What great non-denom church do you recommend in the Dallas, Texas area? Watermark? Fellowship? (Plano: health insurance, house)

[robinmathew]

What great non-denom church do you recommend in the Dallas, Texas area?

I reside in Oaklawn/Uptown area of Dallas. I am hoping for something close by but am not opposed to a parish within a 15 mile radius of 75219.

I heard that Watermark and Fellowship were great churches to attend. What are your thoughts or suggestions?

Thank you!

[FarNorthDallas]

Watermark had some bizarre publicity with a lawsuit a few years ago that led me to believe it was a bit cult like.
News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060406dnmetnuwatermark.86c7c7d.html - broken link)

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Wow. That smacks of intolerance from the church.

[robinmathew]

I came across that article too. It has since changed my idea and opinion on the church and I agree with your comment. Any kind of media like that can never be good esp. for a church. I've since narrowed my search down to Trinity and Fellowship since my original post.

[wordstringer]

I attend Fellowship and find it to be a very grace-giving, diverse, community-minded church with folks of all ages. Feel free to direct messae me with any questions.

Originally Posted by FarNorthDallas

Watermark had some bizarre publicity with a lawsuit a few years ago that led me to believe it was a bit cult like.
News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060406dnmetnuwatermark.86c7c7d.html - broken link)

Interesting article, though IMO I didn't see any cultish or intolerant behavior only accountability. Is it intolerant to openly disagree with adultery? A lot of staff and lay leaders in DFW's Christian community partner on projects, missions, etc. and the way the story reads, sounds like all parties involved knew one another.

Some secular employers have moral clauses and I'm thinking even if it wasn't a church-related situation, notifying the adulteress' employer is not far-fetched. I'd have to say if I were Mrs. Doe, I'd want the other woman's employer to understand her moral compass. Just my two cents...

[debtex]

Originally Posted by wordstringer

Some secular employers have moral clauses and I'm thinking even if it wasn't a church-related situation, notifying the adulteress' employer is not far-fetched. I'd have to say if I were Mrs. Doe, I'd want the other woman's employer to understand her moral compass. Just my two cents...

Ho-kay. As an employer if I got a call about my employee's love life I would be annoyed with the caller, not the employee. Life drama belongs outside the workplace. That's pretty loony, even for Dallas.

[Saintmarks]

I certainly wouldn't write off Watermark because the media reported on a church discipline situation. Sounds like Watermark has done a good job of trying to follow biblical protocol in this case. The one thing I would question (and would never base final judgment based on what a newspaper article claims) is how far the church pushed the adulterous man on his signed commitment after he withdrew his membership from the church. At that point, the actions did (regretfully) what the new testament gives as an option: Either the positive choice of repentance and reconciliation or the more negative choice of disfellowship. Once that has happened and the man makes his choice, their focus should be to the wife left behind and their care and support of her.

From the article the church went above and beyond by keeping names anonymous and limiting the discipline to only those involved in the inner circle so to speak and not bringing this up to the larger membership as a whole. This became public knowledge when the adulterous people chose to take this into the legal arena. The church didn't do that.

There are plenty of churches that will subscribe to a more relativistic moral compass in such matters for those that hold such views. I applaud that there are still churches in America who are more interested in being biblically based than allowing 21st century American values (or lack thereof)dictate how they conduct internal disputes.

[jaime_mac]

Which Fellowship are you talking about? There is one off of Park Ln and 75 behind Best Buy and then there is one downtown off of Ross Ave. They are two totally separate churches, however the Fellowship downtown on Ross has several locations, one in Grapevine, I believe on in Plano, Allaso Ranch and Miami.

I've been to the one off of Ross Ave and it's great! The people are amazing and very welcoming to new comers.

[shimie05]

THe Potters House is non-denominational and I think IBOC is also the same.

[TurtleCreek80]

Northwest Bible and Irving Bible are also two great non-denom churches in town.

Watermark is very strange. I have a ton of friends who go there and absolutely love it, but I am very uncomfortable with the church's take on "accountability". Members must agree to be placed in accountability groups, where you are expected to truthfully lay out all details of your life and follow the group's rules (based on church leadership). Some true examples:
1. A men's group comprised of single men in their 30s must discuss all purchases over $500 with their small group. Yes, a vacation, a house, an engagement ring, sofa, tv, new suit, etc. all must be "prayed over" before you can/ can't make the purchase.

2. Young single women are often counseled to break up with men for whom they "can't control their passion" and are having trouble sticking to the agreed upon boundary of kissing. Yes, let's encourage women to find men they are not that attracted to because that's a recipe for a successful marriage!

3. There is one group where a single female member has cancer and her group has been tasked with personally financially supporting this woman's living expenses and medical care since she is unable to work and did not have health insurance. This group of 6-8 women each write the cancer girl a check for over $500/mo to support her, while the Watermark Church itself gives $0. This is plain wrong for a church to place a mandatory $6,000 annual burden on one small group of single working women.