Are 'Celebration SDA Churches', new path to God, or away from truth?

[B/W Photodude]

48 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

As I read this thread, I see a debate on how SDA's should conduct their services.  I hope this isn't off topic; but is salvation about being the right kind of Adventist, or having a right relationship with Christ?

I suspicion that how you conduct your service reflects what kind of relationship you have. Having an "in your face" attitude or a disrespect for long time members of a church shows a lot. If you need something different for your itching ears, start your own church, or pick from the more than 1000 other Christian denominations! 

[CoAspen]

Quote

 Perhaps "long time members" are the culprits tearing down the church and refusing entrance to all those for whom. Jesus waits with open arms.

[CoAspen]

I would think it is more than a 'perhaps'....what is it so many of the 'guardians of the truth' blogs, web sites, and forums are doing?

[JoeMo]

17 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

I suspicion that how you conduct your service reflects what kind of relationship you have. Having an "in your face" attitude or a disrespect for long time members of a church shows a lot. If you need something different for your itching ears, start your own church, or pick from the more than 1000 other Christian denominations! 

FYI, I attend a comparatively conservative SDA Church with traditional or respectful, worshipful contemporary music.  No dancing or falling on the floor or speaking in tongues in public worship.  I have no idea what people do in their private worship.  I went the charismatic route for a while and really enjoyed the enthusiasm, but didn't care for the doctrinal "slippage" and the total avoidance of discussion on apocryphal events (which are very important to me at this place in time).

On the other hand, I respect the right and liberty of others to seek the Lord as they see fit.  There are many things that I believe that people of other denominations don't believe (e.g., the sacredness of Sabbath).  But that doesn't mean that I'm saved and they're gonna burn.  Also, there are many intra- and interdenominational disagreements over things that are completely non-salvational as far as I'm concerned. This is one of them.

[B/W Photodude]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

It could just reflect personality and cultural differences as well it could reflect the "stiff neckers" that have been there for 30 years. They don't like the verse that says "if anyone is in Christ...ALL THINGS become new"  Perhaps "long time members" are the culprits tearing down the church and refusing entrance to all those for whom. Jesus waits with open arms.  According to Rev 3 Jesus knocks on every door. The "long term ones" are locking each one right behind their Lord...which is Lord Long Term??

I tend to think we over emphasize that "love" stuff and welcoming everyone with open arms. I also think that if some of the Adventists of today were standing in the Temple when Antiochus IV brought the pig into the temple and sacrificed it there, they would be accepted fearing that their feelings would be hurt rather than defend the Temple.

When I read my Bible, kings of the Old Testament times, as often as they had good kings, would tear down the idols and temples to the heathen gods and even turn their "houses of worship" into latrines in order to desecrate them. Elijah did not show any love to the priests of Baal when somewhere around 400 hundred of them were slain.

So, I will stick by my assertion that the "celebrationists" are rude (at a minimum) when they take over a church, disrupt whatever harmony was there, and then be off somewhere else when the church fails. I find it heartbreaking when I see the faithful who have worked for years to build up their church see it destroyed. I also know that these things are somewhat to be expected since our foe has only one goal and to do that very thing, but still it is sad.

[GayatfootofCross]

I know our church is all about correct theology.

People are always more important than theologies and/or institutions.

 

Jesus calls Himself the Truth ..That's what we seek and know.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have just discovered that the opening post of this thread was copied directly from a post made in another forum and posted there by one posting under another name.

This copy and paste is as blatant violation of the rules of this forum.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

36 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I have just discovered that the opening post of this thread was copied directly from a post made in another forum and posted there by one posting under another name.

This copy and paste is as blatant violation of the rules of this forum.

lol ... Hobie's 2nd post here was also a direct copy/paste from his alter ego, Richard, in the other forum...  

[GayatfootofCross]

 There is rules here I find out only after I break them.

Since I first walked in

Still cant find thee Rules!

but i did find thee guild lines

https://adventistan.com/forums/guidelines/

[Kevin H]

I've been wanting to make some comments here but have not had the time that I thought would be fair, so I will try a "Standing on one leg" answer. Then there is another direction on this which I feel is more urgent to address and I will do that below.

Anyway, so called "celebration" churches are not one group. The post have lumped them all together. I've attended a few including in Milwaukee Oregon and Colton California. They were as different as day and night. And I have read balanced articles about others from people who I respect.

What the "Celebration" churches have in common is that they do not follow the traditional 1700/1800 Methodist model of worship, but are willing to try other forms. Milwaukee had a style that was very culturally Christian. I don't see it attracting people who were not into a very sticky sweet Jesusiee type of religion.  Having lived in Israel and had a couple of former girlfriends who were Israeli and one who was a Christian Arab from Bethlehem, if I did marry any of them (or had them come to visit) I would not have taken them to that church. But yet there are Christians who it appeals to. The big problem I saw with that church was that they were so close to "Hope International" in Washington that the "Hope International" people would accuse that church of this that and the other thing. For example a Baptist church in the area who they once rented from was on a Saturday holding a car wash. It was to raise money for a boy in Portland who had cancer. By the way the boy was a Seventh-day Adventist. Even thought it was not the Seventh-day Adventist church having that carwash, the people from Hope International accused them of sponsoring it. This persecution is what destroyed that church.

Now the Colton church was not nearly as sticky sweet Jesusiee. They had a service which was  not the traditional Methodist service but they worked on getting people into small groups. Many of these small groups were VERY conservative and VERY traditional. They were reaching out to people who had left the church, or were on the verge of leaving, giving them something to hold on to and discipline them into the small groups which as I said were steps to becoming more conservative and traditional Adventists. But because they had the title of being a "Celebration" church once again it was attacked by those who love to give an empty criticism.

So with other "Celebration"  churches. Some are very conservative, others more moderate, and yes others who are liberal.  Some I'd strongly disagree with, others I can embrace, some I'd not get too excited about but can live with. The only thing that they have in common is that they are open to follow other methods than the traditional Methodist service.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

59 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

and why is that so *lol*  Another mystical *rule* broken...

sorry, Wanderer, that my sense of humor is lost on you... I'll try to keep my amusement to myself, so as not to cause anyone the vapors..

[Kevin H]

On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:45 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Actually, ... I will go to any website I want! There seems to be a major divide in the church along with a lot of little ones. I tend to agree with the side of the divide that Kirkpatrick's website falls on (or used to). As I have noted before here, even ChristianForums <https://www.christianforums.com> divides Adventists up into two groups, progressive and traditional. They even move posts that ended up on the wrong forum back to where it belongs. Never shall the two come together! And on that forum as well as the church in real life, that seems to be the case. However, the Bible clearly advocates unity. You cannot have the mind of Christ and also have the wide spread dissension and divide that we have. So, somewhere, sometime it is going to get even more divisive than it already is. As one person says, "Where there is no love, hatred will soon follow."

None (or very few) of the authors of books I read could be considered a progressive. I find many of the things being done by progressives to be very unsettling. For instance, I know of one church which has a pastor that tells his congregation that he and the conference want to move the church in a different direction. Members of the church are being kicked out by him and are now driving ~50 miles to another church. He usually has something critical to say about the way Adventists are. And when you have conference officials pushing the progressive agenda, deny churches the right to have someone from the more traditional background come to their church to speak, seems to me that Satan is getting his way. (Doug Batcheler was denied the ability to have a series of meetings in the Florida Conference and lately Stephen Bohr has been denied a speaking engagement in South Caroline. The "snowflakes" and their safe spaces!)

People such as Elder Kirkpatrick are using fearmongering by nicely dividing Adventism into two groups. Of course these two groups are the one that he belongs to and the other is an extreme, basically the views by people such as Desmond Ford. They offer people a false choice of "will you join faithful us or those horrible sinners?"

Seventh-day Adventism has always had  a wide spectrum of beliefs (Not so much after the horrible 1922 General Conference where two groups united in witch hunting the anti-fundamentalists, but they are horrified that we are returning to pre-1922 Adventism.) Some of us have been more Lutheran others more Methodist, and of course a number who think that we have to prove to the world that we are good Baptists.

The sub group that people like Elder Kirkpatrick and Elder Bohr belong to can afford to be lazy by offering people a choice to either join good faithful them or the rest of us who are horrible Fordites. Most Seventh-day Adventists for different reasons are equally uncomfortable with both people like Kirkpatrick and Bohr and equally uncomfortable with Ford. We do NOT fit nicely into one camp or the other.

While the Kirkpatrick's and Bohr's of today have clarified the "Them" that all the rest of us supposedly fit under 100%, the view that they represent has had a long history of an "Us against Them" mentality and trying to scare people into joining with them.

I have read many letters between Mrs. White and Willie to the pastors who's theology Elder Kirkpatrick and Bohr are reflectors of. The Whites accused them of not understanding Mrs. White's message despite their massive quoting of her works. Mrs. White and Willie accused them of thus misrepresenting Mrs. White and quoting her words to try to give a divine approval to THEIR theology that she and Willie disagreed with. They of course wrote to Mrs. White saying that she has had her mind poisoned against them by people trying to sneak this new theology into the church and that if her mind was not poisoned by this new theology she would see that they are the only ones who are truly giving her true message. I have also read pamphlets that I have not seen as authored by these ministers, but by their followers. They accused Mrs. White of apostasy, saying that she no longer believes that she is a true prophet (because of her disagreement with Fundamentalism). There was speculation that either a Jesuit had gotten into her inner circle, or that she herself has turned into a Jesuit spy out to change the theology of the church, and that if our members did not want to become deceived that they should not read Mrs. White directly, especially her polluted writings after 1888 but to read how she was quoted by these other pastors. That they share her message that she got from God and not these new apostate messages.

[CoAspen]

Those that would be king, is what often comes to mind when reading or hearing from people and sites that claim to have the 'only' truth or the pure truth or, etc, etc......

[B/W Photodude]

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

People such as Elder Kirkpatrick are using fearmongering by nicely dividing Adventism into two groups ...

The sub group that people like Elder Kirkpatrick and Elder Bohr belong to can afford to be lazy ...

While the Kirkpatrick's and Bohr's of today ...

I have read many letters between Mrs. White and Willie to the pastors who's theology Elder Kirkpatrick and Bohr are reflectors of ...

With all due respect, I see many instances where someone is criticized, but no examples are provided. This happens a lot where a certain speaker and even EGW gets criticized and NO examples of just what they are doing wrong except that they are fear mongering, plagerizing, or any number of "crimes" against "the other" group. Sorry, but some of the speakers I hear get criticized are speaking pretty much the same thing I have heard many Adventist preach all my life and I was listening to them before Bohr, Kirkpatrick, or any number of other speakers who are not part of "progressive Adventism."

[B/W Photodude]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

With all due respect you have done this too. I note above where you said "we sometimes over do it with all this love and welcoming stuff...and you never provided a single example or shred of proof. So tell us?  which church actually does that and what does over doing the love look like?

Some of the specific things here in the past that come into mind are: one person said when a new member/visitor comes to a potluck, we should just eat the meat dish they bring so as to not hurt any feelings, there have been well publicized events where LGBTQetc have been baptized and/or made into church officers and if you don't accept it you are "unloving" and not being like Jesus, people are continuously told that God didn't make the earth in six days and it is acceptable to believe in creation taking place over long periods of time, we even get told things like not to worry because it is impossible to be overcomers and we will be able to sin right up until Jesus comes, and even distortions of the names of individuals in the New Testament are made to try and prove that women were elders in the NT church, and so on and so on .... enough? It really is not loving to deceive people into beliefs that could cost them their eternal lives.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

one person said when a new member/visitor comes to a potluck, we should just eat the meat dish they bring so as to not hurt any feelings

yeah, I guess should just make certain that person should feel as embarrassed as possible and "not-as-good-as" the vegetarians in our midsts, because, you know, those who eat meat won't go to heaven...

 

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

where LGBTQ etc have been baptized ....

....not loving to deceive people into beliefs that could cost them their eternal lives

so... no one who is LGBTQ should be baptized because that could cost them eternal life?  They should remain unbaptized?  Or is it that no LGBTQ person will gain eternal life, no matter if they're baptized or not?  (Sadly, that *does* seem to be what many believe.... )

 

NOTE:  I understand the above illustrations by Photodude were just given as examples as requested.... and aren't really the topic for this thread....so I probably shouldn't have even commented.  But I did.  Alas, I emerge from one disaster to fall into a worse. ~ Pierre Corneille     ...C'est la vie. 

[CoAspen]

My learned def. of a celebration church, when they first started, was one where they no longer sang traditional  hymns or dared to have music with other than piano or organ. So..yeah..there are many def. of such.

But now, I just pass it off as being used by people to say, it ain't my way! Labels...a real pain in the southern region....and not country wise!!

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Somebody has to do some explaining. No one seems to really know what a "Celebration Church" is or where said denomination is hiding their head quarters. Sounds to me like systematic disparagement of anyone who does not "agree" with the people like LK who prides himself with special knowledge and discernment and has created an entire movement based upon a very discriminatory, spiteful, and even hateful practices against ANY that dare not side with them. Intentionally, and publicly smearing people, based upon their ideology is called what? Lets sing it together now....

I think you could leave LK alone now as it seems you are also smearing him. Thanks to your "Crying Larry" name calling, I just got to listen to two hours of his sermons and very much enjoyed them and saw nothing of what you are claiming him to be. (I have read a book of his and read from his website, just hadn't gotten around to his sermons on video. Perhaps someone standing up to speak should have no knowledge of what they are talking about, but then even you wouldn't listen to that. (I don't think)

The previously mentioned church destruction I described very much went just like that as described in the quoted material. In the church I was attending, a group of members went to Oregon from the US Southwest to visit a celebration church approx the year 1990. When they return, everything was changed and this rest is history.

Under the former celebration plan, when a regular Adventist church was switched over to the celebration pattern by its pastor, faithful believers became upset and tended to leave. The new people coming in believed and practiced no standards; they gave little in tithes and offerings. The older ones who were leaving were taking their donations with them. Church leaders discovered that they were losing rather than gaining.

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.sdadefend.com/Defend-foundation/Gladden's-church.htm

I suppose the term "celebration church" could mean different things to different people.

[B/W Photodude]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

3/ Two women were the very first appointees in the post-resurrection church...by angels no less!

NOTE: I called them "appointees" because some do not like the word woman and ordination in the same sentence

Really? Just because the first two women were given a certain task to do by Jesus that means they were ordained ministers?!

There are places in Scripture where someone decided they should be what they were not chosen to do and suffered Divine penalties for their presumption. Just ask Uzziah the King who was so impressed with himself that he decided to do things that only priests should do and immediately became a leper for the balance of his life. He even had to go live in a "several house". ("several house" was another KJV term which sent me off looking for what it really meant!).

If ordination was really intended, do you not think that the vacancy created by the late Judas Iscariot could have been filled by a woman. Were not women in the upper room who could have been part of the whole "original WO effort"?

[B/W Photodude]

3 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

yeah, I guess should just make certain that person should feel as embarrassed as possible and "not-as-good-as" the vegetarians in our midsts, because, you know, those who eat meat won't go to heaven...

so... no one who is LGBTQ should be baptized because that could cost them eternal life?  They should remain unbaptized?  Or is it that no LGBTQ person will gain eternal life, no matter if they're baptized or not?  (Sadly, that *does* seem to be what many believe.... )

Maintaining a certain standard can be done without embarrassing someone. There are certain things such as tact that a Christian can use in these situations. I personally find eating meat to be disgusting and repulsive. But in one potluck, I discovered the food I was eating to have sausage in it. While many apparently wouldn't be upset, I would bet anyone that I can find a food somewhere in the world that many eat that they would be equally disgusted to find they were eating. People have many reasons to not eat meat and I just find it very difficult to eat an animal that humans were given to care for. It one time was alive. (And yes, I am aware that people ate lamb on instruction, but unfortunately, they did not learn the lessons that they should have.) I don't like to think that going to potluck is no longer an option because there is no concern for the others at the potluck. It used to be that you could trust that the food at a potluck was going to be vegetarian, but now, not really. If I were visiting a house of worship of another faith, I would hope no one would tolerate something I did that bothered them because they were afraid I would be embarrassed or worse yet, eternally lost. 

It seems only lately that the idea is that you should baptize anyone even if they are practicing something that is unacceptable biblically because they would be "lost" if they are not baptized. If that is the case, I suspect that the person has not been properly instructed prior and given the opportunity to "count the cost" of membership. This isn't a situation where the Roman general marched his troops thru a river and counted them baptized.

[Gregory Matthews]

I note that several people have posted in this forum that the liberals (celebration church people and other such) do not financially support the church program.

In my experience and I am thinking of several cases, they financially support the voted program and I have seen them raise thousands of dollars (In one such case, $40,000.) in a very short period of time.

I also note the number of comments that have been made as to pastors who "forced" their views on congregations.  In a few cases that might be true.  but, in my thinking such would be the exception.  It also should be noted that every time there is a pastoral change, some members will not agree with something about the new pastor and they join other congregations if possible.

The following, in my opinion, is what typically happens with a pastoral change:

*  With the departure of a pastor and the need for a new pastor, the congregation is asked to consider what has been going well, what needs to be changed and to formulated an updated mission statement ass to what the congregation would like to be their focus in the  near future.  E.G.  A congregation who is located near a public university might want to have as their mission the continued, or new, mission of spiritually supporting university students.  Another congregation with a membership that largely drove in from other areas might  want to focus on reaching local people in their community, while a congregation that was largely unknown in the community might want to focus in programs in the community that resulted in the congregation becoming known as a constructive community member.  NOTE:  All of that I have  mentioned come from actual decisions made by a SDA congregation and included evangelism of people.

*  With the above in mind. a process would take place where potential candidates for the new pastoral position would visit the congregation.  There a dialogue would take place where the pastoral candidate would come to understand the  intended focus of the congregation and the candidate would share there perspective as to what they wanted to accomplish and  what they considered their skills to be as to  the intended focus of the congregation.  E.G. The candidate might share their experience in working with university students or perhaps in working with the homeless.   

*  At tis point, the congregation decides whether to invite the candidate and if invited, the candidate decides whether or not to accept.

I have experienced the above to a greater or a lessor extent take place with a pastoral change.  Yes, with each change, there may be some differences.  But, if the congregation really wants to be involved, that will happen and the Conference will not force a bad choice on a congregation.  In some cases it may take some time for the congregation go get a good pastoral fit.  But, that is much better than the option of getting a pastor that simply is not going to work out.

But, this is just the first step.  Once the new pastor has arrived, that pastor is going to have to initiate a program that is centered on the congregational mission.  In this process there will likely be some who will transfer membership both in and out.  E.G. I am thinking of a congregation that wanted to focus on university students. With that focus, some members transferred out and new members transferred in. 

 *  With the established focus on congregational mission leadership positions will be established and people selected for those position who have the skills to work in those areas.  Some members will not agree with those decisions. 

*  The congregation will need to make decisions as to how to accommodate the various groups within the membership and their spiritual needs.

Sometimes tough decision will have to be made.  I am personally aware of a number of times where a pastor has needed to say to a person:  You are welcome to have your own Sabbath School class that you conduct as you wish with members who   want to join your class.  But, this is the mission upon which the congregation has decided to focus.  As you do not agree with that direction, you cannot serve in certain specific leadership positons.  Sometimes the Conference has to get directly involved.

NOTE:   I fully expect that I will be challenged by some on what I have stated above and I will be told that the above in not the way that it works.  Perhaps?  But, that may be because the local congregation is not involved enough work with the Conference to put in place what the congregation wants.  The bottom line is that the local congregation, in this day and age, is more powerful than some might think.

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would definitely agree with this statement. I studied his web site several times over the years, and its hard to resist a tall glass of ENO after a visit there. Jesus spent quite a bit of energy opposing the "traditional" type in the church of His day, and He made a point of dining with "sinners" whom the "traditionals" kick out of the church every chance they get. ... This thread is just a turkey-shoot.

What I have seen is that people are being led to believe they are saved in their sins. Jesus did not teach that. I find it to be a serious belief that will take some to perdition.

While it is true that Jesus had harsh words to say, which is what it sounds like to me, but he also wept sometimes saying them. Unfortunately, there are very visible sins that everyone can point to in a persons life and there are very private hidden sins which are even more devastating to the soul. Pride is a far more deadly sin than some forms of immorality. However, Jesus spoke to all sin. Even his mission was to save people from their sins. 

 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21
 
I have seen nothing which suggests that remaining in sin is acceptable or necessary for a follower of Jesus. He promised to save. Mary is often thrown out as an example of the tender care of Jesus. However, while he stated he did not condemn her, he also encouraged her to sin no more. 

... And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:11 

The blind man when healed was encouraged to not sin any more and it even came with a warning.

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. John 5:14

This blindness to clearly stated Biblical principles was very clearly described in Matthew.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:14-15

Jesus noted that if they could hear and be converted, then he would heal them!

Even peter preached a turning from sin before baptism with repentance coming first.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Word study:
Repentance is the activity of reviewing one's actions and feeling contrition or regret for past wrongs, which is accompanied by commitment to change for the better. 

Remission:
•the cancellation of a debt, charge, or penalty.
•forgiveness of sins.

Jesus asked if there would be any faith on earth when he returned. I suspect part of his meaning was, would anyone believe I can save them from sin?

[Kevin H]

I use to be active on a website where Larry Kirkpatrick was also very active. I would often quote his posts and make comments. While he would respond to others he consistently ignored my comments. He was true to the trend that I have found among the followers of that branch of Adventism: telling us that there are only two choices, their view or Desmond Ford's view. They ignore and want to pretend that all other viewpoints in the church.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Somebody has to do some explaining. No one seems to really know what a "Celebration Church" is

A celebration church is one that is more liberal and open than your church; and an "historic" SDA church is one that is more conservative than your church.  It's pretty subjective IMHO.

[GayatfootofCross]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Somebody has to do some explaining. No one seems to really know what a "Celebration Church" is

Yes!

There was this cassette tape passed around our church members in the 80's(?)/90's that warned the lil flock to beware of Celebration Churches and it mentioned that if the Worship Service had the lil children run (or walk fast?) up to the pulpit or altar and yell "Safe!" ..that was a bad sign and go elsewhere.

uhhhh...

..................................

I grew up in a very ultra uber super conservative SDA rural church and that seems like forever  my jumping off point when I approach things for many years. But My non SDA  bio family were not religious and in fact ..super duper humdinger hedonistic anything goes liberals.
Welcome to my world.

Always both in my head.

Love wins!

As I explore God's Love for us and His infinite Beauty.  A love that sends His Son and a Love that brings us Home..I see how things can be handled on such matters as these.

     Regarding Conservative/Traditional and Liberal/Progressive camps and everything in between and out on the fringes in the same congregation .It is interesting that Paul in many places tell us to love each other and be kind to each other. over and over again. and to greet even each other with a Holy Kiss (i'm still waiting)
We have the privileged of JESUS CHRIST living in us and  as Paul shares in Phil 4:8 ..To look upon each other with the best thoughts. Whatsoever is lovely and good and pure- think on these things about each other. Let That Sink In.

To look upon each other with the best thoughts. Whatsoever is lovely and good and pure- think on these things about each other

.
     We will never agree on everything and the conscience cannot be forced. And we are also not convicted on the same things exactly.
Hyveth Williams is convicted to wear a hat to church. Most saintly Ladies I know have no such convictions (even when shown scriptures!)
Whatever the issue is regarding how we live we all see things differently. All Putting forth scriptures or explaining it away. All to be respected.
     Love as exemplified in the Holy Decalogue  is written on stone is the most important.. Everything else regarding life choices or  music or whatever (fashion) is done in faith.
I am sure there are some here who used to think something was a sin then found out it's not or used to think something wasn't a sin then found out it is. oh Mercy!
Wherever they are at in their growth and understanding we ascribe worth and dignity to each other.We are not called to lord over each other but simply to love and to love on.
 uhhh.. Not a sissy mambie pambie love (though i do love sissies). But a supernatural  love. A love that doesn't try to force their way unto others and keeps no record of ills done to them.(1 Cor 13 for a full list of how God is with us) But always forgiving. The very way we are treated and loved by Christ is the only way to treat others in church.
This love that we manifest toward one another thru Holy Spirit... softens and heals all the hearts toward righteousness.
To lesson the grip on some issues  and/or become more mindful of others delicate sensibilities.
I myself grew up in a very traditional quiet reverent soft calm carefully scheduled worship experience and not sure what i might do if found in a celebration church. I might have to put in earplugs and look quite stiff or would I be  swaying back and forth  banging on my green tambourine! uhh ..If i had a green tambourine and keeping my sturdy earplugs in.

Ultimately it is God who works on our All our hearts. We trust God to be our God and God be their God.