Sattler College Turmoil

[jahertz]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

I'll be on the lookout for the installment where you give the alleged offenses of our Boston friends the benefit of the doubt on the same basis.

Having heard more than my share of far-fetched justifications for dishonorable behavior over the years, I have to say "He's from the city so he can't help it" ranks up there with the finest.

[Josh]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

I'll be on the lookout for the installment where you give the alleged offenses of our Boston friends the benefit of the doubt on the same basis.

Having heard more than my share of far-fetched justifications for dishonorable behavior over the years, I have to say "He's from the city so he can't help it" ranks up there with the finest.

I’ve given them plenty of the benefit of the doubt, as have many others. I reached the end of that benefit after the smear campaign against Taylor and others.

[jahertz]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

I know how people in cities talk.

After all, I live in one that is universally recognized as "fun."

I do wonder if the sheer fun level in your city has left you with a a rose-tinted perspective on this.

Perhaps in less-fun cities (such as, I don't know, Cleveland or wherever), it's the expected thing to accost strangers in front of, say, a Thai restaurant, demand that they play word games whose rules you invented, and accuse them of various theological offenses when they resist.

[jahertz]

I would add that there is a certain kind of personality from Baltimore and York, PA which may come across a bit acerbic, but is indeed normal for those regions. (Many cities have a similar distinct local/regional culture.) It is a mistake to assume city people are bad, aggressive, mean people just because they sometimes speak very directly to things or are outspoken.

I'll be on the lookout for the installment where you give the alleged offenses of our Boston friends the benefit of the doubt on the same basis.

Having heard more than my share of far-fetched justifications for dishonorable behavior over the years, I have to say "He's from the city so he can't help it" ranks up there with the finest.

I’ve given them plenty of the benefit of the doubt, as have many others. I reached the end of that benefit after the smear campaign against Taylor and others.

I don't doubt that all who have followed this long thread from its origins have been struck, as I have, by your slowness to take up an unkind rumor, as well as your scrupulous avoidance of anything remotely resembling a smear campaign against anyone.

[Josh]

I'll be on the lookout for the installment where you give the alleged offenses of our Boston friends the benefit of the doubt on the same basis.

Having heard more than my share of far-fetched justifications for dishonorable behavior over the years, I have to say "He's from the city so he can't help it" ranks up there with the finest.

I’ve given them plenty of the benefit of the doubt, as have many others. I reached the end of that benefit after the smear campaign against Taylor and others.

I'm sure all who have followed this very long thread from its origins have been struck, as I have, by your scrupulous avoidance of anything remotely resembling a smear campaign against anyone.

jahertz, you know that’s not a reasonable comparison at all.

Finny Kuravilla wields a great deal of money and power including the future of every Sattler student. When Taylor and the other person ran afoul of what Kuravilla wanted, he engaged in a well documented smear campaign against both of them. Part of his exercise of raw power was depriving one of them of a place to live. I have simply not done anything close to this. I have simply questioned this kind of raw exercise of power.

What is more notable is the handful of Sattler and FotW apologists who still exist, who consistently fail to see anything possibly wrong with this, and that’s frankly scary.

[NedFlanders]

I think there is a level of picking sides here rather than picking truth.

It’s one thing to disagree theologically and another to disagree with how a person delivers there theology.

It’s a subtle issue where agreeing with someone sharing what is correct but it is shared rude and demanding and giving them room to do so because they are correct comes across as picking sides with a person rather than being on the side with Truth.

[brothereicher]

I’ve given them plenty of the benefit of the doubt, as have many others. I reached the end of that benefit after the smear campaign against Taylor and others.

I'm sure all who have followed this very long thread from its origins have been struck, as I have, by your scrupulous avoidance of anything remotely resembling a smear campaign against anyone.

jahertz, you know that’s not a reasonable comparison at all.

Finny Kuravilla wields a great deal of money and power including the future of every Sattler student. When Taylor and the other person ran afoul of what Kuravilla wanted, he engaged in a well documented smear campaign against both of them. Part of his exercise of raw power was depriving one of them of a place to live. I have simply not done anything close to this. I have simply questioned this kind of raw exercise of power.

What is more notable is the handful of Sattler and FotW apologists who still exist, who consistently fail to see anything possibly wrong with this, and that’s frankly scary.

Ok. I'm gonna ask for the receipts.

Where is the documentation of this "well documented smear campaign"?

Private message it. Share it here. Post it in a Google drive. Whatever you'd like.

But please, share your documentation.

As one of the "handful of Sattler apologists and FOTW apologists," I've never seen any evidence of a smear campaign as you claim.

I've lived in Boston and had a ringside seat to the upheaval for the past two years, and I've heard lots and lots of accusations against Finny, but the idea that he ran a smear campaign or deprived someone of a place to live has never once been among those accusations, so this is a new one for me.

But since this accusation is WELL-DOCUMENTED, I'm sure I'll soon be enlightened.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Fortunately, there's an easy way to clear this up:

Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no?

I cannot subscribe to the Belgic confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Cannons of Dort. I also reject large portions of the Westminster confession. This would mean I am clearly not reformed as judged by those who are reformed.

I will define before I answer, because you seem to define things in nonstandard ways.

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no.
Refusing to answer simply means that you are trying to hide your position. Are you doing this to continue to appeal to people who reject your position?

Only cults try to hide their views, Judas Maccabeas.

Of course, I speak as a fool, to make a point. I'd be ashamed to be seen unironically using these dishonest tactics in what's supposed to be a Christian discussion.

If this line of questioning feels unfair to you, I suggest you owe brothereicher a public apology for bullying him in exactly the same way, page after page.

This isn't a one-off incident, it's your modus operandi any time someone seriously challenges you. It isn't remotely Christian behavior, and you should expect other Christians to rebuke you when you do it.

In the interest of clarity, here's just one egregious example of what I'm talking about:

Refusing to answer a question that is likely to be asked in an evangelism setting and will surely be asked in a discipleship setting makes no sense.

To imply that brothereicher "refused to answer" your question is a blatantly false accusation and underlines your bad faith throughout this discussion.

Brothereicher answered your question over and over, with far more patience, detail, and clarity than your peevish and domineering demands warranted (and more graciously than you did when you felt your own views were being misrepresented).

What really happened is that you repeatedly asked a "gotcha" question that required explanation to address intelligently, then demanded that brothereicher limit his reply to a single word so you could make him look silly.

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

That is over the top. You might be able to frustrate me, you have far better rhetoric skills than I, and you use them effectively,

My apologies for any offense I have caused.

My opinion of the whole Boston scene has not, however, changed. I still cannot comprehend how you could call me “reformed.”

The simple answer is no, not now not ever.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That being said, I still reject Stone-Campbell theology, and believe it to be false doctrine,

[brothereicher]

I cannot subscribe to the Belgic confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Cannons of Dort. I also reject large portions of the Westminster confession. This would mean I am clearly not reformed as judged by those who are reformed.

I will define before I answer, because you seem to define things in nonstandard ways.

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no.
Refusing to answer simply means that you are trying to hide your position. Are you doing this to continue to appeal to people who reject your position?

Only cults try to hide their views, Judas Maccabeas.

Of course, I speak as a fool, to make a point. I'd be ashamed to be seen unironically using these dishonest tactics in what's supposed to be a Christian discussion.

If this line of questioning feels unfair to you, I suggest you owe brothereicher a public apology for bullying him in exactly the same way, page after page.

This isn't a one-off incident, it's your modus operandi any time someone seriously challenges you. It isn't remotely Christian behavior, and you should expect other Christians to rebuke you when you do it.

In the interest of clarity, here's just one egregious example of what I'm talking about:

Refusing to answer a question that is likely to be asked in an evangelism setting and will surely be asked in a discipleship setting makes no sense.

To imply that brothereicher "refused to answer" your question is a blatantly false accusation and underlines your bad faith throughout this discussion.

Brothereicher answered your question over and over, with far more patience, detail, and clarity than your peevish and domineering demands warranted (and more graciously than you did when you felt your own views were being misrepresented).

What really happened is that you repeatedly asked a "gotcha" question that required explanation to address intelligently, then demanded that brothereicher limit his reply to a single word so you could make him look silly.

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

That is over the top. You might be able to frustrate me, you have far better rhetoric skills than I, and you use them effectively,

My apologies for any offense I have caused.

My opinion of the whole Boston scene has not, however, changed. I still cannot comprehend how you could call me “reformed.”

The simple answer is no, not now not ever.

Thanks, JM. I accept your apology.

And I also accept that your views on Boston are unlikely to change, and that's fine, too. People are allowed to have different perspectives of things, for sure.

One thing we disagree on, it seems is our adamant rejection of Reformed theology.