An extract:
Understanding
the Movement
Sociologists tend to interpret
millennial movements as expressions of alienation and disenfranchisement. Following
H. R. Niebur, they suggest that Millenarian sects attracted the “socially
disinherited.” Primarily focusing on Adventist sects, Clark
describes Millenarians as a “pessimistic” sect:
Adventism
is the typical cult of the disinherited and suffering poor. Its peculiar world
view reflects the psychology of a distressed class in despair of obtaining the
benefits it seeks through the present social order and seeking escape through
divine intervention and a cosmic cataclysm, which will destroy the world and
the “worldly” class and elevate “the saints” to the position they could not
attain through social process.[1]
While acknowledging that the Watch
Tower movement did not arise from
Millerite Adventism, Clark includes it among the
pessimistic sects. So did S. Jackson Case. He considered the “Millennial Hope”
as a phase of “war-time” or crisis era thinking. He saw Millennialism as an
“especially pernicious” “pessimistic view of the world.” Including Russell and
his fellows in the analysis, Case wrote:
In
the presence of dire calamities many persons lose faith in the permanence of
the present world. Horrible outbreaks of distress are taken to be symptomatic
of an incurable malady which has fastened its deadly grip upon the whole cosmic
order. Since the disease seems too deep-seated to e eradicated by remedial
measure, its progress can be stayed only by destroying the object upon which it
preys. The only hope for a final triumph over evil is thought to lie in the
complete dissolution of the present world and the re-establishment of a new
world free from all those calamitous possibilities inherent in the present
order of things.[2]
Those who follow Niebur and others
with similar theories suggest poverty as a factor in the development of Watch
Tower and other Millennialist
theology. While social alienation is an undeniable factor, poverty and social
status were not important factors in the development of the One Faith and Watch
Tower movements. Sociologists
present us with evidence divorced from its historic and religious context or
simply faked or misstated. Many of them, while well educated otherwise, are
Scripturally and religiously illiterate. They know about the Bible and about
religion, but they don’t know either in the same way and in the same context
that Watch Tower
adherents did. Rather than social context driving Russellite belief, an attempt
to sustain a Bible-centric view molded adherent’s social views.
Edward H. Abrahamson typifies the
“social science” approach to Watch Tower
organizational structure. Abrahams identified Russell era congregations with
modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, so he framed his premise this way: “Early Jehovah’s
Witnesses founded a millennial movement in order to satisfy their political,
social and emotional needs.”[3] He
claimed that early Watch Tower
adherents came primarily from the “rural poor,” citing seven letters published
in Zion’s Watch Tower between May 1882 and August 1889 as proof.[4] The
letters do not sustain his claims. One is from a prisoner and has no bearing on
wealth. One is from a former Methodist Episcopal minister who lost his income
when he abandoned his Methodism for Watch
Tower belief. His poverty was the
result of adherence, not its cause. The remaining five letters mention poverty,
but they do not suggest that poverty drove the writers into the Watch
Tower belief system.
Abrahams and others like him seem to
be selectively blind to evidence. The decades after the Civil War saw
reoccurring depressions. These were most pronounced in the early 1870s, the mid
to late 1880s and the early 1890s. People were starving. Poverty and starvation
while they led to acts of desperation did not lead to a mass adoption of
Millennialist belief. With American industrialization came an increasing social
disparity. American industrialists were often oppressive and greedy. This
wasn’t newly found greed but an extension of shop-keeper greed which
underpaid its helpers so that simply to pay the rent many shop girls were
whores too. Racial inequality was startling. (Two of the letters Abrahams cited
came from non-Whites, one a Native American and the other a black clergyman.)
Sociologists have it backwards. The impelling force behind
Millennialist belief was a desire for divine blessing and an attempt to adhere
closely to the Divine Word. This led to the rejection of much of the social
order. Rejection of and criticism of the social order was the founding sentiment
of American religion. It is not a phenomenon unique to Millenarianism. It was
the mindset of the Puritans and Separatists who founded America .
They brought to America Calvinist anxiety concerning personal salvation and
righteousness. They interpreted life through a scriptural lens. Russell’s agony
over salvation and punishment had been repeated thousands of times by his
Calvinist antecedents.
[insert quotation here]
The Puritan and Separatist ideal – the purified, faithful
church – was shared by many, not just Millenarians. This was especially so in
the post Civil War era. Arthur Tappan Pierson, a Presbyterian, was in this
heritage. Addressing an evangelical conference on “The Actual State of the
Church,” he observed:
The
whole Bible puts the most weighty emphasis on an unworldly life. Yet in the
church we find but few decided lovers of God, while there are thousands of
decided lovers of the world. … The bulk of professing Christians are not
thoroughly consecrated; they belong to the worldly holy, or the ‘wholly
worldly.’ Out of the sixty millions of so called protestants, what vast numbers
are mere ritualists or formalists coming into the Church as they would go into
the army at a given age! Out of all nominal Christians on earth to-day, there
may be ten millions who give clear evidence of actual regeneration.[5]
This is not appreciably different from the statements of
other clergymen, or from that of Russell. If this is disaffection, it is a
rejection of a social order, or social defects, based on a desire to please
god. It’s not the sociologist’s picture.
The letters found in Zion’s Watch Tower, instead of
revealing a class of disenfranchised poor turning to religion, show already
religious people most of them from the Puritan and Separatist heritage. Our
Puritan ancestors sought unadulterated Christianity, purified from the forms of
Papal worship. They saw the Roman church as “the Whore of Babylon.” American
Protestantism reflected these views. “Worldly entertainments,” and practices
were rejected. The Church was corrupt, desperately needing reform. Before the
Civil War the worldly habits of nominal believers, the approval of slavery, the
neglect of key doctrines including that of Christ’s return and sexuality were
condemned. Revivals, meant to stimulate spirituality, stimulated sexual
misconduct. Some blamed that on the presence of women or a growing predominance
of women in congregations, an extension of the teaching that blamed “original
sin” on Eve though Paul said the sin was Adam’s. There was, some said, a preponderance of
emotion and little intellectual devotion in the revivalist movement.[6]
Sociologists who’ve written about Jehovah’s Witnesses and the
Bible Students of Russell’s day speak of social alienation as if the
discredited idea of social progress were valid. This is true of Abrahamson, and
it is true of others. Change is not progress. The social changes of the late 19th
Century, especially those attendant on the industrialization of America, were partially
undone by the populist and socialist leaning politicians who framed fair labor
practice laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, anti-trust legislation and similar
legislation. But some sociologists would have Watch
Tower adherents disaffected and
doctrinally unique because of it, but the disaffected progressives be part of a
forward movement. You can’t have it both ways.
Ignored by these “social scientists” is that impelling
religious belief led some to change their occupations to those of lower status
for the sake of acts of faith. This is true of the clergyman whose letter
Abrahamson quoted. It was true of Russell, of J. B. Adamson, and of others.
Russell noted [quotation here]
The claims of sociologists (and some historians) are not
supported by the evidence. In the Russell era adherents were usually middle
class, often well educated for the day. Many were businessmen. Some were
inventors. Some were published writers. There were a number of clergy. If there
was poverty, it is accounted for in the cyclical depressions of the late 19th
Century. Poverty wasn’t a driving force; a desire for holiness was.
Beckford’s analysis of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United
Kingdom focused on the tendency to
low-status occupations.[7]
Again, the idea that one would choose a low-status occupation to further acts of
faith eludes these writers. Yet, Watchtower literature is full of examples
where professionals surrendered occupations for low-status employment to
further their evangelism, a practice that continues from the Russell era. Real
understand of the character of Watch Tower
congregations in the Russell era depends on seeing members as seeking holiness
and obedience.
[1] E. T. Clark: The Small Sects in America¸
Abingdon Press, New York , Revised
Edition, 1949, page 21.
[2] S. J. Case: The Millennial Hope, University
of Chicago Press , 1918, pages v,
1-2.
[3] E. H. Abrahams: The Pain of the Millennium: Charles
Taze Russell and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1879-1916, American Studies,
Spring 1977, page 59.
[4] Abrahams, pages 66-67.
[5] As quoted in A. P. Adams, Bible Theology, Salem ,
Massachusetts , 1882, page 4.
[6] F. M. Davenport: Primitive Traits in Religious
Revivals, Macmillan Co. New York ,
1905, page 282ff.
[7] J. A. Beckford, The Trumpet of Prophecy: A
Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Basil Blackwell, Oxford ,
1975.
2 comments:
I like it very much. I'll read it more carefully. I have some questions for you.
Well. I've read several times the article (4 or 5 times). The truth is that I don't know what to enquire. I like the article.
I like when sociologists examine my religion. They are fun.
Post a Comment