionate, young, good with his words, and persuasive...however that doesn't necessarily mean everything he said was true and when the ministers didn't bite he immediately packed up. At the time it didn't really bother me and I chalked it up to him developing an interest in theology for the 1st time in his life after spending years only hearing it on Sundays. He became on fire as the excitement of a new movement began and the feeling of being "alive" as a Christian was addictive...much like many other "revivals" that begin with a new ideology and excitement surrounding it. The problem is, there's a small amount of "smugness" that surrounds these movements as the people involved tend to want to critique the others who don't follow in their footsteps who are then labeled as "not on fire" or "dead" if they don't give their full blessing to the movement. Or at least that's how its insinuated. I've listened to quite a few sermons from FOTW and many of them have a shadow of critique behind them along with a apologetic-type approach. When preaching this way, where the other side can't defend themselves, and then posting it on YouTube so all the world can see... this can be a little bit like a sucker punch where the individuals you are critiquing have no chance to publicly defend against what you are carefully laying out via PowerPoint sermon against them. I don't mind the apologetic approach to sermons but if you do it and give access to the public...you better be prepared for feedback from others eventually. Especially when young people are listening and then bringing the arguments to the church they attend causing controversy and thus creating frustration for the elders at these churches. Then adding in a College that advertises to young believers to boot, those whom you have been critiquing are going to be critical in return. Unless, the churches or individuals already agree with you then you probably applaud whats being done...of course.

I knew eventually this would boil over if left unchecked for awhile...I only mention my friend because fast-forward several years later, and I've heard several situations from other Anabaptist churches that mirror what happened to him.

I also read Finny's book, and while I thought it was fine, I wasn't necessarily wowed by it. Nor was I going to staple it to the back of my Bible like some Anabaptist were appearing to elevate it at the time. To me, it seemed like a mishmash of Reformed thought (Kim Riddlebarger, Horton, etc...) and Anabaptist thought(David Bercot). I didn't see what the big deal was. It was good, and gave some great practical Christian living advice but it wasn't necessarily the greatest "Kingdom" book I've ever read. I both appreciated it and wasn't overly impressed by it...but that was just 1 persons opinion of it and I'm sure if I wrote a book it would probably recieve both positive and negative feedback as well.

This perspective is really thoughtful and makes a lot of sense to me.
I really appreciate the time and effort you put in articulating it.

I've had experiences over the time I've lived in Boston that have helped me realize repeatedly the power of my own biases, which I try to remain aware of. While my experiences and concerns don't match yours exactly, what you are saying makes total sense, and I can understand why you and others like you feel that way.

Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary.

[brothereicher]

As fascinating as all this has been, it's consumed more of my time and mental energy than I intended when I dived in. (Rookie mistake, I am sure.) So I'm going to be backing off on my engagement here for a while.

I'll probably check this thread again in the future, and may have more information or insights to share at that time.
In the meantime, please come visit me (and Sattler) in Boston. (It really is a fun city, and definitely a better pick than Cleveland. Source: I'm from Ohio)

[Josh]

Context: I am neither a member nor a prospective member at FOTW and have no involvement in Sattler. I personally have zero tolerance for any of the three doctrines Josh attributes to FOTW above.

I have engaged in countless hours of discussion, including many vigorous disagreements, in person and online, with members of FOTW including their church planter Matthew Milioni, on a broad range of subjects. I suspect I have been privy to more unguarded non-public non-official interactions with current FOTW leadership over the past few years than all but one or two people posting in this discussion.

And I can say unequivocally that FoTW believes none of the three doctrines Josh just attributed to them, and that I have personally heard FOTW leadership candidly repudiate each of those beliefs at different times in both personal and public forums.

I’ve heard Matthew Milioni directly state in front of me his view on baptismal regeneration, including the urgency to plant more FotW churches in more cities, so that more Mennonites who have not been immersed may be saved. He and I agreed to disagree on this issue (and I have been personally immersed so he wasn’t concerned for me specifically). This was back around the era of KFW 2015, I think, whenever the folks from Boston all came to KFW.

It is possible things have changed since then.

I also referred a childhood friend of mine who was a seeker for a year or so who attended FotW Richmond sporadically, and witnessed doctrines concerning communion being essential to stay in a state of grace. I was unsure how to try to explain this but just told her there are many different views on communion and what’s important is knowing you are at peace with God and man.

It's tempting to conjecture what might motivate someone like Josh, whose chosen denomination does officially espouse One True Church doctrine, to leverage accusations of that doctrine in the service of discrediting a church group which has never to my knowledge hinted at such a thing, but I'll merely remark on the oddness of it and leave it at that.

A key difference is that we don’t deny an OTC belief, but we also don’t consider baptism in our church or association with our church at all required for salvation. Nor are we trying to have a bunch of Holdeman members operate an institution that then many non-Holdemans go to.

I've personally shared Eucharist as a visitor in a FOTW congregation in Boston. All things considered, if they really are crypto One True Churchers as alleged here, it's difficult to imagine a sloppier application of the doctrine than theirs.

That’s great to hear, but you may want to consider that you might be on the “inside track” with them.

A key reason for this suspicion is that Kuravilla came from an ICC background and has never clarified how many ICC doctrines he still holds to. FotW most recently has said it is “not Anabaptist”. The real question then is: what is it? Could they simply publish what they believe the plan of salvation is? When asked, the answer I have got is “We simply follow the Bible”.

[ohio jones]

Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring, but recognize other valid baptisms. (Example of an invalid baptism would be infant baptism.)

While I'm not entirely surprised that you'd make a blanket statement this might be better worded as "some Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring" or "In general, Mennonites baptize primarily by pouring."

I point this out because in the context of people arguably misrepresenting FOTW's beliefs, representing their beliefs in return without appropriate nuance doesn't help communication. Mennonites are a larger and more diverse body than FOTW, of course, so it's more difficult to describe them comprehensively.

The point is accurate, though; Mennonites usually don't quibble about the form or context of a previous baptism as long as it was done as a believer.

[brothereicher]

Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring, but recognize other valid baptisms. (Example of an invalid baptism would be infant baptism.)

While I'm not entirely surprised that you'd make a blanket statement this might be better worded as "some Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring" or "In general, Mennonites baptize primarily by pouring."

I point this out because in the context of people arguably misrepresenting FOTW's beliefs, representing their beliefs in return without appropriate nuance doesn't help communication. Mennonites are a larger and more diverse body than FOTW, of course, so it's more difficult to describe them comprehensively.

The point is accurate, though; Mennonites usually don't quibble about the form or context of a previous baptism as long as it was done as a believer.

(I'm breaking my departure plans just for you. )

The Mennonites I'm familiar with teach against immersion, and I don't know of any who practice anything but pouring. But your point is well-taken.