From New Zealand: Dumping the Founder Was an Extremely Serious Step.....

Words of Wit and Wisdom from New Zealand:

Many of the hymns included in

“Hymns Old & New”

were not written by either the workers or friends,

and my attention has been drawn recently to the way verses

have been omitted by the workers, to produce a more “politically correct” version.

Click Here to View "NOTE" from Eldon Tenniswood,

Regarding Hymn Changes

Click Here to View "PICTURE" of WORKERS,

Who Made the Hymn Changes

(Click in Center of Picture or Article to Open Screen Size For Easy Viewing)

Indeed, it is quite enlightening to study those verses which are apparently considered undesirable, by the workers.

Hymn number 22 in the 1951 edition is typical.

This hymn was written by F.W. Faber, and the workers were quite happy to include:

“Souls of men why will ye scatter
Like a crowd of frightened sheep!
Foolish hearts, why will ye wander
From a love so true and deep?”

It seems however, they decided to omit the following verses, which are included in the Baptists’ Hymn Book:

“But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

There is a plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
In the sorrows of the head.”

It is not hard to guess the reason why the workers considered the first of these verses to be undesirable:

It describes exactly what they have done, and are in fact, still doing.

Like the Pharisees of old, the workers magnify God’s strictness and like the Pharisees, they do it by teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men.

Although there are some hymns in “Hymns Old & New” which speak of the blood of Christ, most other hymnals contain many more, and I find that where the workers have omitted verses, they are very often ones referring to the Blood.

References in Gospel meetings to the Blood of Christ are rare, and usually confined to pointing out that the cleansing provided by the Blood is restricted to those who “walking in the light.”

To the workers, of course, “walking in the light” means being converted by William Irvine or one of his associates and continuing as one of the friends.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “I determined to know nothing among you save Christ and Him crucified.”

I don’t think Paul would have made the grade as a “worker,” as this type of preaching would be considered out of place.

Of course, Paul had a different objective when preaching,

he wanted to bring people to Christ,

whereas, the workers are not really interested in winning souls for Christ,

but in bringing people into their particular group.

Consequently, it is not the gospel of Christ which they preach but the gospel of Irvine.

They are not trying to persuade people that there is no salvation outside of Christ, but there is no salvation outside of their group.

Under these circumstances, it is only to be expected that more emphasis will be placed on the workers sacrifice, than on any sacrifice made on the part of Jesus.

Accurate information is hard to come by, but we have reason to believe people here (in New Zealand) are leaving the meetings in fairly substantial numbers. In fact, one ex-member here, met some of the friends who had just recently left the meetings, and said, “I hear you have decided to join the minority,” and the reply was, “I think we’re now in the majority.”

I feel certain, as you do, that Irvine seems to have been expelled for a number of reasons, and it appears there was friction between Irvine and other leaders for a number of years before the workers made it impossible for him to take part in conventions.

“The Secret Sect” dates the start of the problem at about 1909, but it seems to have been in 1913 or 1914 when the workers' took action against him. In 1913, John Hardie did not allow Irvine to speak at the Australian conventions, and Irvine himself, writing in 1923, refers to the events of the past 7 years that is since 1914 onwards.

It seems to me that from 1899 to say 1908, when Irvine said “jump,’ the other workers only asked “how high?”

As Alfred Magowan later wrote, “It was a sort of one man show, and we were like Punch and Judy in his hands. Everybody seemed to know that we were only puppets to speak and act at his command and they were more nearly right than we cared to admit.”

Several changes took place from about 1907 onwards which brought about a change in that relationship.

These changes can be listed as follows:

(1.)   The senior workers were no longer naïve, idealistic youngsters, but were now men in their thirties with some approaching forty. The were no longer prepared to give Irvine unquestioning obedience. Had Irvine been a more astute man, he would have recognized the changing circumstances and adopted a different style of leadership, but his nature seems to have been very inflexible and a showdown was inevitable.

(2.)   Irvine’s ideas were becoming more and more bizarre, with his very high opinion of himself becoming embarrassingly obvious.

(3.)   The position of the head workers became extremely powerful once provision had been made for the “friends” in about 1908, when the Sunday Morning meetings commenced. Head workers were assured of a steady source of income from the newly admitted “laity.” Those like George Walker probably had thousands of pounds at their disposal.

As well as all this, Irvine had worked in the coal mines and was in the habit of treating his “workers” like miners at the coal place, reprimanding them in public and rarely praising anyone. This must have built up a good deal of resentment over the years, so most workers were probably glad to see him go.

Of course, the head workers all over the world were nearly all Irish and well known to each other, which made Irvine’s demotion much easier to organize. Remember, the way the workers used to remind us how the Children of Israel murmured against Moses, and warned us about the dangers of murmuring against God’s servants? Seems to me, the head workers’ did quite a bit of murmuring themselves while conspiring against William Irvine.

This, of course, brings us to another question:

“Why do the workers pretend that Irvine played only a minor role in the formation of the group?”

It seems the workers who went to America in 1903, decided, right from the start, to conceal the history of the group. This was probably done to give the impression that the group had been around for a long time. As people tend to be wary of new religions. In England and Ireland, however, Irvine’s role was frankly admitted.

It appears the workers decided to conceal the part played by Irvine, only after he had been put out of the fellowship and I believe this concealment became necessary for the following reasons:

When the workers decided that only those who professed through William Irvine or one of his associates were truly “saved,” they were aware that William himself was an exception to this rule, but argued that he had a special anointing, and that God had “raised him up” to restore his one true church upon the earth.

These sorts of arguments would be indefensible, of course, unless the workers could point to the “Anointed One” as being a gifted preacher and a moral giant, and in fact, Irvine seems to have been regarded as such by the early workers. Once Irvine had been dumped however, it became obvious that either the workers who rebelled against him were false apostles,or the “moral giant” had feet of clay.

This left the workers between a rock and a hard place. Dumping the founder was an extremely serious step and could only be justified on one or more of the following grounds:

(1.)   William Irvine had committed gross immorality, or was living a life blatantly inconsistent with being leader of the group and his professed ideals.

(2.)   William Irvine was now preaching “false doctrine.”

(3.)   William Irvine had become mentally unbalanced and unfit to remain in charge.

None of these explanations were very appealing to the workers. Assuming God raised up Irvine to restore His one true church upon the earth, God was either a very poor judge of character, or the workers were false apostles and the while group was now under the control of Satan.

Even if the workers could justify their action, they would have to admit that their group had been founded by a man who proved to be immoral, a heretic, or a mental case.

How much easier to pretend that William Irvine never existed, and their group had no known founder or history.

It was at this point, I believe the group “went underground,” avoiding all publicity and maintaining a very low profile.

This was not done to avoid persecution, but rather to avoid investigation.

In fairness to William Irvine, I must say, I believe that had the workers been able to point to a gross sin on Irvine’s part, they would have done so, claiming that like Samson, Irvine had given way to the “flesh,” and consequently lost his anointing. I am convinced that self interest probably played a large part in the head workers’ decision to hijack the group, as once they got rid of Irvine, they were answerable to nobody, and that is the way they have kept things ever since.

Regarding the Living Witness Doctrine, this belief is extremely important as far as the workers are concerned, as it gives their work great significance for the following reason:

(1.)   Most of those who “profess” (other than the children of the friends) are, or were, members of other churches. The Living Witness Doctrine allowed the workers to believe that THEY ALONE had brought these people to Christ. The fact is that had it not been for these peoples’ Christian background, the workers would not have made first base. The workers have always had the most success with people who are or have been in other Christian churches. If these people were already saved, of course, the workers’ achievements would have no great significance.

(2.)   The workers’ status within the group depends on the Living Witness Doctrine. According to this doctrine, it is impossible to be saved without the assistance of a worker, which, of course, makes the workers’ position extremely important and increases their status enormously. It also rules out any embarrassing comparisons between the poor results obtained by the workers, and those achieved by more successful missionaries and evangelists.

(3.)   As only the workers have the power to admit a new believer, it is reasonable to assume they also have the power to excommunicate those they consider unfaithful, or to impose other penalties such as not taking part in meetings, or forbidding to take the bread and wine.

(4.)   Where people are taught that there is no salvation apart from this group, they will go to great lengths to remain in good standing with the workers. If the workers preached (as they did in the first few years), that salvation was to be found in the other denominations, those dissatisfied with the group or the workers, would simply go elsewhere.

In summary, the Living Witness Doctrine,

by instilling the fear of losing one’s salvation if one should leave the group,

allows the workers to intimidate,

control and manipulate the ordinary rank and file

to the workers’ own advantage.

As regards to the double suicide of the kids in Australia, we seem to have very few contacts with ex-members of Oz, so I haven’t any news from there, and of course, these things get hushed up in the meetings, so I don’t expect to hear much form the few contacts I still have among the “friends.”

New Zealand
From the “Forward Press” - Summer 1995