Sattler College Turmoil

[Ernie]

If FOTW was working to make things right with the folks who believe they have been wronged, and if FOTW was getting outside assistance to help them walk a path of repentance and restoration, I would not post publicly about them as I have in this thread.

FYI, I am informed that FOTW is engaging outside help. My earlier statement conveyed the idea that they are not doing any of this, so I am acknowledging here that they have made some attempts.

As a bystander, based on these two statements, should I be watching for your written retraction of the things you've posted publicly about FOTW in this thread, or are you counting on the contradiction to speak for itself?

If it was easy for me to go back and edit whatever I said incorrectly, and then post in the same article a note like this "An earlier version of this post incorrectly said _________", I would do that. That would be a better way to do it. But when people reply to my comments, then corrections would need to be made to all the attributed quotes. Forums are considered ongoing discussions so I have not done this in the past. But if that would be better, I'm willing to get the moderators to help me with this.

[jahertz]

The second comment you quoted sure looks to me like a retraction of the implication that FOTW was not getting an outside assistance. Are you suggesting you think Ernie ought to retract all of the true things he said because a part of what he said was partly incorrect?

If FOTW was working to make things right with the folks who believe they have been wronged, and if FOTW was getting outside assistance to help them walk a path of repentance and restoration, I would not post publicly about them as I have in this thread.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm pointing out that Ernie, positioning himself as someone in the know and his claims as established facts, put a church group on blast in a public forum for days—including detailed descriptions of personal correspondence the authors specifically asked him to keep confidential—and that he specifically claimed this was justified by the fact that FOTW is not getting outside assistance or working to make things right with those they wronged.

If the whole justification I had just offered for publicly dragging a church and its leaders through the dirt turned out to be based on easily verifiable misinformation, I would personally feel my responsibility to address that might go a bit beyond a simple "Oops! Anyway..."

On the other hand, if I fully understood how depraved the leaders at FOTW have become, perhaps I too would be prepared to acknowledge that this is the kind of emergency in which the ordinary Christian duties of intellectual honesty, respect for personal privacy, and due diligence regarding hearsay must be temporarily suspended.

[Ernie]

Conservative Anabaptists could benefit from a broader perspective sometimes. However, it annoys me when an organization panders to plain folks, appearing to be a friend to them and their goals, while only wanting the association to benefit from the strengths plain people have to offer. As an example, I have heard that a member of a certain relief organization soliciting donations from plain people once said to somebody they they were "spoiling the Egyptians." That organization will never see a dime of my money.

I don't know much about the controversy over Sattler/FOTW but it would go a long way to build trust in the Conservative Anabaptist community if there would be an overt willingness to not only recruit from the CA community but also to learn from it and truly serve its interests.

Schools such as Faith Builders actively seek board members, input and advice, and actual oversight from the Anabaptist communities they intend to serve. Maybe Sattler isn't interested in serving the same clientele, which is of course fine. But from what I understand many of their students do come from CA communities. If that is something they wish to develop, it might be worth looking at becoming accountable in some way to those communities.

When people and organizations and churches go for help, they go with a variety of postures...

1. We've obviously made some mistakes and we would like help knowing how to redeem the situation as best we can. Can you help us?
2. We know there have been times we have not acted as Jesus wanted us to act. There may be things we have done or said that we have not yet realized as being wrong. Can you help us?
3. We don't think we have done anything wrong but obviously others think we have. Can you help us?
4. We don't think we have done anything wrong. Can you help defend us?

And they choose helpers in a variety of ways...

A. Some choose helpers who they think may understand the ones who feel hurt by the person/organization/church
B. Some choose helpers who they think can look at the matter objectively.
C. Some choose helpers who they think may be sympathetic to their cause.
D. Some look to professionals.
E. Some look to charactered servants of the church who have good history with making peace in difficult situations. I've sat in such meetings and admired these people for how they go about handling tacky situations.
F. Some go to a church or conference and say, "Could you appoint someone/some people you trust to give us advice/counsel, etc.?"
(Some non-profits even do this with selecting board members so that no one can accuse them of picking board members who will be sympathetic/biased towards the organization.)

[jahertz]

If FOTW was working to make things right with the folks who believe they have been wronged, and if FOTW was getting outside assistance to help them walk a path of repentance and restoration, I would not post publicly about them as I have in this thread.

FYI, I am informed that FOTW is engaging outside help. My earlier statement conveyed the idea that they are not doing any of this, so I am acknowledging here that they have made some attempts.

As a bystander, based on these two statements, should I be watching for your written retraction of the things you've posted publicly about FOTW in this thread, or are you counting on the contradiction to speak for itself?

If it was easy for me to go back and edit whatever I said incorrectly, and then post in the same article a note like this "An earlier version of this post incorrectly said _________", I would do that. That would be a better way to do it. But when people reply to my comments, then corrections would need to be made to all the attributed quotes. Forums are considered ongoing discussions so I have not done this in the past. But if that would be better, I'm willing to get the moderators to help me with this.

Obviously no reasonable person is going to demand remedies that are technically infeasible.

Personally—given my desire to retain at least some of my respect for the version of you I've known in the past—it would be nice to see a simple, straightforward acknowledgement that a bunch of the stuff you posted should never have been posted—since you did assure us you never would have posted it were FOTW doing what FOTW is in fact doing.

[mike]

As a bystander, based on these two statements, should I be watching for your written retraction of the things you've posted publicly about FOTW in this thread, or are you counting on the contradiction to speak for itself?

If it was easy for me to go back and edit whatever I said incorrectly, and then post in the same article a note like this "An earlier version of this post incorrectly said _________", I would do that. That would be a better way to do it. But when people reply to my comments, then corrections would need to be made to all the attributed quotes. Forums are considered ongoing discussions so I have not done this in the past. But if that would be better, I'm willing to get the moderators to help me with this.

Obviously no reasonable person is going to demand remedies that are technically infeasible.

Personally—given my desire to retain at least some of my respect for the version of you I've known in the past—it would be nice to see a simple, straightforward acknowledgement that a bunch of the stuff you posted should never have been posted—given that you assured us you never would have posted it had FOTW been doing what FOTW is in fact doing.

Is FOTW working to make things right with the folks who believe they have been wronged, in addition to getting outside assistance to help them walk a path of repentance and restoration?

[jahertz]

If it was easy for me to go back and edit whatever I said incorrectly, and then post in the same article a note like this "An earlier version of this post incorrectly said _________", I would do that. That would be a better way to do it. But when people reply to my comments, then corrections would need to be made to all the attributed quotes. Forums are considered ongoing discussions so I have not done this in the past. But if that would be better, I'm willing to get the moderators to help me with this.

Obviously no reasonable person is going to demand remedies that are technically infeasible.

Personally—given my desire to retain at least some of my respect for the version of you I've known in the past—it would be nice to see a simple, straightforward acknowledgement that a bunch of the stuff you posted should never have been posted—given that you assured us you never would have posted it had FOTW been doing what FOTW is in fact doing.

Is FOTW working to make things right with the folks who believe they have been wronged, in addition to getting outside assistance to help them walk a path of repentance and restoration?

For the people involved whom I know personally, this is a primary stated objective of their efforts. That's a large part of the reason why the personally damaging material in the public domain is so lopsidedly coming from one side of the dispute: If I'm serious about trying to make peace with someone, I'll seek to minimize the harm I do them in the meantime by not prematurely dumping all my evidence of their misdeeds out in the streets to be judged by the court of public opinion.

I assume some people on at least one side of this dispute have concluded attempts at reconciliation are pointless and therefore it's time for the public to know and mark the people they have broken with. The above paragraph is not intended to blame them for that if that's sincerely where they feel the situation stands now.

I'm just suggesting bystanders keep in mind that at least on one side of this dispute, most information that could harm opponents is being withheld in the hope of keeping the door open for as much reconciliation as possible.

Edit:
The reality is that in a situation involving this much hurt and misunderstanding and a public record this incomplete, all of us will likely draw our preliminary judgments on blame and responsibility based more on our pre-existing loyalties and biases than on a cold, courtroom-esque weighing of all the evidence. The important thing is that we maintain the maturity not to entrench ourselves in a position to such a degree that no later development could dislodge us.

[NedFlanders]

It is easy to listen to Ernie even when he is wrong, because the thrust of his desire comes through in wanting Truth. It isn’t about sides to him, so when others that clearly like picking sides engage it makes them look worse than anything Ernie says anyway. So even when Ernie made a mistake the responses of jahertz has only made his picking sides more evident and has not helped his cause.

[mike]

For the people involved whom I know personally, this is a primary stated objective of their efforts. That's a large part of the reason why the personally damaging material in the public domain is so lopsidedly coming from one side of the dispute: If I'm serious about trying to make peace with someone, I'll seek to minimize the harm I do them in the meantime by not prematurely dumping all my evidence of their misdeeds out in the streets to be judged by the court of public opinion.

I assume some people on at least one side of this dispute have concluded attempts at reconciliation are pointless and therefore it's time for the public to know and mark the people they have broken with. The above paragraph is not intended to blame them for that if that's sincerely where they feel the situation stands now.

I'm just suggesting bystanders keep in mind that at least on one side of this dispute, information that could harm opponents is being withheld in the hope of keeping the door open for as much reconciliation as possible.

If they are working to make things right with those who believe they have been wronged, I respect that effort. I know from experience how impossibly difficult that is.

If those who feel they have been wronged don't believe that efforts are being made to make things right with them, then perhaps there is some work to be done. Once communications are cut off, there is little hope for reconciliation. At the same time, when each communication hurts more than the last, there is a time when you can't ask the parties to keep talking without a mediator of some sort. But both parties have to trust the mediator and agree to keep working on the problem. I have been there, and it doesn't always work out. At some point people just end up going separate ways. It is unfortunate but it is sometimes unavoidable.

[Ernie]

It is easy to listen to Ernie even when he is wrong, because the thrust of his desire comes through in wanting Truth. It isn’t about sides to him, so when others that clearly like picking sides engage it makes them look worse than anything Ernie says anyway. So even when Ernie made a mistake the responses of jahertz has only made his picking sides more evident and has not helped his cause.

I don't feel a need to defend what I wrote a couple days ago... I should have indicated that there may be opposite perspectives that I am not yet aware of, and welcomed that, instead of implying, "This is how it is."

[Josh]

I believe FotW’s leadership would be welcomed if they spoke publicly about these things. One of the problems here is there seems to be a shroud of secrecy and then attacking anyone who dares expose some sunlight.

I see a possibility there is abuse of authority and using power structures to control, which are not fruits of the spirit, but are also common in church structures that have positions like “bishop” or “apostle”. It seems reasonable to ask such leaders in high positions to clearly explain their “side of the story”, and then seek another leader to help move towards reconciliation.

Ultimately, I feel confident having known Ernie, Taylor, David Bercot, and from what I have heard of Weaver that they are on a path to heaven someday. I would like to believe FotW’s leadership is, too. Is it not then reasonable to pursue an open path of reconciliation, and put aside keeping things in secret?