Charity and Charity type fellowships

[MaxPC]

Admittedly I am still a novice in understanding the complex relationships within Anabaptist World, hence I am posting this in General Theology as I do not know whether Charity type fellowships are considered Anabaptists. Now after that belabored introduction, I am starting a new thread inspired by this conversation as I cannot somehow locate other threads on Charity fellowships:

They had some horrible experiences with non-Hutterites at Elmendorf. So I don't blame them for shutting the door.

I honestly don’t blame them either.

Dean could have tried joining the main Hutterites.
Instead he tried joining a Hutter/ Charity colony that's in flux.

Well, other Hutterites aren’t really interested in accepting outsiders either. I agree that any place with Charity influences should be avoided - but one cannot blame a seeker family like the Taylors for not knowing this. (They aren’t in a Charity type of situation anymore, for what it’s worth.)

All transitional Anabaptist church members and leaders ought to be ashamed of their conduct and how it leads to these kind of situations.

I am aware it's difficult but I don't believe it's impossible.

And I second your last paragraph. It's depressing but I don't know what to do about it.

1. Regarding the bolded words above, it appears that Charity influences are de-stabilising elements in more traditional communities. Is that correct?

2. What elements of Charity teachings create problems?

3. Are there problems with "personality cults" within Charity or traditional groups? Right, this last question may be a digression and if you deem it so, feel free to start another thread discussing this one aspect.

[RZehr]

They are basically Amish and Mennonites who left their churches, and wanted to be more spiritually focused and less rule’s focused.
Initially “Charity”, was in short, described by conservative Mennonite as “not believing in having any rules” (for the church community. But rather they believed that because they were all following God, they would be united without having any requirements laid on themselves. Sort of like how any modern day community church would practice. Unfortunately the Charity churches generally began to look more and more like any other community church might look. So then some of them did begin to make rules for their churches.

Mennonites and Amish and Hutterites didn’t like “Charity” because they were pulling people out of their churches and into Charity churches.

[mike]

They are basically Amish and Mennonites who left their churches, and wanted to be more spiritually focused and less rule’s focused.
Initially “Charity”, was in short, described by conservative Mennonite as “not believing in having any rules” (for the church community. But rather they believed that because they were all following God, they would be united without having any requirements laid on themselves. Sort of like how any modern day community church would practice. Unfortunately the Charity churches generally began to look more and more like any other community church might look. So then some of them did begin to make rules for their churches.

Mennonites and Amish and Hutterites didn’t like “Charity” because they were pulling people out of their churches and into Charity churches.

They were/are also churches that attracted numbers of non-Anabaptist Christians looking for conservative churches, who often had a bent toward homeschooling, missions, modest dress, and/or revivalism. Many, but not all, of those folks ended up disaffected in the Charity churches.

[MaxPC]

They are basically Amish and Mennonites who left their churches, and wanted to be more spiritually focused and less rule’s focused.
Initially “Charity”, was in short, described by conservative Mennonite as “not believing in having any rules” (for the church community. But rather they believed that because they were all following God, they would be united without having any requirements laid on themselves. Sort of like how any modern day community church would practice. Unfortunately the Charity churches generally began to look more and more like any other community church might look. So then some of them did begin to make rules for their churches.

Mennonites and Amish and Hutterites didn’t like “Charity” because they were pulling people out of their churches and into Charity churches.

They were/are also churches that attracted numbers of non-Anabaptist Christians looking for conservative churches, who often had a bent toward homeschooling, missions, modest dress, and/or revivalism. Many, but not all, of those folks ended up disaffected in the Charity churches.

Thank you, RZehr and Mike. That does help my understanding quite a bit.

Does this then, indicate that Charity was promoting "sheep stealing" (luring away of members of other churches)? I can see where that would not be fair play of them. Can we postulate then, that those who did leave family and church to join Charity were rebels in spirit and sought to avoid rules?

I can certainly understand the feelings that this would generate among the more traditional communities. Rules, when administered prudently, do help to keep Bible teachings clear and relationships amicable.

In essence it appears that we have two very different goals of those joining Charity: one group sought to escape rules and the other group sought a more conservative, dare we say rule oriented fellowship. It seems that Charity itself was struggling with its personal purpose and identity. Is that correct?

[mike]

Does this then, indicate that Charity was promoting "sheep stealing" (luring away of members of other churches)? I can see where that would not be fair play of them. Can we postulate then, that those who did leave family and church to join Charity were rebels in spirit and sought to avoid rules? It seems that Charity itself was struggling with its personal purpose and identity. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say they were overtly promoting it, but it was an effect of what Charity was, rather than a stated goal. In my opinion. It didn't help that they held a dim view of many other Anabaptist groups, a reciprocal view for sure. But pride goes before a fall, and what's left of the movement probably doesn't have that same perspective.

The other thing is that the plain groups and the evangelical churches that fed the Charity movement, in my view, also had real problems with carnality, worldliness, sinful behaviors, lack of spirituality, and other things that were not being properly dealt with. Not that Charity churches haven't had issues with those very things, because guess why. They are human like everybody else.

Revival moments serve a purpose and they often develop for understandable reasons. But in the end, people are people. Movements come and go, old ones fade away and new ones begin.

[ken_sylvania]

Does this then, indicate that Charity was promoting "sheep stealing" (luring away of members of other churches)? I can see where that would not be fair play of them. Can we postulate then, that those who did leave family and church to join Charity were rebels in spirit and sought to avoid rules? It seems that Charity itself was struggling with its personal purpose and identity. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. Many who left conservative churches to join Charity were seeking fulfillment for a certain emptiness - a certain sense that there was more to God and religion than what they were experiencing. For some, yes, they felt restricted by rules and restrictions in their existing settings. Others were observing how compliance with rules didn't automatically make people strong spiritual Christians and they became convinced that removing boundaries would "allow the unspiritual to leave and the spiritual to stay."
It would be unfair to write a description of a "typical Charity person" due to the variety of goals, backgrounds, and expectations there.

[MaxPC]

It would be unfair to write a description of a "typical Charity person" due to the variety of goals, backgrounds, and expectations there.

Indeed it contributes to my perception that Charity suffered an identity crisis of a sort. Certainly not uncommon among the histories of revival movements.

Revival moments serve a purpose and they often develop for understandable reasons. But in the end, people are people. Movements come and go, old ones fade away and new ones begin.

Spot on. Well said, Mike.

[Valerie]

Thanks for this topic & replies, I appreciate their perspectives. I was so drawn to Charity Church due to how much I lived the sermons I listened to & their Heartbeat of the Remnant publication. We considered moving to go there. I certainly saw them as Anabaptist but when they started having problems (which kind of shook me up) much as what's mentioned here makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful replies. Seems accurate.
Denny Kenaston (co-founder of Charity, did a great series on Anabaptism in 2008. I do still think highly of his ministry. I really felt he had a calling on his life. Was sad at his passing.