Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 17:57:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 17:57:40 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm assuming you agree the F&W's group was "founded" by a man or men round about the turn of the 20th century, irrespective of who they were ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:05:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:05:23 GMT -5
FWIW Eddie Cooney whilst still a sect worker sued the People newspaper and gave sworn testimony that William Irvine FOUNDED the sect 16 years beforehand. Cooney won his case. Unfortunately I do not know details of his action against the newspaper, but clearly the issue of "founder" was an important question. The court accepted his testimony.
Cooney was a major influence at the start of the movement. So major in fact many outsiders put his name to the group.
Cooney's testimony was a major factor in winning his case against the newspaper who had the resources to employ good counsel, whereas Cooney did not.
I'm afraid the question of founder was established long before it became an issue.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:11:28 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 18:11:28 GMT -5
California ... in 1917 (Three Overseers in serious mood) First Overseer: "I did not come here to waste my time." Second Overseer: "Do you think we ought to encourage him?" Third Overseer: "There are many things to be considered. How would we explain to the young converts?" First Overseer: "His coming back would be full of complications and contradictions, and in a little while we could be on the front benches like little boys again." Second Overseer: "We have been like free men since he ceased to Lord it over us. For my own part, I do not intend going back to the former condition and position - as his porter! " Third Overseer: "He made us what we are. Except for him I might still be what and where I was when he discovered me." First Overseer: "It is going to upset our Family Tree." Second Overseer: "You mean uproot it! Perhaps we made too much of him as our Father in the Gospel. I begin to think I was right before I met him....." Third Overseer: "Fathers sometimes go wrong without ceasing to be fathers." First Overseer: "Yes! but spiritual fathers are different. When they fall away, they carry away the whole ground of relationship with them." Second Overseer: "Do you think then that we should give up the Foundation of Teaching because he is not what he used to be." First Overseer: "We can still refer to the time we met him, and the necessity of Genealogy, without committing ourself any farther." Third Overseer: "But supposing somebody asks us who our spiritual Father was, and WHERE he is now?" Second Overseer: "In that case it would be wise to change the subject!" First Overseer: "I am wasting my time here. He seems to think he still has the rule over us, and keeps us waiting while he mends a car." Third Overseer: "I cannot forget the early days, when he was himself and when his words were our meat and drink. How thou art fallen from heaven 0 Lucifer, Son of the Morning! Sometimes I wish he was back again. All of us together have not the force he had. And the older people mourn for the powers and the glory of the first days." First Overseer: "But we cannot afford to lose the place we have gained by his fall." Second Overseer: "I do not like to put it that way." Third Overseer: "His unfaithfulness gave opportunity and occasion to our faithfulness." First Overseer: "That sounds better." (They go off arm-in-arm) Source: Alfred Magowan www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/outline.php
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:14:55 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 18:14:55 GMT -5
FWIW Eddie Cooney whilst still a sect worker sued the People newspaper and gave sworn testimony that William Irvine FOUNDED the sect 16 years beforehand. Cooney won his case. Unfortunately I do not know details of his action against the newspaper, but clearly the issue of "founder" was an important question. The court accepted his testimony. Cooney was a major influence at the start of the movement. So major in fact many outsiders put his name to the group. Cooney's testimony was a major factor in winning his case against the newspaper who had the resources to employ good counsel, whereas Cooney did not. I'm afraid the question of founder was established long before it became an issue. For years many viewed Wm Irvine as a prophet with a revelation...he was the FIRST one with the idea of Faith Lines.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:17:31 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 18:17:31 GMT -5
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. Yes, if 2x2 ministry is essential then one man could hardly be the founder could he? As you say, John Long was Willie's first companion in the Nenagh mission of August 1897. However, if giving away all they owned and having no means of support is essential then I'm not sure that either WI or John Long qualified. Was John Long free of the colporteur job at the time of the Nenagh mission, and was WI receiving support from the Faith Mission? Eddie Cooney bypassed the Faith Mission to come on board in 1901, but he was so influential that he was considered by outsiders to be the leader and the sect was named after him. One of the problems with defining a founder is that the workers' organization itself was not defined at the time of the "first" mission in August 1897. The church is now defined by: 1. Preachers without a home, having given away all their posessions and means of support. 2. Meetings in homes every Sunday AM. 3. Salvation only possible through membership of the church and submission to the ministry. Who founded all that? 1. William Irvine founded the homeless preacher concept. 2. Eddie Cooney founded the Sunday AM meeting concept. 3. Joe Kerr founded the "no man can come to the Father but by us" concept.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:19:47 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 18:19:47 GMT -5
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. I know Sharon has misgivings about Irvine, but I'm rather more sympathetic. I have no wish to disown him, not that Sharon does either, but I still don't call him 'founder'. I'm rather less concerned if someone said, William Irvine, John Long, Kelly and others 'founded'. But details to be resolved would be exactly who, and what did they found, and also when. When could be a moment or a time span. The choice of the word 'sect' is interesting. Definitely not politically correct, ram. It's been proven that whoever holds the reins of power invents words that marginalize those who don't have the power. There's no objective way of proving any difference between a 'sect' and 'church'. If you think there is, describe it for me. The terms sect/church are what Derrida called a binary opposition. In every binary opposition there is a preferred term and a marginalized term. Thus bias is wired directly into the language. You show your colours based on the words you choose - be it, church, sect, or cult.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:21:12 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 18:21:12 GMT -5
First Visitor: "What do you think of it?" Second Visitor: "You mean what do I think of HIM! First Visitor: "I suppose so. It seems to be him, and he seems to be it, and the people seem satisfied to have it so. There is something strange about it." Second Visitor: "Is it a weakness in them?" First Visitor: "No, it seems to be a power in him. He has a strong personality, and they like it. " Second Visitor: "Did you see how they looked after him when he walked across the court yard?" First Visitor: "I would like to come back a few years from now, and see how this work grows." Second Visitor: "They will not worship him long. He has been set on a Pinnacle on the Temple, and no man can remain there long without a fall." First Visitor: "He seems to be a man of strong will." Second Visitor: "Strong-willed men very often are weak in the presence of temptation. When he falls, it will be a heavy fall. First Visitor: "But if he does not fall." Second Visitor: "It has always been so, and God has had to turn His back on His people for their good." First Visitor: "Did you notice how easily he disposed of the man called John? It was like sending him into Outer Darkness. Excommunication has been the Great Weapon and the Chief Weakness of Organised Religious Bodies." Second Visitor: "If human families were as brittle as Religious Societies, a man would hardly know from one day to the next, where he was. Still there has been such a thing as Fellowship which survived Threats, Torture and Death." First Visitor: "There is more of the family spirit here than in the Churches." Second Visitor: "I hope it lasts, even grows, but there's much against it. The strong-willed man would dispose of others as he disposed of John and nobody would raise a voice against it." First Visitor: "They are afraid of him and still they like him. It is a pity there is no check on him, or that they cannot control their love, and keep it from becoming worship." Second Visitor: "I heard it said that in letters they use a capital "H" when they mention him. They do it unconsciously, not knowing that they are thereby declaring their idolatry." First Visitor: "They speak of him as a man raised up." Second Visitor: "They will trace their Spiritual Genealogy to him."
First Visitor: "I hear they are doing it now, and many have already given up what they call their old profession, and refer to him as the beginning of a new order, as Adam was the beginning of human descent."Second Visitor: "What fools these mortals be!" Source: Alfred Magowan www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/outline.php
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:24:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:24:40 GMT -5
Jesusonly, the crux of the opposition to accepting Wm Irvine as founder, is really it doesn't matter who it was or how many there were, the story would still be the same "we have no human founder."
If it was merely a case of whether William Irvine or Ed Cooney or John Long or whoever, or any combination of them that founded the sect, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. William Irvine = human founder, so he is rejected. The same fate awaits any of the others or combination of others. William Irvine, Eddie Cooney, John Long and Joe Kerr were all heave ho'd one way or another from the group. I guess they were all "found" wanting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:27:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:27:49 GMT -5
What, as far as I am concerned the F&W's fellowship is a sect, a church and a cult, in no particular order, the same as the Baptist Church I attend. Within my understanding of these terms I see every other branch of the Christian Church being likewise.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:31:40 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 6, 2009 18:31:40 GMT -5
The questions that really need to be asked and answered are these; Do you think God blessed Irvine and early friends and workers; Do you think God blesses the friends and workers today. If "Yes, I think God blessed them then, and blesses them now", then any man as founder discussion is a huge red herring, meaningless, and so over, it doesn't really matter to you because you see God himself involved. If "No, I don't think God blessed them then and doesn't now" you naturally would want to continue a man-alone-as-founder discussion, it matters a lot to you because you don't see God involved at all. If that's your answer I'd like to ask (like I have before here in -->> reply 134 <<) how do you know for absolute fact that God wasn't involved and didn't bless them then and doesn't now? Think about it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:33:25 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 18:33:25 GMT -5
Meaning of the word "sect:" A sect is a small religious group that is an offshoot of an established religion or denomination. It holds most beliefs in common with its religion of origin, but has a number of novel concepts which differentiate them from that religion. However, in many countries, the term "sect" takes on the negative meanings associated with the word "cult." The two terms are considered synonyms in some cases. Many religions started as sects. One well-known example was the Nazarenes. This was an reform movement within Judaism formed by Jesus' apostles after the execution of Jesus circa 30 CE They were largely dispersed or killed some four decades later when the Romans attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. Perhaps the most obvious North American example of a sect that evolved into a denomination is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. Their founder, Joseph Smith, had a revelation from God that the ministry of Jesus Christ continued after his crucifixion, as described in what is now called the Book of Mormon. The Mormon sect has since evolved into the Mormon denomination of Christianity with the passage of time and the gathering of increasing numbers of followers. Within a few decades, it is expected to become the dominant faith group in the American west. When statehood was being considered for Utah, a major impediment was the beliefs and practices in the Church regarding polygyny. Shortly after a new revelation from God banned the practice, statehood was granted. This caused a number of small sects to break away from the established church, in order to allow their male followers to continue to have multiple wives. Some of these sects continue to this day in the United States and Canada, although they have been excommunicated by the main LDS Church. A similar crisis occurred in the mid 1970's when a new revelation from God abolished the church's institutionalized racism against African-Americans. This time, the membership accepted the new ruling; there were no breakaway sects. Sects can therefore be considered a normal mechanism by which new religious movements are generated. Most sects die out quickly. Others linger. Still others grow and evolve in to a new established religious movement and are properly called denominations. A very few become new religions. There remains a negative connotation for many people to the word sect; they would much rather refer to their faith group as a denomination. We recommend that the term "sect" never be used in articles, speeches, essays, sermons, etc., unless it is carefully defined in advance -- and often not even then. We suggest that the faith group be simply referred to by its formal name, or as a new religious movement. www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:33:30 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 18:33:30 GMT -5
Jesusonly, the crux of the opposition to accepting Wm Irvine as founder, is really it doesn't matter who it was or how many there were, the story would still be the same "we have no human founder." If it was merely a case of whether William Irvine or Ed Cooney or John Long or whoever, or any combination of them that founded the sect, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. William Irvine = human founder, so he is rejected. The same fate awaits any of the others or combination of others. William Irvine, Eddie Cooney, John Long and Joe Kerr were all heave ho'd one way or another from the group. I guess they were all "found" wanting? I agree that "we have no earthly founder" was misleading. If they had separated the organization from what they preached it would have been OK e.g. "we believe and teach that which Jesus lived and taught on the shores of Galilee." The workers' organization is made up of fallible human beings and run by human beings. To merge "the workers' way" and "Jesus' way" is a grave error.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:38:52 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 6, 2009 18:38:52 GMT -5
Don't leave God out of the discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:46:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:46:43 GMT -5
The questions that really need to be asked and answered are these; Do you think God blessed Irvine and early friends and workers; Do you think God blesses the friends and workers today. If "Yes, I think God blessed them then, and blesses them now", then any man as founder discussion is a huge red herring, meaningless, and so over, it doesn't really matter to you because you see God himself involved. If "No, I don't think God blessed them then and doesn't now" you naturally would want to continue a man-alone-as-founder discussion, it matters a lot to you because you don't see God involved at all. If that's your answer I'd like to ask (like I have before here in -->> reply 134 <<) how do you know for absolute fact that God wasn't involved and didn't bless them then and doesn't now? Think about it. Sorry Jesse, I think your point is another red herring. This isn't about God being with any of these people. I am the only person that I can recall who has questioned whether or not God was with Irvine or not. This is all about down to earth honesty. Many people were misled or even lied to about the origins of this group. The Apostolic succession, no human founder, has always been theme helped persuade many to throw their lot in with the group, causing no small amount of upheavel in their lives in the process. It is more about this than whether or not God was with Irvine. If history wasn't important, Acts of the Apostles wouldn't have been written.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:48:11 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 18:48:11 GMT -5
The questions that really need to be asked and answered are these; Do you think God blessed Irvine and early friends and workers; Do you think God blesses the friends and workers today. If "Yes, I think God blessed them then, and blesses them now", then any man as founder discussion is a huge red herring, meaningless, and so over, it doesn't really matter to you because you see God himself involved. If "No, I don't think God blessed them then and doesn't now" you naturally would want to continue a man-alone-as-founder discussion, it matters a lot to you because you don't see God involved at all. If that's your answer I'd like to ask (like I have before here in -->> reply 134 <<) how do you know for absolute fact that God wasn't involved and didn't bless them then and doesn't now? Think about it. Jesse, life is not as black and white as that. I believe God blessed the early workers and friends when they were led by the Spirit, and continues to bless those who are led by the Spirit today. There is a lot I admire in what I've read of the early workers and friends. There's also a lot that disgusts me. We're all fallible, and make decisions that God approves of and disapproves of. Spirit-led people are quick to repent and acknowledge their error. I understand why those first workers rejected religious organization. I also understand why organization came to be considered necessary. The reality is, that once you have an organization then you have a founder or founders. If we ditched organization, then we could claim to be following something that had no earthly founder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:48:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:48:41 GMT -5
Where I come from the word "sect" has no untoward meaning and is usually used in reference to small religious groups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 18:52:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 18:52:53 GMT -5
FWIW I accept that Jesus is in the F&W's group just as much as he is with many any other groups. The F&W's group has recently joined the others since it ceased to be "the Perfect Way" and is now recognised as "an Imperfect Way."
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:01:16 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 19:01:16 GMT -5
FWIW Eddie Cooney whilst still a sect worker sued the People newspaper and gave sworn testimony that William Irvine FOUNDED the sect 16 years beforehand. Cooney won his case. Unfortunately I do not know details of his action against the newspaper, but clearly the issue of "founder" was an important question. The court accepted his testimony. Cooney was a major influence at the start of the movement. So major in fact many outsiders put his name to the group. Cooney's testimony was a major factor in winning his case against the newspaper who had the resources to employ good counsel, whereas Cooney did not. I'm afraid the question of founder was established long before it became an issue. Are you sure he said that Irvine "founded the sect". I think he said something else. Let's not twist the facts to fit our pet theories.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:02:31 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 19:02:31 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm assuming you agree the F&W's group was "founded" by a man or men round about the turn of the 20th century, irrespective of who they were ? I know you're addressing that to Clearday, but 'founded' is a transitive verb that requires an object. So we need the whole sentence.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:02:43 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 6, 2009 19:02:43 GMT -5
Man always tried to make things more complicated then they need to be, God himself has complained about that fact.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:04:50 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 19:04:50 GMT -5
California ... in 1917 (Three Overseers in serious mood) First Overseer: "I did not come here to waste my time." Second Overseer: "Do you think we ought to encourage him?" Third Overseer: "There are many things to be considered. How would we explain to the young converts?" First Overseer: "His coming back would be full of complications and contradictions, and in a little while we could be on the front benches like little boys again." Second Overseer: "We have been like free men since he ceased to Lord it over us. For my own part, I do not intend going back to the former condition and position - as his porter! " Third Overseer: "He made us what we are. Except for him I might still be what and where I was when he discovered me." First Overseer: "It is going to upset our Family Tree." Second Overseer: "You mean uproot it! Perhaps we made too much of him as our Father in the Gospel. I begin to think I was right before I met him....." Third Overseer: "Fathers sometimes go wrong without ceasing to be fathers." First Overseer: "Yes! but spiritual fathers are different. When they fall away, they carry away the whole ground of relationship with them." Second Overseer: "Do you think then that we should give up the Foundation of Teaching because he is not what he used to be." First Overseer: "We can still refer to the time we met him, and the necessity of Genealogy, without committing ourself any farther." Third Overseer: "But supposing somebody asks us who our spiritual Father was, and WHERE he is now?" Second Overseer: "In that case it would be wise to change the subject!" First Overseer: "I am wasting my time here. He seems to think he still has the rule over us, and keeps us waiting while he mends a car." Third Overseer: "I cannot forget the early days, when he was himself and when his words were our meat and drink. How thou art fallen from heaven 0 Lucifer, Son of the Morning! Sometimes I wish he was back again. All of us together have not the force he had. And the older people mourn for the powers and the glory of the first days." First Overseer: "But we cannot afford to lose the place we have gained by his fall." Second Overseer: "I do not like to put it that way." Third Overseer: "His unfaithfulness gave opportunity and occasion to our faithfulness." First Overseer: "That sounds better." (They go off arm-in-arm) Source: Alfred Magowan www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/outline.phpIf that was a play, I hope he also had a day job.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:05:51 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 19:05:51 GMT -5
What, as far as I am concerned the F&W's fellowship is a sect, a church and a cult, in no particular order, the same as the Baptist Church I attend. Within my understanding of these terms I see every other branch of the Christian Church being likewise. Incidentally, who founded the Baptist church you attend?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:06:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 19:06:21 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm assuming you agree the F&W's group was "founded" by a man or men round about the turn of the 20th century, irrespective of who they were ? I'm disappointed, you haven't been reading my posts! The beginning of the 2x2 church is something I've accepted for a long time. My participation in this discussion is focused on the narrow issue of who to name as founder(s). Clearly, WI was the main and dominant character in the beginning, with EC running a close second.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:15:59 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 19:15:59 GMT -5
FWIW Eddie Cooney whilst still a sect worker sued the People newspaper and gave sworn testimony that William Irvine FOUNDED the sect 16 years beforehand. Cooney won his case. Unfortunately I do not know details of his action against the newspaper, but clearly the issue of "founder" was an important question. The court accepted his testimony. Cooney was a major influence at the start of the movement. So major in fact many outsiders put his name to the group. Cooney's testimony was a major factor in winning his case against the newspaper who had the resources to employ good counsel, whereas Cooney did not. I'm afraid the question of founder was established long before it became an issue. Just going by memory, the word "founder" was not used by Cooney in the court case. He simply said that WI was "the first". Fair enough, but What argues that it's "first leader". Being the first in a movement doesn't automatically make you the founder, the founder could easily be someone who took up the idea and ran with it. I think it could be argued that others were the first in the sense of 2x2 homeless ministry. After all, weren't GW, JC and others out preaching without association to a church or organization before Irvine? What about John Long, wasn't he out preaching without affiliation before Irvine? These are the complications that arise in the determination of "founder", made murky by lack of information and the very fact that all these men set out to reject the formation of an organization unlike most other groups. In most other cases, there is a definite formation evidenced by a written charter, a registration or something similar. Nothing like that happened with this group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:16:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 19:16:27 GMT -5
What, as far as I am concerned the F&W's fellowship is a sect, a church and a cult, in no particular order, the same as the Baptist Church I attend. Within my understanding of these terms I see every other branch of the Christian Church being likewise. Incidentally, who founded the Baptist church you attend? That isn't an issue. I no longer believe in a perfect way that goes all the way physically by Apostolic succession to the shores of Gallilee. No one in the Baptist Church has ever made any such statement. When I came into the F&W's sect I had been told over and again the Apostolic Succession claim and believed it. I later was told by a member of the Baptist Church, long before I fellowshipped with them and believed they were Satan's slaves, that we were Cooneyites and had started up about 90 years previously. I had never heard of Cooney, nor Cooneyites and denied such things. I then confronted the Workers in the area and was told we are not Cooneyites, we don't know anyone called Cooney and that this way went all the way back. Soon afterwards I saw the Baptist chap and we had a minor dispute about it all, with me believing wholeheartedly that I was right. Unfortunately that man is now dead and I do not have opportunity to tell him that he was right and that I was a fool. Such things make the founder issue important in one group but not in another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:18:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 19:18:33 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm assuming you agree the F&W's group was "founded" by a man or men round about the turn of the 20th century, irrespective of who they were ? I'm disappointed, you haven't been reading my posts! The beginning of the 2x2 church is something I've accepted for a long time. My participation in this discussion is focused on the narrow issue of who to name as founder(s). Clearly, WI was the main and dominant character in the beginning, with EC running a close second. I apologise Clearday. I was too focussed on the most recent discussion. If all others were like you, all this would not even be an issue.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:24:05 GMT -5
Post by todd on Feb 6, 2009 19:24:05 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. Lin, I agree that the discussion is not going anywhere. The reason that I have been just watching this thread from the sideline is that all the conversation is about whether WI was the 2x2 founder, without first establishing what he did that might warrant that title. I know that Sharon might just be trying to be helpful and sort this out, but before you can put a word to what he did, someone should explain what he did so that a word can be put to it. If someone was claiming that pigs can fly, it is up to them to prove it. It not up to those that deny that pigs fly to prove that they don't, especially when those that claim it don't come up with anything to explain that pigs can, other than to continually repeat that pigs fly. "Pigs fly... why don't people just accept that and move on". This doesn't do anything towards enforcing the argument that pigs fly. This is the reason why I try to encourage the argument to not be about the word, but explaining what 2x2 means, and what WI did. And I don't doubt WI's existence but it would be nice if the argument concentrated on the things that he did to justify being a founder. One of the arguments is that the F&W’s wouldn’t be worshipping as they are today if not for WI. Where they are getting that information from is anybody’s guess, but it sure shows a lack of faith in the work of God. God had prepared the hearts of many others for his work, so don’t be fooled into thinking that WI did much more than deliver a very basic message, that could have been (and would have been) delivered to those same people by anybody else that God wanted to use at the time. WI was a very dominant man, and even deceitful towards the end, in claiming that it was because of him. This was at time when everyone acknowledges that he wasn’t a very Godly man. He had become proud and arrogant. Now, do you think we should believe the humble, Godly man that he was in saying that we should simply serve God, or should we believe the things he said once he went off the rails. Obviously, people like to hang on to some of the words that WI said after he went bad, such as him calling it an experiment, but only for them to say that he wasn’t a very honest and righteous man at that point. I seriously wonder why people choose to believe a man who they say is not honest and ethical. I would choose to believe his words at a time when he was humble and honest, and when he said that we shouldn’t be following man’s way but simply serving God, and following God’s way. This way is no more of WI than it is of you and me when we give God take control of our lives and serve him as an individual. When we look at WI's desire to live by the bible, he was just wanting to follow the instructions. If a man was told to follow some instructions about how to do something, does that make him the "founder"? no. Architect? No. Author? No. Father? No. None of those words describe someone who has been told to follow instructions. Some claim that WI didn’t follow the instructions correctly, especially concerning Matt 10, but whatever mistakes WI made, it doesn’t mean that those same mistakes were made by the others who also were moved to follow the bible, or are still being made today. So to those that continually ask why we don’t/can’t accept WI as founder of this faith we have, I say it would be much easier to accept it if it was true, but please don’t hold any hope of us accepting something that you can’t even explain yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:27:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2009 19:27:14 GMT -5
FWIW Eddie Cooney whilst still a sect worker sued the People newspaper and gave sworn testimony that William Irvine FOUNDED the sect 16 years beforehand. Cooney won his case. Unfortunately I do not know details of his action against the newspaper, but clearly the issue of "founder" was an important question. The court accepted his testimony. Cooney was a major influence at the start of the movement. So major in fact many outsiders put his name to the group. Cooney's testimony was a major factor in winning his case against the newspaper who had the resources to employ good counsel, whereas Cooney did not. I'm afraid the question of founder was established long before it became an issue. Just going by memory, the word "founder" was not used by Cooney in the court case. He simply said that WI was "the first". Fair enough, but What argues that it's "first leader". Being the first in a movement doesn't automatically make you the founder, the founder could easily be someone who took up the idea and ran with it. I think it could be argued that others were the first in the sense of 2x2 homeless ministry. After all, weren't GW, JC and others out preaching without association to a church or organization before Irvine? What about John Long, wasn't he out preaching without affiliation before Irvine? These are the complications that arise in the determination of "founder", made murky by lack of information and the very fact that all these men set out to reject the formation of an organization unlike most other groups. In most other cases, there is a definite formation evidenced by a written charter, a registration or something similar. Nothing like that happened with this group. Okay Cooney stated that Irvine was the first, not the founder. I guess I am becoming like what I accuse others of, "fusing" things together. I an fusing or confusing the origins of human agency with an actual founder. Sorry "What" and others. As stated in another recent post, I see this whole problem as being the desire by many to reject the notion of human originators, rather than one of disagreement over who these persons were. We know there was a hard core of which Irvine and Cooney were certainly an important and heavily influential part of. That said, there was one or more human founders.
|
|