Sattler College Turmoil

[jahertz]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge. But what does FOTW stand for?

Followers of the Way is an urban house church network, originally founded in Boston by Finny Kuruvilla and Matthew Milioni.

Kuruvilla’s book, “King Jesus Claims His Church” describes Finny's personal views on doctrine and church order.

The book is not a manual for the movement. Finny's cofounder openly disagrees with some parts of the book, and how much others in the movement agree with it very much depends on who you ask.

You can read more about them at https://www.followers-of-the-way.org/.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would have identified it as a fusion movement between the Church of Christ and Anabaptism, that has the "look and feel" of an Anabaptist church but has the controversial doctrine of the Church of Christ, also known as the Stone-Campbell movement. It would be much the same as Charity was largely a fusion movement between Evangelicalism and Anabaptism.

I wonder what points of Finney's book there is disagreement on?

[Josh]

I would have identified it as a fusion movement between the Church of Christ and Anabaptism, that has the "look and feel" of an Anabaptist church but has the controversial doctrine of the Church of Christ, also known as the Stone-Campbell movement. It would be much the same as Charity was largely a fusion movement between Evangelicalism and Anabaptism.

I wonder what points of Finney's book there is disagreement on?

Or more specifically, Charity was a fusion between Independnet Fundamental Baptist thinking (IFB) and plain Anabaptism. Its founder hailed from the Hiles-Anderson school of “evangelism”.

Likewise, Kuravilla hails from Int’l Church of Christ circles, such as believing no one can be saved but is instead sent to eternal damnation if they aren’t baptised via full immersion plus a trinitarian formula. We also see some of the cult style extreme forms of personal control ICC was famous for.

Just as Denny Kenaston never quit being IFB, but rather saw himself as an evangelist to Amish, Kuravilla hasn’t quit being ICC or CoC, and indeed considers his movement and himself an “apostle” to plain people. To quote Matthew Milioni at KFW (from my memory);

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

[mike]

I would have identified it as a fusion movement between the Church of Christ and Anabaptism, that has the "look and feel" of an Anabaptist church but has the controversial doctrine of the Church of Christ, also known as the Stone-Campbell movement. It would be much the same as Charity was largely a fusion movement between Evangelicalism and Anabaptism.

I wonder what points of Finney's book there is disagreement on?

Or more specifically, Charity was a fusion between Independnet Fundamental Baptist thinking (IFB) and plain Anabaptism. Its founder hailed from the Hiles-Anderson school of “evangelism”.

Likewise, Kuravilla hails from Int’l Church of Christ circles, such as believing no one can be saved but is instead sent to eternal damnation if they aren’t baptised via full immersion plus a trinitarian formula. We also see some of the cult style extreme forms of personal control ICC was famous for.

Just as Denny Kenaston never quit being IFB, but rather saw himself as an evangelist to Amish, Kuravilla hasn’t quit being ICC or CoC, and indeed considers his movement and himself an “apostle” to plain people. To quote Matthew Milioni at KFW (from my memory);

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

As you know, Anabaptist churches routinely function as havens for those from less-conservative plain groups. For example around 2/3 of our congregation is made up of people who have moved in from generally more conservative groups. However, all of this is done kind of on the down low without overt attempts at marketing or proselytizing other groups, and a certain level of mutual respect is maintained among a wide variety of plain groups in spite of this sort of thing.

In contrast, the Charity movement was a more overt attempt at reaching plain Anabaptists and calling them to leave churches full of allegedly unsaved or unspiritual persons. Not that all of this was entirely without reason or merit. But somehow this approach did not work out well for the Charity movement, which fragmented and dispersed and ended up with thousands of people disillusioned with whatever they had set out to be. It wasn't all bad and had some lasting positive impact in the conservative Anabaptist community, but too many people inside and outside the Anabaptist community were seriously disillusioned with Anabaptism and Christianity itself while in the movement.

From what I hear of FOTW they would possibly fit in that same sort of camp. I say that knowing that I would fit in better in a FOTW-style independent Anabaptist church than in the conservative Mennonite conference I'm currently with. I wish them the best, and I am sure there may be some positive impact in the conservative Anabaptist community. But there is a lot of potential for lasting damage as well.

[Judas Maccabeus]

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

Was that from the front, so I could source that from a recording?

If that is correct, it is shocking.

[RZehr]

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

Was that from the front, so I could source that from a recording?

If that is correct, it is shocking.

Matthew Millioni is a good friend of mine, going back 20 years. We do not see eye to eye on some things. Since he’s moved to Boston I have not at all directly kept up with him. Probably talked with him on the phone once in the last few years.
This quote is completely in line with his thinking in the past, having heard him say very similar things to me. I say very similar, because I don’t remember him explicitly tying it exclusively to baptism.

[jahertz]

To quote Matthew Milioni at KFW (from my memory);

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

It's delightful that this longstanding exercise in creative reframing has now been upgraded to a direct quote without the faintest resemblance to Matthew's phrasing or vocabulary. How long, I wonder, until it loses the square brackets too?

What's even stranger is that those of us who have been privy to Matthew's non-public unfiltered personal views for years have heard him consistently say just the opposite: that their preferred targets for evangelism are urbanites and university students, and that conservative Anabaptists, in general, tend to be a poor fit for this type of church.

Note that if Josh's oft-repeated claim is true, these two visionaries decided to launch an outreach to the famously agrarian Plain People by planting a series of house churches in major cities.

That's about as plausible as trying to reach mommy bloggers by erecting a booth inside a pesticide vat.

Which is more likely, I wonder: that the founders of an ambitious church planting effort have chosen to work exclusively in the specific areas their targets most studiously avoid; or that one man's recollection of a single remark heard years ago has suffered the erosion all memories experience over long timespans and many retellings?

Having grown up in conservative Anabaptist culture, I remember what it was like to assume that any group that wears head coverings and talks about the Sermon on the Mount must be either seeking to learn from us or actively trying to poach our people.

It was humbling to realize that the Christian landscape is littered with little movements about as serious and committed as ours, who really aren't thinking about us much at all.

(Note: For several years under Dean Taylor's presidency, Sattler College's recruiting did focus, rightly or wrongly, almost exclusively on Anabaptist students. This difference of focus from the intent of the founder was one—though far from the only—contributing factor to the turmoil at the school that originally launched this thread. Supporting this is the fact that since Taylor's departure and the board reshuffle Sattler's recruiting appears to have pivoted back to the more diverse range of Christian groups they had marketed to during their first year or two.)

[joshuabgood]

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

While I know Matthew to be a zealous passionate guy...this quote attributed to him stretches my credulity a bit. I have discussed this baptism thing in depth with him, and never heard it articulated like that.

*I see Jahertz beat me to it.

[RZehr]

The closest I’ve heard him refer to baptism in this way was with a bit of uncertainty. He seemed to remain open to the idea that Mennonite pouring baptism as possibly valid, but that it may not be. And that he was going to leave it for God to judge. But that clearly immersion was the right way.

This was years ago, so I don’t remember it all clearly, and I don’t know what his more recent beliefs are.

[Josh]

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

Was that from the front, so I could source that from a recording?

If that is correct, it is shocking.

It was part of a conversation in person at KFW in, I think, 2016.

I would like to add that it was spoken with sincerity - exactly the same way plain Mennonites might talk about divorced and remarried people not realising they can’t be saved (note - I am aware not all groups believe this). So it isn’t intended as a personal attack, but rather it reveals what their dogma is.

CoC and Oneness Pentecostals all have the same doctrine and are quite open about it.

What is interesting is that GBs might technically share this dogma… yet GBs don’t seem to be horribly divisive or “raid” other plain groups extensively. And likewise FotW and Sattler don’t even seem to want to recruit GBs that much. Interestingly, GBs have always been comfortable with higher education - you find doctors amongst them. They generally prefer a truly secular college and avoid “Christian” ones.

Any GBs on the forum are welcome to comment / correct what I said above…