Workers' Testimony - The Emperor's New Clothes

The Emperor's New Clothes

INTRODUCTION

Nathan Barker has made another attempt to address the historical inadequacy of his apostolic succession theory for the Friends & Workers in his article "Workers Testimony: about the beginning!". In it he quotes various workers' responses to the question about the origins of this group, and the article contains the usual mixture of wishful thinking, evasions, logical fallacies, and contradictions. The beginning of his article is nothing but a regurgitation of the same weak references to unrelated groups in history such as the Waldenses, and these groups have already been examined in detail elsewhere here on Pillar of Truth. The final section of his article includes, incredibly, a series of quotes from various workers talking about the origins of their fellowship and William Irvine. What is incredible is not the fact that Nathan cites the workers' various comments about their origins - it is that Nathan actually takes them seriously enough to present them as informative replies, which calls to mind the cautionary tale of the emperor relying on his subjects to tell him the truth about his new clothes. Each statement is evaluated below:

WORKERS' QUOTES

1) On October 7, 1909 worker Edward Cooney said:"We did NOT start this Jesus Way...it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and we are NOT starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..."

It is unclear to me what Mr. Cooney meant by "new religion". If by "new religion" he meant that they were not starting a completely new institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship of a completely new diety, he spoke correctly. A perpetual church was prophesied in Daniel 2:44, "But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand forever." However, Mr. Cooney began his statement with a presumption, followed by a half-truth, and ended with a false inference. He presumed that his "Jesus Way" actually is the same "way" as that of the earliest Christians, which is predicated on the notion that his "way" most closely resembles that of the New Testament church.

There are several problems with his theory. First, the idea of a "New Testament church" is an anachronism, that is, it is a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other. In other words, for almost 400 years of Christianity there was no such thing as the Bible - a church existed before the Bible did, and this church did not resemble the Friends & Workers. This fact is easily verified by reading the extrabiblical writings of such Christians as Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, etc. Second, on closer examination, it can be demonstrated that the Friends & Workers' Fellowship doesn't actually follow the New Testament that closely anyway (see Going Two by Two, Acts of the Workers, and Home vs. Church Meetings). Finally, Cooney assumed that "traditions of men" were unbiblical; however, the Bible clearly says that not all traditions were bad, provided that they were of apostolic origin (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6). What he never bothered to prove was that his particular "Jesus Way" was actually of apostolic origin.

2) Worker Richard S. is quoted as saying, "We believe we have EXISTED since Jesus sent forth the 70 disciples Two and Two."

That's all very nice, but it goes absolutely nowhere toward actually proving anything because, for example, David Koresh "believed" he was the Messiah for the Branch Davidians. No one disputes the fact that some of these people truly "believe" that they have existed since Jesus; what is disputed is whether this is actually true, and so far no one has stepped forward to prove this.

3) In 1967 worker Walter N. is quoted as saying, "It's from the beginning, planned in God's mind before creation."

Having an apostolic pedigree is recognized as important by this worker. Indeed, "and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Lk 1:33). Yet this worker goes back even further to some nebulous idea of "from the beginning", but from the beginning of what? He only makes the assertion without supporting it.

4) In 1988, worker Calvin C. is quoted as saying, "We go back to the beginning."

Saying this, no matter how many times it is said or how sincerely one may believe it, does not make it true.

5) In 1985, worker Bea M. is quoted as saying, "Was William Irvine the first in the way?" "I think William was amongst the first... I feel that God has had a Way on the earth since before the foundation of the earth... I don't believe William Irvine is the beginner of it."

Ms. Bea provides nothing but wishful thinking: "I think William was amongst the first...", and "I feel that God has had a way...", and "I don't believe William Irvine is the beginner..."

6) In a letter written in 1989, worker Doris B. wrote, "In answer to your question, "Where did this religion actually begin?" Was it with Jesus as we have been told in Gospel Meetings, or by a man name William Irvine in 1897? We believe Hebrews 12:2 "Looking to Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith." I would like to give you some references that mean a lot to me as we carry the Gospel to people and point them to something that is from the beginning and not to something started by MAN. In John 17:5 Jesus spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world was, and in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" etc. So, there is NO date for the starting, as it was with the Heavenly Father before the world. Why would we want something started by a Man when we have in the scripture something that is from the beginning and the scripture to back it up?"

Here we have a classic evasion technique. Doris B. sidesteps the historical question by quoting Heb 12:2, "looking to Jesus the author and finisher of our faith". By shifting the emphasis onto Jesus' eternal primacy, she avoids actually interacting with the question. No one would disagree that Jesus is "the author and finisher of our faith", but that was not the question - the question was whether William Irvine began her particular Protestant sect. She also displays some circular logic by saying that scripture is "from the beginning" and that the same scripture "backs it up". The fact of the matter is that even the earliest books of the Bible were not written during Jesus' ministry. His teachings were passed by Oral Tradition and only later were written down.

7) In a letter dated June 1, 1995, Scotland worker Roddy M. wrote, "I never met William Irvine at any time and believe he was used of God, but was NEVER the ORIGIN of what we believe. I understand he became too big in himself and LEFT the fellowship we love. Workers I know and respect preach only what Jesus lived and taught with no mention at all of William Irvine, or any other man and give only real appreciation for those who retell in our days things taught in Jesus' day. This faith began in New Testament days, neither in Ireland NOR in the U.K."

The perpetual church promised by Christ (Mt 16:18) was a visible one. "You are a light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid." (Mt 5:14) In this quote we see more evasions and appeals to inappropriate authority, somewhat like the emperor asking his subjects to admire his "new clothes". Of course they would tell him what he wanted to hear, regardless whether it was true. Quoting "workers I know and respect" as some sort of proof is as useless has depending upon the Iraqi Minister of Information for reliable news on the Second Gulf War.

8) On June 15, 1995, Scotland worker Helen P. is quoted as saying, "You sound rather disturbed about something to do with a Man Called William Irvine. I do BELIEVE he served God in sincerity and truth at one time. What happened I've never asked because our life doesn't really revolve around any person, but around JESUS? We feel sad at heart if any LOSE out because it's eternal life that is our goal, and we are eager to reach that Goal and help others to reach it too. Even though David knew all the "ins and outs" of Saul, he NEVER once tried to expose him---even if we knew all about others (which I don't and never likely want to) I don't think it would be KIND to keep talking. Of course the soul (William) died in 1946? You mentioned he is gone and the Judge of all the earth will do right by all, but I am sure your faith isn't built on the RIGHTS and WRONGS of men, but the SIMPLE truth in JESUS. We heard at convention about FAITH--God's word--God said it, we believe it and that SETTLES it--gives us a wonderful peace. We rest our hope on what God has said--What God pointed us to. This settles it once and for all and it brings a great peace. We feel so privileged to know and see what has been REVEALED to us and this REVELATION is a ROCK to us that the VERY GATES of HELL Cannot Prevail against. Keep your faith strong in the MAN Christ Jesus. Tests will come but we must hold fast to what we have attained."

Here is a new twist on the evasion technique - ignorance and apathy. In other words, simply saying that "I don't know and I don't care", with the final flourishing touch of the subtle implication that if the inquirer is truly "disturbed" by this possibility, then their faith may not be strong enough.

9) In 1996, worker Karen T. is quoted as saying, "William Irvine Did Not start this Church, it is from beginning, and the Way was just made evidence to him, then."

Despite the sheer VOLUME of evidence to the contrary, some workers continue to insist on this belief. This sounds like something that the Iraqi Minister of Information Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf would say, like "The American soldiers have NOT captured Saddam's Airport. They have been slaughtered like the infidel dogs that they are..."

10) In a letter written in 1984, worker Dan H is quoted as saying: "Then we are sometimes asked, "Why don't you speak of older ministers of the faith of Jesus in past generations?" God's answer to this question is found in II Cor. 4:5 "For we preach Not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake." So, it is NOT the will of God for US to be preaching about ministers of past generations. We PREACH CHRIST."

This worker deftly avoids the issue by feigning humility, i.e., "we're not here to talk about ourselves, we preach Christ". The question was not whether the workers "preach themselves", but rather the origins of the group. After all, even as early as in the New Testament there were problems with false teachings by people who presented themselves as true ministers of Christ, where Paul had to warn the Galatians "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:6-9).

Paul also told the Ephesians "that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and from, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4:13-14) In other words, there is a distinct difference between self-glorification and actually identifying the true mandate by which someone preaches the gospel, but this worker tried to confuse the issue by equating the two.

11) In November 21, 1989 worker Dan H.'s letter is quoted as saying: "However, regardless of a written record being preserved, TRUTH is TRUTH. If nobody believes it and or ... if everybody believes it. Whether or not a thing is believed in has nothing to do with its correctness. To use parable illustration, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. That is an established fact of existence. Whether or not people believe the sun rises in the East and sets in the West...in no way changes that established fact of reality...Everybody could believe the sun rises in the West and sets in the East, but this would not make it true. For anyone to say that what the Bible teaches was started at some certain year since the first century is pitiful IGNORANCE, and closing the eyes to established facts and truths. The teachings of the New Testament were started in the first century when God's dear Son was here on the earth. That is those truths were established in a group of believers then. But that is NOT where it started. What God gave through his son was planned before the world began. Matt. 15: 34-35; John 17:24; Acts 3: 20-21; Rom 16: 25-26; I Cor. 2:7; Eph 1:4-5; Titus 1: 2; I Peter 1:18-21"

It is refreshing to see this worker admit that there is absolutely no written record of the Truth Fellowship "from the beginning", but then he obfuscates the issue with a bizarre analogy on the sun rising and setting, which fails miserably. At least in this analogy the fact that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West are verifiable, whereas to extend the analogy to the Truth Fellowship, this worker is essentially saying "The sun rises in the West, and you're just going to have to take my word for it..."

And speaking of "pitiful ignorance", the question of where the "New Testament" came from in the first place has apparently never occurred to him, because it did not come from the Friends & Workers.

12) In the same letter, Dan H. writes, "These truths make very clear that what God... The Son of God... and the Holy Spirit believe in, and what God's true ministers and Christians believed in, was planned in the heart and mind of God before the world began, and we BELIEVE the same TODAY. So, it is 100% FALSE for anyone to say that WHAT we Believe was started in some recent year."

This is another pointless remark. The issue at hand was not whether what they believe is from the beginning, but rather whether the Friends & Workers' Fellowship has existed "from the beginning", which still has not been proven.

13) On November 16, 1983, worker Tharold Sylvester is quoted as saying, "We are NOT following some way FOUNDED in the early 1900s, but it goes back to Christ. Jesus Himself set it up. Whether it was planted in the 1st Century, the 10th century or the 2Oth century, the message is the same, it produces the same thing."

This worker provides only empty words. Scripture, on the other hand, demands proof of a visible church: "And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of montains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go, and say: Come and let us go up the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall come forth from Zion and the word of the Lord form Jerusalam." (Is 2:2,3)

14) On August 16, 1979, worker Harry B. is quoted as saying "We are simply a CONTINUATION of the Author of Truth."

Again, saying it does not make it true. The question asked of these workers is for them to actually prove their continuation. Instead of just saying it, they should be able to go back in history and provide evidence that the Truth Fellowship existed "from the beginning". They can't, so they don't.

15) On January 1, 1984 in Burlington, WA, worker Dan H. is quoted as saying, "We are often asked who started this Church?" Heb. 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith." Jesus gave us God's eternal plan of Salvation in its fullness. He is both the Author and Finisher. The WAY is like a seed, like the wheat seed. It was CREATED at the beginning of the world."

Do they all memorize Hebrews 12:2 as part of this common non-answer? This worker is simply digging a deeper hole for himself, because if the Friends/Workers' Fellowship was "created at the beginning of the world", then he now must establish their presence before Abraham, Moses, the patriarchs and prophets, all the way to the present.

16) On June 4, 1995, worker Eldon K is quoted as saying, "Look at it like this. I have NO idea who my great-great-grandfather was, but I know that he had to exist, because here I am today. We know how life begets life and it is the same spiritually. I do not believe in some form of Apostolic succession that would be like the Catholic Church. People might build their faith on that, but I would like to believe that the friends, and ministry did come down through history that way."

I "would like to believe" that I will win the 35 million dollar lottery, but it's probably not going to happen. Besides, it seems like this worker contradicts himself - on one hand he seems to be saying that only the Catholic Church believes in apostolic succession, but then on the other hand he says that he "would like to believe" that the Friends/Workers' Fellowship DID come down through history in the same way. The problem is that the historic church looks a lot more like the Catholic Church than it does theirs.

17) On September 22, 1996, worker Ken Pagington is quoted as saying, "Often we are asked who started our fellowship, our doctrine, ministry? We are NOT interested in tracing personalities. Some say this was started with Jesus, but it began with God the Father, He gave Jesus the Gospel, the Doctrine. As Thou has SENT Me so have I SENT them--the SAME WAY--God STARTED it all, its the foundation on which we stand."

First the anti-Trinitarian tendencies of this worker should be noted. Jesus is co-eternal with God the Father; in other words, it is not as if God the Father came first, and then Jesus was "born" later. In Revelation 22:13 Jesus says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." and John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (see also Col 1:17-19, Jn 8:58, Rev 1:17-18)

It's not about "tracing personalities", either. It is about this group's claim that they are descended "from the beginning". If they say such things, they should be able to prove it, but they cannot which is why they change the subject or ignore the issue completely. For the Hebrews it was very important to know their history in which they could identify themselves by seeing the continuity of their legacy (cf. Genesis 11). This was one way of verifying God's faithfulness to them. So, since the writer of Matthew's (Mt 1:1-17) Gospel felt it necessary to provide the geneology of our Lord ("tracing personalities", if you will), then any group who claims descent from Jesus has the burden of proof upon them.

18) Worker Cheryl L. is quoted as saying, "Don't you believe that something so PRECIOUS to God could be Preserved and PASSED through his Beloved mouthpieces over any age and time? God's way is ETERNAL!"

OF course it is - this was never an issue. The question remains whether the Truth Fellowship, specifically, was "preserved and passed" over time.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that we know that what we believe is true, as Peter warned against the danger of false prophets among the people, "even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition" (2 Peter 2:2). It is just as essential to know whether what we believe is of apostolic origin, as Paul told Timothy to "keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. "(1 Tim 6:20). Indeed, "if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. "(Mt 15:14)

This is why John exhorted Christians to remain in the faith passed down: "Whoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you." (2 Jn 1:9-10)

The root of the problem for workers is that similarity does not imply descent. Skeptics who have employed this same kind of skewed logic have looked at some similarities between non-Christian groups and assumed that Christianity was actually derived from it, when this is not true. You cannot take vague resemblances such as belief in God and Jesus and Scripture as proof of apostolic origin. "They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us." (1 Jn 2:19)

On many occasions Nate hypocritically rejects Catholic historical sources (solely because they're Catholic) while at the same time quoting extremely biased anti-Catholic secondary sources when it suits his purposes. Now, Nate contradicts himself even further by quoting workers' testimonies, as if that is supposed to prove something. Do you think most workers would actually say, "Yes, I admit that the Truth Fellowship began with William Irvine and therefore is not from the beginning, nor does it most closely resemble the New Testament church."? Of course not. Hans Christian Anderson wrote a fable centuries ago entitled The Emperor's New Clothes in which two scoundrels told the king that "We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality."

Everyone, including the king, bought into the lie. As a result, everyone told the king how wonderful his new clothes were, even though he was actually naked. This is why asking workers to "prove" apostolic origins is like asking the king's people to comment on his "new" clothes - if you've bought in to a lie, you're not likely to be honest with your evaluation. It wasn't until a child recognized that the king was naked that everyone else felt more comfortable with their own perceptions:

A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage. "The Emperor is naked," he said.

Fact and fable mingle further as the similarity continues, "The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle...."

|back|