Post by mod3 on Apr 28, 2010 11:50:01 GMT -5
This post appeared in a discussion about the history of the fellowship. Some members and former members were told that this particular fellowship traced its physical lineage and history back through the ages with an unbroken line of workers, meetings, and conventions back to the disciples and the shores of Galilee. When people who believe in the unbroken physical lineage learn about the history of the workers in the late 19th and early 20th century, they sometimes feel that their faith has been shattered.
Since the current fellowship movement started around 1900, what happened to the knowledge of that history? The physical history is not important to worship or salvation, but when people confuse a spiritual history/restoration with an unbroken physical line of history, the movement can lose credibility with its members and with observers and potential converts.
The latter half of the post is an excellent description of how friends and workers approach the subject of history with each other.
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.
The obfuscation is not that William Irvine is upheld instead of Jesus. It is that "this fellowship does not have a founder such as the Lutherans, Methodists, Church of Christ and others have because our fellowship came from the shores of Galilee."
The real reason William Irvine is not recognized is because we are ashamed of him. If he were to appear at a convention today and be allowed to speak as he did, people would be shocked to the core -- shocked at both the content and the tone of his message. From your post, I think you would agree.
Where I don't agree is your statement that "nobody even agrees on what really happened . . ." I would say that the history has been documented pretty precisely. While it is true that Nathan9 tries to soften the rough edges a bit, and he may have a point, documentation is very weak-to-nonexistent in that area, where it is very strong in the area of William Irvine and his fellows.
What presently exists within the professing population are two camps: Those who sincerely believe there is an unbroken lineage back to the original disciples and those who don't. Of those who believe, this belief is so thorough entrenched that when the truth is presented, they either refuse to believe it or their faith in the workers message is shattered. (Don't ask me how I know!)
Those who don't believe in the unbroken lineage are afraid to broach the subject out of kindness, because they know how it will affect those who sincerely believe. Therefore there is no open discussion on the issue and if the subject comes up it is addressed in an obfuscating manner such as you did in your posts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of the same! I've been present where this issue was brought up in several homes including my own, secretly in cars between meetings at conventions and once quietly in the dining tent at convention. The way it was brought up was, first there was the hint, then when I acknowledged that I was aware, there was a sigh of relief and the conversation moved on to something else.
So I would say that "obfuscation" is a pretty accurate description of how we handle this subject.
What should be done about it on a wholesale basis? I don't have an answer to that question and it's not my responsibility. However I am responsible to be truthful about it. When I have been asked, point blank, who started our fellowship, I had no choice but to tell them it was started by William Irvine along with several others back about 1890. That is not a lie, nor is it obfuscation. Anything else would be, to my mind.
Since the current fellowship movement started around 1900, what happened to the knowledge of that history? The physical history is not important to worship or salvation, but when people confuse a spiritual history/restoration with an unbroken physical line of history, the movement can lose credibility with its members and with observers and potential converts.
The latter half of the post is an excellent description of how friends and workers approach the subject of history with each other.
ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.
The obfuscation is not that William Irvine is upheld instead of Jesus. It is that "this fellowship does not have a founder such as the Lutherans, Methodists, Church of Christ and others have because our fellowship came from the shores of Galilee."
The real reason William Irvine is not recognized is because we are ashamed of him. If he were to appear at a convention today and be allowed to speak as he did, people would be shocked to the core -- shocked at both the content and the tone of his message. From your post, I think you would agree.
Where I don't agree is your statement that "nobody even agrees on what really happened . . ." I would say that the history has been documented pretty precisely. While it is true that Nathan9 tries to soften the rough edges a bit, and he may have a point, documentation is very weak-to-nonexistent in that area, where it is very strong in the area of William Irvine and his fellows.
What presently exists within the professing population are two camps: Those who sincerely believe there is an unbroken lineage back to the original disciples and those who don't. Of those who believe, this belief is so thorough entrenched that when the truth is presented, they either refuse to believe it or their faith in the workers message is shattered. (Don't ask me how I know!)
Those who don't believe in the unbroken lineage are afraid to broach the subject out of kindness, because they know how it will affect those who sincerely believe. Therefore there is no open discussion on the issue and if the subject comes up it is addressed in an obfuscating manner such as you did in your posts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of the same! I've been present where this issue was brought up in several homes including my own, secretly in cars between meetings at conventions and once quietly in the dining tent at convention. The way it was brought up was, first there was the hint, then when I acknowledged that I was aware, there was a sigh of relief and the conversation moved on to something else.
So I would say that "obfuscation" is a pretty accurate description of how we handle this subject.
What should be done about it on a wholesale basis? I don't have an answer to that question and it's not my responsibility. However I am responsible to be truthful about it. When I have been asked, point blank, who started our fellowship, I had no choice but to tell them it was started by William Irvine along with several others back about 1890. That is not a lie, nor is it obfuscation. Anything else would be, to my mind.