Does the "Charity Church" really exist anymore?

[mike]

Well... are they wrong? Because that does seem to be the trajectory. At some point, there needs to be a sense of honesty about the real reason people are pushing for changes.

That’s assuming that the motive to use opaque or any other change is self seeking.
Not all change is bad and we know that all the conservative churches has changed dramatically since the break with the general conference.

It seems that folks from the conference I am part of who are against change generally point fingers at the trajectory of change in other churches as the reason for not making any official changes. And yet, oddly enough, change still happens. For example, we would never change our official rules from wearing a kapp style covering to wearing a hanging veil, but we allow veils for the mission field, beach trips, traveling, vacationing, visits to the dentist, etc, etc. I haven't been here long enough to know for sure, but I am pretty confident that these changes have all happened gradually and will probably continue. Apparently we've done that with various other things, such as the gradual move away from requiring black or dark colored vehicles to lighter and lighter shades until finally the official change basically just acknowledges that change has already happened.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This was the impression I had. We have Harmony Christian Fellowship in our area and they split the church a few years ago due to size. Oasis, maybe? Anyway, I am unsure if they affiliate with anyone any more.

I have recently attended a church that was planted by Harmony CF, and plan on attending regularly. Like that last "Christian Fellowship" church I attended, they seem like a more conservative version of many BMA churches I've attended. This one, planted by Harmony, is (on the surface) the most conservative church I've been in: the first with segregated seating. I got a copy of Harmony's statement of faith and I really like it. Seems way more Biblical than traditional, I don't know if that makes them conservative or not. It doesn't say anything about segregated seating in it, so I'm not sure who made the call for this fellowship or why.

[Josh]

Well... are they wrong? Because that does seem to be the trajectory. At some point, there needs to be a sense of honesty about the real reason people are pushing for changes.

That’s assuming that the motive to use opaque or any other change is self seeking.
Not all change is bad and we know that all the conservative churches has changed dramatically since the break with the general conference.

Yet the path is 100% consistent that groups that go after the Charity style covering, which was proclaimed as more holy…

a few years later are wearing tiny “stylish” (and often transparent mesh) style coverings.

Those who propose following the exact same path need to explain their plan to avoid doing the same thing.

[Josh]

This was the impression I had. We have Harmony Christian Fellowship in our area and they split the church a few years ago due to size. Oasis, maybe? Anyway, I am unsure if they affiliate with anyone any more.

I have recently attended a church that was planted by Harmony CF, and plan on attending regularly. Like that last "Christian Fellowship" church I attended, they seem like a more conservative version of many BMA churches I've attended. This one, planted by Harmony, is (on the surface) the most conservative church I've been in: the first with segregated seating. I got a copy of Harmony's statement of faith and I really like it. Seems way more Biblical than traditional, I don't know if that makes them conservative or not. It doesn't say anything about segregated seating in it, so I'm not sure who made the call for this fellowship or why.

A separate seating Charity church would be on the far end of conservative in the Charity / “Christian Fellowship” world.

I am wondering about a few other things.

Do they still kneel for prayer during the service? If so do they kneel forwards or turn around and face backwards?

Is the music primarily hymns or are there some more modern praise and worship songs?

What kind of attire do the members wear during the week (eg tshirts for men, tshirts with writing on them, etc.)

[Josh]

It seems that folks from the conference I am part of who are against change generally point fingers at the trajectory of change in other churches as the reason for not making any official changes. And yet, oddly enough, change still happens. For example, we would never change our official rules from wearing a kapp style covering to wearing a hanging veil, but we allow veils for the mission field, beach trips, traveling, vacationing, visits to the dentist, etc, etc. I haven't been here long enough to know for sure, but I am pretty confident that these changes have all happened gradually and will probably continue. Apparently we've done that with various other things, such as the gradual move away from requiring black or dark colored vehicles to lighter and lighter shades until finally the official change basically just acknowledges that change has already happened.

Indeed, there is a surprising lack of self insight about change happening inside even when there is plenty of observation about obvious change elsewhere. And I concur that for some reason, the mission field is a place where a lot of things mysteriously are OK that are somehow not OK at “home”.

[Soloist]

Yet the path is 100% consistent that groups that go after the Charity style covering, which was proclaimed as more holy…

a few years later are wearing tiny “stylish” (and often transparent mesh) style coverings.

Those who propose following the exact same path need to explain their plan to avoid doing the same thing.

Okay Josh.

I dispute this and would say it’s impossible to prove you wrong, as there is no measurable data point that would be acceptable to you to prove you as wrong. We do know that our ministers wife has been wearing an opaque cap since the beginning of pilgrim, and several of the people here would have a conniption if someone suggested switching to doilies.

[Josh]

Yet the path is 100% consistent that groups that go after the Charity style covering, which was proclaimed as more holy…

a few years later are wearing tiny “stylish” (and often transparent mesh) style coverings.

Those who propose following the exact same path need to explain their plan to avoid doing the same thing.

Okay Josh.

I dispute this and would say it’s impossible to prove you wrong, as there is no measurable data point that would be acceptable to you to prove you as wrong. We do know that our ministers wife has been wearing an opaque cap since the beginning of pilgrim, and several of the people here would have a conniption if someone suggested switching to doilies.

If there is a sincere plan and commitment to avoid drift, then that is good. When I have sat in these meetings, I never hear much of an explanation of how drift will be avoided.

I am not saying it is impossible but it is certainly not the norm. I have started to understand why die-hard traditionalists refuse to budge even an inch, after watching how often an inch turns into a mile.

[Ernie]

Okay Josh. I dispute this and would say it’s impossible to prove you wrong, as there is no measurable data point that would be acceptable to you to prove you as wrong. We do know that our ministers wife has been wearing an opaque cap since the beginning of pilgrim, and several of the people here would have a conniption if someone suggested switching to doilies.

If there is a sincere plan and commitment to avoid drift, then that is good. When I have sat in these meetings, I never hear much of an explanation of how drift will be avoided.I am not saying it is impossible but it is certainly not the norm. I have started to understand why die-hard traditionalists refuse to budge even an inch, after watching how often an inch turns into a mile.[/quote]
The odds are against changing traditions. The bulk of churches that switched to veils have gotten smaller and smaller over the years. However, the same kinds of churches/people back in the 60's-90's had caps that kept getting smaller and smaller until they were just a little round saucer perched high on the head.

I think there will always be a large number of conservative Anabaptists who will wear large opaque white coverings. There are some who do take these things seriously and when the coverings get smaller, they move or start another church. My prediction is that in 300 years, all plain Anabaptists will be wearing opaque coverings but I won't be around then to know or point out whether my prediction came true.

[Josh]

I would note that in my own fellowship, women wear black (opaque) caps during the week. As recently as the 1950s coverings were not worn during the week but they were willing to make some changes when they were exploring unity with the Tampico Amish and had otherwise absorbed members from an Amish background. In turn, those people were asked to let go of their own cultural attachment to white (opaque) caps and be willing to sport black caps instead. So both sides compromised.

The prayer covering at church has remained the same since the days of Russia and is still a kerchief that covers the whole head, which I think follows much more closely to biblical practice. I feel that maintaining the covering is much more possible when it was explicitly practiced during prayer and public church worship and is much more understated the rest of the time.

In other countries different styles are acceptable. In Africa the colour black has bad associations with witchcraft, so they wear coverings dyed blue instead. Some other missions such as in Russia ended up just carrying on the same style.

[mike]

It seems that folks from the conference I am part of who are against change generally point fingers at the trajectory of change in other churches as the reason for not making any official changes. And yet, oddly enough, change still happens. For example, we would never change our official rules from wearing a kapp style covering to wearing a hanging veil, but we allow veils for the mission field, beach trips, traveling, vacationing, visits to the dentist, etc, etc. I haven't been here long enough to know for sure, but I am pretty confident that these changes have all happened gradually and will probably continue. Apparently we've done that with various other things, such as the gradual move away from requiring black or dark colored vehicles to lighter and lighter shades until finally the official change basically just acknowledges that change has already happened.

Indeed, there is a surprising lack of self insight about change happening inside even when there is plenty of observation about obvious change elsewhere. And I concur that for some reason, the mission field is a place where a lot of things mysteriously are OK that are somehow not OK at “home”.

And so, why don't these kinds of groups address change in a more straightforward way by acknowledging it not only happens but sometimes needs to happen, that it can be a good thing, and can be done without going down the slippery slope into worldliness. If token adherence to rigid written standards that they don't even believe in themselves is the only thing keeping them from becoming godless worldlings, do they really possess genuine faith in Jesus?