A tiny fragment

Corrected Quotation

Right now this is part of chapter one, vol. 2. Separate Identity. This may change. It may become a chapter of its own. What ever happens, this will give you a taste of our research:

            Russell identified Barbour’s Atonement Doctrine as Unitarian, and it was held by Unitarians. He was not inaccurate. But its origin rests further back in history than the American Unitarian movement. Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann, a German Lutheran, suggested something similar. In his Der Schriftbeweis, published first between 1852 and 1855, he abandoned traditional Lutheran and Trinity-based Substitution theory, replacing it with a view with which Barbour would have agreed. Claude Welsh, using rather over blown language, describes Hofmann’s theory:

For Hofmann, Christ appeared as man on earth as the historical activation of the eternal inner-divine will of love to restore the fellowship with God broken by sin. He did this not so much by an act of dying as by a human form of being and willing and doing that throughout (and thus also unto death) was characterized by obedience to the divine call. Thus the love and fidelity of Jesus to the father, reflecting the inner-divine love of Son to Father, mediates a new relation of God and man, and those who receive this divine act in faith become participants in the new humanity of which Christ is the head.[1]

            Put in simpler terms, Hofmann saw Christ as redeeming man by example. This is Barbourite doctrine. We have no evidence that Barbour read Hofmann’s work. Hofmann’s ideas came to him through American and British intermediaries. The idea persisted well after the 1870s and 1880s. Horatio Woodburn Southworth [Born 1839], an Anglican layman, published a small book entitled The First Millennial Faith in 1893. It and a predecessor book were meant to “combat the ‘satisfaction theory,’” the belief that mankind and God were reconciled by Christ’s death. He advocated Barbour’s redemption by example theory, though we have no evidence that they read each other’s work. Southworth’s book is primarily a series of quotations from ‘church fathers’ none of which say what he suggests they do.

---

[1]               C. Welsh: Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century¸ Yale University Press, 1972, Volume One, page 225.

Books you should read, though take with a 'grain of salt."

Some of you are interested in the antecedents and backgrounds to Russell's beliefs. These books will help you. That I'm listing them does not mean that I endorse them in every respect.

1. William Sims Bainbridge: The Sociology of Religious Movements.  A bit dated and often based on secondary sources. However, a good overview.

2. Claud Welsh: Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Obtuse, occasionally turgid. Welsh presumes you know things you probably do not. This really isn't a history of Protestant thought; it is a history of rationalist thought. However, Russell reacted to and opposed this. So the background is useful. Take this with a grain of salt and a bit of doubt. The author approves of rationalism. It's essentially an an anti-traditionalist book. Read it anyway.

3. David D. Hall: World's of Wonder; Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England. Useful.

4. Connors and Gow: Anglo-American Millennialism, from Milton to the Millerites, Useful but sometimes misdirected. Read it anyway.

More later ... maybe.

Blog vists

We appreciate blog visits. They show us that there is some interest in our work. Unfortunately we get visits from people who want to express stupidity, spam or otherwise disrupt the blog. Google/Blogger is wise to the ways of the world, and few of these get through.

Generally, visits from Russia, Korea, Japan, any Muslim country, China are not expressions of interest but attempts to spam or disrupt. Few of these succeed because blogger blocks them. We appreciate this.

To the most recent spammers: If you manage to leave a comment with a link to your web page, know that I will take it down almost immediately. You're wasting your time.

To our Korean, Japanese and Chinese visitors: None of you are here out of interest. None of your posts make it to the blog. They're stopped at the door by blogger. You are wasting my time and irritating me. Stop it. [Not that I expect you will.]

This is a history forum, not a religious discussion board. Most of those who visit it have their own firm beliefs. We do too. Most of our faithful readers know that Dr. Schulz is a Witnesss and I am not and never have been one. We do not discuss our individual theologies on this blog. You cannot either. You may discuss history. We expect that many of our readers know the basic elements of Watchtower belief and history. Some do not. Be willing to learn. I will disallow stupidity. If you insist on promoting a discredited view of Watchtower history,  your comments will be blocked. Do not be rude to blog administrators or anyone else. I won't allow it.

I do not care what your religion is. I do not care about your life style. [As long as you leave me, my daughters and my goats alone.] I do care that you are civil on this blog. If you disagree with any of our writers including myself, it is okay to say so. But you must support your argument with references to original - not secondary - sources. I am never angered by better research. Our work thrives on it. I even invite you to write a well-documented refutation, and I will publish it here. But if you're rude, I will not be a happy princess, and figuratively I will say, "off with his head!" [Yes I read Lewis Carrol.]

I can't end the spammers, but I do report each one to blogger. I will block comments from the terminally rude and stupid.

Now, we also expect that you will do some research of your own before you ask a question. We expect you to assume some personal responsibility. As a teacher, we both learned long ago that students, adults and children, will use an instructor/lecturer as their personal encyclopedias. We're not anyone's encyclopedia. We are, however, willing to discuss issues especially as they relate to our research.

A few paragraphs from my Intro Essay.

Unrevised rough draft. Comments, please. And thanks to those who commented on the previous post.

            I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell’s belief system. So what follows doesn’t even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of ‘tastes’ – a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. In this short profile, I will take you no further back than the 16^th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in most of Europe, but Russell’s acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

            Before I proceed I should note that Russell’s prophetic views are not the only one of his doctrines that have roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial era and early Republic era belief of non-Trinitarian congregational churches in New England. The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to Seventeenth Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God, not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and as it came to Russell in the reformation era.

            The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly held in Russell’s day as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell’s supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only “seemingly” an accident. We see it in this volume and in the pages of Zion’s Watch Tower when new adherents see a Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands as an act of divine providence. Both in Brittan and in the American colonies, the belief that ‘marvels’ portended divine messages was strong. A strayed horse, a comet, a cloud’s shape all were messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeen Century, but the belief persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God’s guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell’s experience we see it in his narration of his fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson. That events have meaning was the belief of our colonial era ancestors. Colonial era Almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell’s willingness to credit astrology even while – in Russell’s case – seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England’s position as the state church expecting all to submit to its ritual, dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19^th Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only –  committed, obedient Christians – is the background to Russell’s criticism of compromised churches that he saw as mere social clubs. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower belief and in Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom.

            While Russell’s connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are of less moment than the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came. Historians differ in details. Some postulate an era when millennialism died out, only to be reborn in America in the era of the newly-born Republic. Some say it died out in England after the Restoration, thrown into disfavor by its political connections to the Puritan revolution. Neither of these claims is true. Confusing the sermons, lectures and books of academics and philosophers for the belief of John Plowman or Mary Housemaid, those who sat in church pews and who ultimately represent Christian belief, is a mistake. I agree that any historian of religion must grasp the intellectual arguments and philosophies promoted by those who thought themselves Christendom’s guiding lights. But it was belief systems held in common that drove events and movements. 

----

And ... here is an illustration from vol 2 Separate Identity ... Sunderlin registered at Gillig's when in England:

Temporary Post - Food for .. in the UK

Usual rules. You may take a copy for your own use. Do not share it off the blog without permission. This is rough draft and may change. Never rely on a temporary post. This is a rough draft chapter from Separate Identity 2.

In All the Earth: The United Kingdom

The first concentrated international missionary activity was in the United Kingdom. It is impossible to gage interest in Britain before the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. Previous to its publication the only letters appearing in Zion’s Watch Tower were doctrinal, and few names and few or no locations were noted. There were Bible Examiner readers in Scotland at least by 1850; a letter from William Glen Montcrieff, a noted Scot Conditionalist, appeared in the May 1850 issue. Letters from other British Conditionalists appeared too. There had been some notice of the work in The Rainbow. A British clergyman and Barbourite, Elias H. Tuckett, wrote three articles for Rainbow. There may have been some small residual interest from that.[1] Barbour mailed his Coming of the Lord tract to the British journal The Christadelphian, which reviewed it negatively.[2] Later The Rainbow reviewed The Three Words, though somewhat negatively. The book saw a very limited circulation in England.[3] There is also some indication that Paton mailed material to his relatives in Scotland, but this seems to have born little to no fruitage. Yet, a prominent adherent in Newark, New Jersey, claimed adherents in England and elsewhere. “We have,” he said, “members all over America, England, Australia, I think, and probably in Germany.”[4]

Russell asked John Corbin Sunderlin and later Joseph Jacob Bender (June 21, 1838 - February 10, 1905) to travel to the United Kingdom to publish Food for Thinking Christians and to direct a massive circulation campaign. Sunderlin had prior experience as an itinerate photographer and may have been chosen on that basis. Less is known of J. J. Bender. Historians including Watch Tower writers have never profiled him. Bender was a traveling sales agent for and later owner of a chemical company.[5] In most city directory listings he is noted by the initials “J. J.” but his first name is given in J. F. Diffenbacher’s Directory of Pittsburgh and Allegheny Cities for 1881-1882 and his middle name is found in family papers. Bender published The Standard Class-Book for Sunday-School Teacher’s Minutes in 1871, which was favorably reviewed by The Sunday School Journal that year.[6] In May 1886 he and a partner purchased The Bookmart, a magazine published in Pittsburgh devoted to book and autography collecting.[7]

Sunderlin was in Britain by July 11, 1881, when he registered with Gillig’s American Exchange in London, “a familiar and popular resort with Americans in the English metropolis.”[8] He received his mail and made currency exchanges at Gillig’s. It appears that the British edition of Food for Thinking Christians saw publication before the American edition but this is uncertain. Sunderlin arranged with William Cate, a London printer, to publish the booklet.[9] 

The remainder of this post has been deleted.

Maybe this one ...

Unless there's something better ...

Bernard sent this photo of 101 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, the Watch Tower's first office. Unless we get something better, this is it. The Watch Tower office is the smaller building with the peaked roof.

Yet another possible front cover illustration

Another possible cover photo - Federal Street, Allegheny

We are considering these two illustrations but would like something better

Front Cover Illustration

We are considering front cover illustrations for Separate Identity, volume 2. Of those we've found, few are worth considering. Do you have a suggestion?

I resent this ...

I see I must explain my posting name, "Sha'el, Princess of Pixies." Because, I suppose, some people cannot separate a rather silly blogger name from what I write.

I chose this name just before my novel, Pixie Warrior, was published. Pixie Warrior's main character is a  young pixie named Sha'el. It turned into a cross over book, attracting adults and young adults, and sat on the several bestseller lists. eg: http://wardancingpixie.blogspot.com/2009/12/it-was-best-seller.html

I've never seen the need to change my posting name. I do not intend to change it. Making jest because of it will not endear me to you.

That said, if you wish to address me by my hereditary title, "Your serene highness," I'll laugh with you. I am, as I have explained before, the American born daughter of an Austrian mother and a German-American father. But while I value my heritage, my abilities and education are my own work, and I owe nothing to anyone for them.

If all you see is my silly posting name, you do not see ME.

Obviously Time to Restate the Rules

New comment on an earlier article and my reply. If you have questions or comments, make them here.

Unknown said...

Imagine this: Now the Watchtower gives the Emphatic Diaglott away for free with no subscription to any other publication. In fact, the Watchtower is the largest printing corporation in the world and they don't charge for any literature nor do they allow advertising. The Watchtower prints the largest circulated magazines in the world at over 60 million copies monthly. Looks like the holy spirit really backs the Watchtower. Try to come up with another company that gives bibles away for free. The Jehovah's Witnesses really are God's chosen people.

October 23, 2018 at 5:46 AM

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

Dear Unknown,

This is a history blog. It does not exist for any other purpose. Your comment may be your sincere belief, but it is out of place here. And in point of fact there are a number of organizations that give away free copies of the Bible.

Ordinarily, I'd take your comment down as a violation of our rules. Instead, I'm using it as an occasion to restate our prime rule: This is a history blog. Comments should be relevant to Watchtower history. People of many faiths, academics, and other writers visit this site. All are welcome to post comments relevant to the history articles we post. None are welcome to advertise their faith or engage in a polemic. This blog exists only to present our research and articles by others that represent well-documented historical exposition. Polemical comments are never welcome.

October 23, 2018 at 10:11 AM

I should add that the Watchtower is not the largest printing corporation in the World. That's centered in China.

addenda:

Dear Unknown,

I took down your temper tantrum, and I will not allow any further comments from you. I think you represent your religion accurately, and it is people such as yourself that convinced me it could not possibly be 'truth.' You do not act as a Christian should; you do not know your own religion; and you're factually incorrect in your statements.

I've informed the blog admins to delete any comment from yourself. 

It's mine to write - Live with it.

My preface as outline draft.

Preface One – By R. M. de Vienne

            It’s taken longer to write this volume of Separate Identity than we anticipated, but as with the two previous books, few of our expectations have stood up under the light of better research. We believed that a second volume would complete our research. It has not done so. There will be, assuming we live long enough to complete it, a third and final volume.

            This volume differs in format from its predecessor. The first volume follows a loose chronological order. Because of its narrow focus primarily on the years 1879 to 1882, this volume is a series of essays each focusing on an aspect of Watch Tower transition into a separate, identifiable belief system. There is a looser chronological order here; and the chapters occasionally overlap each other in subject matter. As before we elected to present this history in as much detail as we can, hoping thereby to take our readers into the spirit of the times. Omission seems to us to be misdirection.

            Volume 3 will focus on the fragmentation that followed 1881. It is partially written, but much hard research remains. And as always, we’re hampered by lack of resources. We have few issues of key magazines. We do not have anything like a complete run of A. P. Adams’ Spirit of the Word. We miss key years of J. H. Paton’s The World’s Hope. A paper published in California exists as a few clippings pasted into a scrapbook. A booklet written by Barbour seems to have been lost. We do not have any of the first issues of Jones’ Day Star. We appreciate help locating things like these.

           Now, let me tell you about volume two. This volume examines the continuing controversy between Russell and Barbour. One writer suggested that it was short lived. It lasted until Barbour’s death in 1905. We tell you the story up to 1882. It is more complex than most writers appreciate, and its complexity explains the development of key Watch Tower doctrines, at least one of which persists until today.

            We tell you about the Watch Tower’s principals struggle to preserve the body of believers, to transition Barbourite believers into Watch Tower adherents. We tell you about their earliest missionary journeys, drawing much of this from sources not referenced by anyone else. We introduce you to people mentioned only once or twice in Zion’s Watch Tower but who played an important role in its earliest years. We tell you about the nature of the earliest congregations and fellowships and how they were formed. Again, we draw on first hand experiences not found  in any history of the movement. We tell you about the reaffirmation of old doctrines and the discussions behind that.

            The movement attracted clergy to its ranks. We discuss this in some detail, naming names, telling the story as we could uncover it of several clergy turned Watch Tower believers. In 1881 Russell and a few others organized and provided initial financing for the work. We provide details not found elsewhere, and we correct a widely-spread error. We tell you about the start of the publishing ministry and the development of the Priesthood of All Believers doctrine among Watch Tower adherents. A key event was the printing and circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. Though the Watchtower Society declined to share a key document, offering no explanation as to why a document from 1881-1882 should be kept secret, we offer our readers a full discussion of this small book’s circulation and its effects on readership. With the circulation of Food new workers entered the field. The Watchtower society has ignored these, especially John B. Adamson, in its histories. We do not know why, but we think the reasons multifarious. Adamson and some others among the earliest missionaries left the Watch Tower movement. Watchtower writers tend to ignore the contributions of those who deflected from the movement. It is probably safe to say that much of this history is unknown to Watchtower researchers. It’s not their focus, and they’ve left it unexplored.

            An important part of this era’s story is the spread of Watch Tower doctrine to various ethnic groups within the United States and to other lands. So we tell you about work among foreign language groups in the United States. The Zechs and a Norwegian sea captain are part of this story. We tell you about the early work in Canada, the United Kingdom, China, and other lands. We discuss at length the history of a man mentioned with favor in Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. His story is far different from what the author of that book presumed. We tell you about the early work in Liberia. [This history appeared first as B. W. Schulz: “Watch Tower Faith in Liberia: A Conflict of Faith and Authority,” Nssuka Journal of History, University of Nigeria, Volume 4, 2017, page 31ff.] Other lands come into this picture. Almost none of this has been published anywhere except in the original documents.

          Eighteen eighty-one was a key year in Watch Tower history. Most of those who mention that year’s events misstate them. We do our best to correct the misdirection and misstatement common among recent writers. We think we provide a more complete picture of the Watch Tower’s earliest years, a more balanced picture than found elsewhere.

          Read Mr. Schulz’ Introductory Essay. It clarifies issues that confuse some writers. It puts Russell and the Watch Tower movement in a historical perspective often misstated or ignored by recent writers. A later chapter takes up attempts by historians and sociologists to place the Watch Tower movement within one of the current theoretical frameworks. We suggest that they ignore key elements of the Watch Tower belief system so that their theories are questionable.

Acknowledgements

          Before considering some important issues, we have some housekeeping issues. First, we have many to thank for their assistance:

            [continue]

            We have received a steady stream of queries asking if our work is sponsored by the Watchtower Society. It is not. We have corresponded with them from time to time. Lately they have ignored our letters which are, in my opinion not at all inflammatory. [We are, after all, historians, not polemicists.] I herewith reproduce our last letter to them, dated to the end of July 2018, which has to the date of publication gone unanswered. Judge for yourself. Is this letter hurtful? Accusatory? In any way? I cannot explain why it remains unanswered, except to suggest that the Watchtower wishes to control the narrative and finds a detailed history, no matter how neutral, threatening.

[Insert letter here]

Formatting and Grammar

            We have retained the spelling and grammar of those we quote, and we use quotations freely. Much of the source material upon which we’ve relied is not easily accessible or has been misrepresented by other writers. A quotation from the original helps relieve our readers of the task of finding this material. Of course, a really interested researcher will not rely on our quotations if they can find the original, nor should they. So unless you find a note attached to a quotation, presume that the italics and small capitals are as they are in the originals.

            We should note, too, that though we have quoted an author, we may not and sometimes most definitely do not agree with them. Usually this will be plain from context. Occasionally in a footnote we describe a disagreement. Without exception, polemicists from the past are a disagreeable, dishonest, and vulgar bunch. We’ve still quoted from some, but you now know our opinion in the plainest terms. And our opinion is not based on their opposition to Watch Tower theology, especially as expressed in the Russell era, but on a consistent misrepresentation of Watch Tower adherents, misquotation or out of context quotation of original source material, an unwarranted assumption of saintly character by some who are truly disreputable men.

            With volume one of this work we were able to follow a mostly chronological order. Because this volume considers a very narrow year range – mostly the years from 1879 to 1882 – this is not possible. We present you with a series of essays each of which considers an aspect of Watch Tower history. You will find some repetition of points. We’ve tried to limit this, but that it occurs is unavoidable.

My View

            Bruce’s introduction addressed the difference between Age-to-Come and Adventism and more commonly held millennial view quite nicely. I will add only one point, a quotation from Ernest Sandeen’s The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenairanism, 1800-1930. Dr. Sandeen puts to shame those who confound Adventism with mainstream millennial belief, and he does it quite politely:

[insert quotation]

            If you haven’t read B. W. Schulz’ introductory essay, please do so now. I fully agree with what he has written, and I have some thoughts to add to it. A major, in fact the major, problem with most of what is written about the Russell years is a consistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of American and British religious history. There are probably many reasons for this, but within my experience the two most noticeable are confirmation bias and dependence on secondary sources. These are interdependent. A certain class or writers supposes that because someone with some sort of college degree wrote it, it must be true. This is evident in the tendency to track Russellism back to Adventism only on the basis of what another wrote. Few ask, “What is the evidence and where does it lead?”

            An example of over dependence on secondary sources is found in William Sims Bainbridge’s The Sociology of Religious Movements.[1] After some pages discussing W. Miller, E. G. White and C. T. Russell, Bainbridge observes: “Russell is quite different from either Miller or White. He was not given to visions, but did have a will to dominate that Miller lacked. In the absence of good biographies or access to original documents such as letters, it is hard to get the measure of the man.”

            This tells us far more about Bainbridge’s research than it does about the state of Russell- related research when he wrote. [1997]. He was dependent on Curry and Rogerson, using them in preference to the available Watchtower Society product, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, apparently because they had some sort of academic standing that Watchtower writers lack. But even in 1997 neither of their works stood up under close examination. As for Bainbridge’s assertion that researchers lacked material, many thousands of pages of Russell’s writing were easily available. There is no evidence that he read any of it. The fault is not his alone. It was a common one twenty years ago and remains common today. The two most recent books by known scholars that touch on Russell and the movement he fostered suffer from lack of in-depth research into original sources, confirmation bias, and a misunderstanding of American religious history – and of British religious history. So, while they are fairly solid introductions to Watchtower history and Witness culture, they are fundamentally flawed. There is in these works a reliance on myth and superficial research. I am not the only one to confront this issue when considering Millenarian belief systems. James West Davidson noted it, writing: “Few historians even those whose province is religious history, have read the Revelation of John or the many voluminous commentaries written about it by seventeenth and eighteenth century Englishmen.” Our somewhat wider observation is that those writing on our topic have a superficial understanding of the Millenarian experience out of which Russellism came, or, for that matter, the American religious experience. Those more recent writers from the United Kingdom do not seem to understand British Millenarian belief at all.

            Despite claims that they have done so, they have not read what the principal actors in this drama wrote. They meet names of those about which they know little beyond what an online ‘encyclopedia’ may tell them and write as if they knew these characters intimately. Yet, they have not read what the principals wrote. So we read of Storrs, Wendell, Barbour and others, but find their lives, beliefs and history are misstated, taken out of context, and in some cases we find frank fabrication. Imagination replaces solid research. For a historian or sociologist to do this is to perpetrate a fraud on his readers. That they failed to read what these men wrote is self-evident. And it is without excuse. Zion’s Watch Tower; The Bible Examiner; The World’s Crisis; The Restitution; The Herald of the Morning and their American and British predecessors and contemporaries are not impossible to find. If you write about these men and the others that populate Watch Tower history but fail to read what they said, how are you an honest narrator?

            There is an abundance of material available, and some authors have read parts of it. But characteristically those who write Watchtower history don’t make vital connections. Russellism, the Watch Tower movement in the Russell era is a late 19^th Century expression of a fundamental belief system that has its roots in the apostolic era. More specifically, Russell-era Watch Tower theology is an expression of Millenarian belief systems common in Europe from the 16^th Century forward. Do not misconstrue this for an endorsement of Watch Tower theology as expressed in the Russell era. I am only pointing toward the ‘family’ of belief systems to which we can trace it.

[Introduce new section here]

In this short profile, I will take you no further back than the 16^th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in most of Europe, but Russell’s acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

            Historians differ

---

[1]               Routledge, New York, 1997, page 106. Despite my criticism noted above, this is a book that should be read by anyone researching religious history.

L. W. Jones - 1913

Jones is holding a cup.

On ebay ...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Watchtower-Jehovah-Witness-Movie-Rutherford/392147808637?hash=item5b4dd4b17d:g:vQoAAOSwgSpbw19d

Very rare film in original canister.

Submissions and style issues

Style issues.

We have several pending articles by others. Here is what we expect:

1. Submit articles in Word format or Word Perfect if you must.

2. Use Times New Roman at 12 point, justified. The British version of word is set to another font. When you are done writing, select all and chose Times New Roman. If you do not follow that procedure, I end up with a mass of conflicting code. It is very frustrating to fix Word code.

3. No spaces between paragraphs. Set that to 0. Again you present me with code issues if you set it to anything else.

4. Set your paragraph format to first line indent .5. You can do that by simply hitting the tab key ONCE as you start a new paragraph. If you hit it multiple times, you’ve nearly ruined your document.

5. Block quotations should be formatted with margins set at .6 both sides. A block quotation does not need quotation marks; that it is indented serves the same purpose as quotation marks. Any quotation five lines or longer should be indented to this standard.

6. The footnote format we use, and that we want you to use, is:

Ima Author: I Wrote This¸ My Publisher is an Idiot, New York, New York, 1985, page 88.

or

Ima Author: I Write Articles, Nonsense Monthly, June 2, 1881, page 19.

or

Birthed Boy: My Memories of Chaos, typescript manuscript reproduce at [web page] or alternately [Found in the Harvard Mss collection.]

7. Check your format settings for background color. Chose default or you will end up with a white or colored background.

8. Put your name on the article. You may use your first name or any alternate name. But be consistent. Match your comment persona. Full, real names are desirable if you are building a c.v.

9. Your article should be, when possible, sourced to original documents. If that’s not possible, let me know in advance.

10. Articles should focus on the Russell era when possible. If you have an idea for a later era, pass it by me first. There is no sense in writing about something we do not find suitable for the blog.

11. This is a history blog. We do not want a polemic. We want well-researched articles that focus on Watch Tower history. That does not mean that we will reject a controversial topic. Good, solid research trumps all.

12. If English isn’t your first language, we will work with you to put your article in proper, grammatical condition. Make it worth our while. Write good stuff.

An update of sorts ...

We’ve spent more money than we should buying books to pursue a new topic. Now we have to read them all, extracting the salient points. Some contradict each other, but all are worth reading. These are well-researched, well-thought-out books, despite the conflicting views.

We used the overage from the donation for the expensive book mentioned earlier. We added a significant amount from our household budgets to buy the rest.

The topic I’m pursuing is the chain of millennial beliefs from the late 16^th Century until the Russell era. We think this is necessary to refocus researchers [and other interested parties] onto the true antecedents of Russell era theology.

A subset of this topic is the effect of ‘Russellism’ and Brethren belief on mainstream American Protestant belief. This trail started with a comment by a clergyman who found Russellism troubling because members of his church were persuaded by it. Russell Sperry Chafer wrote [in 1915]:

The country is being swept by “Russellism” (so-called “Millennial Dawn,” “International Bible Students’League,” etc.), and the appalling progress of this system which so misrepresents the whole revelation of God can only be accounted for in the unsatisfied hunger of the people for the prophetic portions of Scripture. Such a false system, mixing truth with untruth, and designed to interpret all of the divine revelation, is evidently more engaging to the popular mind than only the Scriptural presentation of the fundamental doctrines concerning God, Man and Redemption.

After finding this we found similar comments from other clergy and a series of really disreputable acts. This led us to question just how much influence on the trends among Protestant clergy the Watch Tower had. Snippets of things from Russell added to our suspicions and questions.

So all of this – though it requires more intense research than I first expected – will become part of my introductory essay. The subject really requires a solidly researched book. As it is now, it is scattered among books making up a long bibliography. Some of them are wrong, but only because the authors had limited resources compared to what is available today. Since 1970 a number of authors have touched on this history or presented in some detail a small portion of it. My task ‘should I care to accept it’ is to present an overview in an essay. Others will have to take it from there. I only want to refocus my academic partners, friends and enemies onto what I believe is the correct trail and off the Adventist trail that is false. And short sighted.

Some of those who visit this blog would be perfectly capable of turning my relatively short essay [still a work in progress] into a book-length treatment. Think about it.

Material Published on this Blog

If you wish to republish something from this blog, contact me FIRST.

Malcom's Bible

by Jerome

(with grateful thanks to Brian, current owner of the book, who provided the graphics from it along with other useful input acknowledged below)

Several decades ago a Bible Student came across a Holman’s Linear Bible (c. 1902 with ZWT references) in a book resale shop in Van Nuys, California. It was in very poor condition, but she noted a picture of Pastor Russell that a previous owner had pasted inside the cover. This prompted the purchase and the volume was subsequently rebound.

It now appears that this Bible had once belonged to Malcom Rutherford, the only son of Joseph Franklin and Mary Rutherford. After the death of his second wife, Eleanor, Malcom spent his last years in that area. (He and both his wives are buried side by side in the Forest Park Memorial Cemetery, Glendale, Los Angeles County, California.)

The link with this Bible to the Rutherford family starts with the picture of CTR pasted inside the book. The picture has been cut from a magazine or paper and has been much folded and taped together before being attached. It is a portrait that was regularly used in convention reports c. 1905-1907.  Just above the picture are two small scripture paste-ins, the kind of thing regularly found in Manna books of the era. One was for a Sister Boerger and the other for a Sister Rutherford.

The sticker on the right is addressed “Dear brother Rutherford” and signed “sister Boerger.” The sticker on the left is addressed to “sister Boerger” and signed “sister Rutherford.”

Searching for “Sister Boerger” has not been successful as yet. There was an Annie Boerger who wrote a filler for the August 2, 1922, Golden Age magazine. But whether she had any connection with the Sister Boerger in the Holman Bible I do not know. If anyone else can assist, please do make a comment.

However, the key names are Brother and Sister Rutherford.

A close check on the flyleaf where one would expect to find the owner’s name yields three names. They are actually very faint and were written in pencil. Either someone has tried to erase them or they have just faded with age. However, modern photographic technique has been able to restore the names, and I am very grateful to the present owner of the volume, Brian K, who has achieved this.

The three names are:  J. F. Rutherford, Mary M. Rutherford, and M. C. Rutherford.

It would have been nice if all the three names were original signatures, but this is not the case. We have J. F. Rutherford’s signature from a personal letter written in 1914, and this is a different hand.

We do not have Mary Rutherford’s signature (unless it is on the paste-in). However, we do have examples of Malcom’s signature. From his WW1 draft registration document in 1917 this is how he signed his name.

Moving forward in time this is how he signed his registration document for WW2 in 1942.

All the names in the Holman Bible are in the same hand. Brian sent me a comprehensive analysis of the handwriting, and is confident that this is in Malcom’s own hand. I have no reason to doubt this.

So, the area where the Bible surfaced, the stickers naming Brother and Sister Rutherford, the names of the three members of the Rutherford family on the flyleaf and a handwriting comparison indicates that this was most likely Malcom’s own Bible.

But why would Malcom keep this Bible, since he did not stay with his parents’ religion? We must remember that Malcom was a Bible Student for a number of years. He was in the supplemental census return for May 14, 1910, living and working in Brooklyn Bethel with both parents at the age of 17. He is listed as a “mail clerk.” He travelled from Liverpool, UK, to the United States on the Lusitania in April 1911 as “Pastor Russell’s valet.” Later that year he appeared in the convention report as one of CTR’s stenographers. He joined his parents on a pilgrim visit to the UK just before WW1 in 1914. According to the May 1, 1915 WT he was stenographer for his father in the Rutherford-Troy debates in Los Angeles. When first submitting his draft papers in 1917 he claimed exemption on the grounds that he was a member of the International Bible Students Association. When his father was jailed he wrote a long letter of support dated July 21, 1918, which was printed in full in the St Paul Enterprise newspaper for December 10, 1918. It occupies four full length columns.

The letter started…

…and ended…

After his marriage to Pauline Lucille Short (generally known as Bobbie) in March 1918 Malcom did eventually join the services and was in the army from 10 September 1918 to 24 December 1918. (One curiosity is that his letter written to his father in July was not printed by the Enterprise until December, by which time he had been in the army for three months.) But he remained in contact with both his parents. In the 1920 census he is living in the same street as his mother. Years later in May 1938 Malcom and Bobbie were on the same passenger list as JFR on the S. S. Mariposa arriving in Los Angeles, California. The 1944 Monrovia City Directory then has Malcom and Bobbie living with Mary in her home. (Whether they moved in to help her in old age, or whether she was helping them out we just don’t know.)

The Holman Linear Bible with ZWT references was published in 1902. Malcom would have been only 10 then, and his parents only fully embraced the faith later. So the Bible could have been a gift from CTR back in the day. It could have first belonged to Malcom’s parents or just his mother. Since he lived with his mother for a while he could have inherited it from her, even as late as her death in 1962. There are all sorts of possibilities, some more credible than others, but on present evidence we just don’t know. If we could find the mysterious “Sister Boerger” it might help, but that would only give us a rough date for the stickers that bear her name, not when they were added to the volume as it now is. And there may have been more subtle evidences of provenance removed when the volume was rebound.

If only for nostalgic family reasons one can imagine Malcom keeping the Bible. But then in extreme old age or after he died, the Bible ended up in a resale shop.

Just one last point needs to be addressed – the spelling of Malcom’s name. The signatures in Malcom’s hand show him spelling it the more conventional way as Malcolm. (The Watchtower Society’s Proclaimers book also spells it that way.) But his birth details leave out the second ‘L’ to spell it Malcom. His grave marker, obviously based on some official documentation, does the same.

Since he had no children and his second wife Eleanor died before him one wonders who organised the funeral and the marker and its inscription. Eleanor had extended family and her marker complements his. Probably her family were responsible.

Submission Call

We will entertain submissions about Russell's newspaper sermons and the syndicate that circulated them. Articles should be no longer than 20 single spaced pages. They should be footnoted to sources. Footnotes should be at the bottom of the page in the manuscript. They will move to end of document here. We cannot pay you for your work. This will be a project for which you only receive a well done.

We reserve the right to reject any submission. Your work should be well-written and in standard English. If English is your second-language, we will work with you to put it is more standard form. So do not let your command of English stop you.

We prefer footnotes to contemporary sources and original source material. Send submissions to rm devienne at yahoo dot com. no spaces in the email.

Russell's sermons were printed in many American newspapers, some in Canada, Wales, and in European nations. Your focus may be broad or narrow as you wish. But it must be informative, not a mere recitation of things that have previously appeared in Watchtower publications.

We expect history not a polemic. However, we accept 'let the facts speak for themselves' writing.

A single paragraph from ch 1, vol 2

        Before moving forward, we should note that Ellis’ comment about Russellites and social issues is echoed into the Twentieth Century.[1] However, a view of the world contrary to our own does not indicate that doctrine is false. Bible doctrine, assuming one believes the book inspired, is determined by its adherence to Scripture. The same is true of later comments on Russell’s morals. A long-standing approach by those clergy wanting to suppress a doctrine was to disparage the character of its proponents. This is one of the major logic fallacies. It is the fallacy of Pretended Danger: Imputation of bad character to deflect an argument.   It is meant to draw attention from the issues to the man raising them. If the author or promoter of the claims made has a bad character there is no reason to accept what he says. This is a common fallacy among polemicists, because it relieves them and their readers from the obligation to refute or reason. It is also too common among some who present themselves as historians.

---

[1]               See The Spectator, Volume 203, August 21, 1959, page 223.

Asking for the impossible.

Watch Tower evangelists were active in Orange and Rockland Counties, New York, after 1881. We have slight record, but want more. Because they had no distinctive name before 1886, this is very hard to trace. It will require more time than we have. But there are various newspaper searches on line.

The Library of Congress site referenced below.

and

http://www.fultonhistory.com/Fulton.html

are two of the best. If you have free time [hard to come by, I know.] give it your best shot. Please.

Quoted by Russell in 1883

Extract of Chapter One - Vol 2 in very rough draft

THIS is up for Comment.

Russell again invested in a large printing, announcing in the September 1882 issue: “The October number of zion's watch tower will partake of a missionary character. We will be sending out a very large issue to new readers – about two hundred thousand in all. If you desire you may share in the work of scattering the ‘good tidings of great joy,’ by sending copies of this missionary number to your Christian friends. Order as many as you can use judiciously, or send us their addresses and we will supply them.”[1]

            The issue was a combined issue, dated October-November 1882. Russell ‘introduced’ the paper to the Sunday-School Superintendents for whom it was intended:

Inasmuch as this number of ZION'S WATCH TOWER will go to each of the ninety thousand Sunday School Superintendents of all denominations in the United States, it is proper for us to introduce our paper to them specially.

The special mission of ZION'S WATCH TOWER is to clearly and forcibly elucidate and present truth on all religious topics, without fear or favor of any except our heavenly Master. It is strictly unsectarian and follows no formulated creed. Its method – comparing Scripture with Scripture, we believe to be the correct one for the elucidation of truth. Thus getting God's own explanation of His will and plan, we realize that God is his own interpreter, And He will make it plain.

While desirous of the esteem and fellowship of every child of God and loath to offend any, we yet stand ready to offend all, if a clear and forcible presentation of any Scriptural teaching shall have that effect. We discuss all Bible doctrines, not shunning the most abstruse – an uncommon thing among Christian journals.

This feature makes our paper valuable to Sunday School Superintendents and Bible teachers, and advanced Bible scholars, in this day when infidelity is challenging nearly every doctrine held by the churches. Surely there never was a time when an open and fearless examination of every point of doctrine was so much more needed than practiced. An intelligent understanding of Scripture was never more necessary than now.

We desire to assist in this great work, and with others to raise up the standard of truth against error in every form. We make no claim to defend every theory and creed of Christendom – this would be impossible, since many of them contradict each other – but we endeavor to draw direct from Scripture its uncolored and unbiased teaching on all questions. Believing that the true basis of Christian Union is a correct understanding of God's Word, rather than an ignoring of differences, we seek for this.

This sample copy is sent you in order that if desired, it may be one of your assistants in seeking for Scriptural truths. We will send it on trial.

THREE MONTHS FREE.

to all Sunday School Superintendents, teachers and Bible scholars. We therefore invite you to send in your names at once.[2]

            Russell included an explanation of his motive in sending out this missionary issue:

A very large edition of this issue has been sent out in hope of awakening thinking Christians from the lethargy and worldliness which has so largely overspread Christendom. The topics presented will be new to many of them, and we trust that all thoroughly consecrated readers will test it, and decide on its truthfulness, not by their prejudices, not by any sectarian creed, but by the Word of God, the only proper and infallible test; remembering, that the cause of divisions or sects is, that each party defends its creed, instead of laying aside tradition or accepting the harmonious testimony of Scripture.[3]

            Russell and Watch Tower adherents continued to send out literature to clergy and evangelists until near Russell’s death in 1916, perhaps afterward as well. The Word and Witness, a Pentecostal paper published in Malvern, Arkansas, opposed publishing the names and mailing addresses of their preachers. Some were young and not stable and others who were “supposed to be stable, even old men, have been led astray with Russellite and Millennial Dawn teaching.” The paper’s editor said it was “astonishing what inroads the devil is making by watching for such addresses, and sending these hungry but untaught hearts such destructive tracts.”[4] Russell inserted a notice in the January 1883 Watch Tower inviting those who received the sample copies to subscribe:

We offered the Tower three months on trial, free. Many availed themselves of the offer and others sent us lists of names of friends they thought would be interested by the papers. With this number we complete the three numbers to about ten thousand such trial readers. [Oct., Dec. and January.] All of these who are interested, we hope to hear from at once. The Lord’s poor who are interested, but unable to pay, should remember that they are welcome to the Tower free, but must ask for it. We have extra copies of these three issues.[5]

            We do not know how many of the “about ten thousand” trial readers subscribed. Offering the paper free to the Lord’s poor is unique to the Watch Tower as far as we can uncover. Later, in 1912, William T. Ellis, a Presbyterian Clergyman, would dismiss this, writing: “Russell's people do not go out into the field of evangelism, reclaiming the unchurched. One searches his record in vain for anything about the rescue of the outcast and the sinning. Neither  
is there any trace of interest in the thronging social problems of our time. Ministry to the poor, visitation of the sick, care for the orphaned – these are outside of the pale of Russellite activities.
The limit of his benevolences is to send his literature free to ‘the Lord's poor.’”[6]

            Ellis’ comments are a series of lies that would not be worth addressing except that he is quoted by modern opponents of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We are not writing a polemic; this is not written to support or condemn the descendant religions of the Russell era Watch Tower. But if you oppose them, you should do so honestly. You should fact check. Those who quote Ellis do neither. In other chapters [among them “Out of Babylon” and “In the World but Not of It.”] we touch on these issues and present evidence that Russell era congregation structure was such that support for the poor, evangelism of the ‘unchurched sinners’ and concern for social issues were part of Russellite belief and practice. We give examples of the conversion of that class to Watch Tower belief. What Ellis objected to was Russellite belief that the full rule of Christ was at hand. Ellis was a post-millennialist. He believed that human efforts would bring any Kingdom of God. This was a view that was dieing among Protestants, but which persists among some until today. Despite this viewpoint conflict, Ellis simply got it wrong, and appealing to Watch Tower literature without reference points was fakery of the worst sort. As we said, he lied.

---

[1]               Untitled Announcement, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 1882, page 1.

[2]               C. T. Russell: Sunday School Superintendents, Zion’s Watch Tower, October-November 1882, page 1.

[3]               C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower, October-November 1882, page 1.

[4]               A Warning, The Word and Witness, December 20, 1913.

[5]               Untitled announcement, Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 1.

[6]               W. T. Ellis: Investigating and Instigator, The Continent, September 26, 1912, page 1342.