|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 18:13:00 GMT -5
I received the book Heritage of Revival by Colin N. Peckham, 1986 today. This is a history of the Faith Mission written by an insider. From the first chapters I note the following similarities to the friends and workers movement. - Initiates 'profess' at Faith Mission gospel meetings. - Preachers are called 'workers'. - Verbal testimonies by members are encouraged. - Conventions were held by the Faith Mission from time to time; notably one in Rothesay. - Female workers were encouraged and this was breaking new ground for the Faith Mission. The only other organization, of the many emerging in Scotland at that time, that encouraged women speakers was the Salvation Army. - Ministry was referred to as "the work". - The FM workers had no formal theological education. - George Govan travelled and supervised all FM activity in Scotland similar to a head worker today. He was known as "the Chief".
Some other notes of interest. Scotland was ripe for new beginnings in the mid-1800s. The once predominant Church of Scotland had broken into three parts. Dwight L. Moody made a trip to Scotland in 1874 and spoke to thousands in the big cities. George Govan attended 40 meetings held by Moody. Govan began the Faith Mission in 1886. (Not mentioned in this book was his involvement with Holiness Movement and the Keswick Convention). Apparently the first workers in the Faith Mission drew inspiration from the China Inland Mission *. The Faith Mission took the new awakening to the small towns and rural areas.
* See next post
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 18:13:24 GMT -5
The China Inland Mission sent missionaries to China beginning around 1865. Here are some of their goals and attributes, and they may sound familiar:
No solicitation of finance, or indebtedness; looking to God alone; pooling support in life of corporate faith Recruitment of missionaries not based on education or ecclesiastical ordination, but spiritual qualification; deployment of single women in the interior and Christian professionals And, They are able and willing to bring themselves into close contact with the people, by living in their houses, using their dress, and living for the most part on their food; in short, “becoming all things unto all men, that they may save some.” They are not generally educated men, but men from humble labouring classes, converted and brought out by the revivals in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and showing zeal and aptness to preach and labour for the salvation of souls. Hence they will not be very likely to fritter away foolishly their time in reading dusty old Chinese tomes, and in making books and tracts that nobody will read. They are willing to “rough it.”
(From wiki on China Inland Mission ...)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 18:31:31 GMT -5
One of the early evangelists in the China Inland Missions was William Chalmers Burns who hailed from the same small town as Irvine, Kilsyth, Scotland. This may not be of any specific significance other than to note that both men definitely swam in the same seas. Burns travelled with Hudson Taylor, the founder of the CIM, for many years in China. Moody later met Hudson Taylor in person. Govan went to 40 of Moody's meetings and also emulated the CIM in setting up the FM. And of course, Irvine followed after Govan. So these men were all early leaders in the Awakening in Scotland, and they all knew of each other. Irvine also attended Keswick Convention with Govan, if I recall correctly.
Irvine took the Faith Mission to Ireland in 1896 (from TTT) and that's where the friends and worker movement began ... in Ireland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 18:32:59 GMT -5
The information in the OP is probably one of the strongest arguments in favour of calling Irvine the founder, or at least the primary founder. Because there were very few other FM workers involved in the first days, it is clear that Irvine himself established many of the first traditions by carrying them over from the Faith Mission.
John Long, a less forceful character would have been very familiar with the FM system as he had worked with Irvine while Irvine was still in the FM although JL never actually became a FM worker. However, JL was certainly at the heart of the first days of inception of the fellowship and could be called a co-founder imo.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 18:37:48 GMT -5
The Faith Mission did organize follow-on meetings for those who professed, called "Prayer Union" meetings. Faith Mission began in the Fall of 1886 and the prayer union meetings began in June/July 1887. "The Prayer Unions were increasing with the expanding work. During the first year, twelve were formed, seventeen in the second year, twenty-five in the third, and by the end of the sixth year there were 118 Prayer Unions." (Peckham, p. 28)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 18:48:04 GMT -5
Here are a couple of colourful passages on the effect the Faith Mission workers had in the early days.
[On the 30th June and 1st July, 1888, in Dunfermline, Scotland, a demonstration was organized to celebrate the first anniversary of the Prayer Unions]. People converged on the town from the surrounding areas and combined with the Dunfermline Christians for this special event. Two special trains hired for the purpose brought enthusiastic Christians from towns far and near, and over 400 streamed from the station platform to the hall, singing rousing hymns as they went. A hall holding 1500 was filled. At 5 o'clock there was the march of witness when over 800 people marched joyfully down the main streets pouring forth songs of praise to God. (p. 22)
And,
Whole villages were brought under conviction of sin. "Not one man in my bar on Saturday night", moaned the publican to a policeman, "and before these meetings the place was packed". God transformed wild, drinking, swearing men! .... Open-airs were often lively times with heckling and shouting, jeering and yelling to try to break up the meeting. Pilgrims would often go straight for the public house and hold an open-air meeting near to it. They fished where the fish were and sometimes in rough seas! (p. 26)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 19:08:18 GMT -5
The information in the OP is probably one of the strongest arguments in favour of calling Irvine the founder, or at least the primary founder. Because there were very few other FM workers involved in the first days, it is clear that Irvine himself established many of the first traditions by carrying them over from the Faith Mission. John Long, a less forceful character would have been very familiar with the FM system as he had worked with Irvine while Irvine was still in the FM although JL never actually became a FM worker. However, JL was certainly at the heart of the first days of inception of the fellowship and could be called a co-founder imo. At what point could Irvine not be distinguished from a Faith Mission worker? As late as December 1899 Irvine was still preaching alongside other travelling Faith Mission workers that came through (see Goodhand Pattison's letter). From TTT, Irvine was "listed as superintendent of the Faith Mission work in southern Ireland until December, 1900." Anyway, in 1901, according to Pattison, Irvine had a falling out with Govan, or vice versa, for not sending in his expense reports or the like (just kidding about the reason, but it might not be far off). Bright Words said in September 1901, "During the year several have dropped out of our list of workers. Pilgrim Irvine has been working on independent lines in Ireland, then quite recently Pilgrim Kelly has resigned and also aligned himself with these independent workers." So, clearly Irvine was superintendent of the Faith Mission workers in southern Ireland. Irvine and Kelly were FM Pilgrims. It's not clear how FM regarded "these independent workers". Did Irvine join the "independent workers" or was he their leader? The weight of evidence favours the latter. Faith Mission seems to have been very open to other denominations, with their pilgrims preaching alongside other independents, and also alongside various clergy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 19:20:22 GMT -5
Here is another interesting point. Follow the money. Faith Mission workers had to send all their donations to head office after deducting for personal expenses. I suspect that if those donations stopped coming might cause concern, otherwise not so much. So perhaps Irvine did keep forwarding donations as long as he was on the Payroll. I can't see it working any other way, but this is all conjecture on my part. I read on wiki that Irvine "planned his new movement" while on the FM payroll for three years. I'm not sure that we can really say he was playing both sides of the fence like that, and the wiki writer (of that sentence) seems to be highly prejudicial in his comments. Although I have always thought that the friends began around 1896 or 1897, perhaps the break from FM did not really occur until 1901.
Another interesting thing that Pattison notes is that the FM was open to other clergy to preach at their conventions. This apparently irked Irvine to quite an extent. This is not so malevolent as it might seem. The FM movement was bring new life and new hope to the Scottish and Irish rural areas. It was in spirit a significant break from the dying established forms within the Church of Scotland. (And even the established churches were being revitalized from within; I noted that Pattison describes Rev. John McNeill as "a leading light (evangelistic) belonging to, but not confined to, the Presbyterian body in Scotland".) So at that time no doubt there was a reaction against the established forms and methods, if not against the churches themselves.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 7, 2012 19:27:57 GMT -5
Does it appear to you, What, that the split and formation of the F&W's was very much like any other spliting of other denominations? That there was something that caused WI to want to improve in the working of the evangelistic push of the time? Such as making something MORE permanent of the prayer mtgs. as the friends and workers have mtgs. in the home?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 19:37:37 GMT -5
Does it appear to you, What, that the split and formation of the F&W's was very much like any other spliting of other denominations? That there was something that caused WI to want to improve in the working of the evangelistic push of the time? Such as making something MORE permanent of the prayer mtgs. as the friends and workers have mtgs. in the home? Yes, and the question is, what those things would be? I was reading Pattison's letter with a view to understanding what about FM upset Irvine, and I mentioned his irritation at the involvement of clergy, above. Personality is always a factor in these things. Pattison noted elsewhere that while the Methodists of the day preached "Holiness", Irvine tried to live it. He felt that the Methodists themselves did not embrace the "Holiness" doctrine, and "Holiness" is not really a feature of Methodism today, in any case. So Irvine may have been much more passionate in walking the talk of "Holiness" than Govan or some of the other FM preachers. As far as the meetings that you mention, I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe no. I need to read some more. But if Irvine had an inclination to live out Holiness doctrine in a more passionate way, then a separate meeting movement would be a natural consequence of that desire. I also haven't really figured out these Prayer Union meetings and their relationship to regular church services. Likely people were expected to do both. But if you liked the Prayer Union meetings, and did not like church services? Did some of the early Irish friends come out of these Prayer Union meetings? It'd be good to know more about the format of these meetings.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2012 19:40:50 GMT -5
Good points, what.
I doubt it irked WmI. Irvine invited other preachers to speak at their larger gatherings in the early days. Rev. George Grubb is one that I recall offhand. WmI and his workers' new converts continued to go to their same churches or at least a church of their choice too for awhile also.
There is another good book about the Faith Mission, written by Govan's daughter, I. (Isobel) R. Govan titled: Spirit of Revival. Its about twice as thick as Peckham's book.
One thing that irked WmI about the FM was that Govan received income from a trust or some inheiritance and he wasn't totally depending on God/faith for his sustenance. So he didn't live by the same principles the other workers did.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 7, 2012 20:18:54 GMT -5
Several excerpts from "Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947" by Christopher Clark ______________________________________________
"The English traveller had witnessed in Berlin one of the centres of the 'Awakening', a socially diverse movement of religious revival that swept across the Protestant north of Germany during the first decades of the nineteenth century (1820-1830's). Awakened Christians emphasized the emotional, penitential character of their faith. Many of them experienced the transition from unbelief or a merely nominal Christian commitment to the fullness of awakened religious awareness as a traumatic moment of 'rebirth'." . . . "This kind of religious commitment was personal and practical rather than ecclesiastical; it expressed itself in an astonishing range of social initiatives: voluntary Christian societies sprang up dedicated to the distribution of charity, the housing and 'betterment' of 'fallen women', the moral imporvement of prisoners, the care of orphans, the printing and distribution of Bibles, the provision of subsistence labour for paupers and vagrants, the conversion of Jews and heathens." . . . "They organized themselves in auxiliary societies that met for prayer, Bible-reading, discussion and the collection of donations for Christian purposes. The prominence of voluntary associations in the landscape of mineteenth-century evangelical Protestantism was something new and significant. This may not have been the sceptical, critical, contentious, bourgeois 'public sphere' idealized by Jurgen Habermas, but it did represent an impressive self-organizing impulse capable of feeding into proto-political networks and affiliations." . . . "Protestant revivalism in Prussia tended to seek expression outside the confines of the institutional church. The church service was esteemed as one possible route to edification, but Awakened Christians preferred, in the words of one of their number, 'the private devotional meeting, the sermon in the house, the barn or the field, the conventicle'. Some Awakened Protestants openly disparaged the official confessional structures, dismissing church buildings as 'stone houses' and church pastors as 'men in black gowns'. In some Prussian rural areas, local populations refused to patronize the services of the official clergy, preferring to congregate in prayer meetings." . . . "The official churches and the various sectarian or separatist movements did not entirely monopolize the spiritual life of Prussians. On the margins of the churches, and in the numerous interstices of religious belief and practice there flourished a rich variety of eccentric variations on the norm, in which the tenets of licensed dogma blended seamlessly with folk belief, speculative natural philosophy and pseudo-science. These were the hardy weeds that shot up ceaselessly between the paving stones of official religion."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 20:38:36 GMT -5
Good points, what. I doubt it irked WmI. Irvine invited other preachers to speak at their larger gatherings in the early days. Rev. George Grubb is one that I recall offhand. WmI and his workers' new converts continued to go to their same churches or at least a church of their choice too for awhile also. There is another good book about the Faith Mission, written by Govan's daughter, I. (Isobel) R. Govan titled: Spirit of Revival. Its about twice as thick as Peckham's book. One thing that irked WmI about the FM was that Govan received income from a trust or some inheiritance and he wasn't totally depending on God/faith for his sustenance. So he didn't live by the same principles the other workers did. It wasn't me who said that, but I was paraphrasing Pattison. I've copied the complete passage from Pattison's letter (from TTT) and underlined the significant parts. William Irvine Breaks With the Faith Mission - 1901
I may now mention as belonging to the same time (roughly speaking) that William Irvine and his chief [Mr. J. G. Govan of Faith Mission] were beginning not to see eye to eye in certain things, which no doubt made matters very unpleasant for both and which ended in complete separation. What exactly were the things with which William found fault and probably testified against, I do not consider myself an authority, but believe it was something he had seen more particularly at convention times, in Rothesay, such as giving place to outsiders, who while very able and attractive speakers were not the principle doers, and making such very prominent to the exclusion of others who had faced the music and bore the brunt of the battle. This would naturally meet with disapproval. More especially would this be the case when the persons concerned were the clergymen class which even then had been receiving unfavorable attention at his hands.
This, together with a certain favoritism or partiality which he probably noticed in regards to Mr. Govan's arrangement for sister workers (pilgrims) [footnote 36], making distinctions, etc., which William probably thought insidious and unnecessary and would consequently say some things about having seen or thought he saw failure along these lines and protesting, he would naturally grow lax in his dealing with and fidelity to Mr. Govan's authority and arrangements, becoming irregular in his reports, thereby making it difficult for Mr. Govan to carry on; and so little by little relations were becoming more strained until they reached breaking point, and Mr. Irvine got the distinction of unfavorable notice in "Bright Words" [footnote 37], and some correspondence took place also about him between Mr. Govan and 2 or 3 persons, or probably more, on this side.
Yes, this reaction seems contradictory to the mixing of preachers with Irvine in Ireland through the preceding 5 years, but that would be on Irvine's own ground, and no doubt, he was cultivating men and women of like mind to himself. And Grubb was from Keswick, so would be steeped in Holiness theology. These men were all shaped by the times and conditions, so it is likely that a group of them came to think a certain way, whereas others did not, and would leave or go off in some other direction. For a preacher of uncertain allegiance in 1895 or so, there was lots to choose from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 20:42:18 GMT -5
Several excerpts from "Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947" by Christopher Clark ______________________________________________ These were the hardy weeds that shot up ceaselessly between the paving stones of official religion." I love the phrase "hardy weeds between the paving stones of official religion." Count me in with the weeds! I hear a new hymn in the offing...Gene, with your charming way with words, take it away!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 20:47:58 GMT -5
Several excerpts from "Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947" by Christopher Clark ______________________________________________ "The English traveller had witnessed in Berlin one of the centres of the 'Awakening', a socially diverse movement of religious revival that swept across the Protestant north of Germany during the first decades of the nineteenth century (1820-1830's). Awakened Christians emphasized the emotional, penitential character of their faith. Many of them experienced the transition from unbelief or a merely nominal Christian commitment to the fullness of awakened religious awareness as a traumatic moment of 'rebirth'." . . . "This kind of religious commitment was personal and practical rather than ecclesiastical; it expressed itself in an astonishing range of social initiatives: voluntary Christian societies sprang up dedicated to the distribution of charity, the housing and 'betterment' of 'fallen women', the moral imporvement of prisoners, the care of orphans, the printing and distribution of Bibles, the provision of subsistence labour for paupers and vagrants, the conversion of Jews and heathens." . . . "They organized themselves in auxiliary societies that met for prayer, Bible-reading, discussion and the collection of donations for Christian purposes. The prominence of voluntary associations in the landscape of mineteenth-century evangelical Protestantism was something new and significant. This may not have been the sceptical, critical, contentious, bourgeois 'public sphere' idealized by Jurgen Habermas, but it did represent an impressive self-organizing impulse capable of feeding into proto-political networks and affiliations." . . . "Protestant revivalism in Prussia tended to seek expression outside the confines of the institutional church. The church service was esteemed as one possible route to edification, but Awakened Christians preferred, in the words of one of their number, 'the private devotional meeting, the sermon in the house, the barn or the field, the conventicle'. Some Awakened Protestants openly disparaged the official confessional structures, dismissing church buildings as 'stone houses' and church pastors as 'men in black gowns'. In some Prussian rural areas, local populations refused to patronize the services of the official clergy, preferring to congregate in prayer meetings." . . . "The official churches and the various sectarian or separatist movements did not entirely monopolize the spiritual life of Prussians. On the margins of the churches, and in the numerous interstices of religious belief and practice there flourished a rich variety of eccentric variations on the norm, in which the tenets of licensed dogma blended seamlessly with folk belief, speculative natural philosophy and pseudo-science. These were the hardy weeds that shot up ceaselessly between the paving stones of official religion." And this is what I somewhat dislike about the word "founder", because these Awakenings were populist, grass roots revitalizations of the Christian impulse. Earlier men like Luther, Calvin, and even Wesley and Simmons, wrote prolifically, and put in herculean intellectual effort to combat or revise established Catholic doctrine. They can easily and properly be identified as founders. While the "leaders" within the Awakening were often just highly charismatic preachers, and often did not burn a new intellectual path. Although some, like Spurgeon and Darby wrote prolifically, many like Irvine, Govan, Burns or Hudson Taylor did not. Actually Taylor did, but not so much in the area of theology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 20:50:27 GMT -5
Any information on the Prayer Union Meeting format? That's one piece of information I haven't seen anything on as yet. I have long been curious as to where our meeting format came from and suspect it must have had some similarity to the PU meetings.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 20:54:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 7, 2012 21:03:17 GMT -5
And Grubb was from Keswick, so would be steeped in Holiness theology. These men were all shaped by the times and conditions, so it is likely that a group of them came to think a certain way, whereas others did not, and would leave or go off in some other direction. For a preacher of uncertain allegiance in 1895 or so, there was lots to choose from. You've made reference to the strong possibility of Holiness lineage several times lately. What is your take on the pedigree of the Holiness church? I was just looking at a chart that shows Orthodox/Catholic to Anglican to Methodist to Holiness. Is that as you believe it to be? (oops- sort of cross-posted - I had started my post and then went looking at charts)
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2012 22:15:29 GMT -5
I stand corrected, what. Thanks. Another Irish revival mission/movement was the Christian Workers Union.
In 1900, Mr. Govan of Faith Mission commented: "Since we started in Ireland some seven or eight years ago, several agencies have followed suit on somewhat similar lines. A Mr. Duff has a mission in the north with a number of workers, and in the south there is the mission conducted by Mr. and Mrs. Todd, formerly workers with us." (Bright Words March, 1900). In 1903, Mr. Govan wrote: “The organisation under the superintendence of Mr. Duff, also, in the north of Ireland, is to be recognised as quite distinct from our own. While we aim at loving fellowship with all who serve the "one Lord" in the "one Spirit," it is due to our workers and subscribers that we should make these explanations.” (Bright Words May 1903, p. 102) Click Here for more info about the Irish Christian Workers Union
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 22:55:03 GMT -5
And Grubb was from Keswick, so would be steeped in Holiness theology. These men were all shaped by the times and conditions, so it is likely that a group of them came to think a certain way, whereas others did not, and would leave or go off in some other direction. For a preacher of uncertain allegiance in 1895 or so, there was lots to choose from. You've made reference to the strong possibility of Holiness lineage several times lately. What is your take on the pedigree of the Holiness church? I was just looking at a chart that shows Orthodox/Catholic to Anglican to Methodist to Holiness. Is that as you believe it to be? (oops- sort of cross-posted - I had started my post and then went looking at charts) Interestingly, in this book there is a picture of all the Faith Mission pilgrims as of 1892, standing in four rows like a worker picture, and at their feet is a banner that says "holiness to the Lord". The Holiness Movement is simply the idea that you are redeemed when you are born again in Christ, but you are not sanctified at that point; you are not yet holy. Some denominations within the Holiness Movement speak of a second rebirth when you are sanctified, but I believe that with the friends you spend your life working toward being sanctified. This idea was quite common in Methodist circles of the late 19th century. Irvine was steeped in it, because he attended Keswick Convention which is seen as a center of the Holiness Movement. Anyway, the pedigree is actually from the Moravian Church which dates back to 1457. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, but who was actually an Anglican, was the first to spread the Holiness doctrine widely in his sermons and later his book titled "Christian Perfection". "Christian Perfection" is the same idea as Holiness, that you are "born again" once but then become perfected in Christ over time. I have read Wesley's book, but his distinction between perfected Christians who don't sin, but do make mistakes, versus unperfected Christians who aren't quite there yet, is quite a fine line if you ask me. But the essential idea of spiritual progress throughout life is a compelling one, all the same. So, this is from wiki - It was on the voyage to the colonies that the Wesleys first came into contact with Moravian settlers. Wesley was influenced by their deep faith and spirituality rooted in pietism. At one point in the voyage a storm came up and broke the mast off the ship. While the English panicked, the Moravians calmly sang hymns and prayed. This experience led Wesley to believe that the Moravians possessed an inner strength which he lacked.[8] The deeply personal religion that the Moravian pietists practised heavily influenced Wesley's theology of Methodism.[9] And then the Moravian church was an offshoot of Catholicism, but almost a pre-Reformation one. However, some people believe the Moravian church, I'll quote wiki, "is reputed to have received the Apostolic Succession through the Waldensian Church, but the historicity of this is disputed." I personally doubt that, but most ideas in Christianity, like that of Holiness, have very deep roots. Anyway, potentially the lineage is: Waldensian -> Moravian -> Wesley -> Holiness -> Faith Mission -> Friends & workers However, I would exercise extreme caution before making that leap. The problem is that the Waldensians (and the Cathars) always seem to be focal points for groups or historians that wish to find a way around lineage through the Catholic church. But the lineage from Moravian forward is historically documented. Note - it's just a lineage of ideas that is being considered.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 23:02:05 GMT -5
And one footnote is that Pentecostalism is an offshoot of Holiness as well. I haven't read that much about that but the observation has been made. From where I sit, with my Calvinist, Reformed background, there are a lot of similarities between Pentecostal type churches and the friends, in that both are often ascetic, against worldliness and emphasize clean living. I think an ex-friend would feel more at home in a Pentecostal/ community type church than in a more traditional Reformed/ Presbyterian/ United/ Episcopalian church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 23:14:53 GMT -5
I stand corrected, what. Thanks. Another Irish revival mission/movement was the Christian Workers Union.
In 1900, Mr. Govan of Faith Mission commented: "Since we started in Ireland some seven or eight years ago, several agencies have followed suit on somewhat similar lines. A Mr. Duff has a mission in the north with a number of workers, and in the south there is the mission conducted by Mr. and Mrs. Todd, formerly workers with us." (Bright Words March, 1900). In 1903, Mr. Govan wrote: “The organisation under the superintendence of Mr. Duff, also, in the north of Ireland, is to be recognised as quite distinct from our own. While we aim at loving fellowship with all who serve the "one Lord" in the "one Spirit," it is due to our workers and subscribers that we should make these explanations.” (Bright Words May 1903, p. 102) Click Here for more info about the Irish Christian Workers UnionA number of 'home church' movements have their roots in the Awakening in Scotland and Ireland. Jaenen mentions the churches of the Stone-Campbell movement, but Brunstad Church and 'local churches' can also be traced back to this period, and the influence of Holiness doctrine. Brunstad ties back to Keswick Convention, and 'local churches' came out of China, but Watchman Nee's parents were both Methodists. There's an impetus of putting faith into action, and living out the Christ, that occurred in the mid and late 19th century in various places around the world. The more I read about it, the more inter-linked it all appears to be.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2012 23:26:05 GMT -5
Any information on the Prayer Union Meeting format? That's one piece of information I haven't seen anything on as yet. I have long been curious as to where our meeting format came from and suspect it must have had some similarity to the PU meetings. Googling around, it seems that "prayer meetings" were quite common in the 19th century, and the format of the friends' meetings seems to owe something to these prayer meetings. They tended to only last an hour, everyone was involved, discussion was not allowed, and there might be a hymn or two. They were structured so that anyone in any denomination could take part and not take offence in being preached at on some point of doctrine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 5:14:54 GMT -5
Any information on the Prayer Union Meeting format? That's one piece of information I haven't seen anything on as yet. I have long been curious as to where our meeting format came from and suspect it must have had some similarity to the PU meetings. Googling around, it seems that "prayer meetings" were quite common in the 19th century, and the format of the friends' meetings seems to owe something to these prayer meetings. They tended to only last an hour, everyone was involved, discussion was not allowed, and there might be a hymn or two. They were structured so that anyone in any denomination could take part and not take offence in being preached at on some point of doctrine. It is my understanding that the original/current meeting format was a carry over from the Prayer Union Meetings format. I read that somewhere at some time in the past, but just can't recall where. I doubt it was anything orginal or anything the workers dreamed up. They were against anything new and besides they continued over their terminology etc. They kept the FM itinerant preacher format to a great extent and when the movement became inward looking they attached their own fellowship supporters to the missionary movement. It stands to reason that in setting up the home church they simply followed the format of something they were familiar with, e.g. the FM Prayer Union Meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 8, 2012 5:55:53 GMT -5
Several excerpts from "Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947" by Christopher Clark ______________________________________________ These were the hardy weeds that shot up ceaselessly between the paving stones of official religion." I love the phrase "hardy weeds between the paving stones of official religion." Count me in with the weeds! I hear a new hymn in the offing...Gene, with your charming way with words, take it away! I think I'll defer to SharonW, our resident lyricist and musician, on that one!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 9:06:39 GMT -5
Googling around, it seems that "prayer meetings" were quite common in the 19th century, and the format of the friends' meetings seems to owe something to these prayer meetings. They tended to only last an hour, everyone was involved, discussion was not allowed, and there might be a hymn or two. They were structured so that anyone in any denomination could take part and not take offence in being preached at on some point of doctrine. It is my understanding that the original/current meeting format was a carry over from the Prayer Union Meetings format. I read that somewhere at some time in the past, but just can't recall where. I doubt it was anything orginal or anything the workers dreamed up. They were against anything new and besides they continued over their terminology etc. They kept the FM itinerant preacher format to a great extent and when the movement became inward looking they attached their own fellowship supporters to the missionary movement. It stands to reason that in setting up the home church they simply followed the format of something they were familiar with, e.g. the FM Prayer Union Meetings. That makes a lot of sense Ram, but we need to make a small emendation. I don't think it was just FM Prayer Union Meetings. When you Google "prayer union meetings" you find that these were a common feature of the Awakening of that time. Here's one interesting reference - www.jedwinorr.com/typical.htmThe term "union" refers to the fact that they were multi-denominational. I have a feeling that the term "union meeting" was also borrowed by the friends. So we see a kind of natural flow from the practices during the widespread revival of the late 19th century into the more circumscribed observances of the f&w. Also, it might be more correct to state, not that they were "against anything new", but that they were conservative, and not likely to innovate, at least not at first. They wanted something more basic and authentic so "borrowing" various practices would make much more sense. In fact, "borrowing" practices is also not correct to say. Irvine, Long and others ministered in the various branches of the Revival/ Awakening as were presented or available to them; Irvine as a young man going into the FM, and Long as an unpaid colporteur (at first). Within that context they then evolved their "own branch" and once they had a full head of steam around 1905-6 severed themselves from their historical roots. Well, Irvine did, Long did not. Incidentally, in evolving their own branch, they no doubt had sound reasons and there were pressures that caused this to happen. Irvine and the early f&w at first were simply a product of the Awakening and later their intensity and fervour led them to create their own identity within it. So the prayer union meeting format, non-confrontational, non-dialectical and performative, suited their purposes well. And taken on its own the f&w meeting is a great format for a worship meeting, in general. A larger and more interesting question is this. Since we know the friends adopted terms and practices of the FM and the widespread revival of that time, how did those terms and practices evolve? Where did the words "workers", "mission", "gospel meeting" and so on, originate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 9:18:08 GMT -5
It is my understanding that the original/current meeting format was a carry over from the Prayer Union Meetings format. I read that somewhere at some time in the past, but just can't recall where. I doubt it was anything orginal or anything the workers dreamed up. They were against anything new and besides they continued over their terminology etc. They kept the FM itinerant preacher format to a great extent and when the movement became inward looking they attached their own fellowship supporters to the missionary movement. It stands to reason that in setting up the home church they simply followed the format of something they were familiar with, e.g. the FM Prayer Union Meetings. That makes a lot of sense Ram, but we need to make a small emendation. I don't think it was just FM Prayer Union Meetings. When you Google "prayer union meetings" you find that these were a common feature of the Awakening of that time. Here's one interesting reference - www.jedwinorr.com/typical.htmThe term "union" refers to the fact that they were multi-denominational. I have a feeling that the term "union meeting" was also borrowed by the friends. So we see a kind of natural flow from the practices during the widespread revival of the late 19th century into the more circumscribed observances of the f&w. Also, it might be more correct to state, not that they were "against anything new", but that they were conservative, and not likely to innovate. They wanted something more basic and authentic so "borrowing" various practices would make much more sense. That all makes 100% sense. I hadn't even connected the "Prayer Union Meeting" with our "Union Meeting', but that makes perfect sense too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 9:23:01 GMT -5
The fact the FM was not a church in itself but a "mission" working in conjunction with the traditional churches would suggest the Union Meetings were in fact multi-denominational as you suggest, What. Maybe the FM organised some? I don't know. However, they would have been involved to some degree and it would seem likely that it was through his FM involvement that Irvine had much of his experience with them ?
I think there are some testimonies on record from the early workers that they were not starting anything new. This works both for the belief in the Shores of Gallilee beginnings and merely copying existing practices at the turn of the 20th century. Yes they were very conservative and basic.
|
|