Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 18:09:17 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! I find that paragraph quite inspirational really. It is rare to see that kind of passion anywhere. It was that passion that established the fellowship. It's not the passion or even the general goals which were a problem but the devil, as usual, was in the details.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:15:54 GMT -5
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. Once again--it doesn't really matter to me one way or another---having a weakness with the opposite sex doesn't make a person the devil incarnate in my eyes. We ALL have sinned and fallen short--including WI. There was only ONE who was sinless--and that was not WI. 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. I don't find it at all unreasonable to see that WI had his weaknesses--as ALL men do. The fact is--we know he had a weakness with the ladies as a young man, we know he had weaknesses with the ladies later in his ministry--and rumors abound that he had a weakness in that direction all throughout his life. I'd say the odds are he did struggle with this all his life. Probably Long didn't know everything that went on with WI. I kind of doubt he did. There were plenty of people who were believed strongly in WI. That doesn't mean there weren't others who saw a different side to him. Shoot--I have seen a side of my mother that only a few people in the family have seen. There are people who have known her for years who would write that she is the most wonderful, sweet, loving, kind person in the world. But they haven't seen what I have seen. You obviously believe Long knew everything there was to know about Irvine and that people like Uncle Willie were liars. OK--that's a theory--but one that people who knew JC, WJ and others are not going to accept. and that is where we part company on this. I can empathize with your need to give WI an "image-makeover" and whitewash his reputation a bit (even if you have to stretch things just a bit). But when in doing so, you smear the reputations of people like Willie J., and brand them as liars then you have lost me. Where did you see me white-washing Irvine? That's quite a statement so back it up, please.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:20:13 GMT -5
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. What is it that you think I don't know? The womanizing, the Omega doctrine, life in Jerusalem, excommunicating John Long? Most charismatic men are changed by power, and can't handle it all that well. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But William Irvine from 1895 to 1900 was clearly a different man from the later Irvine.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:22:12 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! The thesis you're trying to advance here is a very broad and tenuous one. Between the youthful exuberance expressed by Magnetowan and "This is where Irvinism went wrong and destroyed many lives" lies a very large intuitive leap that I'm having trouble processing.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 18:26:25 GMT -5
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? I didn't say anything about anything he preached as being untruthful, What.....I was talking about in all appearances what other people thought of his preaching, etc. At least when the worker movement first started....but we all know all of that took a side trip as well....there is only speculation as to what WI really did at any given time. I honestly think the man got too confident in his appeal and this is what hurt him just like it does for most any other human that faces such success in such a fast manner! My negative feeling against him is the fact as FM as alluded to that WI was serving his own purposes while he was supposed to have been still serving FM's and that's the reason they let him go! He didn't have the grace to just quit FM and gamble alongside the men he had accumulated but was perhaps leaning back on his position with FM....IMO
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 18:33:19 GMT -5
Magowan wrote: "we had no theology to propound"
This is where my red flag went up. Of course they have a theology to propound. Unless they went back to being babies with no prior knowledge to what they believed they would have gone into this with a theology to propound. We all have our world views influenced by our prior experience. Of course, they are going to have their biases. They started out with a theology of how to do it. Most of this theology in the group persists today.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 18:39:22 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. Do you have any proof that WI's converts separated AFTER his firing from FM? Or maybe to be utterly tactful, AFTER WI was left off of FM's rolls? The converts that WI could keep, became his workers is what I've read and that was so for a little time maybe as much as the first 2 years, we know for a fact that the first workers' list that is available is 1905, there might have been one before that...so Clearday, it is clear that between 1897 and 1901 when it appears FM dropped WI from their rolls, that there had been some private-on-going-workers gathered by WI while he was considerably still FM pilgrim. Do you think that IF you were an executive in a company that was doing fairly good business and while you were supposedly doing executive business for them, you took part of your executive business and put it into your own business....how do you think they're going to feel, eh? Do you think they'd have grounds to fire you and even sue you for that business you've claimed for your own? The only reason WI got by with this is because the FM was not into building their own denominational churches....they were only in it to convert people to Christianity plus educate some of those already called Christians into what Christianity is all about or to "revive" them! I think WI got off fairly easy myself!...he was lucky in that only ONE FM Pilgrim left the FM to go with WI. None other of those beginnign workers would join FM with WI....and I suppose we can speculate that would have been the reason WI left FM or was trying to get things going so he could leave FM.....I don't think he understood exactly what he was doing....I think that he perhaps said it as it was all to him and that it was a "great experiement."
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 9, 2012 18:47:34 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. Are YOU saying that "WI accepted Faith Mission funds, hospitality and facilities WHILE he fleshed out the framework of his new movement? And that you found it backed by secondary sources? If that is true why are you trying to give the impression it was any different?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 9, 2012 18:49:59 GMT -5
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? Irvine would mention that he attended courses at a seminary, and would listen through the windows. Has anyone found where WI actually registered for classes, and attended these classes as a true student? (Hanging around here and there doesn't sound like a solid education.)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:51:52 GMT -5
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? I didn't say anything about anything he preached as being untruthful, What.....I was talking about in all appearances what other people thought of his preaching, etc. At least when the worker movement first started....but we all know all of that took a side trip as well....there is only speculation as to what WI really did at any given time. I honestly think the man got too confident in his appeal and this is what hurt him just like it does for most any other human that faces such success in such a fast manner! My negative feeling against him is the fact as FM as alluded to that WI was serving his own purposes while he was supposed to have been still serving FM's and that's the reason they let him go! He didn't have the grace to just quit FM and gamble alongside the men he had accumulated but was perhaps leaning back on his position with FM....IMO I agree with your statement that the power went to Irvine's head. Generally, that is what all the worker accounts say. But as far as the period before 1900, I think one mistake that people make is to assume that William Irvine was somehow the "mastermind" of a new church. If that was so, then why, at the end of 1898, did Irvine ask Long to join .. wait for it .. the Faith Mission. If he had a new church in mind, would he not be urging Long to stay out on "faith lines"? In fact, it was Long who wanted to stay non-sectarian, and he quit the Methodist church when they tried to smoke him out of one of his meetings. I wish some of you would see how you've demonized Irvine, THE FOUNDER OF THE F&W MOVEMENT, and then from that GREAT PREMISE, you're selectively pulling information without having STUDIED THE FACTS!! Put yourself in Irvine's shoes in 1895, as an ambitious young idealistic but very charismatic preacher with the Faith Mission, and then read through the accounts of Goodhand Pattison and John Long, and a very different picture emerges. There is NO EVIDENCE of him wanting to be founder or to take the lead, although his preaching ability would make him a leader in their eyes. John Long stated that Irvine did not grab at authority during that time. I would surmise that later (after 1900) they gave him the authority on a platter because of the great regard they had for him, and it turned out that he couldn't really handle the power all that well. (Here's an analogy for you: the top marketing guy often makes a terrible president. Not always, but often.) So Sharon, tell me, when do you think William Irvine should have quit the Faith Mission. Please skim through the accounts and let me know the year and why he should have quit then. If you can't tell me that, then I don't think you have any right to judge the man ... on this point, I mean. And if you could also tell me a single thing Irvine did during that time, that he was not supposed to do as part of the Faith Mission mandate. They were supposed to recruit, to convert, to preach, to proselytize.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:52:55 GMT -5
Where did you see me white-washing Irvine? That's quite a statement so back it up, please. In attempting to discredit the overseers who had valid concerns about WI, you are trying to enhance WI's image by denigrating those who had complaints about him. It is a smear against these good men to imply that the things they said about WI are automatically untrue and probably made up as a justification for kicking him out. That's absurd. Where did I discredit these overseers? Quotations, please. And what the hay? I just checked and Willie Jamieson didn't even go into the work until 1905, as a young man. So he wasn't even involved in the Faith Mission period.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 18:57:49 GMT -5
Magowan wrote: "we had no theology to propound" This is where my red flag went up. Of course they have a theology to propound. Unless they went back to being babies with no prior knowledge to what they believed they would have gone into this with a theology to propound. We all have our world views influenced by our prior experience. Of course, they are going to have their biases. They started out with a theology of how to do it. Most of this theology in the group persists today. I think he's right though. As far as the form or system of things, they just adopted the Faith Mission ministry, and some semblance of the prayer union meetings. Conventions were based on Keswick, and on the revival meetings of the time. All the methodology was already in place in the rural Scotland and Ireland of that time. They just did what they were already doing, but decided to make a separation from the clergy and the existing churches. As far as the theological content of the message, they tried to keep it simple. Irvine's main theology was "Christ within you". Have you read Long's statement of exactly what Irvine taught? It's quite detailed, but nothing unusual there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 19:04:19 GMT -5
In attempting to discredit the overseers who had valid concerns about WI, you are trying to enhance WI's image by denigrating those who had complaints about him. It is a smear against these good men to imply that the things they said about WI are automatically untrue and probably made up as a justification for kicking him out. That's absurd. Where did I discredit these overseers? Quotations, please. You don't have to discredit them, some of their contemporaries did a bang up job of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 19:08:01 GMT -5
Magowan wrote: "we had no theology to propound" This is where my red flag went up. Of course they have a theology to propound. Unless they went back to being babies with no prior knowledge to what they believed they would have gone into this with a theology to propound. We all have our world views influenced by our prior experience. Of course, they are going to have their biases. They started out with a theology of how to do it. Most of this theology in the group persists today. I think he's right though. As far as the form or system of things, they just adopted the Faith Mission ministry, and some semblance of the prayer union meetings. Conventions were based on Keswick, and on the revival meetings of the time. All the methodology was already in place in the rural Scotland and Ireland of that time. They just did what they were already doing, but decided to make a separation from the clergy and the existing churches. As far as the theological content of the message, they tried to keep it simple. Irvine's main theology was "Christ within you". Have you read Long's statement of exactly what Irvine taught? It's quite detailed, but nothing unusual there. I think it's pretty obvious that they used the Faith Mission model and tweaked it for a more pure "Faith Lines" idea for the ministry, and made the Prayer Union model into an exclusive church fellowship system. Conventions....the same, tweaked only to exclude other ministries.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 19:17:40 GMT -5
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. Are YOU saying that "WI accepted Faith Mission funds, hospitality and facilities WHILE he fleshed out the framework of his new movement? And that you found it backed by secondary sources? If that is true why are you trying to give the impression it was any different? You don't back up with secondary sources; you back things up with primary sources. Secondary sources distill primary sources into a coherent narrative. When you read history, there is a footnote almost every sentence so that you can follow the trail if you are skeptical about what is being said. What I have found is that there's nothing to back up the statement in bold. There's no evidence that Irvine intended aforethought to start a new movement.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 19:38:38 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. Do you have any proof that WI's converts separated AFTER his firing from FM? Or maybe to be utterly tactful, AFTER WI was left off of FM's rolls? The converts that WI could keep, became his workers is what I've read and that was so for a little time maybe as much as the first 2 years, we know for a fact that the first workers' list that is available is 1905, there might have been one before that...so Clearday, it is clear that between 1897 and 1901 when it appears FM dropped WI from their rolls, that there had been some private-on-going-workers gathered by WI while he was considerably still FM pilgrim. Do you think that IF you were an executive in a company that was doing fairly good business and while you were supposedly doing executive business for them, you took part of your executive business and put it into your own business....how do you think they're going to feel, eh? Do you think they'd have grounds to fire you and even sue you for that business you've claimed for your own? The only reason WI got by with this is because the FM was not into building their own denominational churches....they were only in it to convert people to Christianity plus educate some of those already called Christians into what Christianity is all about or to "revive" them! I think WI got off fairly easy myself!...he was lucky in that only ONE FM Pilgrim left the FM to go with WI. None other of those beginnign workers would join FM with WI....and I suppose we can speculate that would have been the reason WI left FM or was trying to get things going so he could leave FM.....I don't think he understood exactly what he was doing....I think that he perhaps said it as it was all to him and that it was a "great experiement." Between 1895 and 1900 there was a lot of religious activity in County Mead. Wiliam Irvine was in charge of all of southern Ireland for the Faith Mission during that time, and so he was charged with growing that organization there. He'd be expected to win new converts to Christianity, set up Prayer Union meetings so that they could support Faith Mission workers (or pilgrims) on an ongoing basis, and also convince some to join him in his work in the Faith Mission. The Methodists were a church that supported itinerant evangelists, and so they would work with them, including the Faith Mission (there were others also). Irvine's reputation as a preacher was strong, so he was invited to do a mission in County Meath by the Methodist superintendent. But actually he was resented and seen as a threat as well. So they often weren't nice to him. Anyway, so there was intermingling of Methodists, Faith Mission workers, and other itinerant evangelists. There were also revival meetings where any number of different denominations were represented. And there were other places that evangelists could travel to, to discuss their "trade" like the annual Faith Mission convention, Keswick convention, and so on. But there was friction between these various free-spirited evangelists and the established churches; well before the workers ever began preaching. Even the great Dwight L. Moody ran into flak in England. So the workers started, not because of some grand vision of William Irvine's, but because of the tension caused by these evangelists upsetting the established order of the day. They were as much pushed out on their own, as anything else. And when they hit the ground running they really didn't change anything that they were doing. There was no grand vision. The only thing they did different in 1900 from 1898 is that they stopped co-operating with the Methodists and the Faith Mission who were only giving them a hard time, anyway. I haven't done the exercise but it would be interesting to see where each of the first bunch of workers actually came from - Cooney, Irvine, Todd, Tom Turner, John Long, and so on. I would guess, all directions. But Irvine wasn't the first to go out on "faith lines"! He was probably one of the last because he had a meal ticket. I'm just trying to explain here that it wasn't as if some demagogue, like a Jim Jones, came along and convinced all these people to follow his nefarious little scheme. Far from it. When you look at the social and religious conditions of the time you realize that if William Irvine had never existed, the movement would have started all the same. It was an inevitable outcome of the pressure between the Awakening and the established churches of the day.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 19:45:05 GMT -5
You don't back up with secondary sources; you back things up with primary sources. Secondary sources distill primary sources into a coherent narrative. When you read history, there is a footnote almost every sentence so that you can follow the trail if you are skeptical about what is being said. What I have found is that there's nothing to back up the statement in bold. There's no evidence that he intended aforethought to start a new movement. FM's documentation of payments sent to WI and received by him is a primary source. These records have been seen by quite a few--although it doesn't look as if they have been copied and put on the web at this point. It's well known that WI was on Faith Mission payroll until 1900 or 1901. And there's a trail of all of Govan's comments about WI in Bright Words. Not sure why this is relevant. Again, who said that "he was as pure as the driven snow for a brief" etc. etc. Why use the strawman tactics .. again?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 9, 2012 21:18:19 GMT -5
... But Irvine wasn't the first to go out on "faith lines"! He was probably one of the last because he had a meal ticket. I'm just trying to explain here that it wasn't as if some demagogue, like a Jim Jones, came along and convinced all these people to follow his nefarious little scheme. Far from it. When you look at the social and religious conditions of the time you realize that if William Irvine had never existed, the movement would have started all the same. It was an inevitable outcome of the pressure between the Awakening and the established churches of the day. I think this idea has been brought out by "Todd's" posts here more than once.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 21:24:30 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?The below letters gave us an insight the Why... About The 1928 Division By Mrs. Sara West August 31, 1954I grew up in the same town (Enniskillen) as Edward Cooney and knew that he with Tom Betty, and my husband John West (deceased) held evangelical meetings together in connection with the different churches. Edward Cooney was then in fellowship with William Irvine of Kilsyth, Scotland and others including William Carroll (deceased), George Walker, Thomas Elliott and his wife. At that time Edward Cooney travelled through Ireland in connection with his father's business and met William Irvine a preacher who was moving out from the Faith Mission to go forth without purse etc. (Matthew ten) to preach the gospel of Jesus, the Son of God (Mark 1:1) on apostolic lines; he was seeking after truth and clearer light. These things happened in 1890’s and onwards.About 1902-3 my husband and I went to meetings in a cottage owned by Tilly Moore who afterwards became a preacher. She was a convert of Edward Cooney's who had given up money and possessions sometime previous to this to preach the Gospel of Jesus in fellowship with William Irvine. In those meetings referred to, we heard Thomas Elliott, one of this small group of preachers give testimony to having sold his home and farm to go forth with his wife to live a life of faith preaching the Gospel of Jesus. Believing them to be God's true people we became one with them in the faith and opened our home to them. Many others in the County did the same thing; among them were my husband's brother Wm. West of Mullaghmeen, Ballinamallard, also three sisters, Mrs. Roberts and husband, Mrs. Reid, and Miss West, Bournemouth, England. About this time William Irvine and Edward Cooney asked my husband and I if we would be willing to have convention in our home. We were willing and conventions were held there (Crocknacrieve) until 1920 when we sold it and came to live at Rossahilly, Ballinamallard. After that conventions were held at Mullaghmeen. In 1928, an overseer preacher, Wilson Reid, who often visited our home told us that Edward Cooney, who was then in America was coming home, and warned us that he was giving trouble out there and not to have fellowship with him. George Walker and others called on the same mission of warning. My husband and others suggested having a meeting on Bible lines with elders and have Edward Cooney there too, so that both sides would be heard by them to judge. A meeting was arranged in Irvine's town but Edward Cooney was not there. My husband and others then decided to keep an open mind until Edward Cooney came back and hear his side. They thought it very strange to hear that Edward would change and preach false doctrine inside a few years because we knew that God had used him in a great measure in different parts of England and Ireland. Wilson Reid and many in fellowship with us never came back to our home after making the decision to hear Edward Cooney's side. When Edward Cooney did come back, we could not see any change in him; he was as sincere and ardent as ever, preaching the same simple gospel as we heard at the beginning. A meeting of old workers was held in Clankilvorah, an open home near Lurgan, Co. Armagh, among them being T. Elliott, Jack Carroll, Wm. Gill (deceased) etc. J. Carroll refused to listen or have fellowship with Edward Cooney who was also there. Thomas Elliott stood by Edward Cooney at that time because he saw an unrighteous act being done towards him. To the sorrow of many, those who kept their homes open to Edward Cooney became outcast from their brethren, and in that way the division started. I should mention here that William Irvine (deceased) professed through Rev. John McNeill (Presbyterian) Scotland some years before going forth to preach on apostolic lines. Many of the older ones in fellowship for a long time felt there was a drift in Testimony towards organization and compromise with world's way, away from simplicity of Christ, before division took place, and we then understood that the trouble Edward Cooney was charged with causing in America was his anxiety as an elder, to warn his brethren of the falling away from early teaching. By Sara West Rossahilly, Ballinamallard, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland Testimony of Ida West (Daughter of John & Sara West) Rossahilly, Ballinamallard, N. Ireland August, 1954 An interested person has asked me to tell my story with regard to my faith and the fellowship I have kept. My parents, John and Sara West, were brought up in the Church of Ireland (Anglican). My father, for a time previous to his marriage, moved and worked among the Methodists. Soon after his marriage in 1901, he, Edward Cooney, Tom Betty and others, all of whom used to evangelize together, moved out of the sects to which they belonged, Church of Ireland, Methodist, Presbyterian and so on, into fellowship with William Irvine, a Scottish Presbyterian evangelist in the Faith Mission, who was with others moving out of Faith Mission toward clearer light on New Testament teaching and practices. They took the view that Christendom was confusion of which God was not the author. So they decided to go to Christendom and the world the way Jesus sent his apostles to Israel (Matthew 10) and to the world (Matthew 28). This is what the preachers did. My father, who did not go to preach, opened his heart and home to these preachers who sold their possessions, scattered their money to the poor and went out to preach by faith. Their message was repent, believe the gospel, follow the teaching and example of New Testament founders--Christ and the apostles. This move raised the opposition of clergy and leaders among the denominations, e.g. Church of Ireland, Methodists, Presbyterians, Salvation Army, Plymouth Brethren and others. The young movement held the course to take was 'Come out of Babylon' which is confusion. By this they meant to refuse fellowship with the world, false teachers and systems because they contradicted the teaching and example of Christ and his apostles. Their opponents held that it was better to stay in and clean up inside; but they ignored the fact that principalities and powers need exposure and triumphing over (Col. 2:15). This could only be done by a fuller manifestation of Christ through willing witnesses which this people proved by bearing their cross representing Christ as He in bearing his cross represented or declared the Father. The movement grew and spread rapidly. ~~~ Edward Cooney: "We did NOT start this Jesus Way...it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and we are NOT starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..." Edward Cooney (2x2 Go-preacher) said to Impartial Reporter 1O/7/1909. Edward Cooney: There was in the days gone by, a certain man called William Irvine, upon whose heart Gods spirit worked to raise him up like the judges of old, to lead back those in Christendom to the truth as it is in Jesus. (Reprinted from Edward Cooney's Testimony reprinted in Selected Letters Hymns and Poems of Edward Cooney 1867-1960, by Patricia Roberts, Pages 43-45) Edward Cooney: Undoubtedly God called us and separated us to be His people in the beginning; and most prominent and most used in this calling out a people for God's name was William Irvine who, at the time of his being sent forth to be a prophet, saw more clearly than any of us that the revelation of the Father to each individual child of His is the Rock alone on which Jesus Christ would build his church, and that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. (Letter by Edward Cooney to My dear Sister dated May, 1930 Reprinted from: Selected Letters, Hymns, and Poems of Edward Cooney 1867- 1960 by Patricia Roberts) Ed Cooney stated in his letter to Alice Flett: "I traveled for my father's business and preached inside and outside, as occasion offered, with some persecution. Whilst doing so, I met William Irvine through whom George Walker, Jack Carroll, William Carroll, Willie Gill and a number of the present leaders professed, including James Jardine. William Irvine and I were drawn together as brothers in Christ, each of us claiming liberty to follow Jesus as we received progressive light from God by the Spirit...These are very interesting testimonies. Sara West is quite eloquent in expressing what the workers were trying to achieve. There is a sense here that the workers were trying to retrieve a more pure and simple form of Christianity from the denominations around them, which they saw as essentially corrupt. I don't see any evidence of them finding something that was already present in some palpable form, a buried root, as it were. Do you think there's evidence of that?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 21:26:24 GMT -5
... But Irvine wasn't the first to go out on "faith lines"! He was probably one of the last because he had a meal ticket. I'm just trying to explain here that it wasn't as if some demagogue, like a Jim Jones, came along and convinced all these people to follow his nefarious little scheme. Far from it. When you look at the social and religious conditions of the time you realize that if William Irvine had never existed, the movement would have started all the same. It was an inevitable outcome of the pressure between the Awakening and the established churches of the day. I think this idea has been brought out by "Todd's" posts here more than once. Hard to keep up with Todd.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2012 21:37:37 GMT -5
To What: Why do you think the FM group did not accept the 2x2 workers ministry? From John Long's Journal: 12/1900 December, 1900: About that time William Irvine left the Faith Mission. All who knew the man was acquainted with the fact that he did not covet or desire to start a new sect or Mission; and his leaving the Faith Mission was not without feeling the risk and responsibility of doing so; but circumstances and events rendered it necessary. Some workers who gave up their situations to go fully in the Lord’s work were not accepted by the Faith Mission; others did not feel led to join it; and others believed in being more like the pattern as seen in Jesus, and reforming according to the ideal church in the Acts of the Apostles; among the latter was Edward Cooney, who had newly started out, became a strenuous advocate. Most of these workers were either young converts or disciples of William Irvine; and it became impossible for him to be true to the rules of the Faith Mission and to them; so he resigned the one and entered enthusiastically into the other. The crucial difference would be the relationship and acceptance of other denominations. FM cultivated those relationships even though they were compromised by them. Whereas Irvine and the others were running into quite a bit of friction with the denominations. (Noted Sara West's comment on this .. certainly there was more flak then just from the Methodists.) The part I don't know is whether these difficulties were because of Irvine's preaching, Faith Mission preaching or the preaching of the Awakening in general, and such doctrine as the Holiness Doctrine. Probably some of all three, but it would take more study and reading to tease out where the fault lines really were. In the Pattison account it's interesting to analyze the friction between the Methodist superintendent, Kirkpatrick??, and William Irvine, with John long caught in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 21:55:12 GMT -5
Irvine's last payment was supposed to have been in 1901. If I remember correctly, Faith Mission only keep records for 100 years and when Cherie was there it was after the 100 years so they no longer had the record.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 21:59:38 GMT -5
I guess that they were such a small group that they were no threat to anyone except a few in the surrounding area.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 9, 2012 22:26:11 GMT -5
What - I hope you will also get the other book about the Faith Mission: Spirit of Revival by I. R. Govan (John Govan's daughter). I was told those are the only two books about the FM. Looks like you can order it from FM in Canada: www.faithmissioncanada.org/news.htm
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 22:28:16 GMT -5
Are you saying that the workers called the churches names because they saw them as a threat and condemned in their own hearts? Because your accusation is as ludicrous. Other churches called them names because they did not approve of their tactics. The 2x2s also called the churches names.
Again, I say they were not and are not a big group. They grew, yes but were no threat expect in the surrounding area. They were not like the early disciples who grew in leaps and bounds. They were and are a small group compared to other denominations. The majority of the world have never heard of them, unlike Jesus who turned the world upside down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 22:40:46 GMT -5
Irvine's last payment was supposed to have been in 1901. If I remember correctly, Faith Mission only keep records for 100 years and when Cherie was there it was after the 100 years so they no longer had the record. Remind me again of the source of the information about Irvine's payments? Who was this and what was his/her connection to the FM and Irvine? What month of 1901 was the last payment? How did the timing of the last payment coincide with his last report to headquarters? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 22:49:14 GMT -5
The man who was in charge of the Faith Mission bookshops in Belfast, told me he saw the last payment paid to Irvine. This man has 2 aunties in the work. I have no reason to doubt him.
I do not know how many other people heard of it or have info on it.
See Post 84 page 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 22:58:45 GMT -5
The man who was in charge of the Faith Mission bookshops in Belfast, told me he saw the last payment paid to Irvine. This man has 2 aunties in the work. I have no reason to doubt him. I do not know how many other people heard of it or have info on it. See Post 84 page 4. Thanks. Is he still working there/alive/able to be contacted?
|
|