If you're going to comment Now it the Time. This comes down on Tuesday.
New Workers Enter the Field
It is
impossible to name everyone who showed interest or who became an adherent. Some
of the names we encounter are those of Age-to-Come/One Faith believers. Edward
Payson Woodward, whom we met in Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten
Prophet as chairman of the Worcester Conference and found in sympathy with
Barbour, wrote that several of his “personal friends … accepted Mr. Russell as
their Leader and spiritual Guide.” He read Millennial Dawn (later Studies
in the Scriptures), but rejected it.[1]
Many more adherents came from mainline Churches. New workers entered the field
almost with the first issue of Zion’s Watch Tower, but we are left with
scant documentation. Despite our best and persistent efforts we cannot identify
most of them. We have elected to present biographies of early evangelists even
though they spill over this book’s nominal 1887 terminus. Our readers will find
a mixture of personalities. Some were committed believers for life. Some had
passing interest, and some left the work full of bitterness.
There
is no better explanation for varied institutional adherence than Jesus’ parable
of the sower. (Matthew 13:18-23.) We do not suggest a prophetic fulfillment
among Watch Tower readers. But we feel Jesus’ explanation of varied
results among his followers is based on shrewd observation of organizational
loyalty. He divided results into several categories: [1] Those who fail to
truly understand the message. These will eventually leave. [2] Enthusiastic
supporters without a firm commitment. W. H. Cassirer translated Matthew 13:20
as “He is a person without roots, one with whom nothing ever lasts.” These drop
out when they meet opposition. [3] Those whose interest is choked out by daily
cares or “the seduction which comes from wealth.” [4] Those who understand the
organizational message and are firmly convinced by it.
Illustration
The Buffalo, New York,
Evening News
February 22, 1898.
Brother and Sister McCormack
Apparently well-known to Watch
Tower readers, the McCormacks are mentioned once. In July 1882 Russell
noted that they were moving to Chicago:
The
Chicago friends will be glad to know that Bro. McCormack is about to remove
there. Chicago is a good field, and our Brother and his wife remove there in
the hope of being used by the Master for the blessing of the household of
faith, by disseminating the truth. When he calls on you, receive him well – he
is a brother in Christ. Let meetings be commenced at once, and the Lord bless
you.[2]
The
closest we have to a firm identity is an inscription on the inside cover of Food
for Thinking Christians hard bound together with Tabernacle Teachings
and gifted from Sunderlin to a G. L. McCormack.
The remainder of this post has been deleted.
4 comments:
Enjoyed reading the latest version of this chapter, even though I couldn't solve any mysteries this time. I noticed Lawver is briefly mentioned in this chapter. Lawver was mentioned in The Restitution paper on a number of occasions in the 1870s and early 1880s. Am I correct in assuming that the chapter Seeking Cohesion with his bio will come before this one?
I've enjoyed seeing this chapter take shape. Your research is of a depth rarely even contemplated in what passes for "history" these days!
Returning to the subject of J S Lawver mentioned briefly in this chapter but given more space elsewhere - it is assumed he dropped out of the picture in early 1883 and is assumed to have died while traveling. I suspect he may have died a little earlier. George Kedworth raised the alarm in the Restitution paper for May 28, 1883 asking where he was? But the last mention of Lawver in that paper was about planned visits in Texas and Kansas the previous July of 1882. And then in the Border Star paper of Columbus, Kansas, for September 1, 1882, page 5, it advises J S Lawver that there is an uncollected letter waiting for him at the Columbus post office. I wonder if he ever collected it?
Many thanks for this fascinating chapter. I was particularly pleased in the documentation regarding William Boyer. I came across mention of him in relation to the early British field some time back, but with no idea at the time of who he was or why he was involved. All makes perfect sense now!
Post a Comment