Kingdom Christian and Charity Movements

[Dan Z]

The issue I have is that they appear to have an intent to use the school to proselytize students into their movement, while all the time not making either their plans or their true doctrinal position clear. IF that is what they intend to do, it should be crystal clear to all. If they really have major doctrinal and practice differences with the conservative mennonite movement they should make that clear to all, especially the leadership of churches that send students there.

If the school did not exist, and they were not actively recruiting from among my community, I would not be seriously concerned about what they are up to. As it is there is much about their doctrinal and teaching position that we really do not know about. I will say, a group that has a large amount of doctrinal information that is only available to insiders is almost behaving like a cult. They need to put it our for all to see.

J.M.

JM...I've had pretty close contact with Sattler over this past year (most directly with and through Dean Taylor) and I absolutely don't have the impression the FOTW is proselytizing conservative Anabaptists. If anything, both Dean and Finny have indicated to me that they are as a college trying to come alongside of conservative Anabaptists, and involve more of them directly in the work - and I have found them bot to be VERY affirming and respctful of the CA roots and calling of their students. It should be noted that FOTW comes out of a movement that has historically been decidedly bent against denominationalism, so in that sense, if they are guilty of anything, it is in a sincere desire to raise up and equip radical Christ followers whose loyalty is to Christ and his Kingdom above all else. Personally, I can't fault them for that.

In the long run, I think their future as a college lies in a mix between Conservative Anabaptists (forming the foundation) and what we used to call "seeker families" - often independent, educationally minded homeschooling families who have awaken to a radical high-commitment Christianity that run's counter to the dominant culture (a generation ago it would have been the Dietrich Bonhoeffer crowd, back in my day it would have been those influenced by folks like Keith Green...today maybe followers of folks like Francis Chan).

[MaxPC]

In the long run, I think their future as a college lies in a mix between Conservative Anabaptists (forming the foundation) and what we used to call "seeker families" - often independent, educationally minded homeschooling families who have awaken to a radical high-commitment Christianity that run's counter to the dominant culture (a generation ago it would have been the Dietrich Bonhoeffer crowd, back in my day it would have been those influenced by folks like Keith Green...today maybe followers of folks like Francis Chan).

At the end of the day, at least someone is making the effort to leaven society with Christian values. The only effort that will be successful is that effort that submits and listens to the Holy Spirit. There will be mistakes and bumps in the roadway. But at the very least they are indeed trying. Doing nothing is not an option for disciples of Jesus.

[Ms. Izzie]

I guess you would be ok with Mormonism.

Silly thing to say.

One thing is for sure, when Conservative Anabaptist's lack a vision of their own and don't know how to articulate the reasons for their own practices and church decisions, they will lose people. When they start feeling threatened by other groups, they go on the attack. First they attack the group and then individuals.

Here's a piece of advice for the CA leaders: Get your own act together, clean your own house of sin and hypocrisy, have a vision and people will have a reason for staying.

The more you attack movements and people, while all the time declaring the Conservative Anabaptists have it together, the more unsavory you appear. You will continue to drive people away.

[Josh]

FOTW and Sattler need to publish their doctrines. Being anti denominational isn’t an excuse. My church doesn’t believe in denominationalism yet they are able to publicly state their beliefs.

The book is called Bible Doctrines and Practice and is easily acquired. It is on the bookshelf at any of our churches. No secrets are kept.

Whereas with FOTW, you can’t even find out their views on salvation, let alone how you become eligible for communion.

[mike]

I absolutely don't have the impression the FOTW is proselytizing conservative Anabaptists.

And yet, just as Charity knew where to have its tent meetings (Amish country), Sattler knows where to hold awareness events...

In the long run, I think their future as a college lies in a mix between Conservative Anabaptists (forming the foundation) and what we used to call "seeker families" - often independent, educationally minded homeschooling families

So one can debate whether they are proselytizing CAs, but like you just said, they probably know where their future lies. And the mix you describe is precisely the mix that exists or existed in the Charity churches.

I don't actually have a problem with Sattler recruiting CAs for students if that's what they want to do, and I certainly don't have a problem with anybody going to the college. But I would defend what JM is saying to some extent - there is definitely outreach to CA young people, and also it should be made clear what if any doctrinal differences exist between Sattler and the CA communities they are apparently attempting to serve.

These issues aren't really new. Faith Builders had this and that sort of accusations going around back in the day as to what their goals really were and whether they were really going to fulfill their stated mission of sending young people back into their communities to serve, or just be a springboard for people to join the FB community or for heading out for more higher ed and leaving their CA communities behind. Some of the same sort of questions are going on with Sattler, no doubt.

[joshuabgood]

FOTW and Sattler need to publish their doctrines. Being anti denominational isn’t an excuse. My church doesn’t believe in denominationalism yet they are able to publicly state their beliefs.

The book is called Bible Doctrines and Practice and is easily acquired. It is on the bookshelf at any of our churches. No secrets are kept.

Whereas with FOTW, you can’t even find out their views on salvation, let alone how you become eligible for communion.

I do agree with this. They should be clear and public about whatever faith/doctrinal/practical commitments they have. And I do agree, it is too hard to find this. I have been asking for, and not receiving, the FOTW book of questions and positions they have they use for leader training or subsidiary congregations. (To be fair Milioni let me know it will be available at some point...though I haven't seen it yet.) Also to be fair, though, there are many of their teachings/sermons cataloged and accessible online for any who want them.

I think institutions like Sattler (and other CA ones as well - FBEP etc) are gunshy at times around things like this knowing that folks will come with axes to grind around the reading list, or the first things second thing thinking etc...

As for Sattler, I really support the idea of an Anabaptist College in Boston. I wish I could have the option of going there instead of LU (back in the late 90s...though I would have missed a great FA program.)

[joshuabgood]

Here are the questions I put to Finny directly in writing and to which he responded in writing:

I wanted to connect with you directly over the following bit... In a couple of conversations, from various corners (though not from our EMS community), the question/concern was asked regarding what Sattler students "will hear" regarding their membership/support of their home churches?

Here are possibly a few different messages students might receive...and I'd be curious as which you would see most closely representing the "message" students will likely hear at Sattler.

1) "Come out from among them" - The churches you are members of are mostly apostate and no matter how much you "be the change" you want to see, it will probably never work. As quickly as is reasonably possible you should join a FOTW type of group because we are the true Christians.

2) "Be the change you want to see" - We partner with churches to develop and raise up a generation of prospective leaders that will shape the future of your congregation. Therefore, graduates, go to your churches and build the kingdom of God. Don't quickly leave your churches to join other perceived "more perfect churches."

3) "Here is how we see biblical Christianity" - We are unapologetic about what we teach/believe. Having said that, we don't actively call people to leave their churches and join ours. We challenge individual students to follow a biblical Christian model where ever it takes them.

If none of these capture ideals - I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. I do think this is probably a question that you want to have "clarity" on, with regard to, for lack of a better term, conservative Anabaptist involvement. And in my position, I am currently interested in your thoughts.

And here was his response:

I would say that your #2 and #3 are closest to the mark. We certainly do not believe that FotW is the only true church (any church that says that is deceived), so I would strenuously deny #1. Thanks for asking this question -- I appreciate it.

For me...I am comfortable if my son hears message 2 or 3. I am not comfortable with number 1 - which he strenuously denied. I know him to be an honest man and believe that.

[Josh]

In that case, the next questions to put forth to FOTW are:

#1. What is another denomination (like BMA, CMC, KMF, etc.), or a list of churches, where you would be comfortable letting any of their preachers come and preach at your church on a special evening type of service?

#2. What would be the same, except for coming and preaching a regular Sunday morning service?

#3. What would be the same, except for coming and conducting a communion service?

#4. What would be the same, except for coming and baptising someone who wants to become a member of your church?

If the answer to these questions is "Only our own people", then congratulations - you're looking at a One True Church.

[Josh]

Incidentally, one true church groups are notorious for having new leaders (which is what Dean Taylor is - he was associated with Hutterites until a year or so ago) is having leaders who are not forthcoming about the one-true-church nature of their organisation. They then get busy proselytising people from other groups where they can privately persuade them of the legitimacy of their own church and the illegitimacy of any others.

These kind of things cause deep, lasting wounds. That happened with my home church here in my town of Hartville, Ohio. Eventually, that leader was removed from leadership, and he ended up leaving my church to go do his own thing. (It is with joy I can tell you he saw his error and returned, choosing to live a peaceable and quiet life from that point on.) But the hurts and damage here have stayed. There are people who to this day remember being told they couldn't be saved because they weren't in my church.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the kind of doctrine I've heard privately from leadership at FOTW, whilst they publicly deny it. Trust me, it's going to be a problem.

[ken_sylvania]

I guess you would be ok with Mormonism.

Silly thing to say.

One thing is for sure, when Conservative Anabaptist's lack a vision of their own and don't know how to articulate the reasons for their own practices and church decisions, they will lose people. When they start feeling threatened by other groups, they go on the attack. First they attack the group and then individuals.

Here's a piece of advice for the CA leaders: Get your own act together, clean your own house of sin and hypocrisy, have a vision and people will have a reason for staying.

The more you attack movements and people, while all the time declaring the Conservative Anabaptists have it together, the more unsavory you appear. You will continue to drive people away.

So it is OK to criticize CA leaders for not having their act together, but not OK to criticize FOTW?