I continue
to research our last chapter. (Don’t get all excited. We’re writing it out of
order.) Our outline for it will change. Parts of it will be tucked into other
chapters, and part of it may become a separate chapter. That’s not unusual.
Since ours is original research, changes will come as we see persons and events
more clearly.
In volume
one, we deconstructed a myth based on Russell’s Adventist associations,
introducing our readers to Literalist belief and its influence. The last
chapter of volume two discusses the place of Christian Mysticism in the broader
movement and within the Watch Tower
movement especially. We will not give this the space given to Literalists. Its
influence, while distinctive, was narrow. We want to explain it in a few
paragraphs without leaving our readers puzzled, outraged, or with many
unanswered questions.
Christian
Mysticism is rooted in First Century sects. Paul speaks of them with disfavor.
I believe one of the Seven Letters (in Revelation) does as well. But we start
with the late 18th Century. The 1790s were closer in time to our
story than World War I is to us. We take this narrative up to Russell’s
personal experience. Striking a balance between needed detail and equally
needed brevity is difficult. I may need a double dose of hot coffee and
chocolate!
Christian
Mystics invariable urged chiliastic belief. The principal actors in our story
had first hand contact with mystical belief, rejecting most of it, but adopting
its characteristic belief in specially appointed last-days messengers.
So … we
have a partial first draft of this section. It’s interesting but needs work –
both more research and clarification. This, more than most
of our story, will need unquestionable clarity. It will make some uncomfortable
and unhappy. (We seem to have that effect on some.) Because Christian Mysticism
is often associated with “spirit manifestations” and prophecy, we want to
clearly define the very narrow way it touched believers in the 1870-1890
period. I don’t want the point misused by polemicists or rejected by current
adherents. I want a “just the facts, ma’am,” clearly stated, unequivocal explanation.
Writing is
hard work.
Current historiographic
practice is to rehash all the analysis done by others. This is a carry over
from dissertation writing. A rehash proves that you consulted all the
appropriate material. Unfortunately, (or conveniently, depending on your
viewpoint) it allows writers to escape responsibility for their opinions.
Reflexive, passive voice writing plagues academic writing. We avoid passive
voice and third person reflexive writing. It’s poor work, even if it is the
standard among British and UK
influenced academics. We assume responsibility for our conclusions. We won’t
blame others for them, and if we share them with those who preceded us we will
credit them or note the similarity. But we avoid the long “he said, they said,
it said” summaries characteristic of many writers.
In this
last chapter we are forced to review the research of others to a greater extent
than usual. I wish there was an alternative. There isn’t. We confront opinions widely
held by sociologists (who think of themselves as scientists because they love
graphs and charts) and historians of the millennialist movements. When applied
to the movements we consider, some of their theories are partially correct.
Others are wholly false but accepted uncritically by four or five generations
of writers. They are, what ever the quality of the theory, an issue we cannot
avoid.
1 comment:
That is all new for me.
It will be interesting discover the issue
Post a Comment