Watch Tower History

Comments welcome, desired. This won't stay up long. If you miss it, you miss it.

Outside Pressure and Identity

Sociologists tell us that to endure, groups must be cohesive. The basis for cohesion is a clear set of values and goals. Some sociologists see this as a revelation from the late 19th Century. It is, in fact, a common observation repeated through centuries of human history. An example is Benjamin Franklin’s ‘We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.’ Probably apocryphal, this aphorism reflects this. To endure, a group opposing the dominant order must clearly define their values and beliefs. There must be a shared understanding and a clearly stated record of beliefs. This created a shared identity.

Lewis Coser wrote that conflict with those out of the group tends to create unity.^{^[1]}He suggested that external conflict tends to unite a group. Fredrick Bushee wrote that opposition ‘promotes ... unity within opposing groups. ... Just as an individual must concentrate his attention and energies in combat, so a group must centralize and organize all its resources for a conflict. ... In a normal group minor differences disappear in the face of danger from without.’^{^[2]} Georg Simmel suggested that opposition promotes unity within opposing groups. Minor differences disappear ‘in the face of danger from without.’

Sociology, for all its many faults, presents here an easily observable ‘truth.’ Most of those who have written about Watch Tower faith, especially those writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses, fail to consider the effect of constant opposition on group mentality. The motives behind anti-Russell opposition were the same as those behind the Catholic Inquisition, though in most cases laws restrained violence. (Most cases of violence occurred after Russell’s death.) Nevertheless, Russellism was, from clergy viewpoint, dangerous and should be destroyed.

There is an ages-long history of inter-religious strife. In the American Republic the newly inaugurated Federal Constitution’s first amendment (December 15, 1791) said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This was a direct response to aggravated religious difference in the American States. Prospects of becoming the state religion thus dissipated, denominations continued warring, using pen and influence as their weapons. Thomas Jefferson, third American president, saw religious conflict as a danger to the republic, especially condemning Presbyterian grasping for power and stubborn refusal to reason. He believed that denominational strife stifled intellectual enquiry. Jefferson held up Unitarians as contrasting with Presbyterian stiffness:

In Boston, however, and its neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch, that they condescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities of preaching freely and frequently in each others’ meeting-houses. In Rhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an Unitarian to pollute his desk. In Boston, however, and its neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch, that they condescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities of preaching freely and frequently in each others’ meeting-houses. In Rhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an Unitarian to pollute his desk.[3]

Clergy and lay writers saw souls at risk, but they also feared loss of authority and power. Typically, they rejected the idea that Watch Tower faith was the one true religion: “To them ... there is but one true religion which is correct in every point. With one sweeping gesture all other religions ... are swept aside and branded as being false and of the devil.” Osul T. Haarland, a Lutheran Clergyman and the author of those words, branded the claim as “preposterous” and Russellism as “vile and nefarious,” as not a Christian religion. Haarland saw Watch Tower faith as the greatest danger to traditional churches:

It is not only the fact that Russellite literature is everywhere ..., but when people are willing to make, even a mild defense of this false religion and to intimate that there may be some good in it if properly understood, then the leaven is there. And if this ‘leaven’ is not destroyed it will, without doubt, bring serious results. The testimony of pastors from various parts of the U.S. and Canada also indicates that Russellism at present time is a real menace. In answer to the question, ‘What is the greatest local hindrance in your work ...?’ a large majority have answered ‘Sectarianism’ and especially designated Russellism as the worst.^{^[4]}

The point of this historical retrospective is that conflict between Watch Tower faith and their opposers is not unique. It’s a continuation of inter-religion tension, which is a polite way of saying they hated each other to one degree or other. As we examine the opposition to “Russellism” we find ad hominem, slanderous statements, hatred. This is not at all a new thing. Newspapers and tracts through the 19^th Century are filled with similar. The Congregationalist, a Boston paper, described a non-existent Unitarian mob, on the false report of clergy.[5] It was materially no different from the exaggerated claims of anti-Russell writers who felt their existence challenged.

Opposition to Watch Tower Faith

In Volume Three of Millennial Dawn, Russell speculated about clergy reaction to the persistent and successful propagation of the Watch Tower message:

It will probably be in an effort at self-preservation on the part of 'Great Babylon' – ‘Christendom’ – when she sees her power in politics, priestcraft and superstition waning, that the work of truth-spreading will be stopped as detrimental to her system. And probably at this Juncture the Elijah class, persisting in declaring the Truth to the last, will suffer violence, pass into glory and escape from the severest features of the great Time of Trouble coming – just in the crisis of affairs when men begin to feel that desperate measures must be resorted to, to sustain the tottering structure of Christendom.[6]

A tract published in 1903 warned: “Agents are going around the country selling their books, and you may have one at your door any day. I would beg of you my dear reader, to have nothing whatever to do with these evil teachings for they are ruinous to the soul, being a vile attack of Satan to rob us of the true Christ of God.”^{^[7]}

While there is no solid way to measure the degree of success produced by opposition sermons, newspaper articles, and pamphlets, it seems quite low. Most opposition material reassured readers that they had truth and that Russellism was false. However, it did almost nothing to stop those with unanswered questions or who rejected behaviors manifested in their denominations. Factors leading to interest in the Watch Tower message were clergy negligence and clergy malfeasance. Clergy and lay leadership dismissed difficult questions. Often enough opposition writers saw honest questioners as led by the ‘desires of the flesh.’

With the passage of time clergy opponents felt increasing urgency, overestimating the growth of Russellism. Opposition became more strident. Extremist views colored a meeting of the Newfound Baptist Association meeting held at Spring Creek, North Carolina. The April 5, 1912, Marshal, North Carolina, Record-News reported that Thomas L. Plemmons, secretary of the Sunday School association and a justice of the peace, and Robert Cogdill, a local clergyman, “denounced” Russellism. Cogdill, “declared that Russellism should be eradicated, and never again permitted to poison the christian [sic] atmosphere of our fair land.” Some appealed to the police to remove adherents of “this vile and nefarious religion.”^{^[8]}

Motivation

As I noted above, the first and initially most important motive behind outside opposition was concern for the souls of those who may be ‘deceived’ by Watch Tower belief. The majority of religious opposition believed in a fiery, eternal torment. So there was some genuine concern for others. Some clergy doubted, even quietly rejected, hell-fire doctrine, but saw the teaching as essential to regulating conduct. Anti-Watch Tower polemicists feared the loss of contributions and respect for traditional clergy. As discussed in volume two of this work, clergy polemicists tended to reject responsibility. If there was a fault, it rested with congregants, not with clergy. Russell’s prophetic scheme significantly differed from what most clergy taught, and this became a focal point.

Drawing from material published by Charles C. Cook, a polemicist too cowardly to use his real name but writing as ‘Observer’ also blamed congregants. Writing for the Herald of Gospel Liberty, he claimed that Russellism appealed to those lacking spirituality, to the fleshly inclined, sinning:

Give the average man a guarantee that there is no hell, and you will tickle him in the right place. [a reference to the Greek text of 2 Timothy 4:3] Tell him that the heathen are not lost, and it meets his heartiest approval. Show him that the worst, the very wicked (Russell’s few incorrigibles, for it seems that even he is not equal to saving ALL sinners) need expect is non- existence after death, and he is ‘with you.’ He will wax eloquent in expatiating upon and in defending such an easy-going, ‘commonsense,’ satisfying religion, and will subscribe handsomely and voluntarily for its promulgation. We have observed Russellism for a long time and have never yet known an unregenerate person who looked into it but who liked it. It is a religion made strictly for the fleshly man, and is a perfect fit.^{^[9]} Brackets are mine.

This was a gross misrepresentation. Letters to Russell were overwhelmingly from people of faith but who had unaddressed questions on doctrine. I’ve quoted some of them in Separate Identity, volume two, and readers can review them there. And, of course, an examination of the Russell-era Watch Tower will reveal more. Observer’s intent was to discourage interest by defining questioners and seekers as ‘unregenerate.’

James Martin Gray (May 11, 1851 – September 21, 1935), president of Moody Bible Institute, wrote:

(Watch Tower) literature is exceedingly deceptive in that it seems to be disposed of solely for the public good, and contains so much that has the sound and appearance of Bible truth. For this reason it affects the same classes in the Church that are led astray by Christian Science – the spiritually-minded, as we say – but not the Scripturally intelligent. They crave better things than they are getting, but apparently know not where to find them. Such heresy only germinates in rich soil.^{^[10]}

Gray off-handedly acknowledged that those persuaded by non-traditional religions sought something better than what they received from the pulpit or in a revival tent. But he placed responsibility on those leaving traditional churches. But one can ask, if they were given what was ‘not food,’ whose responsibility was that?

George Patrick Eckman, a prolific author of religious material and editor of the Christian Advocate of New York, wrote similarly:

Many ministers must have overestimated the average intelligence of their hearers, or the notorious ‘Pastor’ Russell could never have succeeded in acquiring the vogue which seems to attend his ridiculous performances. Preachers have assumed that the members of their congregations were better qualified to separate foolishness from truth than the facts appear to justify. ... They are babes who drink in the absurdities of this man Russell,, who is unblushingly printing his gross perversions of truth in so many newspapers.^{^[11]}

As did many, probably most, clergy, Eckman saw his church under siege. A fellow Methodist suggested that ‘Russellism’ drew most heavily from Methodism. [ft note here] Another common theme in opposition material is loss of power and respect. Eckman wrote:

Pastor Russell and his satellites make no attempt to conceal their hostility to the churches and their ministers. Their assault is invariably not upon the sinful world, but upon the organized religious bodies which are striving to redeem the earth from wickedness. They try to discount foreign missions and every other influential movement of Christianity. They substitute for the genuine gospel of Christ a set of absurd doctrines which would make no appeal to intelligent readers of the Bible, if they did not minister to human selfishness and wink at man’s sin.^{^[12]}

This is, of course, a significant misrepresentation. It’s the cry of a clergyman faced with an overwhelmingly difficult problem. Watch Tower adherents found much in the traditional churches worthy of complaint and exposé, but identical complaints were made by clergy and prominent laymen. And while clergy saw their congregations as their special possession, Watch Tower adherents believed that among them were true but misled Christians who desperately needed the truth. Exposing foreign missions as ineffective was a feature of the Watch Tower message. To clergy, that was similar to killing a sacred cow. Missions were failing. The Christian press and missionaries told the same story, though they sought reform where Watch Tower adherents believed a change in doctrine was needed.

In 1906 Albert Simpson, founder to the Christian and Missionary Alliance, classed Russellism with Dowieism, Christian Science and other sects. He was disturbed by “its extraordinary growth,” saying that it “makes one blush ... for the shallow and easy dupes” who adopt it. He called Watch Tower evangelist (and others) “cunning apostles of these delusions.” He claimed they were shamelessly egotistic, and he bemoaned “their vainglorious advertising, their evident designs upon all the available graft of their victims.”[13]

Alexander W. Bealer, a Baptist clergyman, wrestled with Russellism, seeing it as a danger to his church. Contradictorily, he claimed that spiritually minded were not in danger, writing:

Russellism would disband every church, recall every missionary, close every Christian school, break down every institution that works for the betterment of mankind. This is exactly the plan that appeals to the most depraved and the most unenlightened people in every community.

Russellism says that God has turned his back upon the so-called churches, but fails to account for the wonderful work of grace that is going on in many communities. He fails to account for the thousands who are forsaking sin at the call of Christ through the churches, and are devoting their lives to the worship and service of God.[14]

Rarely, opposition writers blamed clergy for failing to teach sound doctrine. C. C. Cook, a Protestant minister serving various denominations, blamed a “larger measure” of Russell’s success on “the unfaithfulness of the church and the pulpit,” pointing to failure to “devote attention to the prophetic element of Scripture.” Clergy avoided the topic making inevitable “that when a silver-tongued expositor appears with his charts and forecasts” hearers “yield first, attention, then assent, and finally allegiance.”[15]

We should ask how accurate were Watch Tower comments on Christendom’s state? The brief answer is, ‘very.’ One of the things that attracted new adherents to Watch Tower belief was its insistence on holy conduct. Though there were those who fell short, on the whole Watch Tower adherents took righteous conduct seriously. This was in stark contrast to clergy behavior in the period. The following is from a table of reported clergy misconduct from 1877 to about 1910.^{^[16]}

Abduction 22; Abortion and attempts to procure 19; Abusive language 22; Adultery 676; Alienation of affections 17; Arson 62; Assault with intent to murder 61; Assault with intent to rape 50; Assault with intent to do great harm 26; Assault and battery 66; Attempted suicide 15; Bastardy 77; Bigamy, attempted and accomplished 144; Breach of promise to marry 27; Burglary 17; Cheating, swindling, grafting, malversation, misappropriation, etc. 288; ‘Conduct unbecoming a minister of the gospel’ 44; Conspiracy 11; Contempt of court 13; Counterfeiting 16; Cruelty to wife or children 130/35; Debauchery 52; Desertion or non-support of wife or children 207; Disorderly conduct 44; Divorced or sued 56; Drunkenness 202; Elopement, attempted or accomplished 163; Embezzlement, fraud, defalcation, etc 162; Enticing women and young girls 15; False impersonation 13; Fighting 51; Forgery 123; ‘Fornication’ 14; Gambling 19; Grave robbery 1; Gross immorality 40; Horse stealing 19; Illicit distilling 12; Illicit liquor selling 15; Immoralities with women and girls, miscellaneous and variously described 223; Larceny 181; Libel 50; Lying and deceit 138; Malicious destruction of property and malicious mischief 22; Manslaughter 14; Murder generally 119; Murder of child 12; Murder of wife 27; Obscene language 16; Obscene print, circulation of 14; Obtaining money or property under false pretenses 65; Perjury or subornation of 12; Plagiarism or literary piracy 14; Praying for death of neighbor, who died 1; Profanity 11; Quarreling 19; Rape in general 43; Rape of girls under age of consent or puberty 76; Seduction in general 273; Seduction of girls under fifteen 28; Slander 109; Sodomy or unnatural crime 67; Stealing religious funds or property 23; Suicide 117; Threatening life 16; Violation of postal laws 17; White slavery and pandering 15; Wife or woman beating 57.

Methodists led this list with 728 reported. Baptists followed with 492 incidents; Catholics with 325 incidents of clerical misconduct; then Presbyterians with 187, and Episcopalians with 164. In the same period only two Millennial Dawn believers were reported.

Envying the large expenditure behind Watch Tower evangelism Charles Cook, asked: ‘How does ‘Pastor Russell’ win the crowd and get the money? He is literally drawing the crowd and he is also getting the money in vast sums, for his advertising schemes are world wide, and entail expenditures that stagger the minds of those who know the cost of such efforts.”^{^[17]} Drunk with faked charges against Russell and the Watch Tower Society, Melancthon Tope, publisher and editor of The Phrenological Era, filled his magazine with ad hominem directed at Russell and secondarily at the Watch Tower, writing:

The Watchtower concern is equally censurable, for in promulgating such perverted notions they mislead many young and innocent persons to waste their energies and hopes and homes on fabrications that will dump them into disappointment and ruin. We oppose ‘Millennial Dawnism’ because it is our duty, as it is of every other knowing person, to warn the unsophisticated and draw attention to its rottenness and slippery pitfalls. We could not be true to our conscience and fellow –men, did we not do so. And the earth should not keep silent over this one of the greatest crimes of the century.^{^[18]}

Tope’s journal promoted pseudo-science, making his many anti-Russell rants something like ‘the pot calling the kettle black.’ At its peak it had a circulation of about three hundred copies a month. So, any damage done was minimal, and as with most small – circulation papers and pamphlets, appealed if at all to the traditionally churched. Tope suggests this, recounting an encounter with an English-speaking German colporteur who entered his office selling Studies in the Scriptures:

We laughingly asked him why he was such a fool to let a scamp like Russell lead him around by the nose. Then our conversation lasted over an hour. In it we found him to be a sincere, well-meaning, but far too earnest a man. He was polite, but not properly posted. He told us he had ‘sold his farm to go into this thing.’ Believed the Millennium would start in October, 1914, when there would come trouble on the earth such as never was before. Of course, our arguments differed. And when he left we pitied the poor man, – and yet we could not help but feel glad that he enjoyed his delusion.^{^[19]}

Before the publication of Food for Thinking Christians (1881) opposition was sporadic. The biographical note found in later editions of Studies in the Scripture commented on the reception of Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return: ‘Many students of the Bible throughout the United and Canada responded to the information derived from that book and his correspondence became voluminous.’^{^[20]}This is true on its face, but obviously not all responses were positive.

Russell paid to have the small booklet sent as a supplement to Prophetic Times and to The Restitution. This prompted diverse reactions. The editor of The Ocean Grove, New Jersey, Record was positive:

Rev. J. G. Wilson, editor of the Prophetic Times, issues as a supplement with his January and February numbers a tractate on the ‘Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return.’ It is written by C. T. Russell, Pittsburgh, Pa., and brings prominently to view all the Scripture passages which relate to the subject in He intimates the probability that the Master is now come, and the process of separation is invisibly going on. Even those who honestly differ with Mr. Russell cannot help commending the zeal with which he urges Christians to watchfulness, faith and holiness. [missing footnote]

Others were not as kind. John Ball Cook, a Baptist clergyman turned Millerite Adventist, adopted Age-to-Come views by early 1850.[21] That year Cook moved to Rochester, New York. We lack details, but an article appearing in the June 26, 1878, Restitution tells us that he met Barbour. The association was unhappy. Cook responded to a gift of Object and Manner and Herald of the Morning. Titled as a review of Russell’s booklet, it was focused on Barbour. Cook rejected Barbour’s time-setting. He saw Barbour as a want-to-be prophet who pushed his speculations though they lacked merit. He saw Barbourite claims that the Resurrection had begun. If, as a Bible verse suggested it was to be in the twinkling of an eye, then the Barbourites had been left out of it. “The entire view is but as a phantom of an excited brain,” Cook wrote. Barbour lacked “a sane mind.”

Where was Russell in all of this? Cook noted that Russell financed Barbour’s propaganda. At the end of the article, Cook wrote: “It is in deep sorrow for them that I write. Brother R. is spending his money for that which is not bread, and the brethren are scattered by ‘uncertain’ sounds.’” His last reference was to 1 Corinthians 4:8, which reads according to the Geneva Bible: “And also if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?” It is interesting, though we’re left with uncertainty as to why, that he quoted from the Geneva Bible rather than the King James. The former reference is to Isaiah 55:2, which reads: “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.”

If Russell directly replied to Cook, there is no record of it, but in an article entitled ‘The Prospect’ he wrote generally, addressing not overt opposition but adherents. He noted that while they were not ‘translated’ as expected part of their expectations proved true. Writing of the severe financial ‘trouble’ of the 1870s, he said:

Just at the right time, 1873, the present financial trouble had a beginning. It began small, but has ever since been increasing and spreading, until now the entire civilized world is affected by it. The world laughed at out predictions, and assured us that six months would see matters all right again; but we are nearly five years into it now, and the cloud is still darker. ‘Men’s hearts begin to fail them for fear, and for looking after those things coming upon the world.’^{^[22]}

Barbour addressed complaints such as those raised by Cook. Only mentioning Joseph Seiss by name, he expanded his comments to include all who attacked their beliefs. His article, appearing in the July 1878 Herald of the Morning, was entitled ‘Are We Right?’ He expressed determination to continue, saying they were teaching advanced truth:

Truth, present truth, is the means ordained of God for the sanctification of the church: and at each great step, in the plan of the ages, the then present truth becomes especially important. And believing that we are now passing through the most glorious change the world has ever witnessed, we feel before God and man, that it is a duty to make these things a specialty in all our teachings. Men may find fault, they may ridicule, or pity; friends may turn against us, as they have at each and every advance along this shining pathway; but none of these things move us. Our face is like a flint and whatever others may do we mean to keep step with advancing light.^{^[23]}

Through the article’s remainder, he rehearsed what he thought proved their beliefs. More pointed than Russell’s article, this was very much an ‘us versus them’ article. As noted in Chapter Two, Barbour saw himself as God’s chosen, an anointed modern-day prophet. Despite accusations that Russell saw himself the same way, he was far less aggressive.

The fragmentation in the Barbourite movement and establishment of Zion’s Watch Tower produced little overt opposition outside the Age-to-Come movement. Some who later publicly opposed Russellism remained silent, hoping it would quietly disappear.

Charles Cyrus Cook, a conservative Christian clergyman, was one of these, confessing:

We have had our eye on Russell for many years, having read his books and known considerable about him from the earlier days of his work. We remember distinctly when many – we among them – hesitated to oppose him for fear of only thus further advertising him and his work, but all such caution is now entirely needless, as this master in the art of advertising has made himself known all over the civilized world.[24]

In the Pittsburgh-Allegheny area Russell was seen as a Millerite Second-Adventist. An interview appearing in August 11, 1879, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette contains Russell’s response. In response to Second Adventist prediction that the word would end that August, a reporter sought out Russell:

A reporter of this journal started out last evening to look up a Millerite or Second Adventist, for the purpose of obtaining more definite information concerning the big conflagration. Among the persons sought out and interviewed was Mr. C. T. Russell, of Cedar avenue, [sic] Allegheny. That gentleman was informed as to the reporter’s mission, when he said:

‘In the first place, I am not a Second Adventist; secondly, I don’t believe the world will be burned to-morrow; and, thirdly, I don’t believe the world will ever be literally burned with fire. My expectation is that the present, or Gospel age, will end much the same as the Patriarchal and the Jewish age. The Jewish age, you know, ended with the death of Christ, when the Gospel age commenced, and this will be succeeded by the millennium, when Christ will reign on earth. The change will not be manifested by any such demonstration as the burning of the earth.’

The reporter drew Russell through a scriptural discussion, none of which is relevant here, though we note that it was fully and fairly reported in his article. Never-the-less, Pittsburgh newspapers continued to refer to Russell as an Adventist. The name was a pejorative, and it remained convenient for those who wished to diminish Watch Tower faith to use it. We discuss Russell’s replies to this in volume two of this work, and we need not to do so again, but we can note that the April 15, 1889, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dispatch described the Memorial Convention as a meeting of Second Adventists.^{^[25]}Internally, adherents who used the chart talk outlines started their meetings by disavowing any form of Millerite Adventism.

Initially, difficulty focused on the divisions noted in pervious chapters. Barbour and Paton were abusive, self-aggrandizing to the point of deception. Barbaour’s stance was open, confined largely to Herald of the Morning. Paton used every technique available to him to belittle Russell:

I have been made the target of innumerable petty misrepresentations too small to notice, and malicious insinuations told in a sly but slanderous manner and circulated in print, which a noble nature would disdain, but which are often successful, as intended, in stirring up bitterness, and injuring the influence of the truth. What do I do about it? I thank the Lord for the privilege of suffering of the reproaches of Christ.^{^[26]}

Russell challenged those whose Ransom/Atonement doctrine he believed were anti-Bible to explain themselves. [Continue; 1884 debate]

For Russell the ultimate answer to Barbour and Paton was an article appearing in the May 1890 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower republished several time through 1916.

Except in Allegheny City and Pittsburgh, between 1879 and September 1882 controversy was primarily internal, but in those cities his message received considerable negative notice. When Charles Russell and Maria Ackley were married the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Commercial noted that Russell had “achieved a local name for his lectures on, and advocacy of Second Adventism. What The Commercial politely failed to mention is that much of the reputation was negative. A special dispatch sent from Pittsburgh to the Chicago, Illinois, Dispatch reported: that Russell’s “preaching caused considerable excitement here at first, and he was warmly attacked by several prominent orthodox ministers, who handled his mongrel creed without gloves.”[27] [add crank preacher comment with footnote to Ross trial] We have little record of this, though it was very probably in response to Russell’s lectures to which all Pittsburgh and Allegheny City clergy were invited. One additional detail comes from the Elkhart, Indiana, Evening Review of April 11, 1879:

A merchant in Allegheny City, Pa., named Russell, is preaching the doctrine that the world will come to an end in 1914, the ‘forty years of trouble’ to precede that event having commenced in 1874. Russell has made 150 converts, some of whom are extravagant in their religious behavior and a great deal of excitement has been caused in that region.

As Russell presented it, Food produced considerable positive reaction: ‘I was flooded with thousands of joyous and joy-giving letters, from those who had received and were reading the pamphlets thus distributed, and were asking questions and more reading matter.’^{^[28]} Yet, in terms of new adherents, the result was small. And the opposition was significant. Russell’s public reply was limited to supporting articles published in Zion’s Watch Tower and small press release clarifying his intent:

‘Food for Thinking Christians,’ a free pamphlet of which 400,000 copies have been distributed to all the principal churches of the large cities and which has excited wide-spread comment, in some cases in New York and Jersey City the distribution being stopped, the ministers fearing it was an infidel work, is a publication by a tract society of Pittsburg, [sic] and is designed to counteract infidel teaching and tendencies and to promote interest in and study of the Bible.^{^[29]}

The publication and massive circulation of Food for Thinking Christians produced dramatic and multinational pushback. In volume two we noted some examples including [continue].

Millennial Dawn

That the book prompted opposition and debate is not surprising. Debate is part of the human condition. Some criticisms were off topic, not addressing doctrinal difference. For instance, when Elliot Stock was contracted to print The Plan of the Ages in the United Kingdom, they sent review copies to British religious periodicals, sending one to The Primitive Methodist Magazine. Their review was less than stellar. Bluntly, it called the book boring and unhelpful: ‘notice is a work of some three hundred and fifty pages, is somewhat laboured and tedious, and in our judgment, sheds very little clear light’ on the problems with which it deals.’^{^[30]}

As I did in volume two of this work, I’ll focus on a narrow geographical area, in this case the States of Kansas and Ohio, a choice driven by available records. Kansas had a significant Barbourite presence.

United Brethren Church – Kansas and Ohio

[add barbour era here] There were several Watch Tower evangelists preaching there in the 1880-1886 period and whose ministry produced results. We noted some in volume two – an Advent Christian Clergyman, J. S. Lawver, an anonymous adherent. New to this research is Permilia Jane LaClair called “P.J.” and “Milia” by her family.[31] We know little about her beyond letters sent from her to the editor of the St. Paul, Minnesota, New Era Enterprise. She was, she wrote, one of the first Millennial Dawn colporteurs, evangelizing in Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas. For twelve years – approximately from 1887 to 1899 – with her husband and two children she traveled by covered wagon promoting Watch Tower publications, later recalling:

we were very poor when I got the Truth and my dear husband had been poorly and it was good for him, but very hard on me, as I often had been wet and cold, slept in wet bedding and every way, for I was so happy over my call to sacrifice, and not much experienced I often did more than reasonable service. Have laid out in rain and thunder and wind storms and went too early in spring and too late in fall; but my zeal was to help “harvest” all I could.[32]

By mid-year 1884 a Kansas native claimed: “The seed is taking root in Kansas.”[33] Among those rooted to Watch Tower faith was a Baptist elder in Hobart who with one or two others separated himself from traditional denominations.[34] Early in 1887 George Albert Slote, a resident of Phillipsburg, Kansas, suggested that “Kansas and the West generally are more open to receive truth.”[35] Their work and that of others affected German Brethren adherents. The German Brethren, a pietistic movement, was fractured. In the 1880s there were three main divisions all using similar names, but each displeased with the others. Though Watch Tower and German Brethren beliefs had some similarities, but there were some among them dissatisfied with rigid adherence to ancestral doctrine that blocked fresh scriptural studies.

With the publication and surprisingly large circulation of The Plan of the Ages, opposition became more pronounced and sometimes desperate. Joseph Rutherford noted the increasing opposition and its sources: “Certain leading clergymen, representing numerous church denominations, such as Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Christian, Lutheran, United Brethren, and certain Catholic bishops, priests and prelates, have united in their cause of action against one man.”[36]

The Engles

Henry Nissley Engle (March 26, 1860 – 1932) and his family immigrated to Abilene, Kansas, with a group of Brethren in Christ (River Brethren) in the spring of 1879.[37] A Brethren history described him as “a proponent of holiness.” Engle was a descendant of one of the River Brethren founders and respected among them. We find him in 1885 as superintendent of a group Bible Study described as a Sabbath School. In 1888 he was one of a committee of three organizing mission work in Kansas. From 1896 through 1899 he served without pay as editor of the Evangelical Visitor, the denomination’s official journal.[38]

Left out of this list is an incident early in his residence in Abilene. Naomi Engle, his daughter, explained:

A neighbor introduced to my father a publication entitled, “Food For Thinking Christians.” By his extensive reading and research of the Scriptures and using the current works of H. L. Hastings, Dwight Moody and others the truths as set forth in the above mentioned publication was proved to be in harmony with the Bible. These truths my father began to set before others. The older men of the Brethren in Christ Church saw this and they asked for his resignation. My father went to a Church Conference in Pennsylvania to make a defense in this regard, but he was refused a hearing. From that time on my father continued in the “proving all things and holding fast to that which is good,” (I Thess. 5:21) and faithfully gave testimony privately and publicly that the kingdom that Christ Jesus taught Christians to pray for (Matt. 6:9, 10) is the kingdom of Jehovah God, which is mankind’s only hope.[39]

Wilma Musser, Brethren historian, described Engle and others who accepted Watch Tower faith as:

Brethren who felt bound by tradition and frustrated by the polarization caused by the wildfire holiness radicals, could be attracted by them. In the early days the “Bible Students” shared many common beliefs with the Brethren: Holiness as defined by two separate works of justification and sanctification, conscientious objection to participation in war, observance of water baptism and communion. They were opposed to organized church bodies, and had no officers or leaders, just Bible teachers, as all studied together.[40]

The date at which Engle received Food for Thinking Christians is uncertain. Circumstances suggest a date between end of 1881 and 1886. The publication of Plan of the Ages ended evangelical circulation of Food. In any event, Engle wasn’t immediately convinced. Russellism did not enter his Visitor articles until the 1890s. Before his drift into Watch Tower faith was noted by his associates, Russell’s writings had been discussed, among Brethren congregants which was noted in Kansas General Conference minuets. [add]

Photo here

Henry Nissley Engle and Wife

Brethren of Christ Archive

The Engles were not the only Abilene, Kansas, family to defect from the Brethren in Christ (River Brethren) and probably not the first. C. A. Wittlinger, a Brethren historian, tells us that Russellite doctrine was ‘agitating’ the Kansas Brethren as early as 1891. Brethren conferences condemned Watch Tower faith that year, calling it “pernicious and misleading.” No one was to be ordained who held Russellite views.[41] Despite Brethren condemnation, Watch Tower doctrine continued to find an audience.

The Eisenhowers

This history as often told is based on myth, uncertain oral histories, and the slanted, improbable views of partisans. Dissecting it has been much like solving a ten-thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. Thomas Branigar, then a historian at the Eisenhower Presidential Library, described an element of this history as a “controversy in which the facts have been both ignored and distorted.” He noted that elements of the Eisenhower story as often told are based on “family tradition which was not recorded by historians until many years after the event.” [42] This is no less true of those ‘stories’ bearing on Watch Tower history.

David Eisenhower, the grandson of a prominent Brethren adherent, and son of equally prominent Brethren parents, enrolled in Lane University, a United Brethren College at Lecompton, Kansas, starting what Dodd described as “wandering search for a faith to live by.” There David met Ida Stover. Dodd described her as a sandy-haired girl boarding with “a minister kinsman (probably a brother),” a United Brethren minister serving two nearby congregations.[43]

Ida grew within the Lutheran faith, which she took seriously, and she was, apparently, a voracious reader.

Marriage, move to Texas and return to Kansas. Opens store.

C. E. Jones wrote: “That Dave and his wife, Ida, should later join Henry Engle, editor of the Evangelical Visitor, 1896-1899, in studying and spreading Russellite teachings anathema to them, served only to enhance the attractiveness to River Brethren in Kansas of the Wesleyan-Holiness, conviction-driven piety of the Hephzibah Faith Missionary Association of Tabor, Iowa.[44]

Ohio

Watch Tower influence on German Brethren was not limited to Kansas. J. P. Martin, a Dunkard (Church of the Brethren) clergyman adopted Watch Tower faith in Ohio. His ‘disaffection’ caused internal conflict; his story is told in volume two of this series.

Rebuttals and Ad Hominem

Key doctrinal differences drew a variety of responses and a prolonged debate. Many of the opposition writings did no more than say, “Well, that’s not what we believe, so he must be wrong.” Others were more detailed, though frequently misrepresenting Watch Tower theology. There are many anti-Russell tracts and a few books. Most of them saw very small, mostly local circulation. A few were widely circulated. Reasonably consider them all, but we can consider the basic arguments.

Hell-Fire and Eternal Punishment

“Revered Doctor” Isham Fuller Tanner (1848 – 1923), responding to a lecture by J. F. Rutherford, wrote a sixteen page tract fulsomely entitled Where are the Dead? An Irrefutable, Unanswerable Argument Against Russellism as Presented by Judge Rutherford of New York in his Pasadena Address.[45] We know little about Tanner, though that hardly matters. He was a Disciples minister.[46] What he wrote is representative of refutations of “Russellism.” After four pages attempting to prove the dead really are not dead but not citing Scripture, he turned to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:

Immediate though not complete blessedness, and immediate though not complete torment, after death, is the doctrine of the Messiah and His apostles. Lazarus died, and was instantly carried to Abraham’s bosom. Dives died, and immediately lifted up his eyes in torment. So taught the Messiah; and certainly he would not introduce a false and deceptious imagery, to bewilder and perplex the world. Paul also affirms that as soon as “absence from the body we are present with the Lord,” and while in the body we are absent from the Lord.” May I not ask, what language could moe clearly and certainly indicate a continued and uninterrupted consciousness that this? or the fact of a separate state – a state n which the soul lives out of the body? [Unclosed quotation and verb fault is in the original.]

[1] Lewis Coser: The Functions of Social Conflict, The Free Press, New York, 1956, page 92.

[2] Fredrick Bushee: Principals of Sociology, Henry Holt Company, New York, 1923, page 451.

[3] Thomas Jefferson: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, A. A. Libscomb, editor, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington, D. C. Volume XV, 1905, page 404.

[4] Osul Terrison Haaland: Russellism, Thesis Lutheran Seminary, 1932, page 34. The ‘leaven’ reference is a reference to Galatians 5:9.

[5] Samuel Willard: An Affectionate Remonstrance Against a Frequent Abuse of the Pulpit and the Religious Press, Charles A. Mirick, Greenfield, Massachusetts, 1856.

[6] C. T. Russell: Millennial Dawn: The Time is at Hand, Volume Three, Watch Tower Society, Allegheny, Pennsylvania, 1891, page 231.

[7] E. B. Hart: Three Blasphemes of ‘Millennial Dawn’, Self-published, Iowa, 1905. page 3.

[8] Osul Terrison Haaland: Russellism, Thesis Lutheran Seminary, 1932, page 1.

[9] A Few Words on Russellism, Herald of Gospel Liberty, August 1, 1912, page 975. The Herald was the voice of the Christian Connexion, a restorationist, non-Trinitarian church with a Congregationalist structure. It merged with the Congregational Church in 1930. The article quoted was derived from C. C. Cook’s More Data on Pastor Russell published earlier in 1912.

[10] J. M. Gray, The Errors of ‘Millennial Dawnism,’ ‘D. L. Moody’ Pamphlets, Christian Faith Series, No. 2, Moody Bible Institute, no date.

[11] G. P. Eckman: There is no Truth in Him, The [New York] Christian Advocate, December 3, 1914, page 1696.

[12] G. P. Eckman: Pastor Russell and His Satellites, The [New York] Christian Advocate, July 30, 1914, page 1052.

[13] A. B. Simpson: The Dupe, Living Truths, May 1906, Front page.

[14] A. W. Bealer: The Perils of Russellism, The Home Field Magazine, December 1914, pages 3-5.

[15] C. C. Cook: All About One Russell, Philadelphia School of the Bible, Philadelphia, no date but c. 1912, pages 5-6.

[16] The report is reproduced at TruthHistory.blogspot.com, entry of February 2, 2022. https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2022/02/clergy-crimes-in-russell-era.html

[17] C. C. Cook: More Data on ‘Pastor Russell’, Philadelphia School of the Bible, no date but 1912.

[18] M. Tope: ‘Millennial Dawnism’ a Fake, The Phrenological Era, August 1913, page 242.

[19] M, Tope: Untitled article, The Phrenological Era, August 1913, page 247.

[20] Studies in the Scriptures: The Divine Plan of the Ages, International Bible Students Association, 1925 edition, Page 5.

[21] Julia Neuffer: The Gathering of Israel: A Historical Study of Early Writings, pp. 74-76 as retrieved from https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/articles/the-gathering-of-israel-a-historical-study-of-early-writings-pp-74-76 on March 25, 2026.

[22] C. T. Russell: The Prospect, Herald of the Morning, July 1878, page 11.

[23] N. H. Barbour: Are We Right? Herald of the Morning, July 1878, page 3.

[24] C. C. Cook, All About One Russell, Philadelphia School of the Bible, no date, page 3. There is little biographical material. Bradley Cook, wrote that Charles Cyrus Cook, his great grandfather, was a Baptist clergyman. An undated obituary says he served a Methodist congregation and was pastor of the nondenominational South Brooklyn Gospel Church for the last twelve years of his life. A university library catalog places his booklets in a Mennonite tract collection. Cook eventually became a publisher of tracts and booklets.

[25] Second Adventists Celebrate the Feast of Passover in Allegheny Yesterday, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dispatch, April 15, 1889.

[26] C. T. Russell: Harvest Gathering and Siftings, Zion’s Watch Tower, May 1890, page 7.

[27] See the August 18, 1881, issue. The “crank preacher” phrase as describing Russell became an issue during The King v. J. J. Ross trial. Russell claimed to have no memory of it. See the transcript as reproduced in A. R. Whitby: The Ross Libel Trial, Lulu Press, North Carolina, 2013, page 36.

[28] C. T. Russell: Harvest Gatherings and Siftings, The Watch Tower, June 1, 1916, page 175.

[29] ‘Food for Thinking Christians,’ Brooklyn Daily Union, August 18, 1881. We do not know if the editor or Russell was responsible for the poor grammar found in this notice.

[30] Literary Notices, The Primitive Methodist Magazine, New Series, Volume 15, for 1895 page 185.

[31] Permilia was the daughter of David Kennedy Farnham and Rachael Jessup. She was born September 1o,1853 in Essex Co, Indiana and died in 1926.

[32] Mrs. William Le Claire, “Old Timer” Longing for Home, New Era Enterprise¸ July 25, 1922. Bernhard Brabenec: Watch Tower Society, International Bible Students Association: Who’s Who in the History of the Movement Before 1920, Self-published, 2021.

[33] Letter to M. F. Russell, Zion’s Watch Tower, August 1884, page 2. [Not in Reprints]

[34] Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower, August 1883, page 3. [Not in Reprints.]

[35] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower, May 1887, page 9 [Not in Reprints] We know almost nothing about Slote. George Albert Slote was born 1847 in Spring Brook, Lackawanna, Pennsylvania, later moving to Kansas where he made furniture. Early in 1888 he returned to Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he continued as an active adherent. The June 4, 1894, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Tribune contains a letter from him discussing the Sabbath. Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1886 contains an endorsement of The Plan of the Ages by G. A. Sloat. He died in 1924.

[36] J. F. Rutherford: Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, No publisher noted, 1915, page 4.

[37] Interview with Rev. Ray I, Witter on August 28, 1964, by Walter V. Barbash, Oral Historian, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kansas, page 18.

[38] Willma I. Musser: Brethren in Christ Churches in Kansas, Brethren in Christ History and Life, August 1991, pages 196, 226, 229.

[39] Letter. Naomi Engle to C. O. Wittlenger, Archivist, Brethren in Christ Archives.

[40] Willma I. Musser: Brethren in Christ Churches in Kansas, Brethren in Christ History and Life, August 1991, page 225.

[41] Carlton O. Wittlinger: Quest for Piety and Obedience: The Story of the Brethren in Christ, Evangel Press, Nappanee, Indiana, 1978, page 155. A request made to the Brethren Archive for the documents cited by Wittlinger went unanswered.

[42] T. Baringar: No Heroes – No Villains, Kansas History Quarterly, Autumn 1992, pages 168-169.

[43] Gladys Dodd: The Religious Background of the Eisenhower Family, Bachelor’s Thesis, Nazarene Theological Seminary, Merrlam, Kansas, 1959, pages 266, 302.

[44] Charles Edwin Jones: Co-incidence of Piety and Conviction: The Brethren in Christ and the Hephzibah Faith Missionary Association, Brethren in Christ History & Life, December 2009, page 424.

[45] Rutherford’s lecture was on February 8, 1915. See Pasadena Day Star of that date.

[46] F. A. North, Managing Editor: The History of Johnson County Missouri, Kansas City Historical Company, Kansas City, Missouri, 1881, Pages 638, 640. He and his wife are noted as attending a Disciples church and he taught school. I couldn’t find a record showing where he earned his doctorate and suspect it was self-assumed.

Watch Tower History

Search This Blog

Falcon's Crown: Kidnapped [e-book edition]

Falcon's Crown: Kidnapped [Print Edition'

Separate Identity Vol. 2

The video

Buy on lulu.com

Buy on lulu.com

Contributors

Blog Archive

Saturday, July 11, 2026

In praise of ChatGPT

Friday, July 10, 2026

Photo help

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Update to Chapter in Progress