Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction

George Chryssides' book of that title has been released. I have room on this blog for two thoughtful reviews. Anyone?

From "Unorganized" to "Too Organized"? You can please "some of the people, some of the time, but...

(Guest post by Gary)

Scholars who study Jehovah’s Witnesses have often noted their keenness, some might say obsession, to measure activity by numbers. This is most obvious in terms of the monthly field service reports that publishers file with their congregation’s secretary, but also in terms of congregation meeting attendances, assembly and convention attendances and the annual Memorial figures. 

 

In addition, in recording the monthly numbers of publishers Witnesses are markedly different than any other religion in counting active members as opposed to passive attenders. Comparing these figures provides the Society a numerical measurement of progress, of course, and - to some degree - an indication of how well the message is received in various lands. In turn, Witnesses draw encouragement as we read annual reports and see evidence of our ministry bearing fruit.  

 

In contrast, looking back into the earliest Watch Tower history it is noticeable how little interest was shown in collating figures, with only annual Memorial attendances and the number of colporteurs giving indication of growth. Interestingly, Henry King Carroll’s comprehensive book The Religious Forces of the United States Enumerated, Classified, and Described, returns for 1900 and 1910 compared with the Government Census of 1890 records meeting figures for nearly every denomination and sect conceivable with the notable exception of the Bible Students.(1)  So, what caused the situation to change? Strange as it may seem, as will be explained, it was likely the American governmental authorities in World War One who we may thank for indirectly kickstarting this trend. 

 

The Draft Act and ‘not an organized sect’

 

Although the teachings of Pastor Russell were broadly recognised as being ‘pacifist’, one of the criticisms made to justify why Bible Students were not to be granted recognition as conscientious objectors in America during World War One, rightly or wrongly, involved their considered lack of organization.A list of pacifist sects was created in the United States by a Mr Hunt of the Census Bureau in 1917 following the country’s entrance to war and in anticipation of the Selective Services Act (otherwise referred to as ‘The Draft Act’).  The list includes the three traditional peace churches, the Mennonites, Quakers and Brethren, and several others, many known for their premillennialist expectations.  At the bottom of the list, as if reluctantly tagged on, appears the name International Bible Student Association, beside a bracketed explanatory note stating, significantly, that this is “not an organized sect.” (2) Hunt’s list is significant and apparently was relied on by a number of draft boards throughout America. The Selective Service Act allowed provision for conscientious objectors to perform non-combatant service, but only if they belonged to a recognised pacifist sect which fitted certain criteria. (3) 

 

To have satisfied the authorities the IBSA had two problems to overcome: Firstly, they were ‘new kids on the block’, a recent religious ‘sect’ as far as the authorities were concerned.  As such, unlike the Mennonites, Brethren or Quakers, they had with no earlier peace testimony that could be called upon in support. Secondly, while the teachings of Pastor Russell were well known in America and obviously ‘pacifist’, the extent to which they were “organizedprior to May, 1917” was less clear. In the Spring of 1918 Military Intelligence Division agents visited Joseph Franklin Rutherford and requested sight of an IBSA membership list, to which Rutherford replied, “Our only roll of members is written in Heaven.”(4) At the famous United States v. Rutherford et al trial,one Bible Student conscientious objector acknowledged that the IBSA didn’t “keep any record on the rolls as other churches do” (5)while it was acknowledged that an individual could “become a member without communicating with headquarters.”(6)

 

When asked in 1917 how many International Bible Students Association members there were in America, Rutherford answered that “from the names on our Watch Tower list we would answer, there are approximately 75,000 adherents.(7)  But this list, of course, indicated just the number of subscribers rather than active supporters.Indeed, much questioning during the trial involved the use of affidavits sent from the IBSA to those requesting them in support of their claims for conscientious objection and whether these were requests from ‘consecrated members’ or, as the prosecution implied, a large number of slackers who were using the IBSA to shelter under.

 

So, when did the situation change? When did the ‘organization’ first start to become organized? 

 

Dr. George Chryssides gives the general era noting:

 

“It was under Rutherford that house-to-house visiting became organised, and was expected of the Society’s members - a practice that has continued into the twenty first century.  Previously, under Russell, the Bible Students’ message was spread by colporteurs ...” (8) 

 

And historian Zoe Knox linked the greater emphasis on public ministry that gave ‘rank and file’ members a greater degree of visibility to “particularly ... since 1922, when Rutherford intensified door-to-door ministry and initiated a co-ordinated, worldwide campaign that led door-knocking to become Witnesses’ trademark.”(9)

 

Knox, no doubt, has in mind the ‘Advertise, Advertise, Advertise the King and his Kingdom’ rally call at the Cedar Point, Ohio, international convention on September 8th, 1922.But did the start of this organized “worldwide campaign” commence even earlier in America itself?  Can we be more precise? The Watch Tower for August 1 and 15, 1919 published the two-part article “Blessed Are the Fearless”, which was re-emphasised at the eight-day general assembly at Cedar Point, Ohio, that followed on September 1-8, 1919, in which Rutherford delivered the ‘The Hope for this Distressed Humanity’ talk. Hence it was in 1919 that the public witness was resumed.  As the Society itself later described the period:

 

“Figuratively speaking, it was a climb to organize all the restored spiritual Israelites for preaching the Kingdom message from house to house.” (Italics are mine) (10)

 

Interestingly, the Proclaimers book states that “Through the service director, the field service of those associated with the congregation, or class, was to be reported to the Society each week, starting in 1919.”(11)Indeed, as a consequence, the very first field service report compiled for the United States in 1920 showed there were 8,052 “class workers” out in service, along with 350 colporteurs.(12)

 

Is it a coincidence that the IBSA moved in this direction following Rutherford’s release from the Atlanta Penitentiary?  Rutherford apparently saw need to record the activity of members as a reaction to his court experience, with the intention of protecting Bible Students in case authorities repeated such arguments in any future confrontation. If so, what better way of measuring active membership than to allow adherents themselves to file regular field service reports? These enabled Bible Students, and later Jehovah’s Witnesses, opportunity to show their willing support for both the Kingdom message itself and the organization being used to promote this message. 

 

Too organized?

 

Unaware of this background, modern critics of the Society ironically believe it is somehow evidence of a dictatorial leadership imposing their will over uncommitted followers! In fact, having been muted and suppressed during the war, by 1919 most International Bible Students responded enthusiastically to the opportunity to publicly witness and report their activity, seeing their situation in Biblical terms:

 

“At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness.” (13)

 

This remains the attitude of zealous Witnesses today. Whatever criticisms opposers may throw at them, their scrupulous reporting and recording of figures ensures that they may never again be accused of being unorganized!

 

As Zoe Knox notes:

 

“The Society is remarkable, however, in two important ways: it defines every baptised adherent as an ordained minister and makes public ministry a requirement for every adult in the community.” (14)

 

 

——————————————————

 

References:

 

(1) H.K. Carroll, The Religious Forces of the United States Enumerated, Classified, and Described, returns for 1900 and 1910 compared with the Government Census of 1890. Published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. A search here for the terms ‘Russellites’ and ‘Millennial Dawnists’ also revealed no results

(2) A copy of the list appears in Mark A. May’s 1919 article entitled “The Psychological Examination of Conscientious Objectors”, The American Journal of Psychology 31, April 1920, 155

 

(3) The Official Bulletin: Monday, July 9, 1917, Information for Persons Registered under the Selective Service Law, 6, column 3, point 13

 

(4) Lon Strauss, A Paranoid State: The American Public, Military Surveillance and the Espionage Act of 1917, 2012, 84. Per Strauss, “Rutherford interpreted the act to mean the organization had to have been recognized in existence prior to that date, not necessarily that an individualmust have been a member at that time. In other words, individuals might still join afterMay 18and thus become exempt to the draft law.” This seems the most obvious reading of the legislation.However, Rutherford’s letter To the Secretary or Clerk of the Local Ecclesia, dated 8 August 1917, argues against this interpretation. In this Rutherford explicitly stated that “such affidavit will be made, of course, for only those who are members of the INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION and in good standing and who were such on and before the 18^th day of May, 1917.”

 

(5) Quote from Hans Insberg, an IBSA conscientious objector, questioned in the The United Statesv Rutherford trial, 253

 

(6) Quote from William E. Van Amburgh during the United States v.Rutherford trial, 1212

 

(7)Watch Tower, 1 December 1917, reprints 6181, in article entitled ‘In Re Military Service’

 

(8)George D. Chrysiddes, Jehovah’s Witnesses – Continuity and Change, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group,2016, 91

 

(9) Zoe Knox, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Secular World, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, 109

 

(10) Man’s Salvation out of World Distress at Hand! 1975, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 150

 

(11)Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1993, footnote, 212

 

(12) The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 15, 1920, 372

 

(13) Isaiah 35:6 – see application, for example, in Man’s Salvation out of World Distress at Hand! 1975, 151

 

(14) Zoe Knox, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Secular World, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, 108

 

A response ...

My comments about another's research drew an email response. In fairness to the author, I reproduce it here:

Dear Rachel,

Your recent attack on my research is not to your credit. I have researched this subject since the 1970´s and I don´t bring any preconcieved ideas into my writing. I started trying to figure out what happened and why and I now know the answers. One has to stick to a high level of ethics, that´s for sure. That Is why I will not claim that  Rutherford had extra-marital affairs as so many others have done.

In the nature of things the brief response to Chryssides new book that I made public couldn´t give justice to my thorough research. I stated that Macmillan  was not reliable and said his old age was the reason. Since he made so many astonishing mistakes in his presentation my verdict was a charitable one. The alternative is that he lied knowingly. I can demonstrate over and over and over again how unreliable his testomony was. His testimony is condtradicted by all the contemporary sources, even Rutherford´s writings, and that is the real reason why I don´t accept much of what he stated. However,  I accept one  interesting piece of information that he brought forward, and that in spite of the fact that there is no corroboration from the contemporary material.  But generally his long life in an ever changing organization has affected his memory.

I believe you were wrong when you stated that the corporate law under which the Society was incorporated was formulated in 1876. It was formulated in 1874. [He's right.] Also, the legal arguments used by Rutherford did not date only from 1906, as you seem to suggest. They were part of the Pennsylvania Corporate law much earlier as an earlier Pennsylvania law book that I have shows. But that does not mean that the issues of of 1916-1918 are given a new color. It is still true, moreover, that Rutherford NEVER tried to explain how the charter could contain illegal clauses. It would be most useful for him to do so. If new laws had the effect that the charter was superseded , why not say so? Why not give the dates and details of such new laws? Even the Philadelphia lawyer he mustered did not say a word about this and so the ousted board members remained convinced that they were the legal directors of the Society.

It is clear that you don´t have any real knowledge about this, and if the thoughts you presented came from your father, he is ignorant, too. That you stated that you are Schultz´s daughter was good. It explains a lot. [I'm not Bruce Schulz' daughter. He misread what I wrote.]

A Review

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change

by George Chryssides

A Review by R. M. de Vienne, PhD.

            Chryssides’ new book sets the standard for generalist studies of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is free of polemic, largely accurate and well written. Its outline is orderly and easy to follow. In these respects it is superior to almost every book written about the Bible Student and Witness movements since 1920. This is especially true when compared to ‘studies’ written by those with ‘academic credentials.’ Chryssides book isn’t colored by the ignorant sectarianism of Gruss. It is vastly more informed than Stroup’s sloppy research; it avoids the condescending, human-progress point of view found in Elmer Clark’s Small Sects. And I believe it is more informed that Beckford’s Trumpet of Prophecy.

            Chryssides did not have access to Separate Identity while preparing his manuscript, so he was unfamiliar with Russell’s immersion into Age-to-Come belief or how Literalist/Age-to-Come doctrine differs from Millerite Adventism. He occasionally confuses Millenarianism with Adventism, leaving chapter two slightly flawed and weak.

            Writing of J. A. Brown’s role in Watchtower history, he says: “Neither Russell nor Barbour mention Brown ... Probably he was not known to these to leaders.” If Russell knew of Brown, I’d be surprised. However Wellcome suggests that Barbour did, and Barbour was familiar with a vast array of prophetic literature. Chryssides says that the earliest published attempt at predictive chronology was John Aquila Brown’s Even Tide. This is inaccurate. Bengal, Newton and many others preceded Brown. An examination of Froom’s Prophetic Faith shows this. Chryssides is confused about Brown’s occupation, noting that he is sometimes described as a silversmith and sometimes as a clergyman. He was a silversmith. His will and court documents make this clear.

            Chryssides calls Elias Smith “an early Adventist.” He was not. He was a Literalist, a Millenarian. He did not teach characteristic Millerite doctrine. Chryssides suggests that Barbour ‘discovered’ Bowen’s chronology in the British Library. He consulted it to refresh his memory. It was not a new discovery. Elliott’s Horae in which it is found was a familiar work.

            He calls Stetson and Storrs Adventists. This was true enough at one period in their lives, but not at all true when Russell met them. When Russell met them, both were advocating Literalist doctrine and writing for Age-to-Come journals. Both were actively opposed by Adventists.

            Chryssides suggests that Barbour was born in Louisiana. He confuses a Confederate veteran of similar name with Nelson Barbour who was born in Throopsville, New York. Barbour had no connection to the American South, but descended from a colonial era Connecticut family.

            On page 48, Chryssides suggests that Russell’s doctrines were derived from Adventism. As we demonstrate in Separate Identity, none of his ideas derive from Adventism. On page 51 he suggests that Barbour sent Russell a letter in 1876. Barbour sent Russell his magazine in December 1875. There is no suggestion that he enclosed a letter. Russell’s account of events suggests that he did not, and that it was Russell who first wrote to Barbour. On page 52, citing Maurice Barnett, Chryssides writes of W. H. Conley: “He is said to have donated $40,000 for the publication of Russell’s Food for Thinking Christians.” Relying on secondary web sources is nearly always a bad idea. Original documents say that Conley donated $4000, not $40,000. The bulk of the forty thousand dollars poured into circulation of Food came from Russell’s pocket. I should note too that Stetson died at his own home, not at the Conley’s residence.

            The use of the descriptor “pioneers” (page 54) is an anachronism.

            On page 56 Chryssides suggests Russell abandoned commercial printing in 1880 and “purchased his own printing house.” Watch Tower publications were printed commercially into the 1920s. Russell originated the imprint Tower Publishing Company, later donating it with all the copyrights to Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society.

            On page 56 we find the suggestion that John Corbin Sunderlin and Joseph Jacob Bender traveled to the UK together in 1881. Bender was sent later to replace the ill Sunderlin.

            On page 57 he suggests that Russell moved his operation to Brooklyn seeking larger, better quarters. He omits issues connected with Russell’s divorce which, despite Russellite assertions to the contrary, seem to be the primary reason for the move.

            This may seem like a daunting and debilitating list of errors. It’s not. One can turn page after page and nod agreement to what one finds there. Chryssides handles “the scandals” without hyperbole or polemics. He considers Miracle Wheat, the Russell marriage, the von Zech issues and the 1908-1909 schism reasonably and accurately. The 1917-1918 schism is presented with equal clarity. The huge volume of material related to the Olin Moyle incident is digested and fairly presented. His account of the 1933 Declaration of Facts addressed to Hitler is stellar. However, neither Chryssides nor Penton seem to be familiar with the details of the Watchtower’s shifting doctrine regarding the Jewish nation. Of the two presentations, Chryssides’ account is the better.

            The section on The New World Translation is very well done. However, he takes Mantey’s scolding letter at face value. It is a seriously flawed, misleading letter. Mantey claims work that belonged to the original author of The Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, a paragraph to which Mantey contributed nothing. Chryssides does not address the reasons for Watchtower intellectual “disconnect” when using Greber’s translation. Yet one sees it in other areas. I would, have used this as an occasion to point to flawed Watchtower research in the 1960s that included citing a publisher as an author and not consulting publications afresh but simply re-quoting from previously published citations. This is not a flaw in Chryssides’ book. It’s just my preference.

            Chapter eight, “Ethics and Lifestyle,” is particularly well done. Chapter nine, “Worship and Rites of Passage,” notes Watchtower use of A. Hislop’s The Two Babylons without noting that Watchtower writers have for some time seen it as seriously flawed. Chryssides says (page 200) that rejection of birthdays came from Hislop. This is arguably incorrect, though Two Babylons was used to support that view. He attributes an annual Memorial Celebration (communion) to Adventist influence. In fact it is a centuries old tradition and came to Russell through his Age-to-Come connections, not Adventism.

            Chapter eleven examines changes in Watchtower doctrines, which were sometimes dogmatically stated and dogmatically retracted. This is a very well-done, accurate chapter. Many who are sympathetic to the Watchtower but puzzled by dogmatism in areas where caution would be the better course will find much of interest. This chapter comments on pedophilia issues. Finally, a rational statement from someone.

            While I believe it necessary to point out some flaws, I restate my opening point. This is an exceptional book, well worth the time spent reading it (four times.) It is impossible, or nearly so, to write a book like this and not have errors appear. That some have appeared in this book does not remove it from serious consideration by anyone interested in religious movements such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is very expensive. Hopefully a cheaper, revised edition awaits us in the future.

            When H. G. Wells’ Outline of History was published, specialist historians praised the book, often adding that he should have elaborated on their areas of specialty. I’ve tried to resist doing that here. I don’t write generalist history, but detail-laden, narrowly-focused history. If Dr. Schulz and I live long enough to carry our history into the Rutherford era, we will consult Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change.

            One last pick: The bibliography lists John Storrs. It’s George Storrs.

           

Expect ...

George Chryssides's publisher sent me a review copy of his new book, Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change. Expect a review after I've read it through twice or thrice. I'm on page 55 on the first reading. Up to page 55 this is a stellar generalist book. It puts to shame many of the earlier books treating this subject. I'll keep you updated.

So far I've found one minor grammar fault, meaningless. And one place where he would have benefited from our second book, not in print when his mss was finished. It is a very expensive book, but at page 55, and no further, I'd recommend it.