|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 10:36:10 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 10:36:10 GMT -5
As respecting this poll, a couple of thoughts:
I don't think a poll is a good way to do this. There hasn't been enough discussion to drive to consensus for one thing. There has been a lot of discussion, but 90% of it is what Monty Python used to call "mere gainsaying".
For another, the integrity and accuracy of these polls is suspect. We have no idea who is abstaining, and no idea who is voting multiple times. And perhaps open balloting is more useful.
The word I would suggest after all I've heard is "leader", and it's not in the poll. First leader of the movement and probably the last one too. It does seem from the testimonies of the others (Cooney, Long) that they came to defer to Irvine as a leader.
It's difficult to make a case that Irvine, in any intellectual or spiritual sense, that is in the realm of "ideas", established much of significance. It's true that the idea of 'faith lines' is a very important one. But it seems primarily a reaction and modification to the Faith Mission's goal. The temperament of the man seems to lie more in charisma and reaction to injustice than to intellectual reason. How much of the "ideas" of the movement can we attribute to Irvine, versus Cooney, Long, and all the others? Further, Irvine did not do much in the way of writing, so it seems more apparent that the particular doctrines of the movement came out of reading (the Bible), praying and discussion on the part of several or many individuals. And over a number of years a number of like minded individuals came together, and then appointed Irvine as their 'leader' in 1901.
And then there is the question of our only 'founder' being Christ, which is a doctrine of the movement. We are very severe iconoclasts and that should be recognized by those outside the movement.
I don't think that word 'leader' usurps upon the role of Christ in the way the word 'founder' does. It's not pre-emptive, for although Christ leads, we have also spiritual leaders upon Earth. Moses was one, David, Peter, Paul and many others. Within our movement we don't bestow titles upon our leaders, but the evidence indicates that from 1901 there was one primary leader of the group, for a time.
So that's one side of the story ...
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 10:36:55 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 10:36:55 GMT -5
"I'm not certain that "finding the pearl of great price" is exactly the sentiment behind using the word "finder" rather than "founder" in reference to William Irvine. It is my thought that "finder" is preferred, since for 100 years the f&w have proclaimed that there was no "founder," and now, since the history is readily available, there needs to be some way of getting around the previous claims. I don't mean that in an accusatory way. It just seems people are like that...if we've become dependent on our belief system, we need to defend it for our own sense of well being."
Linda, this may be true for a number of people that have been associated with the 2X2 fellowship.....however, there are some people who just don't give a flip about where it started or who started it because they are focusing on Jesus! For one, I don't really care whether there's any credit given to any one person in regards to the truth's fellowship for it isn't going to matter in eternity not one bit!
But if it gives comfort to those that it matters to, then let them have it their way because too, that won't matter in eternity!
Only one thing matters in this life and on into eternity and that is our personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour! Right?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 11:40:53 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 11:40:53 GMT -5
siwells wrote: Oh, for Pete's sake....Cherie has mentioned more then once that we need to come up with our preferred word for what WI and other workers did back in 1884-1901? ? What did the workers do in 1884?? (I dont know of anything) Cherie, have you forgotten that EC had already begun having mtgs. within the homes? If you are declaring that "mtgs. within the home" as part of the 2X2 doctrine, then that has to be credit given to EC! There's no doubt in my mind about that! It was his humble approach to where chrisitianity belonged, wasn't it? That's a REAL stretch IMO to say meetings started in 1884--what kind of meetings were they? Three men occsionally met for fellowship: John West, Tom Turner and EC. EC was still a part of the Church of Ireland at the time...I'm not sure where the others worshipped. Tell me about the similarities to the F&W meetings today. Did they take communion in these meetings? Were these meetings like those you attend now? Were they prayer union meetings of the Faith Mission? What? Thats like someone saying these people in 1200 had a meeting in their home; therefore they were part of the F&W group I belong to now. Many/most? group or clubs start with small meetings held in a small place like a home. IMO, the meetings you speak of were not connected to the workers group who started their Sunday meetings around 1902 AFTER Cooney resigned from the C of I and joined Wm Irvine's band of workers. I ran across this last night re John West....ten years from 1904 when this was written is 1894 - not 1884. ----------------------------------------------------------------- October 20, 1904, p. 8 THE IMPARTIAL REPORTER
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY Mr. John West, Crocknacrieve, delighted in being able to give a personal testimony as to how he had been ‘saved’ ten years ago. He was, he said, bound to the Devil and was anxious about all this world’s way. He found he was wrong. He did not know where he would be on the day he would be called to eternity. He thought for himself and found that so long as he sought after the things of this World he had no hope for eternal life. It was not man who had brought him to Christ; it was his own thinking—thinking that he was wrong—thinking that he had no hope for salvation unless he joined Christ, which he had done ten years ago, and now could look to him as his Lord and Master. He used to attend the Episcopal Church, and some time ago he had a conversation with a minister whom he was very fond of in the flesh, and who told him that to be baptised was to be born again. A priest had told him the same. Now that was Romanish doctrine. He (Mr. West) did not believe that; he believed that they would all have to be baptised as they were doing by that river bank that day, and he thanked Christ He had given him the grace to be there to bear his testimony as to how he had been ‘saved’ by the mercy for which he from his heart felt thankful, for Christ’s sake. NOTE RE: J. West saved “ten years ago.” This would have been in 1894, before the F&W fellowship was started. He was 'saved" outside of their instrumentality, and he spoke openly about it. They had not yet decided they were God's ONLY Way. www.tellingthetruth.info/brg_newspapers/1904b.php#1904October13p5
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 12:59:45 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 6, 2009 12:59:45 GMT -5
Hi Sharon...yes, that's right!
I realize there are some, like you, who have not made the claims of having no founder. The discussion surrounding WI is more concerning those who were quite adamant about the uniqueness of the fellowship of not having a founder as opposed to other "worldly churches." We know now that the uniqueness, based on the "no founder" claim, is only a perception, not truth. While some find no need to clarify this, others endeavour to bring an end to the mistaken perception. This may not be important to all, but it is important to some.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 13:38:24 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 13:38:24 GMT -5
Hi Sharon...yes, that's right! I realize there are some, like you, who have not made the claims of having no founder. The discussion surrounding WI is more concerning those who were quite adamant about the uniqueness of the fellowship of not having a founder as opposed to other "worldly churches." We know now that the uniqueness, based on the "no founder" claim, is only a perception, not truth. While some find no need to clarify this, others endeavour to bring an end to the mistaken perception. This may not be important to all, but it is important to some. Blessings, Linda The group's wishes are to not recognize an earthly founder. I used the word 'iconoclast' this morning in a post, and when I looked it up it made some sense in describing people's perception regarding the idea of an earthly 'founder'. Ask almost anyone about William Irvine as 'founder' and you'll get an instinctive reaction against the idea of an earthly founder. Just what you've heard from lin, todd, GIC, and myself. It's thought to be a kind of idolatry. i·con·o·clast (-kn-klst) n. 1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions. 2. One who destroys sacred religious images.
[French iconoclaste, from Medieval Greek eikonoklasts, smasher of religious images : eikono-, icono- + Greek -klasts, breaker (from Greek kln, klas-, to break).] i·cono·clastic adj. i·cono·clasti·cal·ly adv.
Word History: An iconoclast can be unpleasant company, but at least the modern iconoclast only attacks such things as ideas and institutions. The original iconoclasts destroyed countless works of art. Eikonoklasts, the ancestor of our word, was first formed in Medieval Greek from the elements eikn, "image, likeness," and -klasts, "breaker," from kln, "to break." The images referred to by the word are religious images, which were the subject of controversy among Christians of the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries, when iconoclasm was at its height. In addition to destroying many sculptures and paintings, those opposed to images attempted to have them barred from display and veneration. During the Protestant Reformation images in churches were again felt to be idolatrous and were once more banned and destroyed. It is around this time that iconoclast, the descendant of the Greek word, is first recorded in English (1641), with reference to the Byzantine iconoclasts. In the 19th century iconoclast took on the secular sense that it has today, as in "Kant was the great iconoclast" (James Martineau).
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:27:24 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 14:27:24 GMT -5
Asking "Who is your founder?" is like asking: "Who are your parents?" "What is your name?" "Who is your daddy?" It's basic common knowledge (USUALLY), and not a breach of etiquette.
It is an extremely common question when someone hears/inquires about a sect/faith they are not familiar with. The workers are asked it all the time. Am sure they get SICK of the questions... Who is your founder? Who started your church? What church do you attend?
To do otherwise and wiggle on the founder question is like denying you have parents. Try telling this to someone who ask you: "Who are your parents??"
I dont have parents--My "first" point of origin was a sperm donor who came together with a egg--- in 1950.
Or: I have a parental unit.
Answering somebody in this evasive manor does not engender more positive questions, like: "Oh, how interesting. Please do tell me about your loving and wonderful parental unit." Why not clearly speak the simple truth without evasions--tell how WmI made a decision to go on faith lines and thats what his mission was based upon??
You KNOW this same question is going to be asked over and over and over again in the lifetime of the F&W. Why is it such an issue with the F&W to just give the man’s name, Wm Irvine? The man who came up with its foundation principal, Faith Lines?? Ask yourself, would the "founder" be an issue if that person was George Walker who brot it to America in 1903 with 2 other men?
Or if the founder was the person who first brought the church to the country you live in? That pioneering worker is usually honored with a “special place” in everyone's esteem and is highly revered and very well thought of.
Some give the explanation that by naming a man’s name (Wm Irvine) as the founder – that gives him a special high place and would be honoring him or making him an idol, so boes against the Bible. Hogwash! I submit that it would be no more honor than that already granted to George Walker in the North America; Wilson Reid in Africa, etc. etc. I doubt there is a truther on this planet who really has a person in their lives that qualifies as an "idol" whom they worship.
Ever read the funeral accounts of the Overseer of a large area or country? Some speeches there come very close to whatever “making an idol” could/might mean…I just read one yesterday of an overseer who died in 1960 that Ram sent me from Scotland. Leaves no doubt where allt he workers believe that man to be now.
Personally, I consider the whole “idol” explanation a ridiculous far fetched excuse generated just to get out of claiming a person/character they don’t want to be identified with. By “idol explanation,” I am talking about this excuse: “We don’t have a founder bcs to do so would be to have an idol.”
Why cant the F&W just speak the truth (it's short and simple and less than 30 words) Our church founder was William Irvine.
If you want to add some more details, try: The church started in Ireland around the turn of the 20th century.
It's short, TRUTHFUL, to the point, and what is more: IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION that was asked. Why does this short answer stick in some of your throats? You who are a part of a fellowship that calls itself "the truth"? Why do you kick so against speaking the truth about your founder? Think about it… I find this truly amazing from grown adults...
And sometimes after an outsider asks a F&W who is their founder and the F&W hedge and talk about finders, and not having a founder, etc.---the person goes to the internet and discovers a founder. And THEN they email ME asking how can they witness to YOU??? Yes its happened a half a dozen times. I would much prefer you just tell them about Wm Irvine yourselves.
Come on folks - deal with it. Stop setting yourselves up to look so foolish. Find a way to say you have a founder that is palatable for you. Like Clearday and September have been telling you--there are remarkable things about the F&W churches beginning. Capitalize on those things--but stick to the truth!
I'll get off my soapbox now...
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:30:51 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 14:30:51 GMT -5
October 20, 1904, p. 8 THE IMPARTIAL REPORTER
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY Mr. John West, Crocknacrieve, delighted in being able to give a personal testimony as to how he had been ‘saved’ ten years ago. He was, he said, bound to the Devil and was anxious about all this world’s way. He found he was wrong. He did not know where he would be on the day he would be called to eternity. He thought for himself and found that so long as he sought after the things of this World he had no hope for eternal life. It was not man who had brought him to Christ; it was his own thinking—thinking that he was wrong—thinking that he had no hope for salvation unless he joined Christ, which he had done ten years ago, and now could look to him as his Lord and Master. He used to attend the Episcopal Church, and some time ago he had a conversation with a minister whom he was very fond of in the flesh, and who told him that to be baptised was to be born again. A priest had told him the same. Now that was Romanish doctrine. He (Mr. West) did not believe that; he believed that they would all have to be baptised as they were doing by that river bank that day, and he thanked Christ He had given him the grace to be there to bear his testimony as to how he had been ‘saved’ by the mercy for which he from his heart felt thankful, for Christ’s sake. NOTE RE: J. West saved “ten years ago.” This would have been in 1894, before the F&W fellowship was started. He was 'saved" outside of their instrumentality, and he spoke openly about it. They had not yet decided they were God's ONLY Way. www.tellingthetruth.info/brg_newspapers/1904b.php#1904October13p5Thanks for this Cherie. John West is one of many in the early days who became part of the 2x2 movement without renouncing their earlier conversion. He's also one of many who couldn't stomach the evolving exclusivity.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:47:43 GMT -5
Post by Gene on Feb 6, 2009 14:47:43 GMT -5
Cherie, one point I think you left out in your post above which you do address in other places is what I (and many others) believe to be the REAL reason for the denial of a founder: to support the claim that the f&w church has an exclusive franchise on the true faith of Jesus, and therefore is the ONLY Christian fellowship that can claim it's founder is Christ. To acknowledge an earthly founder would put the f&w on the same footing as every other christian denomination, and that would never do.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:49:38 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 14:49:38 GMT -5
Cherie,
I think you're conflating two separate issues:
1) Answering the question "who is the founder?" and
2) Making the most definitive statement possible about the origins of the movement.
On the first issue, I largely agree with your point.
On the second issue, I don't think "William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 church" cuts the mustard - for the very reasons I outlined in my reply #31. I prefer "William Irvine was the first leader of the 2x2 movement." Do you see any deception in my preferred statement?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:52:10 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 14:52:10 GMT -5
Cherie, one point I think you left out in your post above which you do address in other places is what I (and many others) believe to be the REAL reason for the denial of a founder: to support the claim that the f&w church has an exclusive franchise on the true faith of Jesus, and therefore is the ONLY Christian fellowship that can claim it's founder is Christ. To acknowledge an earthly founder would put the f&w on the same footing as every other christian denomination, and that would never do. Let's assume that is 100% correct. Then so what. You have to look at what is the most correct statement. Imputed motives are irrelevant to the case.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:56:35 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 14:56:35 GMT -5
Yes - you're right Gene, having a founder takes the planks out of the platform for the 2x2 method to be God's only true way---and it is resisted for that reason... I agree - I'm just saying that they need to "get over it" Deal with it. Cut short their losses. We exes have had to deal with the fact that what you stated below just isn't true...they may as well too. Especially with the internet and history coming out of the walls, so to speak. It may be largely a pride issue...it was hard for the exes to admit lots of things too that we had been deceived and fooled about. Cherie, one point I think you left out in your post above which you do address in other places is what I (and many others) believe to be the REAL reason for the denial of a founder: to support the claim that the f&w church has an exclusive franchise on the true faith of Jesus, and therefore is the ONLY Christian fellowship that can claim it's founder is Christ. To acknowledge an earthly founder would put the f&w on the same footing as every other christian denomination, and that would never do.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:58:11 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 14:58:11 GMT -5
I didnt think this thread was about a bona fide statement--that was over on a couple other threads and I've given up seeing that brot to a conclusion--the ball has been dropped on it. My last 2 points havent been addressed about it - it's stalled. RE: On the second issue, I don't think "William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 church" cuts the mustard - for the very reasons I outlined in my reply #31. I prefer "William Irvine was the first leader of the 2x2 movement." Do you see any deception in my preferred statement? An answer about the "first leader" doesnt answer the question, "Who was the founder?" Cherie, I think you're conflating two separate issues: 1) Answering the question "who is the founder?" and 2) Making the most definitive statement possible about the origins of the movement. On the first issue, I largely agree with your point. On the second issue, I don't think "William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 church" cuts the mustard - for the very reasons I outlined in my reply #31. I prefer "William Irvine was the first leader of the 2x2 movement." Do you see any deception in my preferred statement?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 14:59:41 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 6, 2009 14:59:41 GMT -5
I think we need to get over it here on TMB as well. Maybe this would be a good place to start.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 15:33:24 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 15:33:24 GMT -5
Hi Sharon...yes, that's right! I realize there are some, like you, who have not made the claims of having no founder. The discussion surrounding WI is more concerning those who were quite adamant about the uniqueness of the fellowship of not having a founder as opposed to other "worldly churches." We know now that the uniqueness, based on the "no founder" claim, is only a perception, not truth. While some find no need to clarify this, others endeavour to bring an end to the mistaken perception. This may not be important to all, but it is important to some. Blessings, Linda Linda, I was reading some more research done by someone outside of the 2X2's and it was certainly attributed that the "mindset that this fellowship started from back in the Apostles' day" is an ERROR that has occurred due to a grave misunderstanding somewhere on down the line. It was said in this research that the words said were something to the fact that the effort made was to help people to get their faith in Christ like it was back in those days! It perhaps got shortened to their faith was in Christ like it was back in the apostles' days. Then shortened again that it was like the apostles' days. Then some vain imagination brought it up as something that came down through the ages from the apostles' days. This article was speaking to what WI and EC had testified and other workers of the beginning ones. So again, it is something that was "inferred" by others and it was never corrected because each heard what they wanted to hear and now it has completely reversed itself and there are those who've heard what they didn't want to hear.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 15:40:27 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 15:40:27 GMT -5
Cherie, one point I think you left out in your post above which you do address in other places is what I (and many others) believe to be the REAL reason for the denial of a founder: to support the claim that the f&w church has an exclusive franchise on the true faith of Jesus, and therefore is the ONLY Christian fellowship that can claim it's founder is Christ. To acknowledge an earthly founder would put the f&w on the same footing as every other christian denomination, and that would never do. Gene! This is perhaps a valid point, however, to pin it all on the "founding workers" is wrong, IMOP! This error of exclusivity was a mindset of many churches (this according to a research paper I read this a.m. about the revival movements, etc) The error is upon those who "inferred" it somewhere down the line and as it's been apparent even on this TMB site...not all workers and friends have preached this! But there are enough who have spoke it that it had an effect that has boomeranged right back. I think Cherie is the one who pointed out the other day that initially the workers did not separate new converts from the mainstream churches! It seems that a bit of a big head came upon them when they discovered how effectual the "two witnesses" were in those dry religious days! It's also true that I read that the home mtgs. such as the 2X2 or truth's fellowship could play a very important part in bringing chrisitianity back into the home! But that they would need to open their arms to all faiths in order to be as effective to the numbers of people they were back in the early 1900's.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 15:44:06 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 15:44:06 GMT -5
"Ask yourself, would the "founder" be an issue if that person was George Walker who brot it to America in 1903 with 2 other men? "
To follow how history has done in naming different sects of religion throughout the ages, perhaps for NA it would be more appropriate to say the truth's fellowship is the "Walkereses"?
Cherie, it's been quoted on here before that whereever ther are 2 or 3 met in Jesus' name, then He is there with them....then yes, it would be considered as much a "meeting" as many of those across the world today within the truth's fellowship because often there aren't very many more in those meetings! So yes, EC and whoever was with him started "home meetings" and did so with a humble view in mind...a useful view, a biblical view!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 15:49:02 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 15:49:02 GMT -5
I didnt think this thread was about a bona fide statement--that was over on a couple other threads and I've given up seeing that brot to a conclusion--the ball has been dropped on it. My last 2 points havent been addressed about it - it's stalled. RE: On the second issue, I don't think "William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 church" cuts the mustard - for the very reasons I outlined in my reply #31. I prefer "William Irvine was the first leader of the 2x2 movement." Do you see any deception in my preferred statement? An answer about the "first leader" doesnt answer the question, "Who was the founder?" Cherie, I think you're conflating two separate issues: 1) Answering the question "who is the founder?" and 2) Making the most definitive statement possible about the origins of the movement. On the first issue, I largely agree with your point. On the second issue, I don't think "William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 church" cuts the mustard - for the very reasons I outlined in my reply #31. I prefer "William Irvine was the first leader of the 2x2 movement." Do you see any deception in my preferred statement? Well, when you say 'Our church founder was William Irvine' as you suggest above, that is a 'bona-fide statement'. If someone asks the question 'who is the founder of your church?', I would answer in a non-evasive way, and depending on the situation might or might no choose to get into the fact that Irvine was once our leader, but not the founder of the church. But if someone said, tell us about your history, I would say 'William Irvine was the first leader of the church in 1901, and then ... (the rest of the story)'. I would avoid saying 'founder' as it's not factually correct. (see reply 31). It is true that some don't want to use the word 'founder' because they wish to retain the idea of apostolic succession. At the same time many others want to dispense with the word to do away with the idea of succession. I think it's foolhardy to try to undermine the succession theory in this manner. By adamantly sticking to the word 'founder' you enter into a debate you cannot win. The succession theory is not provable or disprovable. People can believe it if they wish, as an act of faith or revelation, and you will never show them wrong. Let's choose the language most appropriate to the facts of the situation. 'Leader' reflects the facts; 'founder' lacks factual support, and dovetails into the succession issue. Cherie, we have 3 threads going now on this issue, and I'm randomly hitting all of them. It is a bit disorganized I know.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 15:53:41 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 15:53:41 GMT -5
"Come on folks - deal with it. Stop setting yourselves up to look so foolish. Find a way to say you have a founder that is palatable for you. Like Clearday and September have been telling you--there are remarkable things about the F&W churches beginning. Capitalize on those things--but stick to the truth! " Cherie, WI has been crammed down our throat as the founder....now you want us to claim him? And how is that going to be useful, how is that going to point out the remarkable things about the fellowship? How? Won't you get another half dozen inquiries about why in the world would anyone want to claim WI as founder? Why? Not after they read all that's out there on the man! He was immoral, he was opportunistic! He didn't deal fairly with the church he supposedly was employed by, now did he! Hasn't that been the "gloat" of those of you snickering behind your hands as you try to poke him down our throats as foudner? I do not care who is founder, but as you put it, NO ONE in this whole wide world wants such a man who is long dead and who's tesitmony is in full force right now! He did not finish well, it doesn't even appear that he was anywhere right well! I think his reluctance to accept any overseership was because he did not want his secret life known....and that's probably why he kept on the move. Did you not know, in order to be kept on the pedestal you make quick brief contact with those you're wanting to keep you on the pedestal....don't let them come to know you for they'll find out just what you really are. The bible says one day we'll all be known as we are known.....as it also speaks about a man's testimony is not of effect until he is dead....otherwords that means how he finishes will have a greater effect on those coming behind him......... I have no problems with people declaring a multiple named "founder" for it was a multiple named bunch of men/women that finally declared they should live what they were preaching, then they decided they needed to separate their converts and keep them as their own. It was a group of men and as far as the "vision" was concerned....from all your documents it seems to me that WI would have never gotten his "vision" on the ground and running if he had not had other men who saw the same vision! Now would he! Now I'll get off of my soapbox!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 16:18:07 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 6, 2009 16:18:07 GMT -5
You know what the reality of this whole discussion is? It's just a whole lot of discussion that's going to go nowhere. These things aren't decided here anyway. It's like politics just because everybody is an expert on this issue doesn't mean they have a vote that counts.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 16:20:30 GMT -5
Post by Gene on Feb 6, 2009 16:20:30 GMT -5
You know what the reality of this whole discussion is? It's just a whole lot of discussion that's going to go nowhere. These things aren't decided here anyway. It's like politics just because everybody is an expert on this issue doesn't mean they have a vote that counts. Not necessarily. The advent of the printing press was a huge move forward in informing the public, and an informed electorate is a good thing.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 16:30:16 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 16:30:16 GMT -5
You know what the reality of this whole discussion is? It's just a whole lot of discussion that's going to go nowhere. These things aren't decided here anyway. It's like politics just because everybody is an expert on this issue doesn't mean they have a vote that counts. At the end of the day, when all was said and done, all had been said, and nothing was done.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 16:35:35 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 6, 2009 16:35:35 GMT -5
The same printing press that informs can also print wrong information as well.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 16:53:17 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 16:53:17 GMT -5
You know what the reality of this whole discussion is? It's just a whole lot of discussion that's going to go nowhere. These things aren't decided here anyway. It's like politics just because everybody is an expert on this issue doesn't mean they have a vote that counts. Funny how other churches dont have this problem... They just say who their founder it and when. But then--they're "false" churches, so what can you expect?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:05:34 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 17:05:34 GMT -5
Linda, I was reading some more research done by someone outside of the 2X2's and it was certainly attributed that the "mindset that this fellowship started from back in the Apostles' day" is an ERROR that has occurred due to a grave misunderstanding somewhere on down the line. It was said in this research that the words said were something to the fact that the effort made was to help people to get their faith in Christ like it was back in those days! It perhaps got shortened to their faith was in Christ like it was back in the apostles' days. Then shortened again that it was like the apostles' days. Then some vain imagination brought it up as something that came down through the ages from the apostles' days. This article was speaking to what WI and EC had testified and other workers of the beginning ones. So again, it is something that was "inferred" by others and it was never corrected because each heard what they wanted to hear and now it has completely reversed itself and there are those who've heard what they didn't want to hear. Sharon, I think you summarized it well. Can you give us the source of the article? I have no doubt that early workers including WI had a good motive while their intention was not to form a sect but to preach the pure gospel that was "from the shores of Galilee". It has "boomeranged" as you say, over time due to incremental change. I expect most of those workers from 100+ years ago would be horrified at the results of incremental change if they came back now with a 21st century cultural understanding. Mistakes were made by many people, but we're responsible for what we do in our day. The workers' church is an organization that broke away from the Faith Mission in 1901. To deny that only contributes to the lie that has evolved over time.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:05:57 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 17:05:57 GMT -5
You know what the reality of this whole discussion is? It's just a whole lot of discussion that's going to go nowhere. These things aren't decided here anyway. It's like politics just because everybody is an expert on this issue doesn't mean they have a vote that counts. Funny how other churches dont have this problem... They just say who their founder it and when. But then--they're "false" churches, so what can you expect? Generally, they can point to a 'founder' that is entirely different in character and accomplishment than our first leader. If we had a 'Martin Luther' we would call him our founder. But we don't have one. I actually checked into my old church's history and they have no single founder. The church was said to be formed by 29 leaders at the Synod of Emden in 1571.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:09:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 17:09:10 GMT -5
It is my view, based upon the available documents and other factual evidence available that William Irvine, either by himself, or by acting in consort with one or two others, CLEARLY FOUNDED the friends and Workers sect. Only someone with ulterior motives, which may be as benign as just not wanting to face up the fact, can attempt to reject this. Those who reject this, really need to examine their own credibility.
When Cooney came to Irvine and said "Lord what will thou have me to do," whereon Irvine said sell all and give your proceeds to the poor, which is me, Cooney then did as he was told, did an about turn and became the Irvinist Apostle to the Gentiles.
Those who appreciate and are thankful for the sect should thank Cherie from their hearts for she is putting together an image of the 1st century Acts of the Apostles in the form of "Acts of the Workers."
Maybe in years to come there will be arguments over the author of her website. It was always there. She only found it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:16:16 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 17:16:16 GMT -5
Funny how other churches dont have this problem... They just say who their founder it and when. But then--they're "false" churches, so what can you expect? Generally, they can point to a 'founder' that is entirely different in character and accomplishment than our first leader. If we had a 'Martin Luther' we would call him our founder. But we don't have one. I actually checked into my old church's history and they have no single founder. The church was said to be formed by 29 leaders at the Synod of Emden in 1571. Likewise, the Christian Church (which I attended reguarly for awhile) had more than one founder; with Thomas & Alexander Campbell being the most prominent. It doesnt matter if you dont care for your founder--and dont want to recognize him. He founded the movement--so be it. You can't get around him...unless you value your "reputation" more than truth. If you want to claim the founders were TWO men: Wm Irvine AND/WITH John Long--I could even go along with that. They both preached the inaugral mission in 1897 at Nenagh. And John Long went on Faith Lines a couple years BEFORE WmI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:39:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 17:39:57 GMT -5
The issue of church founder in other groups isn't always so clear cut. While some groups can easily point to a sole founder, others have more difficulty with it.
The Presbyterian Church is one such example. There are plenty of suspects from Bucer, to Calvin, to Knox, and Cartwright.
Other groups have similar problems, including the Roman Catholic Church, and The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Hindus just don't know.
I think it is quite appropriate for What to wrestle with this issue. It just isn't as clear cut as we would like it to be. I personally don't hold back on providing history information to people who ask but like What, I haven't been able to feel comfortable with presenting WI as the sole founder. "First leader" or better "First overseer" (first "chief" as they said then) are all factual terms. I remain of the opinion that there were co-founders, but who to name remains uncertain. I suspect there was one or more meetings of several men in which an agreement to work in concert was made, but we have no direct evidence of that as yet.
|
|