Who Were They?
Some opposition writers see Watch
Tower adherents in this period as primarily Second Adventists. They base this
on Russell’s comment in the February 1881, Watch Tower: “Many of our
company were what are known as Second Adventists.” But this is a look backward
to 1871, and did not represent matters as they were in the 1880s. Even as
things were in 1871, Russell was careful not to say that “most” had been Second
Adventists. In point of fact, most were never Adventists of any sort but
came from cognate movements.
Edmond Gruss wrote that “many early
converts seemed to come from fundamentalist groups who were dissatisfied with
their churches.” The paragraph in which we find this claim is mixture of fact
and fancy typical of Gruss’ work. He adds: “Russell claimed that most of his
followers were from Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist backgrounds,” and then
speculates about the reasons for adherence to Watch Tower belief. He plainly
did not carefully read the early issues of Zion’s Watch Tower. If he
had, his speculations would not have found a place in his book. We note too
that one cannot find in anything Russell wrote a statement about “most” Watch
Tower adherents’ previous affiliation. Instead, Gruss derived his comment from
A.H. Macmillan’s Faith on the March which quotes not Russell but
another.[1]
When Russell died, The Christian
Advocate, a Methodist journal, said that Watch Tower adherents were “drawn
from many churches, probably from our own most of all.”[2]
Russell era issues of the Watch Tower tend to support this. While we
feel an extended analysis here is distracting, a search of any of the
digitalized libraries of early Watch Tower publications should prove the point
to our readers. In Allegheny and Pittsburgh, clerical opposition most often
came from Methodists, proof that, at least there, Watch Tower theology
diminished Methodist churches.[3] And
then there is a peculiar statement in a 1904 convention announcement placed in
April 24, 1904, Los Angeles Herald: “Mr. Russell is president of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, under whose auspices the convention will
be held, and is widely known in the religious world, especially among
Methodist, as an able supporter of the old theology of the Bible.” This was a
poke at the Methodists then in conference in Los Angeles, but it was true
enough as Methodist losses to Watch Tower theology proved. In 1910, addressing
a convention of believers at Nottingham, England, Russell addressed
similarities between Watch Tower doctrine and Methodism: “we see in Brother
Wesley a grand man, and who in his teachings is loving and lovable, and he had
much truth, but yet he did not have the whole plan.”[4]
Events show that Watch Tower teachings
found a home among Baptists. J. F. Young, then pastor of the Ardmore, Indian
Territory (now Oklahoma), First Baptist Church preached on the twin subjects of
“Millennial Dawn” and “Truth and not Opinions.” Without Watch Tower inroads
into churches, sermons such as these would not have taken place.[5] It
is impossible to find a main-line church or small sect that was not affected by
Watch Tower doctrine. The few early responses from clergy turned into a flood
of antagonistic sermons, most of which had little effect. Carl L. Jensen, an
agent for the American Bible Society, pointed to spiritual hunger as the reason
converts found Watch Tower teaching attractive: “I find many homes filled with
Millennial Dawn literature. This is especially the case among the nominal
church members who are hungering for the food that satisfies, but somehow have
neglected the means of grace, until they easily take up with all sorts of fads
and isms” Jensen blamed Watch Tower adherents; they neglected the ‘means of
grace.’ But lack of satisfying spiritual food was a denominational fault. It
cannot be assigned to individuals.[6]
In dozens of ways, clergy and
clerical sycophants blamed parishioners and Russellism for their own failures.
Even when admitting failure, they shoved blame onto parishioners. In doctrinal
and historical context the failure was immense. Some commentaries on Matthew
identified the faithful and wise servant of chapter twenty-four as the clergy. Clergy
were responsible for the education and faith of congregants. They failed and
Russellism blossomed. An example of mixed criticism comes to us from The
Continent, the editor of which often opposed Russell. Richard R. Biggar, a
Presbyterian clergyman wrote:
The
church … is failing woefully … . We may safely say that more than one-half of
the people whose names appear on our church rolls do not have any system of
Bible reading or Bible study. How sad that this Source-book of our faith, this
rule of our faith and practice, is so neglected! We wonder why some of our church
members are running off to dangerous and foolish isms of our day. The answer is
plain. They are not “rooted and grounded in the word of God. We are not
carrying to them Bible study helps, but Russellism and Christian Science and “new
thought” cults on every side are thrusting into their hands so called “keys to
the Scripture” which confuse them and lead them away from the great
fundamentals of our faith “which are able to make them wise unto salvation.”[7]
As Russell often said, the clergy
confused Bible content with church creeds, and it is evident that Biggar did
that too. To him they were one and the same. Methodists felt besieged by
Russell. After prolonged ad hominem, an anonymous writer for The Christian
Advocate, probably its editor, wrote:
Russell’s career emphasizes several thoughts: First,
the inveterate gullibility of humankind (and its thirst for religious novelty);
second, the eagerness of the sinner to believe that having neglected his
opportunity here, a loving God will give him another chance; third, the
vitality of quackery in religion as in medicine; fourth the importance of the
press in carrying on religious propaganda. In the matter of tracts, leaflets,
books and periodicals, the followers of Pastor Russell, like the followers of
Mother Eddy and Joseph Smith, are using with commendable efficiency that agency
of popular religious literature in which the followers of John Wesley should
never allow themselves to be outdone.[8]
This ranting Methodist significantly
misstated Watch Tower salvation doctrine, doing so for shock value. He blamed former
Methodists, converted to Watch Tower belief, claiming they were gullible and
seeking novelty. But most significantly, he described Methodists as “followers
of John Wesley” rather than of Christ. Russell was right. Creeds supplanted the
Bible.
To W. W. Perrier, editor of The Pacific,
a Congregational Church magazine published in California, the forms of that
church were apostolic. Leaving it isolated one: “He who separates himself from
the church, regarding it as an unauthorized body, may belong to the kingdom,
but he is, by his poor judgment, placing himself where his influence for Christ
will be lessened; and it, in addition to such separation he takes on some of
the unscriptural doctrines of the times his influence is more largely lessened.”
[The confusing grammar is his.] It is interesting that he found denominational
allegiance more important that a relationship to Christ. His defense of
denominationalism was a response to a withdrawal letter sent by a new Watch
Tower adherent. He described it as “furnished by the publishers of ‘Millennial
Dawn.’” The letter disturbed him most
when it said the Bible was in “direct conflict” with his church. He
characterized those who used the pre-printed letter as “those “without much
strength of mind” who are “swayed easily by what they read.” He railed against “cheap
books such as ‘Millennial Dawn,’” saying that those swayed by it were “without
the facilities by which the fallacies of these books might be made known.”[9]
If members of Congregational
churches will ill-prepared to reason on religious subjects, whose fault was
that? If a book loses quality as its price declines then the many “cheap editions”
of the classics published in the late 19th and early 20th
Centuries declined in usefulness as the price declined. That seems a specious
argument.
In 1915, Lewis Sperry Chafer
pointedly wrote:
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.
Satan's lies are always garnished with truth and how much more attractive they
seem to be when that garnishing is a neglected truth! And insurance against the
encroachment of such false teaching lies only in correctly presenting the whole
body of truth rather than in treating any portion of it as impractical or
dangerous. No minister need greatly fear any false system when he is
intelligently and constantly feeding the people on the Word in all its symmetry
and due proportions. This is not only true concerning the teachings of “Millennial
Dawn,” but is equally true of the teachings of “Christian Science,” “New
Thought,” “Spiritism,” “Seventh Day Adventism” and all unscriptural doctrines
of Sanctification.[10]
As
did most clergy, Chafer sent a mixed message. The congregations were not being
fed spiritually fed, but it is the members fault because they should be content
with the basics of church creed. Others would reject Chafer’s
ultra-dispensationalism on the same basis that he rejected Russellism.
Little of this accurately explains
why churches lost members to Watch Tower belief. A much more accurate picture
derives from letters published in Zion’s Watch Tower. A newly interested
reader from Delta County, Texas, wrote to Russell in late 1884, saying:
Some
time ago, a copy of the watch tower
accidentally (?) got into my house. I read it and became interested very much;
have received several numbers since, and “Food for Thinking Christians.” Well,
what of it? I hardly know whether to accept it or reject it; in fact, I can’t
reject a part of it without rejecting the Word of God. I determined many years
ago not to accept or reject any theory until satisfied that the Word of God
sustained it. I need not tell you this motto has made me a little “weak-kneed”
on some things in my church.[11]
Protestant clergy taught that the
Bible was the rule of faith and that each was directly responsible to God.
While most church members agreed with that, few practiced it. When they did,
questions of faith and belief inserted themselves. This is an example. This
letter also exemplifies another common belief. God directs events so his people
find the truth. The inserted “?” suggests that finding The Watch Tower
might have been a divinely guided event.
Clergy snobbery and Protestant sola
scriptura doctrine were in conflict. Even if Scripture was the voice of God
to individual Christians, at least in Protestant doctrine, clergymen commonly
saw themselves as specially trained, divinely guided interpreters of the Word. Russell
and The Watch Tower trespassed on that perceived privilege. Baptists and
Methodists ordained as clergy those who never graduated from a college or
seminary. Methodists consigned Lutheran clergy to hell and Lutherans fired back
at Methodists. But they all saw Russell as an interloper, as trespassing on
their privileges. Later they would put the word “Pastor” in quotes when
referencing Russell. Russell was chosen by individual congregations as pastor
in a way that differed little from Methodist and Baptist practice. And he was
as trained in Bible usage as most clergy. They wanted to diminish his message
without addressing his teachings. As we observe in another chapter, at best
they listed his doctrines (sometimes inaccurately) for shock value but without
meaningful refutation. Clergy failure was most apparent when those newly
interested in Watch Tower teaching asked pointed questions.
Uneducated clergy abounded, and even
among those who graduated from a seminary or university, logic seems elusive. The
July 1, 1898, Middlebury, Vermont, Register decried the lack of clergy
education: “Culture is not to be laughed down. The dime museum … may caricature
it, the penny magazine comment upon it, the back-woodsman laugh at it … and
some of our uneducated clergy misconstrue the words of our Lord, until by the
wrong use of terms, masses are arrayed against classes.”[12]
Closer in time to the era we’re considering, The Richland (Rayville, Louisiana) Beacon and
The New
Orleans, Louisiana, Times took
up the issue.
The Times’ editor suggested
that: “Christianity is in no danger from either atheism, infidelity or the
discoveries of science, but from its own clergy, for lack of education adequate
to the age in which they live.” The Beacon’s editor agreed with this,
saying so in an editorial appearing in the August 27, 1881, issue. In point of
fact, most clergy were marginally educated. The Beacon’s editor agreed
that “clergymen are far behind the really educated and scarcely abreast with
the masses,” but he saw even this as an improvement over past decades.
The New Orleans Times
suggested that clergy should be thoroughly trained New Testament scholars. The Beacon
replied that more was needed. Unsuitable men, not spiritually qualified,
entered the ministry, and if educated betrayed their trust:
The
cause of Christianity often suffers at the hands of an ignorant preacher. …
Therefore, while we freely admit the disadvantages and misfortunes of an
uneducated clergy, we think that there is far less danger … from that source
than from a godless clergy, which is the inevitable result of educating young
men for the ministry regardless of their spiritual qualifications or moral
status …[13]
Unprepared, under-educated clergy
turned away the questions raised by enquiring believers, who, rather than being
untrained theologically were often as educated as the clergy who served them.
Also, notorious clergy conduct was documented in the press, making it easy to
see the churches they represented as hotbeds of sin and worldliness. While on
first blush, Russell’s condemnation of Christendom may seem exaggerated, it was
an accurate portrayal of the age.
While researching this book we’ve
read a significant amount of contemporary religious periodicals. Many of them are
insipid, ill-prepared, and lacking in substance. If we found them thus, their
readers did too. A resident of Howell County, Missouri, wrote to Russell in
late December 1885 saying: “In 1879, I became a member of the Missionary
Baptist church; am one yet, but have been dissatisfied on account of the
scarcity of spiritual food.”[14] A
letter from a man and wife resident in Chandler, Kansas, represents the feeling
of spiritual famine many experienced: “We have been church members for forty
years, but we have learned more from the watch
tower than we ever learned from the pulpit.” They were eager to
circulate tracts.[15]
Russell frequently pointed to
compromised churches. No better than social clubs, they admitted anyone.
Ministerial standards were lax. We documented this in some detail in volume
one, and it was a pronounced factor among those leaving denominational churches
for Watch Tower belief. A letter from Orangeburg, South Carolina,
appearing in the November 1884, Watch Tower illustrates this:
I
am alone as yet, but the light is certainly making some impression. Babylon is
visibly unstable and corrupt; her corruption is becoming so enormous that
thinking men cannot much longer submit to it; she is actually closing her eyes
and ears to known filth in her ministry, as well as laity, and her order
is to “hold the fort” against the light now streaming from the Word.
Russell’s Orangeburg correspondent
had reason to complain. In 1875, the Orangeburg paper reported the
Beecher-Tilton sex-scandal frequently and at length, and in 1879, Alonzo
Webster of the African Methodist Episcopal Church was accused of misusing
church funds. A long trail of clergy scandal filled the American press. One did
not have to look for scandal; the press rubbed readers’ noses in it. But not
all clergy opposed Russell; not all found his doctrine improbable or
un-scriptural. Some ministers found Watch Tower teachings eye-opening and
spirit-filling. We consider some of those in the next chapter.
[1] E. Gruss: Apostles of Denial¸ Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co, 1986 printing, page 43. A. H. Macmillan: Faith on
the March, pages 39-40.
[2] Pastor Russell, The Christian Advocate, November
9, 1916, page 1466.
[3] eg: The Wages of Sin, The Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Dispatch, November 8, 1890.
[4] Souvenir Notes: Bible Student’s Conventions – 1910.
[5] First Baptist
Church, The Daily Ardmoreite,
October 8, 1899.
[6] Jensen’s annual report found in One Hundred and
First Report of the American Bible Society: 1917¸ page 133.
[7] R. R. Biggar: A Sunday-School Every Member Canvas, The
Continent, January 29, 1920, page 140.
[8] Pastor Russell, The Christian Advocate, November
6, 1916.
[9] W. W. Perrier: Something New in the Ready Made Line, The
Pacific, May 8, 1902
[10] S. P. Chafer: The Kingdom in History and Prophecy,
Fleming H. Revell, New York, 1915, page 13.
[11] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
November 1884, page 2. [Not in reprints.]
[12] Dime Museums appealed to working-class individuals. They
were hardly better than carnival side shows.
[13] A Peril to Christianity, The Rayville, Louisiana,
Richland Beacon, August 27, 1881.
[14] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
December 1885, page 2. [Not in reprints.]
[15] C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower,
August 1882, page 2.
