This comes down on Monday. IF you're going to comment, now is the time. Roberto requested this be up two more days. I've agreed to leave it up until Wed.
Temporary Post
Temporary Post
This is the current version of Bruce's preface to volume 2 of Separate
Identity. He asked me to post it hoping for worth-while comments. I
think past experience demonstrates that won't happen, but here it is.
It will not be up long. Comment now IF you wish to. I'll take it down in
not many days. Usual rules: You may copy for your own use. Do not share
it off the blog, even with someone you know. Understand that it may
change, though I think this is near the final version. A well-done or a
critical comment are equally welcome. If you use it in your own
research, please ask first. This IS copyright material. Everything on
this blog is.
Introductory Essay – B. W.
Schulz
In
this volume of Separate Identity you will find much that is unfamiliar
to you. Some of what we present changes the narrative – call it the story line
– usually presented by those who write about the Russell years. But more often
we simply elaborate where others have abbreviated. A more complete narrative
gifts readers with a better understanding of Russell era history. This
occasionally makes us myth-busters. Occasionally reviewers have criticized our
impatience with the poor work of some who’ve written on similar topics. Perhaps
we should have lowered the volume when we expressed our distaste. But
ultimately, we have no apology for having noted partisan, misleading, and false
statements. Writers owe readers their best efforts. Not lies or sloppy
research.
Criticisms
have been few. Some continue to believe that Russell was a Mason, part of a
conspiracy seeking world domination. If he was, he was very ineffective. Though
this conspiracy theory is dying a slow death on Internet boards, we readdress
this in appendix one. Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, some
continue to assert that Russell was an Adventist. We think the evidence
presented in volume one is plain. Watch Tower adherents and other Literalist
believers rejected that identity. If it was wrong to identify them as Adventist
then, it remains so today. Those who identify Rusellites as Adventists should
do so on the basis of some evidence other than speculation about what ‘might
have been.’
Among
those who continue to present Russell era believers and descendant religions as
Adventist is Zoe Knox. This is disappointing. We expected better from her,
given her history of thoughtful and careful research. Her most recent book, Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Secular World, continues the myth of Russellite and Watch
Tower Adventism, which she supports by citing Rogerson.[1]
Rogerson did not support his claim; a critical eye would wonder why he failed
to do so. The reason, of course, is his claim is insupportable. Using
unsupported claims as the basis for your own work – without a minimal amount of
verification – is not best work. Nothing in Rogerson’s claim can be sustained
from contemporary documentation. What can be sustained is that Russell derived
his doctrine from Literalist belief. Much of what we wrote in volume one of
this work proves that.
The remainder of this post has been deleted. Comments are still open.
The remainder of this post has been deleted. Comments are still open.
12 comments:
German Girl read ist and was very much impressed by your amazing work (as always).
Bruce's introductory essay just gets better with every update. Other than correcting a few typos I don't anticipate him being able to improve on this anymore. (But likely he will prove me wrong.)
Is it too late to unpick the Gordian knot created by Rogerson and others? I suspect so, but since the gentle persuasion of argument hasn't worked up to now, the decisive sword of Bruce and Rachael perhaps will cut to the heart of the matter? Either way, volume 2 will certainly be worth the read.
Gary
I made a number of comments when an earlier version of this was in circulation - would quoting Zoe date the book? (I decided now it wouldn't in context) and the business with Martin and Cole and the Ross transcript - which is just a matter of how things are worded, and that is your decision, not mine, so no problem. I remember wondering about the amount of space given to Stroup, Gruss and Rogerson - but since their work is quoted from as gospel truth by modern writers I can understand why they are in your sights so much.
Gruss is an ex-witness so has an agenda. And Rogerson was only in his early 20s when he worked on his book so it comes over with all the "arrogance of youth.” I did suggest (tongue in cheek) that you might give Rogerson the "right of reply" but you rejected the suggestion. I quite understand. It would have been fun though.
The background to religious thought in Europe and America is particularly valuable in this chapter, to show where CTR and others got their general beliefs, before adding their unique specifics. The whole reads well, it has the Bruce stamp on it in turn of phrase, and I hope you get some considered comments from others who have not commented as yet on this material.
I first began to read the writings of Russell in the 1970s, and the more I read, the more I was fascinated by him. Even though I had easy access to everything he had written, thanks to a generous Bible Student, I assumed that getting to know about him personally, such as who influenced him, his upbringing, how his views developed, were hopelessly lost. I was too young and inexperienced to realize that I could do such research on my own.
Now, more than 40 years later, you team has done what I though was not possible; you have created a window into which we can peer inside him and his ideas, attitudes, beliefs, and that of his contemporaries, both friends and foes.
I cannot thank you enough for allowing me to learn more about someone who has always intrigued me, and who was the first one to motivate me to think about spiritual things. Many who have written about Russell either paint him as a saint who was God's instrument or as a shameless con-artist. For example, what the WT Society has written about him is, unfortunately, very shallow and hopelessly incomplete, for reasons I still do not understand. The complicated picture which you draw of him and his contemporaries and how his belief system came to be makes him come alive, and to see him as a human striving for truth, flaws and all, makes your work a breath of fresh air for untold numbers of us who have always longed for more. I can now see Russell as somewhat like ourselves, struggling to uncover more and more truth, and having both setbacks and successes along the way. Not a superhuman devoid of feelings, not a villain, but another human striving to learn and help others along the way.
I still hope the second volume will speak, at least briefly, about Russell's writing style. I think Russell was a very gifted author, and even to this day, hugely underestimated as a persuasive writer.
Thank you again for your incredible efforts. Their are many in my congregation who follow your blog, but are fearful of commenting, expecting to be accused of reading "unauthorized" spiritual food. That is a shame, but it doesn't stop them from enjoying your blog and your books very much.
On behalf of all of us, thank you for your outstanding research and a clear window into the spiritual past.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
May I apologize for the lengthiness of my comment and how long it took me to develop hence my being late.
I approached the new version of the text presented in this post with mixed feelings. If the first time I’ve read it, I greeted with a great laugh the deserved bashing of a series of sloppy works per prejudiced authors, then, by dint of repetition in a good ten of successive posts, I began to wonder if they were deserving the honours of a foreword instead of being rejected at the bottom of the page, if not completely.
But I remembered a similar situation that occurred 30 years ago, although in a totally different context : asked to lecture about the state-of-the-art of the CADCAM programs designed for his field, a very seasoned professor of my acquaintance, and an expert in automotive engineering, shot it down in flames by writing in one go some 40 pages of the fiercest criticism I had ever heard, but that turned out to be no less than a brilliant catalogue of proposals of fundamental improvements that would be achieved in fact in the following decades.
So I decided to reread carefully this present post, all the more so as it presents a practically definitive and complete text.
* * *
I found that the polemic parts of it, not only occupy a modest space of the entire introductory essay, but, more importantly, are an integral part of the argument in defense of a true solid historical research, as well as a proof by the reduction to the absurd of its real methods, and moreover an heartfelt appeal to the discernment of the reader.
* * *
However the central and fundamental object of the introduction, that occupies fully one-third of it, consists of an in-depth as well as unprecedented study of the millennarianism of Charles Russell and his continuators : of its sources, its origins (mainly British), its causes, actual and illusory, its intrinsic optimism and estrangement from a supposed disenfranchisement, and to the contrary, its incentive to “ assert anew belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God ”.
The millennarianism, as a corollary to the aspiration for an earthly paradise, is generally (at least in my country) despised by the Protestants as a childish and primal form of christianity, and censured by the Catholics due to a misinterpreted condemnation issued by the Pope Pius XII aimed in reality at the secularized forms of messianism ; besides, the Church itself, following the concoctions of Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome, didn’t hesitate to destroy an entire section of the 5th book of the treaty of Saint Irenaeus Against heresies, or the last pages of Saint Victorianus of Pettau’s commentary on the Apocalypse. So it was difficult for a long time to find reliable studies on the subject, apart from some Catholic writers slandered or fallen into oblivion, and, happy exception, the second volume of Jean Delumeau’s exhaustive study in 3 volumes on the History of Paradise, entitled 1000 years of happiness.
(To be followed)
(continuation and conclusion)
And now, at last, we find in Prof. Schulz’s seminal contribution, that appears as a follow-up of these works, a thorough analysis that establishes a connection, and delineates with sagacity the link, between Russell’s eschatological teachings and the centuries-long development of the millennarialist doctrine, making them appear as their natural extension and not some ready-made construction fallen from heaven.
* * *
In short, the introduction in itself forms a whole, and at the same time makes you want to learn more by reading on the following chapters. I would like to express my deep gratitude for your untiring, fruitful and profoundly honest research and its lucid and brilliant exposition.
Stéphane
* * *
PS. I came across some very insignificant typing mistakes I permit myself to mention just in case :
¶ 2 : Those who identify Rusellites as Adventists - PLEASE CHANGE TO : Russellites
¶ 8 : They are pre-millennairians, however - PLEASE CHANGE TO : pre-millennarians
¶ 13 : [which then included all of Ireland.] - MAY I SUGGEST TO ERASE THE PERIOD
¶ 18 : British Millennialism did not originate in a vacuum - MAY I SUGGEST TO ERASE ONE SPACE
~¶ 46 : When we begin to get the proper focus upon the Holy Scriptures that we begin to realize - MAY I SUGGEST TO BEGIN THE SENTENCE BY ADDING : It is, (It is when we begin to get), as is the case in the original, to obtain a better constructed phrase
~ ¶ 54 : and had not read n page of the Bible as such - PLEASE CHANGE TO : not read a page
~ ¶ 64 : In 1869-70 there were I only two college graduates - PLEASE CHANGE TO : there were only
~ ¶ 79 : To further his Presbyterian-rooted anti-sect screed, - PLEASE CHANGE TO : anti-sect’s creed
~ ¶ 99 : When I was young, the principals of formal logic - PLEASE CHANGE TO : the principles
Note 9 : Mystics and Messiahs : Cults and New Religions in American History - PLEASE EXTEND THE ITALICS
Note 19 : which had been applied continental groups - PLEASE CHANGE TO : applied to continental$
Note 25 : Joseph Priestly - PLEASE CHANGE TO : Priestley
Andrew makes some nice comments. I am sorry he feels that some who follow this blog are fearful of commenting, expecting to be accused of reading unauthorized spiritual food. This project is not "spiritual food" and has never made any such claims. It is history, pure and simple. History happened. We can't change history, all we can do is try to record it accurately and strive not to put our own modern spin on it - which is easier said than done. Of course, if people just don't want to comment then that is their decision and we should respect that - but comments do give encouragement to the project and also, on occasion, different researchers (with different resources at their disposal) can discover and share things of value.
Dear S,
thanks for the kind and helpful comments including your corrections. Bruce uses Screed correctly. I think this is a new English word for you:
Definition of screed
1 a : a lengthy discourse
b : an informal piece of writing (such as a personal letter)
c : a ranting piece of writing
Bruce uses it in the sense of definition c.
Thank you very much, Dear Rachael, for your nice English course, i love to learn new words. In this regard, I should have reread more carefully my own text when speaking about the treatise of Irenaeus of Lyons, my bad.
I look forward to reading you soon.
To the attention of Andrew :
At the incentive of Jerome's comment on another comment (thanks to Jerome for the idea), I would like to address your considerations, wishing to express my entire agreement with your views ; I fully share your assessment of the importance of the work done by our two historians, whose research has met long-standing expectations from my part that are very similar to yours, and that you expressed much better than I could do. Yet I am part of a community a little different from your own : here practically everybody keeps a finger on the pulse of books, articles or even programmes that take an honest look at our faith, our work or our history, this without any anxiety, and shows his willingness to communicate it with others. Alas ! in our case we are often stopped by the language barrier as most of us come from modest backgrounds and are not fluent in English : and that is a real problem, and another reason for the lack of commentaries…
Please accept my best greetings,
Stéphane
In commenting a couple of days back on this introductory essay I wrote that it “has the Bruce stamp on it in turn of phrase.” I was asked by Rachael on another platform to explain what I meant.
I responded: Bruce can be snippy and does not suffer fools gladly. Not quite as caustic as Clayton J Woodworth but there are similarities. A lot is written in first person. Academic sentences sometimes mingle with vernacular. This is NOT criticism, just observation on style.
Rachael made the valid point that the use of the first person was because the preface was written as his first hand opinion.
I don’t know whether this will spin off into comments on the writing styles of Bruce and Rachael – the moment has probably passed now – and comments on contents are obviously what they would prefer.
I find the introductory essay notable in several respects. The reader must concentrate on the content of this article rather than the people who are mentioned. At first glance, it would seem that the author dwells too much on other writers and works that are poor in substance or even liars. But it is not so.
Actually Schulz in a few pages gratifies us with an infinity of precious information that prepare us to read the book, freeing our head from previous wrong ideas.
Look at the content, the essence, what Schulz tells us to start reading with the right attitude. It is not a simple introduction, an empty oratory, but a preparation for us.
See what is covered in the introduction: The definition of Adventism and Millenarianism and the correct origin of the Watch Tower movement. That they were part of a broader ‘Restoration’ movement
seeking a return to New Testament belief and practice. The denial of the sociologists idea that a sense of social deprivation is the reason of the millenarian belief. The contrast between Watch Tower theology with the so-called "orthodoxy". The Lollards. The role of faith and not social crisis to understand the origin and essence of movement. That the Millenarianism is not pessimistic. Tracing the Millenarian foundation in the 17th century and before that. The title Pastor Russell. The historical idealism. The Ross trial. The Russell divorce, and so on.
The author communicates essential points for reading the book. These points are often different from what we may have read previously. When he mentions other authors, he does so because he knows that some readers, perhaps many, may have read the books of other authors who have done poor research and sometimes lied.
Read and read again the last two paragraphs of the introductory essay. it is a guide not only for this book, but for any other.
Great Introductory Essay.
I long for the book
Post a Comment