|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:34:50 GMT -5
Post by ronhall on Feb 6, 2009 19:34:50 GMT -5
I cannot see how ones faith could be in a fellowship and be a ChristianIf one believes that they, or another, will lose their salvation if they leave their particular fellowship, then their "faith" is "in" said fellowship. Members of the Mormons, JWs, SDA, some exclusivist Baptists, some exclusivist Lutherans and Catholics, and certainly many F&Ws believe this. Of course, they will deny that their faith is dependent on their group, but it's difficult to argue otherwise. Isn't it true that WI eventually left the fellowship? If so, then he didn't believe his faith was dependent on the fellowship he left.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:40:10 GMT -5
Post by todd on Feb 6, 2009 19:40:10 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. And our responce should be... Matt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 19:46:00 GMT -5
Post by todd on Feb 6, 2009 19:46:00 GMT -5
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 That said, there was one or more human founders. Wasn't Jesus (the author and finisher of our faith) a human?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 21:12:52 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 21:12:52 GMT -5
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. I was only curious how you would answer the question. Not a very forthright answer there, ram. Just kidding, of course.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 21:17:32 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 6, 2009 21:17:32 GMT -5
Todd, you're fun.
Although it seems obvious to me that every founder of a new Christian religion believes he has rediscovered what God really meant from the very beginning, putting Irvine into the same company as any other founder, I still think it makes for good religion to de-emphasize the founder and imagine that it all came from the shores of Galilee. I think the New Testament authors, though they each tout their own understanding and brand of Christianity, are good examples of this pointing to Jesus.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 21:21:35 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 21:21:35 GMT -5
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. From what I've read very recently "sect" simply means "splintering" from another church...which if you look at the 2X2 history that is available one has to assume it is a sect splintered off of the FM? Only since 1965 has the word "cult" taken on an onimous meaning.......fact is all religions started as a "cult" or a beginning of a new culture! In all reality....the "workers' church" is perhaps the most appropriate "name" for the fellowship we know was a culmination of the early "workers" separating their own converts! That is a simplistic an explaination as necessary!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 21:46:27 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 21:46:27 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. jo! There are some very important viewpoints on this website, made by unprejudiced people's research. www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 22:10:10 GMT -5
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 6, 2009 22:10:10 GMT -5
I cannot see how ones faith could be in a fellowship and be a ChristianIf one believes that they, or another, will lose their salvation if they leave their particular fellowship, then their "faith" is "in" said fellowship. Members of the Mormons, JWs, SDA, some exclusivist Baptists, some exclusivist Lutherans and Catholics, and certainly many F&Ws believe this. Of course, they will deny that their faith is dependent on their group, but it's difficult to argue otherwise. Isn't it true that WI eventually left the fellowship? If so, then he didn't believe his faith was dependent on the fellowship he left. He didn't leave of his own free will. He was encouraged to go to Israel and wait for the Lord's return as he had proclaimed would happen. He was in essence put out and cut off from the group. A few remained faithful to him but most abandoned him.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 22:47:46 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 6, 2009 22:47:46 GMT -5
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. I agree that this is what makes the founder issue important. If workers and friends stop the lies then William Irvine's role as founder will not matter the same.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 23:17:52 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 6, 2009 23:17:52 GMT -5
TTT Editor's Note: Following is a collection of quotes taken from all the newspaper articles in the TTT archive regarding Wm Irvine's role in the 2x2 sect. He was called the founder and supreme authority, leader, one of the founders, co-founder, originator; leader, co-leader, recognized leader; chief pioneer. Some statements regarding Edward Cooney's role are also included. This collection is provided to make it easier for the reader to analyze or study the actual words on record. These statements are taken from articles printed by the Impartial Reporter Newspaper of Enniskillen, N. Ireland. The full article is available by clicking the date of the quote. IMP quotes about "Leader" and "Pioneer" are at: www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_index/founder-imp.phpNOTE: William Irvine's last name is sometimes mispelled as "Irwin." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Impartial Reporter Newspaper of Enniskillen, N. Ireland Articles containing the Word “FOUNDER” Wm. Irvine, the founder and supreme authority of what is known as Cooneyism, is a Scotchman. His native place is Kilsyth, a small town near Glasgow. Before he became a Tramp he had attached himself to the sect know an the Faith Mission or Pilgrims, and was the manager of a coal mine under Baird & Co., Glasgow, and enjoyed a salary of £300 a year. William Irvine left this employment and joined the Faith Mission, under the control then of J. G. Govan, of Rothsay, who still holds conventions after the manner followed at Crocknacrieve, but on a much smaller scale. It is often addressed by evangelical Clergy. Wm. Irvine gave up his connection with that sect for two reasons, according to my information—1st, because the leader was alleged to have been a ‘hypocrite,’ in that while teaching Pilgrims to live by faith he himself had over hundreds of pounds. 2nd, because Mr. Irvine’s converts always lapsed and were lost among the clergy by going back to their own congregation or what is known as the churches. Consequently a small number of preachers and some from the Faith Mission, along with one named John Long (who was rejected three years ago, because he would not maintain that John Wesley had gone to hell) and about a dozen stood by Wm. Irvine…However, the chief motive power was latent until Edward Cooney heard Wm. Irvine, and offered him money and even a salary yearly, which was refused by Irvine. At all events, £1,300 from Mr. Cooney alone was applied to the cause, and has been preached as having been ‘given to the poor,’ on the authority of, ‘Sell all that ye have, &c.’ Yet as a matter of fact, this sum was mostly paid to transport preachers to places abroad, and not to the poor, as is sometimes understood, the fruit of which even yet in some measure returns annually to Crocknacrieve Convention. Edward Cooney soon made converts, and spoke of his relatives in a manner not after the style of the Gospel. But because of his sincerity and earnestness, many were influenced… (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910, p8) The annual Convention for the ‘Pilgrim’ community was opened on Sunday at Crocknacrieve, the residence of Mr. John West, near Ballinamallard. In the absence of Mr. Wm. Irvine, founder of the Pilgrims, the Convention was opened by Mr. Edward Cooney, formerly of Enniskillen. (Impartial Reporter, July 3, 1913) William Irvine, one of the founders of the Go-Preachers’ Society, said it was Protestant evangelical. Its tenets containing nothing relating to the sexes that was different from the teaching of other denominations. (Impartial Reporter, July 17, 1913) The closing scene at the meeting in the gloaming was impressive. All the arrangements had been made for the departure of the ‘preachers’ to different parts of the world, and it only remained for the Go-Preachers’ founder to give to all the last words of counsel and farewell. Mr. Irvine dealt mainly with the duty of those in fellowship towards one another and towards the outside world. (Impartial Reporter, July 31, 1913, p. 8) They were both members of a community known as the ‘Go-preachers,’ who took this name from Scripture, in which the apostles were exhorted to go forth and preach to all the world. Mr. Cooney was one of the pioneers or founders of the community, and the libel was headed ‘The Cooneyites.' Mr. List complained that he was described as a ‘Bishop’ in the sect. Mr. Edward Cooney also gave evidence that the statement complained of was untrue. (Impartial Reporter, July 31, 1913, p. 8) Mr. Justice Darling— Were you the founder of this sect?—No, William Irvine was the first, about sixteen years ago. I cast in my lot with him as a fellow-preacher, and preached a good deal in the north of Ireland. I recognise the name, but others have nicknamed us ‘The Cooneyites.’ I do not like it myself. (Impartial Reporter, December 18, 1913, p. 3) Their founder was really a Mr. William Irvine…and his doctrines, of course, do not differ essentially from those of the various heretical millenarian sects which have arisen in the history of Christianity. (Impartial Reporter, July 19, 1917, p. 6) One of Enniskillen’s most remarkable men, Edward Cooney, who turned his back on wealth to become a wandering preacher and the founder of a new religious sect, the Cooneyites, has died in Australia at the age of 93. The second son of Mr. William Rutherford Cooney, who owned an extensive drapery business in High Street, Enniskillen, and who resided at Lakeview, Edward Cooney was a commercial traveller for his father’s business. His parents were members of the Church of Ireland and Edward was baptized and brought up in that faith, but becoming very serious minded early in life, and through diligent reading of the Scriptures, he arrived at variance with the views of the churches. (Impartial Reporter, June 23, 1960)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 7, 2009 0:52:00 GMT -5
I asked someone who grew up with the Impartial Reporter as their local paper if they thought the Impartial Reporter reporters were impartial, they said "I guess like all newspapers their reporting lacks objectivity."
People, "reporters" even, call Obama a communist, does that automatically mean he is one?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 7, 2009 0:57:14 GMT -5
No. Obama is a socialist.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2009 1:19:50 GMT -5
There are articles mentioning Irvine as leader also. Articles mentioning Cooney as leader. Articles mentioning them as co-leaders. These always from the viewpoint of very skeptical and derogatory writers for the Impartial Reporter. Then there are quotes from workers (2 such quotes) saying they have no leader. So it seems like this difference of opinion about leadership between those inside and outside the group extends all the way back to the early days of the group. Todd's point is well taken, that one should establish what happened before coming up with a summary conclusion. I myself will refrain from further commentary until I study more. (Yeah, as if) It's quite interesting that all this happened 100 and more years ago, and here we are still arguing about it. Of course, Jesse's question underlies everything, but I don't expect we'll get an answer on whether anyone outside our fellowship feels Irvine was moved by God. It is highly probable that they do not, and this is why they need to establish Irvine as the founder, in order to undermine the foundation of our belief. Saying a thing does not make it so. Whether it's those now, or those then. Personally I will concede that Irvine was a leader of the group, likely along with Cooney. The question of the founder is a murky one. I only reserve opinion for now as it has not been made clear to me. This is not a denial.
|
|
lizzy
Senior Member
Posts: 530
|
Post by lizzy on Feb 7, 2009 2:24:43 GMT -5
Sharon, You go girl! "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!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 5:23:19 GMT -5
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. I was only curious how you would answer the question. Not a very forthright answer there, ram. Just kidding, of course. "What," you are quite right. Some time ago I was given all the details but really didn't put any importance on them. I could find out very easilly though. This is really what I'm getting at. Honesty is a great thing. It makes all the difference. The Baptist Church (or at least my one) does not claim to be the only true way of God. It has never claimed to be continuous all the way, physically from Jesus' time. It does not claim that its preachers are God's only true mouthpieces. It does not claim that Christians must meet in a certain place, and so on. The concept of a human founder is really a non-issue in most Christian Churches. However, it is with the F&W's church, because of the implications that accompany it. I suppose my real beef is not so much the human founder side of it, but the lack of honesty. Why not just say "Yes, without William-there would be no testimony," and move on. Of course the issue of all the beliefs and teachings that were founded upon there being "No William - but there is a testimony" would have to be addressed, and it seems that's what many want to avoid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 5:47:42 GMT -5
What wrote:
Of course, Jesse's question underlies everything, but I don't expect we'll get an answer on whether anyone outside our fellowship feels Irvine was moved by God. It is highly probable that they do not, and this is why they need to establish Irvine as the founder, in order to undermine the foundation of our belief.
I have never suggested that God was not in this movement. I have great confidence in God's mercy to work alongside human weaknesses. I do not believe there is any perfect way of religion, yet I do believe that God operates in many Christian faiths, despite the divisions, including the F&W's church. We must see the broader picture going on in that there has always been spiritual warfare going on, intensifying until the day Christ comes again.
I have stated I have my doubts about God being with William Irvine, which I still hold. However, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. I do not doubt that Cooney was a man of God, nor many of the others. This does not mean that I accept everything they would say or preach to be true. In fact after my experiences with the F&W's church this is my position with anyone. It does not mean that because I see failings or wrong preachings that I deem God is not with them. I think this is a wise position to be in. In the F&W's the mindset (at least in my area years ago) was that everything the workers said came from God, we were not to have doubts, we were just to accept and do and so on. It is this type of control which causes problems.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 7, 2009 8:43:43 GMT -5
I was only curious how you would answer the question. Not a very forthright answer there, ram. Just kidding, of course. "What," you are quite right. Some time ago I was given all the details but really didn't put any importance on them. I could find out very easilly though. Maybe you could find out easily because it is true . Try finding out that pigs fly and it won't be so easy. Or for that matter, try finding out what WI founded and you will see that is also hard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 9:06:12 GMT -5
Well Toddy, Without William there would have been NO TESTIMONY.That wasn't hard to find out. The sect was founded largely around Irvine and Cooney's deiscussions about Matt 10 and going out on Faith lines. Cooney offered Irvine money if he went out by this Method. Irvine told him, God doesn't want your money, he wants YOU Eddie. From that point on the movement started to formulate.
It is unlikely Cooney would have gone out as he did without Irvine's authoritive promptings and without Cooney, Irvine may not have made much headway with the sect.
Therefore Irvine was the main founder, but needed the help of Cooney to make a proper go of it. Of course there were one or two others who played a lesser role, but it all boils down to the initial statement, "Without William - No Testimony !"
Now there you have it. Nothing hard about it. Of course if you mean by "try finding out what WI founded and you will see that it is also hard," that you cannot get straight, informative, up front answers from many of his spiritual progeny, then you are absolutely correct !
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 9:14:37 GMT -5
FYI: "ALL" the workers began to form their converts into meetings and to baptize them in 1903 per John Long and Pattison:
John Long: 1903 JULY: After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time ALL the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness.
Pattison: The Portadown Convention - 1903 I made it part of my business to be at that convention...Not long after my arrival, perhaps the next day, Messrs. Irvine and Cooney together spoke to me on the subject of baptism, as at that convention for the first time to my knowledge they started to baptize and also form churches for the breaking of bread, etc. I did not see my way clear just then to be baptized, thinking if I would get it done at all, it would be better at home, but I did attend a church meeting held somewhere in the neighborhood - in the town by Eddie [Cooney], who had been having a mission there shortly before and probably had already been forming churches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 9:24:48 GMT -5
Cherie, from these two quotes we can see the founding of a separate branch of the Christian church, by its two main characters at that time, but one which was not intended to be exclusive, at least initially.
Its nice to have the testimony of these two witnesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 9:24:54 GMT -5
That's an easy one. William Irvine founded the movement of 2x2 homeless ministry called "The Work" today. There's no question about that. WI was the first, there were none immediately before him, and all after him were either his recruits/converts, or they were recruits/converts of his recruits/converts. Although "The Work" as undergone many incremental changes since then, it was begun by him attempting model his new group from Matt10.
His role in the founding of the meeting system of "Friends and Workers" is less clear. So far, it appears that Edward Cooney was the primary organizer of the first meetings in about 1902.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 7, 2009 9:58:52 GMT -5
So it seems like there were two founders? Both then met the same fate of being cast out. Sounds like mutiny.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 10:25:31 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 10:25:31 GMT -5
So it seems like there were two founders? Both then met the same fate of being cast out. Sounds like mutiny. It was... Dont forget Joe Kerr and John Long also got the ax; and also Irvine Weir who one of the first 3 who came on the boat to America in 1903 with G Walker and Wm Irvine.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 10:45:57 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 7, 2009 10:45:57 GMT -5
So if a group rejects its founders,does that mean they become a new group with new founders. Isn't that called a splinter group? In this case the group stayed pretty much intact,but without their founders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 10:55:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 10:55:23 GMT -5
In a way it would not be unlike Paul and Barnabas et al, disagreeing with the 12 Apostles and going their separate way.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 10:57:45 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 7, 2009 10:57:45 GMT -5
They were still in agreement though,and proved to be right in going to the gentiles.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 11:11:59 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 11:11:59 GMT -5
"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."
This viewpoint puts a whole other light on the subject of "founder"! And it is the viewpoint that the workers that I've known anything about have held....they didn't feel that there was any particular one who "founded" anything....they were all reading the same instruction book and interpreting it somewhere near the same as one another.
Would it be even "legal" in natural life to consider oneself the "founder" of something that came about from reading the instruction booklet on? Apt to get your socks sued off in reality.
I'm thinking for example...we bought an Italian made tractor back in the 70's...though my husband was well versed in working with and operating most American made tractors, this particular one from Italy caused us to have to read every word within the instruction book or it wouldn't operate correctly if at all! My husband was no reader, so it was left up to me to read it out loud for both of us and often explain to him in simpler terms just what the instruction booklet was saying! I wouldn't have dared take the name of "founder" to myself just because I read it to the purpose of operating that tractor correctly, now would I?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 11:20:33 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 7, 2009 11:20:33 GMT -5
Good thoughts Sharon. Especially if the instructions came from the Spirit.
|
|