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:
It is not only the fact that Russellite literature is everywhere ..., but when people are willing to make, even a mild defense of this false religion and to intimate that there may be some good in it if properly understood, then the leaven is there. And if this “leaven” is not destroyed it will, without doubt, bring serious results. The testimony of pastors from various parts of the U.S. and Canada also indicates that Russellism at present time is a real menace. In answer to the question, “What is the greatest local hindrance in your work ...?” a large majority have answered “Sectarianism” and especially designated Russellism as the worst.[3]
A tract published in 1903 warned: “Agents are going around the country selling their books, and you 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.”[4]
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 reassurance in that which addressed issues they did not want to address. It did almost nothing to stop those with unanswered 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. By war’s end, this push for Federal government intervention failed and other paths to frame “mischief by law” were followed to confront “this vile and nefarious religion.”[5] However, what we’re interested in here is opposition expressed in the Russell era.
Motivation
As I noted above, the first and initially most important motive behind outside opposition was concern for the souls of those who may be ‘deceived’ by Watch Tower belief. The majority of religious opposition believed in eternal and fiery torment. So there was a genuine concern for others behind that sort of opposition. There were others who may have doubted, even quietly rejected hell-fire doctrine, but who saw the teaching as essential to regulating conduct. Anti-Watch Tower tracts anger over the loss of contributions and loss of respect for traditional clergy. As discussed in volume two of this work, clergy polemicists tended to reject responsibility. If there was a fault, it rested with congregants, not with clergy. Russell’s prophetic scheme significantly differed from what most clergy taught. This became a focal point.
Drawing from material published by Charles C. Cook, a polemicist too cowardly to use his real name but writing as “Observer” also blamed congregants. Writing for the Herald of Gospel Liberty, he claimed that Russellism appealed to those lacking spirituality, fleshly inclined, sinning:
Give the average man a guarantee that there is no hell, and you will tickle him in the right place. Tell him that the heathen are not lost, and it meets his heartiest approval. Show him that the worst, the very wicked (Russell's few incorrigibles, for it seems that even he is not equal to saving ALL sinners) need expect is non- existence after death, and he is "with you." He will wax eloquent in expatiating upon and in defending such an easy-going, “commonsense,” satisfying religion, and will subscribe handsomely and voluntarily for its promulgation.
We have observed Russellism for a long time and have never yet known an unregenerate person who looked into it but who liked it. It is a religion made strictly for the fleshly man, and is a perfect fit.[6]
This was a gross misrepresentation. Letters to Russell were overwhelmingly from people of faith but who had unaddressed questions on doctrine. I’ve quoted some of them in Separate Identity, volume two, and readers can review them there. And, of course, an examination of the Russell-era Watch Tower will reveal more. Observer’s intent was to discourage interest by defining questioners and seekers as ‘unregenerate.’
James Martin Gray (May 11, 1851 – September 21, 1935), president of Moody Bible Institute wrote:
(Watch Tower) literature is exceedingly deceptive in that it seems to be disposed of solely for the public good, and contains so much that ha the sound and appearance of Bible truth. For this reason it affects the same classes in the Church that are led astray by Christian Science – the spiritually-minded, as we say – but not the Scripturally intelligent. They crave better things than they are getting, but apparently know not where to find them. Such heresy only germinates in rich soil.[7]
Gray off-handedly acknowledged that those persuaded by non-traditional religions sought for better than what they received from the pulpit or in a revival tent. But he rests responsibility on those leaving traditional churches. But one can ask, if they were given what was ‘not food,’ whose responsibility was that?
George Patrick Eckman, a prolific author of religious material and editor of the Christian Advocate of New York, wrote similarly:
Many ministers must have overestimated the average intelligence of their hearers, or the notorious “Pastor” Russell could never have succeeded in acquiring the vogue which seems to attend his ridiculous performances. Preachers have assumed that the members of their congregations were better qualified to separate foolishness from truth than the facts appear to justify. ... They are babes who drink in the absurdities of this man Russell,, who is unblushingly printing his gross perversions of truth in so many newspapers.[8]
As did many, probably most, clergy, Eckman saw his church under siege. A fellow Methodist suggested that “Russellism” drew most heavily from Methodism. [ft note here] Another common theme in opposition material is loss of power and respect. Eckman wrote:
Pastor Russell and his satellites make no attempt to conceal their hostility to the churches and their ministers. Their assault is invariably not upon the sinful world, but upon the organized religious bodies which are striving to redeem the earth from wickedness. They try to discount foreign missions and every other influential movement of Christianity. They substitute for the genuine gospel of Christ a set of absurd doctrines which would make no appeal to intelligent readers of the Bible, if they did not minister to human selfishness and wink at man's sin.[9]
This is, of course, a significant misrepresentation. It’s the cry of a clergyman faced with an overwhelmingly difficult problem. Watch Tower adherents found much in the traditional churches worthy of complaint and exposé, but identical complaints were made by clergy and prominent laymen. And while clergy saw their congregations as their special possession, Watch Tower adherents believed that among them were true but misled Christians who desperately needed the truth. Exposing foreign missions as ineffective was a feature of the Watch Tower message. To clergy, that was similar to killing a sacred cow. Missions were failing. The Christian press and missionaries told the same story, though they sought reform where Watch Tower adherent believed a change in doctrine was needed.
We should ask how accurate were Watch Tower comments on Christendom’s state? The brief answer is, “very.” One of the things that attracted new adherents to Watch Tower belief was its insistence on Holy Conduct. Though there were those who fell short, on the whole Watch Tower adherents took righteous conduct seriously. This was in stark contrast to clergy behavior in the period. The following is from a table of reported clergy misconduct from 1877 to about 1910.[10]
Abduction 22; Abortion and attempts to procure 19; Abusive language 22; Adultery 676; Alienation of affections 17; Arson 62; Assault with intent to murder 61; Assault with intent to rape 50; Assault with intent to do great harm 26; Assault and battery 66; Attempted suicide 15; Bastardy 77; Bigamy, attempted and accomplished 144; Breach of promise to marry 27; Burglary 17; Cheating, swindling, grafting, malversation, misappropriation, etc. 288; “Conduct unbecoming a minister of the gospel” 44; Conspiracy 11; Contempt of court 13; Counterfeiting 16; Cruelty to wife or children 130/35; Debauchery 52; Desertion or non-support of wife or children 207; Disorderly conduct 44; Divorced or sued 56; Drunkenness 202; Elopement, attempted or accomplished 163; Embezzlement, fraud, defalcation, etc 162; Enticing women and young girls 15; False impersonation 13; Fighting 51; Forgery 123; “Fornication” 14; Gambling 19; Grave robbery 1; Gross immorality 40; Horse stealing 19; Illicit distilling 12; Illicit liquor selling 15; Immoralities with women and girls, miscellaneous and variously described 223; Larceny 181; Libel 50; Lying and deceit 138; Malicious destruction of property and malicious mischief 22; Manslaughter 14; Murder generally 119; Murder of child 12; Murder of wife 27; Obscene language 16; Obscene print, circulation of 14; Obtaining money or property under false pretenses 65; Perjury or subornation of 12; Plagiarism or literary piracy 14; Praying for death of neighbor, who died 1; Profanity 11; Quarreling 19; Rape in general 43; Rape of girls under age of consent or puberty 76; Seduction in general 273; Seduction of girls under fifteen 28; Slander 109; Sodomy or unnatural crime 67; Stealing religious funds or property 23; Suicide 117; Threatening life 16; Violation of postal laws 17; White slavery and pandering 15; Wife or woman beating 57.
Methodists led this list with 728 reported. Baptists followed with 492 incidents; Catholics with 325 incidents of clerical misconduct; then Presbyterians with 187, and Episcopalians with 164. In the same period only two Millennial Dawn believers were reported.
Envying the large expenditure behind Watch Tower evangelism Charles Cook, asked: “How does ‘Pastor Russell’ win the crowd and get the money? He is literally drawing the crowd and he is also getting the money in vast sums, for his advertising schemes are world wide, and entail expenditures that stagger the minds of those who know the cost of such efforts.[11]
Growing Opposition
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.”[12] 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.[13] 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.” His last reference was to 1 Corinthians 4:8, which
reads according to the Geneva Bible: “And also if the trumpet give an uncertain
sound, who shall prepare himself to battle? It is interesting, though we’re
left with uncertainty as to why, that he quoted from the Geneva Bible rather
than the King James. The former reference is to Isaiah 55:2, which reads: “Wherefore
do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and
let your soul delight itself in fatness.”
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. Writing of the severe financial ‘trouble’ of the 1870s, he said:
Just at the right time, 1873, the present financial trouble had a beginning. It began small, but has ever since been increasing and spreading, until now the entire civilized world is affected by it. The world laughed at out predictions, and assured us that six months would see matters all right again; but we are nearly five years into it now, and the cloud is still darker. “Men’s hearts begin to fail them for fear, and for looking after those things coming upon the world.[14]
Barbour addressed such as those raised by Cook though he only mentioned Joseph Seiss by name, 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?” He expressed determination to continue, saying they were teaching advanced truth:
Truth, present truth, is the means ordained of God for the sanctification of the church: and at each great step, in the plan of the ages, the then present truth becomes especially important. And believing that we are now passing through the most glorious change the world has ever witnessed, we feel before God and man, that it is a duty to make these things a specialty in all our teachings. Men may find fault, they may ridicule, or pity; friends may turn against us, as they have at each and every advance along this shining pathway; but none of these things move us. Our face is like a flint and whatever others may do we mean to keep step with advancing light.[15]
Through the article’s remainder, he rehearsed their beliefs and what he thought were proofs of their beliefs. More than Russell’s article, this was very much a “us versus them” article. As noted in Chapter Two, Barbour saw himself as God’s chosen, an anointed modern day prophet. Despite accusations that Russell saw himself the same way, he was far less aggressive.
The fragmentation in the Barbourite movement and establishment of Zion’s Watch Tower produced little overt opposition outside the Age-to-Come movement. Some who later publicly opposed Russellism kept quiet hoping it would quietly disappear. In the Pittsburgh-Allegheny area Russell was seen as a Millerite Second-Adventist. An interview appearing in August 11, 1879, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette contains Russell’s response. In response to Second Adventist prediction that the word would end that August, a reporter sought out Russell:
A reporter of this journal started out last evening to look up a Millerite or Second Adventist, for the purpose of obtaining more definite information concerning the big conflagration. Among the persons sought out and interviewed was Mr. C. T. Russell, of Cedar avenue, [sic] Allegheny. That gentleman was informed as to the reporter’s mission, when he said:
“In the first place, I am not a Second Adventist; secondly, I don't believe the world will be burned to-morrow; and, thirdly, I don’t believe the world will ever be literally burned with fire. My expectation is that the present, or Gospel age, will end much the same as the Patriarchal and the Jewish age. The Jewish age, you know, ended with the death of Christ, when the Gospel age commenced, and this will be succeeded by the millennium, when Christ will reign on earth. The change will not be manifested by any such demonstration as the burning of the earth.”
The reporter drew Russell through a scriptural discussion, none of which is relevant here, though we note that it was fully and fairly reported in his article. Never-the-less, Pittsburgh newspapers continued to refer to Russell as an Adventist. The name was a pejorative, and it remained convenient for those who wished to diminish Watch Tower faith to use it. We discuss Russell’s replies to this in volume two of this work, and we need not to do so again, but we can note that the April 15, 1889, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dispatch described the Memorial Convention as a meeting of Second Adventists.[16] Internally, adherents who used the chart talk outlines started their meetings by disavowing any form of Millerite Adventism.
Except in Allegheny City and Pittsburgh, between 1879 and September 1882 controversy was primarily internal. In those cities his message received considerable negative notice. A special dispatch sent from Pittsburgh to the Chicago, Illinois, Dispatch and printed in its August 18, 1881, issue reported: that Russell’s “preaching caused considerable excitement here at first, and he was warmly attacked by several prominent orthodox ministers, who handled his mongrel creed without gloves.”
The
publication and massive circulation of Food for Thinking Christians
produced dramatic and multinational pushback. In volume two we noted some
examples including [continue]
With
the publication and surprisingly large circulation of The Plan of the Ages,
opposition became more pronounced, and sometimes desperate. That the book
prompted opposition and debate is not surprising. Debate is part of the human
condition. Some criticisms were off topic, not addressing doctrinal difference.
For instance, when Elliot Stock was contracted to print The Plan of the Ages
in the United Kingdom, they sent review copies to British religious
periodicals, sending one to The Primitive Methodist Magazine. Their
review was less than stellar. Bluntly, it called the book boring and unhelpful:
“notice is a work of some three hundred and fifty pages, is somewhat laboured
and tedious, and in our judgment, sheds very little clear light' on the
problems with which it deals.”[17]
[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] Osul Terrison Haaland: Russellism, Thesis Lutheran Seminary, 1932, page 34.
[4] E. B. Hart: Three Blasphemes of “Millennial Dawn”, Self-published, Iowa, 1905. page 3.
[5] Osul Terrison Haaland: Russellism, Thesis Lutheran Seminary, 1932, page 1.
[6] A Few Words on Russellism, Herald of Gospel Liberty,
August 1, 1912, page 975. The Herald was the voice of the Christian
Connexion, a restorationist, non-Trinitarian church with a Congregationalist
structure. It merged with the Congregational Church in 1930. The article quoted
was derived from C. C. Cook’s More Data on Pastor Russell published
earlier in 1912.
[7] J. M. Gray, The Errors of “Millennial Dawnism,”
“D. L. Moody” Pamphlets, Christian Faith Series, No. 2, Moody Bible Institute, no date.
[8] G. P. Eckman: There is no Truth in Him, The [New
York] Christian Advocate, December 3, 1914, page 1696.
[9] G. P. Eckman: Pastor Russell and His Satellites, The [New York] Christian Advocate, July 30, 1914, page 1052.
[10] The report is reproduced at TruthHistory.blogspot.com,
entry of February 2, 2022. https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2022/02/clergy-crimes-in-russell-era.html
[11] C. C. Cook: More Data on “Pastor Russell”,
Philadelphia School of the Bible, no date but 1912.
[12] Studies in the Scriptures: The Plan of the Ages, International Bible Students Association, 1925 edition, Page 5.
[13] 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.
[14] C. T. Russell: The Prospect, Herald of the Morning,
July 1878, page 11.
[15] N. H. Barbour: Are We Right? Herald of the Morning,
July 1878, page 3.
[16] Second Adventists Celebrate the Feast of Passover in
Allegheny Yesterday, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Dispatch, April 15, 1889.
[17] Literary Notices, The Primitive Methodist Magazine, New Series, Volume 15, for 1895 page 185.
No comments:
Post a Comment