![Falcon's Crown: Kidnapped [e-book edition]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhkBe00FOeBBmYbVCCTcdazS0iVnLd1WDFAqgsN2RZ54_2mWSQGowpbpnwmDREb-FVVk6AGpaGBEGezxxmeNm1qq65js_RZsBYwu6E6-3ucp3_YQyONvEK3NuIInA3Ru_cqrfm_JizezcrwPiewPQwunSXPJG1OI38N9mQwxOeGd4SvcPUf-DtO7FLMVcg=s238)
Rough draft only. Comments welcome. Stay on topic. This will come down soon.
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 19th 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 constant opposition. The motive behind anti-Russell opposition was 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 and should be destroyed.
Clergy and lay writers saw souls at risk, but they also feared loss of authority and power. Typically, they rejected the idea that Watch Tower faith was the one true religion: “To them ... there is but one true religion which is correct in every point. With one sweeping gesture all other religions ... are swept aside and branded as being false and of the devil.” Osul T. Haarland, a Lutheran Clergyman and the author of those words, branded the claim as “preposterous” and “Russellism” as “vile and nefarious,” not a Christian religion. Haarland saw Watch Tower faith as the greatest danger to traditional churches:
remainder of this post has been deleted.
4 comments:
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this research. The many hours of reading, writing, and editing do not go unnoticed. Many of the criticisms of Russell that are quoted here are simply attacks on Russell, rather than a discussion of his scriptural arguments. The author mentions that to really understand the motives of the critics, reading the letters written to Russell published in the Watchtower would refute the idea that those who listened to Russell were simply "unregenerate" churchgoers who wanted their ears tickled. That is an excellent point. The letters published in Volume 2 show that very clearly. If anyone has access to online (or printed) Watchtowers from the Russell era, take special care to read the letters written to Russell that were printed. They reveal sincere persons who really had scriptural questions that they wanted answers to. In my youth in the 1960's and 1970s, I met several dozen Bible Students from that era who were avid readers of the Watchtower. Every single one of them impressed me with their interest in spiritual matters, and a burning desire to worship their Creator in truth. None of them were religious. They were spiritual. They were much less concerned with outward appearance than what kind of people they were on the inside. Thank you again for your diligent research.
There is no such thing as bad publicity is a phrase sometimes attributed to Barnum. Sometimes adapted to “All publicity is good publicity.” It probably goes back to Oscar Wilde, “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”
These criticisms brought CTR to people’s attention. Fair-minded or at least curious people might be tempted to see what their minister was getting so apoplectic about.
It shows how early on CTR’s work became known – far and wide. In connection with another project I was sent a cutting from the Elkhart Evening Review (an Indiana newspaper) from 11 April 1879:
“A merchant in Allegheny City, Pa., named Russell, is preaching the doctrine that the world will come to an end in 1914, the “forty years of trouble” to precede that event having commenced in 1874. Russell has made 150 converts, some of whom are extravagant in their religious behavior and a great deal of excitement has been caused in that region.”
Allowing for the sensationalist nature of the journalism, it is still not a bad description. And 150 converts already! In those pre-internet days, this was written three months before ever there was a Zion’s Watch Tower, and published in a paper about 360 miles away from Pittsburgh.
By at least 1882 the perjorative “Russelism” was in use.#
I would say that the clergy’s efforts to attack CTR’s work backfired spectacularly.
Many of the clergy's criticisms of Russell reveal much more about the clergy than they do about Russell. The absence of any sense of pastoral responsibility for the members of their flock who were attracted to the Watch Tower message is especially striking. So is the liberal use of ad hominem against Russell rather than refuting his arguments from the Scriptures, as Andrew mentioned.
Very good text, most interesting. Thank you very much for your work!
Post a Comment