|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:30:03 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. 1) 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! 1) Plus many of them don't read English. I think it's better to have a "per area" statement rather than overload the name with several varieties. 2) Publication and distribution. I have no idea. I personally would not usurp the workers on this, and the farthest I'd go is to recommend or ask permission for a certain course of action. As you indicate, there's already a perfectly good "unauthorized" history so why create another one. To me, the bigger question to the fellowship is still "why have a history?" Various possibilities suggest themselves for action.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:31:27 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." Very neatly solves that problem.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:34:23 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. How about one that doesn't imply either one?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:35:47 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. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 14:36:44 GMT -5
One good thing about Uncle Willie going off the rails is we can give him credit for starting the mission without any danger of him being cannonized.
Regarding the name to decribe our church, "the truth" is probably the most commonly recognized amongst innies. I personally refuse to use it because Jesus referred to himself as "the truth".
"Christian Conventions" is the name normally used to register the church in North America, Australia and New Zealand. Is it used in Europe and the UK?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:55:08 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. You leave both Joseph and God out of it, since claims have been made either way. This is also useful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewBut it's probably more than you'll ever want to know about the subject.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 14:57:58 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 I somehow prefer the following (from wikipedia): The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is an Evangelical Protestant denomination within Christianity.
Founded by Rev. Albert Benjamin Simpson in 1887, the Christian & Missionary Alliance did not start off as a denomination, but rather began as two distinct parachurch organizations: The Christian Alliance which focused on the pursuit and promotion of the Higher Christian life and The Evangelical Missionary Alliance, which focused on mobilizing "consecrated" Christians in the work of foreign missionary efforts. These two groups amalgamated in 1897 to form The Christian and Missionary Alliance. It was only much later during the mid twentieth century that an official denomination was formed. But in a way, this is a different topic. The thread has been about the 'founder' issue, and the stmt 'William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 ministry'. This stmt and whatever form it ultimately takes is a key aspect or thesis of the history. It should be understood it's not the whole history, and it's not even a brief precis of the history.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 15:02:46 GMT -5
One good thing about Uncle Willie going off the rails is we can give him credit for starting the mission without any danger of him being cannonized. Regarding the name to decribe our church, "the truth" is probably the most commonly recognized amongst innies. I personally refuse to use it because Jesus referred to himself as "the truth". "Christian Conventions" is the name normally used to register the church in North America, Australia and New Zealand. Is it used in Europe and the UK? For Europe you have to go outside of English anyway. I guess you want something that would make sense throughout the English speaking world, so that would also include South Africa and Jamaica, that I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 15:17:41 GMT -5
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? 1) 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...... ~~~ Right on the money, Sharon about Jesus gave the second commission in Matthew 28 when the gospel to ALL NATIONS! not to the Jews and Lost sheep House of Israel in Matthew 10 and Luke 10.
To get the Jews! attention before they were even to listen what the 12 and 70 were preaching Jesus had to give them signs! miracles, healing power that the Messiah has ARRIVED.
We can learn from some of the instructions in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 which Jesus had instructed them to follow.2) 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! ~~~ The Great commission in Matthew 28 is very simple! preaching the gospel and the Spirit does the miracle works from within the hearts of men and women.
(Acts 10:42,43) Peter said to Cornelius the centurion gentile... " Jesus commanded us to PREACH unto the people, and to testify that it is HE which was ordained of God to be the judge of quick and dea. To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believes in Him shall receive forgiveness of Sins.Nathan, Here's the problem I have with the direction you and Sharon are going. If someone wrote a history of the movement that included any spiritual aspects, you run into quite a few issues: 1) Is it your business to write it? 2) Is it one to which all workers and all saints would agree? 3) Does it accurately reflect the doctrine of the fellowship? 4) Does it 'add' or 'usurp' God's Word in arguing for a particular interpretation? Such a history becomes essentially one person's testimony or viewpoint. Yes, I do think such a history has a place, but it leaves much to the viewpoint of the reader. Raymond Reid's book, if you've read it, is an example of this. The way I would view a history -- it's what would be written by an academic historian who is neither in the fellowship or outside it. It contains all the facts both pro- and anti- points of view agree with. And, where a matter is germane to the narrative and there is disagreement, it contains both points of view and fairly presents both sides of the issue. By 'germane', naming the personalities involved, about which there has been much discussion, is a 'germane' matter of some controversy. Regarding Matt 10 specifically. A viewpoint or conflict of views about the scriptural meaning of 'Matthew 10' is not germane in an academic history, and should not be in it. 'Matthew 10', as understood or explicated by John Long and others is germane to the history, but I personally wouldn't put it in the one line summary. For Matthew 10 to be part of the history, you have to tell it as they told it, supported by quotes from original source documents.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 15:22:25 GMT -5
One good thing about Uncle Willie going off the rails is we can give him credit for starting the mission without any danger of him being cannonized. Regarding the name to describe our church, "the truth" is probably the most commonly recognized amongst innies. I personally refuse to use it because Jesus referred to himself as "the truth". "Christian Conventions" is the name normally used to register the church in North America, Australia and New Zealand. Is it used in Europe and the UK? Well, he might very well be cannonized, but he wouldn't be canonized. (Okay, bad joke I admit). And I do think it's a good thing, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 16:08:32 GMT -5
What wrote:
I too evolved from being ambivalent about the history to being concerned about it being told, and told correctly.
Here's a few things that make it important:
1.To correct errors of past recountings of history. Most of two or three generations of friends have been brought up believing that there was a seamless unbroken group of workers connecting back to Christ. We have been wrong and must correct it if we love truth.
2.To come to a better understanding of how our traditions developed. This will help people become less idolizing of the meeting and convention system. They are traditions, good ones, but no substitute for salvation.
3.To better understand how exclusivity came into being within the ministry group. If nothing else, this will help us be less condemning of other Christians if not outright favourable toward their faith and salvation as fellow believers.
4.To understand that we have made errors in the past so that we do not repeat them in the future.
Just off the top. I suspect there are some other good outcomes of understanding our past.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 16, 2009 16:13:07 GMT -5
What wrote: I too evolved from being ambivalent about the history to being concerned about it being told, and told correctly. Here's a few things that make it important: 1.To correct errors of past recountings of history. Most of two or three generations of friends have been brought up believing that there was a seamless unbroken group of workers connecting back to Christ. We have been wrong and must correct it if we love truth. 2.To come to a better understanding of how our traditions developed. This will help people become less idolizing of the meeting and convention system. They are traditions, good ones, but no substitute for salvation. 3.To better understand how exclusivity came into being within the ministry group. If nothing else, this will help us be less condemning of other Christians if not outright favourable toward their faith and salvation as fellow believers. 4.To understand that we have made errors in the past so that we do not repeat them in the future. Just off the top. I suspect there are some other good outcomes of understanding our past. Absolutely correct on all counts. Thanks clearday
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 16:24:20 GMT -5
What wrote: I too evolved from being ambivalent about the history to being concerned about it being told, and told correctly. Here's a few things that make it important: 1.To correct errors of past recountings of history. Most of two or three generations of friends have been brought up believing that there was a seamless unbroken group of workers connecting back to Christ. We have been wrong and must correct it if we love truth. 2.To come to a better understanding of how our traditions developed. This will help people become less idolizing of the meeting and convention system. They are traditions, good ones, but no substitute for salvation. 3.To better understand how exclusivity came into being within the ministry group. If nothing else, this will help us be less condemning of other Christians if not outright favourable toward their faith and salvation as fellow believers. 4.To understand that we have made errors in the past so that we do not repeat them in the future. Just off the top. I suspect there are some other good outcomes of understanding our past. All good points. I also took a shot at it in reply # 264, but it was a sloppy first cut I'll be the first to admit. I suppose in a nutshell, the history separates the things of God from the things of man. Here is an example, that I phrase as a question because I don't know how people view this. Does anyone think that conventions have been observed since the time of Christ? Do they think that conventions should be observed in a certain way because that's the way it has always been done? Are there aspects of convention that should adapt with the times, and we shouldn't worry about it, because those are things that can change as the times change? Does it help to know that our fellowship's conventions are only 100 years old? Just asking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 16:34:06 GMT -5
#264 was good reading though.
Wow are we already now up to 385 replies on this founder thread alone?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 16, 2009 16:35:06 GMT -5
#264 was good reading though. Wow are we already now up to 385 replies on this founder thread alone? Yeah, now add in the other founder thread post counts.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 16, 2009 16:46:06 GMT -5
1) Believer wrote: The way the workers go out and how they did in the New Testament would not bare any similarity. ~~~ What are you talking about? Care to give me some examples.2) Another culture, another time. Even today, living in Israel is completely different to living in the west, let alone to say 2,000 years ago. It is laughable that the workers think they can imitate the New Testament ministry today. ~~ It is laughable to you .... but the Vaudois, Waldenses, Albigenses, Cathars, Poor men of Lyons, Lollards and who know many like them have imitated the apostolic ministry and the New Testament church for 1800 yrs BEFORE! WI and the 2x2 workers tried it for themselves..... IT WORKS!
With men it is laughable and impossible BUT with God's blessings NOTHING is impossible when the Holy Spirit is in charge.You obviously show your ignorance of middle east culture. Take a trip to Israel and then come back and report to us if you think it is possible to imitate another time and place.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 16, 2009 16:48:14 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. I like this post. I have no problem with the above.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 16:50:27 GMT -5
Does anyone remember who and where it was said that WI used Mt. 10 for the setup of the itinerant ministry? It's been alluded to several times in these historical topics.
I think Mt. 10 is vital for those who are members of the fellowship simply because that is what is told to us is our "pattern" for our 2X2 itinerant ministry. Also I think Acts' mtgs. in homes is vital because that also is told to us is how the beginning workers set up our congregational mtgs.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 16, 2009 17:01:07 GMT -5
I guess I applaud, but I must still point out that we are infringing upon religious beliefs even in these four items. There can be no "errors" in a perfect way, and exclusivity (at one level or another) is a natural consequence of perfection. Less than perfection implies less than God-ordained. You wish to say these traditions developed just in the last 100 years, but that demeans a religion that prefers to believe these traditions existed on the shores of Galilee.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 16, 2009 17:05:34 GMT -5
Here's an analogy (I love analogies). My book on Revelation: I like to think I'm just presenting the facts, for people to make their own decisions. For each verse in Revelation, I tell what was going on in the first century, what John was writing about. But the truth is, I know I have an underlying purpose: I want to change people's mind. I want to free people from the nightmare of a vengeful Messiah coming back filling the rivers with blood. I have my ideas of what is helpful religion and what is hurtful religion and I present all the "facts" hoping I can change people's religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 17:15:29 GMT -5
One good thing about Uncle Willie going off the rails is we can give him credit for starting the mission without any danger of him being cannonized. Regarding the name to decribe our church, "the truth" is probably the most commonly recognized amongst innies. I personally refuse to use it because Jesus referred to himself as "the truth". "Christian Conventions" is the name normally used to register the church in North America, Australia and New Zealand. Is it used in Europe and the UK? To be bluntly honest, I am wondering how off the rails he was to start with...delusions of grandeur don't just up and start suddenly unless there's brain tumor....and he apparently didn't die from a brain tumor. I also have to wonder if after all of this had been seemingly a great success if the workers who dispensed with him, didn't think the same thing and that's why the repression of the historical facts all along? ?? But they found themselves very responsible for a large number of people and it still was growing? Will we ever get the answer to that problem?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 17:25:46 GMT -5
To be bluntly honest, I am wondering how off the rails he was to start with...delusions of grandeur don't just up and start suddenly unless there's brain tumor....and he apparently didn't die from a brain tumor. I also have to wonder if after all of this had been seemingly a great success if the workers who dispensed with him, didn't think the same thing and that's why the repression of the historical facts all along? ?? But they found themselves very responsible for a large number of people and it still was growing? Will we ever get the answer to that problem? I'm not sure of what you mean by a problem. There was a lot written about William Irvine in the early days that gives me the impression he was highly respected as a godly man at least for a time. Perhaps the success of his mission made him proud? Hundreds of people left all and scattered around the world to work in his mission. Thousands of people "professed" in the mission he started. But even if he was never a godly man, what difference would it make?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 18:07:28 GMT -5
~~~ Jesusonly..... Do you know if the Faith Mission founder John Govan in 1886 required their workers/preachers must "SELL ALL" in order for them to become workers? I doubt it. I think the Faith Mission was more concerned about the message than the method. Come to think of it, Jesus was too. He was not impressed with all the form and ceremony of the religious folks in his day. He was more interested in helping individuals. I can't imagine he would allow millions to miss out because there's not enough "faith lines" workers to reach them.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 16, 2009 18:22:36 GMT -5
I doubt it. I think the Faith Mission was more concerned about the message than the method. Come to think of it, Jesus was too. He was not impressed with all the form and ceremony of the religious folks in his day. He was more interested in helping individuals. I can't imagine he would allow millions to miss out because there's not enough "faith lines" workers to reach them. ~~ So Where did WI and the early 2x2 workers get the idea of workers to "SELL ALL" from? It is scriptures?Probably Nate, from their own interpretation of the scriptures. I repeat, their interpretation. We can use the scriptures to justify many, many things and oft times it is unrighteous or unjust behaviour, but people still will defend it as scripturally backed.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 18:24:22 GMT -5
~~ So Where did WI and the early 2x2 workers get the idea of workers to "SELL ALL" from? It is scriptures? How 200 2x2s workers come to the same conclusion by "SELLING ALL" their possessions in 1905? WI read Matthew 10 and got to wondering if it was a pattern for all time. He experimented with the concept and gathered other workers around him.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 18:31:04 GMT -5
Howdy what! I somehow prefer the following (from wikipedia):
The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is an Evangelical Protestant denomination within Christianity.
Founded by Rev. Albert Benjamin Simpson in 1887, the Christian & Missionary Alliance did not start off as a denomination, but rather began as two distinct parachurch organizations: The Christian Alliance which focused on the pursuit and promotion of the Higher Christian life and The Evangelical Missionary Alliance, which focused on mobilizing "consecrated" Christians in the work of foreign missionary efforts. These two groups amalgamated in 1897 to form The Christian and Missionary Alliance. It was only much later during the mid twentieth century that an official denomination was formed.I think that is pretty accurate. Wickepidia for the most part seems to get the facts pretty accurate don't you think? But in a way, this is a different topic.
The thread has been about the 'founder' issue, and the stmt 'William Irvine is the founder of the 2x2 ministry'. This stmt and whatever form it ultimately takes is a key aspect or thesis of the history. It should be understood it's not the whole history, and it's not even a brief precis of the history.Yes you're right about that. Perhaps we could check the Wikipedia definition of the history for the Christian Conventions and see how accurate it is? Origins and History
The church coalesced in Ireland in the late 1890s under the leadership of Scottish evangelists William Irvine, Edward Cooney, George Walker, Jack Carroll, John Kelly, John Long and others. Irvine and Kelly had previously been associated with the Faith Mission.
Members of the church have been fairly explicit in not maintaining an official history, rejecting any form of liturgy, and in many cases, even destroying correspondence and written records.
In part, this behavior is an exigency of an itinerant lifestyle; in part, it is a response to centering the church on Biblical teaching with a strong bias to oral exposition. These characteristics make it difficult to form a history with any accuracy and certainly there exists no church-sanctioned historical archive or records.
For the interested reader, Cornelius Jaenen has documented the growth of the church in Ireland in the late 1890s. The workers' efforts in Ireland are also documented in newspaper articles of the time, occasional written testimonies of early workers, photographs of workers, and excerpts from the Bright Words monthly publication.
William Irvine was excommunicated from the church in 1917. His literal views of eschatology prophecy and belief that the world was about to end following the First World War were considered by other leaders to be disruptive to the fellowship.
Irvine and a small group of loyal followers become known as the Message People, The Witnesses (not to be confused with the unrelated Jehovah's Witnesses), or Irvinites (not to be confused with the unrelated Irvingites). Irvine declared himself a prophet and continued to urge his followers to prepare for the end of the world.
Another division occurred in 1928 when the worker Edward Cooney (well-known for preaching on Hyde Park Corner) left the church. Cooney believed strongly in the original itinerant ministry, in reviving the miracle powers of the Apostolic Age, and he rejected the appointment of head workers to geographic regions and the Living Witness Doctrine.
A handful of Cooney's loyal supporters separated to join Cooney in his own sect. Because of Cooney's prominence in the early growth of the church, some onlookers had labeled the entire group as Cooneyites. In later years this came to apply only to the small group that separated along with Cooney.This of course is just a small sampling of what is on Wikipedia. Here is the link for those interested in reading more about the Christian Conventions there: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_conventionsI broke the section above into more readable chunks..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 18:49:03 GMT -5
WI read Matthew 10 and got to wondering if it was a pattern for all time. He experimented with the concept and gathered other workers around him. ~~~ hmmm... Jesus did NOT tell the 12 and 70 to SELL ALL in Matthew 10 and Luke 10 did He?If WI believed it was for ALL time.... then how could WI be the First? There must have been others who had done it before WI and the 2x2 workers, right?The idea of selling all is not what the founder issue is about. William Irvine started a mission - not the selling-all idea. That mission went on to establish meetings in homes, convention/special meetings systems, mission fields etc.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 19:23:05 GMT -5
There is another Wikipedia article about Uncle Willie: Irvine the evangelist
Irvine joined the Faith Mission in Scotland in 1895 and went across to Ireland around May 1896. Various recent sources have sought to associate the movement described in Christian Conventions with a single founder, that being Irvine. And Irvine himself later claimed to be founder of the movement which would be an obvious heresy in the eyes of his fellow workers.
In fact, almost simultaneously a number of men and women left the Methodist and other churches to preach independently in the 1890s in Ireland: Edward Cooney (as early as 1884) joined by John West and Tom Betty; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Todd with Tom Turner, John Hardie, Emma Gill, Annie Holland and Sarah Sullivan; John Long with Tom Turner, Tom McNaught, Dick Norman and Alex Given.
Long and Morrison preached with Irvine and did not defer to him as a leader. After revivals involving some or all of these men in 1897, George Walker began in the ministry then, as did John West and others. As late as 1899 William Irvine was still a member of the Faith Mission.
In Ireland, Irvine and his early adherents held "tent-missions" and converts were sent abroad to England, America, Australia and New Zealand. Those who sold everything to become homeless itinerant missionaries were called "workers", others with families and homes were "friends" or "saints"; thus a two-tiered system evolved.
Elders responsible for each home-church were drawn from the "saints". The group grew rapidly, and held conventions lasting several weeks at a time. In the early years of the 20th century, Irvine travelled widely to Australia and America, attending conventions and preaching.
The group was fairly progressive regarding the role of women in the church, with women workers first commissioned to preach in 1901. A controversial teaching, presumably originating with Irvine, was that of the Living Witness Doctrine (first recorded mention in a convention sermon by Joseph Kerr in 1903). This was derived from a statement by a contemporary of Charles Darwin that "only something that is living can reproduce life". It was concluded that only through the preaching of a 2x2 preacher (a "living witness") could one be saved. As a consequence of this doctrine, there was a significant exodus from the church at this time.
Irvine's literal views of eschatological prophecy and belief that the world was about to end following the First World War brought about the first division in the fledgling denomination. The greater majority of church members remained in the continuing branch of the church as originally set up. Irvine and a small group of loyal followers left and became known as the Message People, The Witnesses, or Irvinites. Irvine went on to declare himself a prophet and continued to urge his followers to prepare for the end of the world.This is the link to this article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Irvine_(Scottish_evangelist)Scott
|
|