We don't usually post raw work. We learned that lesson long ago, and established a rule against it. I'm breaking the rule with some cautions. This is roughly 10 percent researched. What you see here doesn't even qualify as a rough draft. The final version will be much changed. Don't take any of this as final. But since the idea of Rusellite organization or lack of it was raised, and there's a huge lack of understanding out there, here is a taste of my current research:
Out of Babylon
There
is almost no record of the internal structure of the earliest congregations or
of the nature of their meetings. A standard meeting format wasn’t introduced
until the 1890s, and nature of meetings varied by place. To recreate the nature
of the first congregations, we must rely on comments made in later decades.
While
some of his observations were appropriate to later years, the anonymous author
of the “The Modern History of Jehovah’s Witnesses” serialized in The
Watchtower accurately describes affiliated congregations in the period
before 1900:
These early congregations were called by the name in
the Greek Scriptures, “ecclesias,” and sometimes “classes.” They were organized
on the congregational and presbyterian style of church government. All members
democratically voted on certain matters of business and also elected a board of
seven or more “elders” (presbyters) who directed the general governmental
interests of the congregation. … These ecclesias were loosely tied together
merely by accepting the leadership and pattern of activity of the Pittsburgh
congregation where Russell and other Watch Tower writers were elders.[1]
[continue]
Sociologists especially, but
historians too, struggle to place the Watch Tower movement in an easily
identifiable niche. The results are usually unsatisfactory. Watch Tower
adherents were religious pilgrims, often unsatisfied by their original
churches. They were religious seekers, some of whom
moved from one small group to another.
The nature of Russell-era
congregations is misstated by Biblically illiterate historians and
sociologists. Some present Russell era adherents as isolated, disenfranchised
and alienated from society. This is part of a tendency to seek external causes
for belief that sometimes overreaches the facts. John Wigley thought that early
19th Century British Sabbatarians, who were often also millenialists,
came from among those who felt economically and politically threatened. He saw
them as religiously “introverted. If
there is such a thing as religious introversion, it characterizes those who
seek New Testament separation from the world. Those who would be ‘in the world
but separate from it.’ This is a New Testament view of the world, and those who
held it – including Watch Tower adherents – sought to maintain Bible standards.
It is a mistake to find the roots of belief in a pessimistic world view. Clarke
Garrett and W. H. Oliver rightly warn against simplistic, economic, or social,
explanations for belief systems. And they warn against “chiliasm of despair”
explanations.
Edward Abrahams extended this
claim back to the Watch Tower’s earliest days, asserting that “Russell used the
words ‘alienated,’ ‘isolated,’ and ‘troubled’ to describe his congregations. Abrahams
meant that Watch Tower adherents were disenfranchised and alienated from an
evolving social structure. We ask, “where?” Where did Russell use these terms
in this way?
Between
1879 and the end of 1916, the word alienated appears in fifty-nine
issues of the Watch Tower. Watch Tower writers and Russell
especially use it as commentary on Colossians 1:21-23: “And you, that were
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he
reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and
unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith
grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which
ye have heard , and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven.”
This is not a statement of social alienation, but of the need for
reconciliation with God through Jesus.
The
word appears in quotations from other sources, usually as commentary on the
alienation of the young from contemporary churches and the Bible. These are not
a reference to Watch Tower congregations. Russell never uses the word alienated
in the sense meant by a sociologist. The one place where one might presume he
meant it in that sense is found in the January 15, 1912, Watch Tower.
Russell wrote:
The Church has cried in “the wilderness” in the sense
that she has been alienated and separated from the world. She has called upon
all who would hear to prepare for Messiah's Kingdom. She has told more fully
than did John the Baptist of the effect of Messiah's Kingdom – the leveling up
of the valleys (the lifting up of the poor), the straightening out of the
crooked things and the smoothing of the rough things, that thus all flesh might
see, appreciate, understand, experience the salvation of God. Both John and the
Church declare that this salvation is to be brought through Jesus and His
glorified Bride in Kingdom power. The point we are making is that while John
the Baptist was an antitype of Elijah, and was forerunner or herald of Jesus,
so, only more particularly, the Church in the flesh is a higher antitype of
Elijah, and still more particularly a herald of the Messianic Kingdom.
Did
Russell suggest that the congregations were socially alienated? Not in the way
Abrahams and others suggest, and certainly this one occurrence is not an
example of continual usage. Russell says the Church has no part in the world’s
social upheavals and essential sinfulness. But the Church has an obligation to
the world to uplift, to declare salvation, and to rebuke wrongdoing. Christians
are not to approve of the world’s ways. This is not similar to the social
alienation that led to the Haymarket affair or the Railroad Insurrection. This
is a push for holiness.
But what of Russell’s use of the
word “isolated”? When using it of Watch Tower adherents, especially in the very
early days, Russell meant those who were the lone believer in their area, not
that they were otherwise isolated from their communities. An example is found
in the October 1881 Watch Tower. Russell wrote an extensive report on
the progress of Watch Tower evangelism “To strengthen and encourage the lonely
and isolated ones.” Reporting Communion observance
in 1884, he touched on the small number of believers, using the word
‘isolated’: “In some places only two or three assembled, in others more, and
some isolated individuals alone, but the general testimony is that the Master
was present at least in spirit; and for aught we know was personally present.”
Does this seem to be a reference to social isolation? Not to us. But, as we
shall explore, their unique beliefs left them separated partly or wholly from
the religious community. Again in 1884, Russell wrote:
It
is comforting to those who stand isolated in their own neighborhood to realize
this. There are many such isolated ones, and all have much the same experience
–
in
the world, tribulation; in Christ, peace. It is also a source of encouragement
to learn that while we realize that the harvest is great the laborers are being
multiplied, and that so far as we can learn, the saints are realizing their
call to make known the glad tidings, and that though their talents be many or
few they are not to be folded away in a napkin. We have learned that there are
as many ways to preach the Gospel as there are talents among the saints.
We
rejoice with all these that we have been so enabled to comprehend the Gospel as
to find that out of the abundance of the heart our mouth must speak; that the
love of Christ and the knowledge of his glorious truth constraineth us.
But
while we thus rejoice together, we can but rejoice with trembling as we realize
the secret, subtle, and persevering efforts of the Prince of this world to
overcome the saints. No artifice or effort is left untried: Opposition,
ridicule, rejection, flattery, false reasoning to disprove the truth, cares of
this world, bribery with the good things of this world, and allurements of
various kinds, are all used as the necessities of the individual cases may
require.
This is within Christian experience.
Early Methodists and Baptists, and First Century Christians all experienced
isolation because of belief. Plymouth Brethren chose it for the sake of pure belief.
The trials Russell described are common to those who live by New Testament
standards. Some sociologists believe this is harmful. Adherents in this era
felt the isolation, but the counter to it was suggested in this article.
Because they were ‘true believers’, they were also evangelists, expressing
their beliefs to others. There is no alienation in this. They were determined
to speak as God would have them speak, to bring the gospel to any who would
hear.
Russell was aware of this dichotomy.
Isolated from “worldly” belief and practice by the desire for holiness and
divine approval, adherents also felt compelled to take the Gospel to others.
Drawn on his experiences with Watch Tower believers, he wrote:
But
where is this faithful Church to be found? – this people so set apart from the
world, so faithful, so loyal and so true? – so ready always to recognize and
accept the Lord's help? Does it gather here or there or yonder? and is God manifestly
in the midst of its congregation as evidenced by its joyous songs and fervent prayers?
Ah, no! it is a scattered flock; so much so that the world does not discover
that there is such a people. The world knows them only as isolated and peculiar
individuals who cannot assimilate even with the masses of those who bear the
name of Christ. There is one in the quiet of country life whose chief interest is
not in the harvest of his earthly crops, and who only plants and reaps thus
that he may be able to devote himself so far as possible to the reaping of
God's harvest. He has glorious tidings for his neighbors far and near, of the
kingdom which is soon to be established in the earth. And there is a farmer's
wife: in the midst of her busy cares the blessed sound of gospel grace has
fallen on her ears. She feels at once like dropping the domestic duties and
going abroad to tell the good news. But no; she remembers the Lord's teaching,
that he that provideth not for his own house is worse than an unbeliever; and
so she says, I will let my light shine here. These little ones around my feet
shall learn to rejoice in the truth; my companion, my neighbors, my farm hands
and all that I can reach through the mail or the press shall know of it; and
all these domestic duties which I realize the Lord would not have me ignore
shall henceforth be done with an eye single to his glory.
Here
is an invalid and there is an aged saint. Their faith in the Word of God,
regardless of the vain philosophies and traditions so commonly accepted, brings
upon them many reproaches which are meekly born for Christ's sake, while they
humbly endeavor to let their light shine upon those about them. And yonder in a
crowded city are a few who dare to be peculiar – to separate themselves from
the customs and habits of social life, to forego the pleasures and present advantages
of former social ties, to speak the new and heavenly language, to sing their songs
of hope and praise and by every agency within their grasp to send forth the
glorious message of the coming kingdom. And then scattered far and near are some
unencumbered with earthly cares and joyfully denying themselves, esteeming it a
privilege to devote all their time and energy to the great harvest work. Yes, “the
Lord knoweth them that are his,” and he is in the midst of them. He knows their
loyalty to him and they know his voice and are ever ready to follow his
leading. Thus no harm can overtake them. They will stand and not fall, and will
in the end be crowned as victors. A thousand will fall at their side and ten
thousand at their right hand in this day of trial, but they will be kept in the
very midst of the wildest confusion. They may, as the trial proceeds and as the
faint-hearted and unfaithful fall, be left to stand almost or entirely alone in
their several localities; but then they will realize all the more the
preciousness of being alone with God.
Strict adherence to Bible standards,
no matter what the doctrine, has always produced something like this. It is
hard for us to see Watch Tower adherents in the Russell era as social misfits
in the same sense that those at the extremes of the labor movement and other
disenfranchised groups were. Former slaves and their children, poor farmers,
under-paid and abused laborers, shop girls who prostituted themselves because
they were not paid a fair wage suffered from forces outside their control.
Separation form ‘the world’ on a doctrinal and holiness basis was a choice. Put
in Apostolic terms, either one served God or one was part of the world.
In 1892, Russell wrote a commentary
on the International Sunday School Lesson on the First Psalm. Russell said that
the righteous man of Psalm One pictured “the man whose heart is perfected in
holiness, the pure in heart.” This was “pre-eminently” a picture of Jesus, but “secondarily
… of those … justified by faith … new creatures, walking in their Master's
footsteps.” They were “sometimes imperfect” through fleshly weakness. The Psalm
delineates “three steps” the righteous avoid: “(1) the ungodly – literally, the
wicked, (2) sinners or transgressors, and (3) scorners or the conceited and
unteachable.” “The proper course is to have no fellowship (sympathy and common
interest) with people of any of these classes,” Russell wrote. He explained
that this “not mean that we are to treat them unkindly or discourteously, nor
that we are never to be seen walking, standing or sitting with such; but it
does imply that our company should, as far as possible, be select, and of those
who reverence our God, and that other fellowships should not be encouraged.”
Of the three types of wrong-doers Russell identified,
he felt most would avoid the unquestionably wicked and common sinners. Most
were “in danger of getting into fellowship with the scorners or unteachable.”
Association with them would lead “to the same spirit, and that leads gradually
to violation of the covenant with God; and that leads to open wickedness and
willful sin.” The safe way is to have was to have “no fellowship with darkness:
it is never profitable.” The principals in the first Psalm affected church affiliation:
In
all the nominal churches there are many who have a form of godliness, but who
are really ungodly – far from being in harmony with God and his plan. In the
nominal churches are also many sinners, living in known violation of their
covenant with God. And there, too, may be found, alas! sometimes even in the
pulpits, those who are of an unteachable, haughty spirit, who even scoff at
God's Word and make it void through their traditions. Come out from among them;
and neither sit, nor stand, nor walk in fellowship with such. (Rev. 18:4; Isa.
52:11.) Stand with God, even if that should seem to imply standing alone. The
Lord knoweth them that are his, and he has yet more than seven thousand who bow
not to the idol of sectarianism.
Obedience to principals of good
fellowship brought happiness rather than isolation:
Some
might suppose that one thus isolated would have an unhappy lot; but no, he is
truly said to have a delightful experience. He delights day and night in
meditating upon God's will and plan. In this he finds a joy and a peace which
the world and a worldly church can neither give nor take away. One thus
consecrated and full of the spirit of the Lord finds that God's laws of
righteousness are not restraints which he would fain be freed from; but, like the
Master, he can say, “I delight to do thy will, O my God: thy law is engraven in
my heart.”
…
Such children of God as have reached this degree of development do not wither
away and become dead and barren, but, since the root of their new life is fed
by the river of God's grace and truth, they are always fresh and joyous and
fruitful--adding to faith virtue, brotherly kindness, love, and so are not
unfruitful in either the knowledge or the wisdom which surely comes to all who
have communion and fellowship with God. Whatsoever such do shall prosper. They
have no plans of their own: they desire that God's will shall be done. And
since God's plan shall prosper (Isa. 55:11), their plan shall prosper; for his
is theirs.
Again we observe that this is not
the disenfranchisement that Abrahams and others who take the same tack
envision. It is engagement but on terms set by holiness. If the world is common
and ungodly, it is not association of choice for Christians, but it is
populated by those who need to hear the gospel and to whom Christians owe
courteous behavior. Those historians and sociologists who take this mean Watch
Tower adherents were disenfranchised and disgruntled misunderstand the
religious spirit of the age.
Samuel L. Beiler, a professor at
Boston College, a Methodist institution, also wrote a commentary on this psalm
suggesting much the same things as Russell did:
The
scorners are those who make an open scoff at religion, and blaspheme and
ridicule it. These … are as many now as in Psalmist’s day. They still have
their ‘seat’ or assembly and form a deliberate confederacy in wickedness. To
‘sit’ in their ‘seat’ does not necessitate being an open-mouthed blasphemer,
but may only imply a silent member of such a company, who in his own heard …
harbors such feeling. Beware of mocking, ridiculing, scoffing, scorning sacred
things. Such a spirit indicates a heart empty of good and of god, near to
destruction. … The ungodly … will be as the chaff blown away by the wind. … In
the great day of judgment the hearts that are like empty shells will be found
wanting …
Those more modern writers who
suggest that Watch Tower believers were especially alienated from the world are
significantly out of touch with the religious spirit of the age. Watch Tower
theology – on the issue of holiness and obligations to fellow men – fits
directly into common religious belief. To return to Abrahams’ suggestions, we
should note that the third term he suggested, “troubled,” does not seem to us
to have been used in the sense he suggests. Since he cites no references, we
cannot follow his research trail.
Zion’s Watch Tower and
traveling evangelists served as point of contact from the “twos and threes” and
individuals. Hamilton Lincoln Gillis wrote to Russell from Preston County, West
Virginia, after the Lord’s Memorial Supper in 1887, noting concern for the
small groups. Russell printed it in the May Watch Tower:
I
have the great pleasure to report a very interesting and profitable meeting, on
the evening of the 7th inst., of a little company, sixteen in number, who “kept
the feast” in remembrance of “our Passover, slain for us.” We remembered the
more isolated ones, who were not so privileged; also the little bands of twos
and threes, and companies like our own, here and there all over the earth. We
prayed also for the dear brothers and sisters in Allegheny; and we doubted not
that we were also remembered, and the assurance gave us courage and
strengthened us in our glorious privilege. We all join in sending our love and
sympathy to you and Sister Russell, and to all the dear household that are
privileged to see you face to face.
Inspiration
Most of those who rejected a
Literalist approach to the Bible removed themselves from the Watch Tower
movement by 1887. The Literalist tradition is based on belief in the plenary
inspiration of Scripture. The
Bible is an inerrant guide. Its prophecies have literal fulfillments. Watch
Tower adherents saw themselves as part of a prophetic movement. For prophecy to
be useful and at all reliable, the Bible must be absolutely true, not open to
fanciful interpretations. It was its own interpreter. Richard Bernard, a 17th
Century British Literalist expositor defined Literalist exegetical principals
The goal was “to give … right exposition of the place, to judge of other mens
[sic] interpretations, for approving of the best, for the redirecting of the
worst, to examine aright also variety of readings and translations, in what
sense to take words of divers significations; to make supply of Grammatical Ellipsis,
yea to reconcile truly places which seem to disagree.” Among these principals
was “laying Scripture to Scripture.” A successful exegete would place the
scripture “in hand” with “other places, the clearer expounding the more
obscure.” The Prophets “must be laid to the Law, and the New Testament to the
Old; for the Prophets expound Moses, and the Apostles and Evangelists
them both.” This was, he wrote, the searching of scripture commanded by Jesus
and for which the Bereans are commended. This
belief, common to all Christendom at the start of the 19th Century,
was in retreat.
View of Religion
A
committee report delivered to the thirtieth annual YMCA convention in October
1882 said Zion’s Watch Tower was “of doubtful character owing to its
opposition to church organization.”
Russell, and Storrs before him, didn’t oppose organization at the local level,
but they opposed denominational organization. They saw it as “Babylon,” the
whore of Revelation, which they interpreted as nominal Christianity. Russell
defined the True Church in the October 1882 Watch Tower. His
article, entitled “The Ekklesia,” addressed two issues: Barbour’s claim to
divine appointment and the definition of the true church. Many falsely claimed
to be the true Church of Christ:
To-day there are many organizations claiming to be the
church, and having various bonds of union;
but we wish to know, upon the authority of God’s Word, what ekklesia, body,
or church, Jesus established, and what are its bonds of union; secondly, we
wish to show that every Christian should belong to that church; thirdly, the
injurious effects of joining the wrong ekklesia or church; and fourthly,
having joined the right church, what are the results of losing our membership.
The true church was organized by
Jesus. It was “the little company of disciples who had consecrated earthly
time, talents and life a sacrifice to God.” They were “members of one society”
with “laws and government, and consequently a head or recognized ruling
authority.” They were united by “bonds of love and common interest.” Jesus was
their head, their captain. They shared “hopes, fears, joys and sorrows, and
aims … and thus they had a far more perfect union of heart than could possibly
be had from a union on the basis of any man-made creed.” It was an organization
“of the Spirit;” their law was love and they were under the “law of the Sprit”
as “expressed in the life, actions, and words of their Lord.”
This is an idealized view of
First-Century Christianity. The unity of belief and sympathy Russell postulated
often existed in the breach rather than in reality. He wrote about what should
have been, rather than what was. Russell and Watch Tower adherents saw the True
Church in as in contrast to denominational structure. Russell wrote:
Thus we see the early church organized, governed, and
in perfect unity and harmony under the rulership or headship of Jesus. Contrast
this church organization with what now affects to be a continuance of the same
– viz.: the various denominational organizations, each of which binds its
members to a mental union on the basis of some creed or dogma of its own (many
of them anything but lovely) and each having its own laws.
These laws emanate from their heads, or rulers and
law-givers; so it is clearly seen that these present day churches, have and
recognize as heads, or directing, ruling powers over them, the ancient founders
of their various creeds, each contradicting the other, while their clergy, in
conferences, councils, synods and presbyteries, variously interpret and enforce
the “traditions of the elders” which “make void the Word of God.” These take
the place of the true head of the church – Jesus – and the true teacher and
guide into all truth, the Holy Spirit. … And the whole nominal system is described
in the Revelation as “Babylon” – confusion – Papal mother and Protestant
daughters. Will they own this to be so? No, for the lukewarm nominal church of
today believes herself to be rich and increased with goods, having need of
nothing; not knowing that she is wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind,
and naked. (Rev. 3:17.) …
The True Church is composed of
those “fully consecrated to the doing of our Father’s will, amenable only to
Christ’s will and government, recognizing and obeying none other.” It is the
composite of all “saints” from the beginning of “the Gospel Age … to its
close.” Jesus is “the head and ruler of the entire living church, and in every
assembly where two or three meet in his name he is the head, ruler, and
teacher.” Jesus teaches “by using one or more of those present as exercising
the qualities of the head, or teacher; by using one or more of those present as
His mouthpiece in unfolding truth, strengthening faith, encouraging hope,
inspiring zeal, etc.” Russell saw himself and others prominent in the movement
in this role; they functioned “just as the head of your body can call upon one
member to minister to another.” He cautioned prominent preachers, saying:
If one becomes as useful an instrument as a right
hand, he should take care that he aspire not to become the head. Be not puffed
up; pride will paralyze and render useless. “Be not ye called Rabbi (master,
teacher) for one is your master (head) even Christ, and all ye are brethren.”
And let not the least member despise his office, “for if all were one member,
where ere the body?” “Nay, those members of the body which seem to be more
feeble are necessary” “God hath set the
members every one of them, in the body as it hath pleased him.” ….
It is evident that if you have given up all your will,
talent, time, etc., you are recognized by Jesus as a follower, and member of
the ekklesia, or body of which he is the head. But says one: Must I not join
some organization on earth, assent to some creed, and have my name written on
earth? No; remember that Jesus is your pattern and teacher, and neither in his
words nor acts will you find any authority for binding yourselves with creeds
and traditions of the elders, which all tend to make the word of God of none
effect, and bring you under a bondage which will hinder your growth in grace
and knowledge … . But say some: If it is not proper to unite with any of the
present nominal churches, would it not be well to form a visible organization
of our own? Yes, this is what we have – an organization modeled after that of
the early church. We think we have come back to primitive simplicity. The Lord
Jesus alone is our head or lawgiver; the Holy Spirit is our interpreter and
guide into truth; our names are all written in heaven; we are bound together by
love and common interest.
Do you inquire – how shall we know one another? We
reply, how could we help knowing one another when the Spirit of our Master is
made manifest in word and act, and manner and look? Yes, the living faith, the
unfeigned love, the long-suffering meekness, the childlike simplicity coupled
with the constancy and zeal of maturity, make manifest the sons of God, and we
need no earthly record, for the names of all such are written in the Lamb’s
book of life.
Members
of the True Church visit the sick, finance the Lord’s work, are willing to
“sacrifice reputation” and suffer “the reproach of the world and a degenerate
nominal church.” Russell addressed the issue of the “disorderly” among them.
Some sought organization to confront the issue. His reply was: “If we have no
organization such as we see about us, how can we free ourselves from such, as
the Lord requires us to do? We answer: Do just as Jesus and Paul directed.”
There are, he wrote, “various degrees of advancement among the individual
members, and Paul says (1 Thes. 5:14,) some are feeble-minded, comfort them;
some are weak, support them; but while you should be patient toward all, warn
the disorderly (those who are drifting away from the true spirit of Christ).
Don’t mistake the disorderly for the weak, and comfort them; nor for the
feebleminded, and support them.” He advised applying Matthew 18:15, 18.
Christ’s church “has its
evangelists, pastors and teachers appointed and directed by the Lord.” There
was no Apostolic Succession, but they were anointed by Holy Spirit to preach.
He restated the General Priesthood of All Believers doctrine, writing that
Jesus has “all the members of the body to preach …, and it is the duty of every
member of the body to exercise his office for the edification of the other
members.”
Russell seldom concisely
explained doctrines such as this. He believed direct statements tended to close
ears. So it is not surprising if one finds this article prolix. Put bluntly,
Russell rejected creedal churches because they were populated by those who
proved false to their obligations to God and their brethren. Churches were
worldly and not spiritual. Their creeds stifled scriptural inquiry, and they
rejected his key doctrines. Most of this article considers mutual obligations.
It is commentary on the post Civil War shift in to secular interests and the
adoption of misunderstood Darwinism with its idea of human progress that muted
the need for Redemption. Teachers were known by their subjection to Christ.
Substituting oneself for Christ, as he believed Barbour had done, marked one as
outside the fellowship. At the article’s end he retuned to the contrast between
the true and the false church:
How complete is the organization of the church of
Christ with its heaven-written, love-bound and Spirit-ruled membership, and how
sad the error of mistaking the nominal for the real church! … It would indeed,
be a dreadful calamity to lose our membership in the true church or body of
Christ. And no member is out of this danger except when keeping a vigilant
watch over the old nature, counted dead, lest it come to life again, and assert
itself in the form of pride, selfishness, envy, evil-speaking – or what not?
But if filled with love (the love that prompts to sacrifice) and clothed with
humility, and under cover of the redeeming blood, we are safe in the church
(body), having the assurance that it is our “Father’s good pleasure to give us
the kingdom.” …
We may have our names cast out as evil by those of the
nominal church, and yet “rejoice and be exceeding glad because our names are
written in heaven.” They may frown upon you and despitefully use you and say
all manner of evil against you falsely, or they may seek to win you back by
flattery, saying they cannot afford to lose your influence – you could do so
much good by remaining among them. Oh, how necessary in this “evil day” is the
faith – That bears unmoved the world’s dread frown, Nor heeds its flattering
smile; That seas of trouble cannot drown, Nor Satan’s arts beguile.”
Belief
in the guidance by Holy Spirit is New Testament doctrine, and it was
characteristic of Christian sects, especially the socially conservative, in
this era. It remains so among Christians who truly believe. For instance, The
Christian Workers Magazine, published by Moody Bible Institute, issued a
call for world-wide prayer signed by prominent clergy, among them James Gray,
Robert Russell, A. T. Robertson and R. A. Torrey. The believed, said their joint letter, that
they “were led by the Spirit of God to make this recommendation.”
Early in 1883 someone asked
Russell: “Would not an earnest, aggressive organization (or sect), built upon
scriptural lines, be the best means of spreading and publishing the real Good
Tidings? We must have fellowship and sympathy. Union is strength. It is not the
skirmishers that win the battle, but the disciplined and solid battalions.”
Russell suggested otherwise:
We
believe that a visible organization, and the adopting of some particular name,
would tend to increase our numbers and make us appear more respectable in the
estimation of the world. The natural man can see that a visibly organized body,
with a definite purpose, is a thing of more or less power; therefore, they
esteem the various organizations, from which we have come out, in obedience to
the Master’s call. But the natural man cannot understand how a company of
people, with no organization which they can see, is ever going to accomplish
anything. As they look upon us, they regard us simply as a few scattered skirmishers
– a “peculiar people” – with very peculiar ideas and hopes, but not worthy of
special notice.
But,
though it is impossible for the natural man to see our organization … we trust
that you can see that the true Church is most effectually organized, and in the
best possible working order …. The Apostle Paul urges all to unity of faith and
purpose (Phil. 3:15, 16 – Diaglott.) All led by the same Spirit may and do come
to a knowledge of the same truth. Under our Captain, all the truly sanctified,
however few or far separated in person, are closely united by the Spirit of
Christ, in faith, hope and love; and, in following the Master’s command, are
moving in solid battalions for the accomplishment of his purposes. …
Recognizing
this organization, which is of the Spirit, and desiring no assimilation
whatever with the worldly, who cannot see or understand it, we are quite
willing to bear the reproach of a peculiar people. We always refuse to be
called by any other name than that of our Head – Christians – continually
claiming that their can be no division among those continually led by his
Spirit and example as made known through his Word.
We
disown none of our Lord’s dear children. The weakest child of the household of
faith (in Christ, our Redeemer) we gladly recognize as our brother. Some, in
ignorance of their privilege of the communion of saints, are mixed with the
various worldly organizations, to their great detriment. Though we cannot
follow them there, we gladly welcome them when they come among us. …
Much
as Campbellites had before them, Watch Tower adherents saw themselves as
restored to New Testament doctrine and practice. This gave them a distinct
identity. Russell addressed this in October 1883 with an article entitled “Our
Sect.”
Russell referred to Webster’s
definition of “sect” as “A part cut off,” “Hence a body of persons who have separated from others by
virtue of some special doctrine, or set of doctrines, which they hold in
common.” They were a “sect,” he wrote, “since we hold to a set of doctrines
delivered to the saints by Jesus and the Apostles, and since we separate and
cut ourselves off from all other religious jurisdiction and control.” Citing
Ephesians 5:11 and 2 Corinthians 6:17, he said were “separate from sinners” and
had “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” Their distinctive
standing before God was based on their obedience and on a restored, pure
doctrine: “We obey the Lords command, ‘Come out from among them and be ye
separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean, and I will receive you …’
In doctrine we hold firmly to the glad tidings preached by Jesus and explained
by the Apostles, and will receive none other.” Ransom by Christ’s blood was the
underlying truth, “and built upon it, is our realization that we are justified
and cleansed from all sin in Gods sight, by his … sin-sacrifice.” All who
accept of their share in this atoning sacrifice are properly termed Christians,
he wrote.
While
the early church progressed beyond first principals to “strong meat” a
“comprehension … of the deep things of God,” “babes in Christ” are part of the
true church. Russell said this brought responsibility to the spiritually
stronger to support the week: “The more advanced in grace and doctrine bore the
infirmities of the weak, each and all seeking to grow in grace and knowledge
more and more.” Division entered the body of Christ when apostolic rule lapsed.
(Russell cited 1 Cor. 11:18, 19)
Christians are separated from the word, separate from
sinners, “separate from all others in that they accept of Jesus and salvation
through his blood.” While “there should be no schism or division” (He cited 1
Cor. 12:25), “it is not remarkable” that Satan sought to divide the sheep, to
put up denominational fences that hinder some “from following the Shepherd into
green pastures of fresh and living truth.” Russell found it strange that Satan
can “fetter the reason of so many, that they should think it a mark of
spirituality to say, I am of Luther, a Lutheran; I of Calvin and Knox, a Presbyterian;
I of Wesley, a Methodist” in the face of Paul’s question: “Is Christ divided?”
Paul marked such divisions as an expression of a carnal mind. “Did Paul or
Peter or Knox or Calvin or Wesley or anyone else than Christ die for your sins
and redeem you?” Russell asked. It is
improper to name the Bride of Christ “after any other than the Bridegroom.”
Russell
wrote that “God cannot and does not sympathize with or recognize any split in
the real church. He does not recognize the narrow creeds in which so many of
the sheep are confined and starving.” Unfaithful teachers who bind the sheep in
creedal pens will be “bound and beaten with stripes.”
Early
Watch Tower adherents objected to denominational creeds because they focused
Bible study into a narrow, predetermined focus. Their existence made it
difficult to reason with those who saw the creed as strong scripture, a wall in
front of error. Russell said as much when replying to a question about
Restitution and final punishment doctrine: “We claim that … only the strong
prejudice of early training hinders Christians from seeing” matters as he saw
it. “Only this prejudice and training leads any one to suppose that God will punish
willful sin with a life of torment when he positively declares, ‘The wages of
sin is death’ (cessation of life), and that ‘all the wicked will he destroy.’”
Fellowships and Congregations
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. H.
Samson, for a while a Watch Tower evangelist, seldom spoke in a public
facility. A newspaper noted that “most of his meetings … have been held in the
parlor of some member of the church.” 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
Watch Tower congregation in Grants Pass, Oregon, also used the name. The
Cedar Rapids congregation used it too, as did the congregation in Saratoga, New
York W. Hope Hay, a Watch Tower representative, used it as well. In
Cortland, New York, they called themselves the Church of the Living God and
Church of the Little Flock.
The Courtland, New York, Standard
November 29, 1902.
Though Church of the Living
God was appealing because it is scriptural, it was used by a politically
radical Black church, and Watch Tower congregations distanced themselves from
the name.
When the Scranton,
Pennsylvania, congregation 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 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.” A meeting-time
announcement for the Richmond, Virginia, congregation called them Believers in
the Dawning Millennium. They met Sundays in Marshal Hall on East Broad Street.
The announcement did not capitalize as we have, and the name seems more of a
description of belief than a title. Using some form of “Millennial Dawn” in
advertisements resulted on some calling them “Millennial Dawners.”
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.” Elsewhere
the name Millennial Dawn Readers was used.
In Omaha, Nebraska, a newspaper called them Believers, without saying what they
believed.
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. Wescott 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.”
Nancy C. Hudgings (1857-1922) of
Ash Grove, Missouri, was introduced to the Watch Tower in 1894 and was soon
sharing what she read. Her obituary reports the result: “When Sister Hudgings
first began to read the truth she forthwith put her light upon a candlestick in
stead of under a bushel, with the result that she was immediately
excommunicated from the Baptist church, even before she had read enough to
comprehend the call to ‘come out of her, my people.’”
Mrs. Hudgings became a zealous
worker, taking “her place along side the other members of the little ecclesia
of which she was a member each time there was a call for service.” Her obituary
called her a “faithful saint.” W. F. Hudgings, her son, eventually became a
director of the People’s Pulpit Association, now the Watchtower Bible &
Tract Society of New York.
Internal Issues
[guidance
issues here]
A problem some of our readers will
find familiar was boredom. Most early adherents were not accomplished speakers.
Ratiocination did not characterize most believers. Some meetings were rambling
discussions full of disagreement and doctrinal divergence. One unnamed
“Brother” observed: “I find that in our meetings where we have a talk, a
discourse, by one of the brethren, that circumstances must be very favorable if
there are not some sleepy heads in the house – and even sometimes when we have
a pilgrim with us this is the case.”
Dissension
Dissension was not uncommon. It
arose on several grounds. Those with similar, but ultimately opposition views
attended Watch Tower meetings. Some swayed by Barbour continued to attend Watch
Tower meetings simply because there was nowhere else to go. Paton’s adherents
were increasingly small in number, often having no meetings of their own. They
attended Watch Tower meetings, using them to spread Paton’s universalist ideas.
We discuss it more fully elsewhere, but we note here that beginning at least in
1882, Paton prepared booklets and tracts that went out primarily to Watch Tower
readers. The earliest of these known to us was a thirty-two page booklet
reprinting chapter four and part of chapter five of the ‘revised’ edition of
Day Dawn. As long as the meetings
included those with opposition beliefs, opposition literature made its way into
the fellowship and colored group discussions.
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.
