Kingdom Christian and Charity Movements

[Ernie]

Correct.
Followers of the Way wants to know something about the personal lives of people they commune with and know that they are kingdom Christian.
http://www.Walking-by-faith.org wants the confidence that people are not living in known sin such as adultery.

It is not that, most clearly. If it were, a card carrying member of a well reputed church in a well reputed conference should be as much as they could find from social interaction at conferences. It appears, Ernie, you have something they want/need.

Interacting with these men at a conferences is only a small part of our interactions. I talk with them on the phone, visit them, they visit us, we discuss church polity, etc. We know each other well enough to know the direction we are headed.
They have never asked me about my doctrines. I've asked them about theirs sometimes. FotW does not make Real Presence and Baptism for the Remission of Sins requirement for communing with them.

[joshuabgood]

Right...I appreciate that document. My question is more along the lines of why you see documents spelling out a "rule," to use your language, for beliefs/doctrine, is different than a "rule" for practice/application. What philosophically is different to your way of thinking?

This is a good question and one I’ve wondered about as well - in other words, how exactly are beliefs/doctrine different than practice/application?

There is such a thing as the "apostles doctrine" that we are not to deviate from. In my opinion the doctrines are not very hard to identify.
There are practices taught in the NT that we are to practice as well, but these are much harder to identify.
Which of the "descriptive" practices should we follow? Use of the lot for ordinations? Gathering in a large upper room for communion? Meeting in homes for worship? Having a meal in conjunction with communion. Going to Jewish temples for worship?
Which of the "prescriptive" practices should we follow? Eating at home before gathering with the saints? Men lifting holy hands in prayer? (what about the women) Anointing our heads before we fast? Shaking the dust off our feet (literally) whenever people reject the Gospel?

I view Peter and Paul's admonitions regarding jewelry, hair, adornment as being applicable for us today. But I think if they were living today, and writing letters to the churches, they might address other issues as well. I think a church has the authority to address current issues today, as well, and agree on a good way to follow Jesus in 2020.

Regarding "apostles doctrine"...were you thinking the apostolic creed? Or did you have something else in mind? For example would you say something like the various doctrines of eschatology or hell are doctrines that are clear to you, or did you have other more "basic" doctrines in mind?

[Josh]

I think Ernie is saying most of us could divide things into the two categories even if we can’t reach 100% agreement on what “apostolic doctrine” is.

[Ernie]

I think Ernie is saying most of us could divide things into the two categories even if we can’t reach 100% agreement on what “apostolic doctrine” is.

Yes, I am saying that, but I am also saying that the "apostles doctrine" is not all that hard to understand.

Regarding "apostles doctrine"...were you thinking the apostolic creed? Or did you have something else in mind? For example would you say something like the various doctrines of eschatology or hell are doctrines that are clear to you, or did you have other more "basic" doctrines in mind?

I'm not sure that the "Apostles Doctrine" included all the nuanced sub-doctrines but rather the basic doctrine of the church. For example, I'm not sure if all the apostles had the exact same thoughts about eschatology or hell, but I think what they taught (the basics) sounded the same. This is simply my guess. I can't prove this.

For example: "Jesus is coming again soon, and we should be ready to meet him." "Those who reject the Messiah are in danger of hell."

[joshuabgood]

I think Ernie is saying most of us could divide things into the two categories even if we can’t reach 100% agreement on what “apostolic doctrine” is.

Yes, I am saying that, but I am also saying that the "apostles doctrine" is not all that hard to understand.

Regarding "apostles doctrine"...were you thinking the apostolic creed? Or did you have something else in mind? For example would you say something like the various doctrines of eschatology or hell are doctrines that are clear to you, or did you have other more "basic" doctrines in mind?

I'm not sure that the "Apostles Doctrine" included all the nuanced sub-doctrines but rather the basic doctrine of the church. For example, I'm not sure if all the apostles had the exact same thoughts about eschatology or hell, but I think what they taught (the basics) sounded the same. This is simply my guess. I can't prove this.

For example: "Jesus is coming again soon, and we should be ready to meet him." "Those who reject the Messiah are in danger of hell."

Ok thanks. My basic question is, "Why advocate for sticking only with the 'words of scripture' when it comes to doctrine, but not when it comes to practice?" It seems your answer is, doctrine is different "in kind" than is practice - when it comes to "implementing" the Bible's teachings. I was trying to understand "why" a group should "clarify" one thing with additional language, but not the other. I am still not sure if I understand...

[Judas Maccabeus]

Correct.
Followers of the Way wants to know something about the personal lives of people they commune with and know that they are kingdom Christian.
http://www.Walking-by-faith.org wants the confidence that people are not living in known sin such as adultery.

It is not that, most clearly. If it were, a card carrying member of a well reputed church in a well reputed conference should be as much as they could find from social interaction at conferences. It appears, Ernie, you have something they want/need.

Interacting with these men at a conferences is only a small part of our interactions. I talk with them on the phone, visit them, they visit us, we discuss church polity, etc. We know each other well enough to know the direction we are headed.
They have never asked me about my doctrines. I've asked them about theirs sometimes. FotW does not make Real Presence and Baptism for the Remission of Sins requirement for communing with them.

In other words, they feel you are a part of their "group." I guess that is what "Anabaptist Umbrella" means. In other words, FOTW is not a Mennonite church, and does not consider us of like faith and practice. This is really disturbing, in that they seem to want to educate our youth.

More evidence that no one who wishes their sons and daughters to remain in the conservative mennonite movement should send them there to school.

J.M.

[joshuabgood]

It is not that, most clearly. If it were, a card carrying member of a well reputed church in a well reputed conference should be as much as they could find from social interaction at conferences. It appears, Ernie, you have something they want/need.

Interacting with these men at a conferences is only a small part of our interactions. I talk with them on the phone, visit them, they visit us, we discuss church polity, etc. We know each other well enough to know the direction we are headed.
They have never asked me about my doctrines. I've asked them about theirs sometimes. FotW does not make Real Presence and Baptism for the Remission of Sins requirement for communing with them.

In other words, they feel you are a part of their "group." I guess that is what "Anabaptist Umbrella" means. In other words, FOTW is not a Mennonite church, and does not consider us of like faith and practice. This is really disturbing, in that they seem to want to educate our youth.

More evidence that no one who wishes their sons and daughters to remain in the conservative mennonite movement should send them there to school.

J.M.

I hear you JM, and you are right in that, were it not for CA scholars, Sattler would pretty much lose 90% of their student body. They simply haven't managed yet to appeal broadly. Simultaneously there is obviously much they like about "our" the CA, product.

I don't think I am in quite the same place as you however. Just a couple of quick notes, Sattler is not directly (that is organizationally) tied to FOTW, though the founder, is also the founder of FOTW. Still, I think it is worth pointing out that people in key Sattler positions have few, if any, ties to FOTW. The Sattler president, is his own person, and is himself in a different spot than Kuruvilla in significant ways.

Still your point, that because that is so obvious that Sattler was started as a "peaceful revolution" as idealized and articulated by its founder, Kuruvilla, and seeks directly to attract CA folks, from an empirical standpoint , perhaps FOTW could be a bit more "welcoming" toward CA folk.

All that said though, I have such confidence in the President and the Founder, both of whom I consider personal friends (though I am not as close to them as Ernie - that is I have never communed - though I have stayed at Kuruvilla's house), I will, Lord willing, send my own son there in a year and a half or so. I believe in their work.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Interacting with these men at a conferences is only a small part of our interactions. I talk with them on the phone, visit them, they visit us, we discuss church polity, etc. We know each other well enough to know the direction we are headed.
They have never asked me about my doctrines. I've asked them about theirs sometimes. FotW does not make Real Presence and Baptism for the Remission of Sins requirement for communing with them.

In other words, they feel you are a part of their "group." I guess that is what "Anabaptist Umbrella" means. In other words, FOTW is not a Mennonite church, and does not consider us of like faith and practice. This is really disturbing, in that they seem to want to educate our youth.

More evidence that no one who wishes their sons and daughters to remain in the conservative mennonite movement should send them there to school.

J.M.

I hear you JM, and you are right in that, were it not for CA scholars, Sattler would pretty much lose 90% of their student body. They simply haven't managed yet to appeal broadly. Simultaneously there is obviously much they like about "our" the CA, product.

I don't think I am in quite the same place as you however. Just a couple of quick notes, Sattler is not directly (that is organizationally) tied to FOTW, though the founder, is also the founder of FOTW. Still, I think it is worth pointing out that people in key Sattler positions have few, if any, ties to FOTW. The Sattler president, is his own person, and is himself in a different spot than Kuruvilla in significant ways.

Still your point, that because that is so obvious that Sattler was started as a "peaceful revolution" as idealized and articulated by its founder, Kuruvilla, and seeks directly to attract CA folks, from an empirical standpoint , perhaps FOTW could be a bit more "welcoming" toward CA folk.

All that said though, I have such confidence in the President and the Founder, both of whom I consider personal friends (though I am not as close to them as Ernie - that is I have never communed - though I have stayed at Kuruvilla's house), I will, Lord willing, send my own son there in a year and a half or so. I believe in their work.

And it would collapse like a house of cards without his money. Both school and church. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I would seriously reconsider, the education appears subpar, faculty turnover off the chart and no facilities except a bunch of classrooms. Majors that really do not line up with what employers expect (Except for the IT major, maybe human biology might form the basis for med school admission, but considering Finney's attitude towards clinical medicine as a career, I would not count on them being interested in that after he is done with them, it is all in black and white) and no public statement as to what they ACTUALLY believe, I would discourage that as a place to get a further education. About the only thing they seem to do well is language.

I have heard offhanded comments by a number of them, especially Milloni, that barely conceal their contempt for the Mennonite moment. I was actually more than a bit put off.

J.M.

[Ken]

In other words, they feel you are a part of their "group." I guess that is what "Anabaptist Umbrella" means. In other words, FOTW is not a Mennonite church, and does not consider us of like faith and practice. This is really disturbing, in that they seem to want to educate our youth.

More evidence that no one who wishes their sons and daughters to remain in the conservative mennonite movement should send them there to school.

J.M.

I hear you JM, and you are right in that, were it not for CA scholars, Sattler would pretty much lose 90% of their student body. They simply haven't managed yet to appeal broadly. Simultaneously there is obviously much they like about "our" the CA, product.

I don't think I am in quite the same place as you however. Just a couple of quick notes, Sattler is not directly (that is organizationally) tied to FOTW, though the founder, is also the founder of FOTW. Still, I think it is worth pointing out that people in key Sattler positions have few, if any, ties to FOTW. The Sattler president, is his own person, and is himself in a different spot than Kuruvilla in significant ways.

Still your point, that because that is so obvious that Sattler was started as a "peaceful revolution" as idealized and articulated by its founder, Kuruvilla, and seeks directly to attract CA folks, from an empirical standpoint , perhaps FOTW could be a bit more "welcoming" toward CA folk.

All that said though, I have such confidence in the President and the Founder, both of whom I consider personal friends (though I am not as close to them as Ernie - that is I have never communed - though I have stayed at Kuruvilla's house), I will, Lord willing, send my own son there in a year and a half or so. I believe in their work.

And it would collapse like a house of cards without his money. Both school and church. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I would seriously reconsider, the education appears subpar, faculty turnover off the chart and no facilities except a bunch of classrooms. Majors that really do not line up with what employers expect (Except for the IT major, maybe human biology might form the basis for med school admission, but considering Finney's attitude towards clinical medicine as a career, I would not count on them being interested in that after he is done with them, it is all in black and white) and no public statement as to what they ACTUALLY believe, I would discourage that as a place to get a further education. About the only thing they seem to do well is language.

I have heard offhanded comments by a number of them, especially Milloni, that barely conceal their contempt for the Mennonite moment. I was actually more than a bit put off.

J.M.

I know nothing about it other than what I've read. But I would be leery of any institution that is largely the vision and effort of one person. That usually does not end well. And it's usually not sustainable because no one else has the exact same combination of vision and sacrifice. Institutions tend to be stronger if they are broader-based.

From a student's perspective I expect the risk is not that great. All you are really losing is your time. And if they are accredited then your credits should transfer to other institutions. The harder thing will always be attracting good faculty because that is a far larger life commitment than it is for a student.

[Josh]

I hear you JM, and you are right in that, were it not for CA scholars, Sattler would pretty much lose 90% of their student body. They simply haven't managed yet to appeal broadly. Simultaneously there is obviously much they like about "our" the CA, product.

Interestingly, their original vision was to try to "market" conservative Anabaptism to evangelical background people. So far they've managed to have 2 non-CA people enroll (as of the last conversation I had, during AIC 2019).

I don't think I am in quite the same place as you however. Just a couple of quick notes, Sattler is not directly (that is organizationally) tied to FOTW, though the founder, is also the founder of FOTW. Still, I think it is worth pointing out that people in key Sattler positions have few, if any, ties to FOTW. The Sattler president, is his own person, and is himself in a different spot than Kuruvilla in significant ways.

Sattler requires spiritual accountability with weekly meetings with an accountability group where one has to share any sins one has engaged in. That seems to say that Sattler is very much indeed tied into FOTW, spiritually speaking. Students are also expected to attend church, and there aren't any other churches in the area. If they wanted to keep CA students plugged into their existing spiritual communities, they would locate in a place where there were CA churches to choose from in the same denominations as the students.

Instead, Sattler seems to be on a mission to evangelise and "convert" students to FOTW's way of thinking, and then send them back to their home communities as change agents.

Still your point, that because that is so obvious that Sattler was started as a "peaceful revolution" as idealized and articulated by its founder, Kuruvilla, and seeks directly to attract CA folks, from an empirical standpoint , perhaps FOTW could be a bit more "welcoming" toward CA folk.

All that said though, I have such confidence in the President and the Founder, both of whom I consider personal friends (though I am not as close to them as Ernie - that is I have never communed - though I have stayed at Kuruvilla's house), I will, Lord willing, send my own son there in a year and a half or so. I believe in their work.

This would make sense as I perceive your left-wing political views to be fairly aligned with their left-wing political views. (I hope that's not intended as an insult; I'd be just as free to say I perceive EBI as promoting a right-wing worldview.)