Does Cornelius Jaenen prove the apostolic origins of the 2×2 Fellowship?

SHORT ANSWER: No.

LONG ANSWER: Still no, see below.

In his attempt to prove the 2×2 Fellowship’s preeminent place among primitive Restorationist movements, Cornelius Jaenen published his work in 2003 seeking to prove that the 2×2s most closely resemble the church of the first century and represent at least some semblance of an unbroken line of succession from the first Twelve Apostles to the present day by listing various groups in history who shared beliefs in common with them.

Restorationism is the belief that Christianity should be restored to the form and practices of the early Christian church described in the New Testament. Restorationists argue that over time, mainstream Christianity developed traditions that departed from original apostolic Christianity, and that believers should return to the “primitive” church, which to them is more pure and authentic. Restorationism differs from the Protestant Reformation because Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin initially sought to reform the existing Catholic Church, while Restorationists aim to restore what they view as the original New Testament church from the ground up. Key characteristics of Restorationism include emphasis on the Bible alone as the authority for faith and practice, rejection of certain “later” church traditions and denominational structures, and the desire to recreate early Christian worship and organization.

Jaenen discusses several groups in history that shared in common certain surface similarities with the 2×2 Fellowship and eventually turns his attention to the 2×2 Fellowship in the last decade of the 19th Century in Ireland, beginning in Nanagh in county Tipperary. He describes them, “sometimes condescendingly referred to as the Two-by-Twos” (518), as a group:

“espousing the ideals of apostolic preaching and evangelical poverty, participatory worship in the homes of the laity, and observance of the ordinances of immersion baptism and frequent communion, [they] did not fit into the sociological models of sect, cult or denomination.” (518)

In his 542-page tome, Jaenen provides a superficial survey of the various groups over the centuries that emerged, including the relatively more recent 19th Century Stone-Campbell Movement in the United States, ending with the Scottish and Irish Restorationist Movements. Beginning around the 1860’s Ireland underwent a religious upheaval “especially among its Protestant population” (517). Many Methodists and Presbyterians “tended to distrust the religious establishment, to avoid an intellectual approach to religion, and to discipline themselves rigorously.” (517) They began holding meetings not only in independent homes but also meeting halls and chapels. They were influenced by Kellyism, Walkerism and Irvingism.

Jaenen says that by 1884 Edward Cooney, originally an Anglican in the Church of Ireland, had begun holding private meetings for fellowship. He was joined by John West and Tom Betty in preaching publicly. Eventually they stopped attending their denominational church and opted for holding Sunday afternoon meetings in Enniskillen. The Irish Evangelization Society provided them with “spacious wooden halls” for their gospel meetings. The astute reader will note the irony that, for a group that emphasizes home worship, such idealism gave way the practical solutions of utilizing “buildings made by the hands of men” in the form of public meeting halls. It should also be noted that the Irish Evangelical Society was, as Wikipedia puts it, “formed outside the established Church of Ireland”. They serve as yet another example of the recurring divisions characteristic of post-Reformation Protestantism resulting in further church proliferation, where competing interpretations frequently give rise to separatist organizations, as Jaenan says in a remarkable understatement, “Restorationist groups, like the mainstream denominations, have not understood the primitive model in the same manner” (540). Consistent with this tradition of fragmentation, for example, he admits that the aforementioned Campbellite movement “mutated from a restoration movement to a Protestant sect and an American civil denomination.” (504)

The Faith Mission was organized in 1886 by John George Govan. According to their mission statement they professed complete dependence on God for finding people to go preach as well as providing for all of their needs. As a result they did not ask for money from anyone. They accepted both men and women as preachers in an itinerant ministry who were sent into a “field of work” organized into districts under the direction of superintendents who organized meetings, schedules, etc. They stated that “the Bible is our only text-book”, and they claimed to reject sectarianism: “We do not wish in any way to interfere with denominational preferences and distinctions, but leave those who get help through our missions to attach themselves to whatever church, chapel or meeting-house they choose”. Instead of duplicating work I will stand unapologetically on the shoulders of Cherie Kropp’s work at her Telling the Truth web site which is the world’s definitive source for details about the individuals involved.

When the Faith Mission expanded from Scotland to Ireland, a certain individual named William Irvine was installed as the superintendent of the southern counties in 1896.

True to the form, fragmentation occurred when many members of the Faith Mission eventually “became disillusioned” (521) with the ministry. They stopped directing converts to various established churches, and in 1897 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Todd formed their own group as the Irish Christian Workers Union. It is noted that still “they retained the use of portable mission halls” (521).

Conditions continued to unravel further as, as Jaenen acknowledges, two of the early 2×2 Workers (Edward Cooney and William Irvine) created a “limited personality cult” (530). He denies that Irvine is the founder of the 2×2s and says this is a claim that was “never admitted generally by the community” (530) and states that such a claim was “resurrected almost a century later by detractors of the movement who sought to associate it with one particular individual” (530). No doubt he was motivated to distance their movement from these two, since Irvine eventually was expelled from ministry for “moral laxity” (530). William Irvine later developed bizarre millennialist theology, believing that he was one of the Two Witnesses of the Apocalypse and that the world would end in 1914. He moved to Jerusalem where he died of throat cancer in 1947, spending his remaining days cultivating his Omega Message and writing letters criticizing the Overseers who banished him. In 1928 Edward Cooney was also expelled for his “dramatic independent evangelistic approach and unwillingness to restrict his activities to a defined region like his co-workers.” (530)

Jaenen says his book is only a documentary history and insists that it is “not a theological study of the evolution of Christian doctrine and praxis…there is absolutely no pretention to engage in the scholarly debates of the Jesus Seminar, the papal encyclicals or biblical exegesis” (33). By intentionally avoiding any substantive engagement with doctrinal development and theological disputes throughout Christian history, he weakens his case for the doctrinal heritage of the 2×2 Fellowship. His analysis relies heavily upon surface-level similarities such as organizational structure and the itinerant ministry while giving little attention to the doctrinal questions that historically defined Christian identity and separated orthodox belief from heresy. As a result, similarities that may appear compelling on the surface become far less persuasive when examined within the broader context of historical Christianity. The necessity of limiting the scope of your subject matter is understandable, especially if you’re going to be surveying the last 2,000 years of Christian history. Nonetheless, given the centrality of his claim, a more comprehensive interaction with New Testament sources was in order.

Furthermore, although he decries organizational structure in churches, he admits that as the 2×2 Fellowship grew and expanded geographically they formed a “primitive hierarchy” (528). Apparently, ecclesial hierarchy is objectionable only when other churches do it. He must have been aware of this interpretive double standard because he tries to downplay this 2×2 hierarchy as “primitive”. He spent over 500 pages minimizing doctrinal distinctions when assessing continuity between groups and treating superficial similarities as historically decisive, but gives every benefit of the doubt to the 2×2 Fellowship when it suits his narrative.

Jaenen did not succeed in proving a first century pedigree for the 2×2 Fellowship. He was only able to establish a robustly facile measure of “restorationist character” commonly found in historical groups forming a “chain of witnesses”. Unfortunately for his thesis, in “rejecting all denominational characteristics” the 2×2 Fellowship also minimized most of what was important about God’s relationship to creation by overemphasizing home worship and an itinerant ministry. Their disproportionate attention to primitive outward forms reduced the Christian faith to mere organizational distinctives while overlooking the deeper theological truths that are far more consequential. Their rejection of a formal creed became, in essence, its own creed.

In his concluding remarks Jaenen admits that the concept of a church remnant preserved throughout Christian “remains problematical” (538):“

In our efforts to trace the continuity of primitive Christian ideals over the centuries, no unbroken successions or continuous activities of a particular identifiable group have been documented.” (535)

This inconvenient truth almost certainly left him with the only solution being to emphasize how such remnant groups felt about themselves, “what mattered was that they considered themselves to be a continuation in their day of the apostolic faith and tradition” (535) and “it mattered little to them whether they were part of a chain of faith, a survival of truth, a succession of believers, or a restored church” (540) and “….whether the Spirit of God had restored the true faith after a lapse in its manifestation, or whether the Spirit had rekindled some smouldering embers of a small obscure remnant mattered little” (540). By confusing his personal conviction with actual historical verification, it does not seem to occur to Jaenen that one can believe something sincerely, but still be sincerely wrong. He added,

“We have been unable to establish from the documentary sources accessible to us a continuous, unbroken chain of either conventicles or poor itinerant preachers from the early centuries to the present.” (538)

Ultimately, Jaenen succeeds only in demonstrating that many Christians throughout history have been motivated by a sincere desire to draw closer to God, an impulse that is both understandable and commendable. Many were troubled by genuine confusion within the Christian landscape and were reacting, at least in some cases, to real instances of clerical corruption and institutional failure. Yet rather than pursuing reform within the historic Christian tradition, these movements often chose separation, guided, in Jaenen’s own words, by little more than “a vague sense of a remnant” (536). In the end, their reaction to predictable human corruption was doctrinal corruption - adorned in misappropriated scriptural platitudes.

What remains unexplained, however, is why such a “vague sense” should be regarded as a reliable guide to doctrinal truth. Throughout the book, Jaenen never provides a coherent rationale for elevating subjective conviction to the same status of historical or theological evidence. It never seems to occur to him that you can believe something sincerely, and still be sincerely wrong.

In the end, the book appears to substitute opinion for demonstration. The response to human corruption within the Church was not merely reform, but the creation of new doctrinal frameworks often justified through arbitrary appeals to Scripture. Moreover, the assertion that the 2×2 Fellowship uniquely represents authentic Christianity because it was “led by the Holy Spirit” raises an obvious question that the study leaves unanswered: if spiritual guidance is the criterion of legitimacy, on what basis are similar claims made by countless other Christian communities to be rejected?

Jaenan, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003. ISBN 1-894508-48-3

Govan, J.G. The Faith mission: its aims, principles and methods. Govan House. 1927, pp.1-8