- "The story is in the details." - B. W. Schulz
Outside observers and
antagonists commented on the mixture of doctrines out of which Watch Tower
teachings were compounded. They seldom identified the exact sources. After
William G. Moorehead, a professor at United Presbyterian Theological Seminary
in Xenia, Ohio, pronounced “Millennial Dawn of C. T. Russell a mixture of
Unitarianism, Universalism, Second Probation, and Restorationism, and the
Swdenborgian method of exegesis” he was parroted endlessly and uncritically. Charles
C. Cook suggested more wide ranging sources for Russell’s theology:
It seems as though in his earlier years, in his
haberdasher’s shop in Allegheny, when business was dull, or after business
hours, Russell had gathered together all the scraps and remnants of ancient
errors, such as Gnosticism (know-it-all-ism), Manicheism, Arianism,
Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Pelagianism, etc.,
etc., and had cast them, one and all, into the fusing-pot of his own great and
fervid imagination, and that “Millennial Dawnism” came forth to enlighten (?) benighted
humanity.[1]
Russell’s
theology derived from none of these “ancient errors.” While C. C. Cook, D.D.,
was apparently educated somewhere, we are safe in claiming that he either could
not define these ancient belief systems or he simply made this up out of his
own “fervid imagination.” Claims such as these were scare tactics used without
regard to the facts. Two elements are at play here. Some expected something ‘original’
from Russell, and failing to find it wrote off everything he taught. Russell,
of course, would have been horrified at the suggestion that he originated
anything. He sought to recapture Scriptural truth and the First Century
Christian polity. Labeling Watch Tower teachings allowed opposers to avoid
engagement. It was like slapping a poison label on a bottle of water without
having tested it. Most “refutations” of Watch Tower teaching consisted of
personal attacks or the suggestion that believing Millennial Dawn doctrine led
to a degraded Christian personality. There was a restating, sometimes an
inaccurate one, of Watch Tower teaching presented for the “shock” value. There
was almost never a serious attempt at refutation.
While
Russell and his associates derived their beliefs from varied sources, most of
them came from within the One Faith movement. This doesn’t mean they
uncritically accepted everything that came their way, and they certainly
achieved something less than unity. But it was the unique doctrinal blend
believed by the majority that gave them a separate identity. This was a process
that covered some years, culminating with the publication of Millennial
Dawn: The Plan of the Ages in 1886. Zygmunt suggests that Russell’s
election as pastor and an increasing doctrinal unity were key elements in
establishing a separate identity:
The transition from study-circle to congregation
reflected not only Russell’s emergence as a leader within the Allegheny group
but also the crystallization of a more or less distinctive doctrinal system.
Although “bible study” continued to be an important feature of congregational
activity, its initially “open-ended” exploratory character tended to wane in
proportion as basic “truths” were discovered and instituted as creedal tenets.
Formal sermon and “bible discourse” became more prominent parts of the
proceedings, congregational “bible study” increasingly assuming the form of a
selective review of scriptures supporting particular beliefs, and eventually
being supplemented by more devotional exercises. The crystallization of a
doctrinal system was important, in turn, in transforming the purely local
congregation into a trans-local sectarian movement.[2]
While
we must note that Zygmunt supposes a unity that didn’t completely exist in 1876
or for some years thereafter, this is a good summary of events. Zygmunt’s
research suffered from lack of resources and an occasional presumption made
without evidence, but he was correct when he wrote: “The movement’s collective
identity and earthly mission were derived directly from this configuration of
beliefs.”[3]
[1] C. C. Cook: More Data on Pastor
Russell, the author, no date but c. 1912, page 4. Having read much of what
Dr. Cook wrote about Russell and about the Catholic Church, one of the authors
suggests that “C. C. Cook” is a misspelling for “C. C. Kook.”
[3] J. Zygmunt: Prophetic Failure and
Chiliastic Identity, published in Jon R. Stone [editor]: Expecting
Armageddon, Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy, Routledge, 2002, page,
68.
No comments:
Post a Comment