|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 11:20:51 GMT -5
He removed himself? ? NOT! J Long was the first MAJOR ex-COMMUNICATION in the group! WmI put J Long out while he was preaching on the conv. platform in 1907. It was horrible! Read John Long's Journal for the year 1907... I'm not much for history, Cherie, but I do feel giving credit where credit is due is the most appropriate thing. Yes, I agree with John Long being the co-starter as I read several things within your site to indicate to me that he had a lot of input about it at the beginning, but simply because he removed himself just few yrs. later he perhaps didn't feel up to being the founder or co-founder? Just like you said, you and Scott do not agree on the beginning of WINGS! I perhaps should have said JL didn't want his name to be found with any of the others because of the treatment he received....I was talking about him removing himself from the "record" so to speak of who did what....I cannot blame him for not wanting to be named founder at those dates after fact of an excommunication...yes, I know his "removal" from the society that day was awful.....how he ever even wanted to say he'd been part of them is amazing in itself....I felt sorry for him, and I feel sorry for those who go through the same things these days! I wish I could change all of that, but little power do I have!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 13:32:18 GMT -5
It's interesting that people like Nathan and Todd make it so difficult to discuss the beginnings of our church in a responsible and intelligent manner.
However the recorded history is clear. What was later referred to as "William Irvine's mission" began at Nenagh in late 1897. It resulted in a number of believers including the Carrolls walking in fellowship with Uncle Willie.
William Irvine's mission later included George Walker, Wilson McClung, Eddie Coonie et al.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 13:42:41 GMT -5
Hi Jesusonly, as far as I "now" see it, until the church in the home was instituted the ministry (even after the severance) was in reality a continuation from the Faith Mission. The terminology, spiritual beliefs and form were all more or less just carried over that it is clear that in the very early days Irvine and Company did not set out to be different to any great degree from the Faith Mission, otherwise they would have rejected all or some of these things. Even when they did found the church in the home it was styled on the format of the Faith Mission's Prayer Union Meetings.
It seems the main difference at the beginning was the acceptance of the Matt.10 format, a more severe form for the ministry to live by than what the Faith Mission had adopted. Irvine's late 1896 statement about personal poverty being necessary to be of any use to God (or words to that effect), whilst still an active member of the FM clearly shows, at least to myself, his Matt. 10 direction.
There's no doubt he started the F&W's ministry, but the influences of the Faith Mission in the new sect, even to this day, are enormous, yet most are still ignorant of any connection. For whatever reason it happened, the group is really just a breakaway movement from the Faith Mission.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 14:08:53 GMT -5
Jesusonly, you identify the difference between a "mission" and a "denomination" which has to be factored into things.
The Faith Mission is just that. It is a mission as opposed to a denomination or sect, because it does not have its own church, but rather is a mission acting on behalf of many denominations. This is the spiritual background of William Irvine and one or two others. They were not part of a denomination, but rather a "mission."
It was this "mission" they were continuing from their Faith Mission days, along with others who joined them, but seeking to recreate the Matthew 10 mission for themselves. They were a mission or ministry only for the first few years, only becoming a denomination or distinctly separate church when they set up the church in the home. Thus they went from an offshoot of the Faith Mission to becoming a sect in their own right. They were a mission which became a church group.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 14:14:09 GMT -5
Thanks for that Ram, yes I'm inclined to agree that our group is a break-away movement from the Faith Mission.
It was a gradual process. The Faith Mission never was a church. It was, and it remains, a mission.
When the mission William Irvine started broke away from the Faith Mission it wasn't a church organization.
It was still a mission. I wonder if that's why some folks have difficulty getting their head around it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 14:23:29 GMT -5
I get it. It's like saying "Jesus was born of Mary" and leaving it at that. The idea of just sticking to the facts of history is a great idea , but that should also include where the crucial facts are that God was involved? … nobody can even agree on what happened, simply because they base their assumptions without consideration to a superior power. This will cause you to argue for the rest of your life about whether Mary was a virgin or Mary had a son Hmm, maybe you have put your finger on something... Would that be why many friends and workers are unshaken, and stand firm that the founder of their faith and fellowship is Jesus - from the beginning. But those who want to make it otherwise will continue in eternal disputation?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 14:31:28 GMT -5
The idea of just sticking to the facts of history is a great idea , but that should also include where the crucial facts are that God was involved? … nobody can even agree on what happened, simply because they base their assumptions without consideration to a superior power. This will cause you to argue for the rest of your life about whether Mary was a virgin or Mary had a son Hmm, maybe you have put your finger on something... Would that be why many friends and workers are unshaken, and stand firm that the founder of their faith and fellowship is Jesus - from the beginning. But those who want to make it otherwise will continue in eternal disputation? Yes, when our faith is deeply rooted in Jesus and our fellowship with our fellow believers is not dependant on group politics, then the details of church history doesn't matter in the slightest. Sadly many in the friends and workers' fellowship have put their faith in the ministry and church itself rather than in Jesus and their personal relationship with him. For their sake it's important that the history of the church is properly documented.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 18, 2009 14:55:52 GMT -5
The idea of just sticking to the facts of history is a great idea , but that should also include where the crucial facts are that God was involved? Todd/Ettu, I think the story has to be told as if God were not involved. It can be done, so that's kinda the point; no other version will be accepted here. It's like the story of Jesus. Fascinating how everything fits nicely together, all the prophecies fulfilled, for believers, right? And then scholars/historians read the same words, and everything can be explained without miracles or honest-to-God prophecies or any involvement at all from "God." Either you believe or you don't, eh? Two parallel stories that once in a while bump into each other.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 18, 2009 14:58:38 GMT -5
btw, I don't mean to discredit such a "secular" version of f&w history; in fact, I would love to have one, as I've said many times, unless it is tainted to promote some other belief system. I just hesitate to think a godless version will be embraced by mainstream f&w's.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 15:10:07 GMT -5
btw, I don't mean to discredit such a "secular" version of f&w history; in fact, I would love to have one, as I've said many times, unless it is tainted to promote some other belief system. I just hesitate to think a godless version will be embraced by mainstream f&w's. I doubt that some hazy mix of what God did and what man did would achieve anything useful. First of all we need to establish what happened. We read in the bible about Paul and the apostles' movements, so why should we fear discussing the movements of William Irvine's mission? When I read the Pattison account I see the working of God all through it. To me its like a modern-day acts of the apostles. Others will read it and see nothing of God at all. We shouldn't fear an understanding of the history of our church. We should rather fear the endless genealogies and old wives fables that result through ignorance and imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 18, 2009 15:58:07 GMT -5
Indeed. But there's always two ways to portray a religious event, even if only implied. For example:
1. Jesus rode a donkey into town, which was later discovered deep within the scriptures to have miraculously fulfilled the prophecy of Zecharia!
2. One day, Jesus was reading the prophets, and said "Hey! That donkey thing, that's the image I want to portray!" So he found one and rode it into town.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 18, 2009 16:10:21 GMT -5
2. One day, Jesus was reading the prophets, and said "Hey! That donkey thing, that's the image I want to portray!" So he found one and rode it into townActually...... Matthew 21
The Triumphal Entry
1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."He didn't find one, he told a couple of disciples where THEY could find one. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 18, 2009 16:32:09 GMT -5
I'm not much for history, Cherie, but I do feel giving credit where credit is due is the most appropriate thing. Yes, I agree with John Long being the co-starter as I read several things within your site to indicate to me that he had a lot of input about it at the beginning, but simply because he removed himself just few yrs. later he perhaps didn't feel up to being the founder or co-founder? Just like you said, you and Scott do not agree on the beginning of WINGS! John Long said he was there from the beginning, he did not say he begun it. For example, I could say, I was in a certain church from the beginning, but that does not mean that I started it. If he started it he would not have said from the beginning, he would have said from when he begun it. From the beginning does not mean he begun or co begun it.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 16:43:17 GMT -5
Do we want our kids and our friends to base their faith on our church....
....or do we want our kids and our friends to base their faith on God the father and his son Jesus Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 16:46:29 GMT -5
btw, I don't mean to discredit such a "secular" version of f&w history; in fact, I would love to have one, as I've said many times, unless it is tainted to promote some other belief system. I just hesitate to think a godless version will be embraced by mainstream f&w's. I doubt that some hazy mix of what God did and what man did would achieve anything useful. First of all we need to establish what happened. We read in the bible about Paul and the apostles' movements, so why should we fear discussing the movements of William Irvine's mission? When I read the Pattison account I see the working of God all through it. To me its like a modern-day acts of the apostles. Others will read it and see nothing of God at all. We shouldn't fear an understanding of the history of our church. We should rather fear the endless genealogies and old wives fables that result through ignorance and imagination. Was it not mentioned on this topic or founder I that George Walker had said that after they'd preached in the mission for some period of time, that there were some of them speaking to one another that they should start living what they were preaching? I think this would have been just before JL's expulsion and the LWD issue! But this still was just the "start" or "founding" of the "worker's ministry" as it is known today! This is a very big problem because we have "workers" that were supposedly under the FM that somewhere along the line begin to think of themselves not FM anymore, but in all reality still were....but that is only the ministry. If we want to say the WHOLE sect of the truth's fellowship has a founder, we have to come down to the period of time, that FM was no longer involved, even secretly by WI's design! I think Cherie has said it perhaps the best...to use "around the beginning of the 21st century" or as I have said "circa 1900" the truth's fellowship was founded, started, began and who was involved in that particular beginning.....otherwise it becomes imbedded in something that actually was something else....And I'm talking about "mission" which was what FM was all about and apparently still is. I think to try and bring "mission" and "truth's fellowship" timelines into one is what is really questionable because we have differing timelines shared by written word from JL and WI and others......they don't seemed to have actually written the direct time line when their idea of "home mtgs., convs., homeless ministry" all became the basic doctrine of the splintering sect....
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 16:50:45 GMT -5
Here's an interesting bit of sermon from Jack Carroll in 1951, which gives more detail of what the beginning workers were trying to establish as far as the home mtgs. and the homeless ministry.
QUOTE: Fellowship Meeting Who: Jack T. Carroll What: Message at Convention Where: Arizona When: October 25, 1951 I am going to say over to you folk here in Arizona a few things that were said in San Diego, and Bakersfield, and further north about the fellowship meetings on the "first day of the week." It has been said that the real test of a good convention is not exactly what takes place in the convention meetings but on the "first day of the week" during the year. I hope all of you, at the close of the convention, will take your concordance and look up this word "fellowship." I don't know where it originated, but it seems to me that it is right and Scriptural to think of our meetings on the "first day of the week "as fellowship meetings. The Roman Catholic church speaks a great deal about "the Mass." Other church systems speak a great deal about their "Communion Services." The Church of England speaks about "the Eucharist"--and so on. When we think of the "first day of the week" we remember the custom that existed in the New Testament days when the disciples of Jesus came together "on the first day of the week. . . to break bread" (Acts 20:7). The "breaking of bread" is simply a symbolic way in which we renew our fellowship with our Master and Lord, and with each other. There are two fundamentals of the faith of' Jesus that are vital to a true understanding and interpretation as recorded in the New Testament. First: "the church in the home"—and the home only. Secondly: "the preacher without a home. " These two are foundational. We cannot, we dare not, depart from either of them. And if we do, we become a part of that great Babylonish system that is blinding the minds of men and women the world over to "the simplicity that is in Christ" (II Corinthians 11:). No preacher can be in our fellowship who is not prepared to be as homeless in this world as his or her Master. One of the very first conditions that God's ministers have to face is willingness to have fellowship with Jesus in His homelessness. "Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head" (Matthew 8:20). No man or woman can have any part in this ministry unless they have this willingness. There is another condition perhaps we might mention: fellowship with Jesus in His poverty. No man or woman can share in this ministry unless willing to "forsake all" (Luke 14:26). There is an equality in this. It matters nothing whether you have "a little" or "much." But it matters everything that, actually and literally, you "forsake all." Otherwise, you can have no part in this ministry. While I'm speaking about the ministry, there is a third condition that those who go forth in the Name and Way of Jesus must face. He said, ". . . freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). No man can enter this ministry that isn't prepared to give as freely as He did. If we ever heard of any man or woman in the ministry raising a collection, or making an appeal for money, we would immediately exclude them from this fellowship. God sent His servants into the world to be "givers" and not "getters." Therefore, God's bondservants and handmaidens are characterized by this "loving" and "giving"--sacrificing and proving the promise He gave in the beginning: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all else will be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33). If every friend we had in the world turned their backs on us today, we could still go on, for the promise of God remains the same as at the beginning. Our responsibility is to "seek first the Kingdom of God," And the promise He has made to His bondservants and handmaidens is eternally sure. Maybe there are some in this meeting today thinking seriously of entering this ministry. Now these two fundamentals we have mentioned are worth making a note of: "the church in the home," and "the preacher without a home." The men and women who have ministered to you from this platform these days have made themselves homeless and poor for the Gospel's sake and are deliberately laying down their lives from day to day--denying themselves all they might have been and could have enjoyed--in order that they might bring the message of God to you. I hope you value and appreciate this ministry. There could be no New Testament fellowship apart from this New Testament ministry. The church in the home: Some years ago some of us were in the city of Rome in Italy. We were on our way to Naples to have some meetings there. One morning, while in the city of Rome, we planned a visit to one of' the oldest churches in the city--the church of St. Pudenzia. When we reached this building, we found it was 16 feet below the level of the present street. The Franciscan priest took us through this building, and afterwards, he took us down to examine the foundation of another church on which the present one had been built. It was very interesting to examine the walls of that ancient building. The priest then said, "I'll take you down still further, for this original church was built on the foundation of a private home. So we went down. And there in that private home, the walls were standing. Some rooms had been excavated. And in one particular room, where the floor had a beautiful mosaic pattern, he said to us, "The early church met for worship in this home and in this room." We were pleased to hear this. He added, "This home is supposed to be the home of Pudens that you read about in Timothy (II Timothy 4:21). That was even more interesting to us, and we enjoyed the thought that we were actually standing in the room where the first Christians in the city of Rome met "to break bread." 2 Timothy 4:21: "Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.." From that home we went to St. Peter's, the largest Roman Catholic church in the world. We wandered around that immense building: inside and outside, went up to the dome, and looked down into the crypt where Peter is supposed to be buried. From there we went to the cupola and looked over the city of Rome--the city of hundreds of church buildings. One of company remarked that every step taken from that church in the home--50 feet below the level of the present street--to give to the world St. Peter's, was in the wrong direction and only tended to blind the minds of men and women to the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ: 2 Corinthians 4:4: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." We make no secret of the fact we are deliberately and purposefully teaching men and women how to do without these great structures--these public buildings—for the worship of God. We're teaching men and women how to do without the priest, parson, and hired preacher and how to meet together every "first day of the week" in homes consecrated to God. And there, like those first disciples, remember our Lord and Master in the Breaking of Bread. No home is too lowly or too lovely for God's people to meet in. All meet on the same level and same way and with the same purpose in their hearts. We do not choose homes for God's people to meet in because of their beauty. We choose homes because of their convenience and the worthiness of those who live in these homes. I'm not sure if I told the friends here in Arizona of an incident that took place some years ago in Vancouver. It may help you to understand why God's people come together on the "first day of the week" in homes consecrated God--not in public buildings. In the city of Vancouver, there was an exhibition held by the Church of England. It was really an exhibition of curios from Palestine and the East--many from Palestine It was organized for the purpose of raising funds for the Church of England's missionaries laboring in Palestine. There was a full-sized model of the Tabernacle and its fittings. They also had a model of the home of Martha and Mary and Lazarus. That was also interesting to me. They maintained that this particular home was more than likely the kind of home that Jesus was entertained in. Lectures were delivered on different subjects--one of them on the Passover Feast. The lecturer was a prominent preacher of the Church of England. He was a very clever and able man, and his lecture was most interesting and instructive. He told us the story of the Passover Feast. He emphasized its purpose and made one point that was of special interest to me: In his lecture he made the statement, over and over again, that the Passover Feast was established in the homes of the children of Israel. And throughout all their history, was never celebrated anywhere else but in their homes--never taken to the Temple, never taken to the synagogue. After it was over, the lecturer invited any to come forward and ask any questions they wished. With some others, I went forward and asked him, first of all, the question, "Did I understand you to say that the Passover Feast was established in the homes of the children of Israel and never celebrated anywhere else?" He answered, "Yes, that is true. And I'll say more: to this very day, wherever the Jewish people keep the Passover Feast, it is celebrated--not in their synagogues, nor in their temples--but in their homes." I asked, "What is the relationship between the Passover Feast and the New Testament Breaking of Bread?" or (as he would term it), "the Communion Service?" He answered, very simply and to the point, "The New Testament Breaking of Bread is the perpetuation of the Old Testament Passover Feast." Then I asked, "Where was the New Testament Communion Service established?" (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 14 & 22, I Corinthians 11) He said, "In a private home in Jerusalem."' "Where was it continued?" He said, "They broke bread from house to house" (Acts 2:46). He answered, "I don't know, neither can I justify the church in taking the Communion Service out of the homes of the people of God and placing it in the hands of a priest in a public building." Acts 2:46: "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," I then asked, "Don't you think it would be a good thing to take it back to where the Lord Jesus established it?" He threw up his hands and said, "It would be revolutionary. It would turn the world upside-down!" and hurried away. I'm not sure that all of you value, as you should, the privilege that is yours on the "first day of the week" of meeting together in a private home that has been consecrated to God. Let me remind you, that in this you are actually and literally fulfilling the Scriptures. When you leave your home and go to the home of another on "the first day of the week" to "break bread," the Scriptures are being fulfilled. That ought to be a great comfort to you. In the Gospel of' Matthew there is that little phrase, "that the Scriptures night be fulfilled" (Matthew 2:23 and John 19:36). He Himself deliberately sought to fulfill the Scriptures in His own life and ministry. And we can have a part with Him every "first day of the week," whether it's in our own homes or in the homes of others. We can have this assurance in our hearts: that we are fulfilling the Scriptures. The second thing that can bring us comfort every "first day of the week" is this: we are registering a protest against that world system—Christendom, "churchianity," call it what you will--that is blinding the minds of men to the "simplicity that is in Christ." We demonstrate, week in and week out, throughout the year, that we can worship God "in spirit and in truth," according to the teachings of God's word and without the machinery that men consider so vital and necessary today in the worship and service of God. I have visited some of the greatest religious buildings in the world--I don't say this boastingly. I have been to St. Peter's in Rome, St. Paul's in London, others in Paris, Copenhagen, Brussels, and the British Isles. I have wandered inside and outside these buildings with a question in my mind and heart; what was it that induced men to establish in the world these systems of religion that only blind the minds of men to the "simplicity that is in Christ?" Every "first day of the week" the Lord's people have the privilege of coming together at the appointed place and hour to keep what we sometimes speak of as a double appointment: with each other and with our Master and Lord. That is the reason why every child of God should plan to be in his or her place on the "first day of the week" in the home where he or she is expected to be. Some might say, "There are four or five or twenty churches in the city where I live," and "Would it be all right for me to go to a different place every Sunday? I am a little bit discontented," "I am a little bit dissatisfied. Couldn't I move around a little?" "No!" my brother. "No!" my sister! If you form that habit and practice you are walking disorderly. You are not showing appreciation for the privilege of fellowship at the appointed time and place on "the first day of the week," and you might soon find yourself outside of this fellowship altogether! It should be understood clearly, by all, that no leader or elder is self-appointed or elected by the church. All elders, or those who lead meetings, are appointed by the servants of God and are responsible to them. I think it would be a very good study to look up the references to the "church in the home" in the New Testament, Acts, and the Epistles. Those of you who have the privilege of having the church in your home can get great pleasure out of the thought that you are having fellowship with those Christians who used their homes as you are using your home. And we are very grateful to God's people throughout the whole world, like Mr. and Mrs Carter, who place their homes and property at our disposal at a time [like] this--where we can come together to hear God's word and spend our days in brotherly fellowship with each other. Every meeting on the "first day of the week" consists of four parts--each of them important: "singing," "prayer," "testimony," and the "Breaking of Bread." This is true all over the world. I have been in homes in different parts of the world, and this is the order. I don't know how it came about--this simple natural arrangement to "sing," "pray," "testify," and "Break Bread," then sing a closing hymn and go home. How different it is from the gorgeous ritual of Roman Catholicism and all related systems. How wonderful and beautiful!—"simplicity that is in Christ." Order of the Meeting: Singing "Singing" is important I hope that all of you recognize the value of this part of the meeting. These hymns were written in order to help us express our thanks to God--our praise, our prayers, our purposes. It is a wonderful thing when we sing these hymns as the language of our hearts. I appreciated what Eldon told us about the hymn that had spoken to him as it had never done before. I was looking over a hymn book the other day and came on a hymn I had given out in meetings--had others sing it--but never saw its real beauty until that day. Every word of that hymn, the words of the chorus, seemed to find a response in my heart. And this could be true of all in the first part of every meeting. You can sing one or two hymns. I don't think hymns should be selected at random. I think the person who is leading the meeting should recognize this is a serious responsibility and should realize that the song should be an expression of the prayers and praises of God people that meet together. When we select hymns here on the platform, we don't do this at random But we select hymns that will best express the desires, praises, and purposes of God's people. Prayer The second part of the meeting is "prayer" We like God's people to kneel in prayer There are some who can't do this. If you can, and the home is large enough, I think it is an appropriate and Scriptural attitude--an attitude of helplessness, and always appropriate in the presence of God.. I have appreciated the prayers in California the last few weeks and also in Arizona. The prayers have been very brief and very much to the point--they have been edifying. I have been in meetings where the same prayer was offered week in and week out, each week of the year. It is a matter of "repetition," "repetition." How much better it would be if you would pray as you have been praying here—briefly. The place for long prayers is in the secret place. Short prayers are more appropriate in the meeting place. I have known some young converts who go to meetings with older people and say, "I can't pray like that, I can't pray at all." If, from your hearts, there came one or two petitions, then the youngest babe in the family would feel encouraged to take part in prayer. Testimony Now the next part of the meeting is "testimony." We've heard of some who actually preach for 20 minutes in the Sunday morning meeting! Think of it—20 minutes! Now, if everybody else preached for 20 minutes, how long would your meetings last? Suppose there were fifteen in your meeting, and each one preached for 20 minutes. How long would it last? Five hours! That would be just a little bit too long. Out of consideration for all, and for the children, we arrange for the Sunday fellowship meeting to begin at 10:30 and be over about 12:00 noon. That is 1 ½ hours. I had a report after a talk of this kind: "We had a nice meeting this morning. It was over at 11:34." We will find that there is ample time in the meeting for each child of God, from the youngest up to include the elder of the meeting, to speak to edification without prolonging the meeting unnecessarily. We have heard of some who select a long chapter and read that chapter, commenting on every verse. That gets tiresome. The better way is to select from any chapter--maybe in the Old Testament or New Testament, maybe in Psalms--two or three verses that have spoken to your heart and given you more light and understanding of God's mind and will, and you tell how these two verses have been a help to you during the week. This is the best way to be really helpful. I hope there are none here in the habit of preaching "at" or "to" each other. The last place for any to preach "at" or "to" one another is the fellowship meeting on the "first day of the week." A brother was asked, "Why didn't you take part today?" He said, "The man I had my testimony for wasn't there." I hope none of you are like that brother. Perhaps I should tell you another story about an Irishman in that part of Ireland where -- came from. He wasn't behaving very well. His conduct was such that the others were getting alarmed and worried. It was a relief to them when he quit attending the meetings. They hoped he would never come back. But six months later, Lo! and behold, he arrived one Sunday morning with Bible and hymn book in hand and sat down. They looked at him and began saying inside, "What will we say to this fellow today?" They sang a couple of hymns and prayed. And then the meeting was left open for testimony. This man was the first on his feet and said, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone!" Wouldn't it be a very grievous thing if on the "first day of the week" God's children came together to Break Bread and then be guilty of saying things that would hurt their brethren and "grieve the Holy Spirit of God wherewith we have been sealed unto the day of redemption" (Ephesians 3:30). On the "first day of the week," when God's people come together, they should be careful that not a single word they speak will hurt any one. If strangers come, you don't have to hurt their feelings by speaking against other religious systems. Just forget that altogether, and speak as the Lord had arranged for you to speak from some word of God. And if you are in the spirit, speak as God moves you to speak and give expression to the thoughts God has given you. And they will leave feeling that, "Surely, God is in this place." We have known of some dropping in on the "first day of the week." And when they heard simple men and women speak from verses that had spoken to their hearts said, "How wonderful this is!" and "How different this is from hearing one person do all the preaching." I have sat in meetings and heard God's people speak. And as I listened, my heart was warmed and was amazed when I summed up all the testimonies--at how much had been placed that day on the Lord's table to edify and build up the Lord's people. We are sorry to hear that some older and younger brethren don't take part as they should on the "first day of the week." Even if you only read a verse or two and give a short testimony, this would be good for you, as the more we speak before our brethren, the stronger we grow in Christ Jesus. There are three ways God speaks to His children: First, by His Spirit in their hearts; Second, by His Word as they read it; Third, the Lord loves to speak to His people through His people. It is a wonderful privilege and great responsibility to go to the meeting regularly on the "first day of the week" and feel that God may have some word from my lips today that will help my brother or sister--that will encourage them to "fight the good fight of faith." We would like all, old and young, to form the habit of taking part so that you may be a channel of blessing to others, and in so doing, receive help yourself. In this you are fulfilling the Scriptures: "so that ye all may prophesy" –"speak out God's mind and word" (I Corinthians 14:31). We do not believe in any one-man ministry. But when God's people come together, each one is responsible for taking part and ministering to the other. Breaking Bread Now the fourth part of the fellowship meeting is the "Breaking of Bread" I wish I could help all to understand the real value--the true significance--of the simple rite of partaking, on the "first day of the week," of those emblems: "the Breaking of Bread" and "the Drinking of Wine" that speaks to us of the "Broken Body" and "Shed Blood" of our Lord. This was never intended to be a meaningless form. I believe, when we have a right understanding and true appreciation of the Breaking of Bread, it can be one of our greatest joys to come together on the "first day of the week and--like those first disciples--remember our Lord and Master in partaking of these emblems. Each member of the church should feel a responsibility of giving thanks for the emblems, and given a chance to do that. It is best if just one or two not take that privilege all time. Again, the elder can ask others so they will have opportunity of that privilege. The Passover Feast was to be "a memorial"--something to be perpetuated. Jesus said, on that last night of His life, ". . . this do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). It occurred to me the other day that perhaps one of the reasons He put such emphasis on remembering Him is because it is so human to forget, forget, forget--week in and week out--throughout the year. God's people, when they come together, are reminded of this great privilege. This partaking of the emblems of the Broken Body and Shed Blood of our Lord should bring to them the comfort and assurance that they can begin each week with a clean sheet ready to "fight the good fight of faith"--to "follow Him whithersoever He leadeth." A man came to me up north and said, "It's not the sins I committed before I professed that trouble me. It's the sins I have committed since I professed." Therein is one of the real values of our coming together on the 'first day of the week." For we are reminded that sins confessed and put away can be forgiven. And the blood speaks to us of the "remission of sins." John said, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). ". . . these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:1-1). When we partake of these emblems, we think of His love for us and our love for Him. And when we pass these emblems "one to the other," we express our love for each other. There are some things in connection with this "Breaking of Bread" that I might mention: Every home where the church meets should have the seats arranged in a way that makes it easy for these emblems to be passed "one to the other." It isn't right or proper for the elder to hand these emblems to each one individually. That is not God's order. Every individual present is responsible for partaking or not. So that the one who leads the meeting should, after some brother or sister gives thanks briefly, pass the emblems to the nearest to him. When we give thanks--first of all, for the Body given and broken for us--it doesn't necessarily mean a long prayer. And the same is true with the cup, which reminds us that sins confessed and put away have been covered by "the blood that was shed for the remission of sins." The simple way, which seems to be the best and most in order, is to take the bread and pass it to the one nearest and let that one pass it to the next, and so on: First the bread, and then the cup, until it comes back again to the leader of the meeting. But you say, "Supposing any strangers come in? Wouldn't it be best to pass them by?" Some strangers come because they are friendly When you pass the bread and wine, they may pass it on. Others might possibly partake--supposing they do? That is nothing to make a fuss about--far better than hurting their feelings by passing them by. We have seen some who have come to Sunday morning meetings and didn't understand what we believe, and in ignorance of that, partook of the bread and wine--and later came and attended Gospel meetings, and decided for Christ, and had a true understanding of the Breaking of Bread and the Drinking of the Wine. Don't give offence to any. Act courteously towards all--and especially to strangers. We hope that this fellowship meeting on the "first day of the week" will be a source of comfort and encouragement to every child of God. Your weekly evening meetings can also be most helpful. Don't forget them. I have been surprised this year to hear so many speak of receiving help from the mid-week evening meetings as portions of Scriptures studied became to them a very real source of help and blessing. " UnQuote
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 18, 2009 16:58:28 GMT -5
RE Sharon's post above... should read: at the turn of the 20th century (not 21st)
Q: "A VERY BIG PROBLEM"? How so?
I havent read anything that said anything like this...do you have some GW notes around 1907 that indicate the workers weren't living what they were preaching?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 17:03:16 GMT -5
RE Sharon's post above... should read: at the turn of the 20th century (not 21st) Q: "A VERY BIG PROBLEM"? How so? I havent read anything that said anything like this...do you have some GW notes around 1907 that indicate the workers weren't living what they were preaching? Cherie, as long as WI was under the auspices of FM and there were workers who thought themselves under WI's auspices then there is a problem! As to what GW said, it's been posted on this site before...I'll try to find it if I can.....I know I read and I also heard about what GW said, that they preached for a time, then some of them were talking together and they decided that they should start living what they were preaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 17:27:13 GMT -5
Thanks for that Ram, yes I'm inclined to agree that our group is a break-away movement from the Faith Mission. It was a gradual process. The Faith Mission never was a church. It was, and it remains, a mission. When the mission William Irvine started broke away from the Faith Mission it wasn't a church organization. It was still a mission. I wonder if that's why some folks have difficulty getting their head around it. I'm sure that's a lot to do with it. The process occurred between 1896 -1901 where it went from Faith Mission - 2x2 Workers' Mission - 2x2 Workers' Church. In that short time it went from being open and inclusive to closed and exclusive. I wonder if it was during 1897 that Irvine as a Faith Mission worker began to speak against the churches. This would have been a huge embarrassment to the Faith Mission as they were set up to support the churches not condemn them. Things might not have been so obvious to start with. It would be interesting to research the Faith Mission's monthly reports to see when Willie Boy stopped sending them info. That said it would be very interesting to cover the years from the time Irvine joined until he was no longer part of the sect along with the other documents they produced at that time. We could get a historical picture of his time with the FM as well as any other statements that may be recorded which would give further insight into the process.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 17:47:13 GMT -5
The Pattison Account provides answers to many of the questions people are raising on the founder threads.
The following are some interesting extracts:Now for a while I must return to, and endeavor to follow up, some of William Irvine's movements, and in this connection (maybe about for the first time) introduce the "Faith Mission," as I have purposely held it over until now. The name and subject were both quite new to me until William Irvine's arrival in these parts, and while he made no secret of the fact either publicly or privately, that in preaching the Gospel he was connected with and owed allegiance to that association, and would continue to do so - so he used to say - until he found better; yet he never for a moment sought to preach up the Faith Mission so as to obscure his hearers' vision, or "hide for a moment his Lord from their eyes." First and last, it was "Jesus Only." He attributed his own conversion to the instrumentality of (Rev.) John McNeill, who about and before that time had been a leading light (evangelistic) belonging to but not confined to the Presbyterian body in Scotland. Some time after his conversion, William Irvine spent a term of some years I think, in what is known as the "Bible Institute," meanwhile getting to know some of the aims and working of the Faith Mission, he determined to throw in his lot with them, as being the best he could see, although offered more than once to have his name put forward as candidate for stated ministry. William Irvine came along and translated into action the things we had been spending our time in thinking and talking, reading and writing, praying and preaching about; but not willing for the Pentecostal manifestations. Often sung, "My all is on the altar, I'm waiting for the fire," and if the fire had singed our garments, to say nothing of being consumed thereby, smelled it, in the shape of loss of somebody's good positions, social cast, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Practice William Irvine's Doctrine and Example; Ed Cooney Makes Contact But here comes a man, a complete stranger, without pedigree, prestige or credentials worth the meaning, only on fire with loyalty and love for God and souls; unfettered and unhindered by traditions and opinions of men, and with an untiring energy and consuming zeal, he dared to be, do or suffer in obeying God (as he then understood it) whatever it meant or cost "in labors more abundant," "through evil report and good report" - he just went on, in face of much within and without to thwart and hinder; becoming in a comparatively short time the wonder and admiration of many, and the object of envy and opposition of many others. Even some who never followed in his footsteps much farther than as ordinary hearers in his earlier mission were wont to admit they had never seen anyone who came nearer to what Jesus must have been like - while others of the more distinctly religious type, not relishing his plainness of speech in exposing what most would have to admit was only too true, were wont to say of him "his words are galling." I believe it was while conducting the Borrisokane Mission that William Irvine first met Ed Cooney [footnote 33], who prior to that event had done a pretty considerable amount of preaching up and down through Ireland, as he went about as a commercial traveller for his father's tailoring business. In private conversations with his customers also, Ed Cooney made a habit of speaking about eternal things, and in his own way was very successful; but like others of us who had engaged in spiritual activity of any kind, he recognised that here was a man of no ordinary stamp, and sought for and enjoyed his fellowship as often as circumstances would permit, and readily and cheerfully yielded him the place of honour and power in his esteem to which he considered him fully entitled, although Ed Cooney himself was no ordinary or every day sample of lay part-time evangelist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Wrestlers Ed Cooney Enters the Work in 1901 And now, while I have this name before me, I may well anticipate a little, by relating what doubtless you have already heard, how that one night while out on one of his commercial rounds and staying at William's Hotel, he and William Irvine arranged to meet at our house, and there after we had all gone to bed, the two men discussed so fully the subjects of preachers and preaching of Matt. 10, William pointing out the need, etc. in the face of the greatness of the harvest, and fewness of laborers, and Ed Cooney seeking to escape the issue in one way or another, even to the extent of offering all he could make out of his job as a traveller - some 300 pounds per year or so - to be used by William as he thought fit, for evangelistic purposes, but all to no avail. William would meet such an offer with "it isn't your money the Lord wants but yourself." So in about 2 o'clock in the morning he had won, and Eddie had decided to give up his bags and job and go forth, with the result of becoming what you now know him: I cannot very closely place the date of this very important event, but am inclined to think it was probably a year or more after William's first coming among us. William Irvine came along and translated into action the things we had been spending our time in thinking and talking, reading and writing, praying and preaching about; but not willing for the Pentecostal manifestations. Often sung, "My all is on the altar, I'm waiting for the fire," and if the fire had singed our garments, to say nothing of being consumed thereby, smelled it, in the shape of loss of somebody's good positions, social cast, etc. www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/pattisong.php
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 18:11:51 GMT -5
Here is a precedent for today's workers:
[William Irvine] made no secret of the fact either publicly or privately, that in preaching the Gospel he was connected with and owed allegiance to that association [Faith Mission], and would continue to do so - so he used to say - until he found better; yet he never for a moment sought to preach up the Faith Mission so as to obscure his hearers' vision, or "hide for a moment his Lord from their eyes." First and last, it was "Jesus Only."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 18:28:14 GMT -5
Sadly many in the friends and workers' fellowship have put their faith in the ministry and church itself rather than in Jesus and their personal relationship with him. For their sake it's important that the history of the church is properly documented. I too think that the history is importand for that reason. It is understandable but unfortunate that so many who put their faith in a good standing in the church then blame the church for their belief, rather than themselves. The unfortunate consequence of their discovery has often been a huge wedge between us and them.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 19:00:01 GMT -5
Here is a precedent for today's workers:[William Irvine] made no secret of the fact either publicly or privately, that in preaching the Gospel he was connected with and owed allegiance to that association [Faith Mission], and would continue to do so - so he used to say - until he found better; yet he never for a moment sought to preach up the Faith Mission so as to obscure his hearers' vision, or "hide for a moment his Lord from their eyes." First and last, it was "Jesus Only." jo! I'm not sure what you're saying here other then present day workers are not talking up their founder(s) or beginnings in order not to take a moment away from their eyes on their Lord?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 18, 2009 19:06:15 GMT -5
Yes, amazing how significant to discover that your church (which calls itself "the truth") lied to you.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 19:17:39 GMT -5
Here is a precedent for today's workers:[William Irvine] made no secret of the fact either publicly or privately, that in preaching the Gospel he was connected with and owed allegiance to that association [Faith Mission], and would continue to do so - so he used to say - until he found better; yet he never for a moment sought to preach up the Faith Mission so as to obscure his hearers' vision, or "hide for a moment his Lord from their eyes." First and last, it was "Jesus Only." jo! I'm not sure what you're saying here other then present day workers are not talking up their founder(s) or beginnings in order not to take a moment away from their eyes on their Lord? William Irvine, while with the Faith Mission, preached Jesus only. Today's workers, while with the mission William Irvine started, would do well to preach Jesus only. Today's workers should preach Jesus only, not the organization they work for, just as William Irvine did in the early days.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 18, 2009 20:19:12 GMT -5
To a child of God our experience is new each day. We don't rest on yesterdays deeds. Yesterdays accomplishments or lack of accomplishment are like ashes they no longer hold any heat.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 20:26:22 GMT -5
To a child of God our experience is new each day. We don't rest on yesterdays deeds. Yesterdays accomplishments or lack of accomplishment are like ashes they no longer hold any heat. So true, Lin! However as there are religious buffs, there are history buffs in this world we live in.....and if a history is to be finalized, maybe it is wise to make sure that it is as near correct as possible....maybe I'm a bit of one too much of giving credit where credit is due, but then since it's purported that a lie has already been aired for over 100 yrs. about the truth's fellowship...I feel personally that to get it right the second 100 yrs. might be more helpful....I could be wrong, often am!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 21:10:40 GMT -5
To a child of God our experience is new each day. We don't rest on yesterdays deeds. Yesterdays accomplishments or lack of accomplishment are like ashes they no longer hold any heat. So true, Lin! However as there are religious buffs, there are history buffs in this world we live in.....and if a history is to be finalized, maybe it is wise to make sure that it is as near correct as possible....maybe I'm a bit of one too much of giving credit where credit is due, but then since it's purported that a lie has already been aired for over 100 yrs. about the truth's fellowship...I feel personally that to get it right the second 100 yrs. might be more helpful....I could be wrong, often am! I doubt the lie has been going anywhere near that long. Here's why: When early workers spoke of "what is from the beginning" they were not referring to the mission that William Irvine started. When they first started claiming "we did not start this Jesus' way" they were not referring to the mission William Irvine started. When they first started speaking of "the way of God" they were not referring to the mission William Irvine started. The mission William Irvine started evolved into a sect over time, contrary to the intention of the early workers. (Remember a number of them left or were booted because they couldn't stomach the evolving exclusivity). Then people started referring to the sect as "God's way". That is where it went wrong. As the mission William Irvine started evolved into an organization, so did perfectly innocent statements evolve into lies.
|
|