Sattler College Turmoil

[Judas Maccabeus]

Someone with knowledge of the matters being discussed in thread has contacted me to say that there are inaccuracies in this thread and that there is context and complexities that are too personal and too numerous to be straightened out in a thread like this.
So I want to go on record as saying that some of my comments are one sided and that they should be viewed as such. Personal perspectives that I have shared about Sattler and FOTW are simply my perspective and may not reflect reality.

In particular, it would be good for me to clarify that the concerns at FOTW about starting an Anabaptist church in Boston have to do with the foundation upon which such a church is begun. If the foundation for an Anabaptist church in Boston was deemed healthy by FOTW, many at FOTW could likely feel quite positive about the initiative.

What do they think they are, an “established “ church with the right to veto others. To judge if another church has “healthy” foundations? Hypocrisy in the highest order.

Frankly, is the faulty ICOC “locality “ teaching showing up. This is once again, not an Anabaptist church. It is ICOC with head coverings.

J.M.

[Ernie]

Edit: I remember asking the question "what role does the church have in oversight with this college" the response was "None, its Finny's thing"

Was that my response?

Now the church which has condemned Mennonite practice is the one determining the foundation?

I don't think FOTW would say they condemn Mennonite practice. Many have spoken against some Mennonite practices. I've done the same.

A difference is that I have not felt a need to distance myself from the conservative Anabaptist movement and start something new.

[Soloist]

Edit: I remember asking the question "what role does the church have in oversight with this college" the response was "None, its Finny's thing"

Was that my response?

Now the church which has condemned Mennonite practice is the one determining the foundation?

I don't think FOTW would say they condemn Mennonite practice. Many have spoken against some Mennonite practices. I've done the same.

A difference is that I have not felt a need to distance myself from the conservative Anabaptist movement and start something new.

I don't recall you saying it. I believe it was someone at FOTW possibly MM.

I don't believe that FOTW has done a good job at practicing those points you agree with them on.

[Ernie]

What do they think they are, an “established “ church with the right to veto others. To judge if another church has “healthy” foundations? Hypocrisy in the highest order.

If FOTW were to plant a church in my city, I think there would be healthy ways to go about it and unhealthy ways. I don't think it would be hypocrisy for me or my church to make a determination about that.

[Soloist]

What do they think they are, an “established “ church with the right to veto others. To judge if another church has “healthy” foundations? Hypocrisy in the highest order.

If FOTW were to plant a church in my city, I think there would be healthy ways to go about it and unhealthy ways. I don't think it would be hypocrisy for me or my church to make a determination about that.

I think the issue is that there are some key dogmatic differences that would result in any Anabaptist church not having a "healthy" foundation.

[Dan Z]

I think the issue is that there are some key dogmatic differences that would result in any Anabaptist church not having a "healthy" foundation

I suspect the FOTW concern Ernie heard about "a healthy foundation" has more to do with the circumstances around the proposed church plant - who is planting it and why - than matters of dogma and differences in theology between FOTW and Anabaptism.

[joshuabgood]

Someone with knowledge of the matters being discussed in thread has contacted me to say that there are inaccuracies in this thread and that there is context and complexities that are too personal and too numerous to be straightened out in a thread like this.
So I want to go on record as saying that some of my comments are one sided and that they should be viewed as such. Personal perspectives that I have shared about Sattler and FOTW are simply my perspective and may not reflect reality.

In particular, it would be good for me to clarify that the concerns at FOTW about starting an Anabaptist church in Boston have to do with the foundation upon which such a church is begun. If the foundation for an Anabaptist church in Boston was deemed healthy by FOTW, many at FOTW could likely feel quite positive about the initiative.

I was also reached out to and was given additional perspective. I receive that and want to make a few comments as I noted to this individual. I had directly contacted the college prior to discussing it here and was unsuccessful in getting additional perspective. And I used the words "reportedly" specifically.

That said I feel beings we are discussing a collegiate institution that is publicly in the square and soliciting students, it is a fair conversation to analyze and evaluate. To which this person agreed.

I am happy to be corrected or given additional perspective. This person mentioned they felt the language around "not allowing" an Anabaptist church in Boston was too strong and that FOTW from their perspective is not worried about an Anabaptist church starting in Boston. And while FOTW leaders may feel free to give their opinions, they would not forbid something, and that is what they did...gave opinions. (I agree people should be able to give their opinions).

That perspective is valid and should be heard in this Convo.

As I said in the opening post, I have a respect for FotW and much in their movement.

Lastly, my interest is not because I am just meddlesome, my one and only son was an accepted student for the fall with my support. We were considering a gap year anyway, as he is only 17, and I think we will take that and see "how things stabilize"...

[Josh]

That’s awesome! I can also think of a few with advanced degrees, but I’m not sure the pool is large enough for Sattler to have very many options if they wanted to exclude women with children. Why exactly did they want women to be teaching? Was it to appeal to female students? To ‘diversify’ their staff? Or were they interested in specific women?

Sattler was interested in recruiting both men and women to be professors. In order to do that, one must ensure that they recruit not just men, but also women.

I have a bit of concern with your statement of "That's awesome!", as it implies that women who aren't on their way to getting a Ph.D are somehow inferior or "lesser" than women who are. Anabaptists place a high value on things other than advanced degrees, and have observed that attending higher education institutions often does not lead to worthwhile spiritual fruit. In fact, most Christian kids who go to college lose their faith and fall into immorality.

My experience with one Anabaptist woman who has a Ph.D is that she doesn't consider it nearly as valuable as being a wife and a mother, and she prefers to do the latter than to focus on being a professor or using her degree professionally.

[Josh]

Someone with knowledge of the matters being discussed in thread has contacted me to say that there are inaccuracies in this thread and that there is context and complexities that are too personal and too numerous to be straightened out in a thread like this.
So I want to go on record as saying that some of my comments are one sided and that they should be viewed as such. Personal perspectives that I have shared about Sattler and FOTW are simply my perspective and may not reflect reality.

If an organisation like Sattler wants to stay ahead of the rumour mill, they need to issue a press release or otherwise clarify in public what is happening. If they don't do that, the best information we have to rely on is individuals.

In particular, it would be good for me to clarify that the concerns at FOTW about starting an Anabaptist church in Boston have to do with the foundation upon which such a church is begun. If the foundation for an Anabaptist church in Boston was deemed healthy by FOTW, many at FOTW could likely feel quite positive about the initiative.

It would seem the proper people to decide if the foundation is "healthy" would be other Anabaptist churches, not necessarily FotW.

My understanding is most of the students at Sattler are BMA, Keystone, or from similar unaffiliated churches. Therefore, it would make the most sense if Keystone and/or BMA established a church in Boston. Keystone and BMA are both qualified to decide what is a "healthy foundation" and both have plenty of experience with urban church planting.

[Judas Maccabeus]

What do they think they are, an “established “ church with the right to veto others. To judge if another church has “healthy” foundations? Hypocrisy in the highest order.

If FOTW were to plant a church in my city, I think there would be healthy ways to go about it and unhealthy ways. I don't think it would be hypocrisy for me or my church to make a determination about that.

You call a church/college that is totally dependent on one guys money healthy? Same guy potentially as your landlord, “pastor “ and employer/college chancellor healthy? This is about the most unhealthy situation I can think of.

Planting a church totally dependent on one guys finances is a recipe for unhealthy , full stop. Gives far too much control to one individual, formally or informally . Calling anything else unhealthy is hypocritical to say the least.

J.M.