|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:02:38 GMT -5
Yes. What else would you call it when the tight knit family of counter advocates requote and cross quote opinion all the way back to the grandaddy of them all William Trimble? What reads a book that bucks inbred opinion and the family members short circuit. Read the thread, that's what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 11:03:43 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 ...)I shudder to anticipate how he'd insert "carnal" into counter-advocates....but then I suppose breeding is carnal!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:08:24 GMT -5
(I'm so disappointed that his other favorite word isn't there ... carnal ... Jesse, you missed such a great opportunity ...) Re-regurgitating imbalanced and biased inbred opinions is a carnal failure, not a spiritual failure. That's why I can still like people who fail that way.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Feb 9, 2012 11:10:00 GMT -5
I don't see anything bad about accepting that WI was likely a flawed man. I am myself a flawed man. Since no one is perfect but Jesus--it is likely a losing proposition to try to prove that WI was saintly once he got religion. (and if WI was a saint, then you have the problem of explaining why the workers got rid of this saintly man...) And just because he was flawed doesn't mean that God couldn't work in Him. God works with flawed people all the time. In fact, He pretty much exclusively works with flawed people In light of this, I am bewildered by the push to enhance WI's reputation--and even more bewildered by the f/w who are cheerleaders of these efforts. But to each his own.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 9, 2012 11:15:29 GMT -5
(I'm so disappointed that his other favorite word isn't there ... carnal ... Jesse, you missed such a great opportunity ...) Re-regurgitating imbalanced and biased inbred opinions is a carnal failure, not a spiritual failure. That's why I can still like people who fail that way. There ya go. I knew you could do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 11:44:46 GMT -5
In light of this, I am bewildered by the push to enhance WI's reputation--and even more bewildered by the f/w who are cheerleaders of these efforts. But to each his own. What brought an opinion (based on a book he read) to the board about a specific period in Irvine's life that's obviously more favorable than inbred opinion. Why is that automatically considered to be a biased "enhancement"? Could it be possible the negative inbred opinion about those early years is the biased one?
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Feb 9, 2012 12:19:48 GMT -5
In light of this, I am bewildered by the push to enhance WI's reputation--and even more bewildered by the f/w who are cheerleaders of these efforts. But to each his own. What brought an opinion (based on a book he read) to the board about a specific period in Irvine's life that's obviously more favorable than inbred opinion. Why is that automatically considered to be a biased "enhancement"? Could it be possible the negative inbred opinion about those early years is the biased one? It was my reading that the opinion based on the book was about a possible connection between this group and the holiness movement. The detour into trying to prove that WI was not what many of his contemporaries thought he was seemed to be a tangent added on to the side to me.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 12:52:55 GMT -5
Seems that 'what' is just giving his own theories and summary of what he feels happened with no evidence to back it up.
Cherie and those who have talked to those involved in Irvine's life have 'evidence'.
Mere opinion is worth nothing without backing it up.
What have you got to add Jesse without trying to divert from the subject?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:03:58 GMT -5
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. With all respect ram, you haven't referred to any accounts. Most accounts have a healthy amount of bias in them anyway. I like to separate out the facts from the optics. There are many commentators who make much ado about Irvine receiving support from the FM until 1900 or 1901, but when you look at the facts, there's nothing to say he did anything untoward while in the FM employ. There's also been no accounting presented of funds that Irvine received. So I ask myself, on what are these commentators basing their opinions?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:10:28 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. 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. Of course, he preached the "truth". (See my post below). To clear up another point, Irvine was educated at the Faith Mission college for 2 years. My reference to the FM pilgrims not being theologically trained was inaccurate on that score. The reference may have been to rural revivals in general. So, what did you find about Irvine's preaching up to 1900 or so that was not truthful?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:13:36 GMT -5
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"? [/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.[/quote] Sharon, you just made all that up. John Long stated that Irvine asked him to join the Faith Mission at the end of 1898, only one year and some before Irvine resigned. Thus, Irvine, at that particular point in time, was doing all his work under the auspices of the Faith Mission.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 13:16:45 GMT -5
His actions do not appear to have been truthful even prior to 1900. (Receiving money from the FM while getting others to join him). I don't know about his preaching but I guess plenty is written about it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:22:08 GMT -5
You are bucking a LOT of inbred counter-advocacy thinking here what, it's very interesting to watch. OK, but were Jack Carroll and Willie J. part of the counter-advocacy movement? Because they said some quite negative things about WI to my grandparents. According to my grandfather they were particularly resentful of him, because EACH of these men had a sister who was under old Willie's spell. Of course. They did boot him out, didn't they? Irvine, in his mid 30s, was a different person than at age 50. He's not the first preacher whose charisma got the better of him. As to that charisma, Long wrote the following in September 1897: Through their instrumentality they got the use of the School House in Rathmolyon for a mission for William Irvine, where forty persons got converted; most of them afterwards gave up their situations to go fully on the Lord's work. The Episcopal minister and his daughter attended the meetings and were sympathetic; he said that God sent that man in answer to his mother's prayers; who prayed for the conversion of every member of that congregation. The humility, love, self denial, compassion, humour, etc. of the Evangelist, also his complete abandonment to God won the affections of all who came in contact with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 13:26:12 GMT -5
To try to pin an employment fraud on Irvine is not only baseless, but probably impossible.
The FM is a non-denominational group. For them to co-operate with other Christian ministries would have been seen to be desirable within the organization, not wrong. Their mission was to preach to gospel and direct people to various local churches. For Irvine to be connected to a few independent missionaries would probably not even raise Govan's eyebrows. Their mission was to get people converted and into churches. The independent workers were doing the same and connections with Irvine would have been welcomed, expecting that he would be able to recruit more workers, and obviously he tried with John Long, who turned him down. They didn't separate their converts until after Irvine had fully resigned from the FM.
Had Govan and Irvine been able to come to an agreement on Faith Lines, I expect that the FM would be a very different organization today.....probably worldwide and significant.
Employment fraud is a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:27:28 GMT -5
Seems that 'what' is just giving his own theories and summary of what he feels happened with no evidence to back it up. Cherie and those who have talked to those involved in Irvine's life have 'evidence'. Mere opinion is worth nothing without backing it up. What have you got to add Jesse without trying to divert from the subject? I don't have any theories. I'm not trying to besmirch Irvine or white-wash him. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support the idea that Irvine did anything wrong at the end of his Faith Mission employment. As I read more, I'm even more convinced of it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:29:09 GMT -5
I don't see anything bad about accepting that WI was likely a flawed man. I am myself a flawed man. Since no one is perfect but Jesus--it is likely a losing proposition to try to prove that WI was saintly once he got religion. (and if WI was a saint, then you have the problem of explaining why the workers got rid of this saintly man...) And just because he was flawed doesn't mean that God couldn't work in Him. God works with flawed people all the time. In fact, He pretty much exclusively works with flawed people In light of this, I am bewildered by the push to enhance WI's reputation--and even more bewildered by the f/w who are cheerleaders of these efforts. But to each his own. Sheesh. All I'm talking about is William Irvine's actions during the years 1895 to 1900. I wish people would stop bringing the man into judgement.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:32:15 GMT -5
A little more on the William Irvine of the late 1890s from John Long's journal. Concerning the principals of the Doctrine of Christ, he was sound. He believed in the fall of man, in the Atonement, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of our Lord, in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the body, the inspiration of the Bible, in Heaven for the saved, and in Hell for the lost. He believed in a personal Devil, the enemy of God and man. He believed and taught Repentance and that every person can be saved and know it, and that the conditions of Salvation were "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9. He taught that every saved soul is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ; and that the life of Jesus, is the pattern for everyone to imitate and follow; and that the life of forsaking all for Christ's sake was the best to live. The fruits of that teaching resulted in farmers, shop keepers, domestic servants, school teachers, police, soldiers, and persons of every occupation forsaking all that they had to follow Jesus; and to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 13:42:20 GMT -5
His actions do not appear to have been truthful even prior to 1900. (Receiving money from the FM while getting others to join him). I don't know about his preaching but I guess plenty is written about it. What is wrong with "getting others to join him"? John Long attended revivals with Irvine throughout 1897 and 1898, and, I assume, preached along side him. At the end of 1898 Irvine asked Long to join him in the Faith Mission. What was wrong with that? As I read more it strikes me that Irvine was converting individuals during that time, and also some were convinced to preach. Long makes clear that, in December 1898, he did not want to join the Faith Mission with Irvine, but wanted to continue along "faith lines". So it was in the minds of some of these men, Irvine not yet among them, to continue on a non-sectarian basis, as Long put it. Irvine was employed by the Faith Mission though. And he had the supervision of all of the south of Ireland. Clearly he was in a difficult spot, and in the end he threw in with the independent preachers. No doubt in 1900 he was in an ambiguous position, and Pattison has noted how torn he was during that time. Methodist clergy were also giving them a rough time about their Prayer Union meetings, which no doubt were considered a threat. (See detail on this above). In 1900, Irvine was beset on all sides, and with good sturdy men who were eager and willing to go along faith lines, he decided to throw his lot in with them.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 14:04:53 GMT -5
Seems as if it was an employment issue for the Faith Mission who supposedly stopped his funding when they found out that he was forming his own band of workers.
It appeared that he was no longer sending people to fellowship in churches but instead getting others to join him which appeared to have been an issue for the Faith Mission.
The repercussions of that is that Irvine was forming a break away band of workers when the workers put down other churches claiming they were all break aways when they themselves were a break away - I heard this many times growing up.
Maybe the name apostate counter movement can be attached to the 2x2s.
What, we know Irvine did not go along faith lines, but that in fact he got the money from the other workers. That is not going out in faith. Maybe it was faith that God would give him people who would give him their money. I work in faith that people will pay their bills.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 14:25:59 GMT -5
Are you counter-advocates breeding now? C'mon now confess! It's good for the soul! The fact is that you read very similar kinds of negative commentary in most of the secondary sources, but when you chase the sources up stream, where they are to be found, you generally find something different. I think the entire commentary started based on a line I saw in Irvine's wiki article, where it states, "For the next 3 years, Irvine accepted Faith Mission funds, hospitality and facilities while he fleshed out the framework of his new movement." I changed the tone of this line to be less accusatory and so far no one has reverted it. The fact is that previous secondary sources all use similar biased language.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 14:29:59 GMT -5
Is yours not a secondary source, what?
You are putting your own feelings into it. Probably no different from the original. Changing or not changing it does not make it truth.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 14:44:33 GMT -5
Seems as if it was an employment issue for the Faith Mission who supposedly stopped his funding when they found out that he was forming his own band of workers. By 1901 it was clear that Govan was unhappy with Irvine, and vice versa. But was there an "employment issue"? We don't know if there was in any legal sense, but certainly Irvine was out of alignment with FM goals. This is quite a murky area. Irvine often preached at the invitation of various Methodists, and John Long was in the employ of these Methodists. But the Methodist superintendent and some of the preachers were quite threatened by the Faith Mission "Prayer Union" meetings with Irvine set up. Read through Pattison's account and you'll see quite a bit on the friction between the two groups. And, by implication, Irvine did send converts to the churches but he was frustrated with the converts' experiences in these churches. So take that information plus how the Methodists treated him, to say nothing of the Catholics treatment of John Long, and you can understand why they developed animosity to those churches over a period of time. "Forming a break away band" is a construction of words which does sound ominous. We know they formed, and we know that later they broke away. But when you look into it, there are a wide range of factors which made these men break away. They did not break away entirely at the behest and prior plan of one William Irvine. It doesn't strike me that Irvine did anything but follow his "Christ within", and that's why things worked out as they did. They called it "faith lines" and it meant something very specific to them. I'm not going to stand in judgement of Irvine's faith, for or against.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 9, 2012 14:46:41 GMT -5
I don't have any theories. I'm not trying to besmirch Irvine or white-wash him. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence to support the idea that Irvine did anything wrong at the end of his Faith Mission employment. As I read more, I'm even more convinced of it. How dare you think you have a right to an opinion that's so contrary to 100 years of inbred counter advocacy opinion. And what is especially amazing is you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up!!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 14:50:51 GMT -5
Is yours not a secondary source, what? You are putting your own feelings into it. Probably no different from the original. Changing or not changing it does not make it truth. The journals of John Long and Goodhand Pattison are primary sources. Secret Sect and other such books are secondary sources. My posts are a mixture of primary source quotes, secondary abstracts or precis of primary sources, extensions, inferences, and even some opinion and wild conjecture. I try to make it clear which mode I'm working in at an given time. Based on what I read though I have a considerable amount of admiration for the early workers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 16:42:52 GMT -5
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. With all respect ram, you haven't referred to any accounts. Most accounts have a healthy amount of bias in them anyway. I like to separate out the facts from the optics. There are many commentators who make much ado about Irvine receiving support from the FM until 1900 or 1901, but when you look at the facts, there's nothing to say he did anything untoward while in the FM employ. There's also been no accounting presented of funds that Irvine received. So I ask myself, on what are these commentators basing their opinions? I think you are way off beam What. My opinions about Irvine are not based on what support he received from the FM. Whilst it might be difficult to state precisely anything that he did wrong in the FM it is obvious to a blind man that he was operating without a lead. Was Irvine dropped by the FM or did he resign? (on that point I admit that I am not sure). If you look at the vast plethora of personal accounts, references and testimonies and experiences, there is plenty of first hand and second hand evidence just what a character Irvine was. I have no doubt there was a very good side to him, but even today we can see the Irvinfluences which can be traced directly back to him. You need to broaden your horizons and open up your mind. Don't let the wheat conceal the chaff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 16:43:30 GMT -5
I would say that Willie J. is a very credible witness in my opinion. He was very hurt by what WI did, yet he still respected the man and indeed loved him for being the one who brought the gospel to him. Was WJ's objection to WI based on his womanizing or something else? (I think you know I have a deep respect for WJ.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 17:00:09 GMT -5
Alfred Magowan wrote:
“It was a revolution against the respectable and comfortable members of the community who, while claiming to be Christians, were in high positions, looking down on the improvidence of the poor. Many of us were moved to go forth…We forsook all we had. We emptied ourselves of all worldly ambition…We were so zealous that no arguments against us could have made the slightest effect. Minds were unalterable and irrevocably made up. The need seemed so great. It was a chance to live heroically in an age afflicted with dullness…We were fanatical…We believed that we were the last hope of the world and that ours was an honest-hearted revolt. We set out to form a brotherhood where all would be equal. We wanted to break from all tradition and become a people neither Catholic nor Protestant with no regulations, no authority, no machinery or human control, to be free to serve God and make people free like ourselves. We put all worldly ambition behind us, none of this world’s satisfactions or regards held any attraction, we had no theology to propound, no congregations to please, we saw ourselves as workers, but not bosses.”
Even this one prime reference throws up many red flags.There are plenty of others. On the one hand we have very honourable intentions but on the other we can see the dangers and pitfalls of their good intent. Irvine was a prime motivator.
They were so over zealous that no arguments against them could have had the slightest effect!
Minds were unalterable and irrevocably made up!
We had a chance to live heroically in an age afflicted with dullness!
We were FANATICAL!
We believed we were the last hope in the world!
This is where Irvinism went wrong and destroyed many lives. I can readily identify with much of the above from my early years and McGowan for me has left on record the very reasons which explain past falsehoods and beliefs.
It was all about US, ie the workers. Many good intention, but we know what the road to destruction is paved with!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 17:51:22 GMT -5
This is Alfred Magowan's option. The following statements in bold are ones which would not be acceptable to the Workers.
The best definition of a Christian church and Christian Ministry is found in the Acts, Epistles and Revelation. These books barely rate a mention on the TMB - and no wonder. These books show a conservative and moderate people. Their Ministry (including women) wielded power over their congregation. They did not live heroically. They did propound a theology of Christ and "Christian" living. They were not all poor, neither did they seek out the poor. The trouble with reading texts on the internet is the confirmation bias. I often tell my friends, in their crazy conspiratorial views of the world, to go find a "counter narrative" for balance.
|
|