|
Post by ilylo on Jan 2, 2009 22:49:42 GMT -5
Holding up a mirror so you can see your hypocrisy. Nope you need it more than any one else on the board I'd be careful if I were you looks like that would break any mirror. Now will you stop your hypocrisy, empty the can go get washed so you can see straight, think clearly and simply answer the questions? According to you, of course. Why would I expect anything else from a religious bigot?
|
|
|
Post by september on Jan 3, 2009 7:02:38 GMT -5
1) Eddie didn't leave, he was booted out. Fact. He didn't so much go wherever the notion took him but where he felt the Spirit was leading and guiding. ~~~ From what I read of Eddie in his last days as 2x2 worker he was going the same direction as William Irvine's last days.... He was doing his own things! NOT Spirit lead. He wanted to be one man shows.... went down the same path as WI did. Hardly anyone could tell him what to do at the end.Yes, you READ about EC. I know a great many people that KNEW him, not just met him or read about him. Their account differs from what you read. 2) It was argued very reasonably at the time that a worker sitting in some room somewhere in March couldn't very well ascertain where there might be a seeking soul in the following Decemeber and so EC thought it best to pray and be guided by the Spirit. The reality is, if the workers couldn't trust in the guidance of the Spirit, then some sort of organisation was required hence the worker's lists, placing pairs in different fields. ~~~ If Eddie was guided by the Spirit his slinter group should NOT be dying out right now. He turned out to be another WI. How can one say that EC was not guided by the Spirit? Surely it is possible that EC's interpretation could be the correct one, that EC's followers are suffering a falling away that has nothing to do with not having Spirit guide them. And couldn't it be said that the fellowship is dying out too? I know where I live, there was at one time perhaps 50 families; now there are 5. On what basis do you say that EC was just another WI? 3) As for WI's temperment - many of the other workers and elders were terrified of him. He had a pretty violent temper although he did have a dog that used to sit under his seat on the platform at convention so I sometimes think that maybe he had a few good points too. ~~~ I believe WI had Bi-polar, very moody, very manipulative, intelligent, unpredictable,.... the signs were all there.I didn't argue that he didn't, I was merely adding an anecdote from my grandmother.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 9:47:29 GMT -5
September - I notice a dog in more than one of my photos of WmI. Did his dog stay with someone, or did he take it with him on the road when he was in Ireland? Do you know?
|
|
|
Post by september on Jan 3, 2009 10:28:43 GMT -5
September - I notice a dog in more than one of my photos of WmI. Did his dog stay with someone, or did he take it with him on the road when he was in Ireland? Do you know? From what I was told, the dog went everywhere with him - at least in Ireland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 10:42:56 GMT -5
The early writings about the fellowship indicate that the 2x2 ministry was not spontaneous, but rather coalesced around Irvine and shortly later, Cooney. We know that Irvine very specifically recruited Cooney, and got Cooney's acceptance after midnight one night. There are no records of how he recruited early workers such as Walker and Carroll, but there are stories of the early few years where the tested meeting meant joining the group and going out in the work, or attending a local mainstream church. There was no specific 2x2 laity until some time after 1900. So it was through the gospel meetings that the ministry recruitment occurred. I would expect that Irvine and the other early recruiters spoke at length privately to persuade those who identified themselves as candidates. I personally don't find it difficult to picture how the early recruitment of workers developed, but clearly the older ones (Irvine, Cooney, and Gill??) were the leaders of the young ones who were hardly adults at the time.
Siwells, your contention that Irvine took leadership by force is not accurate according to the John Long Journal I believe. According to that account, when the early workers first elected an overseer, Irvine was reticent to accept the post, so it was effectively foisted upon him. His older age, his talented speaking ability and his strong character made him the natural choice for the first elected leader.
As for the legitimacy of Cooney's ministry after he was excommunicated for (mainly) his practice of being Spirit-led, Nathan's argument of the minimal continuation of the Cooneyites being proof of his illegitimate ministry is tenuous at best. We understand today that another of Cooney's concerns that caused his excommunication was his change of heart over the exclusivity issue. From what I understand of Cooney's activities post 2x2 is that he wasn't interested in starting another new little kingdom like the 2x2 kingdom. We'll never know what his preaching led to since it wasn't focused on creating a new Cooneyite sect. If someone has read it differently from the Dr Roberts books, I stand to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 13:06:19 GMT -5
The early writings about the fellowship indicate that the 2x2 ministry was not spontaneous, but rather coalesced around Irvine and shortly later, Cooney. We know that Irvine very specifically recruited Cooney, and got Cooney's acceptance after midnight one night. There are no records of how he recruited early workers such as Walker and Carroll, but there are stories of the early few years where the tested meeting meant joining the group and going out in the work, or attending a local mainstream church. There was no specific 2x2 laity until some time after 1900. So it was through the gospel meetings that the ministry recruitment occurred. I would expect that Irvine and the other early recruiters spoke at length privately to persuade those who identified themselves as candidates. I personally don't find it difficult to picture how the early recruitment of workers developed, but clearly the older ones (Irvine, Cooney, and Gill??) were the leaders of the young ones who were hardly adults at the time. Siwells, your contention that Irvine took leadership by force is not accurate according to the John Long Journal I believe. According to that account, when the early workers first elected an overseer, Irvine was reticent to accept the post, so it was effectively foisted upon him. His older age, his talented speaking ability and his strong character made him the natural choice for the first elected leader. As for the legitimacy of Cooney's ministry after he was excommunicated for (mainly) his practice of being Spirit-led, Nathan's argument of the minimal continuation of the Cooneyites being proof of his illegitimate ministry is tenuous at best. We understand today that another of Cooney's concerns that caused his excommunication was his change of heart over the exclusivity issue. From what I understand of Cooney's activities post 2x2 is that he wasn't interested in starting another new little kingdom like the 2x2 kingdom. We'll never know what his preaching led to since it wasn't focused on creating a new Cooneyite sect. If someone has read it differently from the Dr Roberts books, I stand to be corrected. I did not mean "by force" to indicate violenced as much as "by force" because of his personality! And that was to include how he excommunicated JOhn Long. However, the Corneilus Jaenen book "Apostles Doctrine" contains actual manuscript "approved" by more then one worker who was there in the beginning of the work in 1897! I think perhaps he puts a whole different light then John Long's letters do because he is writing it from nothing more then a historical accounting whereas John Long's letter is written with great tears and sorrow, which of course, are valid and factual from "his" point of view. But after his excommunication and no telling how long before that he would not have been privy to some details of the workers who actually continued even past the days of Ed Cooney. It is my understanding that Ed's leaving the other workers was a more or less mutual decision and it had to do with his stance that he was going to go whereever thought led him regardless if there was already 2 or more workers already there! The intention of the workers at that given time was to spread the workers out over a certain terriotry and of course, be led by the spirit within that set terriotory...now we're talking about a sizeable amount of workers at that time and it isn't conducive to even working with a companion if one is just going to go whereever thought sends them, is it? What about what thought has said to the companion? It is peaceable working that way. The complaints of this board have been rife with strong headedness within the workers and the way they control others, that is the very issue the majority of the workers tried to control back in WI's day with his "forceful" personaltity and ways and with EC's stay of mind to just go whereever he so well pleased regardless of where other workers might already be.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 3, 2009 13:21:58 GMT -5
George Walker met this and was a part of it months before he met workers. As far as John Long, it seems he was disappointed he didn't get more place. Which he felt he deserved. That's why he took such great pains to tell his pedigree.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 13:33:50 GMT -5
George Walker met this and was a part of it months before he met workers. As far as John Long, it seems he was disappointed he didn't get more place. Which he felt he deserved. That's why he took such great pains to tell his pedigree. I agree, Lin, it is just common horse sense reasoning that John Long's history with the 2X2's stopped actually before the excommunication that WI so rudely did before the whole lot! One cannot feel a great deal of compassion for JL's portion but also one has to admit that anything told AFTER that part was perhaps only partially truthful if at all. JL would not have been privy to a lot of the inner workings of the work at that given time or thereafter!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 16:26:29 GMT -5
Right, fs! WI gives a lot of immoral reason to persecute the truth's fellowship when all the workers did their best to rid themselves of his immorality before it became a real problem!
|
|
Pink
Senior Member
Posts: 411
|
Post by Pink on Jan 3, 2009 16:34:08 GMT -5
The title of this thread is "How head workers should handle the FOUNDER issue". They should just 'fess up. Confession is good for the soul, you know?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 16:51:53 GMT -5
si wells wrote:
I have two questions for you Sharon. Could you please tell me:
(1) What page of Dr. J's book is this "actual manuscript approved by more than one worker?" (I have Dr. J's book and am unable to find such in it) Who wrote the manuscript?
(2) What early worker approved it?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 16:54:08 GMT -5
George Walker met this and was a part of it months before he met workers. As far as John Long, it seems he was disappointed he didn't get more place. Which he felt he deserved. That's why he took such great pains to tell his pedigree. Lin - could you please explain more about how GW was a part of the workers group before he met any workers? I'm not following how this could work...I must be missing something. Lin, could you point me to the exact place/s in JL's Journal that gave you the impression he wanted more place? Thanx
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 17:28:39 GMT -5
I agree siwells that WI had, by most accounts, a powerful personality and that's how I understood you. However, my point is that the one closest to him reported that at the time he was elected first overseer, he displayed a humble spirit and was openly not wanting the position. It's possible that his forceful personality was kept in check until after he was appointed overseer of one of the fastest growing sects in Great Britain, after which it went to his head.
Accounts that I have read give me the impression that after he became overseer, he began to display abusive characteristics toward his underlings. By the time JL was excommunicated, he seemed to be a near tyrant imo.
I agree that the freedom of movement by EC was a big factor in his excommunication. However, should the blame be put on him? You need to put it into the context of the times. The early movement of workers was all Spirit-led with only informal co-operation. It wasn't until later that territories were systematically carved up into kingdom-like organizations. The 2x2 ministry was becoming increasingly organized (all while denying that there was an organization) and Cooney wasn't accepting of the new organizational system. One can hardly blame Cooney for wanting to stick to a Spirit-led movement which was undeniably and hugely successful. Once the worker-field system was established by the early 1920's, the proof was in the pudding, the new organization never again saw the success that occurred in the first 20 years. The 1920's saw the organization first become what it is today........a generational church kept alive by the children of the members with a worker system of pastors.
We survive today because of the momentum established in the early years by those first workers. Today there is almost no new inside initiatives being taken to advance Christian faith.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 17:38:03 GMT -5
Here's an early worker (1902) writing how it was in the beginning as he experienced it.
Alfred Magowan's Letter To Wilson McClung [Headworker of New Zealand]
4 Kewi Street Sandringham Auckland New Zealand 21 Januarv 1931
Dear Wilson:
We would have reported ourselves sooner but need a little time for reflexion (sic) after making some calls. It is hard to believe some of the things we have seen and heard, and we wondered whether you knew about them.
You and I came from the same county in Ireland and were brought up Protestants in the strained relations of a divided people. The city of Armagh has two cathedrals as witnesses to the division, and we have the peculiar distinction of not being on one side or the other. We breathed the atmosphere of Orange Protestantism as children and later on when we heard the gospel were willing to break with all tradition and become a people neither Catholic nor Protestant.
You and I heard the same words and made the same profession of faith in the same person, went forth to preach in the same way, saw the same works accomplished in those who believed our words, enjoyed the same fellowship, endured the same hardships, were victims of the same opposition, read the same Scriptures in the same light, and with the same historical background. There was no variance in anything we believed, or in the purpose with which we went out into the world
I do not know how far back your memory and experience goes; but in 1907, I remember seeing you at Crocknacrieve when, as a people with a testimony, we were at our spiritual best.
My own experience goes back to 1902, and my most real recollection of fellowship was that gathering in Portadown 28 or 29 years ago. There were no regulations and no asserting of authority. The Lord had mercifully set us free in spirit to worship and serve him under the guidance of the Holy Spirit through a good conscience; and there was neither machinery nor any of those things that religious people think necessary and which are necessary in sects under human control. There was nothing in the vision we had of 'the way in Jesus' that would have led us towards another kind of sectarianism, nor did we ever anticipate a time when we would become a strong people in an evil world.
We had only one commission and that was to make disciples as we had been made; and we had only one authority, viz., if the Lord was with us we would so live and speak that He would use us in getting people saved. And as they listened to us they would recognize the voice of Him because of the anointing. That was the simple outline in the days of our beginning.
Afterwards, dominion began to appear, and God’s answer was the casting of it down in the person of William Irvine. That ought to have been the end of it, but it was not taken to heart by those who exulted under him. And the same spirit that had set him above his brethren began to be seen in them, so that in a little while they had divided the earth among themselves as rulers over little kingdoms, exercising authority after the way and according to the spirit of Rome, and doing violence to the consciences of men in the name of the ‘Truth' or the 'Testimony'. When the anointing ceased, authority took its place, and then cruelty had to be resorted to in keeping people under control. It has always been so, as in the case of Saul toward David; but it always works out in the triumph of the anointing, and martyrs have been made in that conflict.
I do not know how far you have gone in the way of religious dominion, but if you gave encouragement to some of the things which have been told us, I would tremble to be in your shoes. You know the history of Rome and how cruelty was her characteristic under the cardinals and the popes. The persecutions and the martyrdoms of the early Christians was only a testimony to the insatiable desire for dominion, not only over the bodies of people, but also over their souls.
Now, if the things that we have heard here and elsewhere are required by those among us who are looked upon as leaders, then I say we have ceased to be disciples of Jesus and have joined the ranks of his enemies. People are forbidden to visit friends, and some have been excommunicated on that miserable ground. Letters have been intercepted and sent to others or destroyed and the person to whom they were addressed never saw them. Pressure has been brought to bear on struggling souls to compel them to deny the truth that was in them. Even bodily violence has been done, that through fear of pain they might be brought back to the ‘church’. If Rome did that in these days the world would be horrified, and we would raise our voices in loud protest against the spirit of antichrist. But for some strange reason, when the same spirit is revealed among ourselves we justify it because the welfare of what we call the 'Testimony' is at stake.
Now I want it to be known that we are against that spirit wherever it shows itself, and that we will devote all the power that God gives us to withstand it. No godly end justifies cruel means, and persecution is always wrong no matter how 'holy' the cause may seem to be in which it is used as a weapon. If the work of God seems to require dominion and cruelty so that a 'Testimony' may be preserved, then the sooner it is dissolved the better.
It would ill become you or me to turn away from the tradition of our fathers and give our lives to a cause that we once abhorred when we saw it under Roman robes.
I have written to most of our leaders, and they think it beneath them even to say they got my letters. They have never seen me, yet they know all about me from prejudiced witnesses. One is afraid that if he acted the decent human part it would be noised abroad and he would get into trouble when his brethren heard it. They have entered into a conspiracy of secrecy and fear, and have set the approval of one another above the approval of God. May the Lord give us all a fresh vision of Jesus and what it means at the end of the world to be his disciples. Beating our fellow servants will be a miserable occupation when he returns suddenly, and no excuses will be taken or reasons given in the light of his kindling anger.
Suppose he came now and found his servants labouring to build up a little sect in the world and defending it by outraging the souls of those who were devoted only to him, what do you think he would say to then? And how would they explain that it was His testimony they were building and protecting? I think they would be speechless.
Now don't deny or belittle these things because an 'outsider' calls then to your attention. Both you and I have responsibility, and part of mine is to find and feed lost sheep and to protect then against cruel shepherds who drive then out of the fold and compel them to go astray. Ezekiel 34 is good to read, not as we once did with the preachers of the world in our mind, but thinking about ourselves.
Now may the grace of God abound toward us, softening our hearts towards one another and toward all who need our compassion. . Yours truly, . Alfred Magowan
|
|
Pink
Senior Member
Posts: 411
|
Post by Pink on Jan 3, 2009 18:25:08 GMT -5
Off with his head!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jan 3, 2009 18:35:27 GMT -5
Matthew 7:20
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 19:45:28 GMT -5
si wells wrote: I have two questions for you Sharon. Could you please tell me: (1) What page of Dr. J's book is this "actual manuscript approved by more than one worker?" (I have Dr. J's book and am unable to find such in it) Who wrote the manuscript? (2) What early worker approved it? I'm sorry but I don't have the book before me but I think it is within the last portions of Dr. Jaenan's book that contains the historical facts regarding the "workers" and there was more then "one" manuscript he prepared and sent out to several different of the original workers(one's he'd previously had interviewed) to approve before the book was printed....it will not indicate it as a manuscript(s), but the whole of the manuscript I'm speaking of, is in essence the whole book.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 19:52:49 GMT -5
It is my understanding that George Walker was a Methodist lay preacher, his pastor, who had sent him and another man to the Gills to see why they'd quit coming to the Methodist Church and to see if the rumor was true that the Gills had taken up with an unknown religion and to "straighten them out". It is said that George spent the weekend with the Gills and was in the fellowship mtg. in their home on Sun. a.m. and that after he went back home, that he realized that what he'd just witnessed was "God's Way". and he purposed in his heart right then to walk in it.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 21:15:46 GMT -5
It is my understanding that George Walker was a Methodist lay preacher, his pastor, who had sent him and another man to the Gills to see why they'd quit coming to the Methodist Church and to see if the rumor was true that the Gills had taken up with an unknown religion and to "straighten them out". It is said that George spent the weekend with the Gills and was in the fellowship mtg. in their home on Sun. a.m. and that after he went back home, that he realized that what he'd just witnessed was "God's Way". and he purposed in his heart right then to walk in it. They didn't even have meetings in 1899--the converts continued in their own churches until they invented meetings in the home. Here's the way Geo Walker tells it: Charlie A. Hughes, August 19, 1972 at Downings, Virginia Convention Grounds (Items in parenthesis added)George Walker: “He being dead yet speaketh." You all know who that was. He died as a martyr at the hands of his own brother... You know what is spoken in other parts of the Scripture. It says, "The blood of Jesus speaks better things than the blood of Abel." Jesus' blood speaks of the atonement for our sins. Abel's blood was the result of the jealousy of his brother because Abel worshipped God in the way he had been taught by his parents, the same as his brother had been. But Cain had other thoughts about it. He brought the fruit of the ground which is typical of us thinking we can do something of ourselves. We can't pay our way. We can't work our way. When Abel sacrificed that lamb, it was proof that he knew of the Lamb of God that would come to take away the sin of the world. I don't know that it is necessary to say any more about our brother, Charlie. I can endorse all our brothers have said. Sixty-five years ago we met in Toronto, Canada. During those years we have been closely associated. Seventy-four years ago last March, (1898) I went down near Charlie’s home, and going to that place changed my whole course of life, and it is the cause of me being here today. Charlie was only 14 then; I was 21. I was being taught to preach to other people. I was living in the city. I happened to be working in the same business, the same department store, as another person (Edward Cooney?) connected with Charlie, who belonged to the same denomination as Charlie, and they told about some people; who came in and preached to them and it changed their lives. One was Charlie's older brother… These people had listened to a strange preacher (William Irvine?) and believed what he said. They couldn't explain it, but a great change had come in their lives. Because I had been taught to preach a little, they thought I could go down and help those people. They were like new starters. When I went down I had no conception of who I would be meeting. I didn't take it very seriously. I just went with another man who was the leader. Before I fell asleep that first night, I heard some things that put thoughts in my mind. When I was eleven, my mother died. I was away at Sunday School when she died. I said "good-bye" before I went. She was very low with T.B., and we realized that. She told us what to tell the teacher. When we came back a couple of hours later, she was gone. That was the first time that deep, serious questions arose in my mind. I was blamed before my mothers death that I didn't have as many feelings as my older brother and sister did, but it became very strong that Sunday afternoon--serious thoughts came. I remember where the body was laid out and I sat in the doorway where I could see her face still in death. I remembered times when I had caused her sorrow and grief, and I was pretty sorry about that, but above all those questions was one, "Where would I be myself if I had died?" I had learned enough to know there had to be some change to go to Heaven. I knew I wasn't fit to go to Heaven. I learned there was one place where you would be happy and the other where there would be torment. I had very serious thoughts. Not long after we had revivals there, and I went up to the front to profess, and I went as far as I could. I meant it then, but I was disappointed because I realized I was not changed. I was just the same as ever. Later on I had to go away and live with strangers. During those ten years, from 11 to 21, I had some very serious thoughts in my mind. I tried to be satisfied with the religion I was in. As I grew older, I couldn't shut my eyes from seeing that that I had was not like what I read in the New Testament. For a good few years before I went to Charlie's home part, I was often terribly troubled that I was in fellowship with something not like the New Testament, not like Jesus and the Apostles. Others thought I was living such a good life outwardly that I should become a preacher. Even then, I would be troubled about it. One special friend, the preacher, was trying to influence me to be a fulltime, preacher, getting ordained. He said, "It is not likely you will make as much money as you would in the business you are in, but it will be a much higher social standard; you will have the title before your name, and letters after your name." But what he was telling me was turning me against it. I told him that I didn't feel called for that. As I read of Jesus and the Apostles, they had no social standing. They were despised, as Paul said, the "offscouring." They didn't have high social position. Those I was associated with had the best home and the best salary. And with all my preaching to others, I felt I did not have what those men of the New Testament had. I did not have that love that constrained Jesus to give His life for nothing in this world. What spoke to me when I went near Charlie's home was a man in his mid-thirties that was a farmer (Willie Gill? Footnote 1) and had worked very hard to get the best farm in the community, but before he let us go to sleep, he told us a little of his thoughts. When he was working on the farm, the thought came into his mind, "Suppose the Lord would want me to sell this farm that I have worked so hard to get, and give away the money, and go out and preach the Gospel like the disciples?" Would I be willing to do it? The other man with me, higher up in the denomination and in the business world, said, "That is a foolish idea to sell his farm, and give away the money and go out to preach." You know why it didn't look so ridiculous to me? I had a great sermon on the rich young ruler that I got a lot of compliments on. They did not know that when I would go away and get down on my knees a voice would come and say, "You are not telling all that is in that." Something was telling me that it meant more than that. I had never heard of any doing it, nor any suggesting it. When it came to the word "sell", I would say "give up your tobacco." I listened to the greatest preachers in this world, from this country even, and I never heard anyone explain that. They could explain the Bible--but not that. Before I went to bed, it was the memory of what I preached myself that brought it home. Here is the first man in the world that I had heard talk of doing this. He did it. (Willie Gill?) He went out to preach the gospel, scattered the money, and preached to within a few days of his 88th birthday, exhorting others that had decided through him. He was taken sick in a Sunday morning meeting, and before the next Sunday his body was in the grave. You can see that Charlie's life has memories way back to me. I don't know that I could say I saw him then, but he saw me. He was taking our number as we came down from the city. Light years later I saw him again. He had made his choice for the Lord and later went forth to preach. He started out over sixty-six years ago, preaching in Scotland. (1906) * * * * * * * * * Footnote 1: The farmer was probably WILLIE GILL. Willie Gill professed through Wm Irvine. He and Wm Irvine were the oldest of the workers and both were born in 1863. Willie was reported to be a wealthy landowner, or stood to inherit a large farm, and his going into the Work in 1900 made quite an impact on his community. He was the elder worker in the British Isles from 1914 until his death in 1951 at the age of 88. He is listed as starting in the work in 1900 and two other Gills, Jennie and Emma are also shown as starting that year. (Accounts of the Early Days Footnote 8, author unknown) Jack Jackson stated at Willie Gill's funeral on June 5, 1951, that by his calculations, it was 53 years and 8 months since Willie and some others at Rathmolyon made their choice saying, "Lord what will Thou have me to do?" This dates back to October, 1897. NOTE: 1951 (the year of Willie’s death) minus 88 years the farmer in this Account lived =1963, which was Willie Gill’s birth date.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Jan 3, 2009 21:28:33 GMT -5
Charlie Gill must have been the son of the Gills whom George Walker first was in Sun. mtg. with and apparently it was out of town where George and a fellow Methodist preacher went to see them! The other man went back to town but GW stayed with the Gills that weekend and that's the experience you've recounted within Charlie's death sermon. GW did go back to town after Sun. but that is when he decided to walk this way for it surely was "God's Way"..... I think all that GW says within the funeral sermon Cherie has provided proves that God was moving upon men in those days to follow the teachings of the Bible more closely!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 3, 2009 21:48:33 GMT -5
These people had listened to a strange preacher (William Irvine?) and believed what he said. They couldn't explain it, but a great change had come in their lives. Because I had been taught to preach a little, they thought I could go down and help those people. They were like new starters. When I went down I had no conception of who I would be meeting. I didn't take it very seriously. I just went with another man who was the leader. Before I fell asleep that first night, I heard some things that put thoughts in my mind.
Cherie did you insert this. Yes Cherie you are missing something,you are missing a lot. There is no way you or anyone could unearth all of the data about those early days.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 22:00:38 GMT -5
These people had listened to a strange preacher (William Irvine?) and believed what he said. They couldn't explain it, but a great change had come in their lives. Because I had been taught to preach a little, they thought I could go down and help those people. They were like new starters. When I went down I had no conception of who I would be meeting. I didn't take it very seriously. I just went with another man who was the leader. Before I fell asleep that first night, I heard some things that put thoughts in my mind. Cherie did you insert this. Yes Cherie you are missing something,you are missing a lot. There is no way you or anyone could unearth all of the data about those early days. Yes I inserted it - as it plainly states at the top - I have now modified my post and bolded where I stated: (Items in parenthesis added)I dont understand what it is you're trying to say...can you restate it?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 22:01:40 GMT -5
Charlie Gill must have been the son of the Gills whom George Walker first was in Sun. mtg. with and apparently it was out of town where George and a fellow Methodist preacher went to see them! The other man went back to town but GW stayed with the Gills that weekend and that's the experience you've recounted within Charlie's death sermon. GW did go back to town after Sun. but that is when he decided to walk this way for it surely was "God's Way"..... I think all that GW says within the funeral sermon Cherie has provided proves that God was moving upon men in those days to follow the teachings of the Bible more closely! ---------Who is Charlie GILL? I've been to visit Willie Gill's home at Ashmount. Here is a photo we took of it. The Gill Family Story as told by sister worker Hazel Hughes (daughter of Mary Ann Gill Hughes, sister of Garrett Hughes) can be read here: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/gill-hughes.phpWhat about this story and site of tourism for 2x2s visiting Dublin? How does this fit in? George Walker was "a former resident in the Ballinamallard district." (Impartial Reporter, July 7, 1910) Crocknacrieve (which is the name of a home) is in the Ballinamallard district, which is a part of Enniskillen. It may have been Edward Cooney who introduced George Walker to William Irvine, as according to the Impartial Reporter, George was employed by Edward Cooney's father. "Mr. George Walker, who used to be a draper's apprentice in Mr. W. R. Cooney's employment, spoke last." $$(Impartial Reporter July 28, 1910) A draper is a person who deals exclusively in selling clothes, fabric for making clothes, and sewing accesories. A drapery shop is an establishment which sells little else besides clothes, fabric, and sewing materials. Ed Cooney's father, Wm. Rutherford Cooney, was a successful merchant in Enniskillen who owned a drapery shop at No. 4 High Street, Enniskillen. Perhaps, he also owned a store in Dublin. Reportedly, Geo. Walker worked at a store in Dublin called McBirneys, which closed many years ago; the building now contains the Virgin Megastore. However, the inscription "McBirneys" is engraved in concrete on the building. [Photo of McBirneys] When he was 21, Geo. Walker resigned from the store where he worked. He may have been learning the drapery business. Geo. Walker said, "I spent the teen years of my life working in a store. The man I worked for was very religious, but his whole idea of a successful life was making money. Anyone that didn't make money, he called a "straw" man. It was a contemptible expression. He would emphasize money would give one importance." (Hector MN Convention Oct. 1970) Here's a McBirneys Store Photo I took in Dublin: There is a Dublin landmark pointed out today by the friends, as the site where George Walker came to his momentous decision to take a stand with Wm Irvine and his workers. George Walker was at the Broadstone Railway Train Station when he surrendered his life and said to God, "If this is what it takes, I'm willing for it." He often told this story. Broadstone is within walking distance from McBirneys. It was the Broadstone Railway Train Station until mid-1940, when it was converted to a bus depot, and like a lot of other places in Dublin is rumored to be haunted. Tradition has it that the original railway station was built over a cemetery, thereby upsetting the spirits of the dead. Today it is little more than a large overnight parking and servicing facility for Dublin City and Country buses. It is not a station where passengers embark or dis-embark. The address is: Dublin Bus/Provincial Bus Broadstone Depot Dublin 7 Ireland According to the 1905 Workers List, George Walker went into the work in 1899.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2009 22:21:38 GMT -5
Charlie Gill must have been the son of the Gills whom George Walker first was in Sun. mtg. with and apparently it was out of town where George and a fellow Methodist preacher went to see them! The other man went back to town but GW stayed with the Gills that weekend and that's the experience you've recounted within Charlie's death sermon. GW did go back to town after Sun. but that is when he decided to walk this way for it surely was "God's Way"..... I think all that GW says within the funeral sermon Cherie has provided proves that God was moving upon men in those days to follow the teachings of the Bible more closely! Siwells, it looks like your story could be quite accurate except for the Sunday morning meeting part. GW doesn't account for a Sunday am mtg in his story with the (apparently) Gills. What GW recounts is this: So his mind about going out on "faith lines" was influenced in an evening conversation with this man. There is still a possibility that there was a Sunday am mtg involved, but GW's does not have anything about it. Most early accounts have the Sunday am mtgs first being established later than that. (2-3 years later?)
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 3, 2009 22:38:46 GMT -5
1902: THE FIRST SUNDAY MORNING MEETINGS are set up. Irvine and Cooney began to baptize, form churches and to serve the emblems on Sundays. They baptized new converts who had not been previously baptized; but NOT those who had been previously baptised. John Long gives the reason the meetings were set up: "About that time Edward Cooney began to baptize his converts and form assemblies according to the model in the Acts, namely meeting together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. The opposition against the work from the clergy and churches rendered it necessary to reform, also the responsibility of shepherding young converts." (John Long's Journal for July, 1902) John Long set up some meetings at Wm Irvine's request. "I went to County Tipperary and baptized many disciples; and helped to form there assemblies. One in Cloughjordan in the home of Goodhand Pattison; also in the home of Falkiners, Hillsborough, Borrisokane; and in the home of Hodgins, Lorrha." (John Long's Journal, August, 1903) Two places are credited with being the location of the "FIRST" Sunday fellowship meeting to ever be held. One location is the Crocknacrieve gate lodge in Ballinamallard, and the other is over Weirs Store in Dublin. "In 1901 John West bought Crocknacrieve House, and the following year the first Cooneyite camp meetings were held in the gate lodge." The gate lodge is a very small building at the entrance to the Crocknacrieve land. The reference source for this statement also relates that the first Crocknacrieve convention was held in 1904, so the "camp meeting" did not refer to a convention, but to a fellowship meeting. ("Ballinamallard--A Place of Importance," Ballinamallard Historical Society, 2004) Another account stated: "The first fellowship meeting in Dublin, Ireland took place over Weir's Hardware Store on Baggot Street. Whether these were the first fellowship meetings to EVER be held, or the first meeting to be held in the City of Dublin and at Crocknacrieve is unknown to the Author. This Weir Store building is in good condition and is being used today as a retail store. The author waked through it in August, 2004 and picked up a brochure about the business and building that is reprinted in the TTT Photo Gallery at: www.tellingthetruth.info/photogallery/Places/300PhotoGal.html The Weir family lived over their store. There were possibly nine children in the Weir family. The names of some were: Wilfred Weir, William Weir, Jr., Irvine Weir, Harry Weir, Edie Weir, Walter Weir, Lettie Weir Harvey. Reportedly, sister worker Edie Weir left the work due to rheumatic fever, and lived above Weir's store until her death. Harry Weir married Agnes Carroll, sister to Bill, Jack, May & Fannie Carroll.
|
|
|
Post by alia on Jan 3, 2009 22:47:50 GMT -5
In the obituaries of the paper this A.M., there was a ...William Irvine...NO joke...wasn't sure if it was a sign to put this issue to rest or not??
|
|
|
Post by lin on Jan 4, 2009 11:58:59 GMT -5
George told me this personally,that he went to meetings before he met workers. I guess there is no credibility in that if it's not your words Cherie?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 4, 2009 12:27:47 GMT -5
George told me this personally,that he went to meetings before he met workers. I guess there is no credibility in that if it's not your words Cherie? "went to meetings" is a very ambiguous statement. There are meetings of all sorts. Did he specify exactly what kind of meetings, the format, names of any who were present, location? There are a lot more details to be examined before it could be determined exactly what type of meeting GW was referring to...and before we could know whether or not it was the of the same type meeting you most likely went to this morning... Since there were only workers at first...no fellowship meetings, maybe GW was referring to some Faith Mission meetings? Keswick convention meetings? that he attended...
|
|