Talk:Christian Conventions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Revert 20 March 2007 2 Suggestions for Editing 3 Doctrine 4 Naming conventions 4.1 "Protestant" changed to "Restorationist" 5 Membership figures 6 Two by Two faith is not a Sect 7 Recent Edits (~7 Jan) 8 Serious problem with connection to Cooneyites 9 "with the faith unchanged" 10 Two by Two vs. Two by Twos 11 Move request 12 Hymnal 13 Generalisations Deleted 14 Unscholarly Writing 15 Unsubstantiated accusations 16 Vandalism, Bias and Unscholarly Writing 17 Cornelius Jaenen's role as church historian 17.1 A challenge to present historical evidence 18 Changes to history/ historical controversies 19 Proposals for discussion 20 Edit of George Walker's letter 20.1 George Walker's letter of 1942

[edit] Revert 20 March 2007

I've reverted changes made recently. Some of these changes would be appropriate in 'Criticisms of former members' section, if original poster wishes to move them. Slofstra 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Editing

After making some edits, and a few mistakes, and then reading wiki's policies, I'd like to make a couple of suggestions that might be helpful in this article. (I have not meant to replace reading wiki's policies, but drawing out those elements relevant here.)

1) Don't delete text. I made this mistake at first, but there are better strategies. Unless, of course, the text is hurtful, libellous or patently false. There are examples of that further below.
2) Consider making an incorrect statement into a correct one. For example, I changed 'William Irvine' from 'founder' to 'early adherent' and after an objection back to 'important and influential'.
3) Reposition or reorganize the text so there is less duplication. Consolidate the facts and statements.
4) NPOV (neutral point of view) in the context of this article does not mean 'objective'. We're dealing with people's beliefs after all. NPOV does mean 'balance'. So two or more points of view could be presented. i.e. There's more that could be said about the case for Irvine as founder, perhaps. In that case, there's nothing wrong with the article presenting two points of view. 'Wiki' policies state the article should NOT be a debate, so there is a fine line here.
5) Watch weasel words or qualifications that make a statement true. 'Members believe', 'Workers like'. Some of this is okay; but definitely if you don't need the weasel words, don't use them. 'Women wear their hair long' is better than 'Workers would like women to wear the hair long'. The latter statement confuses two separate facts, one of which is contentious. Weasel words can also be useful. 'Workers believe that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour' is prefaced by the qualifying phrase, 'Workers believe', in order to make what might be a contentious statement into a statement that is objectively and verifiably true. If you use qualifying words in this fashion, make sure that you're representing the group fairly; don't cast aspersions.
6) Don't remove text based on an evaluation of the writing style or vocabulary, unless egregiously bad. Something is better than nothing. If you're too lazy to improve the text, you've no right to criticize, and certainly not to delete.
7) Feel free to comment on these points. It's a tentative postion, and I've posted it in the interest of an improved spirit of collaboration.
Slofstra 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine

This is a draft rework of the Doctrine section... It is incomplete

This faith has no published doctrine, other than what can be extracted from the books of the New and Old Testaments. This situation lends itself to regional and generational variations, more so than many other faiths. Much of the propogation of the Two by Two doctrine occurs during Convention gatherings. During these events, the visiting preachers from other countries goes some way to homogenising the doctrine. There are two core beliefs which, together, characterise the doctrine of this faith. These are:

• the need for an un-salaried ministry (preacher collective) of celibate, unmarried persons (generally arising from Matt 10:9 and 1 Cor.7:5-7).
• conduct of Sunday worship by small groups in designated members' homes (The Acts 17:24)

There are other beliefs, which have influence within the faith, but which aren't readily apparent to outside observers:

• profession of belief at mission meetings as a first step to conversion.
• the need for regular attendance of Sunday fellowship meetings and other meetings for a significant period prior to being accepted for baptism.

There are also traditions, the extent taken being more governed at a personal level, such as;

• modesty in personal appearance, including long hair worn in a bun and dresses for women members.
• declination of broadcast media (tv, radio), secular music, commercial entertainment (movies, video)
• (incomplete list)

They believe that church-owned buildings, except convention ground facilities, are an unnecessary addition to Biblical Christianity, and conduct their fellowship meetings in the homes of believers. They believe that (some of) Jesus' instructions to his apostles in Matthew 10 - go from village to village, preaching in pairs, not taking any worldly possessions, but relying on the hospitality and generosity of the villagers - are the only acceptable pattern for Christian ministry. 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 the founder Wm Irvine, was that of the Living Witness Doctrine (first recorded mention being 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.

I think you should separate issues of 'principle' from those of 'practice' in your discussion. 'Principle' is inviolate, 'practice' is somewhat more arbitrary. For example, a principle is 'modesty in dress', a practice is 'long hair'. (The Bible as doctrine, contains both principle and practice, but tends to principle.) I also suggest pre-ambling this with your point of view and credentials. There is a huge problem with you doing this, you realize. Since the faith has no published doctrine, as you indicate, and since they espouse only the Bible as a source of doctrine, as soon as you attempt to write a statement of 'doctrine' you break this credo. You break rule 1 of the doctrine, which says the Bible is the only doctrine. After that what else can you write? It might be better to position your writing somewhat differently. e.g. Principles and Practice, perhaps? Certainly to write about 'practice' is merely noting your observations, and less problematic, I think. Slofstra 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

1. The name of the institution: "Two by Two" is not the official name of the sect/church so let's only use it if we have to (such as in the case of the article). Where possible it might be more encyclopaedic to simply not use the name and just say the sect or the church (which leads to the next point). Note: If we are going to use the shortcut term "2x2", we ought to use 2x2 instead of 2x2's (which makes little grammatical sense and is a confusion of the normal use of the possessive apostrophe).
2. The type of institution: Also, this article refers to a sect in the correct sense of the word so "the group" is perhaps not such a good term and even "the church" is confusing but would be acceptable in an explanatory context.
3. Members of the institution: Members ought to be called Two by Two members or members of the sect rather than "2x2s" which is again confusing, especially when the apostrophe is included.

What do you think? Could we agree on some naming conventions here? Donama 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the need for naming conventions. I agree that the possessive use of "2x2's" is incorrect. If the apostrophe is not included (2x2s) it makes more sense, but is not as readable as "two-by-twos". "Members of the sect" is a bit wordy. It's much easier to identify members of any group via the use of a single word (catholic, methodist, baptist, etc). --Ilylo 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What do others think? Is it okay to use the term "two-by-twos" when it appears this is a term by which members of the sect would never actually identify themselves? Donama 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Members of the sect will never identify themselves as such sect (using the argument that they did not give it the name), much less agree to a term by which to identify them.--Ilylo 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest that the term Friends and the like, be explained very early in the piece and subsequently italicised as if a foreign/loaned word. I think this would be most in alignment with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They should be considered loan-words, as they have particular meaning which is not embodied in common parlance. I don't see there is any point in concocting any new terms to apply to the sect members. Surely member is sufficient in the context of the article? Jonathan

Again, I agree with this. It's a potentially confusing label but likely the best approach to take. Thanks for your inputs on this! Donama 08:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree it's a problem. I often find myself using "Fellowship" as in "Two-by-Two Fellowship". It avoids any misunderstandings or negative connotations of words like "sect", "group", "denomination" or "church". Thus, "members of the Fellowship". I think 2x2 is a very useful abbreviation. And as above, if Friends is defined early on, this can be used as an abbreviation for "members of the 2x2 Fellowship". Just my tuppence worth! --Alikia 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the overall thrust of the article is to point out differences to mainstram (orthodox?) Christianity while missing that there are many similarities? GeoffC 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Protestant" changed to "Restorationist"

I am changing the adjective "Protestant" in the introduction to "Restorationist" with a link to the wiki article on Restorationism. Perhaps that categorization "fits" this church better. Note that there are links on the "Restorationist" page to the whole "Protestant" movement and that the article discusses the "difference" between the two movements. Jaenen identifies his church as a "restorationist" movement. Any objections? Eddie Tor 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work on that one. I would be curious how you found that article. The Restorationist article also seems to be having their share of NPOV problems.
Perhaps I could also mention the minor edits I made (sorry, logged only under my IP and I could not fix it later) removing the reference to "way", and "fellowship". I think it's misleading - these terms are used but not as names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slofstra (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Membership figures

An editor a few days back adjusted the figures of 2x2 membership from 40,000-80,000 to 400,000-800,000? Does anyone have any sources for the figures. 100,000 plus or minus 50,000 worldwide sounds like a likely figure to me. What do you think? Donama 00:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GeoffC: There are listed about 400 conventions. These vary from 50- 2000 attendees, perhaps averaging 300. There's multiple attendance in some countries, which probably cancels out those that don't attend, so 400 x 300 = 120000. I'd venture to say that there could be 100,000.

400 conventions listed? Where is such a list? --Ilylo 16:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

GeoffC, perhaps you could scan it and put it on Wiki commons as a source. Donama 03:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The link to a list of conventions for 2002/2003 is http://home.earthlink.net/~truth444/BRG5-2ConvWW2003.html I didn't count these exactly, but there's about 400. Geoff C

I count 424 on that list. Not bad for a church that isn't "organized." --Ilylo 00:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two by Two faith is not a Sect

If you do some research, the term sect cannot be attributed to this group. It really should be referenced as a denomination in its own right. The term sect refers to an off-shoot of an existing, established denomination. The Two by Twos clearly aren't that, as the group was started from scratch. That the group is smallish and relatively unknown is irrelevant. That some consider appropriate the weirdo connotation that comes with the term sect is also irrelevant. Thus, by definition, the current opening line of the Two by Two article, "...is one of many colloquial names given by outside observers to a Christian sect founded by William Irvine in the late 1890s." is incorrect. It should perhaps read, "...is one of the colloquial names given by outside observers to a small Christian denomination founded by William..." Jonathan

Strongly take your point, Jonathan, especially considering this naming convention is applied in analogous Wikipedia articles. I agree it should be changed. Donama 05:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. The "group was started from scratch"? Hmmm. How scratch was scratch in this instance? Irvine was of Presbyterian background, and working for the Methodist Faith Mission at the time he launched off in his own direction. His lieutenant John Long was a Methodist colporteur. Much of the methodology and even jargon was taken from the Faith Mission (eg. "workers"). Wikipedia itself gives useful definitions for sect and denomination (A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well established religious group). I tend to think sect is more apt, certainly than denomination. --Alikia 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So Two by Twos are a sect of which denomination then Alikia? Presbyterian? Methodist? Faith Mission? To quote Wikipedia on Sect; A sect is a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group. How established do you think Faith Mission was after less than 15 years? Compare with Christian denomination, A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body, organization under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.

Identifiable religious body? Yes. Common name, structure, doctrine? Yes. Denomination? Methinks so, but you decide. Jonathan 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, 'Two by Twos' are a sect of protestantism if you like or the Church of England. Having thought about this more carefully I think it is inconclusive as to whether 'Two by Two' be considered a sect or denomination. It is open to opinion as to whether there is an "identifiable religious body". Due to denial and lack of any official recognition there is no common name and the common structure and doctrine may exist but is not verifiable and certainly not standardised as in typical Christian denominations.

Possibly neither "sect" or "denomination" are appropriate words and this should be noted in the introduction, along with the reasons we've all put forward. Donama 06:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also... Let's note that the few published resources on Two by Two tend to refer to it as a sect or a church, which seems to lend weight to Alikia's position on this. Donama 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "denomination" simply cannot apply to this group, particularly because not having a name is a central point of their doctrine. Moreover, they describe themselves as non-denominational. Postxian 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits (~7 Jan)

I've reverted the following three edits, for the reasons outlined. I don't want to provoke a flame war, but some of these changes appear to be pro-Two by Two, and an attempt at reducing NPOV. We can do better than that. Jonathan Rabbitt 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted in edit 04:31, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

The lack of any official history or documentation, combined with the doctrine ascribing the begininigs to Jesus' Apostles, has caused and continues to cause much controversy and angst amongst members and ex-members.

I'm not sure quite why this needed to be deleted. This is the lead-in paragraph for the controversies section. Perhaps it could be made less encompasing by changing much to another word with less emphasis. Please comment.

Added 04:34, 7 January 2006 68.103.11.101 (→History controversies)

Obviously there are contradictions even between the paragraphs of this section. Most present-day members would disagree strongly with paragraphs two and three especially.

This addition seemed ambiguous to me. I could not work out which paragraphs were being referenced. Certainly if the context was within the History controversies section, it did not make sense to me. Please comment and clarify.

Added 00:12, 7 January 2006 81.154.91.221 (→Membership and geographic spread)

In recent years there has been an increase in ex-members using the internet to distribute information. This is in some cases impartial, but in others aimed at fulfilling their cause, and make as many leave this Christian fellowship as possible.

This sentence is not relevant to the section it is placed in. It also reads like a bit of defensive flamebait statement intended to discredit the internet as a source of information (which is ironic, on reflection). I can't see that this sentence adds any value to the joe-average reader, but perhaps some discussion here could shed light on the intent and value.

I think what you did was fine. All content in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and this assists NPOV. Also, original research is theoretically not permitted on Wikipedia. Of course, Two by Two has a real lack of published resources. We aim to upload a lot of scans of documents and other Two by Two related material to Wiki commons very soon so hopefully this should assist. For now, we can make a real effort to maintain a coherent structure and pointing out where there is more than one point of view. It would also help if we can use a login accounts to make controversial edits. Donama 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Jonathan Rabbitt's reversion. Thanks! The changes were hardly neutral. And supporting Donama's suggestion, if anybody reading here has copies of original documentation or sermons or diary-entries that relate to the 2x2 Fellowship, please contact Donama or myself and we'll see that they're archived for posterity in Wikisource. --Alikia 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (pending applicable copyright laws --Donama 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Serious problem with connection to Cooneyites

The Cooneyites are people who followed (willingly or by force of excommunication) Eddie Cooney after his 1928 (I think?) expulsion from the work. Those who followed Irvine after his expulsion in what, 1917(?) are a much smaller group called something like "The Testimony", which is not mentioned at all. The fact that Cooney was expelled long after Irvine was should feature a bit more prominently in the lead, IMHO, since it's apparently deemed important that the Cooneyites' association with the "black stocking religion" be mentioned there... Tomer^talk 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general misunderstanding that the term "Cooneyite" was not used until after the 1928 division. I believe the reality is that those in the "2x2" fellowship were often referred to by on-lookers as "Cooneyite" many years before then - perhaps early in the first decade, while Irvine and Cooney were still the most prominent leaders. John Long notes in his journal that it was Cooney who first began organizing converts in home meetings, in 1903. Cooney also apparently had much to do with the first Convention at the Wests, wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper, and sued when a mob smashed their organ. Elizabeth Jamieson tells in her testimony of being called "Cooneyite" by a Plymouth Brethren man on Vancouver Island - and that was early in the 1920s, I believe.Eddie Tor 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "with the faith unchanged"

This phraseology ignores the fact that there was (in 1904 or 1908, I don't remember offhand which) a huge paradigm shift—from an exclusively itinerant proselytizing force (the workers) to an acceptance of "settled folk" (what are now called "the friends"), who have long since made up the overwhelming bulk of the "membership" [to coin a term]. Tomer^talk 07:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to rework it. By the way if you know of any other published sources on this, please add them too. Donama 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two by Two vs. Two by Twos

I'm not advocating changing the article name, I'm advocating correct English. Tomer^talk 18:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed most references to "Two by Two"s altogether, since circumlocutions are easy enough to write clearly. IMHO, the article should refer to these folks as seldom as possible by this name, since it is a label given by non-members, former members, many of whom seem to have a bone to pick with the group, it refers primarily to the ministry, and is seen as "equally offensive" by many members as labels such as "the no-name church" and "the black-stocking religion". Tomer^talk 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this point, but why was "Two by Two" chosen in the first place? Would there be any alternative names for the article? Donama 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why "Two by Two" was chosen to begin with, all I know is that the name is not any more legitimate as a moniker for the group than "The Black Stocking Religion" or "The Tramp Preachers". There are probably legitimate alternative names (Christian Conventions comes to mind) which are less offensive, but technically, having the article at Two by Two is (without too much exaggeration) analogous to having Jew listed at Kike (which you'll note, is not a redirect to Jew, but rather an article about the racist epithet). Tomer^talk 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

Request moving this article to "Christian Conventions" leaving a redirect from "Two by Two" in place to the new article title in perpetuity. Please indicate your opinion on the proposed move by stating support, oppose or neutral below. I think there is no hurry here. We could allow up to a month for comments and votes on the move request. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support: This is the only name the church has used to officially self identify. Two by Two is a nickname popularised by former members, making it somewhat biased to continue its use. Donama 09:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• slightly more than weak support: I really don't know what would make a decent name for sure... the fact of the matter is that it's only been registered in the US (with the draft board) as "Christian Conventions", and even most of its membership wouldn't recognize it by that name. That said, at least a non-polemical source (i.e., the US Gov't.) can be found to actually support such a name. Unfortunately, "Christian Conventions" is not the only name the group has ever used to officially self-identify...it has been registered with draft boards in other countries under other names, which I don't recall off-hand... Tomer^talk 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not just in the USA. I seem to recall it's been used in other countries. For example, in this PDF you can see the church is registered in Western Australia under this name. Admittedly it's difficult to see much less verify how widespread this is. Donama 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We could, but as it seems, there's no opposition. Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Annual conventions are a relatvely unique trait all members and most non-members will probably have at least some familiarity, thus Christian Conventions is an appropriate title, with no offensive connotations. Jonathan 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, aside from the hackles raised at the insistence that the Workers have registered the Church with the Gov't. Admittedly, I don't know what course dialog regarding "the truth about the Truth" has taken in the past 10 years or more (the last time I was in a meeting was about 10 years ago)...so hopefully this article name is the least offensive of all potential candidates. I still have family in "the Truth", but we generally avoid discussing religion in too much depth...especially taboo seems to be the subject of how the early history is being discussed today. (I found out about it in the late '80s, and no, that had nothing to do w/ my decision to "return" to Judaism...I was already well on that road by then... :-p) All of that aside, if someone can find citable information on the effect of the internet age on the Truth, that'd make a good addition to the article (in my humble opinion). Cheers, Tomer^talk 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hymnal

I added a section near to the bibliography for the hymnal of this group. I am not sure how to enter a bibliographic reference to this book, however. There is no ISBN as far as I know. I did find a page at Amazon for it (two used copies). Also there is a lot of info at this link:

[1] Postxian 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generalisations Deleted

There seem to be an awful lot of generalisations that have collected on this article. This is neither scholarly nor fair to either side of the controvesy. Take statements like this, for instance:

More and more members are rejecting this claim as a historically unsupportable statement

There is no evidence either for or against this claim, and therefore it should be cut out. I have gone through the first half of this article and culled all statements of this kind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.56.175 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unscholarly Writing

I have no idea who wrote the entry under the subheading "friends" but it must account for one of the most biased, shoddy, unscholarly, and unverifiable ad hominem statement I have ever encountered on Wikipedia - and that includes pages under construction. Not only is it obviously partisan (and how does that boost Wikipedia's credibility, might I ask?), but it is completely muddled with bits about meetings, workers and other irrelevant material jammed in between a quasi-explaination that does not actually explain what a "friend" is, how one becomes a "friend" or what obligations a "friend" has.

Because I do not want this abysmal example of bad text to go missing, I have reproduced it here:

There are certain conditions that one must meet to become one of the "friends". You must profess when meetings are "tested". The idea of "testing" a meeting is not found in scripture but is useful to the workers to find out who is "for" them and who is "against". Those who are for them receive favor and have the so called privelege of allowing the workers to stay in their homes. The workers often refuse to work and require others to provide their food, shelter and clothing. This some members do happily and others grudgingly. Usually they limit their stay to a day or two depending on how they get along. You are not required to confess or forsake your sins when you profess. You are required to agree with the overseers current doctrines and be in descent standing with the workers in the field. Doctrines and workers change yearly and so it requires a bit of flexibility on the part of the followers faith. Often times this turns into apathy to the point that even relatives will not care if someone is disfellowshipped and for what reason. They try to stay out of some business like that to avoid being marked by the workers as a trouble-maker. Also as one of the friends, it obligates you to giving your "testimony" at Sunday AM meetings.

Points to make for anyone else attempting to hijack the mission of Wikipedia to push their own views, perspectives, hostilities or preferences:

The idea of "testing" a meeting is not found in scripture but is useful to the workers to find out who is "for" them and who is "against". Unverifiable claptrap. How can one claim this article is encyclopedic in nature, and include omniscient ramblings like this?

Those who are for them receive favor and have the so called privelege of allowing the workers to stay in their homes. The "so-called privledge"? And how does testing a meeting allow workers to gauge "favour"? What is "testing" a meeting? (I have explained this in my revision of this text). This is not impartial writing!

The workers often refuse to work and require others to provide their food, shelter and clothing. Where is the verifiable evidence for this sweeping claim? It makes most of the workers sound like worthless parasites. I have deleted this big time. It is completely unnecessary, does not explain what a "friend" is, and serves no purpose but for someone to push their own hostility into "so-called" scholarly text.

Doctrines and workers change yearly and so it requires a bit of flexibility on the part of the followers faith. Eh? Just how biased can you get?

Often times this turns into apathy to the point that even relatives will not care if someone is disfellowshipped and for what reason. They try to stay out of some business like that to avoid being marked by the workers as a trouble-maker. More sweeping baseless accusations. In encyclopedia articles, hard as it is to believe, the authors need to be firstly semi-literate (i.e. string a coherent couple of sentences together), and they need to be impartial. You can't go around making unsubstantiated attacks here on Wikipedia! This is not an opinion forum! There are plenty of those elsewhere. Go and post on those if you can't be bothered to READ what Wikipedia is all about, ADHERE to the rules of Wikipedia, and actually write decent text that is fair, balanced and scholarly in tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.61.94 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it was poorly written by whoever wrote it, and also sounds highly dubious. I agree with your fixes.

Let's face it though -- even if we can try to avoid bias, it's tough to do without verifiable resources and there are only two published pieces about the church so any other verifiable resources about this would be good. — Donama 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. And now someone has gone through and massively edited the article again, this time from a "pro" position, and equally unscholarly and apparently oblivious to WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Argh. Tomer^talk 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A response to the 'facts' in the article is necessary as the group keeps no history, is not concerned with history, and in fact, tends to erase its history because of concerns with the authority of spiritual 'text' other than the Bible. If this response is not put within the article, AND you apply your journalistic pedantry to this article, you should erase practically everything in it. I for one do not want to be linked to William Irvine, who has nothing to do with MY personal history. So if you, as a non-believer wish to create/invent or revise a history for me that is fine, but the countervailing viewpoint and attitude of the group to its historicity (its relationship to its own history) must be considered in the article. Slofstra 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In further defence of my changes, I would add that my editorial change, if anything, has made this wiki entry more supportable, not less. I changed William Irvine from founder to initial adherent. William Irvine as founder - where is the citation? 'Initial adherent' most would agree with. If you call for a citation for this, then my preference, actually is that you delete the entire reference and references to William Irvine, please. Put him somewhere else in wikipedia, because he has nothing much to do with the home church which I worship with. Also noted, not all recent 'pro' changes (your term) were mine. Slofstra 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My criticism of your edits was far more concerned with their poor style and non-adherence to WP policy. Your personal views are completely irrelevant, and insisting upon inserting them into the article is in direct violation of WP:NPOV, and, by your own admission, WP:NOR. Dismissing my objections as "pedantry" is incivil and does nothing to build consensus. Furthermore, your track about William Irvine is a violation of WP:NEO and seems geared toward a violation of WP:POINT. If you want to include that William Irvine has little to do w/ the modern church, that's fine (although that was in the article already before you started editing it), and I'd support it, but wanting to excise him from the article altogether, and calling him "initial adherent" is "bad style" on the one hand, and "intellectually dishonest" on the other. As an aside, the bit about my being a non-believer, which you seem to think is somehow relevant and worthy of mention, is a red herring...but I suggest that perhaps it gives me a better grasp on approaching the subject from a perspective far more neutral than yours, at least such as it's been expressed thus far... Regards, Tomer^talk 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My original rather long-winded response to this, if anyone is really interested, is here: in yellow. Frankly, I'm embarrassed by all this now, and my only defence is that it's too easy to edit 'wikipedia': I should have read the manual first. Slofstra 15:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have editted my original comments to be more NPOV. There are still quite a number of NPOV statements - not mine I hope. I think a deeper discussion of NPOV as applies to this article is warranted. Since the facts are not citable, it might be best to have a section which describes the beliefs of members as generally agreed by all parties, i.e. that are uncontestable. No-one disagrees with the statement that members worship in private homes, for example (yet even this statement is not verifiable according to the standards of wikipedia and thus strictly speaking shouldn't be in this article.) Then following the uncontestable section, a section on history (with the preamble I inserted), then a section on Controversies which would typically state a pro and con (without debate or attempt at resolution!!)

Finally, I have in mind to add a few internal article links - i.e. to other sections or sentences in the article -- but don't know how to do this, so I apologize for that at the moment. Perhaps on my next attempt. Slofstra 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated accusations

A great number of potentially slanderous and unsubstantiated statements have been appearing in this text. I have found claims that some of the workers are probably homosexual, that members "brag" about not missing meetings, that "some elders" call blacks "niggers", that some workers "refuse to work", etc, etc, etc. All of these statements are excessively biased, and if the user continues putting them into the text, I am going to ask Wikipedia to freeze this article as a result of ongoing vandalism. These kinds of accusations do not belong in scholarly text. If you want to make these kinds of statements, visit an opinion forum - PLEASE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.235.46.53 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vandalism, Bias and Unscholarly Writing

I have rewritten vast portions of this article because some it has been too biased for words; bordering on adolescent manipulation. I have reverted all the changes made on 23rd January 2007, back to the version from the morning of 23rd January, because of the following vandalism that actually compromises thee reliability and impartiality of the text. Consider some of these gems. I have highlighted the worst among the bunch, although they are all pretty bad:

• They prefer to receive money under the table and in large part don't pay taxes.

• ...distributing donations of money into overseas bank accounts

• Many of them refuse to work, preferring their followers to support them.

• ...homosexuals in the church.

• They also ignore the fact that pants or trousers are not solely men's clothing.

• However they do allow braided hair which goes against what Paul taught.

• Also some workers enforce their opinion that men cannot have mustaches or beards. This varies from worker to worker with no doctrine being followed.

• Workers are the church's leaders in place of Christ...

• They are paid under the table through donations and are forbidden to marry...

• However their work involves preachinc once or twice a week and socialize the rest of the time.

• The overseers make the decision based on physical appearance, their standing in the group, perceived sexual preference, education, wealth, gender, and race.

• Elders are responsible for calming down disagreements and for the appearane of unity in the group.

Some points ought to be made here. Firstly, a lot of these comments are opinions - eg, workers are the leaders not Christ - and not verifiable facts. Does the writer of this garbage even know what the word "bias" means? Does he or she know what "impartial reporting" is? Or did they not graduate from grade school. Because this is juvenile at best, and puerile at worst. Secondly, a lot of this text is not even grammatically correct!

I have run an IP trace on the user responsible for inserting these comments and have identified their exact whereabouts in the United States (Washington State). If this vandalism continues, I will be contacting Wikipedia and asking for the IP address to be banned, and will be contacting the person's internet service provider to see if they have a policy on their service being used to promote religious intolerance.

The vandal has a barrow to push. They want the text to show:

• Workers as worthless, moneygrubbing, lazy parasites
• Head workers as money launderers, depositing sums in overseas bank accounts
• Rampant homosexuality in the ministry
• Elders and leaders as racist ("calling blacks niggers")
• Workers being worshipped rather than Christ (an opinion big time)
• Virtual Darwinian selection in who gets into the work and who does not

These views are ALL opinions. The writer makes his views universal (eg. head workers as a generalisation, implying that this kind of behaviour is global). The writer does not show any effort to qualify his remarks, find evidence for his remarks, or even the remotest effort at impartial reporting.

Wikipedia is for REPORTING IMPARTIALLY the FACTS. Not OPINIONS. If you want to post OPINIONS go to an OPINION board. Don't try and mask your bias in scholarly-sounding text.

I promise to take action if this happens again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReligiousHarmony (talk • contribs) 12:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

ReligiousHarmony, yes you are right about the bias and unscholarly nature of these anonymous edits. I also was a bit surprised by them. You won't be successful getting the editor who made these edits banned though because they were "in good faith". There are no verifiable resources whereby we can establish if statements like "some workers are homosexuals" are true or not, and probably never will be. But banning is only done for vandalism or consistently violating the wikipedia 3-revert rule (WP:3RR), not for adding unverifiable content. We can just remove the content, that's all. — Donama 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And keep removing it. Keep WP:3RR in mind tho. Also, if this kind of editing becomes an identifiable pattern, the person can, and will be blocked. Unfortunately, because of the workload of admins, all of whom are volunteers just like everyone else on WP, the best way to make a case to get disruptive editors blocked or even banned, is to keep track of their disruptive edits, and then present them at WP:RFC. If the bad guys violate WP:3RR, report it here (with relevant diffs, please, and make sure it really is a WP:3RR violation, or you risk creating the impression that you're the problem, ch"v!). For severe incidents of persistent vandalism, go to WP:AN/I. Keep up the good work. Kol tov, Tomer^talk 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "external links" section re. "anti"-sites the statement: "The veracity of the content of these websites may be debatable." This statement could be said for the "pro" sites as well, and should be applied to both sides, not to one only. For that matter it can be said for ANY website.Eddie Tor 08:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelius Jaenen's role as church historian

I have removed or changed the following statements in the "History" section of the article:

"These characteristics [destroying documents] make it difficult to form a history with any accuracy and certainly an official history with proper citations is an impossibility."

This is certainly not an "impossibility" as it is evident that workers have kept records through the years of who was in the work and where meetings were held and at what times. Also, there is plenty of historical evidence still in existence regarding the "first days" of the work in Ireland - newspaper articles, testimonies of early workers, excerpts from the Bright Words monthly publication. It is not so much a matter of possibility as it is willingness to be open, honest, and detailed about "what happened" in the years 1897 and on.

"A reasonable attempt has been made by Cornelius Jaenen." This is a value judgment. From what I remember of what I have read in Cornelius' book, he does not give ANY details about the "first days" of our fellowship. This is strange considering how much detail he goes into in describing earlier groups such as the Waldensians.

"The present movement coalesced in Ireland in the late 1890s under the leadership of Scottish evangelist William Irvine (1863-1947), John Kelly, John Long and others. Irvine and Kelly had previously been associated with the Faith Mission." This statement is taken verbatim from Cornelius' statement of about 30 years ago, entitled "Following Up the First Century Christian Church," in which he claimed that there was a "remnant" of "original Christianity" that migrated from Eastern to Western Europe over the course of time from the First Century to the 19th, and that the ministry that began in 1897 was an "eruption" of this "remnant." I have corresponded personally with Cornelius regarding this statement, enquiring what his sources were for making these claims. This is what he wrote in reply:

"Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:02:38 -0500 (EST) From: cornelius jaenen Subject: CHRISTIANS

I have the E-mail; that was forwarded from the History department at the University of Ottawa where I am an Emeritus Professor long retired but active in graduate and post-doctoral studies, etc. I have noted carefully your research and thoughts and will confess there was a brief period when I too thought there was an unbroken apostolic succession of "workers" from the first century to our day. One of the workers who disabused me of that idea was Stanley Lee, our overseer in Manitoba at the time. Of course, I then paid much more attention to the teaching given by Jack Carroll, George Walker, and especially Wilson Reid. The write-up under my name you refer to is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation. I encourage you to read carefully, in short sections at a time or it becomes undigestable, "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship..." that sets out from documents the nature of the early church [not always what restorationists have imagined] and a "chain of witnesses" of efforts over the centuries to restore, regain, reconstitute, renew, retain, etc. the original faith. There was no unbroken consistent line of "workers" from the first century to our day [even the Roman Catholic succession is tenuous at times] but the Spirit was always working in the world to retain faith until Jesus returns. And so there were almost certainly "true believers" in every age and century somewhere but not in the sense of a constant visible community or fellowship. I have tried to formulate from the mediaeval documents the characteristics of such a spiritual people and tradition. "Hold fast the tradition you have been taught." Faith expresses itself in an ideal, a life-style, not always through a visible institution and hierarchy such as our fellowship at present since 1897. We are grateful that there has been this full restoration in our day, but our faith is not based on our organization or an unbroken lineage. We and what we believe is not the Way - Jesus is still THE WAY and He is THE TRUTH. Warmest greetings and good wishes, Cornelius J. Jaenen"

Please note most specifically that Cornelius himself admits that his "Following Up..." statement "is unscientific and undocumented and should not be in circulation." We should remember that even the most learned and professional scholar still has his or her bias, and that historical "facts" can be selected and presented in such a way to support any hypothesis. If Cornelius is the "foremost authority" on the historical question, as another editor has written in the article, we should recognize as he himself has stated, that our present fellowship does not date back before the 1897 start date. He calls our fellowship a "full restoration" and not a "continuation." Eddie Tor 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these additional insights on Jaenen. I've read at least the last half of the book. It can be slow going. I must comment on the 'possibility/ impossibility of history' question mentioned above. The key word here is 'official'. Of course, there's all kinds of historical evidence, but unlike every other denomination I'm aware of the movement makes no attempt to maintain official records. Everything is anecdotal and peripheral. But I agree with your insight and perhaps an amendment is in order. I've noted that you didn't actually delete or amend the statement in question, so I may borrow some of your verbiage if you don't mind. (Or amend further as you see fit). Slofstra 15:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to point out in my comments above that to a great extent "official" records HAVE been kept, in particular of which workers started in the work in what years, and which workers worked in which fields in which years. I have seen a list of one field in particular, which showed which workers worked in that field each year from the first workers who worked there. As far as individual meetings (home meetings, gospel meetings, special meetings, convention meetings) records probably vary in detail and consistency, but I would not doubt that much of it is recorded and kept on file by senior workers. So, IMO, the real problem with making an "official" history is not that this information does not exist, but that for the most part this information has never been made public.Eddie Tor 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Worker lists are hardly a history! If I want to understand Catholicism, I'll read Augustine, and Merton. Protestantism - Luther or Calvin. Mennonites base their belief on the writings of Menno Simmons who never even knew what he started. Then there's John Henry Cardinal Newman, and on and on. So what makes up the intellectual history and thought evolution of THIS movement? Many or most denominations sanction the authorship of extensive narratives on their internal history. Anyway, I did amend my comments somewhat, so hopefully they do accurately represent the state of affairs as far as you're concerned. It personally does not bother me to see publication or release of either personal testimony or letters or photographs. After many years of reciting the Apostle's Creed, I DO have an issue with non-Biblical liturgy. But the fact of the matter is this: there really isn't much citable source information available to disinterested parties or historians. You intimate that this condition is artificial; that may very well be. What sources are available have come mostly from ex-members. I stand by my original comments.Slofstra 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A challenge to present historical evidence

Finally, you or anyone else is free to present whatever knowledge or evidence you have that would shed light on the historical events of this movement. If I saw such evidence, I would certainly retract my statement. What I do see here is spurious and anecdotal, and when you strip the wheat from the chaff, very sketchy. Let me ask a basic question. Which worker or workers were most influential in the first part of this century? What do you have in your history that would provide a basis for answering such a simple question. I personally suspect that the person with the greatest influence at that time is someone unheralded and now unknown, because such is the character of the movement and its men and women. When you see an old picture of dozens of workers, which one would you single out? The answer will depend on who you ask, because the lives of many different individuals have been affected in deep and abiding ways by many, many different workers. I think that the nature of our struggle is deeply personal and cannot be written in history books. This movement is not centred on any single individual or individuals other than Christ. But I stand corrected; let's see the case then. Slofstra 05:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read most everything on the TTT site at least twice. This is the most comprehensive and freely available collection of historical documents regarding the church. While it is presented from a decidedly "anti" POV, Ms. Kropp has done an excellent job of presenting the facts. So if you really want to "see the case", perhaps you should start there. Personally, I once "believed" that the church had "always been" from the days of the first disciples, but I cannot believe that anymore, due to the overwhelming weight of historical evidence. I have also had extensive correspondence with George Gittins, an older brother worker in Manitoba, Canada, who seems to believe that Irvine "received the Truth" from a previous generation. He has a story that supposedly Robert Darling told him along that line, but so far as I know George's is a singular testimony, even of "what Robert Darling said." I wrote to Ireland over one month ago to ask for confirmation of George's story, but so far have received NO REPLY at all. And, as I have detailed above, I have corresponded with Cornelius Jaenen on the historical issue, and you can read for yourself what he wrote in reply. I personally do not regard Irvine as our "founder" nor the church as "just another religion started by a man" (this is the main argument of TTT). However, it is clear that the form the church follows today is very similar in so many ways to the earlier Faith Mission; that the "movement" did not begin until Irvine was sent to the South of Ireland with the Faith Mission; that he preached in affiliation with the FM for a few years there; that he for the most part began working independently of the FM; that he officially severed his ties with the FM in 1901; that several FM workers separated from that society to work with Irvine in the new independent movement; that the ministry was established FIRST and THEN the meetings in the home, and NOT VICE VERSA; that this new "movement" was a result of a RETURN to a form of ministry and worship as seen in the New Testament and not a CONTINUATION of the ministry seen in the NT as far as being "handed down from generation to generation." I will not go into the details here as they are freely available on TTT. But those are my conclusions. Sincerely, Eddie Tor 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that site a number of years ago when first put up. I don't have an issue with the 'facts' per se; but with how they are put together. I think the approximate sequence of events (from Jaenen, though): Irvingites (early 1800s) -> Faith Mission -> Irvine -> other workers, etc. But the narrative on TTT or VOT seems to be arranged around the idea of Irvine as founder in order to refute the ideology of succession. It would take some work to critique or unravel TTT and I have better things to do; if someone wanted to attempt to summarize their findings and introduce that on wikipedia with citations; this would be interesting. And as you know, I'm dubious that it would amount to much. Still you reference some intriquing ideas above. For example, you mention that workers existed before home churches, which raises many interesting questions. What was the specific sequence of events? Who decided they'd be a good idea? Where was the first one? and so on. But the progression, given the purpose of the Faith Mission, which was purely preaching, seems a natural one doesn't it? But where did the 'home church' idea come from? Could itinerant preachers have stumbled onto 'home worshipping' Christians? That does happen. For some reason the workers at some point broke off with Irvine, and they also seemed to explicitly eschew - perhaps this is a kind of anti-intellectualism - the kind of power structures and intellectual discourse which have put many churches off track. (As you know, the friends aren't anti-intellectual, per se, but refreshingly, intellect is not a prerequisite for a fulfilling spiritual life). Perhaps this particular restorationist movement (Jaenen's term, for lack of a better one) really began when some workers decided there wasn't going to be a founder other than Christ, and that was the end of Irvine and Cooney. Just a hypothesis. As far as true apostolic succession back to early days, I did hear that claim from workers and a few friends many years ago, but have been disabused of that notion for some time. I think the unravelling for me, has more to do with my thoughts on my relationship with God before I professed or went to meetings (it was the same God dealing with me then, I believe, and the unravelling of the necessity of succession follows from that thought). When you ask yourself whether the church 'has always been', ask yourself what it would take to start a church beyond the Word (Bible) and the Spirit and two or more gathered in the name of Christ? If there's nothing else, then the church 'has always been', hasn't it? And always will contiune. Still a succession of restorationist worship practice (home churches, as one aspect) can't be disproved either, and is an intriguing prospect. Didn't the Irish preserve Christianity when Europe slid into the Dark Ages? Anyway, my critiques of the wiki article are based on the use of language; for example, the word, 'founder', should be reserved for Christ, and in terms of the facts (or absence thereof) as I see them presented here. I hope you get the idea from all this speculation that there just aren't the 'facts' to fix a singular narrative in place. Cheers Slofstra 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is really on those who make such bold claims as "the church goes right back to the first apostles" to provide historical evidence to support their theory, which for the most part no one has done. Instead many of the friends and workers accept that notion "in faith." Since "succession" has never been PROVEN in the first place, it IS just an "ideology" and it does need to be refuted.

You yourself gave George Walker's letter its own section in the article - the two paragraphs that deal most specifically with the "foundation" of the church state quite plainly that the ministry was established first and then the church gatherings in homes. He could have reversed that order if he had wanted to. He called it a "return" to practices seen in the New Testament and an "effort to follow the early Christians" - not a "continuation" or "succession" of the same. The idea of having church in the home was nothing new by any means. The Carrolls' uncle was an exclusive Plymouth Brethren, a group that was well established long before 1900, and is characterized by meeting in homes. The Methodists held various types of services in homes. The practice of "family prayer" was more common than it is today - where the family would gather together and the father would read a portion of scripture, expound on it, say a prayer, and the family would sing a hymn. (Or variations of such practice). According to John Long's journal, Eddie Cooney was the first worker to begin organizing converts in home churches, in 1903 - although he likely was not alone in his efforts. Also according to Long, this practice, as well as separation from all other denominations, and baptism of converts, was not made the "established practice" of the Testimony until the 1905 convention. Yes, it is possible that itinerant preachers "stumbled onto 'home worshipping' Christians" (that is similar to George Gittins' story). But I have yet to see any historical evidence that such a thing ever happened. Even if there were such evidence, it certainly would not "prove" that those Christians were a "remnant" from the first century.

Your hypotheses regarding the reasons behind the divisions of 1914 (Irvine) and 1928 (Cooney) do not seem to be consistent with reality. As far as I can see, there were legitimate reasons why each would have been asked to step down from their position - not because the other workers decided they did not want to recognize any "founder" other than Jesus.

In my experience, some of the friends and workers ARE anti-intellectual - one prime evidence of this is the widespread acceptance of King James Only doctrine and scorn of any scholarly writing regarding the Bible.

This church does have a "power structure" although I would argue that it is highly democratic (within the ministry - no one overseer or regional overseer has ultimate authority as they are generally responsible to their fellow overseers. I do not say that there has never been any abuse of power but that the structure is such to avoid that as much as possible.)

I agree with the thought that "the church has always been" but the error is made when we claim that THAT church = the CC church. For the purposes of this article I believe we are dealing with a fellowship of Christians who has for the most part attempted to pattern their ministry and worship after the earliest New Testament days - and this particular fellowship did not begin until 1897 and thereafter. Whether the people in the church are truly part of the "church that has always been" should be left for the reader to judge.

What exactly do you mean by the statement: "Didn't the Irish preserve Christianity when Europe slid into the Dark Ages?" As far as I know, Ireland was Catholic from the time of St. Patrick.

My description of Irvine's character would be that he was extremely anti-clerical, he was a zealot, a radical, an egotist, a controller, a legalist. To what extent he was the "founder" is reflected in the extent to which these aspects of his character are still evident in the church today. Based on the historical record, I believe that if we will not call him the "founder" we at least need to call him the "first leader" of the movement. How would the movement have begun if Irvine had never been sent by the Faith Mission to the South of Ireland? I feel that the direction he took later in life was unfortunate. But we need to give credit where credit is due.Eddie Tor 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I find little to disagree with here. I did have another look at TTT - it still reads like a smear site; the evidence is bent somewhat to fit the premises of the site. But it is the only site with historical source material on the movement and some is quite interesting. Your statement "that this new 'movement' was a result of a RETURN to a form of ministry and worship as seen in the New Testament and not a CONTINUATION of the ministry seen in the NT as far as being handed down from generation to generation" as specifically stated is irrefutable. Suppose we hypothesized that there was a remnant in Ireland predating 1890, that the new movement had knowledge of or continued from, then the new movement still differs in kind and in degree, for example, in the hymns that were authored and sung, the number of workers, annual conventions, and so on. It is a certainty that many aspects of the movement's practice are a recent manifestation of the "church that has always been". Further, I would agree that some members and workers have been overly zealous or even misleading when making claims regarding the church going back to Christ. If one is to say "our church goes back to Christ and the apostles", that can be interpreted in various ways. Somehow a mythology of succession has developed around that statement, probably as an antecedent of the Living Witness doctrine. (Another statement often made, "there is only one true way", I personally accept, but I don't accept this statement in the way that some individuals understand it. But that's another topic.) Anyway, a few quibbles: 1) I put George Walker's letter in a subsection to keep it out of the historical narrative which was clogged by it; I don't know where it came from originally. 2) Regarding 'burden of proof', well someone could make a hermeneutical argument for succession purely from Scripture; I personally have never seen any necessity for it in my belief. 3) Regarding my Cooney/ Irvine hypothesis; still I wonder if their charismatic emphasis became a point of friction that formed a background motive for their expulsion. There seems to have been a fundamental shift in character in the movement around that time and also, there is even less source material available as we move forward in time. 5) I am intrigued by the question of why the succession issue has been put so strongly by some, and the extended discussion of 'Living Witness' on the TTT site is the most plausible. 6) Within a faith group, strong, overly zealous statements are often not refuted even when they don't represent the majority view. 7) If the TTT statement that there were 500 workers by 1907 is correct, the reasons for this sudden rapid growth would be interesting to know. 8) The first workers were: Walker, Long, Cooney, Irvine and a few others. Really, the most interesting of these men is George Walker. 9) Is it not strange that the Faith Mission letters state that Irvine started the 'Cooneyites'? 10) I am wondering if the practice of no tracts or creeds has been pushed somewhat to an extreme with somewhat damaging results. Perhaps the practice can or will be altered while keeping the principle intact. Certainly when I see some of the source material on the TTT site I think something in a much more positive vein could be made of it. 11) Regarding St. Patrick: At some point going back we were ALL Catholics. Slofstra 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A few answers to your "quibbles":

2) Many HAVE made "hermeneutical arguments for succession purely from Scripture". And there are several passages of Scripture that would seem to support the thought that there have always been "true believers" on the earth. Where folks get themselves in trouble is when they attempt to "prove" that one particular church of the present day is the sole "heir" of this succession. I don't think that those who disagree with them do not believe that there has always been a "seed" of faith in the world - just that that seed of faith is perhaps not quite as limited as some believe it is. I suppose that the most commonly quoted verses in support of "succession" could be quoted in the article with some disclaimer as to the opposing views.

7) Perhaps the most logical reason why there was such a great number of workers start out in those first years is that almost everyone was encouraged (urged) to go in the work if at all possible. This is evidenced by the fact that some couples even left their children behind and went out preaching (Bill and May Carroll). Also, while I have no documentary proof of such, I believe that in "old days" it was common for young folks to be strongly encouraged, if not "expected" to go in the work. Some parents were very strong on this. I know one old preacher who was the result of such a case - his parents expected their children to go in the work. When his older siblings did not go, he felt it his responsibility to do so. He preached for many years while never really feeling the "call" to do so. I suppose the motive for such strong encouragement could have been either genuine (a great zeal and concern for souls) but it could have been partly from human pride (the status of being POWs - parents of workers)

8) Each of those early workers were fascinating characters. Yes, George Walker probably had a great deal of influence. At the same time, Irvine, Long, Cooney, and others also had a great deal of influence. One wonders how things would have ever happened if Irvine had never been sent to the South of Ireland with the Faith Mission.

9) The term "Cooneyite" was the most common name given to the new group by observers as Cooney was one of the most prominent early leaders. He and Irvine worked very closely together. But as far as I know Cooney was Methodist up until the time he met Irvine, and probably for a while afterwards. So the fact that they were called "Cooneyites" does not necessarily mean that the movement was started by Cooney - just that he had a very influential part in those days.Eddie Tor 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist adding to your response to point (2) which opens to the possibility that this particular movement is not the only manifestation of the true and living way. My own take on this is that "the way" is not a particular set of beliefs but a life process (in the sense of being reborn in Christ). We should never confuse the two. If we look at a 'set of beliefs and practices', per se, then my belief is that, doctrinally, there is only ONE correct set of beliefs and practices in important matters. (Take baptism as an example; God is not the author of confusion). But, no-one, as an individual or as a group, can claim to have sure knowledge of what that set of practices is, in entirety. Nor does one need to know; you just do the best you can. God judges by what is in men and women's hearts. My favourite example of this is the widow who threw two mites (all she had) into the temple treasury. Yet, Jesus came to destroy the temple. One could argue that the funds were misdirected, but it was her intention that counted with God. Second, Romans 1 indicates that even those who lived in pre-Bible days had responsibility for their own salvation; i.e. their responsibility was based on a knowledge that did not even include the Bible. Finally, I must add that I have found nothing better than this movement and the workers to encourage spiritual growth and life. Slofstra 16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to history/ historical controversies

I'm making some changes to this section. Mostly removing verbiage such as 'he went on and'. I've taken out the word 'excommunicated'. This word has a specific connotation. In Protestant denominations there is, or was, official liturgy, service and process for excommunicating members - which is misleading in this context. I have no idea what really happened, so perhaps someone could further improve my wording. I've also removed some apologetic comments that someone inserted to soften the blow - e.g. 'Unlike the church's quiet activity today'. I don't disagree, but these are judgement calls.

I've taken out this sentence: "The lack of any official history or documentation, combined with the doctrine ascribing the beginnings to Jesus' Apostles, has caused, and continues to cause, much controversy and angst amongst ex-members." I can't improve it, because it lacks clarity. I don't agree or disagree, just don't see what is being said here. Perhaps if someone clarifies this we could put it back.

The following paragraph is now almost entirely redundant. It does add something - so I leave it here if someone would care to re-edit. "Amongst the membership today, the broad consensus is still that the church originated from the time of Jesus first calling his disciples at Galilee, and has been continuous since that time. This position has been preached explicitly and widely in the past. Presently, this line tends not to be preached in the explicit terms used in the past." It might add something but needs to be sharpened.

I've also moved the paragraph "Ex-members often report ... " to the section reporting ex-member's activities.

Finally, gave George Walker's letter its own subheading. Slofstra 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think George Walker's letter should be quoted in its entirety within this article, let alone have its own section. While his statement is a powerful "proof" regarding "how the church began," I also consider it unfortunate that he failed to mention ANY previous work (i.e. the Faith Mission in Southern Ireland - although I would forgive give him if he had not mentioned that society or any individual preacher by name), and instead appears to attempt to create or maintain the impression that the church began as some sort of "spontaneous revelation." In doing so, he failed to tell the "whole story." So maybe just the most important parts regarding the "history of the church" should be kept in the article. I may edit it in that way. Eddie Tor 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals for discussion

1) I think we should move 'Living Witness' doctrine, which seems peripheral to me anyway, to the Historical Controversies section.
2) The Former members section still contains too much apologia. I'd like to remove the apologia, if no-one objects. I suggest that this section be a precis of ex-members concerns - not consist of back and forth debate. Probably the content of this section should be largely provided by ex-members, given the heading.
3) I'm ill at ease with the Terminology section recently added. Yes, members do use certain terms, and they definitely eschew much standard Protestant/ Catholic terminology. I think this has been done explicitly in an effort to use only Biblical language and structure. (Try to find 'archbishop', 'classis', 'synod', 'reverend', 'excommunication', and so on in the Bible). There is an unspoken and unappealing suggestion behind defining a list of 'Terms' that any particular alternative terminology is unwelcome in the fellowship.
Slofstra 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to point #3: In creating the "Terminology" section I did not mean to imply that this was the "only kind of terminology accepted" although it would generally be the case that this would be the only terminology recognized by most in the fellowship. I recall distinctly that as a child I did not even know what the word "Christian" meant. The main intent of the section was to supply some idea of what the most commonly used terms mean to a reader who knows very little about the group. I figured that would be helpful throughout the rest of the article, so that when words such as "field" and "worker" were used the reader would know what we are talking about. But perhaps there is a better way of presenting or introducing that information. Eddie Tor 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration, I'm more comfortable with the terminology section, although I'd like to see a preamble to that also. I'll put it here in discussion first to see what everyone thinks. Slofstra 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of George Walker's letter

I am condensing the letter in the "History" section of the article to its "historical" components, and am posting the full letter here for reference. Eddie Tor 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that this letter is best placed in 'wikisource' or 'gutenberg' and then cited from the main article? Slofstra 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Walker's letter of 1942

The following statement of the church's history was made by George Walker, a senior worker in North America, to the Selective Service System in 1942. It was widely circulated among believers in the United States at that time.

In accordance with the suggestion made to us at our recent interview in the Office of the Director of Selective Service, Washington, D.C. that a further statement be submitted outlining, in greater detail than has heretofore been given, certain facts regarding the foundation, belief and activities of the Church we represented, as Ministers - this for the purpose of enabling the Local Draft Boards to correctly classify Ministers of this Church throughout the United States who are subject to the Selective Service Laws.

We take this opportunity to state that during the closing years of the last century and the first years of this century a number of people in the British Isles and in America were exercised in heart and mind, through their study of the Scriptures, in regard to the methods of preaching and worship in the several churches of which they were then members. They were deeply concerned about spiritual things, and became fully convinced that there should be a return to the methods and purposes taught and carried out by Christ and His first disciples. This conviction led to frequent earnest conversations and studies on the subject, which in turn led to religious meetings, and in due time a number of these people went forth to devote their lives to the preaching of the Gospel according to the teaching and example of Christ as given in the New Testament, i.e., "two by two" and without salary or making appeals for financial assistance, putting implicit trust in God and His promise that as they "sought first the Kingdom of God" their natural needs of food and raiment "would be added to them".

As a result of this step, many people expressed their desire to be in fellowship with such preachers and this led to regular gatherings together of small assemblies in homes for worship and study of God’s word. The reason for meeting in homes was primarily because it is scriptural, the Christians during the first centuries of the Christian era met regularly for worship in homes, which fact is also borne out and supported by church history. Thus after serious consideration, the leaders were confident that in their efforts to follow the early Christians they should form church gatherings in homes; therefore no church property or real estate has been acquired by purchase or otherwise, and for this reason incorporation and registration under a denominational name has not been necessary. The meetings continue to the present time in homes and are under the guidance of local Elders. Baptism by immersion and the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is taught and practiced.

In the year 1903 Ministers of this Christian body began their labors in the United States and in the year 1904 in Canada. In these and subsequent years through the preaching of the Gospel, assemblies were formed in homes as already described. In the year 1906 the first annual conventions were held in North America, and from this beginning the number of Ministers in North America has grown to over nine hundred - about equally divided between men and women; the assemblies for regular worship to over three thousand; and the annual conventions to over one hundred.

One Minister in each field is the Overseer for that field - to whom the other Ministers look for counsel and from whom they accept guidance. In most instances a State constitutes a field.

Those who enter this Ministry must first establish very definitely their religious character and have fulfilled the other qualifications considered necessary. They must be upright and of high principle - having proven their ability to earn their living in an honorable way - and must have taken an active part in the Church meetings regularly attended. If and when they are considered to have qualified, they are then appointed and assist an experienced Minister in an evangelistic work and in ministering to assemblies of Christians. From the time of appointment, Ministers devote their entire time and talents to the work of the Ministry. If for sufficient reason anyone thus accepted later proves to be unworthy or unfit he cannot continue in this Ministry.

At the annual Christian Conventions arranged at suitable times of the year in each State - and which practically one hundred percent of the members are present all matters pertaining to methods of work, doctrine, discipline of members, local elders, ministry, etc., are fully considered and settled.

Definite fields of labor within each State are arranged for all Ministers by the Overseers to whom the Ministers are responsible. Names, addresses, and fields of labor in the Gospel of all Overseers and Ministers are available at any time.

Overseers, who over a long period of years have devoted all their time to Evangelistic, Pastoral and other activities of Christian service, exercise - in fellowship with each other - a general supervision over the Ministry and membership in the United States.

The undersigned is one of such Overseers, and would be glad to furnish any further information regarding the foregoing which may be considered to be helpful or desirable.

Signed:

George Walker