Does the "Charity Church" really exist anymore?

[mike]

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.

I would dispute this statement of Josh's as well. I can point to various congregations that I know of personally that disprove this assertion.

[Josh]

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?

Well, that was the exact message that a lot of liberalising forces (including Charity, in particular), had: that the answer was to abandon traditions and instead embrace some kind of personal, evangelical-style "relationship with Jesus".

However, we can judge the end fruit of that movement: it resulted in a lot of people who eventually ended up with a "relationship with Jesus" that also meant not obeying him or really following him in the ways he taught us to in the New Testament. And thus, my confidence in the whole evangelical "relationship with Jesus" approach has been lost.

I am not saying to be a die-hard traditionalist, but the answers that the Charity movement and other evangelical-liberalising movements offered was not an answer that moved a body of believers closer to being more Christlike.

[joshuabgood]

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.

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.
[/quote]

Some feel that making "avoiding drift" a primary goal is a well intentioned mistake that leads to a dying church. Life and contexts and society change. Therefore our primary goal perhaps should remain the true North, being like Christ and discipleship, knowing that we will in an ongoing way make strategic adjustments. That is, to have a vibrant and living faith.

[Soloist]

Ultimately, drift is not changing head covering styles from a see through cap to an opaque or to a veil.
It’s not changing buggies to black bumper cars or cars in general.
It’s not changing a cape dress for a jumper or vest dress or even dropping the plain suit.
Something else happens along side these changes that results in a church going liberal and those things are not the cause nor are they the problem.
Drift is not following your church standards that you agreed to. Drift is justifying disobedience or legalistic interpretations of standards rather then intent.
Drift is choosing to follow your own desires in opposition to God.
Drift in the church not addressed can cause others to see hypocrisy and question why these standards are important if most of the people justify something else.
Claiming to be followers of truth yet reading books with magic and making a big deal over D/R. The hypocrisy is obvious.

[Ernie]

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.

I don't know what you are basing this on as there are large numbers of Anabaptists who emphasize headcovering for most waking hours, who have maintained the practice for centuries.

[NedFlanders]

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?

Well, that was the exact message that a lot of liberalising forces (including Charity, in particular), had: that the answer was to abandon traditions and instead embrace some kind of personal, evangelical-style "relationship with Jesus".

However, we can judge the end fruit of that movement: it resulted in a lot of people who eventually ended up with a "relationship with Jesus" that also meant not obeying him or really following him in the ways he taught us to in the New Testament. And thus, my confidence in the whole evangelical "relationship with Jesus" approach has been lost.

I am not saying to be a die-hard traditionalist, but the answers that the Charity movement and other evangelical-liberalising movements offered was not an answer that moved a body of believers closer to being more Christlike.

What Josh says here is much the obvious reality for an observing newcomer.

And sorry Soloist the group you’re affiliated with now is very much looking exactly like one of these groups.

[Dan Z]

What is RNC?

I believe you used to be the president of that denomination’s Bible school.

RNC - All I could think of was the Republican National Committee. Maybe it is a mental block - I've never been a fan of the new name and its distance from its Anabaptist roots (although I'll admit the "conservative" in CMC was not a helpful identifier)- plus the change happened after I moved on.

[Soloist]

What Josh says here is much the obvious reality for an observing newcomer.

And sorry Soloist the group you’re affiliated with now is very much looking exactly like one of these groups.

You know, I’ve been around a bit, I’ve seen it. I never claimed my group doesn’t have problems but to assert that my statements are wrong based on your observations of other pilgrim churches does not mean that my observations are wrong.
My claim is only that switching to opaque caps is not a sign of progress to liberalism and claiming that is rubbish.
I’m not claiming that Pilgrim isn’t progressing in a liberal direction, but so is everyone. Repeatedly the conservatives will leave a group at some point and reform.
A simple fact is that either you are so stuck to tradition and still speaking German, or you have adapted over time.
Not all adaptations are bad.
Trying to determine which ones are good and which ones are not is subjective and often take years to see. The problem is that many changes occur and picking out 1 and blaming it is flawed thinking.
Ned what group are you part of?

[ohio jones]

Ned what group are you part of?

I've been wondering myself whether he is from the Huiskoopers or the Contra-Huiskoopers.

[steve-in-kville]

Claiming to be followers of truth yet reading books with magic and making a big deal over D/R. The hypocrisy is obvious.

Please tell me about these books of magic! I am intrigued!

(and no, I didn't read the entire thread. I asked a simple question and got four pages )