|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2012 23:36:02 GMT -5
Do you know the hearts of these men? I think the proof is our own experience.
if you read post 84 clearday, you will see the answer to your question. Faith Mission only hang onto records for 100 years.
I am leaving now to go away for the weekend, to a Christian camp.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 10, 2012 0:16:39 GMT -5
I haven't read all of your posts on this thread What, but I want to say I appreciate your attention to detail and passion for history. I feel slightly ashamed but mostly just sad that in general, F&W are denied your gift for perspicuity and reflection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 0:36:06 GMT -5
Do you know the hearts of these men? I think the proof is our own experience. if you read post 84 clearday, you will see the answer to your question. Faith Mission only hang onto records for 100 years. I am leaving now to go away for the weekend, to a Christian camp. Hey, wait, wait wait! My question was to obtain the contact in the bookstore. Who is he? Edward Douglas?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 9:12:36 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. My point on this is merely that there's no evidence to build much of a case against William Irvine, so why do people make summary judgements against him. Reason: they need to reinforce their opinions. Keep an open mind, Happy Feet. It isn't all good, and it isn't all bad. We attended a conference last week where we learned that most people have very strong opinions about most things, and often with little information to back it up. I think you have a pretty strong sense of the actual history, but you need to season it a bit with a bit of grace. These men and women were neither all bad or all good. They were trying to do good, however, and you have to admit they were very bold in what they did do. Another thing that we learned is that individuals generally try to do "good", but that in aggregate (collectively) they often do bad, and this collective action is very hard to control or arrest. (An example and an interesting tangent is "the tragedy of the commons". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) So it would seem that casting off Accounting controls, voted-in boards, minutes, transparency and many of the other mechanisms of large organizations has penalized the organizational health of the friends to some extent. These are all mechanisms that keep organizations healthy, and keep individuals honest. Can a group operate without these "trappings"? Sure, the friends do it through a self-policing hierarchy. That works, but unfortunately that method has side effects that they haven't dealt with adequately at this point. We have the benefit of hindsight and a hundred years of history to see some of the ill effects of the worker ministry. William Irvine or John Long or Edward Cooney did not see that there would be see negative effects. But the entire experience of the f&w has not been negative. A lot of good has resulted also.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 10, 2012 9:32:48 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. The Wiki statement was probably based on this quote from Doug Parker's book, pages 2-3:
"His application of the terms of Matthew ten helped to resolve his doubts about his position in the Faith Mission and he decided to break away unofficially; he sent 110 further reports to Mr. Govan. Irvine's name continued to appear in the Faith Mission magazine Bright Words as superintendent of the work in Southern Ireland until December 1900. However, he did not have his work as District Pilgrim at heart for quite some time before this. John Long declared that Irvine's movement dated from 1897 (7c) while Mr. Govan wrote in March 1900: "Pilgrim Irvine is in the south of Ireland. We have not had regular reports from him lately..." (8c) For several years Irvine accepted the hospitality; and support of Faith Mission members while he propagated his ideas. The idea of itinerant preachers going about in pairs to preach in the open, and in pubic and church halls was familiar to, many of his contacts, as were the training conferences, not unlike those organized by Mr. Govan at Rothesay. A few accepted his personal challenge to go out preaching independently but it was two years before a concerted move out into mission on a small scale became possible. Not only was it a big decision for young men to make to abandon their homes and livelihood, Irvine needed to rouse more than a little support to be able to afford to send preachers to other districts and overseas.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 9:43:50 GMT -5
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. I believe FM, Methodist, and other churches felt a great THREAT by the 2x2s New Testament apostolic faith lines group.... Many of them left their own denominations and joined with the 2x2.... pointing out ALL churches were Babylon, and to come out of them. They felt condemned? so they persecuted the 2x2s.
John Long was a Methodist, he resigned and joined with the 2x2s could that caused hard feelings between WI and superintendent, Kirkpatrick?My bad. His name was Whittaker. I fixed most of my posts. (I should fact check more rather than going from memory, but that takes a lot of time.) The other mistake was the Faith Mission education program, and I can't seem to find my earlier post to correct that. Anyway, Whittaker mistrusted Irvine before he even met the man. He wasn't so sure about a charismatic preacher (whose reputation preceded him) coming into his area, so he and Long decided to send him to a remote corner of his area. The conversations between Long and Whittaker (his boss I guess) about Irvine, are interesting. I think they are in the Pattison account.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 9:46:01 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. Like a mustard seed..... It's very small but it grows into a big and tall tree. Just like Jesus and his own disciples, only a very few in the beginning but it multiplied leaps and bounds by the end of the 1st century. The 2x2 was a GREAT thread just read TTT where other churches felt about the early workers. They called the workers all sorts of names because they felt condemned within their own hearts. Any travelling preacher worth his salt was a threat! The Catholics gave Long the dickens just for selling Bibles! That was an object lesson for him when he tried to sell Bibles in a Catholic town.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:00:29 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. What Nathan said above is no different actually than you saying "other churches called them names because they did not approve of their tactics". You both recognize there was conflict in those rural areas where the workers went.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:04:36 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.htmOne problem with the history I have is that it's written by an insider and it's all warm and fuzzy so one is left wondering about the real story. My provisional thought (very provisional) is that the main motivation behind the worker movement was tension between the Establishment and travelling evangelists of the day. I'd be interested to know if the Faith Mission had more general difficulties of the kind experience by Irvine in southern Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:07:03 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? This would be a good thing to have documented. Irvine went off Govan's radar for about a year before he resigned or was dropped, so one wonders if the cheques were still coming. The other side of this is the incoming receipts, since all donations were supposed to go up to Govan.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:09:39 GMT -5
I haven't read all of your posts on this thread What, but I want to say I appreciate your attention to detail and passion for history. I feel slightly ashamed but mostly just sad that in general, F&W are denied your gift for perspicuity and reflection. Well, I'd be happy if they just read a little of their own history. They do need to, because their absence of any real knowledge has not prevented them from having beliefs and opinions on the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:19:02 GMT -5
"What" have you read the history of Christianity? Care to read how Paul usurped the church from Jesus' own family, and turned Jesus into the "Christ" we know today?
Well, I'd be happy if you would just read a little of Christian history. You do need to, because the absence of any real knowledge has not prevented you from having beliefs and opinions on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:34:19 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. The Wiki statement was probably based on this quote from Doug Parker's book, pages 2-3:
As I noted above, most of the secondary sources including Secret Sect, do not jive with the actual account by Long and Irvine. Let me pick this apart a bit. The inference is that Irvine broke away unofficially 110 reports before December 1900. Say, 1896 or 1897? However, Govan personally visited Irvine 1897-8 or so, and praised Irvine's work in Bright Words. So, there were no signs of trouble then. Also the words "he decided to break away". How would Parker know that? Where is the evidence that Irvine had so decided? End 1898, Irvine asked Long to join the Faith Mission, and Long attended the Faith Mission annual convention (presumably, with Irvine) in September 1899. So it doesn't look to me that anyone had "broken away" as late as 1899. Long always had doubts about FM however, as he makes clear in his journal. Again, this is an interpretation of Parker's. "Did not have his work at heart" since 1897 may well be correct, and probably reflects the state of heart for most goverment employees the world over, but does not mean he was disloyal to his employer. Surely accepting hospitality as an intinerant preachers is not a bad thing. But "while he propagated his ideas" is an inference by the writer. It's an automatic thought process of orthodox Christians in demonizing those who are, or subsequently prove to be heterodox. If he's heterodox, well then, he's obviously propagating "his ideas", whereas if he's orthodox, well then, he's spreading the true Gospel. The next move is to make a moral judgement about the man's activity based on where we first position his message. And in actual fact, at that time, Irvine's message was decidedly orthodox. He even taught the Trinity. But based on what the message later became, so called "Christian" historians like Parker re-process the facts. We don't know at what point Irvine stopped recruiting for the Faith Mission and started recruiting for the worker movement. The incident with John Long in December 1898 proves his loyalty and sense of responsibility. My sense of reading about him is that he took his position in the Faith Mission seriously and worked on their behalf while in their employ. Only the year 1900 is a cloud, but we don't know when remuneration ended or when the money stopped flowing to Govan, to make even make a any kind of judgement about that year. We do know that Govan was quite ticked, and I don't blame him. He lost a good man. I would surmise his disappointment or anger, whichever it was, flowed through into his staff, and so I would somewhat discount the testimony of a relative of someone who worked for Govan as a double level of hearsay with prejudice to boot. But at the same time the account can't be discounted entirely.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:44:50 GMT -5
"What" have you read the history of Christianity? Care to read how Paul usurped the church from Jesus' own family, and turned Jesus into the "Christ" we know today? Well, I'd be happy if you would just read a little of Christian history. You do need to, because the absence of any real knowledge has not prevented you from having beliefs and opinions on the subject. Hey, glad to get some from the other side now, Bert. I said to Mrs. What this morning, why am I doing this? I must be a glutton for punishment or something. Anyway, Lee brightened my day ... somewhat. To answer your question, I have read a bit of Christian history. Most recently, a half anyway, of MacCulloch's thousand-plus page doorstop. Not sure where you're coming from with the "Paul usurp" bit. It's not my opinion that's for sure. Okay, Bert, I think what you're saying here is that we do, of necessity, form beliefs without evidence. I think they call that faith. However, faith that flies in the face of evidence to the contrary is generally known as foolishness. Some have called preaching foolishness. But by that was meant the act of preaching, not the content. The Bible does advise against foolish preaching. "We go right back to Galilee" falls into that category. In fact, I believe the early workers wanted to extract from the Christianity of the day, and reduce it to the part that goes "back to Galilee". That was noble. They never did find the truth under a rock, as some of the "foolish preaching" of today would lead us to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:48:25 GMT -5
"What" have you read the history of Christianity? Care to read how Paul usurped the church from Jesus' own family, and turned Jesus into the "Christ" we know today? Well, I'd be happy if you would just read a little of Christian history. You do need to, because the absence of any real knowledge has not prevented you from having beliefs and opinions on the subject. Hey, glad to get some from the other side now, Bert. I said to Mrs. What this morning, why am I doing this? I must be a glutton for punishment or something. Anyway, Lee brightened my day ... somewhat. To answer your question, I have read a bit of Christian history. Most recently, a half anyway, of MacCulloch's thousand-plus page doorstop. Not sure where you're coming from with the "Paul usurp" bit. It's not my opinion that's for sure. Was there an opinion of mine on early church history that you felt contradicted the evidence? C'mon what, 'fess up, you're loving this!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 10:53:15 GMT -5
Hey, glad to get some from the other side now, Bert. I said to Mrs. What this morning, why am I doing this? I must be a glutton for punishment or something. Anyway, Lee brightened my day ... somewhat. To answer your question, I have read a bit of Christian history. Most recently, a half anyway, of MacCulloch's thousand-plus page doorstop. Not sure where you're coming from with the "Paul usurp" bit. It's not my opinion that's for sure. Was there an opinion of mine on early church history that you felt contradicted the evidence? C'mon what, 'fess up, you're loving this! LOL. Okay, but the other statement also holds. I really should be working though so I'm going to take a break. Well, actually this was my break .. a long one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 11:13:33 GMT -5
I haven't read all of your posts on this thread What, but I want to say I appreciate your attention to detail and passion for history. I feel slightly ashamed but mostly just sad that in general, F&W are denied your gift for perspicuity and reflection. Well, I'd be happy if they just read a little of their own history. They do need to, because their absence of any real knowledge has not prevented them from having beliefs and opinions on the subject. "Just the facts, Ma'am." Researching the F&W history is a worthwhile effort, and I appreciate your tenacity in reviewing primary sources.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 10, 2012 12:05:14 GMT -5
I'm reading! I'm no historian, but it's good to see another POV expressed on the history. And you make some excellent points.
Wondering.. for people like me, who don't dive into history, is it OK to just check what I hear in meeting with what I read in the Bible and if it coincides to a major degree, I can keep going? I do also seek and sometimes receive independent "revelation" (please, no comments on the word - only one I can come up with at the moment) which I attribute to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and which also generally coincides with what I hear and read.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2012 12:28:09 GMT -5
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. Again you've put words in my mouth...no where did I say WI was constructing "a church"...I've spoken about him gathering his workers and perhaps he did ask them to join FM, but most of them didn't want to do that...they wanted to do it the way they had figured and it was so fanatical that no way would it have been able to be done that way through FM. For certainty FM had their goals and their limits....now that is what I see the early workers not liking to be kept within those guidelines. As Alfred Macgowen wrote the early workers had a lot of passion for their own young but untried and unknown ideals...they were idealistic in their passion....AM's little paragraph above proved that. They had no idea for the scripture that they should propound......this was simply a bunch of young men and maybe a few young women who wanted to go out and prove they knew what it all took and that everybody that'd gone before had lost their way and were doomed to hell because these young whippersnappers had NO idea what to preach much less what scripture to propound. Now the paragraph that gives WI credit for believing in the Trinity and other regular Christian denominational beliefs shows just how far away from those Christian beliefs the workers have gone. NOW why did they do that? I believe the poison that got ahold of them was the "living witness doctrine", but again here we have some young people who had no experience and little if any training/education along the lines that would have helped them through this transition and not make it their ruling belief. I agree that when the younger workers made WI their ruler and gave him their idealistic worship, it ruined him, but it wouldn't have taken much because the speed with which their idealistic blunderings took ahold of people that alone would have ruined most any leader or ruler. Again the sexual pull that WI had is typical of an ambitious/successful man....look at all of the successful people throughout history and if there's any personal history about them, there's multiple sex issues there as well.....the high concentration of hormones make a man ambitious but again it also makes him weak in the sexual area. And the why he demanded his workers be celebate AFTER a period of time is suspect, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2012 12:35:04 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. It was very much like the First Christian Church split we had a few months ago over the whoop-de-la over the youth minister's increased salary, which is such a stupid thing to cause a church split.....so far the people who left are the "moneyed" members of the church and now they're hold "fellowship" gatherings but with the money they have it will not take them long to build up a need for a church to hold them all...I think they've gaine a half dozen members since Christmas. There's been splits from churches all the time and it comes over for several reasons but most of it is due to younger people who have idealistic passions and want to prove that the older fuddy-duddies are lost in some kind of world that just isn't going to work any longer.....that is horrible to say but that's what many church splits have come about when idealisitc folks in their passion see ONE or TWO things that the older ones are NOT doing and want to change that and make a church over their idealisitc beliefs and that's all they have, but experience will teach them that their differences were more within the human mind and not in the spiritual beliefs! JMO
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 10, 2012 13:00:43 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that Doug Parker did not have either the Pattison or Long accounts when he wrote the Secret Sect, published in 1982 Both of these primary resources have surfaced since 1990, when I first started searching for them. what: I agree with your comments re the author of the Spirit of Revival" book. However, I am still REALLY hoping you read the book. It has many details in it that I believe you will appreciate and find interesting that will "flesh out" your knowledge of FM. Reading it would round out your study. And please please provide us with a Book Review of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 13:18:02 GMT -5
Better yet What, write a book on the history. I think you are a rare individual who could write a objective, factual account of the fellowship and its development.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 14:04:38 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that Doug Parker did not have either the Pattison or Long accounts when he wrote the Secret Sect, published in 1982 Both of these primary resources have surfaced since 1990, when I first started searching for them. what: I agree with your comments re the author of the Spirit of Revival" book. However, I am still REALLY hoping you read the book. It has many details in it that I believe you will appreciate and find interesting that will "flesh out" your knowledge of FM. Reading it would round out your study. And please please provide us with a Book Review of it. Yes. I meant to thank you for the reference, so I will add it to my every increasing shelf of f&w books.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 14:10:21 GMT -5
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. Again you've put words in my mouth...no where did I say WI was constructing "a church"...I've spoken about him gathering his workers and perhaps he did ask them to join FM, but most of them didn't want to do that...they wanted to do it the way they had figured and it was so fanatical that no way would it have been able to be done that way through FM. For certainty FM had their goals and their limits....now that is what I see the early workers not liking to be kept within those guidelines. As Alfred Macgowen wrote the early workers had a lot of passion for their own young but untried and unknown ideals...they were idealistic in their passion....AM's little paragraph above proved that. They had no idea for the scripture that they should propound......this was simply a bunch of young men and maybe a few young women who wanted to go out and prove they knew what it all took and that everybody that'd gone before had lost their way and were doomed to hell because these young whippersnappers had NO idea what to preach much less what scripture to propound. Now the paragraph that gives WI credit for believing in the Trinity and other regular Christian denominational beliefs shows just how far away from those Christian beliefs the workers have gone. NOW why did they do that? I believe the poison that got ahold of them was the "living witness doctrine", but again here we have some young people who had no experience and little if any training/education along the lines that would have helped them through this transition and not make it their ruling belief. I agree that when the younger workers made WI their ruler and gave him their idealistic worship, it ruined him, but it wouldn't have taken much because the speed with which their idealistic blunderings took ahold of people that alone would have ruined most any leader or ruler. Again the sexual pull that WI had is typical of an ambitious/successful man....look at all of the successful people throughout history and if there's any personal history about them, there's multiple sex issues there as well.....the high concentration of hormones make a man ambitious but again it also makes him weak in the sexual area. And the why he demanded his workers be celebate AFTER a period of time is suspect, IMO. When I read the letters of people like Ed Cooney, Alfred Magnetowan, Sara West and John Long, I get no idea that they were "blundering". In fact, they sound fully in possession of their faculties and knowing quite well what they wanted to do. The only thing that distinguishes them from their church-going contemporaries is that they were far more earnest and had a seriousness of purpose lacking in most church-goers of the day. Another highly speculative post with a smattering of accuracy in one or two respects. Forgive me if I pass commenting on every point.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 14:13:03 GMT -5
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. It was very much like the First Christian Church split we had a few months ago over the whoop-de-la over the youth minister's increased salary, which is such a stupid thing to cause a church split.....so far the people who left are the "moneyed" members of the church and now they're hold "fellowship" gatherings but with the money they have it will not take them long to build up a need for a church to hold them all...I think they've gaine a half dozen members since Christmas. There's been splits from churches all the time and it comes over for several reasons but most of it is due to younger people who have idealistic passions and want to prove that the older fuddy-duddies are lost in some kind of world that just isn't going to work any longer.....that is horrible to say but that's what many church splits have come about when idealisitc folks in their passion see ONE or TWO things that the older ones are NOT doing and want to change that and make a church over their idealisitc beliefs and that's all they have, but experience will teach them that their differences were more within the human mind and not in the spiritual beliefs! JMO I can agree with you on that one. Each new generation is determined not to make the mistakes of their forbears, so they forge out into new territory. Then they make their own unique set of mistakes and thus the cycle repeats itself.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 14:15:33 GMT -5
Better yet What, write a book on the history. I think you are a rare individual who could write a objective, factual account of the fellowship and its development. That would be a dream project. Cherie's already done all the difficult leg work (and my interest extends along different lines than hers). Although the Doukhobours might be a more interesting subject. But anyway I have a day job for at least a few more years.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 10, 2012 14:27:42 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that Doug Parker did not have either the Pattison or Long accounts when he wrote the Secret Sect, published in 1982 Both of these primary resources have surfaced since 1990, when I first started searching for them. what: I agree with your comments re the author of the Spirit of Revival" book. However, I am still REALLY hoping you read the book. It has many details in it that I believe you will appreciate and find interesting that will "flesh out" your knowledge of FM. Reading it would round out your study. And please please provide us with a Book Review of it. I should add that is a fair comment about Parker. For one thing, he can be critical in one instance, but on the next page will present a positive comment as well, so there is a balance in the book. On the whole Secret Sect is credible, well researched and documented. But here and there some bias shows through.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2012 17:34:29 GMT -5
Just like to point out that the dates for when WmI left the Faith Mission are somewhat confusing: 1898, Sept: Irvine wrote : “In September, 1898, I was put out of the Faith Mission for not being willing to conform to all their piccadilly discipline, etc.” October 13, 1920 Letter to Dunbars However, the Faith Mission did not drop Irvine’s name from their Staff of Workers Lists until January 1901. However, beginning September, 1898, Irvine began to act on “independent lines,” which did not go unnoticed by Faith Mission.
Some other info I ran across: When he died, (Robert R. Todd) he was still a warm supporter of the F.M. and far from being a Cooneyite. I knew he was not a Cooneyite, as Irvine’s and Cooney's followers were called, but he left the Faith Mission just before Wm Irvine formed the breakaway movement. There was certainly no movement of that kind over here before that, nor did I know of any other movement over here to have existed before Irvine advocated “leaving all” to follow the Lord. I know that the Founder of the Faith Mission, J. G. Govan, had a little private means, and did not himself look to Faith Mission Funds for support, which was one of Irvine’s objections to him.” (Faith Mission-John G. Eberstein Letter to Jim Vail 3/22/89)
|
|