|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 0:25:34 GMT -5
"William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions." This seems reasonable. The home meetings hardly need to be included in the statement because they are established and controlled by the ministry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 4:17:02 GMT -5
"What," that is an excellent one line statement. Personally I would Include something like "round about the turn of the 20th century" to give it a time frame and also I would use something other than "Christian Convention," simply because that is not a common name for the group. It was only used in one or two States or countries and is unfamiliar to many in the fellowship.
Howabout "Round about the turn of the 20th century William Irvine with a few others started the ministry and church in the home commonly referred to as the meetings."
As far as I am aware the term "the meetings" is commonly used throughout the world by the group to refer to themselves and by common habit and repute is a front-runner as the group's name.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 16, 2009 8:21:45 GMT -5
What wrote: My point is simply that if you can get the workers to agree that a sanctioned history should be published, then the rest becomes an academic exercise.
First of all why do they have to agree? The next thing there is a sanctioned history published,on TTT. Anybody can read it. Has it changed anything,not really. That is my point in saying,the history does not mean a whole lot to the success or failure of this way.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 16, 2009 8:29:55 GMT -5
lin, at what point in time will you finally acknowledge the deception being perpetuated by the workers collectively by failing to be the source of truthful information about their own ministry? You have hemmed and hawed over this for many posts. It has nothing to do with success or failure. It has nothing to do with salvation. It has nothing to do with anything other than ..... being completely and totally truthful.
Why do you have a problem with that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 8:47:46 GMT -5
"Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions. A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later."
I like this. I think it spells out the whole picture in a nutshell in 35 words. It answers all the main questions for someone asking for a summary, which is what most people are looking for when they ask about the history of the church. The average person is not looking for any more details than the above.
I realize that many insiders will feel that it excludes God. However, that's not the case. Any description of Paul's foreign mission would typically explain what he did and where he went. The involvement of God is automatically presumed by believers, and automatically excluded by non believers because God's involvment is a matter of faith. The above regarding the history of the workers and friends is not intended to be a statement of faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 9:34:56 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm more or less in agreement with that. My only reservation is that most friends and workers do not accept they have a name and most wouldn't have a clue who the "Christian Conventions" are about.
People have to accept there are two sides to any church, i.e. the spiritual side and the natural side. Basically in talking about founder and the beginnings of the F&w'S church, people should get used to the fact there is a natural side to it with human foundations. The only thing wrong with that is that some don't want to accept a natural or physical side to it because of their long held beliefs that there wasn't one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 10:10:36 GMT -5
How's this Ram:
"Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today "the workers" or as "Christian Conventions". A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later."
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 10:32:23 GMT -5
I would also like to know. Who here doesn't think some kind of a factual history should be published or disseminated? I didn't hear anybody so how about we tone down the accusatory rhetoric a notch. No one here is denying that there is a history that needs to be told. ----- My own favourite summary at this particular moment: William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions. If I felt more confident about Irvine's role I would drop 'with a few others'. I prefer the word 'started' to 'founded'. I like the word 'ministry' because initially it was only a ministry, and we're not sure how each element of the rest of it started. So getting into the other elements without saying who what where confuses things. And to say 'ministry' does not diminish what Irvine did. I like 'Christian Conventions' because that is the name registered with the US govt by George Walker. I like 'known as' because it sidesteps the issue of not having our own name. Anyway, that's what I like, but perhaps it doesn't really resonate with anyone else. I'm curious what you think of my kick at the can. One thing I do believe is that we do need a history either written by, or with the active participation of, believers within the fellowship. The problem with saying "Christian Conventions" is a US name and that leaves out other countries! Thus they can quickly distance themselves! As to the history being published? It already is on TTT! That's about as published as it can get....but maybe you meant that all members receive a written copy in the mail? That's been tried, and many burned them!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 10:40:42 GMT -5
Pretty good siwells. If you are going to focus on what they did rather than what they started, I think you need to say more. That is, their prime focus was to preach the gospel to the lost and seeking. Their Matt10 method was how they chose to do it. "William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions."quote] Clearday! the ministry is not "known" as Christian Conventions, is it? It wasn't even at first....it was known as "workers" and following the Mt. 10 guideline. There is no other way of truth but to say what the Idea was and how it became a working entity, imo
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 16, 2009 10:43:41 GMT -5
lin, at what point in time will you finally acknowledge the deception being perpetuated by the workers collectively by failing to be the source of truthful information about their own ministry? You have hemmed and hawed over this for many posts. It has nothing to do with success or failure. It has nothing to do with salvation. It has nothing to do with anything other than ..... being completely and totally truthful. Why do you have a problem with that? I don't have a problem with that.Why is it my problem? Just to prove it to you I don't have a problem.I won't post anything more about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 12:14:05 GMT -5
How's this Ram: "Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today "the workers" or as "Christian Conventions". A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later." That's fair enough to me Clearday, but as you can see from Shaz's comments the Christian Conventions bit would confound many. Over here the simple term "the Meetings" is the most commonly used identifier of the group. I don't know if that's the same in other places ?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 12:46:08 GMT -5
"What," that is an excellent one line statement. Personally I would Include something like "round about the turn of the 20th century" to give it a time frame and also I would use something other than "Christian Convention," simply because that is not a common name for the group. It was only used in one or two States or countries and is unfamiliar to many in the fellowship. Howabout "Round about the turn of the 20th century William Irvine with a few others started the ministry and church in the home commonly referred to as the meetings." As far as I am aware the term "the meetings" is commonly used throughout the world by the group to refer to themselves and by common habit and repute is a front-runner as the group's name. Ram those are good points. To follow the reporter's basic questions the statement does not say where or when. So, I would amend as follows: "In 1897, William Irvine with a few others started a ministry in Ireland known today as Christian Conventions." TTT refers to 1897 as the year, on this page: www.tellingthetruth.info/history_articles/howstart.phpI personally don't know the history well enough. Should it be: a) the year of the first convention, b) 1901 when Irvine resigned FM, c) some other well-defined point in time. About the name "Christian Conventions". Well, I see the following in its favour: 1) It's denotative, not vague. 2) The wiki crew decided that would be the best name to use a few years ago. (I was not involved in that decision). 3) You can Google it and the top reference is the wiki article. The rest all point somewhere else. But try "meetings", "fellowship", etc. 4) George Walker used it as a registered name - and others also I think. 5) It's kind of a handle without being an actual name. There are other faith groups in the same boat who have no name, but non-members have made a name. The only better name might be "2x2", but I've always found it slightly derisive. Point (4) is probably the strongest argument in favour of its use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 12:48:15 GMT -5
How's this Ram: "Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today "the workers" or as "Christian Conventions". A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later." That's fair enough to me Clearday, but as you can see from Shaz's comments the Christian Conventions bit would confound many. Over here the simple term "the Meetings" is the most commonly used identifier of the group. I don't know if that's the same in other places ? In North America, insiders typically call the church as a whole "The Truth". Is that not used in GB? Maybe "What" has a solution for this conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 12:50:24 GMT -5
"Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions. A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later."I like this. I think it spells out the whole picture in a nutshell in 35 words. It answers all the main questions for someone asking for a summary, which is what most people are looking for when they ask about the history of the church. The average person is not looking for any more details than the above. I realize that many insiders will feel that it excludes God. However, that's not the case. Any description of Paul's foreign mission would typically explain what he did and where he went. The involvement of God is automatically presumed by believers, and automatically excluded by non believers because God's involvment is a matter of faith. The above regarding the history of the workers and friends is not intended to be a statement of faith. Sorry this crossed with my post. I like this too. I might change it to a specific year if that can be supported, but have no strong feelings about that. I might say. In 1897 Irvine started ministry. And the second sentence. "The first annual convention was held in 189? and a fellowship of weekly meetings began X years later". In other words get it as sharp as possible without distorting what happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 12:53:15 GMT -5
What, the usage of Christian Conventions is much more recent than GW's use in WWII. It has been used as letterhead for official letters as recently as the 1990's in Western Canada. However, I don't know how widespread the usage is, geographically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 12:56:43 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm more or less in agreement with that. My only reservation is that most friends and workers do not accept they have a name and most wouldn't have a clue who the "Christian Conventions" are about. People have to accept there are two sides to any church, i.e. the spiritual side and the natural side. Basically in talking about founder and the beginnings of the F&w'S church, people should get used to the fact there is a natural side to it with human foundations. The only thing wrong with that is that some don't want to accept a natural or physical side to it because of their long held beliefs that there wasn't one. And yet people do use the inner/outer man, Jacob/ Esau, Spirit/ flesh seperation all the time. But I know what you mean. I guess maybe the issue is where they draw the line between spiritual and natural. What God cares about and what he doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 13:01:56 GMT -5
"Around the turn of the 20th Century, William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions. A fellowship of weekly meetings and annual conventions started less than a decade later."I like this. I think it spells out the whole picture in a nutshell in 35 words. It answers all the main questions for someone asking for a summary, which is what most people are looking for when they ask about the history of the church. The average person is not looking for any more details than the above. I realize that many insiders will feel that it excludes God. However, that's not the case. Any description of Paul's foreign mission would typically explain what he did and where he went. The involvement of God is automatically presumed by believers, and automatically excluded by non believers because God's involvment is a matter of faith. The above regarding the history of the workers and friends is not intended to be a statement of faith. Sorry this crossed with my post. I like this too. I might change it to a specific year if that can be supported, but have no strong feelings about that. I might say. In 1897 Irvine started ministry. And the second sentence. "The first annual convention was held in 189? and a fellowship of weekly meetings began X years later". In other words get it as sharp as possible without distorting what happened. The year of the first convention and first fellowship meetings can be established easily, but the year of the beginning of the ministry mission is more difficult. 1897 has merit based on the John Long Journal. The year of the first workers on the 1905 workers list shows 1899 with no date beside two of the earlier workers' names (Irvine being one of them). Because Irvine didn't resign from the Faith Mission officially until 1901, they probably had a conflict with placing a year beside his name. Also, when you consider that this was a "movement" in the very beginning, that adds to the difficulty in placing a year on the beginning of the mission.........do you base it upon conception of the plan or upon full time commission of the plan? So while 1897 has plenty of merit, it is definitely no later than 1899 based on the 1905 workers' list. Stating "between 1897 and 1899" would be unassailably correct.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 16, 2009 13:11:08 GMT -5
These definitions all sound so base, guys. Very poor religion. I think you need the word "God" in there somewhere. Like, "God led Irvine".
We probably need two historical statements: One that implies God was involved and one that implies He was not. Then, people can choose the one they like.
Without this implication, the statement will be ignored and we'll continue to argue. Cherie will certainly not accept any statement which doesn't imply God's disapproval. Or at least the denial of any kind of miracle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 13:20:14 GMT -5
These definitions all sound so base, guys. Very poor religion. I think you need the word "God" in there somewhere. Like, "God led Irvine". We probably need two historical statements: One that implies God was involved and one that implies He was not. Then, people can choose the one they like. Without this implication, the statement will be ignored and we'll continue to argue. Cherie will certainly not accept any statement which doesn't imply God's disapproval. Or at least the denial of any kind of miracle. This is supposed to be a statement of historical events, not a statement of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 13:25:26 GMT -5
These definitions all sound so base, guys. Very poor religion. I think you need the word "God" in there somewhere. Like, "God led Irvine". We probably need two historical statements: One that implies God was involved and one that implies He was not. Then, people can choose the one they like. Without this implication, the statement will be ignored and we'll continue to argue. Cherie will certainly not accept any statement which doesn't imply God's disapproval. Or at least the denial of any kind of miracle. clearday, that was the reason I wrote it like I did...the "scriptures" that were utilized by the workers even before they begin to live like they preached, as well as the "scriptures' that they tried to follow for the mtgs. was in Acts. That's what a majority of the saints have been told....the "news" to many is the fact that a "man" by the name of William Irvine and his co-workers was the instigator, founder...whatever noun, pronoun or adverb one wants to use....this states the actual thought that's been versed even on this forum. The "circa" leaves the historical facts that over a period of years that the whole concept of ministry and congregation became a reality. "Circa 1900, WI and his co-workers attempted to follow Mt. 10 and minister in kind. As time went by, they realized that they should live what they preached and should establish mtgs. in the home, like in the book of Acts. "
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 16, 2009 13:28:16 GMT -5
This is supposed to be a statement of historical events, not a statement of faith. I get it. It's like saying "Jesus was born of Mary" and leaving it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 13:28:59 GMT -5
Here is an example for you to use. Not too long and to the point. A Brief History
The Christian and Missionary Alliance began as a deeper life and missionary movement initiated by Dr. Albert B. Simpson in 1887 to mobilize the underutilized lay forces and resources of the churches to "take the whole Bible to the whole world." He believed that a life completely yielded to Christ was one in which service to Christ would be of paramount importance. A person controlled by the Holy Spirit has no choice but to be involved in bringing the Good News to others, either as an overseas missionary or as a missionary at home. __ The founder was reluctant to establish churches, preferring to call together Christians with a vision to evangelize the world but who remained in their local churches. However, the Christ-centered emphasis in teaching and the priority on missions made many people unwelcome in their denominations, causing them to form groups that for years were called "branches," not churches. By the mid-1970s, it became clear that The Alliance was a denomination in all but name, so with revised bylaws and constitution that reality was formalized in 1974. __ Our history is rich in ministry. The cornerstone of our National Office building in Colorado Springs is a visual reminder of our roots. It was first laid at the Gospel Tabernacle in New York City in 1889. From: www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/whoweare-past.jspScott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 13:32:02 GMT -5
That's fair enough to me Clearday, but as you can see from Shaz's comments the Christian Conventions bit would confound many. Over here the simple term "the Meetings" is the most commonly used identifier of the group. I don't know if that's the same in other places ? In North America, insiders typically call the church as a whole "The Truth". Is that not used in GB? Maybe "What" has a solution for this conundrum. Clearday, terms like "the meetings," "the truth" and "the way" are all used over here. In former times "the testimony" was also used. The closest one to a church reference I think would be "The Meetings." However, the others do have relevant application. All would convey the same message.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 13:34:13 GMT -5
These definitions all sound so base, guys. Very poor religion. I think you need the word "God" in there somewhere. Like, "God led Irvine". We probably need two historical statements: One that implies God was involved and one that implies He was not. Then, people can choose the one they like. Without this implication, the statement will be ignored and we'll continue to argue. Cherie will certainly not accept any statement which doesn't imply God's disapproval. Or at least the denial of any kind of miracle. clearday, that was the reason I wrote it like I did...the "scriptures" that were utilized by the workers even before they begin to live like they preached, as well as the "scriptures' that they tried to follow for the mtgs. was in Acts. That's what a majority of the saints have been told....the "news" to many is the fact that a "man" by the name of William Irvine and his co-workers was the instigator, founder...whatever noun, pronoun or adverb one wants to use....this states the actual thought that's been versed even on this forum. The "circa" leaves the historical facts that over a period of years that the whole concept of ministry and congregation became a reality. "Circa 1900, WI and his co-workers attempted to follow Mt. 10 and minister in kind. As time went by, they realized that they should live what they preached and should establish mtgs. in the home, like in the book of Acts. " The fact that the early workers used specific scriptures to start the mission is certainly important and distinctive. In another sense though, it is commonplace. Most religious groups splinter off something based on a focus on certain specific passages of scripture. George Walker said something like the early workers were moved to emulate the church of the bible. I think this is true and important too, although Matt10 loomed the largest in setting up the ministry mission in the first place and before meeting in the home was contemplated. The question is, is the Matt10 factor essential for an opening statement of history?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 13:35:22 GMT -5
And from that humble beginning a scant ten years before uncle Willie and the boys started up their group, the CMA has evolved into: What Is The Alliance Doing Overseas?
Beginning in 1884, the C&MA gradually expanded from a five-member team in Congo to more than 800 missionaries in 58 nations and churches in 81 countries and territories. With emphasis on establishing churches among unreached people groups and responsive populations worldwide, the C&MA is involved also in many types of specialized missions such as communications, medical work, translation, and relief and development aid. While most workers come from the United States, others are supported by churches in Canada and other nation. Many of the overseas national churches belong to The Alliance World Fellowship, a fraternal group with 3 million members in more than 40 nations.
What Is The Alliance Doing in the U.S.?
With churches in every state of the Union, the denomination totals about 429,000 believers in 2,004 churches (statistics as of December 31, 2005). One quarter of these congregations are intercultural, attracting immigrants and minority groups with strong cultural heritages. Services are conducted each Sunday in 19 languages. Affiliated institutions include four colleges, a seminary, four retirement centers, and two development/investment organizations.
Again, not a real long statement, but gives all the details needed to understand what the church has done and how it has grown since being started. It would be nice to have something similar for people to read for the truth fellowship that was written and approved by the truth fellowship. Of course you can find local churches on the web site and lots of other information as well. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 13:38:17 GMT -5
Here is an example for you to use. Not too long and to the point. A Brief History
The Christian and Missionary Alliance began as a deeper life and missionary movement initiated by Dr. Albert B. Simpson in 1887 to mobilize the underutilized lay forces and resources of the churches to "take the whole Bible to the whole world." He believed that a life completely yielded to Christ was one in which service to Christ would be of paramount importance. A person controlled by the Holy Spirit has no choice but to be involved in bringing the Good News to others, either as an overseas missionary or as a missionary at home. __ The founder was reluctant to establish churches, preferring to call together Christians with a vision to evangelize the world but who remained in their local churches. However, the Christ-centered emphasis in teaching and the priority on missions made many people unwelcome in their denominations, causing them to form groups that for years were called "branches," not churches. By the mid-1970s, it became clear that The Alliance was a denomination in all but name, so with revised bylaws and constitution that reality was formalized in 1974. __ Our history is rich in ministry. The cornerstone of our National Office building in Colorado Springs is a visual reminder of our roots. It was first laid at the Gospel Tabernacle in New York City in 1889. From: www.cmalliance.org/whoweare/whoweare-past.jspScott Thanks Scott. Perhaps we do have to go to two or three paragraphs to capture the essence properly. I personally happen to have a strong bias toward efficiency so I always like things to be as simple, concise and as short as possible so that it is more memorable. That's why slogans are so powerful, they are grasped instantly and easily remembered by almost everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 13:39:05 GMT -5
clearday, that was the reason I wrote it like I did...the "scriptures" that were utilized by the workers even before they begin to live like they preached, as well as the "scriptures' that they tried to follow for the mtgs. was in Acts. That's what a majority of the saints have been told....the "news" to many is the fact that a "man" by the name of William Irvine and his co-workers was the instigator, founder...whatever noun, pronoun or adverb one wants to use....this states the actual thought that's been versed even on this forum. The "circa" leaves the historical facts that over a period of years that the whole concept of ministry and congregation became a reality. "Circa 1900, WI and his co-workers attempted to follow Mt. 10 and minister in kind. As time went by, they realized that they should live what they preached and should establish mtgs. in the home, like in the book of Acts. " The fact that the early workers used specific scriptures to start the mission is certainly important and distinctive. In another sense though, it is commonplace. Most religious groups splinter off something based on a focus on certain specific passages of scripture. George Walker said something like the early workers were moved to emulate the church of the bible. I think this is true and important too, although Matt10 loomed the largest in setting up the ministry mission in the first place and before meeting in the home was contemplated. The question is, is the Matt10 factor essential for an opening statement of history? I think to say Mt. 10 as the guidelines used almost explicitly leaves it open for others to understand that through lack of real interpretation, that this is the problems that the ministry faces today....it's been mentioned enough on even this forum, that the Mt. 10 scenario was finished before Jesus' ascension into heaven and he gave another commission in Mt. 28...... Also, I've read and have heard that the "church mtgs." setup was copied after those in Acts of the Apostles....again this leads to what interpretation of the bible, doesn't it. Something each individual can come to their own conclusions about!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:23:18 GMT -5
lin, at what point in time will you finally acknowledge the deception being perpetuated by the workers collectively by failing to be the source of truthful information about their own ministry? You have hemmed and hawed over this for many posts. It has nothing to do with success or failure. It has nothing to do with salvation. It has nothing to do with anything other than ..... being completely and totally truthful. Why do you have a problem with that? I don't have a problem with that.Why is it my problem? Just to prove it to you I don't have a problem.I won't post anything more about it. Don't do that. Your questions and viewpoint are good. We're talking about a history, but the question of "why a history?" is an important one. We are a fellowship that eschews trappings of many kinds, and for a long time I thought a formal history would be one of the things to dispense with in a Spirit-led fellowship. A couple of things have made me change my mind. 1) That nature/ the flesh abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of concrete information various myths have crept in. 2) Someone on wiki convinced me that a "neutral" facts-only history could be told. Not a spiritual history but just the facts. At the same time, I understand where you're coming from, lin, and I keep a mind toward the down-side of having a history. One of which is the tendency of people to want to canonize personalities within their history. Whereas, we sing about "No reputation and unrecognized". Of course, the other factor is that the history is "out there". The journals, the letters, the articles. The question then becomes how do workers and saints react to it.
|
|