I'm posting this at Mr. Schulz' request. He is eternally hopeful that additional helpful thoughts might be forthcoming. If you have comments or thoughts, please do make them.
Two issues attached to the earliest congregations and
small fellowships: Their self identity, and how outsiders identified them.
Russell and many of his earliest associates came from traditions that rejected
any name but Christian. They saw sectarianism as of the Devil. That left them
nameless. Augustus Bergner told The New York Sun that he belonged “to a
company of Christians who have no common name. We are not Second Adventists,
and we are not the ‘Holiness’ or “Higher Life’ sect.”
Most if not all early
fellowships met in homes. When Frank Draper, an early-days evangelist spoke at Glens
Falls, New York, it was in the home of W. H. Gildersleeve, who was willing to
invite the public into his home.] There are many other examples of home-churches, but most of that history is
more suitable for the third book in this series.
Individual congregations experimented
with names. Before the publication of The Plan of the Ages, groups were
so small that they left little record. Most of the congregational names that
have come down to us are from outside the period we cover in these two volumes,
but we should note some examples. The newly-formed congregation at Salem, Oregon,
called themselves “The Church of the Living God,” a Biblical phrase. They met
in the Women’s Christian Temperance Hall. Believers
in Akron, Ohio, organized regular meetings in late 1902. A representative told
a reporter that they “may be called Dawn Students, or member of the Church of
the Living God.” Their meetings were held in the homes of members.]
The Cedar Rapids congregation used it too, as did W. Hope Hay, a Watch Tower
representative. When the Scranton,
Pennsylvania, congregations was formed they used the name The Watch Tower Bible
Class. Meetings were held in the home of George W. Hessler. When
Russell spoke there, the press release used drawn out phrasing heavy laden with
adjectives: “Readers and students of the ‘Millennial Dawn’ series and all others
who are interest in the subject of the pre-millennial advent.”
In
Albany, New York, Believers in the Restitution met in Fredrick J. Clapham’s
home at 288 First Street. Earlier, at least one meeting was held in a “Bro. Fletcher’s
home.”]
Outsiders were pressed to find descriptors.
When Samuel Williams, one of the organizers of the Huston, Texas, congregation
preached there in 1903, The Huston Daily Post described the movement as “those
of Mr. Williams’ faith,” attaching no other name. Earlier The Post
described it as Millennial Dawn faith. This
difficulty continued for some years. In 1909 someone asked Russell: “By what
name would you suggest that the local classes advertise their meetings, so as
to avoid the confusion of a multiplicity of titles, such as: “Millennial Dawn, “Believers
in the Atonement,” “Believers in the Precious Blood, “Bible Students,” etc.”
Russell’s answer is illuminating:
It
is a difficult matter to know how to advertise, not for ourselves, but
difficult to keep from being misunderstood by the people. “Church of God”; “Church
of the Living God”; “Church of Christ.” Any of those names would suit us very
well, and we would have no objections to them, but we find that there are
various denominations who have appropriated those titles, not that we think
they have a right to apply them to themselves, but we would like to live in
peace. It is a difficult matter to decide, and each class will have to do that
for themselves.
In
his view they were to body of Christ, and while true sheep may be found within
other churches, the various denominations were not of the Body of Christ. They
were false religions.
Clergymen and Lay Preachers
From
the earliest days some clergy were attracted to the Watch Tower message. As we
observed in volume one, abandoning previous affiliation was difficult because
it meant giving up regular income. So we meet two classes of clergy: Those who
suffered the consequences of their faith, and those who flirted with the
message, believing all or part of it, but who did not become adherents. We
should profile some of these.
J. W. Ferrell
Sometime
near July 1883, a Baptist minister from Pittsburg, Texas was “excluded” from
the church for teaching Watch Tower doctrines. Baptists in Texas were a
fractious lot, inclined to oppose each other and embroiled in a test of
influence and wills. The General Association meeting in Pittsburg in 1879
issued a glum report:
The reports … showed a very discouraging condition ….
Nothing had been prosperous. … There was great want of harmony and
co-operation. Great complaints had been raised against the methods of the
General Association as being partisan, and too much dominated by Waco
University and the paper now called the Texas Baptist. A meeting had been held
at Plano on July 3. and resolutions voicing these complaints and this
dissatisfaction had been adopted.
A
report made to the 1883 General Association conference suggested that Baptist
churches were deeply troubled, “that associations have been divided in counsel,
some rent asunder; churches have been torn by factions, and brethren alienated,
and strife engendered.”
While
the expulsion of this minister must be understood within the context of Baptist
pugnaciousness, there were sufficient doctrinal differences between Baptists
and Zion’s Watch Tower adherents to overheat any Baptist. The minister’s
identity is uncertain. He is not named in The Watch Tower. There are
some clues, however. The American Baptist Year-Book for 1870 names a J.
W. Ferrell as pastor in Pittsburg.
Powell Samuel Westcott
In
1885 Powell Samuel Westcott, a Baptist deacon prominent in the Potsdam, New
York, area, was also expelled for embracing Restitution doctrine “as taught by
Brother C. T. Russell.”
We know more about Westcott
then we know of the Baptist preacher at Pittsburg, Texas. He was born in Charlotte,
Vermont, April 29, 1821. He served in the 244th New York Regiment as
a non-commissioned officer from which he was honorably discharged on August 21,
1846. He was for a period a cheese, lard, and butter merchant in Boston. In the
1859 he moved to Potsdam, establishing a music business and teach vocal music
at the Potsdam Normal School, now the State University of New York at Potsdam. He
was for a few years superintendent of the Baptist Sunday School in Potsdam.] His
obituary said he was “for many years an active member of the Baptist church.”
It does not mention his association with Zion’s Watch Tower, but
describes him as “a man of strong religious convictions and … and earnest and
intelligent student of the Bible … a man of integrity, faithful in business and
an upright citizen.” Westcott died January 3, 1893, and C. E. Bacom, a Baptist
clergyman officiated.
We do not know where or how he
encountered Zion’s Watch Tower. His story is not told in the Watch
Tower, but in a letter from J. W. Brite to J. H. Paton. Brite says that he “was
expelled from his denomination for heresy.” Though Brite was introduced to
Paton’s writing through him, Westcott did not advocate Universalism.
We don’t know how enduring his association with Watch Tower belief was, but he
was willing for his conviction to be expelled from the Baptist fellowship. We
suspect that the Baptist funeral was held at the request of his wife Phebe Ann who
seems to have not shared his beliefs.
Joseph Dunn
Sympathetic clergy were faced
with hard choices, and not all took a firm stand or openly expressed their
beliefs. A Mrs. H. F. Duke of New York City wrote to Russell in September 1901
expressing her concern for “the spiritual welfare of Bro. Joseph Dunn.” She
described him as “the one whom the Lord used as a helping hand to lead [her]
into the light.” Russell returned her letter, saying he was “glad” that she was
“solicitous for his welfare, and seeking to counsel with hand encourage him to
the taking of right steps to place himself fully on the Lord’s side in every
sense of the word.” He expressed some sympathy for Baptists, Disciples and
Congregationalists because they were “more independent” than most. But he
warned Mrs. Duke (in a subsequent letter he addresses her as “Sister Duke.”)
that Dunn faced difficult decisions:
I think Bro. Dunn, or any of us, would be justified in
viewing such a congregation from the standpoint of its own claims, so that if
its confession of faith were satisfactory to us, and if it agreed to give us
full liberty of expression, we might consider it as one of the true
congregations of the Lord. However, it would be most remarkable, under present
conditions, if such a congregation should take such a stand and should maintain
it for any length of time. Here will come the real test upon Bro. Dunn –
whether or not he will preach the Gospel at any cost. If he does I am almost sure
as that he lives that it will ere long mean a rupture between himself and the
congregation and a sundering of their relationship as pastor and hearers.
Indeed, I cannot see how any but spiritually minded people can accept the
Gospel in the light of present truth as it is now shining. … I advice that you counsel
him in every way to faithfulness, for certainly the Lord’s tests upon his
minister are more crucial than upon the general average believer, and we all
agree that it ought to be, for they have much advantage every way over the
so-styled laity.
Joseph
Dunn was a Baptist clergyman active in Hague and in Glens Falls, New York. He
was a popular preacher whose sermons were well attended, one report saying that
his meetings were “very interesting” and the congregation large with nearly
every seat occupied. Whatever interest in Watch Tower doctrine he had was
insufficient, and he did not change his public doctrine. In April 1903 he was
by unanimous vote of the congregation reappointed pastor of the Baptist Church
at Hague.
William Davis Williams
In the mid-1880s William Davis
Williams (c. 1849 – 1918) was a “backwoods country” Baptist clergyman, school
teacher and farmer. He described himself as “full of zeal and earnestness”
traveling the back country on foot for he was “a poor country school teacher and
owned no horse.” He felt responsible for others’ salvation and preached a fiery
message: “I was a strong believer in the eternal torment doctrine, and the
thought of sinners dying in their sins and plunged into an everlasting hell of
torment, cause me to suffer with awful fear, and dread that through my neglect
or carelessness some would die in their sins though lack of hearing the Word.”
Some of his views conflicted
with more conservative elements among the Baptist fellowship. He preached
against sectarianism and maintained pleasant fellowship with people from other
denominations: “I loved a good Methodist, Episcopalian or Presbyterian … and
sometimes I boldly denounce those divisions as not in harmony with … Scripture.
Some of our rigid brethren wanted to have me disciplined and brought to order
for preaching ‘unsound doctrine,,’ but the majority stood by me.”
Someone sent him a sample copy
of Zion’s Watch Tower, and he found its theology agreeable until he realized
its editor rejected Hell-Fire doctrine. He was shocked:
I was delighted to find the Scriptures so beautifully
opened up, giving me clearer light than any religious literature I had ever
read before. But hold! What is this the editor is teaching? No hell of torment
– why, Christ Himself taught that the rich man died and went to hell, and while
in torment, he besought Father Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his fingers in
water to cool his fiery sufferings! How can Bro. Russell thus condemn the very
language of Jesus? I immediately sat down and wrote Pastor Russell a good
lengthy letter, giving an account of myself and the pleasure and help I
obtained from his teachings; in conclusion I denounced his error in teaching
that there is no hell of torment. “By whose or what authority do you dare to make
yourself wiser than Chrsit himself?” I demanded to know.
Russell
wrote back, praising his zeal and commending his “close Scripture studies.” “Go
on, Bro. Williams,” Russell wrote, “continue to feed on the pure Word,
prayerfully and earnestly, and you will come to a knowledge of the truth, as it
is in Christ Jesus, and not the traditions of men.” Russell ignored Williams’
demand and “never mentioned hell.” Williams’ was disappointed, concluding that,
“He (Russell) can’t answer my question, therefore he ignores it.”
Russell
continued to send Zion’s Watch Tower and “many tracts on various
subjects.” When The Plan of the Ages was published, he sent that too.
Russell’s patience and message slowly altered his views:
I continued in the Baptist ministry, preaching the
truth, as I saw it then, with the exception of the subject of future
punishment, and I began to have my doubts on that subject; but having been
reared from infancy in that horrible doctrine, it required time and strong
convictions of the truth to overcome it.
Thanks to God, I was not left to grope in the darkness
of Popish errors, but eventually the teaching of dear Bro. Russell convinced me
beyond the least flickering doubt, and I could have shouted for joy. Oh, what a
terrible burden was lifted from mind and heart! I thought that from then on I
could preach the true gospel with such convincing power, until all men would
receive it gladly and rejoice with me in the glad tidings of salvation which is
to all people.
He “began
to realize that the dividing time had come.” Williams tendered his resignation
to the church at Sandy Creek, Florida. They were reluctant to accept it. The
asked him to stay. He recalled it this way:
“Why should you leave us?” they asked. “Is that
treating us just and right? Can’t you go on and preach the Bible as you have
light, without introducing subjects of doubtful decision, that only create
confusion and distress?” And I would hold on awhile longer, praying all the
time for light – more light.
Not
everyone in Sandy Creek Church was happy with the compromise. “Persecution
arose in the church,” he wrote. Whoever was unhappy took the matter to the
Sandy Creek Baptist Association, the governing agency for Baptists in Holmes
County, Florida, and Geneva County, Alabama. Two issues worked against him:
What he believed though did not teach in the church and jealousy over his
reputation and status within the Sandy Creek Association. A. J. Huggins, pastor
of the Cerro Gordo, Florida, church led the assault. The Sandy Creek Association’s
Minute Book contains the only record outside of William’s own memoir:
Whereas, It having reached the care of this
Association that Sandy Creek church did in the year 1881, call a presbytery and
ordain W. D. Williams, and give him full liberty to preach the Gospel and
administer all the church ordinances, said church knowing said Williams to be
unsound in the Baptist faith all of which we deem to be unscriptural and
disorderly. Resolved there for that she stand thus charged, November 4th,
1882.
A
committee of nine, Association clergy and prominent adherents, were chosen to
examine the charge. A meeting was scheduled for Sandy Creek Church for “Saturday
before the third Sunday in July 1883.”
Extracts from the Bible, The
Glens Falls, New York, Morning Star¸ November 11, 1897. According to the
1870 Census, William H. Gildersleeve was born in New York about 1842, or according
to the 1892 New York State Census he was born near 1837. [Census record birth
dates often conflict.] He seems to have been related to H. H. Gildersleeve, a
cigar manufacturer in Glens Falls. In April 1884, a devastating fire broke out
in rental space in a building he owned. [New York Times, April 29,
1884.] A newspaper article [Glens Falls Morning Star¸ January 22, 1895]
notes him as prominent in the Methodist Episcopal Church.
