Sattler College Turmoil

[jahertz]

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?

I have zero doubt that there are plenty of people eager to see all the juicy dirt from the "other side" added to the swirl of recriminations in the public sphere. I can only assume that for some people involved, distributing reputationally damaging information about an opponent requires a more robust justification than the mere existence of a public appetite for gossip.

Needless secrecy does not generally serve the interest of personal reconciliation. Neither, in my experience, do demands to give every inquisitive member of the public a front row seat to each step of the process.

[joshuabgood]

When it comes right down to it, the age old problems of humanity are the age old problems. And they don't revolve around right theology, or even right outward practice. In fact there isn't that much of a corollary relationship even. No our faults go much deeper than belief and practice. We don't live right because we don't love right. Such is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And the greatest commandments are what they are. And why we need a new heart...as opposed to new philosophies or works.

Christ's prayer for unity is in fact the prayer of the hour. May we find it in him.

[mike]

When it comes right down to it, the age old problems of humanity are the age old problems. And they don't revolve around right theology, or even right outward practice. In fact there isn't that much of a corollary relationship even. No our faults go much deeper than belief and practice. We don't live right because we don't love right. Such is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And the greatest commandments are what they are. And why we need a new heart...as opposed to new philosophies or works.

Christ's prayer for unity is in fact the prayer of the hour. May we find it in him.

There is a lot of truth in this, however, as the prophet said... Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Love cannot overcome the fact that one Christian believes it is in his right to kill a fellow human, and another does not. Philosophy/belief/practice does matter in the Christian view.

[Neto]

Not to the main topic here, but in regards to going back and changing/correcting an earlier post:
I contribute on a number of forums where the ability to edit a comment never expires. One has a time limit of 2 weeks, and there is one particular member on that forum who is rather "thin-skinned", and has sometimes gone back and deleted every single one of his comments that he is still able to edit. This really disrupts the flow of a discussion, and I suppose it may lead to others making sure they quote him in their own comments. And since he deletes not only the comments he's made in the thread where there is a dispute going on, his other valuable comments are also lost. (And the thing is, he can really "give it out", but just cannot take it. It reminds me of the pranks that were played on each other in college - any place where there is a dormitory situation there will be some of this. I was involved in doing a prank on a friend of mine, where it resulted in him getting wet. Water, that's all it was. He became very angry. Then another friend told him "Don't get mad, get even." Now this was all in good fun, although occasionally someone would get carried away, and cause damage to personal property. But for the most part, no. So this guy took that advice, and did a prank back. He never got angry again after that - he just laughed along with those who had pranked him, and then he planned one to do to them. Some here are probably no longer reading this, but my point is "If a participant in a discussion cannot accept correction or push-back, then they shouldn't give it out." We should all be willing to give and receive correction - that's even in the baptismal statement at our congregation.)

Getting kind of long winded here, I know. But the first Mennonite forum I was on (MBForum.ca) allowed editing of all previous comments. One college professor always went back and added to or corrected any of her previous posts that she felt should be clarified or corrected. She was used to the professional practice of preparing a document for publication, so she adopted the same approach on the forum. But that doesn't work in an on-going discussion where there are meany participants, and after another participant explained this to her, she stopped doing it. So I would say that if one desires to make changes to previous comments in a discussion where one feels their previous comment was unfair or incorrect, the best approach would be to ask an admin to add a tag to each such post, directing the reader to the later post where corrections or retractions are explained. (I tend to think, however, this would normally only be necessary in situations where the erroneous content is seen as being harmful to another entity, and especially perhaps where the thread is of considerable length.)

[joshuabgood]

When it comes right down to it, the age old problems of humanity are the age old problems. And they don't revolve around right theology, or even right outward practice. In fact there isn't that much of a corollary relationship even. No our faults go much deeper than belief and practice. We don't live right because we don't love right. Such is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And the greatest commandments are what they are. And why we need a new heart...as opposed to new philosophies or works.

Christ's prayer for unity is in fact the prayer of the hour. May we find it in him.

There is a lot of truth in this, however, as the prophet said... Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Love cannot overcome the fact that one Christian believes it is in his right to kill a fellow human, and another does not. Philosophy/belief/practice does matter in the Christian view.

Yes to this...though, if one loves right he won't kill his fellow human.

[jahertz]

I find it revealing and disappointing that some folks who are highly critical of various Anabaptist groups are now arguing we shouldn’t be discussing FOTW dirty laundry.

Has this argument in fact been made in this discussion? If so, are you able to provide a quote of someone making it?

[NedFlanders]

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?

I have zero doubt that there are plenty of people eager to see all the juicy dirt from the "other side" added to the swirl of recriminations in the public sphere. I can only assume that for some people involved, distributing reputationally damaging information about an opponent requires a more robust justification than the mere existence of a public appetite for gossip.

Needless secrecy does not generally serve the interest of personal reconciliation. Neither, in my experience, do demands to give every inquisitive member of the public a front row seat to each step of the process.

Your constant us vs them tone again only furthers the problem and hinders reconciliation…

[jahertz]

Honestly, it’s a little like CAM. When one waits until public opinion shifts against them, it’s hard to address the issue after the fact.. if they had been more proactive in addressing why the board members left, why the president left…

I don't know exactly when Sattler and FotW leaders first began working to bring in a neutral third party org to help with reconciliation, but I know I personally first heard about those efforts months ago, when the upheaval at Sattler was quite fresh and the public attacks had not yet gathered much steam. So the process was more proactive on their part than we outside observers might assume given the information that's publicly available.

My understanding is that FoTW's early proposal to recruit a neutral Christian organization to help lead a peace process was and continues to be rejected by the aggrieved parties. I assume they have defensible reasons for believing their case is better tried in the court of public opinion than by trained mediators from an established Christian organization, but as yet I have not had the privilege of hearing those reasons.

[jahertz]

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?

I have zero doubt that there are plenty of people eager to see all the juicy dirt from the "other side" added to the swirl of recriminations in the public sphere. I can only assume that for some people involved, distributing reputationally damaging information about an opponent requires a more robust justification than the mere existence of a public appetite for gossip.

Needless secrecy does not generally serve the interest of personal reconciliation. Neither, in my experience, do demands to give every inquisitive member of the public a front row seat to each step of the process.

Your constant us vs them tone again only furthers the problem and hinders reconciliation…

Come on, Ned, this entire dispute is them vs. them for me (or depending how you look at it, Us vs. Us; since I think when members of Christ's body are at war with each other, no one comes away unharmed, and everyone is responsible to do what they can, if anything, to contribute to the triumph of an honorable peace).

For someone who doesn't believe in taking sides, your seeming eagerness to assign everyone teams is curious, but I don't know you and you don't owe me an explanation.

[NedFlanders]

I have zero doubt that there are plenty of people eager to see all the juicy dirt from the "other side" added to the swirl of recriminations in the public sphere. I can only assume that for some people involved, distributing reputationally damaging information about an opponent requires a more robust justification than the mere existence of a public appetite for gossip.

Needless secrecy does not generally serve the interest of personal reconciliation. Neither, in my experience, do demands to give every inquisitive member of the public a front row seat to each step of the process.

Your constant us vs them tone again only furthers the problem and hinders reconciliation…

Come on, Ned, this entire dispute is them vs. them for me (or depending how you look at it, Us vs. Us; since I think when members of Christ's body are at war with each other, no one comes away unharmed, and everyone is responsible to do what they can, if anything, to contribute to the triumph of an honorable peace).

For someone who doesn't believe in taking sides, your seeming eagerness to assign everyone teams is curious, but I don't know you and you don't owe me an explanation.

I believe in taking sides to a degree and drawing lines, it is when that is the outcome of first and foremost seeking Truth that I am more comfortable. I don’t know you either and maybe that is what you are doing? - I just haven’t picked up on it in your posts - my failure if I misread you.

I believe it has been largely CA’s that have been drawn mostly to Sattler. If it is truly is a us vs. them mindset with those of FOTW and Sattler then it is good if that is drawn out for CA’s to reconsider attending but if not then may we be careful not to portray that and drive an unnecessary wedge further.