|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:33:33 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 22:33:33 GMT -5
Hi Nathan...
How would you define Jesus' truth?
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:33:48 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 22:33:48 GMT -5
Cherie Why is it so important to you that WI is the founder? Is it because you have made a vow that it will be preached from the platform,but it hasn't been yet? Because I value truth Also - check your statement. I never vowed it would be preached from the platform...I would LIKE that to happen in my day, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:45:48 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 22:45:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:59:05 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 22:59:05 GMT -5
I guess some felt the "no founder" message was forced upon them. That's one reason they are no longer in the meetings. I left meetings five years before I even knew about William Irvine, so that wasn't the case for me. However, I did find it quite devastating, even though I was no longer in the meetings, to learn of the true history. Devastating...yes...but I'm glad to know the truth. People who are in Christ can trust that He is able to keep that which they've committed to Him. If hearing about William Irvine's part in the history of the fellowship causes someone to leave Jesus....that is an indicator that perhaps their faith was not really in Him to start with...but in a perception of Him, or in a fellowship or ministry instead. All the better for them to be released of the perception, even though it would be painful and stressful, so they can find the real Saviour. Blessings, Linda It's a strange phenomenon that occurs in some individuals and that to have a religious affiliation but without a true personal relationship with their Saviour but left alone to time and God, they can and usually do arrive at that true personal relationship and ONLY if human error does not get themself in the way of the working of God. And yes, it can be said that it has happened like so to some within the truth's fellowship that've been led wrong because of some human intervention! And that is not right either..... But I'm saying, I see wisdom in not forcing a point of fact upon someone that is not able to bear it....if the fact becomes known to them by accidentaly incident then that's another whole ball of wax. Resentment and rancor for being forced to acknowledge such fact of history can cause an unsuspecting victim to turn against Jesus and the whole thing of salvation! I'm seeing that within those already that've left the truth because of the history! And some of those have had this "fact" forced upon them! Otherwords when and if God sees it fit that such facts be made known then there's no stopping it and thus God will guard and guide the victims of the fallout....but let human be the forcing tool of such then God cannot do a thing about it! I know what I'm trying to say but perhaps it still isn't clear.....I just know how it's been for those who've had the historical facts that are known at this point forced down their unwilling throat and how they feel! They have lost faith in mankind and yes, that is necessary, but it's like me learning that workers are human at a young age...it's a part of growing up and some people are not equipped with spiritual maturity and some not even with emotional maturity to handle the fallout! Linda, you, yourself told how it hurt you and you'd been out for some time...so think how devastating it is for those who have NO grasp on truth at all! It is not mankind's place to reveal the truth, it is God's place, His time.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:04:38 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 23:04:38 GMT -5
Cherie Why is it so important to you that WI is the founder? Is it because you have made a vow that it will be preached from the platform,but it hasn't been yet? Because I value truth Also - check your statement. I never vowed it would be preached from the platform...I would LIKE that to happen in my day, but I'm not holding my breath. I do not understand why anyone would think to preach WI or any founder from the platform is conducive ti exhortation? Do the Methodist preach their founder from their pulpit? Do the Baptist? Do the Lutherans? Do the Pentecostal? Yes, I realize that some denominations have "classes" to teach their youth and new members(and only if they desire) how the denomination started! But it is not part of a worship service or I've never heard it even from the TV evangelists....so to wish it to be preached from the platform within the truth's fellowship is something outrageously wishful and unfair!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:20:22 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 23:20:22 GMT -5
Sharon, it's not necessary for other churches to preach their history from the platform, because they've never made the claim of having no founder/finder/originator or whatever. Since the workers have made that claim, and very adamantly, even to the exclusion of other believers because they go to churches that DO have a founder, it now seems right that they would clear that up in the fellowship. If it was preached from the platform, and personal visits were offered to help people deal with the shock of such a change, the fellowship would make great strides toward settling the matter and building on a more stable foundation.
Though it is hard to do, other churches have publicly taken responsibility for their errors. There is usually a very trying period that follows, but then everything settles and they proceed again with integrity. This is according to scripture. We need to make amends when we err. God is faithful to forgive and to purify us from unrighteousness.
If this was done, everyone would be able to process the information...instead of spending so much time and emotional energy trying to determine or avoid the truth.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:32:35 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 23:32:35 GMT -5
Sharon, it's not necessary for other churches to preach their history from the platform, because they've never made the claim of having no founder/finder/originator or whatever. Since the workers have made that claim, and very adamantly, even to the exclusion of other believers because they go to churches that DO have a founder, it now seems right that they would clear that up in the fellowship. If it was preached from the platform, and personal visits were offered to help people deal with the shock of such a change, the fellowship would make great strides toward settling the matter and building on a more stable foundation. Though it is hard to do, other churches have publicly taken responsibility for their errors. There is usually a very trying period that follows, but then everything settles and they proceed again with integrity. This is according to scripture. We need to make amends when we err. God is faithful to forgive and to purify us from unrighteousness. If this was done, everyone would be able to process the information...instead of spending so much time and emotional energy trying to determine or avoid the truth. Blessings, Linda Linda, with all due respect....to do so from a conv. platform is too public! I can see it being done in a spec. mtg. and then having enough workers to get around to know what shock is doing....but most likely just handling it day to day is the best and the sooner the better! The longer it's left hanging by the workers, the more there is going to be of the "forcing" of the issue and that's when the unhealthy things happen. It was said in the article I mentioned on another post the other day that such religions as the 2X2's can sure help in these days with their mtgs. in the homes and their guidelines of standards of life......clearing the vision of those who don't understand what it means to be living for Jesus beyond just knowing about the grace Jesus has brought into their lives.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:42:05 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 7, 2009 23:42:05 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that this needs to be put right "from the platform".
However, I strongly believe it needs to be put right. The teaching that our fellowship (group) was started by Jesus on the shores of Galilee, that our fellowship is the only right church because it wasn't started by a man.....is a lie.
I feel the workers need to sort this out amongst themselves. Spend as much time together at "workers only" conventions as is needed to sort it out.
Then as they go about their ministry during the year they can bring up the beginnings while visiting the friends in their homes. Perhaps give them the Pattison account, and be available for discussion and answering of questions.
It seems to me that more people are upset by worker dishonesty than they ever would be by being frank about the history.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:47:04 GMT -5
Post by ilylo on Feb 7, 2009 23:47:04 GMT -5
Cherie Why is it so important to you that WI is the founder? Simple. Because it's true. And the church which calls itself "the truth" doesn't tell the truth about itself. The 2x2 church is a self-contained contradication in terms. Is it because you have made a vow that it will be preached from the platform,but it hasn't been yet? Did she? Why shouldn't the truth be told from the platform? Why are you so invested in keeping the truth hidden from members of the 2x2 church? It should open your eyes (it should, but it probably won't) to think that you promote deception. Whether outright or by omission, it's still deception. Tell the truth. All of it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:53:24 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 23:53:24 GMT -5
Sharon and Jesusonly, yes...I agree...."from the platform" may not be the most affective route to take. I don't think anyone mentioned conv. platform...but it doesn't matter anyway...I think "platform" was used only to signify "public." And public could simply mean being more forthright about it all.
When people ask, just answer with truth. Don't change the subject, belittle the questioner or use pat answers. Those ones who have deliberately concealed information or evaded the truth need to simply say and mean it, "I'm sorry. I was wrong to do that. Now I want to do the right thing, and help you work through the process of healing."
I agree that the workers who know need to educate the ones who don't know.
If this was all handled according to what is outlined in the Bible, I think some great progress would be made.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 23:57:32 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2009 23:57:32 GMT -5
What today's workers say/think doesnt have any weight re WmI's role over 100 years ago. They werent there. Their comments are irrelevant. Most speak opinions from hearsay and hand me down information. What matters is: What did the workers who were with WmI at the inception of the church he preached in consider his role to be? The workers on the 1905 Workers List? The ones who gathered around him in 1897-1903? Did THEY view him as the founder? Who did they see was the founder of their group? THAT is the question. The Judge asked Cooney were you the founder? He said NO--Wm Irvine was "the first." EC was answering the Judge's question WHO WAS THE FOUNDER? There was nothing to cover up at that time in 1913. WmI hadn't yet been excommunicated. EC said, in essence, NOT ME--Wm Irvine was. Saying WmI was "The first" meant the same as saying he was the founder...in context with the Judge's question. Another worker on the 1905 list, Wilson McClung, is quoted saying Wm Irvine "STARTED our mission" (reported in the IMP newspr). Now we have Two Witnesses...but I dont suppose that is sufficient for some of you tho? Accurate or not, many others interviewed by reporters had to have believed that WmI was the Founder for the Impartial Reporter to give him that title in their newspaper so many times. Quote of Wilson McClung who entered the work in 1903 along with his wife, and are shown on the 1905 Workers List; McClung became the overseer of New Zealand for many years. OOps - there goes your WmI was our leader theory.... "We have no name,’ he replied, ‘but the ribald multitude give us many. Some call us Cooneyites, some call us Tramps, Faith Missionaries, No Secters, Women-Thieves, and so on. Well, we are Cooneyites. We are also McClungites, for Cooney is no greater than I. We have no established leader in this world. ‘Our mission was started by William Irwin, a Scotchman, seven or eight years ago. Others followed him. I myself was a Civil Servant in Dublin. I resigned my post, sold all that I had and gave to the poor, and went out to preach. The mission has grown gradually. Fifty men and women are now carrying the Word to the unenlightened in eight counties in England—rural England. There are as many in Scotland, more in Ireland." (Impartial Reporter, June 21, 1906, p. 3) "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? I made note of the Wilson Mclung quote in an earlier post, and as well one other quote from a worker that Irvine was not recognized as their leader. The 'leader' references by and large came from whoever was writing for the Impartial Reporter (I'm rehashing off your website so I know you know this) . But does it seem likely to you that those early workers, if they did not think of Irvine as a leader, would then recognize him as a 'founder'. I just think that 'founder' is too strong a word given the almost spontaneous way in which the movement grew in both numbers and in its teaching and doctrine. They literally seemed to deal with things as they came up. I also find the grounds on which you object to the word 'leader' interesting. The primary objection I see is that to say only 'leader' may not fully encompass all that Irvine did. You can be a leader and not have any new or original idea in your head and leader doesn't rightly incorporate Irvine's contribution to the concept of 'faith lines'. But your objection to the word 'leader' is based on a diminished view of Irvine's stature and role in the group. It is as if you are conceding that others also had a major role in the start of this preaching movement. In any case, mentally I feel between a rock and a hard place on this, and generally the best policy when that happens is to sleep on it for a few nights so the neurons can properly re-orient and being firing efficiently with respect to the latest data.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Feb 8, 2009 0:07:48 GMT -5
Now I'm curious to know what constitutes the title of "founder" given to those who are remembered for starting other denominations?
Like...Martin Luther, Meno Simons, William Booth, John Calvin, Henry the VIII, Constantine etc. etc.
Reading the history of these would be quite interesting I think.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2009 0:30:33 GMT -5
Now I'm curious to know what constitutes the title of "founder" given to those who are remembered for starting other denominations? Like...Martin Luther, Menno Simmons, William Booth, John Calvin, Henry the VIII, Constantine etc. etc. Reading the history of these would be quite interesting I think. Blessings, Linda They share certain things in common which we don't see in Irvine. 1) Written work establishing the principles of the denomination founded, 2) Significant seminal events such as Luther's nailing of the 95 theses to the church door, 3) Recognition by the group they founded. Although I remember a history prof saying that Luther was not really the founder of the Reformation, he was just the first one that they didn't kill. Most founders have left behind a corpus of writing. Constantine did not found anything I don't believe. Modern day thinking is that he helped pretty much any religion for the sake of peace in his empire. And although Henry VIII was instrumental in beginning the Anglican church, I don't believe he was considered founder. The Anglicans think of themselves as a continuation of the Catholic church, so they may not have a founder, strictly speaking.
|
|
|
Post by lamebeaver on Feb 8, 2009 0:30:38 GMT -5
the head workers would need to write letters to everyone expounding the truth..it would be so much easy to just tell folks to read the books like the secret sect book and others I imagine many don't know..like i told my 2x2 aunt the other day I says now all you need is a computer she says i wouldn't have it around
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 8, 2009 1:33:11 GMT -5
Well Toddy, Without William there would have been NO TESTIMONY.That wasn't hard to find out. No WI- no testimony, yet things continued on quite fine without him. So it wasn't just WI? This is the sort of thing that I keep saying needs to be established before people start deciding about whether 'founder' is the right word. It hasn't even been decided if it was just him. It is hard enough to get a straight answer from those that have studied WI, so don't expect those who look to Jesus, to care about what WI did.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 8, 2009 1:37:49 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. Whether you like it or not, God's way is exclusive. It is the only way to salvation. If you have heard this exclusiveness preached, you better believe it, because it is in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 8, 2009 1:47:07 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. Thanks Clearday, This is getting closer to the sort of discussion that should be had. So we are establishing that WI wasn't who founded the meetings, so that cuts out half of what people call 2x2, but maybe he founded the 2x2 ministry. Are you able to explain what the 2x2 ministry consists of, and why 2x2 is his idea, and how he founded it? I am aware that there hasn't always been strictly 2x2 adherance, so maybe 2x2 isn't what it should be called. Is there another word to more accurately discribe what is actually happening?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 8, 2009 2:01:06 GMT -5
The Judge asked Cooney were you the founder? He said NO--Wm Irvine was "the first." EC was answering the Judge's question WHO WAS THE FOUNDER? There was nothing to cover up at that time in 1913. WmI hadn't yet been excommunicated. EC said, in essence, NOT ME--Wm Irvine was. Saying WmI was "The first" meant the same as saying he was the founder...in context with the Judge's question. If the judge's question was "were you the founder", EC wasn't answering the question "who was the founder". Why didn't EC answer "No, WI was the founder"? He clearly knew that it was wrong to call him the founder, but the Judge was obviously looking for a name, and EC gave him WI's name, without actually calling him 'founder'. If it was true that WI was the founder, EC would have said so, because he had every opportunity to.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 8, 2009 2:08:15 GMT -5
Hi Sharon, I enjoyed reading your thoughts concerning the Italian Tractor, and I have a few comments about it. This allegory needs to take a few more things into consideration to compare it to the f&w. First, you would have to imagine that your understanding of the instructions were accepted as correct by a few others as well. No, you would not be the "founder" or "author" of the instuctions, but you would be the "founder" or "author" of your interpretation that seems to be working alright. It would not likely be too difficult to find others to agree with you if the tractor is at least running. But, what if someone else reads the instructions, and finds he can operate the tractor a little differently, but still with success. He may gain a following as well. So, now he is also a "founder" or "author" of another interpretation of the instructions. Perhaps his methods cause the tractor to run even better than your instructions. Of course he's still not the original "founder" who designed the tractor and knows the real importance is about the tractor running well, rather than whose instructions are best. Sometimes, with really bad instructions, the tractor won't run at all. Other instructions may allow it to run, but not without some difficulties, that may even cause damage to it and reduce its producivity. Of course the very BEST instructions are those made by the true original "founder," the designer of the tractor, and ALL other interpretations are not quite as good. Anyone who claims to have the total correct instructions must be equating themselves with the original "founder." Even if he has somehow managed to keep the tractor running, and maybe even running pretty well, perhaps he is unaware of how much better it could be running, because he hasn't come across better instructions .... yet! Sharon, I know that you recognize the faith of others outside of the f&w, but many f&w do not. Your post about the tractor made me think of those who insist that they have the only set of instructions that compares with the original. (Although I don't think that's what you were intending to say.) Blessings, Linda Linda, You don't take into account that the author of the instructions is right there very present helping those who don't quite understand the instructions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 4:46:52 GMT -5
I have never suggested that God was not in this movement. I have great confidence in God's mercy to work alongside human weaknesses. Well Toddy, Without William there would have been NO TESTIMONY. General comment (not directed specifically at you ram); If God was involved it would not matter at all who the men/women were, God is well able to make it happen if he so desires. To say that without Irvine nothing would have happened seems to be thinking that limits the power of God himself and reveals the state of one's faith in the ability of God to do what he wants where he wants and when he wants. How do any of you who think that with out Irvine this would not have happened know that to be absolute truth? Remember what Jesus said? "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Don't leave God out of the discussion. I've always wondered *why* people think what they think, and say what they say - the *why* is often the root of *what* they think and say. So thanks to all - this has been a very interesting thread. Jesse, God has promised that if we draw near to him then he will draw near to us. He does this despite our faults and failings and our wrong ideas of scripture. He wants to correct us. This drawing near is not confined to any set form, but rather down to honesty of hearts. If we are crying out that God is seeking honest hearts, then we must have honest hearts ourselves showing a willingness to accept that we are wrong and that he is right. There are many things that Irvine and his peers got wrong. This is not surprising since they condemned education, most especially religious education, and embraced abject idnorance as a virtue. The greater part of all the problems laid at the feet of the F&W's faith is not so much the problems themselves but the basic fact of lack of honesty to accept the wrongs and false teachings, the eschewing of accountability and responsibility and in doing so an unChristlike attitude is unleashed upon those who have suffered because of the problems. The F&W's church has still a long way to go before it reaches the condition of some of the churches mentioned in Revelation. There is hope. God called these churches to listen to what the spirit had to say by way of repentence. It was saying, in these things you are wrong. Take responsibility for them and make them right. Be accountable or I will make you accountable. You're right Jesse. God is not limited by humans. He was working in people long before Irvine came along. He was working in many others at the time Irvine and Co. acquired their following. Remember, for several decades before Irvine hung up his miner's lamp there was great spiritual revival going on. There were many people drawing near to God who was reciprocating in kind. Irvine at best was only one of these.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 5:00:08 GMT -5
Well Toddy, Without William there would have been NO TESTIMONY.That wasn't hard to find out. No WI- no testimony, yet things continued on quite fine without him. Did they ? I suppose their main convertor Eddie Cooney would agree with that and many others. Also, I can drive a car, but that doesn't mean the car didn't have a designer.So it wasn't just WI? This is the sort of thing that I keep saying needs to be established before people start deciding about whether 'founder' is the right word. It hasn't even been decided if it was just him. Do you reject the fact the movement had one or more human founders ?It is hard enough to get a straight answer from those that have studied WI, so don't expect those who look to Jesus, to care about what WI did. So spouts the chief exponent of prevarication.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2009 5:10:12 GMT -5
The Judge asked Cooney were you the founder? He said NO--Wm Irvine was "the first." EC was answering the Judge's question WHO WAS THE FOUNDER? There was nothing to cover up at that time in 1913. WmI hadn't yet been excommunicated. EC said, in essence, NOT ME--Wm Irvine was. Saying WmI was "The first" meant the same as saying he was the founder...in context with the Judge's question. If the judge's question was "were you the founder", EC wasn't answering the question "who was the founder". Why didn't EC answer "No, WI was the founder"? He clearly knew that it was wrong to call him the founder, but the Judge was obviously looking for a name, and EC gave him WI's name, without actually calling him 'founder'. If it was true that WI was the founder, EC would have said so, because he had every opportunity to. Todd, please inform me what this court case was about. Was it defamation of character since it was a civil suit ? In what way was Cooney being defamed ? Did the newspaper accuse him of being the "founder" of the sect ? After all, right from early days they were referred to as "Cooneyites" in the papers. That aside, Cooney was asked if he was the founder. He replied "No, William Irvine was the first !" Cooney is testifying on oath. He was being examined or cross-examined. In court if you are asked specific questions the court MUST BE satisfied that these questions are answered clearly and to the satisfaction of the court. If they are not the questioning goes on until they are. If a subject prevaricates he is warned that it is a serious criminal offence to "prevaricate on oath." So when Cooney was asked "were you the founder," you can be sure that one and all understood that William Irvine was the founder when Cooney answered "No, William Irvine was the first about 16 years ago." Unless you can show further testimony under cross-examination which shows otherwise and from the fact that Cooney won his law suit against the odds of expert counsel in the pay of a newspaper, we really have to have a common sense and logical approach to this and accept that it was established in a court of law that William Irvine was the founder of the sect. He was clearly put in the dock by his second in command (co-founder if you like). It seems at least at this stage that the terms "founder" and "first" are inextricably linked. It would be interesting to see if further details and background to this lawsuit are available anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 8, 2009 6:08:15 GMT -5
the head workers would need to write letters to everyone expounding the truth..it would be so much easy to just tell folks to read the books like the secret sect book and others I imagine many don't know..like i told my 2x2 aunt the other day I says now all you need is a computer she says i wouldn't have it around There is no need to write letters expounding truth. If a person is taught of God,wouldn't they know truth themselves? Serving God is not theory,but spirituality. If there was no ministry,and it has happened before. Does that mean people are shut off from serving God? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 8, 2009 9:13:33 GMT -5
no, nathan, I do not believe the F&W fellowship is from the shores of Galilee; it was started in the late 1800's by a man. Therefore, if the F&W fellowship claim to be the only way because it came from God and any religion started by man is false, then, because of their own doctrine, they are a false religion. "~~ The doctrines of the 2x2 fellowship and Itinerant ministry is from the shore of Galilee... there has always been workers/apostles who preach, teach and believe this goes back to Galilee in EVERY generation." Periodot, I think you are talking about something very different then what Nathan said in his quote above.... Nathan said "The doctrine" You turn around and say "F&W fellowship" They are two different things, entirely..........that's the complete misunderstanding of the whole issue! JMOP
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2009 9:28:27 GMT -5
what wrote
I really, dont have a problem calling Wm a leader...for I can see that he took hold of the reins in the 1903 Rathmolyon conv and led, organized, etc. from that point on.
But when someone ask you who is the founder - I think its a significant omission to mention him only in the capacity of a leader, not to mention it doesnt answer the question. IMO, its a partial answer, a half truth.
It would be similar to this analogy: Say I started a store--from scratch--I didn't buy the business from anyone, I put it all together myself and opened the doors to the public for business. I now own and manage it, and go to work there every day. Along comes someone who inquires who I am?
They are told she is the store manager. Later they find out what else I am...owner, starter, proprieter, accountant, advertising mgr, inventory controller, payroll mgr, accounts receivable/payable, customer service, purchasing agent, etc.
They feel they were only told a half truth. That wasn't nearly all I am or mean to that store.
While "Leader" or "First Leader" is definitely a role WmI filled, it doesnt answer the founder question, and it isnt a full disclosure.
PS I dont know why McClung didn't recognize WmI as their leader--it's strange to me. But it is what they reported that he said. However, I dont try to hide things that dont agree with my thinking.
I threw it out there knowing full well that it would just muddy the waters even further. You just have to take it in context with what others wrote and felt about WmI's role and make up your own mind about his meaning and its accuracy.
I also see Cooney as a strong Vice President "leader" at times. And Cooney sometimes went off and did things without WmI's approval--before WmI officially took the reins in 1903. See meeting ("conference") in Dublin that WmI wouldnt even attend that Cooney arranged. John Long writes about it:
1901 JUNE: "We returned through Haggs and Kilsyth and crossed the Irish Sea, to Dublin, to a conference that Edward Cooney had arranged for at that time. We were expecting a joyful meeting and greeting on the Irish side by the Brethren there, after being absent for ten months; but we were disappointed, when it turned out otherwise, because we found the workers all in confusion among themselves.
It was a very unwise thing of Edward Cooney to bring them together at that particular time, for it was for the worse; not for the better. William Irvine refused to attend the conference and wisely so, “A prudent man forseeth the evil, and hideth himself. But the simple pass on, and are punished,” Prov. 22:3. However, Cooney was hot in the service of Christ; and meant well to the Kingdom of God; and put up about 40 workers at his own expense.
All public gatherings require control as well as liberty, in order to preserve unity and peace and make the time edifying and profitable, “Wherefore, Brethren, covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order,” 1 Cor. 14:39-40.
The cause of the confusion and disorder arose from about twelve workers, mostly women, who were out preaching and used in getting other persons saved; yet got an experience in which they denied their first conversion. It might have been bearable had they left others to themselves. They were inclined to unChristianize others who had not a similar experience; and put down the revival that gave them birth as being all in the flesh.
They were very sanctimonious; and careful about little things; yet did not wear the joy or brightness of their former testimony. They denied the possibility of being a carnal or babe Christian. They refused to take any correction; nevertheless, time and circumstances did much to set them right again.
I am told that this strange phenomena has repeated itself during revival times in church history; and may have occurred in Paul’s times. See 2 Cor. 10:2. G.C. Grubb had the same experience in his work for God in New Zealand. It occurred among the young converts; he did not like it at all and directed their attention to the Blood of Jesus.
Notwithstanding all the confusion and diversity of opinion that marked the occasion, there were some very good and profitable addresses given by G. C. Grubb, Robert Todd, Thomas Turner, Sister Millard, and others. I was asked to speak and I had a good message from 1 Tim. 11:12."
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 8, 2009 9:30:40 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. Thanks Clearday, This is getting closer to the sort of discussion that should be had. So we are establishing that WI wasn't who founded the meetings, so that cuts out half of what people call 2x2, but maybe he founded the 2x2 ministry. Are you able to explain what the 2x2 ministry consists of, and why 2x2 is his idea, and how he founded it? I am aware that there hasn't always been strictly 2x2 adherance, so maybe 2x2 isn't what it should be called. Is there another word to more accurately discribe what is actually happening? I also understand from Nathan's digging into history that really WI didn't "found" a 2X2 ministry! That kind of ministry was used throughout many divisions of Christianity wasn't it? So again, WI didn't found anything..."faith lines" but wasn't that already a part of the Apostolic Christian churches to a great degree for their evanglistic groups? I think EC had more "founding" for what is of the truth's fellowship then WI...for WI was only utilizing things he'd learned in seminary school....and that was probably the mitigating factor that others thought he'd make the best overseer...he'd had seminary school, he supposedly knew more about how to deal with people in regards to a religious way. The basic doctrine is all within the scope of the NT scripture and it cannot be said that the doctrine was "founded" by an particular man in the late 1890's........the only thing that can truthfully be said is the manner in which the converts were to be gathered together and how the ministerial branch would move in and about the world, eg. mtgs. in the home and a homeless ministry! Not just one component but the combining of the two to makeup what is now known as the truth's fellowship! And Cherie's own facts of history make that fact come about at the time EC left the group to go on his own....that would have been years after WI was excommunicated for immoralism and delusional behavior. Thus the truth's fellowship did not become anything near what it is today until say what well after 1914?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2009 9:42:19 GMT -5
There were some odd things done form "the platform" in the Early Days. Here's one of them, and it includes how John Long viewed his role in the Go-Preacher Movement, one of their names back then. Spoken in 1907 from the platform: "My (John Long) defensive address was short, but to the point. I warned against strange fire, and believing an untruth. I showed how, through faith in the Lord Jesus, John Wesley received the witness of the Spirit in his soul; also when it went to works, we all come short of the labours of that Godly man. none of them yet was as self denial as he was; I also added that I was not opposed to a true witness against wrong, but a false one. I was seconded by Goodhand Pattison of/from Cloughjordan/but the whole conference stood up to express their belief that there was no clergyman born again; then William Irvine said, "See the majority is against you, John." Then he denounced me again with two untrue accusations. One that I never got on well with any worker (no doubt taking advantage of the rupture between me and John Reyston). The other that I lived for years on his testimony. Unto these I said but little and let the thing pass by. But if God used him to open up my way in Scotland; God used me to open up his way in Ireland; and during the ten years since the revival began with very little exception, I was in lodgings; and hard put to it at times and received very little financial help from him. I was too quiet for William Irvine, and he was a warrior and an able conversationalist. "Then Irvine tested the meeting and asked all those who believe that there are clergymen born again? And there were only two stood up, namely Pattison and I. Then he asked all those who believe that there never was or never could be a clergyman born again to stand up, and every one of them stood up, except two, and there were fully 200 people present. "Then Irvine warned me not to visit any saint’s house, but to go on fresh ground for myself, and if I came back after twelve months believing that clergymen were saved, they would look upon me as being unsaved too; that cut the last thread of my fellowship with them, so I left in tears. "Many years have passed away; and time did much to correct extremes; yet I cannot say that the Go-Preacher mission from that time ever did the same soul saving work that characterized the original years of the work. They still exist in an exclusive manner and are more careful in preaching, and modified in their tone. Of the wrong done to me at that time, there has been not public confession or acknowledgement; it severed me from some of my near relatives; and robbed me of my privilege, namely the right of fellowship in the mission I helped to start.Many persons thought that when I left the Go-Preachers, I would give up the work; or give up portions of the truth; but praise the Lord, all that I held then which was scripturally right, I still hold fast; and this year of grace 1923 finds me still preaching the Gospel, and fully in the Lord’s work and a Go-Preacher, though not in fellowship with them (Nov. , 1941)." From John Long's Journal 1907, www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_johnlong/3longjohn.php#1907
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2009 9:49:46 GMT -5
Sharon wrote
This is using Equivocation--it's what Dennis was talking about...happens a lot. Mixing the spiritual characteristics or what you call the "basic doctrine" of the NT-- with the physical, historical history of the 2xs2 sect that was founded at the turn of the 20th century.
It cant be validly inferred that what is true of one is true of the other...
Apples and oranges...
RE:
What do you mean by "what it is today"?? How did it change after 1914?
|
|