| Author |
Message |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 299
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 8:16 am: |     |
I don't know if anyone saw this article or not. I happened upon it several months ago. I thought it was appropriate for this conversation.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/dynamics.html
Patria |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 300
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 8:35 am: | |
Sorry, I didn't mean to post that so quickly. The article is from the Adventist Review and discusses the SDA version of inspiration.
There are some shocking quotes. (I KNOW it shouldn't shock me, but I admit, it still does).
Patria |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5740
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 9:23 am: | |
Sigh. Oh, Patria...I agree with you.
Adventism assumes, in its defense of Ellen, that the "Advent movement" was entirely a work of God. Therefore, they can claim divine revelation and protection for all of Ellen's spurious comments. The ASSUME she is a divinely appointed prophet BECAUSE she spoke for the Adventists. Then they cast aspersions on Biblical inspiration to hold her up.
One of the marks of a prophet, as pointed out in our women's Bible study, is that God appoints and calls the prophet. He/she is NEVER self-appointed nor appointed by men. Further, their prophecies always reflect what God has already revealed through His covenants and laws.
Yes, indeed--Ellen survives because the church speaks out of both sides of its mouth. But then, so did Ellen herself.
Ramone, the Christian Connexion was related to what is sometimes called the "Stone-Campbell movement". It was a movment to restore doctrinal purity into the church, and it consisted of people who left their denominations (primarily Methodis Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist) and rejected all doctrines and traditions and started over, using their own interpretations of the Bible to develop their statements of faith.
The "Connection" was organized in 1820 and had these six principles:
1. Christ, the only head of the chruch
2. The bible, sufficient rule of faith and practice.
3. Christian character, the only measurement for membership
4. the right of private judgment, interpretation of scripture, and liberty of conscience.
5. The name "Christian', worthy for christ's followers.
6. Unity of all Christ's followers in behalf of the world.
They were anti-Trinitarian, and they believed creeds were wrong. The Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ grew out of this movement. Eventually, the anti-Trinitarians became drawn to the Unitarians, and they began to collaborate.
James White was ordained as a Christian Connexion (sometimes called Connection) minister at the age of 19 (in 1832, I believe), and he was strongly anti-Trinitarian. With his "restoration" mindset, forming a new church with Joseph Bates and his visionary wife (whom he finally married in order to preserve their reputations after travelling around to speaking tours with her) was a logical idea for someone with an entrepreneurial temperament.
She was definitely essential for James and Joseph and the success of their new movement. Without her visions from the lord, the founders would have had a much harder time securing a loyal following.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 779
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:08 am: | |
Thanks Colleen. My, my, what a history. I hadn't heard of that stuff! You know, the six principles have a few good things in them, but number three is built on not knowing the Gospel.
And the whole thing is undergirded by other problems which negate whatever positiveness is in the statements of principle -- primarily the anti-Trinitarianism, and the need to reject everything that went before. There are times God calls you into "the desert" to be with Him, but that doesn't necessitate rejecting everything before. By doing so, you end up missing God's presence in others and in the past. It's not a good thing to found a church on judgment.
Now that I write that, something becomes apparent: Even good doctrinal statements become worthless if there are problematic unstated beliefs comprising the foundation underneath.
I think that about sums up the doctrinal statements of Adventism, past and present, don't you think?
Anyway, thanks for the info. You know, it would be really nice to put that kind of info in a small history of Adventism book. The only history stuff I ever got was from their textbooks (the led-by-the-hand-of-God view). I know there's a lot of info on the web, but it's a lot to sift through, and often specific and detailed. It'd be nice to have some small, readable (and not too speculative) book to give a more objective history from a Christian perspective. Any takers??? 
Resting in Jesus,
Ramone |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 469
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 12:28 pm: | |
Ramone,
Excellent idea with a small history book. I'm sorry for misunderstanding your words, it makes me pleasure to know that I was not the target.
Personally I'm asking myself very tough questions, and my thoughts regarding this subject reflect my desire and my goal to aim at very precise view regarding Ellen White. I really don't want to incriminate her more than it deserves, to have a vision rooted in reality, with the aim of helping adventists become free from the spiritual bondage.
I have not forgotten my sensibility to this subject as an adventist. I was very upset because what I perceived to be an unjust critical position regarding Ellen White manifested by formers adventists, but when I encounter a very good and precise evaluation of Ellen's mistakes, made with keen insight in the heart of the issue, I became aware that formers adventists are in a respectable position.
For me it was David DePinho assessment of adventism which I could not dismiss as easily as I dismissed other negative comments regarding adventism. His keen and precise evaluation of adventism opened the door in my heart to question the entire adventist structure. I recommend even today his testimony, which is available on the Story section of Former Adventist Fellowship.
From what I sensed, aventists took pride in having an intellectual respectability, a better view of the Bible than other believers, and they will have respect only for those who are very good in challenging their views.
I think that because of this forum, and because of Dale Ratzlaff's books, because of this new type of criticism, which strikes directly at the weak points of adventism, the trend in adventism is to become closed minded, and keep their eyes closed. i think that for many this is a desperate way to keep their cognitive dissonance on a tolerable level.
I think that with the increasing pressure of former adventists on the internet and the defection seen in the public life of the SDA church, they will have no other option than to close their eyes, since the cognitive dissonance will arise proportionally to an intolerable level.
Beside this, and I think that what adventists need to see more often, is to hear, and see more and more adventists joining other churches, becoming involved in worship. It was a good idea that the weekend was directed to the subject of joining another church, starting a new spiritual life. Leaving the church for Jesus, this motivation, needs to be emphasized by the example of more and more adventists who will manifest their spiritual life in other churches.
I'm not a prophet, but in my evaluation, the next stage in God's plan for adventists is to rise the level of integration of former adventists in other churches, together with their involvement in these churches, in such a way as to become clearer to adventists that former adventists left for Jesus, not because of hate, anger, but because they have a love for Jesus and for His body, the church, because they are part of His body.
Former adventists are suffering now of a low level of church integration, and I think that when this situation will improve, when those who are no longer attending a church will become involved in the life of other churches and will live a fulfilled life in those churches (I'm not speaking about becoming members of these churches, I speak of participating in the worship), this will rise the level of cognitive dissonance for many adventists, and also will intrigue them about what happened with so many adventists.
Today it's easy to dismiss the witness of many former adventists as long as many formers who left for spiritual issues the church are not attending other churches. It's easy to rationalize that their claims are lies, and only few are church goers. But when the number will arise, the cognitive dissonance will rise to another level.
Only God knows what will happen, but as Richard Tinker said at the beginning of the Former Adventist weekend, God has formers a plan and a future. May God be praised for His grace.
Jackob |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5743
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 7:28 pm: | |
Jackob, so well stated. You are right about the need for former Adventists to become involved in other churches. I KNOW how hard it is to begin attending a Sunday church, even when one knows that Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus.
I also know that one of the primary concerns of formers is that they "can't worship" where doctrines with which they don't agree are taught. Yet the only doctrines that are truly central are the three Gary Inrig named at the FAF retreat: the centrality of Jesus and the cross, the Trinity, and the reliability of Scripture. Christian fellowship is possible when people stake their faith on these three things.
While other doctrinal issues may be personally important, still differences regarding eschatology, the emphasis on spiritual gifts, the tension between "choice" and "election"—these things should not detract from mutual fellowship.
If people are alive in Jesus, born of the Spirit and living by faith in the finished work of Jesus, they can fellowship together with depth and richness that cannot be explained by mere doctrines.
Very good insight, Jackob, into the profound effect it will have as formers become integrated into the active body of Christ! What a powerful witness!
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 697
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 8:09 pm: | |
I am at present, reading the autobiography of Joseph Bates and actually am growing quite fond of the fellow.
River |
Stevendi
Registered user
Username: Stevendi
Post Number: 107
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 6:23 am: | |
Jakob,
Ditto, the best witness of former Adventists is to get into worship with other believers in another branch of the body of Christ. At first, my journey out was discredited as error by friends and family, I even doubted myself for the longest time. But then, the Lord began introducing me to so many godly people who knew the Bible and the Christian walk so much better than me. This was both humbling and encouraging at the same time. It was refreshing to discover that I didn't have all the answers that put me in a position of judging everyone from a position of self-proclaimed knowledge. It is an amazing thing to run into someone who knows Jesus personally, and treats others accordingly. No prophetic drum-beating, no divergent gospel add-ons, no legalistic price tags, just the Word and the Life take us on His journey on many different paths (church bodies).
Steve |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5749
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 12:49 pm: | |
Steve, you have so perfectly described our experience with discovering worship with other Christ-followers in a real "Sunday" church. The feeling of surprise, of being both humbled and encouraged by people who knew much more than I knew about the Bible and who really KNEW Jesus was amazing.
One thing we all have to "get over" as we leave Adventism is the deep conviction that we know the Bible better than others. Even as I left Adventism realizing I'd had it "all wrong", I still thought I knew my Bible better than other people. WRONG!
God teaches us in His time and in His way—but He does ask us to be part of His body and join a fellowship of believers and participate!
Colleen |
River
Registered user
Username: River
Post Number: 700
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 7:45 am: | |
As I read the autobiography of Joseph Bates, I was really taken with his sincerity, joining the merchant fleets as a cabin boy and suffering much at the hands of others and at the perils of a life at sea during those times.
Having been a student myself of sailing and having studied much about the early sailing ships I was able to understand the language of his biography.
His story of his life seemed truthful and unembellished. I believe he was an honest sincere man of faith and character.
At times he like all of us dealt with the question of his eternal salvation and I am sure he wrestled with question mightily having suffered so much through ship wrecks and many other incidences that nearly took his life.
As it seems history records that he was one of the earliest Adventist, some of the history states that his wife struggled at one time with his “new convictions” but apparently “came round” after some two years or so and it really belies the point of the power of the husband of strong conviction to lead a wife. Probably she was lead against her original instincts, how ever this is mostly, if not all, speculation on my part.
Having read his story which was very well written, every bit by his own hand or at least without the help of a shore dweller for the language used would trip up the assistance of someone not familiar with sailing ships and the Sea and a second hand writer would become readily become apparent because it would interrupt the flow of the biography.
Had Joseph Bates have been my acquaintance or shipmate would I have considered him a dependable friend to have? In all honesty I believe I would. The question is, why did he come to these convictions?
I believe the answer lays in this one problem, a mixing of the two covenants, as we consider Jesus statements in Mark 2:21 "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse.
Mark 2:22 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
In the context of this scripture Jesus was referring to the fasting of Johns disciples and in the very next verses Jesus is accused by the Pharisees of plucking grain to eat from the fields on Sabbath Jesus answer comes, Mark 2:27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."
I have studied about the scripture of Jesus answer about the wine skins and the context which was fasting. Was Jesus speaking of the old and new covenants? I honestly have never come to a good conclusion about that but I do believe it fits what I am attempting to say here.
The futility of mixing the old covenant with the new covenant, the old wineskin of the old covenant versus the new wine of the new covenant, the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
To me this graphically represents the condition produced when men try to mix the two covenants and it graphically represents most of Adventism.
This was where Joseph bates went wrong and where Adventist go wrong today for the most part although I cannot fit the IJ into any description, but for the most part it seems to me Adventism does graphically fit this description. The efforts to mix these covenants does not produce usable Bible doctrine but rather produces confusion and yes I will use the formers favorite word, cognitive dissonance.
Just as I feel that I have respect for Joseph Bates as a person I also have respect for many of my Adventist friends and would surely rather have them as friends than some of who call themselves my Christian brother humanly speaking.
But the problem and conclusion I have come to is I believe very simple, an effort by man to mix the two covenants, not withstanding other peculiar beliefs such as the IJ and state of the dead which themselves may stem from efforts to justify the mixing of the two covenants.
You see my cognitive dissonance has not been the result of living under Adventism but was created from loving the person and coming to hate the false doctrine the person is so obviously embroiled in.
I do not know if the “former” can understand that or not, sometimes I think not.
I just cannot see where one can profit by attempting to mix the two covenants and attempting then to live by that mix, its just crazy, like pouring new wine into old wineskins and neither the skin nor the wine is preserved.
The Adventist furiously trying to preserve what cannot be preserved because the old covenant has passed and the new covenant is in effect.
The wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined.
The headiness of the new wine that Jesus gives to drink is not to be compared, he has truly saved the best for last.
The Adventist does not seem able to partake because of their efforts to obtain the new wine with old wineskins. They say “Here, pour me some of that new wine, holding up the old wineskins which cannot possibly hold the new wine offered by our Lord and Savior.
River |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5755
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 10:53 pm: | |
River, that is profound. You are completely right about the wine and wineskins. I remember when I "heard" that wineskin passage without Adventist "glasses", and I was amazed. I realized that Jesus was talking about not putting the new covenant into the old. It's such a profound statement, and such an overwhelming realization once one "sees" it.
I believe I understand what you are describing when you say you love the Adventist but hate the false doctrine. The cognitive dissonance of wanting to retain a sense of connection and brotherhood but realizing that your worldviews are opposed is so disturbing.
Your struggle with Adventism, River, is slightly different from ours—and yet it is the same struggle. You're just struggling from a different "doorway" of the same building. The core deception is the same issue.
I'm glad you've become part of our fellowship, and I'm thankful for your support of us and grateful that we can also support you.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 783
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 12:37 am: | |
About the Stone-Campbell Movement... a friend sent me the following summary, along with a link where more can be read:
quote:The Restoration Movement (also called the Stone-Campbell movement) began in America around 1800 focused on the goal of restoring the church to the order and ideals pictured in the New Testament. The two primary concerns of the movement's founding fathers were:
The unity of all Christians based on scripture rather than the subjective concepts so prevalent in denominational Christianity. (John 17:20,21)
An uncompromising commitment to the Bible as God's inspired, authoritative Word and the Church's only rule for faith and practice.
They believed it was the various creeds and denominational structures that most divided Christians. The restoration pioneers believed that divided state of Christendom was the greatest hindrance to the church fulfilling its primary mission-the evangelism of the world.
The following slogans or mottoes were adopted by the Restoration Movement, and helped to capture the essence of what the Movement was about.
quote:"No creed but Christ!"
"The Bible is our only rule of faith and practice!"
"In essentials-unity, in opinions-liberty, in all things love."
"Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."
"Not the only Christians, but Christians only."
"Let us do Bible things in Bible ways, and call Bible things by Bible names."
This vision of a unified, undenominational church following the faith and pattern of the New Testament captured the imagination of thousands and became the fastest growing religious group of nineteenth century America.
Today, in all of her expressions, the Restoration movement remains the largest religious group indigenous to the United States. Today, over 6,000 independent autonomous congregations compose a loose knit worldwide "brotherhood" with about two million people in membership. Together, these congregations support over 1,500 missionaries, 35 Bible colleges, three seminaries and several hundred para-church organizations (publishing companies, benevolent agencies, youth organizations, campus ministries, etc.).
I think I'll retract what I said earlier, given a bit more information now. I don't know the early SDA's connections or what strange zones they went into, but "the Restoration Movement" seems orthodox and apparently not a factor in the laying of the heresies of the Adventist fathers' foundation.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/restor1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone-campbell_restoration_movement |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 5768
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 3:19 pm: | |
Notice what those statements of belief do NOT discuss:
Christ's blood shed for the remission of sins
The Trinity
The inerrancy of Scripture
It's one thing to SAY that the Bible is one's only rule of faith and practice—Adventists even say that. It's quite another to take it very seriously and consider it inerrant.
The Restoration movement divided, as the first link you give above, Ramone, mentions, into the Church of Christ (non-instrumental) and the Disciples of Christ. It also mentions that the Restoration Movement began as a rejection of the division of denominationalism, yet at the end of the page is accurately states that the Church of Christ (non-instrumental) is a "sectarian" movement.
Loneviking, are you out there? You could fill us in on the details of the CoC.
The Disciples of Christ are generally quite liberal and hold a liberal view of Scripture. The Restoration Movement was anti-Trinitarian. The links below explains Campbell's and Stone's views of the Trinity.
Further, Campbell also that Jesus died as a martyr, and Stone embraced the moral influence theory.
Groups can make awfully good-sounding, Bible-based claims about adhering only to the NT model of church, etc etc., but if they do NOT include Biblical statemetns about Christ's death, the nature/identity of God, and the reliability of Scripture, we have to assume they are not going to be examples of truth Christianity but rather of sectarian or even cultic--or liberal--groups.
http://www.piney.com/HsACTrin.html
http://www.piney.com/TrinityBStone.html
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 7:17 pm: | |
As a very conservative evangelical teacher in a congregation affilliated with the Diciples of Christ, I would say that evangelical ministers (ours) and conservative leaning congregations (ours) do exist within the DOC. However, my general impression is that they are few and far between.
Everything Colleen said above is true. Believe it! I could tell you two stories from personal experience that would just make your hair stand up on end.
Chris |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 9:17 pm: | |
I also attend a Christian church that is affiliated with CoC instrumental and non-denominational christian churches. I heard our pastor do a series when he first started about the DNA of our faith and each person in the trinity got a week and was very orthodox, along with the inerrancy of scripture, salvation and end time things. I get frustrated they acknowledge the stone-campbell history as I'd prefer they distance themselves, but at least they're honest about it. One of our pastors was telling a story about a non-instrumental CoC pastor that invited another pastor to pray in their church until he found he was from an instrumental CoC. He said he couldn't let an 'erring brother' pray in their church, to which our pastor said 'well, then, who is qualified to pray in that church?'. We don't hear many stories about specific denominations, but you'd only get the point if you understood the issue of instrumental/noninstrumental. Having grown up in a baptist background, I don't find the teaching liberal or conflicting with orthodox fundamentals. No, the belief statement is not highly detailed in our church, but I've heard the pastors teach enough and have been there long enough (10 years) to know they are very orthodox. They cover the politically correct topics Biblically, and do verse by verse scripture study. We just finished James, are doing 4 weeks on family (Ephesians) and then spending the remainder of the year in Joshua. It certainly has its weaknesses, but their goal is to be inline with scripture alone. That I cannot deny knowing.
One of our children's directors left our church to go to an Evangelical Free and when I was asking her about the differences in churches, she said they were very similar doctrinally and in leadership from her experience. But I can only speak to my own church experience. |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 785
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 11:05 pm: | |
interesting stuff, Colleen! goodness, goodness... |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 556
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hi Colleen! Yep, I check in from time to time. The CofC (non-instrumental) is generally quite orthodox. One point of contention between them and Evangelicals is over Baptism. CofC believes that Baptism is necessary for salvation and Evangelicals don't. There's several interesting threads arguing this over on CARM.
The CofC really have the teaching of New Covenant theology down very well. What is surprising is their lack of uniformity on the state of the dead and end time events. I've asked about this over on CARM and get responses from 'at death we rest', 'soul-sleep', to 'we go to be with the Lord.'
The lack of a uniform eschatology has resulted in quite a few congregations embracing pre-eterism. Others believe in some sort of a time of trouble (financial, spiritual and physical) just before Christ comes back.
What I find interesting is that the Stone-Cambell movement began as a move away from denominations. However, the CofC today is virtually a denomination due to their teaching that the CofC is the one true church along with their unwillingness to worship or fellowship with other Christians. They run in their own, closed circle |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 267
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 12:20 am: | |
Hi Loneviking--it's good to hear your perspective on CofC. It was through a CofC (non-instrumental, and very conservative) lady that I first began studying New Covenant Theology. You're right, they definitely have it down pat. And boy, do they know the book of Acts! In general, they are quite a "Bible Studying" church. It's one of the things that drew me (at that time, I had no idea that "Sunday-keepers" actually studied the Bible!). As I continued to study more with them, I began to discover many things that I couldn't agree with (like their belief on the necessity of baptism for salvation), but overall, I'm thankful for their influence at that particular time of my life.
I attended their church for a few months, grew very attached to several of the members of the congregation, and actually came very, very close to becoming a member. Looking back, I realize now that it would have been for all the wrong reasons. I was so "lost" and pretty much just floundering. I was desperate for a community that I could feel included in (and they kind of have that "one true church mentality" that is so comforting!), that was still familiar. In a lot of ways, with this particular congregation, it was so culturally "SDAish" (they are quite similar in a lot of ways) that it made the Saturday to Sunday transition a little easier, but yet it didn't fully meet my spiritual needs and fill that emptiness inside. I was still looking for a "Church" to meet that need for me. I was intellectually "getting there", but had a long way to go emotionally. At that time, I hadn't yet submitted my life fully to Jesus. It wasn't until that happened did I finally feel completeness in a way that no church (regardless of denomination) was able to do for me.
Boy, Loneviking, I would have loved to have discussed this with you back when I was in the midst of it (the particular CofC church I was involved with was very conservative, even by other CofC standards). They had very particular ideas about proper Christianity, and "what it looked like", etc. I was SO confused for so long. God had a definite plan for my life though, and in His sovereign will, through a series of crazy circumstances (which I couldn't understand at the time), He literally pried me away from the situation so I could see it for what it was. Shortly after, I started reading and posting on the forum, reading Dale's books, etc. But it was definitely the CofC that jump-started the whole New Covenant thing for me, which was just such a new concept for me. For that reason, there will always be a special place in my heart for my CofC friends (who I still keep in contact with--although, I think they are quite disappointed that I didn't end up joining their church).
So just curious, were you a member of the CofC or just know a lot about it? And if so, was this before or after Adventism? One thing about CofC (non-instrumental) is that they can sure sing! I have never heard an entire congregation sing in all the parts. When the congregation sings during song service, it's like a church choir!!
Grace |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 557
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 9:55 pm: | |
Grace, my dad was CofC and my mom was SDA. I was raised SDA, but my first stop out of Adventism was a very 'heretical' CofC in Springboro, OH. Except for vocal music and Baptism they would have been right at home in any E.V. Free church. Sadly, I haven't been able to find another group like them.
And yes, there is nothing like a CofC church that can sing. If you like vocal music like that, you should try a 'Sacred Harp' sing some time. The Sacred Harp is just one of several 'shaped note' songbooks out there. At a sing, sometimes up to a hundred folks get together(from all sorts of churches) to sing from this hymnal. Do a search on the web and you'll find several sources for these events.
Grace and peace to you |
|
