Well, these groups refuse to identify as anything, so we have to call them something. The usual term is "Charity-type church". I'm not sure what else to call them. I suppose we could call them "claims-not-to-be-typical-Charity churches".
I am not actually a very black and white person but I have found that interpreting the entire world through "nuances" is not always helpful (particularly here on MennoNet). There are plenty of other people who want to bring a "nuanced" view of things (when it suits them).Of course its not reasonable to have rigid applications but you know that isn't what I'm speaking of in church settings. Drift doesn't stay at just a few miles over and you know this. Loyalty to your group isn't wrong, but claiming in 20 years these other groups such as Agape group or the Caneyville group will basically be clones while claiming the same issues in your own group won't change...
You are a very black and white person when it suits you and you know some of these rules are a do or do not. Recording the church sermons isn't allowed yet many of the younger generation do it regularly. That standard will change in 20 years unless it is addressed and I don't see it happening.
I agree that my church's courage when it comes to recordings is not particularly strong right now; however, the actual stance on recorded music and listening to sermons repeatedly has not changed, and most people I am around in my own congregation don't do these things. A handful do and think it's fine.
The changes in these other groups happen far, far more rapidly and cut to the core of very fundamental things. For example, when it comes to clothes and coverings, Holdemans see barely any drift at all. The same goes for things like firearms - in fact, the standard that is expected has become stronger compared to 10 years ago. The same would go for maintaining a status as conscientious objectors including complying with what the government expects of us there.
I used to be in a different type of church and frankly the focus on clothes seemed to be excessive. The main expectation on a new member was what style of kapp his wife would wear for a year before they would be accepted as members. I think that's the wrong focus. I never even heard anything about Selective Service or maintaining volunteer public service units when I was in the Beachy and Beachy-esque circles. Same goes for Charity. The latter functioned extremely independently and wasn't even able to maintain things like functional church schools, alternative service units for time of war, and mission units functioned effectively independently.
The reality is that the main purpose of a Charity church is to induct Amish people. I don't think a church whose entire envagelisation strategy is "converting" Amish is really fulfilling the great commission or helping to spread the gospel, since the Amish are already Christians and believers. Particularly when I look at how things have turned out and see that the vast majority of people ended up losing out. Christian faith has to be about more than just clothes.
Overall, there are many, many other plain groups that are not transitional - in fact the majority of them. The transitional groups (like the Charity type of churches) are the odd men out. The simple fact is they have nothing at all of value, spiritually speaking, to offer a seeker and particularly a seeker's family and there needs to be honest, realistic acknowledgment of this fact.