Does this make sense? Is it well organized or confusing? Have we made obvious mistakes?
Also you should note that Bruce is in the hospital, and I just had surgery myself. Work has slowed to a crawl as a result. But we will do our best to keep the blog interesting.
Congregation Culture
Congregations were independent, choosing
their own elders and class leaders. Internal organization was a local affair. The
Watch Tower suggested that congregations not tolerate disruptive
individuals. A problem some of our readers will find familiar was boredom. Most
early adherents were not accomplished speakers, and ratiocination did not
characterize most believers. Some meetings were rambling discussions full of
disagreement and doctrinal divergence. One unnamed “Brother” observed: “I find
that in our meetings where we have a talk, a discourse, by one of the brethren,
that circumstances must be very favorable if there are not some sleepy heads in
the house – and even sometimes when we have a pilgrim with us this is the case.”[1] Pilgrims,
visiting Watch Tower Society evangelists, generally better speakers than most,
traveled regionally. Russell suggested that adherents replace rambling
experience sessions with reading Watch Tower articles:
At
evening meetings, when twos and threes and dozens assemble, it would be far
better to take up and discuss with the Scriptures bearing thereon, one and
another of the articles in the tower.
It would be vastly better to thus study God’s Word, than to spend so much time,
as some do, in vain repetitions and telling of “experiences.” Try it, brethren
and sisters; and let all take part in the search for truth, and seek diligently
till you find it – clear, beautiful, and invigorating.[2]
Some fellowships found maintaining regular meetings a challenge. Russell
advised small fellowships to continue steadfast, especially in the face of
evil. The context of his remarks suggests his reference to “evil” attached to
pressures from disaffected believers who continued to meet with Watch Tower
adherents. Russell asked the small gatherings to write to him every few months
telling him “how the Lord prospers you; whether you keep up your meetings with
those of like precious faith.” Some few months later, Russell again advised
meeting together and asked for a list of places where readers “hold regular
meetings and services of any kind, whether in churches, halls, or private
houses.” To those who had no regular meetings he recommended establishing one, “in
your own home with your own family, or even a few that may be interested.” He
recommended that they “read, study, praise and worship together.”[3]
Dissension and Disaffection
Dissension arose on several grounds.
Those with similar but ultimately opposition views attended Watch Tower
meetings. Some, swayed by Barbour, continued to attend Watch Tower meetings
because there was nowhere else to go. Paton’s adherents were increasingly small
in number, often having no meetings of their own. They attended Watch Tower meetings, using them to spread Paton’s Universalist
ideas. We discuss it more fully elsewhere, but we note here that beginning at
least in 1882, Paton prepared booklets and tracts that went primarily to Watch
Tower readers. The earliest of these was a thirty-two page booklet
reprinting chapter four and part of chapter five of the ‘revised’ edition of Day
Dawn.[4] As
long as meetings included those with contrary beliefs, opposition literature
made its way into the fellowship and colored group discussions. Most examples
come from a somewhat later. In Brockport, New York, someone donated a
subscription to Paton’s World’s Hope and Russell’s Watch Tower to
the Free Library.[5] A letter written to J. H.
Paton in 1902, said: “Sister V. … asked me to subscribe for the Hope; and I … have never been sorry. …
It has been a blessing to me and much company when alone. Z. W. T.; the Hope, and my Bible are about all I read.”[6]
Benjamin Ford Weatherwax, (June 15,
1836 – November 8, 1903) a retired Methodist clergyman living in Cortland, New
York, took up the Watch Tower message in 1901, possibly from earlier preaching
by S. O. Blunden.[7] Weatherwax wrote to
Russell expressing his faith. A follow up letter was printed in the January 1,
1902, Watch Tower. It told the story of his withdrawal from the
Methodist Church:
I
have had a big fight and gained a glorious victory. I send you my article
prepared for the Conference. I had a hard time to get a hearing, as my name was
called before I reached the seat of Conference. Had I been there then I could
have had the floor; but after that it was difficult. After pressing the matter
they allowed me five minutes to speak and I read rapidly until I reached the
sentence, “Thy Kingdom come,” two thirds through, and there the Bishop called
me to order. He said I had used up six minutes and I asked for an extension of
time but could not get it. (They had enough.) So I asked our own City Editor if
he would like to publish it and he consented.
There
was a great surprise I assure you, at Syracuse Conference, when I withdrew from
it and gave my reasons even partially. I commenced giving out tracts – until
all were gone. When I gave one I said, “Read that carefully, when you are all
alone.” I have a good many old friends in the Conference and Church (Nominal),
but thanks be to God, I am the Lord's free man. Some have asked me what church
I am going to unite with, and my answer is the “Church of the first born, whose
names are written in heaven.”[8]
Weatherwax
attended Fairfield Seminary, and later Hartwick Academy. Though he farmed for a
while, “he felt a strong call to preach the gospel.” He was admitted to the
ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church becoming an itinerant preacher in
New York. He retired in 1885, and returned to farming finally giving that up in
1892 and moving to Cortland, New York.[9] He was convinced by Watch Tower doctrine
about 1900 and preached it. He converted six others, and they formed the Church
of the Little Flock. By 1903, The Syracuse, New York, Post-Standard gave
it a membership of “about ten.”[10]
Shortly after he resigned from the Methodist ministry, the editor of The
Cortland, New York, Evening Standard published his statement of faith:
Cortland, N. Y., October 29, [1901]
To the Editor of The Standard:
Sir – I have been asked to give a reason for the hope
that is within the church of the “Little Flock.” First, our organization is of
a heavenly origin rather than earthly. We belong to the “Church of the first
born whose names are written in heaven.” Our people are scattered all over the
earth. They are known by their Lord. …They are held together by love divine … .
They are one body and one spirit … .
We hold that the church which God is electing or
selecting during this gospel age is promised a spiritual or heavenly reward to
be “made partakers of the divine nature,” and to share with Christ the work of
blessing the world during the millennium. We understand that the millennial age
is for the very purpose of causing “the knowledge of the Lord to fill the whole
earth as the waters cover the sea,” and see “the true light which lighteth
[sic; he meant “lightest.”] every man that cometh into the world,” giving all a
full opportunity to come in to [sic] harmony with God.
We understand that the Bible teaches both the doctrine
of election and the doctrine of free grace – the election of this church during
this age and free grace for the world in general in the millennial age and in
perfect harmony as shown by the Scriptures. We also under that 6,000 years of
earth’s history is past according to Bible chronology and that the seventh thousand
is the mellinnium [sic] of Christ’s reign – and that the present time from 1874
to 1914 is the lapping period styled in Scripture the “harvest” of the age, in
which the number of the elect church will be completed, and that then the
millennial age will be ushered in by a great time of trouble, anarchy, etc.,
mentioned repeatedly in Scripture which will level society, humble pride and
prepare the way for Immanuel’s long promised Kingdome “under the whole heavens.”[11]
This was standard Watch Tower
doctrine. Weatherwax assumed the leading position in the group. Meeting-time
advertisements note him as “Elder,” a common Methodist designation. As did a
few other former clergy, he continued to see himself as possessing special
status. Based on his short article for the Cortland paper, editors of nearby
journals presented him as the “founder of a new sect.” The Newburgh, New
York, Register told its readers that “the Rev. B. F. Weatherwax, formerly
of this city, has withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal conference and has
founded a new religious denomination.”[12]
By the end of April 1902, they were meeting in the Women’s Christian Temperance
Union Hall. Sunday services were at 10 am, and a meeting for prayer and Bible
study was on Wednesday at 7:30 pm.[13]
[photo]
B.
F. Weatherwax – Earlier in Life
George B. Raymond, a Watch Tower
evangelist, visited the Cortland group twice. An announcement in the April 12,
1902, Cortland Standard said he would address a meeting of the church in
Good Templars’ Hall. R. E. Streeter visited The Church of the Little Flock in
Cortland in July 1902. He returned in December 1902, speaking Wednesday,
December 3rd on the topic “The Coming Kingdom,” and the next evening
on “Restitution of All Things.”[14]
Raymond returned in early May 1903, addressing the group twice. Noting
Raymond’s visit, The Standard printed the congregation’s statement of
belief:
There
are people who believe the world is just entering the milennial [sic] reign of
Christ, and that a wonderful age of progress, both material and spiritual, is
about to be ushered in, preceded, however, by ten or fifteen years of intense
strife and anarchy. They believe that the earth and the great bulk of humanity,
both present and past, will, during the next thousand years, be restored to the
perfection which 6,000 years ago was exampled in the Garden of Eden.
They
reject the idea of eternal torment, claiming it to be unscriptural; asserting
that only those who are guilty of sinning willfully against the fullest light
(information) are to be considered incorrigible; these and these only, are to
be destroyed in the second death.
They
believe that God has for 6,000 years been allowing man to gain a sad experience
with sin, and that he will, during the next thousand years, the millennium,
restrain sin, that man may see righteousness n all of its beauty, and witness
the blessed results of its reign. Having had 6,000 years’ experience with sin
and 1,000 years’ experience with righteousness, man will be well prepared to
make a wise choice as to which he will serve, and will then be tested by
loosing of Satan to deceive those who during this long period shall have failed
to become well grounded in godliness, Those being thus deceived will go down
into the second death from which there will be no resurrection.[15]
Soon after this was published, Weatherwax deviated
from Watch Tower teachings. He encountered Barbourite doctrine and adopted
Barbour’s new chronology. Barbour expected the final last-days acts to occur in
1907. Weatherwax preached that. His obituaries report that the church “members
believe the world ends in 1907.” We lack details. We don’t know how he
encountered Barbourite doctrine. We do not know why he found it persuasive.[16]
Contrary to newspaper claims, most members of the Cortland church retained Watch
Tower belief. We think that the congregation continued to accept Weatherwax
because, though he deviated in doctrine, they had tremendous respect for him.
Writing some months after he died, Isaac Edgecomb described him as “a man of
great faith.” Edgecomb was a Methodist, and wrote this despite Weatherwax’s
defection from that church.[17]
The small congregation continued, placing meeting notices in the Cortland paper
through 1904. There were thirteen members in 1906, all of whom traveled to
Binghampton, New York, on January 26th to hear Russell speak.[18]
Cortland received two visits by traveling Watch Tower Pilgrims in 1908, and
persisted at least to 1917. We do not know if the current Witness congregation
is an outgrowth of the original group.
[photo]
Syracuse, New York, Herald
[photo]
Randolph
Elwood Streeter
(1847-1924)
[photo]
George
B. Raymond
Untoward behavior and belief stumbled some. A “sister”
who defended the Episcopalian Church while also wishing everyone would read The
Watch Tower pointed to behavior issues. Russell considered the matter
through The Tower:
The
sister shows that her interest in the truth and her perplexity on the Church
question are real, throughout the entire communication, saying in conclusion: “I
wish your papers could be in the hands of every reading Christian, and that
they would read them.” And again, “You have come out and are living as you
think you have been called to live, and yet whom [sic] have you among you? Some
very nearly as bad as Judas, who deny the Lord that bought them, and this state
of things is even worse than the first [sectarian condition] it seems to me,
and your Church is no better than others in its mixture of good and bad. Can
you not see reason for my perplexity?”[19]
Watch Tower adherents kept no
membership records; meetings were slimly attended; no collections were taken.
They lacked the trappings of a denominational religion. While a larger
fellowship might elect a class leader, there were no clergy. Because Bible
study sessions were typically free-wheeling, differences arose and some turned
into open animosity. Raymond G. Jolly, speaking at a Watch Tower convention in
1913, suggested that differences between individuals caused some to drift away,
with the offended party happy to see them go.[20] Moral
laxness and personal controversy plagued some congregations. In later years
personal animosity and jealousy directed toward Russell caused major
disruptions. In 1894 and again in 1908-1912 doctrinal and personal differences
became major issues for adherents. These are matter for the next book in this
series. In 1903 Paton’s son picketed a Watch Tower convention handing out his
father’s tracts.
The Watch Tower’s first year
had not passed when B. W. Keith found it necessary to remind adherents that the
‘works of the flesh” – impurity, debauchery, idolatry, sorcery, enmities,
quarrels, jealousies, resentments, altercations, factions, sects, envyings,
inebrieties, revelings, and things similar to these – were forbidden to true
Christians. He did not refer to specific cases, but given the emphatic nature
of his article, he probably had some in mind.[21] He
ended the article with this plea: “Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty;
only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one
another.” A few months later Paton emphasized the importance of ‘clean’
behavior. His comment was drawn from a remark of Barbour’s. Barbour wished his
hearers would stop trying to be good and concentrate on his new theology. After
presenting a series of scriptures illustrating the need for moral behavior, Paton
wrote: “These are but samples of the general exhortations to the church by the
Apostles. They do not either ignore or belittle knowledge or faith, but they do
exalt the importance of holiness of heart and life.”[22]
A. D. Jones left the fellowship in
1882, advocating other doctrine. We discuss this in detail in volume three of
this work, but we need to notice some elements of that story in this context.
Jones’ new beliefs were examined in both The Watch Tower and World’s
Hope. If that was all the documentation we had, we would see it only as a
doctrinal difference. Russell was reluctant to point to Jones’ mistress, his
fornication, his multiple thefts. Russell wrote vaguely about the scandal: “Mr.
Jones ran well for a time; but ambition or something else eventually worked
utter shipwreck of his faith.”[23]
The effect of Jones’ behavior was to turn the Newark, New Jersey, congregation
from one of the largest into a very small group.
Russell extracted an article
entitled “Immoral Literature” from The Iowa Review, publishing it in the
January 1885 Watch Tower. It advised against sensational, often immoral
literature, saying, “Deprive a people of their literature and they degenerate
into barbarism.” Russell and many of his associates had a very narrow view of
life’s pleasures, even those innocent in themselves:
It
would not be sinful to pay fifty cents or a dollar for a box of [out of season
strawberries.] It is no crime to have a fine house, servants, a pleasure yacht,
an automobile, etc. If there are entertainments, concerts, operas, and these
are of good moral tone, one has a perfect right to engage a seat for the same
at five dollars, and to employ a taxicab in going. One as a natural man has a
perfect right, if he is able, to any of these things, which are not sinful in
themselves. Things that are sinful should, of course, always be avoided.
But
when one undertakes to become a follower of Christ he accepts instead of his
own will the will of God. And as Christ pleased not Himself, but used His time,
His influence, His life, for the good of others, so those who become His disciples
will forego their rights and privileges, whenever these would conflict with
their service to God. The Christian could not reason the same as he did before
he made his consecration. He could not say, I will spend five dollars to go to
the opera; but he will be obliged to say, My means are consecrated to the Lord.
The same principle will control his judgment as to whether he shall have an
automobile or not; whether he shall have a fine house or shall own any house; whether
he shall have the finest food; whether he shall wear fine clothing, or plainer
clothing, etc. It will control his judgment as to his use of consecrated time.
But
no one is to judge another in regard to the use of money or time in his
possession as the Lord's steward. It is for the individual himself to decide
how he will use these. And it is the Lord who will decide whether he has been a
faithful steward or an unfaithful one. The Lord will decide that those who,
like Jesus, shall sacrifice the enjoyable earthly things, that thereby they may
the better glorify God, shall have the more than compensating spiritual
blessings, and shall receive the reward of the Kingdom and its positions of honor.[24]
It is human nature to judge others,
and Russell’s admonition to leave others un-judged over the use of money was
sometimes ignored, causing petty strife and jealousy. Much of the Watch Tower
collective personality was determined by the paper’s content, and that usually
meant Russell’s scripture exposition or his personal opinion.
In 1887 Dissension and behavior
issues drew an article from Maria Russell’s pen. Many adherents rejected all
forms of church discipline, believing they characterized false churches. They “seem
to think,” she wrote “that there is not, neither can be, any such thing as
discipline” in the true church. Their experience with “church discipline” was
entirely negative. Some were expelled from prior fellowships because of belief while
the disreputable and disorderly were never disciplined. But, wrote Maria, the
organization and discipline of the church of Christ is perfect. Christ is its “only
and infallible Head.” His Word authoritatively settles “every question.” “His
plan of work is studied and acted upon by … the members; his spirit is fostered
and cultivated in the hearts of all; and his disciplinary punishments are
applied when necessary.”
There is, she said, an “appointed
method of dealing with offenders.” Discipline “includes the entire process of
education by instruction, exercise, correction and punishment; and in cases
where these methods fail and meet with defiant opposition from those who still
claim to be members of the church, and associate themselves with it, it includes
the cutting off of such members from the church.” She examined some of the
relevant Bible verses, introducing the study with the claim “that the church
has important duties in the direction of discipline is clearly indicated by
many expressions of the Lord and the Apostles.”
Jesus is head of the church and
discipline falls within his purview. He left administration to humans who must
follow his instructions. The object of Christ-directed discipline is the
Church’s final approved state. She cited Ephesians 5:26, 27: “that he might
present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Its Christ’s church;
discipline must meet his standard. There is no place for personal standards and
opinions, only for Jesus’ words:
No
member of the church has any authority in matters of discipline except in
carrying out the directions of the Head, though each member has a duty in so
doing. The talents of each must be used for the benefit of all as far as
possible. Not only are our talents to be used in widely proclaiming the blessed
gospel, but they are to be used for the upbuilding, protection, and perfecting,
of those who accept it and by consecration have become members of the church, the
body of Christ.
This
important work requires carefulness both in our judgment of each other and in
our study of the Word of God. But there is much misunderstanding with reference
to the church’s duty in the matter of judging, from a failure to understand
clearly the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject.
Mrs. Russell believed Jesus’ words “judge
not lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1) did not mean believers should suspend
righteous judgment. She pointed to Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthian Christians’
failure to judge one of one of its members’ sin as proof that judgment to a
divine standard was necessary. She wrote:
In
the extreme case of immoral conduct referred to by Paul (1 Cor. 5:1), he was
reproving the Corinthian church for not judging such a one unworthy to be
counted one of their number. With their understanding of the general principles
of God’s plan they should have needed no such instructions from him, but should
have acted promptly on their convictions. And the fact that they did not do so,
gave evidence of a cool indifference to the will of God which needed reproof.
Imperfect
human judgment might greatly err in dealing with such a case. Some would say
that the crime was so glaring and so base that the offender had justly merited
eternal torment, while others would say, Well, he has some good traits of
character yet; he is kind, or benevolent, or gives largely of his means to
support the church, and the good must balance the evil. But those acquainted
with the principles of God’s government know that eternal torment has no place
in God’s plan, and also that the sin committed was not the sin unto death, but
that it was by no means excusable; nor could it be considered as balanced by
other good qualities. They know also that such a one, though he may have made a
full and entire consecration of himself to God, has shamefully violated his
covenant and brought reproach upon the cause of Christ, which must be resented
by every loyal member of the church, that he may feel their righteous indignation
and his own degradation. And not until there is evidence of sincere repentance
should such a one ever again receive the hand of fellowship.
To
thus judge and deal in such a case, is to deliver such a one over to Satan for
the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the
Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5). When thus cast off by the saints as unworthy and unfit
for their society, and entirely deprived of their fellowship, the adversary to
whose temptations he gave way, will buffet him yet more; the blows of adversity
will come heavy in some shape or form; and God’s object in permitting it will
be his reformation.
How
painful is such a measure of discipline; yet had such measures been pursued the
church would not have been overrun with tares as it has been, and great
Babylon, with her millions of professors merely, would not have come into
existence.
The
necessity of judging in such matters will thus be seen to be most necessary to
the purity and growth of the church, and to the honor of her name as the virgin
of Christ. In difficulties or disputes between brethren, the church should find
in its own members some at least who could point out the course of justice as
viewed from God’s standpoint. If in the future they are to be the judges of
angels and men, they should at present be able to judge in such small matters
without appealing to civil courts to settle their disputes. For brother to go
to law with brother would not indicate that either has much of the spirit of
Christ, or much love for the cause they represent. If they had real love for
the cause, they would prefer, as Paul says (1 Cor. 6:7), to suffer injustice
rather than bring upon it this reproach.
Reproof, exhortation, encouragement, and teaching were
duties of the church. Each was to judge when it was necessary to “perform them
in the spirit of the Lord and Head of the church.” Each should “be ready at all
times to receive as well as to give assistance, in the spirit of meekness,
whether it be in the way of reproof, exhortation, or teaching, recognizing the
Lord’s object in all discipline, whether painful or otherwise, to be to present
to himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” Maria
Russell said that the wedding feast parable set the standard for fellowship.
This pointed squarely at those who advocated atonement theories that negated
purchase by shed blood, who believed that they stood before God in their own
merit:
When
the King came in to inspect those called to the wedding, he saw one there not
having on a wedding garment. As in the illustration wedding robes were provided
for all the guests by the host, the fact of one appearing without the robe
provided, showed great disrespect to the host. It indicated that though the
robe was given him he preferred his own clothing and considered it better than
that provided.
The
illustration is a striking one. Its location just prior to the marriage, points
to the exact time in which we are living, the harvest of the Gospel age, just
preceding the marriage of the Lamb, the exaltation of the church as the Bride
of Christ. The robe of Christ’s righteousness, purchased for all by his
precious blood, is the wedding garment. And to appear in this church company
without this robe, is to appear in the filthy rags of our own righteousness and
to do despite unto the spirit of grace in despising the robe provided by the
Lord by his ransom. And to so appear in his own garments is a practical
invitation for others to do likewise. Such an insult to our Lord, the King, should
be promptly resented by every loyal member of the body of Christ, and those
members who are strong and able should promptly follow the King’s directions – “Bind
him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness.”
Such
is part of the painful duty of the present hour. Some who once walked with us
in the light of truth, clothed in the righteousness of Christ imputed to them “through
faith in his blood,” have since taken off that robe and appeared in their own
filthy rags, boldly inviting others to do likewise. While it is the duty of the
stronger members of the body of Christ to protect the weaker, in every way
possible against these baneful influences, it is their duty to bind the
offenders and cast them out – in other words, to disfellowship them – to show
up their true standing, and thus bind them hand and foot by putting others on
their guard, thus restraining their influence upon the church. Sooner or later
they will either put on the robe or withdraw from the light which reveals the
filthy rags of their own righteousness. Thus the church must maintain her
integrity and loyalty – “The King said to his servants, Bind him hand and foot
and cast him into outer darkness.” The darkness is that in which the whole
world is enveloped with reference to God’s plan.
Light
is sown for the righteous, and only the righteous may enjoy it. Though these
once had the light, it is for them no longer; and such as sympathize with them
and do not firmly reprove their course are in danger of being drawn by their
influence into outer darkness with them. Take heed that ye, brethren, be not
deceived or ensnared, or hindered in the race for the prize of our high
calling. Watch and pray, and be firmly established in the truth; be fully
imbued with its spirit, that you may be counted worthy to be of that glorious
church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.[25]
Dissension remained an issue for
decades. Doctor Smith Walker wrote to Russell in mid 1898, explaining the
situation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, congregation. A “Mr. C” was a
disruptive influence, projecting the extremes of Methodist perfectionism into
Watch Tower doctrine:
We
have still some trouble occasionally here: chiefly from Mr. C. (I can no longer
call him brother). For nearly two years at every possible opportunity he has
forced us to listen to “holiness” theories and tried to compel us to accept a
hash of present truth and Methodism until we were obliged to send him a written
request to absent himself from our meetings and seek more congenial society,
and this has been a rather unpleasant step. This he has declined to do on the ground
that he is the father of the Church here and intends to look after us. He has
often told us that none of our number were even justified, to say nothing of
being consecrated, and has sometimes included himself in the same category. So
far as I am capable of judging he held and taught the truth clearly some four years
ago, but he has seemed to be getting gradually into denser darkness for half
that time, and he seems to attend our meetings for the purpose of annoyance.
Russell’s response was that each “each
little company meeting for communion, fellowship and the study of holy things”
should to decide the character of the meetings and choose leaders according to
their best judgment. “Any attempted deviation from this Scriptural rule should
be kindly but firmly resented.” He said that only those who “profess both
justification and full consecration should be recognized as having a voice on
such matters.” [26] By July 1899, Walker could write: “I am glad to be able to say that all
our meetings are smooth and harmonious: so much so as to be a little different
from what we might Scripturally expect: but perhaps this is for a pleasant
alternation to the ruggedness of the past few years.”[27]
Divisiveness from Barbourites,
Paton’s Larger Hope movement, and readers of A. P. Adams’ Spirit of the Word
continued to cause problems into the Twentieth Century. While calling Watch
Tower congregations “worse than Babylon,” they continued to attend. When the
issue was raised in 1909, Russell advised congregations to mark those who cause
divisions:
Mark
those who are tending toward division, and don't make them your bosom
companions, don't elect them as elders, etc., for that is just the wrong thing.
Don't encourage anybody who has a strifeful condition. Lay him on the shelf and
let him have strife to himself. Let us be careful that we do not cultivate anything
in our own hearts, of their spirit. Let us be gentle, but firm. If any such
should approach me, I would shake hands with him. I would not say, No, I will
not shake hands with you. But I would not make of them my bosom companions.[28]
In an effort to stifle controversy,
some Watch Tower groups avoided difficult questions. Russell published a brief
article by Robert Wakefield, an adherent from New Jersey, which addressed that
issue. Wakefield suggested they take up the more controversial subjects and
study them:
Again
it is the aim of some in their undue desire for harmony, to avoid the
investigation of any subject which might provoke controversy. This, we think,
is manifestly wrong. Shall we sell the truth to purchase harmony? and are we so
puffed up as to be offended if God's word should overthrow our former
convictions? Or shall we limit God to five or ten minutes, and take the
remainder of two hours to listen to each others experiences, which in nine
cases out of ten would be better untold? Why not open the doors wide, and let
the blessed Master come in and lead our meetings?
It
matters not whether there is any one learned or talented among you. Let each
one bring his own Bible, paper and pencil, and avail yourselves of as many
helps in the way of a Concordance, Em.
Diaglott, old and new versions of the New Testament, etc., as possible.
Choose your subject; ask for the Spirit's guidance in the understanding of it;
then read, think, compare scripture with scripture, and you will assuredly be
guided into truth.[29]
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 a mixture of fact
and fancy typical of Gruss’s 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.[30]
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.”[31]
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.[32] And
then there is a peculiar statement in a 1904 convention announcement placed in
the 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
Methodists, 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, speaking at
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.”[33]
Events show that Watch Tower
teachings found a home among Baptists. J. F. Young, 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.[34] 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.[35]
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.”[36]
As Russell often said, the clergy
confused church creeds with Bible content, 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.[37]
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 “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.”[38]
If members of Congregational
churches were 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.[39]
As
did most clergy, Chafer sent a mixed message. The congregations were not being
spiritually fed, but it is the members’ fault because they should be content
with the basics of the 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.[40]
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.”[41]
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 …[42]
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, some
of 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.”[43] 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.[44]
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 a later next chapter.
Growing Interest
It may be an exaggeration to suggest that there were as many reasons
for conversion to Watch Tower belief as there were converts, but a variety of
reasons appear in adherents’ letters. An early clerical convert was convinced
that the “dear old Methodist Episcopal Church” was in error, though we do not
know in what particular he found it so. He wrote to Russell saying that his
former church was part of “the image of the beast,” the Protestant offspring of
the Roman Catholic Church.[45]
He believed that teaching Watch Tower theology was obedience to Christ whom he
loved better than his old church. Some, including clergy, found Watch Tower
teaching a match or near match to their own conclusions. [See Chapter -] Some
found relief from adverse personal circumstance that might include depression,
drug use or other life issues. Some found doctrinal relief. Hell-fire torment
and issues connected to Second Probation doctrine are mentioned in letters to
Russell. The belief that Christ was then personally present, though invisible,
gave some assurance that soon life would be better.
A significant draw was Watch Tower
emphasis on holiness. The ‘higher life’ and holiness movements represented an
important quest for New Testament belief. Christendom in its American and
European permutations preached morals but presented few examples. A female
adherent in Venango, Pennsylvania, a small village with a population of 278,
saw Watch Tower belief as “an effort to place us upon the original Christian
basis, which Christ and his apostles outlined for all the true followers down
to the end of the age.” She was discouraged because few listened to her but
wrote: I cannot help rejoicing that I have found the true version of the Scriptures,
even if others will not accept. I cannot tell you how happy it makes me. I try
to do what good I can, but when others deem me crazy or lost to all my former
senses.”[46] Another example comes
from James West, a prominent Watch Tower evangelist. Writing to Russell about
the just concluded Lord’s Memorial Meal [Communion], he said: “This meeting was the nearest approach in its
character to the New Testament idea of the assembling of the saints, for
worship and study (“Search the Scriptures”), that I have ever seen or heard of.
How I wish every consecrated child of God on earth could have been present, and
seen and heard all that was done and said. It certainly was the most
satisfactory religious gathering I ever participated in.”[47]
Numbers
Herbert Stroup suggested that “Mr. Russell did not
stress the idea of ‘numbers’ because he felt that the coming end of the world
made the building of a large organization unnecessary.” Citing Volume Three of Studies
in the Scriptures, he quoted Russell as writing that the Little Flock would
“decrease in influence and numbers ... before the close of 1910.”[48]
We do not know from where he derived this ‘quotation,’ but certainly not from
any volume of Studies in the Scriptures or from anything else Russell
wrote. Not only is this quotation false, but Stroup mischaracterized Russell’s
reasoning. God chose the members of his church; they weren’t living saints
simply because they were on a membership role.
Estimates of the movement’s numerical strength in the
1880s vary widely. A Watchtower writer says the movement was “only about one
hundred strong in 1881.”[49] We
do not know how this figure was reached. Some estimates derive from Memorial
attendance. Russell estimated that the memorial was celebrated by “about twenty”
fellowships in 1881. However, in 1881 they were not united as to the timing of
and manner of observing the Lord’s Memorial Supper. Not every group and not
every individual sent in returns; it was early days and reporting Memorial
attendance was not the fixture it became. [50] The
Watchtower writer’s estimate is probably significantly in error.
Another Watchtower writer claimed: “In these first
years of 1879 and 1880 they founded about thirty congregations in the states of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
New York, Massachusetts, Delaware,
Ohio and Michigan. Then in 1880 Pastor Russell arranged to visit all of
these thirty congregations himself, spending at least one day with each
congregation.”[51] An Internet based
polemicist claimed: “By 1880 there were scores of congregations around the
United States.” The basis for the former is the writer’s imagination and for
the latter a misunderstanding of reports found in Zion’s Watch Tower. In
this era Memorial reports were incomplete and haphazard, leaving Russell
requesting careful and complete reports clear up to 1900.[52]
Russell did not name every congregation he visited. So we look at these claims
with considerable skepticism.
We get some idea of numbers of adherents from Watch
Tower subscription figures. In 1883, the British edition of the Latter-Day
Saint journal Millennial Star described the Tower as “having a
large circulation.”[53]
Ayer’s Directory for 1882 suggests a circulation of forty-eight hundred
copies. Edwin Alden’s Directory for 1886 claims a circulation of nine
thousand.[54] The 1892 Directory of
the Religious Press gives it a circulation of 9500, “chiefly local.”[55] In 1899 Pettingill’s National Newspaper
Directory gave the Watch Tower a circulation of twelve hundred
copies per issue.[56] Russell reported that some print runs were
exhausted. He printed six thousand copies of the November and December 1881
issues, “and at the time supposed that sufficient.” He wanted new readers to
have copies and proposed to reprint those issues. That plan was aborted and the
material appeared in The Plan of the Ages. In January 1882, Russell said
there were seven thousand names on their list. The February 1882 issue saw a
print run of ten thousand copies.[57] The
1882 edition of N. W. Ayer & Son’s American Newspaper Annual reported
14,800 copies per issue.
We are skeptical of externally reported circulation
figures. Even if accurate as approximations, they lack exactness, and we do not
know the sources. But let’s accept that between 1882 and 1890 the Watch Tower’s
circulation grew from about 5000 to over 9000 copies per issue. We still do not
know how many of the readership were committed believers. We can probably safely
assume that there were something over 500 adherents at the end of 1881 and more
by the end of 1887. Food for Thinking Christians spurred growth. In
April 1882, Russell could report “thousands of letters from all parts of this
country and Great Britain.”[58]
And again in January 1883 he could report: “Thousands of hungry hearts are
upturned to God in thanksgiving for the blessed light now shining on and
revealing the precious plan and promises of God. Thousands of letters tell of
renewed faith in God and quickened lives resulting from even a first glimpse of
‘the riches of His grace,’ and the grandeur of the great plan of God for the
salvation.”[59]
We do not know how many groups there were. Few were
organized into anything more than a small fellowship of two, three of a few
more. The “twos and threes” are not identified as to place. In a previous
chapter we demonstrated interest in Missouri and Kansas, places reached by
Lawver and others. The evidence suggests to us that there were more adherents
than more recent Watchtower writers suggest and more sustainable groups than
the twenty Russell thought existed in 1881. Ultimately we do not have a solid
number, or even an approximate number with a solid basis. [maps, charts here]
We reject the idea that Russell organized these
congregations. In the early 1880s, most of them were preexisting, composed of
people with similar interests but with divergent doctrine. Instead, Russell
encouraged readers to gather together to study and enquire. As the movement
grew, new fellowships and congregations formed, often with the intervention of
a colporteur or evangelist. Ads were placed in newspapers giving the meeting
locations. Contact between interested parties was encouraged.
Relationship to the Center
Some Watch Tower adherent groups
functioned much as they had when associated with a church, electing or having a
de facto pastor. Others were loosely organized with no clearly defined leader.
All looked to Zion’s Watch Tower for guidance, though to varying degrees.
More than seeking guidance from Watch Tower articles which in this
period were written by a variety of authors, they increasingly looked to
Russell who saw himself as a divinely chosen teacher, one of God’s “special
agents for special work” used as were Abraham, Moses, Samson and Paul.[60] Though
it was more reserved than Paton and Barbour’s self views, not everyone shared
Russell’s self-assessment.
Some controversialists and
sectarians write that Russell claimed divine inspiration – that he claimed to
be a modern-day prophet. This is at best inexact and at worst a total
misrepresentation of Russell’s claims.
[continue]
A clearer authority structure
emerged after Food for Thinking Christians and Tabernacle Teachings
were published. They accomplished what Paton’s Day Dawn had failed to
do, presenting a clearly and narrowly defined doctrine. With a narrowing
doctrine came disaffection. Paton resented Russell displacing him as the most
prominent preaching voice, and he finally stopped flirting with Universalism,
openly espousing the doctrine. His articles were turned down as were those of
others. Jones espoused Josephitism and other extreme doctrines and took a
mistress. Conley, who lost a child and never gave up Trinitarian and Torment
beliefs, drifted off into faith cure. Myers, who associated briefly, started
his own magazine, presenting an atonement theory Russell saw as denying the
worth of Christ’s sacrifice. While we examine this in volume 3 of this work, we
must note it here because it sets the stage for the development of authority
structure among Watch Tower readers.
By mid-year 1882 some readers were
suggesting that anointed Christians did not need human teachers. At least one
cited 1 John 2:20, 27: “The anointing which you received from Him abides in
you, and you have no need that any one should teach you, but the same anointing
teaches you concerning all things and is true.” (Diaglott.) The believed “that
among those who are fully consecrated ... no teachers are to be recognized and
that none are needed, as all shall be taught of God.” This was not a new
theory. Elements of it are found in Protestant writing from the 16th
Century onward. The scriptures are paramount, or should be. Teachers that
presented doctrine differing from ‘the norm’ were castigated. Creeds were a
block to open, critical Bible study. These are issues of authority.
A sect calling itself The Christian
Brethren was active in England in the 1840s. It was non-Trinitarian, and
commonly called Unitarian, though far different from the Unitarian-Universalist
Church of today. One of the principal leaders was Joseph Baker (not the
American Unitarian of the same name.) Samuel Minton, one of his clerical
opponents refused – despite calls to do so – to debate him, presenting a
multitude of reasons why he wouldn’t.[61]
The most important reason seems to have been that he would loose a face to face
debate. Russell’s rejection of creeds and creed bound clergy reflected that of
the Christian Brethren: Creeds and clergy blocked free enquiry. While we could
not obtain a copy of Baker’s works, we have Minton’s representation of it: “The
Unitarian makes a boast of despising all human creeds and human teachers, and
thinks he justifies him self for so doing by declaiming against priestcraft and
spiritual despotism, mental thraldom, &c, &c.” Baker called the paid
clergy “hirelings,” and Minton saw that as disreputable, an attack on clergy
authority:
No
one can have read much of Mr. Barker's writings, with out seeing that the real
object of his outcry against paid ministers is to throw discredit on the
Christian ministry altogether. He knows, as well as I do, that a minister may receive
pay, and yet not be what our Lord calls a “hireling;” but he knows also, that
calling them all hirelings together lowers them in the eyes of ignorant people,
and so far weakens their influence. If he can only get people to shut their
ears against the ministers of Christ, on the ground that they are paid for
teaching certain doctrines, and therefore are not worth attending to, he will
then be able to instill his own teaching into their minds, with little danger
of having his mistakes corrected or his deceptions exposed. To accomplish this
end he spares no pains, and is not afraid of using such wholesale calumny ... .
The Christian ministry is a thing ordained by God; and ... a paid ministry is ...
sanctioned by God.
Minton correctly saw Baker’s
rejection of creedal statements and a clergy paid to teach the creeds as
anti-authoritarianism. Minton saw clergy as God appointed. His reaction anticipated
later clergy reaction to Russell. Both Baker and Russell saw the need for
God-appointed human teachers. They denied that the clergy with their creeds
were such. But the controversy of mid-1882 went a step beyond, resurrecting an
11th Century heresy centered among the clergy of Orléans, France.
There is a sole-source record of the Orléanist’s beliefs made by their enemies.
They believed that the gift of the Holy Spirit gave them full understanding of
the Scriptures: “You will be replenished with the gift of the Holy Spirit,
which will teach you unreservedly the underlying meaning of the scriptures, and
true righteousness.” Similarly, those Russell tried to refute believed that “that
among those who are fully consecrated to the Lord and have received the anointing
... no teachers are to be recognized and that none are needed, as all shall be
taught of God.” The Orléanists
denigrated priestly ordination and authority. So, also, did those Russell tried
to refute.[62]
We do not know the full content of
either party’s argument. Russell does not identify who was claiming insight
independent of human teachers. We can eliminate Paton and Barbour who thought
of themselves as God-appointed teachers. Paton believed that he was directly
guided by God, and Barbour saw himself as specially anointed. A search of The
Restitution, the One Faith journal, did not turn up a similar argument. A.
D. Jones put forward theories Russell rejected, but not at this date. So, we’re
left with a mystery. All we know about those Russell opposed is that they
bolstered their argument with 1 John 2:20, 27: “You have an anointing from the
Holy one; you all know it.” (Rendering of Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) “The
anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that
any one should teach you, but the same anointing teaches you concerning all
things and is true.” [Diaglott] Russell’s rebuttal was: “God hath set in
the Church apostles, teachers, &c., for the edifying of the body. We
suggest that if the teachers be of divine appointment, those taught are
divinely taught. See (Eph. 4:11-16; 2 Tim. 4:2-5; John 13:20.) We believe that
John does not contradict other Scriptures which show that God had appointed
teachers in the church.” He suggested that this was a reaction to Christendom’s
false teachings, but wrong in substance.
Russell had addressed this issue the
month previously (June 1882). [Continue]
[1] 1910 Convention Report.
[2] C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch
Tower, August 1882, page 1.
[3] C. T. Russell: Regular Meetings, Zion’s Watch Tower,
April 1881, page 8.
[4] Announcements: The World’s Hope¸ July 1884, page
152. The title appears to be Good News for All.
[5] Annual Report of the Brockport Free Library, The
Brockport, New York,
Republic, December 1, 1887.
[6] R.O.L to Paton, The World’s Hope, February 15,
1902, page 47.
[7] Blunden to Russell as found in the May 1, 1892, Watch
Tower, pages 133-134. [Not in reprints.]
[8] Interesting Letters from Friends, Zion’s Watch Tower,
January 1, 1902, page 15.
[9] C. E. Fitch: Encyclopedia of Biography of New York:
A life Record of Men and Women Whose Sterling Character and Energy and Industry
Have Made Them Preëminent in Their Own and Many Other States, Volume 3.
[10] Drops Dead in Hen Yard, The Syracuse,
New York, Post-Standard, November 3, 1903. Founds a New Sect, Ogdensburg,
New York, News¸ November 12, 1901.
[11] B. F. Weatherwax: A Question of Belief, The Cortland, New
York, Evening Standard, November 2, 1901. We do not know if
the grammar errors are his or the editor’s.
[12] Founds a New Sect, The Newburgh,
New York, Register, November 7, 1901.
[13] Church of the Little Flock, Cortland, New York,
Evening Standard, April 25, 1902.
[14] Church of the Little Flock, Cortland, New York,
Evening Standard, July 28, 1902.
[15] Two Meetings, Cortland, New York, Evening Standard,
May 9, 1903.
[16] Drops Dead in Hen Yard, The Syracuse,
New York, Post-Standard¸ November 3, 1903; The Syracuse,
New York, Journal, November 9, 1903. There are possible
explanations as to how Weatherwax encountered Barbourite doctrine. W. Horace
Kirk, owner of a blacksmithing business and evangelist preacher, was interested
in the Church of the Little Flock. He attended a “convention of the Church of
the Little Flock in Binghampton, New York, in May 1904. His business partner
was a Hoyt, some of whom were Adventist and Age-to-Come believers. There was
through Kirk a connection to Rochester and the Fullers. Fullers were
Barbourites. None of this rises to the level of firm proof.
[17] I. Edgecomb: Some Pillars, The Cortland,
New York Evening Standard, October
14, 1904.
[18] To Attend Lecture, The Syracuse,
New York, Herald¸ January 27, 1906.
[19] C. T. Russell: The Episcopal Church, Zion’s Watch
Tower, November 1884, page 7.
[20] 1913 Convention Report, page 244ff. The report
misidentifies him as H. G. Jolly.
[21] B. W. Keith: Stand Fast, Zion’s Watch Tower, April
1880, page 4.
[22] J. H. Paton: What Effect? Zion’s Watch Tower, July
1880, page 8.
[23] C. T. Russell: Harvest Gatherings and Siftings, The
Watch Tower, June 1, 1916, page 172.
[24] L. W. Jones [Editor]: What Pastor Russell Said: His
Answers to Hundreds of Questions, 1917, page 612.
[25] M. F. Russell: Discipline in the Church, Zion’s Watch
Tower, July 1887, page 5.
[26] Smith Walker to Russell in Interesting Letters, Zion’s
Watch Tower, July 15, 1898, page 224. We know very little about Smith
Walker. The 1870 Census lists a Smith Walker resident in Allegheny City’s 8th
Ward and gives him a birth date in 1842 or 1843. We believe this is the wrong
man. A later letter from him notes him as living in Philadelphia. That takes us
to a man born in England about 1845, immigrating to the United States in 1866.
We know he traveled as an evangelist at least briefly. An announcement in the Glens
Falls, New York, Morning Star of June 26, 1899, notes his lecture there.
[27] Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower, July 1,
1899, page 175. [Not in reprints.]
[28] L. W. Jones [editor]: What Pastor Russell Said: His
Answers to Hundreds of Questions¸ Chicago 1917, page 30.
[29] R. W.: Assembling Together, Zion’s Watch Tower,
March 1884, page 2.
[30] E. Gruss: Apostles of Denial¸ Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co, 1986 printing, page 43. A. H. Macmillan: Faith on
the March, pages 39-40.
[31] Pastor Russell, The Christian Advocate, November
9, 1916, page 1466.
[32] eg: The Wages of Sin, The Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Dispatch, November 8, 1890.
[33] Souvenir Notes: Bible Student’s Conventions – 1910,
page 59.
[34] First Baptist
Church, The Daily Ardmoreite,
October 8, 1899.
[35] Jensen’s annual report found in One Hundred and First
Report of the American Bible Society: 1917¸ page 133.
[36] R. R. Biggar: A Sunday-School Every Member Canvas, The
Continent, January 29, 1920, page 140.
[37] Pastor Russell, The Christian Advocate, November
6, 1916.
[38] W. W. Perrier: Something New in the Ready Made Line, The
Pacific, May 8, 1902
[39] S. P. Chafer: The Kingdom in History and Prophecy,
Fleming H. Revell, New York, 1915, page 13.
[40] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
November 1884, page 2. [Not in reprints.]
[41] Dime Museums appealed to working-class individuals. They
were hardly better than carnival side shows.
[42] A Peril to Christianity, The Rayville, Louisiana,
Richland Beacon, August 27, 1881.
[43] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
December 1885, page 2. [Not in reprints.]
[44] C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower,
August 1882, page 2.
[45] C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower¸
June 1882, page 1.
[46] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
March 1889, page 8.
[47] Extracts from Interesting Letters, Zion’s Watch Tower,
May 1891, page 78.
[48] H. H. Stroup: The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1945, page 80.
[49] 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Watchtower
Society, 1975, page 39.
[50] C. T. Russell: Our Passover, Zion’s Watch Tower,
May 1881, page 6.
[51] Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose,
Watchtower, 1959, page 23.
[52] Memorial Celebration Reports, Zion’s Watch Tower,
April 15, 1900, page 113.
[53] What a Change in Fifty Years, Millennial Star,
April 23, 1883, page 258.
[54] See page 308.
[55] George Batten’s Directory of the Religious Press of
the United States, 1892 edition, page 127.
[56] See page 62.
[57] C. T. Russell: Untitled notice, January-February 1882
issue, page 2. Back Numbers, Zion’s Watch Tower¸ February 1882, page 2.
With the February issue Russell sent as a supplement a combined printed of Tabernacle
Teachings and Food for Thinking Christians. See also untitled
announcement April 1882, issue, page 2.
[58] C. T. Russell: Truth Spreading, Zion’s Watch Tower,
April 1882, page 4.
[59] C. T. Russell: View from the Tower, Zion’s Watch Tower,
January 1883, page 1.
[60] G. B. Stacy: Perilous Times, Zion’s Watch Tower,
August 1880, page 6. See Russell’s comments appended to Stacy’s article.
[61] Minton’s
biography is found in Rupert Sims: Bibliotheca Staffordiensis: Or a
Bibliographical Account of Books and Other Printed Matter Relating to – Printed
or Published in – Or Written by a Native, Resident, or Person Deriving a Title
from – Any portion of the County of Stafford, Litchfield, 1894, page 311.
[62] English translation of Paul of Saint-Père de Chartres’
account, as close as exists to a first hand account, found in Edward Peters
[Editor]: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1980, page 66ff.
