Your observations?

This post will be deleted in not many days. So, if you are going to comment, do so now. 

Outside Pressure and Identity

             Sociologists tell us that to endure groups must be cohesive. The basis for cohesion is a clear set of values and goals.  Some sociologists see this as a revelation from the late 19^th Century. It is, in fact, a common observation repeated through centuries of human history. An example is Benjamin Franklin’s “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.” Probably apocryphal, this aphorism reflects this.

To endure, a group opposing the dominant order must clearly define their values and beliefs. There must be a shared understanding and a clearly stated record of beliefs. This created a shared identity.

            Lewis Coser wrote that conflict with those out of the group tends to create unity.[1] He suggested that external conflict tends to unite a group. Fredrick Bushee wrote that opposition “promotes ... unity within opposing groups. ... Just as an individual must concentrate his attention and energies in combat, so a group must centralize and organize all its resources for a conflict. ... In a normal group minor differences disappear in the face of danger from without.”[2]  Georg Simmel suggested that opposition promotes unity within opposing groups. Minor differences disappear “in the face of danger from without.”

            Sociology, for all its many faults, presents here an easily observable ‘truth.’ Most of those who have written about Watch Tower faith, especially those writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to consider the effect on group mentality of a constant opposition. The root of that opposition is the same as that for the Catholic Inquisition, though in most cases laws restrained violence. Most cases of violence occurred after Russell’s death. Nevertheless, Russellism was, from clergy viewpoint, dangerous. A tract published in 1903 warned: “Agents are going around the country selling their books, andyou may have one at your door any day. I would beg of you my dear reader, to have nothing whatever to do with these evil teaching for they are ruinous to the soul, being a vile attack of Satan to rob us of the true Christ of God.”[3]

            While there is no solid way to measure the degree of success produced by opposition sermons, newspaper articles, and pamphlets, it seems quite low. Most opposition comforted those who found comfort in that which addressed issues they did not want to address. It did almost nothing to stop those with unaddressed Bible questions or who rejected behaviors manifested in their denominations. Factors leading to interest in the Watch Tower message were clergy negligence and clergy malfeasance. Clergy and lay leadership dismissed difficult questions. Often enough they saw honest questioners as led by the “desires of the flesh.”

            With the passage of time clergy opponents felt increasing urgency, overestimating the growth of Russellism. Opposition became more strident. Extremist views colored a meeting of the Newfound Baptist Association meeting held at Spring Creek, North Carolina. The April 5, 1912, Marshal, North Carolina, Record-News reported that Thomas L. Plemmons, secretary of the Sunday School association and a justice of the peace, and Robert Cogdill, a local clergyman, ‘denounced’ Russellism. Cogdill, “declared that Russellism should be eradicated, and never again permitted to poison the christian [sic] atmosphere of our fair land.” With the United State’s entry into World War One, Clergy saw their chance to have government intervention. However, what we’re interested in here is opposition expressed in the Russell era.

            Before the publication of Food for Thinking Christians (1881) opposition was sporadic. The biographical note found in later editions of Studies in the Scripture commented on the reception of Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return: “Many students of the Bible throughout the United and Canada responded to the information derived from that book and his correspondence became voluminous.”[4] This is true on its face, but obviously not all responses were positive.

            Russell paid to have the small booklet sent as a supplement to Prophetic Times and to The Restitution. This prompted diverse reactions. The editor of The Ocean Grove, New Jersey, Record was positive: 

Rev. J. G. Wilson, editor of the Prophetic Times, issues as a supplement with his January and February numbers a tractate on the “Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return.” It is written by C. T. Russell, Pittsburgh, Pa., and brings prominently to view all the Scripture passages which relate to the subject in He intimates the probability that the Master is now come, and the process of separation is invisibly going on. Even those who honestly differ with Mr. Russell cannot help commending the zeal with which he urges Christians to watchfulness, faith and holiness.

          Others were not as kind. John Ball Cook, a Baptist clergyman turned Millerite Adventist, adopted Age-to-Come views by early 1850.[5] That year Cook moved to Rochester, New York. We lack details, but an article appearing in the June 26, 1878, Restitution tells us that he met Barbour. The association was unhappy. Cook responded to a ‘gift’ of Object and Manner and Herald of the Morning. Titled as a review of Russell’s booklet, it was focused on Barbour. Cook rejected Barbour’s time-setting. He saw Barbour as a want-to-be prophet who pushed his speculations though they lacked merit. He saw Barbourite claims that the Resurrection had begun. If, as a Bible verse suggested it was to be in the twinkling of an eye, then the Barbourites had been left out of it. “The entire view is but as a phantom of an excited brain,” Cook wrote. Barbour lacked “a sane mind.”

            Where was Russell in all of this? Cook noted that Russell financed Barbour’s propaganda. At the end of the article, Cook wrote: “It is in deep sorrow for them that I write. Brother R. is spending his money for that which is not bread, and the brethren are scattered by ‘uncertain’ sounds.”

            If Russell directly replied to Cook, there is no record of it, but in an article entitled The Prospect he wrote generally, addressing not overt opposition but adherents. He noted that while they were not ‘translated’ as expected part of their expectations proved true. [continue]

 

Instead, Barbour addressed the issue, ignoring Cook and focusing on Joseph Seiss, expanding his comments to include all those who attacked their beliefs. His article, appearing in the July 1878 Herald of the Morning was entitled “Are We Right?” [continue]

---

[1]           Lewis Coser:  The Functions of Social Conflict, The Free Press, New York, 1956, page 92.

[2]               Fredrick Bushee: Principals of Sociology, Henry Holt Company, New York, 1923, page 451.

[3]               E. B. Hart: Three Blasphemes of “Millennial Dawn”, Self-published, Iowa, 1905. page 3.

[4]               Studies in the Scriptures: The Plan of the Ages, International Bible Students Association, 1925 edition, Page 5.

[5]               Julia Neuffer: The Gathering of Israel: A Historical Study of Early Writings, pp. 74-76 as retrieved from https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/articles/the-gathering-of-israel-a-historical-study-of-early-writings-pp-74-76 on March 25, 2026.