Does the "Charity Church" really exist anymore?

[Josh]

You are one to speak… tshirts indeed.

A rather key difference is that Holdemans were not busy publishing newsletters rebuking everyone else for wearing T-shirts (as far as I know, T-shirts have been worn for a long time, although the cultural norm is that they aren't supposed to have any writing on them other than for an employer/business).

Our church has not accepted listening to the radio, CCM, recorded music, etc. although there are certainly those within our ranks who are pushing in that direction. One of the differences is which voices are prevailing. In every Charity setting I have been around, the voices that wanted to move in a worldly direction prevailed.

[Josh]

There are several practices of theirs I would disagree with and I think there is considerable drift in their ranks. This is a fault of a OTC group. No one is willing to discipline except for serious offenses which has the same impact as any other church with the exception that leaving the church would get discipline.

This is flatly untrue. I have never observed as much church discipline as I did until I joined my present church.

As far as those who don't like our dress standards, well, Holdemans never wore cape dresses. As far as any criticism of our clothes, I am very sorry to report that the Charity affiliates have passed us up in terms of immodesty.

At our last general conference, there was significant discussion about the encroaching immodesty in our circles and (at least in my home congregation) there has been a marked shift. There is a new style prevailing, perhaps as a result of that.

[Josh]

Agreed.
It was an Amish man that pointed & introduced me to Charity.
Denny, former atheist, then Baptist, was highly affected by the plane and a Baptist people when he was introduced to them in Tennessee. Mose background probably had more to do with trying to reach Amish to encourage them to, as Denny put it, be known for more than their "pies". His own family was so ain dressed appearing almost Amish he said tour buses would sliw down so people could take pictures of him and his family walking down the road.

Yet Denny Kenaston influenced virtually zero Baptists to move towards a more Christian and biblical lifestyle and Christian life, yet he influenced hordes of Amish and other plain people in to becoming more like Baptists.

I do not think that we should try to dress like Amish so that people notice us, particularly if we are actually anti-Amish and trying to move in an opposite direction.

I truly see the value in their teachings, not sure any affected me as much- they certainly were not sdvocates of mediocre Christianity but in a real & vibrant walk with Christ to the uttermost. We still get their missionary publication- Denny's oldest son's family has been in Africa a LONG time-

I have been around the Charity movement for about 8 years. One of the "problems" I have that is every single person my age or younger in that movement I've gotten to know and been around[*] is no longer what I would categorise as plain (headship veiling, modest dress, nonresistance, and so forth). Needless to say, it's not something I really want to be around nor find much hope or a future in.

[*] There is one person whose parents got divorced, left their moderate-conservative type of church, and then her mother went to a Charity church for a while. Eventually this person has a sincere conversion experience and went back to the moderate-conservative church in her early adulthood and is now one of the most conservative people there.

[Soloist]

There are several practices of theirs I would disagree with and I think there is considerable drift in their ranks. This is a fault of a OTC group. No one is willing to discipline except for serious offenses which has the same impact as any other church with the exception that leaving the church would get discipline.

This is flatly untrue. I have never observed as much church discipline as I did until I joined my present church.

As far as those who don't like our dress standards, well, Holdemans never wore cape dresses. As far as any criticism of our clothes, I am very sorry to report that the Charity affiliates have passed us up in terms of immodesty.

At our last general conference, there was significant discussion about the encroaching immodesty in our circles and (at least in my home congregation) there has been a marked shift. There is a new style prevailing, perhaps as a result of that.

Josh, my experience doesn’t lie. Either you have standards against things like CCM, radio, recorded music, some standard on modesty, recorded sermons, willingness to defend home, fraudulent financial dealings, internet use or you don’t.
I have personally encountered these issues in your group from both yourself and others. So either “these” people are getting disciplined or they are not and in my experience the only ones disciplined are for gross violations. That is drift.
To be perfectly clear, I have seen this sort of stuff in every single group.
Edit: clearly I do not know how every Holderman church operates but I would point out the same is very true for you as you look up on these churches that used to be Charity.

[Soloist]

A rather key difference is that Holdemans were not busy publishing newsletters rebuking everyone else for wearing T-shirts (as far as I know, T-shirts have been worn for a long time, although the cultural norm is that they aren't supposed to have any writing on them other than for an employer/business).

I suppose if you could show me someone who wears T-shirts and happens to be writing against wearing T-shirts, then you would have some wait for your argument.
The churches that we are aware of that would speak out against T-shirts have no members wearing just T-shirts.

[Josh]

Josh, my experience doesn’t lie. Either you have standards against things like CCM, radio, recorded music, some standard on modesty, recorded sermons, willingness to defend home, fraudulent financial dealings, internet use or you don’t.
I have personally encountered these issues in your group from both yourself and others. So either “these” people are getting disciplined or they are not and in my experience the only ones disciplined are for gross violations. That is drift.
To be perfectly clear, I have seen this sort of stuff in every single group.

We have standards against listening to recorded pop music, we have standards that call for simple and modest attire, and definitely have a strong stance against owning firearms or otherwise engaging in armed self defence. I can't think of a specific "standard" but fraudulent financial dealings are not allowed.

We do not have a stance against Internet use but some kind of content filter is required. We have a stance against "recordings", but a lot of people share sermon audio anyway. This is an area I see as being a big problem for drift.

There is a general problem that some people simply don't have convictions about any of these things and will try to do whatever they want. In my experience, most such people eventually end up leaving the church because they don't get along with it anymore. I have been in the unfortunate position to watch this happen to a few people: one was over Q anon conspiracy theories (we don't have a specific stance against that, but it is socially dubious and it is encouraged not to pay so much attention to the news).

It may also not be obvious to if people are being "disciplined" or not. You aren't going to be a party to every private conversation between a member and another member, or a deacon or a minister, or eventually what goes on in a members' meeting to decide to place someone on repentance. People with sincere hearts will be open about that kind of thing, but people with insincere hearts tend to cover it up and try to pretend it isn't happening. People I am not close to in the latter category, I mostly realise something was wrong when I find out they have left the church or they are expelled and don't want to rejoin.

I am not exactly sure what you are asking for here. Our church does have standards but it isn't operated like a "police state" with agents busy trying to catch someone breaking one of the rules and then punishing them for that.

Edit: clearly I do not know how every Holderman church operates but I would point out the same is very true for you as you look up on these churches that used to be Charity.

An important distinction is that Charity churches don't claim to be part of a fellowship and don't have any kind of unified structure, and it can vary quite a bit, and standards are often not written or clarified.

[Josh]

A rather key difference is that Holdemans were not busy publishing newsletters rebuking everyone else for wearing T-shirts (as far as I know, T-shirts have been worn for a long time, although the cultural norm is that they aren't supposed to have any writing on them other than for an employer/business).

I suppose if you could show me someone who wears T-shirts and happens to be writing against wearing T-shirts, then you would have some wait for your argument.
The churches that we are aware of that would speak out against T-shirts have no members wearing just T-shirts.

In the Charity case, people who spoke against T-shirts rather strongly 10-20 years ago now wear them. It makes me not very interested in their input on dress standards in general, since their standards seem to change with time.

Whereas in my current church setting, our dress "standards" such as they are are relatively stable. They just don't change very much, even if they aren't strongly "plain" or spelled out. I think this is a lot better than having a severely plain style right down to dictating styles of sleeves, like I observed in conservative Beachyism.

[Soloist]

conservative is much more then clothing.

My observations on discipline of course don't know if there is a member pulling aside these people and talking to them but based on my experience in other plain settings, there is a certain level of latitude for fence riders as they are called who are not following the standard or the spirit of the standard. Yet they have no change in their life or custom over several periods of seeing them or people like them.
This is true in any plain church and having attended 3 Holdeman services, ate with a minister, ate with someone excommunicated from ya'll, spoken to his still member wife, spoken with you, met a older man in Denny's... I have some experience to state with confidence that your group is no different then other groups.
Even in the original charity group I didn't always know if someone was being counseled or not nor did I know in the western fellowship group. I didn't even know who was excommunicated always.
After several years I picked up on some of it.
Certainly you can object to it, but you can't really criticize these current groups very well as you are not permitted to attend their services or listen to their sermons. Or are you fence riding too?
I'm not condemning the Holdeman group over any of this, I disagree with where they are but those practices are not different then any plain circle. My bigger objection to them is key points such as requiring rebaptism of any person who joins them, not permitting listening to other sermons or even your own although thats an obvious problem point for your standards.
Its a little too close to the Watchtower practices.

[Josh]

conservative is much more then clothing.

It definitely is, which I think is one of the problems with Beachyism / Charityism. It seems they took plain Anabaptism and then made it mostly about clothes.

My observations on discipline of course don't know if there is a member pulling aside these people and talking to them but based on my experience in other plain settings, there is a certain level of latitude for fence riders as they are called who are not following the standard or the spirit of the standard. Yet they have no change in their life or custom over several periods of seeing them or people like them.
This is true in any plain church and having attended 3 Holdeman services, ate with a minister, ate with someone excommunicated from ya'll, spoken to his still member wife, spoken with you, met a older man in Denny's... I have some experience to state with confidence that your group is no different then other groups.
Even in the original charity group I didn't always know if someone was being counseled or not nor did I know in the western fellowship group. I didn't even know who was excommunicated always.
After several years I picked up on some of it.
Certainly you can object to it, but you can't really criticize these current groups very well as you are not permitted to attend their services or listen to their sermons. Or are you fence riding too?

Unfortunately, at this point I can judge the Charity groups around me based on appearance. (For reference, they all dress more worldly than Holdemans do now.)

I'm not condemning the Holdeman group over any of this, I disagree with where they are but those practices are not different then any plain circle. My bigger objection to them is key points such as requiring rebaptism of any person who joins them, not permitting listening to other sermons or even your own although thats an obvious problem point for your standards.
Its a little too close to the Watchtower practices.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect rigid application of rules by every person. Lots of people roll a stop sign or drive a few mph over the speed limit. They aren’t lawbreakers. People who drive thru a stop sign full speed or go 50 MPH over are lawbreakers.

[Soloist]

Unfortunately, at this point I can judge the Charity groups around me based on appearance. (For reference, they all dress more worldly than Holdemans do now.)

I'm speaking about your opinion of these groups that are not identifying as Charity.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect rigid application of rules by every person. Lots of people roll a stop sign or drive a few mph over the speed limit. They aren’t lawbreakers. People who drive thru a stop sign full speed or go 50 MPH over are lawbreakers.

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.