|
Post by sharonw on Feb 8, 2012 15:24:01 GMT -5
Interesting. So are you accusing Irvine of acting dishonourably? Working both sides of the fence: Faith Mission and also indulging his own ambition? When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 15:39:39 GMT -5
Interesting. So are you accusing Irvine of acting dishonourably? Working both sides of the fence: Faith Mission and also indulging his own ambition? When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role! I've always had the impression that Irvine was a loose cannon during most of his time with the Faith Mission. The fact their workers were sort of semi autonomous back then would have given him plenty of slack to do things "his way" (he was that kind of man) until the FM eventually outed him. The rest is as they say (or deny) history! Cough!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 16:15:22 GMT -5
Interesting. So are you accusing Irvine of acting dishonourably? Working both sides of the fence: Faith Mission and also indulging his own ambition? When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role! I haven't found any reason to think that. Irvine was appointed superintendent of that area for the Faith Mission in 1898. He still seemed to be in their good books in 1899. The bicycle trip to Scotland also took place during that year, although it's unclear what that was all about, as Irvine had responsibilities in Ireland. Is there evidence that they planted seeds for the "work" at that time in Scotland? The ambiguous period would be the year 1900. Once he hit 1901, he resigned, of course. And I'm not sure about statements like "gathering his own workers". I don't see double dealing in any of this, although he might have had his own ideas. Certainly by 1901, Govan didn't like what he was doing, but so what? The real question would be, when did Irvine start encouraging his converts to meet on their own, away from the auspices of the Methodist or Presbyterian church. And why did he do this? What were the motivations? Remember that 8 men went along with him on independent lines at that point. It'd be good to re-read the early accounts (Pattison and Long) with an open mind on this question. What were the motivations of these first workers? Why were they unhappy with the clergy and the established churches of the day? Why did so many women and men join this new movement as workers and as followers in such a short period? It's way too simplistic to view Irvine as the Pied Piper of County Meath.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 16:20:50 GMT -5
When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role! I've always had the impression that Irvine was a loose cannon during most of his time with the Faith Mission. The fact their workers were sort of semi autonomous back then would have given him plenty of slack to do things "his way" (he was that kind of man) until the FM eventually outed him. The rest is as they say (or deny) history! Cough! I can accept he was a renagade as far as the Faith Mission was concerned. But what sort of a renagade? It's not the lily-livered who do things in this life, after all. But "loose cannon"? Please read Goodhand Pattison's account and tell me that any Faith Mission worker worth his salt would have been received with open arms by Mr. KirpatrickWhittaker. KirkpatrickWhittaker purposely sent Irvine out to the boonies where he might fail, and not ruffle Kirpatrick'sWhittaker's little nest.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2012 16:57:42 GMT -5
Some TTT tidbits...
According to The Impartial Reporter Newspaper: "William Irvine gave up his connection with that sect (Faith Mission) for two reasons...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...and about a dozen stood by Wm Irvine..." (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910)
Wm Irvine's departure from Faith Mission coincided with the time that Ed Cooney joined him and distributed 1,300 pounds. It is not known whether or not Cooney had anything to do with the timing of Irvine's departure; nor is it known whether this large sum of money went to "the poor" or to Irvine's ministry. There are reports of both being the case. (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910).
Ed Cooney's biographer wrote that he left home empty handed (The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney by Patricia Roberts, pp.19-20). G. Pattison wrote about Irvine's separation from Faith Mission in his chapter titled DIFFICULTIES of Accounts of The Early Days. When asked about Irvine's resignation, Mr. John G. Eberstein wrote in a letter dated Dec. 24, 1988 to Jim Vail that Faith Mission has no copy of Irvine's resignation, and that his "personal opinion is that he was simply dropped. His whole attitude would indicate that."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 17:26:56 GMT -5
I've always had the impression that Irvine was a loose cannon during most of his time with the Faith Mission. The fact their workers were sort of semi autonomous back then would have given him plenty of slack to do things "his way" (he was that kind of man) until the FM eventually outed him. The rest is as they say (or deny) history! Cough! I can accept he was a renagade as far as the Faith Mission was concerned. But what sort of a renagade? It's not the lily-livered who do things in this life, after all. But "loose cannon"? Please read Goodhand Pattison's account and tell me that any Faith Mission worker worth his salt would have been received with open arms by Mr. Kirpatrick. Kirkpatrick purposely sent Irvine out to the boonies where he might fail, and not ruffle Kirpatrick's little nest. Whatever the truth of the matter What, you have just identified where the practice of sending problematic workers to far off fields came from!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 17:33:37 GMT -5
Some TTT tidbits... According to The Impartial Reporter Newspaper: "William Irvine gave up his connection with that sect (Faith Mission) for two reasons...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...and about a dozen stood by Wm Irvine..." (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910) Item 2 would suggest that Irvine was not as successful as we have formerly believed. Could the practice of returning to the folds from whence they came have been instrumental in the new movement establishing a fellowship for themselves in order to retain their support?Wm Irvine's departure from Faith Mission coincided with the time that Ed Cooney joined him and distributed 1,300 pounds. It is not known whether or not Cooney had anything to do with the timing of Irvine's departure; nor is it known whether this large sum of money went to "the poor" or to Irvine's ministry. There are reports of both being the case. (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910). Nice there is a chance the real poor might have benefitted in some way. However, the fact Irvine clearly declared himself to be the poor causes me to have doubts.Ed Cooney's biographer wrote that he left home empty handed (The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney by Patricia Roberts, pp.19-20). G. Pattison wrote about Irvine's separation from Faith Mission in his chapter titled DIFFICULTIES of Accounts of The Early Days. When asked about Irvine's resignation, Mr. John G. Eberstein wrote in a letter dated Dec. 24, 1988 to Jim Vail that Faith Mission has no copy of Irvine's resignation, and that his "personal opinion is that he was simply dropped. His whole attitude would indicate that." This is what gets my vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 17:38:19 GMT -5
When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role! I haven't found any reason to think that. Irvine was appointed superintendent of that area for the Faith Mission in 1898. He still seemed to be in their good books in 1899. The bicycle trip to Scotland also took place during that year, although it's unclear what that was all about, as Irvine had responsibilities in Ireland. Is there evidence that they planted seeds for the "work" at that time in Scotland? The ambiguous period would be the year 1900. Once he hit 1901, he resigned, of course. And I'm not sure about statements like "gathering his own workers". I don't see double dealing in any of this, although he might have had his own ideas. Certainly by 1901, Govan didn't like what he was doing, but so what? The real question would be, when did Irvine start encouraging his converts to meet on their own, away from the auspices of the Methodist or Presbyterian church. And why did he do this? What were the motivations? Remember that 8 men went along with him on independent lines at that point. It'd be good to re-read the early accounts (Pattison and Long) with an open mind on this question. What were the motivations of these first workers? Why were they unhappy with the clergy and the established churches of the day? Why did so many women and men join this new movement as workers and as followers in such a short period? It's way too simplistic to view Irvine as the Pied Piper of County Meath. I think you can draw many conclusions from the testimonies left by early workers about their over zealousness, would not listen to anybody, seeing themselves as the only right ones, etc. That was rife and provided very fertile ground for a wide multitude of sins. I do not doubt that the bulk of what these early workers did was done with good intent, but we must remember that the road to destruction is paved with good intent.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 18:59:44 GMT -5
Some TTT tidbits... According to The Impartial Reporter Newspaper: "William Irvine gave up his connection with that sect (Faith Mission) for two reasons...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...and about a dozen stood by Wm Irvine..." (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910) Item 2 would suggest that Irvine was not as successful as we have formerly believed. Could the practice of returning to the folds from whence they came have been instrumental in the new movement establishing a fellowship for themselves in order to retain their support?Wm Irvine's departure from Faith Mission coincided with the time that Ed Cooney joined him and distributed 1,300 pounds. It is not known whether or not Cooney had anything to do with the timing of Irvine's departure; nor is it known whether this large sum of money went to "the poor" or to Irvine's ministry. There are reports of both being the case. (Impartial Reporter August 25, 1910). Nice there is a chance the real poor might have benefitted in some way. However, the fact Irvine clearly declared himself to be the poor causes me to have doubts.Ed Cooney's biographer wrote that he left home empty handed (The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney by Patricia Roberts, pp.19-20). G. Pattison wrote about Irvine's separation from Faith Mission in his chapter titled DIFFICULTIES of Accounts of The Early Days. When asked about Irvine's resignation, Mr. John G. Eberstein wrote in a letter dated Dec. 24, 1988 to Jim Vail that Faith Mission has no copy of Irvine's resignation, and that his "personal opinion is that he was simply dropped. His whole attitude would indicate that." This is what gets my vote.Point 1. Way off, ram. The fact is that Irvine impressed one and all in County Meath with his ability to preach and convert people and to draw other individuals in as preachers. His frustration was that once those converts got into the "system" of churches they lapsed as Christians or left the church. No surprise there. Point 2. The actual conversation was as follows according to John Pattison - in 1901, Cooney did not want to go into the work and offered Irvine a considerable sum of money to support the work from his labours. To which Irvine replied, "it isn't your money the Lord wants but yourself." There is no indication in Pattison's account that Irvine left FM because of Cooney's money. Rather, "he [Irvine] was like a General trying to put up a fight against 4 or 5 battle fronts all at the same time, and the wonder to some of us is how he managed to survive, only that in those days with strain and stress of the battle thick upon him". He was increasingly looked to for leadership by those to whom he preached, KirkpatrickWhittaker the Methodist superintendent was hassling him no end, and Govan was also unhappy. And, of that time in 1901, Pattison notes, "The fact that up to that point he [Irvine] had not sought out (place) and any authority which one would think rightly belonged to him spoke volumes for the character and worth of both men [Irvine and Todd]". There is no evidence that until 1901 Irvine did anything besides preach and try to find new pilgrims for the Faith Mission. And the following is not addressed to you, ram, but why is it that when other pilgrims of the Faith Mission collaborate with other preachers it's a sign that Faith Mission worked "in conjunction" with clergy, but when a specific Faith Mission worker, that is, William Irvine, collaborates with other preachers it's a sign that he is "gathering his own flock"?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 19:07:31 GMT -5
I haven't found any reason to think that. Irvine was appointed superintendent of that area for the Faith Mission in 1898. He still seemed to be in their good books in 1899. The bicycle trip to Scotland also took place during that year, although it's unclear what that was all about, as Irvine had responsibilities in Ireland. Is there evidence that they planted seeds for the "work" at that time in Scotland? The ambiguous period would be the year 1900. Once he hit 1901, he resigned, of course. And I'm not sure about statements like "gathering his own workers". I don't see double dealing in any of this, although he might have had his own ideas. Certainly by 1901, Govan didn't like what he was doing, but so what? The real question would be, when did Irvine start encouraging his converts to meet on their own, away from the auspices of the Methodist or Presbyterian church. And why did he do this? What were the motivations? Remember that 8 men went along with him on independent lines at that point. It'd be good to re-read the early accounts (Pattison and Long) with an open mind on this question. What were the motivations of these first workers? Why were they unhappy with the clergy and the established churches of the day? Why did so many women and men join this new movement as workers and as followers in such a short period? It's way too simplistic to view Irvine as the Pied Piper of County Meath. I think you can draw many conclusions from the testimonies left by early workers about their over zealousness, would not listen to anybody, seeing themselves as the only right ones, etc. That was rife and provided very fertile ground for a wide multitude of sins. I do not doubt that the bulk of what these early workers did was done with good intent, but we must remember that the road to destruction is paved with good intent. That sounds highly judgemental to me. I don't "get that" from the first hand accounts of Pattison or John Long. Those are the most reliable witnesses we have, are they not?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 19:59:13 GMT -5
Interesting. So are you accusing Irvine of acting dishonourably? Working both sides of the fence: Faith Mission and also indulging his own ambition? Back in the old country--that is what they say about WI--without question. I talked to several at FM. Most forthright was a woman named Peggy, whose parents apparently knew WI quite well. So what did Peggy say? How did her parents know WI? Did her parents know WI when he was in FM? Did her parents know Govan? What was Govan's side of the story?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 20:19:37 GMT -5
1) I haven't found any reason to think that. Irvine was appointed superintendent of that area for the Faith Mission in 1898. He still seemed to be in their good books in 1899. The bicycle trip to Scotland also took place during that year, although it's unclear what that was all about, as Irvine had responsibilities in Ireland. Is there evidence that they planted seeds for the "work" at that time in Scotland? The ambiguous period would be the year 1900. Once he hit 1901, he resigned, of course. And I'm not sure about statements like "gathering his own workers". I don't see double dealing in any of this, although he might have had his own ideas. Certainly by 1901, Govan didn't like what he was doing, but so what? The real question would be, when did Irvine start encouraging his converts to meet on their own, away from the auspices of the Methodist or Presbyterian church. And why did he do this? What were the motivations? Remember that 8 men went along with him on independent lines at that point. It'd be good to re-read the early accounts (Pattison and Long) with an open mind on this question. What were the motivations of these first workers? Why were they unhappy with the clergy and the established churches of the day? Why did so many women and men join this new movement as workers and as followers in such a short period? It's way too simplistic to view Irvine as the Pied Piper of County Meath. ~~ You've asked MANY good questions! It seemed to me things began to change in 1898 when WI brought up Matthew 10 apostolic faith line ministry to John Long (Methodist) and Fred Hughes (Faith Mission preacher).
In 1897 Jack, May Caroll professed in William Irvine Faith Mission meetings. We know May Carroll became a Faith Mission preacher but left the group after WI left FM in 12/1900. Interesting thing, May Carrol brother Bill, and two more younger sisters joined WI movement. WI must have convinced them something really good for them to LEAVE the Faith Mission.
The question is Who, Where, and When did WI get the New Testament apostolic Faith lines ministry from?To answer the last question first, I think WI was preaching much the same message as other FM workers but was more convicted in his heart that he should really live out what he was saying. He wanted to walk the talk. John Pattison says as much. I believe he followed his heart, "Christ within you", he was known to say, and found himself in process of time at odds with the Faith Mission. Not so much an issue with the FM message, but with their co-operation with the existing clergy. And he was also being pressured by the Methodist leader in County Meath, which did not help with his image of clergy. When you are in a situation where you don't belong, it can take a while to sort everything out. The Methodists were also very unhappy about the Prayer Union meetings that the Faith Mission were establishing under Irvine's direction. From Pattison - "Prayer meetings were held in several houses including Falconers (Laura Falkiner's people), McNaughts, Milton Burwood, Stoney, Richard Clarke's and probably Mooney's, sometimes with and sometimes without the pilgrims, and although handled with caution and tact, a move of this kind was not likely to escape unchallenged especially by the Methodist crowd, including Mr. Nesbitt, who up to that point had seemed to welcome, to appraise William Irvine's success, and no doubt intended as far as possible to "Methodise" it, but now began to get alarmed, and made no secret of his disapproval of [the] Prayer Union movement". It seemed that when William Irvine did as best he knew how within the Faith Mission, he had opposition at every turn. Then when he left, events worked very much in his favour. The workers and the friends fellowship both grew in leaps and bounds. Of course, the combination of freedom and power began to be a problem for him in the coming years. But the witness about him in the early years from Pattison and Long and others, was all favourable.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 20:40:46 GMT -5
So what did Peggy say? How did her parents know WI? Did her parents know WI when he was in FM? Did her parents know Govan? What was Govan's side of the story? when I was in college I visited FM HQ. (this was quite a few years back). Peggy was probably in her 70s--had worked at FM all her life--and her parents before her had as well. She had "administrative memory" of everything that had gone on ( from the FM point of view). She was quite hospitable---she put me up for a few days and talked endlessly about the old days. She had a lot of negative things to say about WI--and was ADAMANT that he had used FM to feather his own nest. She also said he was a cad with women--that sort of stuff. It was all quite gossipy--she would put on the kettle and tell me all about the old days. I took some notes but would have to find them to remember it all--it has been a few years. It was all quite obviously her point of view (mixed with the perceptions of her family). I never asked her to tell me things from Govan's POV (or anyone else's--why would I? I'm not the only one who heard stuff along these lines from FM reps. I PM'd with a guy on here a few years ago who was told a similar story--I wanted to see if he had talked to Peggy. He heard it from a different person--same story. The problem is that Irvine was clearly not the same man in 1900 that he was in 1915 or even 1905. We are discussing the years 1895 to 1900. The key phrase is that "he had used FM to feather his own nest". What does that even mean? "Feathering your nest" is a metaphorical expression that could mean any number of things, and there's nothing here to indicate that Peggy's charge was not entirely the product of her own or her parent's resentment.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 20:50:16 GMT -5
Reply #24 greatly distorts the facts. Pattison speaks of all those who supported Irvine in those days as being sound, responsible people with good character. There's little question that they made their choices in sound consideration of the options. And I've never seen any evidence that Irvine salted money away during that period. He did have an illegitimate son I believe?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 20:58:58 GMT -5
The problem is that Irvine was clearly not the same man in 1900 that he was in 1915 or even 1905. We are discussing the years 1895 to 1900. The key phrase is that "he had used FM to feather his own nest". What does that even mean? "Feathering your nest" is a metaphorical expression that could mean any number of things, and there's nothing here to indicate that Peggy's charge was not entirely the product of her own or her parent's resentment. yes. there is no way of knowing. I am simply relating what I was told. Of course--if they are resentful---there may be a reason for it. There is no need to whitewash the man nor to smear him. By bringing together everything that we know about him, we can each form our own opinions. That is the best we can do. Yet none of us really know the man--nor will we ever do so. The person I referred to earlier was so obsessed with finding out about WI, that he even found the family of Archie (WI's son). Their impressions were even blacker than those of FM. All people have both good and bad side by side in their personalities. there are people who like me and people who don't as well. I enjoy reading Pattison's and Long's accounts. I try to picture all the social, cultural and interpersonal dynamics as I read. This raises as many questions as it answers, so I have also tried to read about those times, the various churches, conflicts and so on. Each time I go through the first hand accounts I get a clearer picture of what is going on, but I have a long way to go yet. We are all products of the times in which we live, and you can't approach any individual's life from an absolute perspective but have to have deep knowledge of the circumstances and the situation in order to understand the perspective of the individual. Only then do you get a sense of the individual. I think Irvine was a driven man, extremely gifted and persuasive, and able to marshal others towards a given goal. He seemed to try to do right by people though. But he was quite thin-skinned and took any opposition quite personally.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 8, 2012 20:59:52 GMT -5
Reply #24 greatly distorts the facts. Pattison speaks of all those who supported Irvine in those days as being sound, responsible people with good character. There's little question that they made their choices in sound consideration of the options. And I've never seen any evidence that Irvine salted money away during that period. He did have an illegitimate son I believe? yes WI had a son with one of his first cousins (son's name was Archie) Do you know what year?
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Feb 8, 2012 21:07:38 GMT -5
yes WI had a son with one of his first cousins (son's name was Archie) Do you know what year? not off-hand. I don't really care enough about WI to memorize trivia about his life. ask Cherie.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 8, 2012 21:12:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2012 21:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 8, 2012 22:35:24 GMT -5
I don't think anyone said that Archie was born when WI was with FM? I mentioned it because there has been speculation that WmI used FM funds to support Archie...I've not found anything to prove or disprove that. Nor have I found anything that proves/indicates WmI used FM funds to start his own ministry. When I visited FM, I asked if there were any financial records of money from and to the Pilgrim Workers, and was told there was not. On the other hand, Happy Feet was shown some kind of log or accounting when she visited FM. Go figure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 4:25:51 GMT -5
I think you can draw many conclusions from the testimonies left by early workers about their over zealousness, would not listen to anybody, seeing themselves as the only right ones, etc. That was rife and provided very fertile ground for a wide multitude of sins. I do not doubt that the bulk of what these early workers did was done with good intent, but we must remember that the road to destruction is paved with good intent. That sounds highly judgemental to me. I don't "get that" from the first hand accounts of Pattison or John Long. Those are the most reliable witnesses we have, are they not? Firstly, the accounts I'm referring to are from workers like Alfred McGowan and Co who left their reminiscences on record. In the early years the group were highly over zealous and thought the salvation of the world depended solely upon them. They would not listen to others and condemned anything to do with other forms of Christianity. My "judgements" are based upon the things I have read from what appears to be reliable sources, eg workers and former workers AND IMPORTANTLY what I know from the attitude, beliefs and practices of the sect in my area over three generations. The latter corroborates the former and has produced the results one would expect. There's more to the movement that that recorded by Pattison and Long and I have seen nothing in those accounts (though it is a while since I read them) that would cause me to dispense with accounts from other reliable sources, in fact I think Long's account may help substantiate them, if not directly then indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 4:52:53 GMT -5
I don't think anyone said that Archie was born when WI was with FM? I mentioned it because there has been speculation that WmI used FM funds to support Archie...I've not found anything to prove or disprove that. Nor have I found anything that proves/indicates WmI used FM funds to start his own ministry. When I visited FM, I asked if there were any financial records of money from and to the Pilgrim Workers, and was told there was not. On the other hand, Happy Feet was shown some kind of log or accounting when she visited FM. Go figure... I never saw the log but spoke to a man who saw it- I was speaking to the head of the Faith Mission bookshops in Belfast (I think you know his name and said he died a few years ago) who said he saw the log. He said to me that he had seen the entry of wages in the log and the last payment William was paid by the Faith Mission in 1901. He certainly left me with the impression that William was receiving payment by the FM while he was starting his own group of followers, just like ram said, and that William was kicked out of the FM because he was starting his own following and working for himself, not the FM for a good while before they found out. He said he had 2 aunties who were workers in the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 10:21:35 GMT -5
You are bucking a LOT of inbred counter-advocacy thinking here what, it's very interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 9, 2012 10:23:16 GMT -5
Inbred?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 10:29:04 GMT -5
When I've read the different viewpoints from different letters and histories that Cherie has on her website, I got the same impression, What....WI had a "dual" goal in those last years of 1800-1900 and he definitely was gathering his own workers while supposedly still on FM's role! I haven't found any reason to think that. Irvine was appointed superintendent of that area for the Faith Mission in 1898. He still seemed to be in their good books in 1899. The bicycle trip to Scotland also took place during that year, although it's unclear what that was all about, as Irvine had responsibilities in Ireland. Is there evidence that they planted seeds for the "work" at that time in Scotland? The ambiguous period would be the year 1900. Once he hit 1901, he resigned, of course. And I'm not sure about statements like "gathering his own workers". I don't see double dealing in any of this, although he might have had his own ideas. Certainly by 1901, Govan didn't like what he was doing, but so what? The real question would be, when did Irvine start encouraging his converts to meet on their own, away from the auspices of the Methodist or Presbyterian church. And why did he do this? What were the motivations? Remember that 8 men went along with him on independent lines at that point. It'd be good to re-read the early accounts (Pattison and Long) with an open mind on this question. What were the motivations of these first workers? Why were they unhappy with the clergy and the established churches of the day? Why did so many women and men join this new movement as workers and as followers in such a short period? It's way too simplistic to view Irvine as the Pied Piper of County Meath. WI, was undoubtedly a very charismatic preacher and was a very vigorous preacher as such that people thought what he said was what he believed and even some perhaps thought that he really did preach the "truth" and I suppose in his own mind, he did preach "the truth"! There are Pied Piper religious zealots all down through the ages and we are warned about such....Paul said this while speaking about his relatives who were very zealous within the confines of Phariseeism. Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 10:38:06 GMT -5
This is what gets my vote. Point 1. Way off, ram. The fact is that Irvine impressed one and all in County Meath with his ability to preach and convert people and to draw other individuals in as preachers. His frustration was that once those converts got into the "system" of churches they lapsed as Christians or left the church. No surprise there. Point 2. The actual conversation was as follows according to John Pattison - in 1901, Cooney did not want to go into the work and offered Irvine a considerable sum of money to support the work from his labours. To which Irvine replied, "it isn't your money the Lord wants but yourself." There is no indication in Pattison's account that Irvine left FM because of Cooney's money. Rather, "he [Irvine] was like a General trying to put up a fight against 4 or 5 battle fronts all at the same time, and the wonder to some of us is how he managed to survive, only that in those days with strain and stress of the battle thick upon him". He was increasingly looked to for leadership by those to whom he preached, Kirkpatrick the Methodist superintendent was hassling him no end, and Govan was also unhappy. And, of that time in 1901, Pattison notes, "The fact that up to that point he [Irvine] had not sought out (place) and any authority which one would think rightly belonged to him spoke volumes for the character and worth of both men [Irvine and Todd]". There is no evidence that until 1901 Irvine did anything besides preach and try to find new pilgrims for the Faith Mission. And the following is not addressed to you, ram, but why is it that when other pilgrims of the Faith Mission collaborate with other preachers it's a sign that Faith Mission worked "in conjunction" with clergy, but when a specific Faith Mission worker, that is, William Irvine, collaborates with other preachers it's a sign that he is "gathering his own flock"? [/b] I got that impression, What, simply because when WI left FM he already had a number of "workers" committed to the goal that they'd all agreed on.....how can someone have such a collection of people and only ONE of them having worked under the FM? WI was definitely gathering workers for his own purpose or maybe for their own purpose sometime before he was dropped off the FM roll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 10:46:00 GMT -5
Are you counter-advocates breeding now? C'mon now confess! It's good for the soul!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 9, 2012 10:58:00 GMT -5
Are you counter-advocates breeding now? C'mon now confess! It's good for the soul! Must be. Jesse says so. (I'm so disappointed that his other favorite word isn't there ... carnal ... Jesse, you missed such a great opportunity ...)
|
|