Sattler College Turmoil

[Soloist]

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.

that is and was my primary concern with FOTW, as for the college... I see that as less important.
I'm not going to say its not possible to do, but it would seem like handing control of the rentals the church depends on to the church would be reasonable way of offsetting the risk.

[Josh]

Some thoughts on this.

1. Some Christians should be attempting church planting in cities. (based on what we read in the New Testament) Basically every large city in North America has Anabaptist churches, church plants, or missions in cities. It may not be the denomination you prefer; many of them are Apostolic Christians or Holdeman. But the effort is certainly ongoing. I have greatly enjoyed worshipping with the Mennonites in NYC, L.A., Chicago, Brisbane, London, and York on my various business trips, which spans Holdemans, BMA, Keystone, and Apostolic Christians.

2. We should believe more in the power of prayer and make fervent prayer a greater part of our lives.I find that nearly all Mennonites I meet believe in the power of prayer and do their best to make it a greater part of their lives. (Some people, such as people in Catholic religious orders, do these even more, such as praying every waking minute of the day. I am not sure Mennonites need to feel they should do this.

3. There is a common denominator and kingdom vision that Christians can unite around that is bigger than Anabaptism.People say this but I would like to see what this "common denominator" actually is. In my experience, it either ends up becoming a weak foundation identical to evangelicalism or liberal Christianity, or just ends up being a restatement of a typical Anabaptist church's statement of faith.

4. A vibrant church often utilizes small group discipleship.Strongly agree.

5. A vibrant church relates cross generationally and works against separation according to age groups. There does not need to be a generational gap.I have seen Anabaptist churches do this the best out of any denomination I have experience with.

6. Young people and new Christians can be very useful in church planting.My experience is Mennonites agree, although I personally have regrets about trying to get involved in church planting when I was a very young believer (1 year).

7. Youth don’t need regular volleyball games and lots of social activities. They can find fulfillment in learning, in Christian fellowship, and in Christian ministry.Strongly disagree, although perhaps a different sport is okay. Young people need things to do with each other, and need something besides Bible studies or handing out tracts. I am deeply suspicious of any church group that doesn't want its young people to enjoy hanging out and spending time with each other in wholesome social activities.

8. It is not unchristian or unspiritual to architect a vision & plan for church planting and church function.Agree, but the history of a lot of "architects" of such visions is failure to actually build something. Some of the best examples of church planting are from people who had no idea what they were doing at the time.

9. There is a way to equip and mobilize and guide people for Christian ministry in a much shorter period of years than what most conservative Anabaptists think is possible.I disagree, and have seen disaster from young converts who were ordained or sent to mission situations much too fast. Maturity can only be built up with time.

10. Many Conservative Anabaptists are often too inward focused. For these folks, too much attention is focused around themselves and their movement. Even if they start outreach churches, many give very little time or priority to discipling the unsaved and the unchurched.This is true but this seems to be true in every denomination.

11. The conservative Anabaptist movement is a sleeping giant. It has tons of missions and ministries but the majority of its efforts are not very effective at all in bringing people into the church. The giant needs awakened, not to cause destruction, but yoked to serve the King.The reason conservative Anabaptists have so many missions and ministries is because they tried to copy the broader evangelical model of mission boards and nonprofit church agencies. I question why Anabaptists need to copy whatever the latest fad now is.

12. Christian teachers and preachers can often benefit from some training in Bible Study and public speaking.I have serious doubts about this. The history seminaries is that they have not led to more holiness and spirituality in the churches. All of the church members, not just the teachers and preachers, should understand the Bible and Bible doctrines.

13. Some Christians in the church should be effective in apologetics.I disagree. Apologetics is just rhetoric. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads people to Christ, not slick, well-reasoned intellectual arguments.

14. Parents should be directly involved in their children’s lives and education. This should be made a priority.No Conservative Anabaptist would disagree with this statement but usually people who say this are busy promoting homeschooling.

15. Christians should not be pressured to stay long term at a church that is not open to growing or is not open to Biblical teaching.I'm not sure what statement this is directed at but this sounds like the typical arguments evangelicals make against Amish and conservative Anabaptists. I am deeply suspicious of such arguments. The measure of a faithful Christian church is not short term growth in numerical terms. Likewise, who is the arbiter of "open to Biblical teaching"?

[Soloist]

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.

I know an RN that gave up working to be a mother and I think she is happier now doing that. My wife could have been a nurse or almost anything else she wanted to but she also chose to be a mother. The Scriptures are clear as to the role of a married woman. A single woman can be dedicated to God in a way a married woman cannot but being single for the point of career will not satisfy.

[Ernie]

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.

That is correct.

[Josh]

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.

The proper thing for such a Christian with so much wealth to do is to sell their valuable assets and distribute them to those who have need. Then the wealth would not be concentrated with one person. Of course, that means giving up being a wealthy person.

Other Anabaptists are figuring out how to do this. The Hutterites have been doing it for a long time, and some Anabaptists are setting up apostolic orders (a 501(d)) and have already been living communally.

[Soloist]

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.

That is correct.

I was making no judgment on what Ernie heard, but more based on my take of the situation.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

It would properly be the purview of any group they wished to affiliate with to make that determination , not FOTW. If they apply for membership in a conference they are the ones that have the authority to make that call. A “Stone-Campbell “ church has no business telling Mennonites what they should or should not do. If the local Baptist church stated that about us, I would feel free to ignore them.

J.M.

[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.

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.

I have not said these things.

A “Stone-Campbell “ church has no business telling Mennonites what they should or should not do. If the local Baptist church stated that about us, I would feel free to ignore them.

That may be, but the local Baptist church may have an accurate perspective on the health of how a Mennonite church was started in their area. If it is accurate, it should be considered regardless of who said. An accurate perspective from an unbeliever should also be considered.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

I have not said these things.

You have not, but that is what FOTW is. Are you saying my statement is incorrect ?

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

I have not said these things.

A “Stone-Campbell “ church has no business telling Mennonites what they should or should not do. If the local Baptist church stated that about us, I would feel free to ignore them.

That may be, but the local Baptist church may have an accurate perspective on the health of how a Mennonite church was started in their area. If it is accurate, it should be considered regardless of who said. An accurate perspective from an unbeliever should also be considered.

Once again, a church dependent on one person’s finances is by definition unhealthy. FOTW needs to fix their own house, before calling others “unhealthy.”

J.M.