Sattler College Turmoil

[jahertz]

Well, this discussion feels much more collegial than it has for a few days. Given the lowered temperature in the room, it feels worthwhile to make a clarification or two.

I am most certainly not reformed . I do not know how to make it more clear.

Just because you use material from reformed authors does not make you reformed.

My post on reformed theology was not intended to imply that you as a person "are Reformed" in some total sense, and if you read carefully, you will see that I never applied that label to you or to S&T.

I stand by my main thesis that you and S&T promote Reformed concepts that conflict with traditional Anabaptist doctrine. Departing from points of traditional Anabaptist doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing—I don't agree with them on everything either. What bothers me about the S&T approach is that it doesn't feel straightforward. In my view S&T is using the cause of cultural and theological preservation as cover to promote doctrinal formulations novel to Anabaptism.

Put another way, it looks like taking advantage of the theological disorder among contemporary Anabaptists to engineer a Protestant fundamentalist takeover inside a Trojan Horse labeled Old Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

You will doubtless consider this an unfair characterization of what you're doing, and I welcome you to continue making that case. I probably won't debate it with you, as I'm not personally invested in what Sword & Trumpet or their constituency are up to theologically. I'm revisiting it here only to clarify what I wrote earlier.

In summary, I have never believed or intentionally implied that you accept every point of Reformed Doctrine wholesale. I do believe your work is pushing Mennonites who heed you away from traditional Anabaptist and toward Reformed habits of thought. I concede that in the heat of composition I may have overstated that case, and where I did so I apologize.

****************************

Finally, my last long post directed at you was entirely unrelated to any doctrinal differences, but strictly to your mode and tactics of engagement. I hate those tactics just as much when they're being deployed in defense of things I agree with—more in fact, because then they discredit ideas I care about, instead of those I wish to see discredited anyway.

I wrote as sharply as I did because I saw the situation as egregious and prolonged, and gentler rebukes by several people seemed to have had no effect. I hope I overstated that case too, but I spent a lot of time thinking carefully about what I ought to say before I said it. So while I'm paying respectful attention to people's feedback, I'm not ready to retract it yet.

That said, I invite all present who believe I am wildly deluded and unjust to pray for my enlightenment.

And now I'll attempt to extract myself from active involvement for a bit so as not to neglect the people I have to do with in person. That group includes some of my closest friends, a committed and theologically astute Reformed Baptist family with whom, despite my alleged unfamiliarity with Reformed concepts, we just spent another late Friday night wrestling through some of the finer points of our respective theological frameworks.

[Soloist]

.

I stand by my main thesis that you and S&T promote Reformed concepts that conflict with traditional Anabaptist doctrine. Departing from points of traditional Anabaptist doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing—I don't agree with them on everything either. What bothers me about the S&T approach is that it doesn't feel straightforward. In my view S&T is using the cause of cultural and theological preservation as cover to promote doctrinal formulations novel to Anabaptism.

Put another way, it looks like taking advantage of the theological disorder among contemporary Anabaptists to engineer a Protestant fundamentalist takeover inside a Trojan Horse labeled Old Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

Can you explain the source of what you are calling traditional Anabaptist doctrine? That can be tossed around but be very unclear what is actually being referenced.

To my knowledge, the Anabaptists historically had a number of differing views on many different doctrines and then the various movements again and the modern versions as well.

[jahertz]

.

I stand by my main thesis that you and S&T promote Reformed concepts that conflict with traditional Anabaptist doctrine. Departing from points of traditional Anabaptist doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing—I don't agree with them on everything either. What bothers me about the S&T approach is that it doesn't feel straightforward. In my view S&T is using the cause of cultural and theological preservation as cover to promote doctrinal formulations novel to Anabaptism.

Put another way, it looks like taking advantage of the theological disorder among contemporary Anabaptists to engineer a Protestant fundamentalist takeover inside a Trojan Horse labeled Old Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

Can you explain the source of what you are calling traditional Anabaptist doctrine? That can be tossed around but be very unclear what is actually being referenced.

To my knowledge, the Anabaptists historically had a number of differing views on many different doctrines and then the various movements again and the modern versions as well.

It's a fair question that would be fun to discuss, but I can't justify the time at the moment. I'll be staying tuned in case anyone else takes up the topic though.

[Soloist]

It's a fair question that would be fun to discuss, but I can't justify the time at the moment. I'll be staying tuned in case anyone else takes up the topic though.

It certainly could be interesting but regardless of the discussions, that wouldn’t answer the question. I accept you don’t have time.

[Judas Maccabeus]

.

I stand by my main thesis that you and S&T promote Reformed concepts that conflict with traditional Anabaptist doctrine. Departing from points of traditional Anabaptist doctrine is not necessarily a bad thing—I don't agree with them on everything either. What bothers me about the S&T approach is that it doesn't feel straightforward. In my view S&T is using the cause of cultural and theological preservation as cover to promote doctrinal formulations novel to Anabaptism.

Put another way, it looks like taking advantage of the theological disorder among contemporary Anabaptists to engineer a Protestant fundamentalist takeover inside a Trojan Horse labeled Old Paths and Ancient Landmarks.

Can you explain the source of what you are calling traditional Anabaptist doctrine? That can be tossed around but be very unclear what is actually being referenced.

To my knowledge, the Anabaptists historically had a number of differing views on many different doctrines and then the various movements again and the modern versions as well.

It's a fair question that would be fun to discuss, but I can't justify the time at the moment. I'll be staying tuned in case anyone else takes up the topic though.

That would be interesting, as I could not figure out what your position actually was, and what you see as traditional Anabaptist doctrine. My strident attitude was, more than anything else, an attempt to figure out exactly what you do believe. As to “Traditional Anabaptist doctrine “. Your mileage definitely will vary, there is considerable difference between the BMA, Eastern, the OGBB and the River Brethren. It has changed over the years. One of my grad. School professors said”controversy forces definition “ since any group will be subject to questions and challenges that their forefathers would not have dreamed of. One must adapt.

I understand busy, we are getting near crunch time for my 7th. Graders, so I am bust as well. All the best.

[Ken]

Here is an article from today's Washington Post which tells us that small private colleges in this country are currently closing at a rate of one per week and that the rate is accelerating. And these are mostly colleges that have far more resources than Sattler (they own their own campuses and facilities, for example). I remain unconvinced that Sattler has discovered the magic financial formula that makes them different from everyone else. Here is an excerpt and a gift link to the whole article: https://wapo.st/4dkdKzF

Colleges are now closing at a pace of one a week. What happens to the students?

About one university or college per week so far this year, on average, has announced that it will close or merge. That’s up from a little more than two a month last year, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, or SHEEO.

So many colleges are folding that some students who moved from one to another have now found that their new school will also close, often with little or no warning. Some of the students at Newbury, when it closed in 2019, had moved there from nearby Mount Ida College, for example, which shut down the year before.

Most students at colleges that close give up on their educations altogether. Fewer than half transfer to other institutions, a SHEEO study found. Of those, fewer than half stay long enough to get degrees. Many lose credits when they move from one school to another and have to spend longer in college, often taking out more loans to pay for it.

As many as 1 in 10 four-year colleges and universities are in financial peril, the consulting firm EY Parthenon estimates.

“It’s simply supply and demand,” said Gary Stocker, a former chief of staff at Westminster College in Missouri and the founder of College Viability, which evaluates institutions’ financial stability. The closings follow an enrollment decline of 14 percent in the decade through 2022, the most recent period for which the figures are available from the Education Department. A decline of as much as 15 percent is projected to begin next year.

Already this year, and within a span of a few days, Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, Fontbonne University in St. Louis and Eastern Gateway Community College in Ohio all announced that they would close — Birmingham-Southern in May, Fontbonne next year and Eastern Gateway by June, unless it gets a financial bailout.

The for-profit University of Antelope Valley in California was ordered by the state to shut down because of financial shortfalls. Lincoln Christian University in Illinois and Magdalen College in New Hampshire will close in May, Johnson University of Florida in June and Hodges University in Florida by August. The College of Saint Rose in New York, Cabrini University in Pennsylvania, Oak Point University in Illinois, Goddard College in Vermont and the Staten Island campus of St. John’s University will all be shuttered by the end of this semester.

Notre Dame College in Ohio will also close its doors at the end of this semester, stranding for a second time students who transferred there from Alderson Broaddus University in West Virginia, which shut down just days before classes were scheduled to begin last year.

Seven out of 10 students at colleges that have closed got little or no warning. Of those, a smaller proportion were likely to continue their educations than students at colleges that gave more notice and ended operations in an “orderly” way, the SHEEO study found.

[RZehr]

Maybe owning your own facilities isn’t a benefit at all in terms of expenses. Even if there is no mortgage, the maintenance costs are probably astounding.

Consider the other end of the spectrum, remote internet model, not physical space. Professors and students log in from their homes. This model is obviously super low cost.

In this vein, Sattler is in between. Lower costs than the old legacy model, but not as low cost as fully remote.

[Ken]

Maybe owning your own facilities isn’t a benefit at all in terms of expenses. Even if there is no mortgage, the maintenance costs are probably astounding.

Consider the other end of the spectrum, remote internet model, not physical space. Professors and students log in from their homes. This model is obviously super low cost.

In this vein, Sattler is in between. Lower costs than the old legacy model, but not as low cost as fully remote.

Maybe. I’m doubtful. Also the Boston area and New England generally is the most overcrowded market in higher education as well. So probably the worst place in the country to putca new college.

[RZehr]

Maybe owning your own facilities isn’t a benefit at all in terms of expenses. Even if there is no mortgage, the maintenance costs are probably astounding.

Consider the other end of the spectrum, remote internet model, not physical space. Professors and students log in from their homes. This model is obviously super low cost.

In this vein, Sattler is in between. Lower costs than the old legacy model, but not as low cost as fully remote.

Maybe. I’m doubtful. Also the Boston area and New England generally is the most overcrowded market in higher education as well. So probably the worst place in the country to putca new college.

Choosing cities categorized C-class, could curtail costs considerably. Certainly, Cleveland could cost comparatively cheaper. (Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati culinary choices cater to connoisseurs craving Chinese cuisine, etc.)

[mike]

Maybe owning your own facilities isn’t a benefit at all in terms of expenses. Even if there is no mortgage, the maintenance costs are probably astounding.

Consider the other end of the spectrum, remote internet model, not physical space. Professors and students log in from their homes. This model is obviously super low cost.

In this vein, Sattler is in between. Lower costs than the old legacy model, but not as low cost as fully remote.

Maybe. I’m doubtful. Also the Boston area and New England generally is the most overcrowded market in higher education as well. So probably the worst place in the country to putca new college.

I don't think Sattler is targeting the Boston or even New England area primarily. My impression has been that they are marketing themselves to Anabaptist/Kingdom-Christian young people from across the country. I could be wrong. Didn't they do PR tours a few years back in the major Anabaptist hubs?