Future Probation

by Jerome

(reprinted)

In Bible Examiner (hereafter abbreviated to BE) for October 1877, page 6, the editor George Storrs made one of his periodic pleas for support. While thanking readers for their prayers, he noted that financial help would also be welcome. His paper, he claimed, was unique. He argued “shall the only paper in America that speaks out boldly on this question be compelled to suffer and be crippled for want of funds?” There is an asterisk by the word America, and the footnote reads: “I except “The Herald of the Morning,” a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.”

By this date, Charles Taze Russell (hereafter abbreviated as CTR) was fully supporting Barbour and the Herald.

Since the same issue of BE has Storrs debating with CTR over the date-setting properties of Three Worlds, it was obviously not Barbour’s chronological gymnastics that appealed. The doctrine or “question” that set The Herald apart from all other current publications in Storrs’ mind was Future Probation.

It is not the purpose of this article to comment on whom might be nearer the truth on the subject, as we are writing history not theology. But future probation had been a contentious issue for Christendom for centuries.

To define the concept – future probation is the belief that in the future individuals could have a testing period with the prospect of eternal life ahead of them. So their everlasting prospects were not just determined by what they did in this life, but they would benefit from a probationary period in the future after resurrection. It was usually (although not exclusively) tied in with a literal Millennial reign by Christ over a literal earth. However, just who might benefit was a bone of contention amongst those espousing the doctrine – would it include “the wicked” or just the “ignorant” like the heathen or unbaptised infants - and if “wicked” how exactly might one define the term?

Orthodoxy in centuries past came out strongly against such a concept. If individuals did not accept Christ in this life, then that was it, there was no further chance. One example was in the official creed of the established Church of England. In 1552 Archbishop Cranmer produced the “42 Articles of Faith.” Article 42 attacked those who believed in future opportunities after death with the words: “They also are worthy of condemnation who endeavour at this time to restore the dangerous opinion that all men, be they never so ungodly, shall at length be saved, when they have suffered pain for their sins a certain time appointed by God’s justice.” While attacking a Universalist view, and perhaps a further swipe at the Roman Church’s purgatory (already attacked in article 22), it also reaffirmed that the “ungodly” – however defined – had lost out forever at death. Any other view was “a dangerous opinion.” Since the concept of Future Probation requires a location for it to happen – such as the earth during the Millennium – Article 41 of the same document obligingly condemned believers in the Millennium as heretics. However, it should be noted that ten years later in 1562 these articles ended up on the cutting room floor. The Church of England of today has to manage with just 39 Articles.

When this view was coupled with traditional teachings on hell – that all those not accepting Christ in this life were destined for eternal torment – it was perhaps unsurprising that some felt uneasy at the prospect of millions being so condemned. This was especially so if their opportunities to accept Christ in this life had been limited by geography and circumstance. Putting it in very human terms – was that fair? Those raising such questions were not accusing God of being unfair, but were aiming at the theologians who seemed to suggest that the vast majority of mankind would have been better off not being born at all.

One reaction against orthodoxy was to swing to the extreme of Universalism – the concept that eventually all would be saved. Writers such as John Murray in America promoted Universalism in the 18^th century. Universal Salvation might take some time – it WOULD take some time – but ultimately that was God’s plan. Some individuals were even sufficiently magnanimous to include the Devil in these calculations. (A few associated with CTR would eventually leave the Bible Student movement to become Universalists, including John Paton and his aptly-titled Larger Hope Publishing Company).

Once interest in the Second Advent drew various people together in the first half of the nineteenth century, another dimension was added by the acceptance by many of conditional immortality. This doctrine taught that immortality was not automatic, but was conditional. Those who did not gain eternal life would gain eternal sleep. That dealt effectively with the concept of a burning hell, but also affected the concept of future probation. If the wicked – whether through intent or ignorance – were just going to sleep forever, that wasn’t so bad, was it? So while future probation was debated by the Advent Christians and Age to Come groups, the majority came out against the concept, or at least had views on salvation more exclusive than inclusive.

Taking the Advent Christians first, their official histories had some tart comments to make on the doctrine. Isaac C. Welcome in “History of the Second Advent Message” (1874), pages 515, 613, laid into George Storrs’ view of “probation after the Advent” as erratic and radical and “very detrimental to the progress of truth and sound doctrine.” The doctrine was “nearly analogous to Universalism.” Albert C. Johnson in “Advent Christian History” (1918), pages 242-243, described 19^th century advocates as a kind of fifth column –  “(they were) finally distracted and disorganized by the advocates of future probation theories, who worked their way into the conference quietly until they gained control” – the conference had “been perverted by the age-to-come teachings.”

As suggested by the last quote, some in Age to Come fellowships were more sympathetic towards the idea. The first prerequisite for the unsaved to return for their “chance” was somewhere for them to return to, and the Age to Come focus was already on human life for a thousand years. But this was the exception rather than the norm. One must also remember that the term ‘Age to Come’ covered a wide spectrum of ideas when it came to the details. With a nice flourish of hyperbole, the Seventh Day Adventist magazine Review and Herald for May 14, 1889, said: “the doctrines passing under the general designation of Age to Come Views are about as numerous as the individuals holding them.” But looking at The Restitution (the paper we know CTR read), they were happy to publish such articles against the concept as J.F. Wilcox’s ‘There is a Flaw’ in July 28, 1874. This categorically pronounced that “the whole...world who have not had God’s revealed word, but who...sinned without law, shall never be raised from the dead...as natural brute beasts they utterly perish in their own corruption.” Whereas an article promoting future probation, ‘The Progressive Age’ by Elder J. Parry, was denied publication, so Storrs published it instead in his BE for July 1874. By October 3, 1877, Elder John Foore was writing to The Restitution that he would like the paper “much better if it could be opened for the advanced views such as the blessing of all nations and all kindreds in the age to come.” The request apparently fell on deaf ears.

With these other columns denied him, Storrs believed BE to be the primary voice for this doctrine, and fended off critics from all sides. When opponents dubbed the position “second chance” – it was met with the retort that for millions who died in ignorance this was their first chance. When critics then came back with “better chance” – it was met with the riposte, how could that be when now the chance was to be part of the bride of Christ?

Others settled on “fair chance.” As it happened, Storrs didn’t like that description any more than the others (BE October 1875, page 5), but it was more correct – you could say, more fair - in describing his theology. 

When opposers accused Future Probationists of being closet Universalists, Storrs standard response was that while he did not believe in universal salvation, he did believe in universal opportunity.

And yet Storrs’ position was not quite the same as others believing the doctrine. He defined his position as The Ages to Come. While it sounded like the Age to Come belief in a literal thousand years for humans on earth (and probation for nations then living), Storrs embellished it considerably. He spoke of Ages because he did not believe probation would happen for the dead during the Millennium, but rather after the Millennium in what he called “a succession of ages” or Ages to Come. (BE October 1874, editorial ‘The Ages to Come’). He accepted that not everyone would come back, and had broken with the Life and Advent Union over his belief that wicked dead would not be resurrected; nonetheless, the number would still be sufficient to require potential Ages (plural). And some who came back could still lose out – albeit a minority.

A key scripture for Storrs was Revelation 20 v.5: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” In his article ‘Due Time’ (BE August 1876) Storrs used this to reason that their resurrection and probation had to take place after the Millennium. Others might interpret this as referring to beneficiaries only coming to full life after passing their test at the end of the thousand years. Those opposed to the concept in its various shapes and forms, might dismiss the verse as an interpolation.

Storrs was a major influence on CTR. CTR chose the BE columns for his first known literary efforts, and in ZWT for May 1,1890, singled out Storrs (along with George Stetson) for special mention before recounting how his understanding of the ransom and restitution developed – to encompass far more than he had previously thought. The original May 1, 1890 issue, page 4, has CTR explaining how “in 1873 I came to examine the subject of restitution from the standpoint of the ransom price given by our Lord Jesus for Adam, and consequently for all lost in Adam, it settled the matter of restitution completely, and gave fullest assurance that ALL must come forth from Adamic death and be brought to a clear knowledge of the truth and to fullest opportunity of everlasting life in Christ.”

When CTR reprinted the article in A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest Siftings – a special ZWT of 1894, he made several revisions to this paragraph (as found on page 96), including changing the date from 1873 to 1872. All future printings including those from June 15, 1906 (reprints 3821) stick to this revision.

But this was future probation. Without going into details, this was Storrs’ basic message in BE. Storrs had restarted BE in late 1871, after breaking with the Life and Advent Union. We do not know if CTR received Storrs journal then, because the first two years of the revived BE are unavailable. It was a weekly newspaper and may not have survived. But from October 1873 it became a monthly which could be bound into volumes. These have survived, and the Russells are readers from the start. However, they obviously would know of Storrs from his previous reputation. The Russell names are also found in the letters received columns of The Advent Christian Times and the World’s Crisis in the early 1870s – and the Crisis is certainly known to have publicised Storrs’ views by vigorously attacking them at the time.

CTR would claim in ZWT May 1, 1890, page 4, that he brought this concept to Nelson Barbour. “When we first met, he had much to learn from me on the fullness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all.” All this helps to explain why in October 1877 Storrs would single out “The Herald of the Morning, a paper published by Dr. Barbour, Rochester, N.Y.” as the only journal he believed to be supportive.

Barbour had already submitted an article endorsing future probation to BE, which was published in September 1876. In ‘The Work of Redemption Progressive: or Ages Employed in Accomplishing It’ Barbour stated “there is much positive scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin.”

While the article was sympathetic of Storrs’ views in principle, it was a little short on specifics. And looking closer at the details, there would be a key difference between Storrs’ views and those of Barbour and Russell. As noted above, Storrs taught Ages to Come, and looked beyond the Millennium for future probation to be worked out. In contrast, both Barbour and Russell would favor a more traditional view – that the Millennium was the judgment “day” and that a thousand years would be sufficient.

In Barbour’s Three Worlds (1877) for example, we read on pages 10 and 66: “There is much positive Scripture...to prove that there is to be probation in the millennial age, or world to come, for all who have not been brought to the knowledge of the truth in this world, and committed the unpardonable sin...It follows that probation must end with the thousand years.”

When CTR began publishing under his own name, he presented the same view. From Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return (1877), page 26: “In (their day of trial, when they are on probation for eternal life) their “day of judgment” (not a 24-hour day, but the millennial or judgment age) they will fare better than the Jews — have fewer stripes.” He elaborated further in Food for Thinking Christians (1881), page 95: “It is their judgment day—one thousand years. During all that time, God’s truth, as a two-edged sword, will be quietly, but surely as now, doing a separating work...The great mass of mankind will learn God’s ways, and delight to walk therein. These he calls his sheep—followers, and during the age they are gradually gathered to his right hand.”

Looking at CTR’s theology overall, this was his main message, a legacy from Storrs, in spirit if not in detail. Yes, the second presence of Christ was a key theme with its chronological framework. Yes, “putting the hose on hell” with conditional immortality was a key platform. Yes, there would be issues like clashes with orthodoxy over the trinity. Nonetheless, in CTR’s mind at the time, future probation – summed up by his slogan “A Ransom for All” was what he believed to be the key message of the Bible. And he made sure as many as possible knew it.

 1907 convention report cover

With thanks to Jeff for some suggestions and the SDA quote

Temporary Post

This is a rough draft. If you wish to proofread it, email me. Do not copy this; do not share it off the blog. It is posted for comments.

Congregation Culture: 1880-1886

            Congregations were independent, choosing their own elders and class leaders. Internal organization was a local affair. 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 groups 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 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

          
The remainder of this post has been deleted.

Philadelphia

The Watch Tower for 1883 said: "At Philadelphia, Pa., at the residence of Bro. R. H. McMunn,
corner Third and W. Norris streets."

We need a good biography for McMunn.

From Bernard:

Dear Bruce!

 

This is Robert H. McMunn, born 1830 in Ireland. He died in October 12, 1889 in Philadelphia.

His profession was grocer. His grave is/was in LaFayette Cemetery.

He lived in N.W.Cor. 3 Morris Road (sic Norris!!)

 

(Maybe his wife was Lillie and they had a son named George H. mcMunn, born 1863)

 

Thats all

Greetings from Austria

Bernhard

Your book ...

Please do not make your comments about your book. This blog does not exist for your convenience or to give you advertising space. I delete off topic comments.

The way we find them ...

If you've read our books and posts, you know that The Christian Observer was an important Literalist magazine, published both in America and England. We have a small collection of these in our research library. Rachael found these four years. Ratty, but usable. We paid more than we had readily available, but they were too reasonably priced to pass up.

Rachael's Intro Essay

Rachael sent me the current working version of her Introductory Essay and has reluctantly agreed to let me post it. If you have comments, make them on the blog, not in email.

Introductory Essay 2 – By R. M. de Vienne

            It’s taken longer to write this volume of Separate Identity than we anticipated, but as with the two previous books, few of our expectations have stood up under the light of better research. We believed that a second volume would complete our research. It has not done so. There will be, assuming we live long enough to complete it, a third and final volume.

            This volume differs in format from its predecessor. The first volume follows a loose chronological order. Because of its narrow focus primarily on the years 1879 to 1882, this volume is a series of essays each focusing on an aspect of Watch Tower transition into a separate, identifiable belief system. There is a looser chronological order here; and the chapters occasionally overlap each other in subject matter. You will find some repetition of points. We’ve tried to limit this, but that it occurs is unavoidable. As before, we elected to present this history in as much detail as we can, hoping thereby to take our readers into the spirit of the times. Omission seems to us to be misdirection.

Remainder of this post has been deleted

Blog Update

Rachael has temporarily withdrawn from this blog and our project. Recent, unhappy events connected to this blog and issues concerning her health are the drivers behind this decision.

L. C. Gunn

Ordinarily I'd let Jerome's article have first place on the blog until many had read it. Don't ignore it. I think it's stellar research. But this is urgent. Something I needed weeks ago ...

In 1844 Lewis C. Gunn wrote to Philadelphia newspapers, saying among other things:

 

Some of those worshiping in Julianna street [sic] were not looking for the destruction of the earth, nor for its complete physical renovation ...; they looked for the introduction of the millennium by the personal coming of Christ to the earth; they think this will be the commencement of the promised restitution of all things, to be carried forward until all thing shall be made new; they think that probation will close to those who have heard the gospel, but not so with the heathen and all those who not heard of his fame; they think it will be the beginning of a new dispensation to the heathen, during which it will be emphatically true that the leaves of the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations.  These were the published views of Geo. Storrs.

This was quoted by I. Wellcome. But I seriously need the original newspaper article. I can't turn it up in any of the newspaper archives I consult. Some of you use pay archives we cannot afford. Please check those for me. This is important and urgent.

-Rachael

How Old was Rose Ball?

Note: More recent research has confirmed Rose's age on entering the Russell household and shows this article's main premise to be incorrect. Please see the article Rose and Charles Ball published on June 4, 2020. However, there are some things of value in the article below so it has not been deleted.

by Jerome

(reprinted)

Rose Ball and Ernest Henninges pictured in the front row of a group photograph at a Bible Students convention in Chicago in August 1893. Rose was 24 and Ernest 22 at the time. They would marry a few years later.

When Maria Russell sued Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR) for a divorce from bed and board, and accused him of improprieties with other females in the household, it attracted front page headlines in Pittsburgh. It was just the sort of story about a religious figure that the papers loved. Maria’s accusations, although judged inadmissible by the judge, were still given maximum publicity in the popular press.

There were actually two accusations. One featured Rose Ball, a member of CTR’s household who had been viewed as an unofficial adopted daughter; and the other featured a servant girl, Emily Matthews. Rose had subsequently married, and at the time of the court case in 1906 was living with her husband Ernest Henninges on the other side of the world in Australia. Rose had been out of the country for several years at this time, and since Maria’s accusations were not publicised in advance, there was no way she could be called on to give evidence for either side. However, the other accusation, one far less known, involving a servant girl named Emily Matthews, was dealt with by the court. Emily still lived in Pittsburgh, and when called as a witness under her married name Emily Sheesly, testified clearly that no impropriety had ever occurred with CTR. Maria’s counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her.

One feature of the Rose Ball accusation that has continued to raise questions is her age. Maria presented her as a fully grown woman; CTR presented her as a much younger person towards whom he acted in a “fatherly” manner. There are several schools of thought on this divergence. One is that CTR stressed his fatherly concern for a young person in his household, because that was innocent; although in today’s popular climate would likely backfire. Another school of thought blames the discrepancy on Maria; that Rose’s age was inflated so that her accusations would carry more weight in the popular climate that existed then. Another interesting theory is that maybe Rose herself falsified her age – one way or the other – to get into the Russell household. Or – looking at the above photograph taken of Rose when she was 24 – maybe in her late teens she really did just look young and dress young.

This article presents another suggestion, where a simple misunderstanding over dates could possibly resolve the inconsistency. I admit this relies on conjecture, but I would ask that readers at least consider it.

Rose was born on 19 March 1869 and died in Australia on 22 November 1950 aged 81. Since 1909 she and her husband, Ernest Henninges, led a movement that broke away from ZWT over the issue of the New Covenant. They published a journal called The New Covenant Advocate, which ran from 1909-1953. Ernest was chief editor until his death in 1939. Rose then served as editor until 1944 when she handed over the reins due to advancing years. As the original adherents died out, so the paper slowly declined until it ceased publication in 1953. However, it ran for sufficient years to record Rose’s obituary in the issue for January 1, 1951. This is where her birth date comes from, allowing researchers to link up with the correct Rose Ball from genealogical records. Rose was buried with her late husband in Burwood cemetery, Victoria, but her name was never added to his memorial inscription.

So how old was Rose when she joined the Russell household? Most histories that comment on the issue state that she joined his household in 1888. This statement tallies with ZWT for February 15, 1900, which states that she had been a member of the Watch Tower family for 12 years. This was written at the time she and husband Ernest set sail abroad. I am speculating that, depending on how you define matters, this date may be misleading.

Page references below are from the original transcript of the April 1906 Russell vs Russell hearing. (For any readers who have the Paper Book of Appellant, the pagination is obviously different but the text is the same.)

Maria claimed that Rose was 19 or 20 when she came to live with them (page 67). Whereas CTR (page 135) states “she looked to be about 13 - I don’t know how old she was” and later says “she was a very young looking woman”. Some of the worst critics of CTR have chosen to accept Maria’s accusation, but then to ignore her description of Rose in favour of CTR’s - simply so they can put the worst possible spin on it and accuse him of child molestation.

However, it is interesting to see how Maria’s claim is challenged by her own testimony. On page 11 of the transcript there is a very strange exchange, which no-one ever seems to have taken issue with:

Q  How long had (Rose) been with you before this trouble arose?

A  She came to us in about 1884.

Q That would be just about the time you moved on to Clifton Avenue?

A  No, we moved on to Clifton Avenue in 1883. It was about 1889 when she came, just shortly after we moved to Clifton Avenue.

Q  Did she live with you?

A  Yes Sir.

The above exchange doesn’t make any sense; did the stenographer have an off-day? Maria moved to Clifton Avenue in 1883, Rose joined them about 1884, or rather – hasty correction - she joined them in 1889 just after they moved to Clifton Avenue…

Did Maria suddenly change her testimony mid-sentence? 1889 of course would make Rose 19 or 20, which would fit Maria’s later allegation. But if Maria changed her testimony, or just got muddled in her responses, it is a shame no-one appeared to notice it on the day to query it!

The matter is further confused by Maria stating (still on page 11) that “Rose lived with us for about twelve years.” Since Maria ceased to be part of “us” in 1897, that doesn’t fit the 1888 claim. Neither is any acknowledgement made of Rose’s marriage to Ernest Henninges. According to Rose’s death certificate she was married at the age of 25, which would be the mid 1890s. (However, one must be cautious about dates on death certificates, since the one person who could verify the information is no longer there to do so. Some internet sources give the year 1897, but I have yet to see a marriage certificate.) However, whatever year it was in the 1890s, the marriage would certainly have changed both Rose’s name and status in the household.

The possible truth of the matter is found in Maria’s earlier testimony on page 4. When recounting her various homes, she states that she moved into Clifton Avenue and lived there for ten years before moving to the Bible House in 1894.

So according to Maria’s testimony, they moved to Clifton Avenue in 1884 (or with her later statement on page 67 perhaps earlier in 1883), and shortly thereafter Rose joined them. If that was the case, Rose joined them in 1883-84. The date 1884 for her joining the household is also given in a comprehensive thesis in Spanish on Watch Tower hymnology, where Rose wrote the lyrics for several hymns used by Bible Students.

With an 1869 birth date that would make her aged about 14-15.  CTR’s claim - I don’t know how old she was – she was young looking – maybe about 13? – and with the styles of clothing worn by young women of that age group – that could be more feasible than Maria’s portrayal of a fully grown-up 19-20 year old.

But twenty years or more on, with all the more important things to remember and all that water under the bridge, it is quite possible for memory to play tricks on exact years - so could the 1888 date in the July 15, 1906 ZWT be technically incorrect? And could CTR have had more in mind her working at the new headquarters – Bible House – rather than just living at his home – when talking of her joining the “Watch Tower” family, rather than his personal family, in ZWT February 15, 1900? That might explain the apparent discrepancy.

When living in Bible House, Rose played an active part in the affairs of the WT Society. Both she, and her future husband, Ernest Henninges, were directors of the Society at one point. It is reported that Rose became a Watch Tower Society director in April 1892 and then Vice-President in January 1893 for a year, remaining as a director thereafter until going abroad in 1900. (In reality these were honorary positions needed to fulfil legal requirements). After she and Ernest married, they eventually left America to start branches of the Society in England and Germany before ending up in Australia. Rose would have known all about the court hearing and Maria’s accusations because CTR published his side of matters in ZWT in 1906, and she and Ernest still actively supported CTR’s ministry until the rift over the New Covenant issue. (See for example Henninges’ glowing Australian reports to his “dear brother” in the annual reports in ZWT for both 1906 and 1907.)

Even when, in late 1908, they chose to oppose CTR’s views on certain theological issues, and then from 1909 propounded their views in a monthly journal, mentioning CTR by name, they never used his personal conduct in their arguments. Rose could have been the star witness had there been any truth in Maria’s accusations. And what is overlooked – Emily, the other girl named, turned up in court voluntarily and supported CTR’s account.

This “explanation” of a discrepancy in the hearing is – I freely admit – just speculation on my part.

Perhaps I might be forgiven for throwing impartiality into the long grass to conclude this article.

I would like to describe another religious figure – one who is actually far better known today that CTR. See if you can guess who this is.

He was born in Britain, but after completing his education travelled to America. While there, he was arrested for slander and given bail, but immediately skipped the area and ultimately the country to escape the consequences. He also left behind a young lady, having decided after casting lots (pieces of paper taken out of a hat!) that he wouldn't stay around and marry her. Back in England after another failed relationship, he eventually married a rich widow. But one day she rummaged in his desk and found loads of affectionate letters to other women, and stormed out of the house. He put a note in his diary that basically said "Good riddance - I won't ask you back!" While separated from this wife, he then took a woman of very dubious history on as his "housekeeper". Unfortunately for him and his "housekeeper" at a special meal with other ministers and dignitaries, he had the indignity of his estranged wife bursting in and ranting about the "whore" he was currently with - in front of everyone. Their ill-feeling towards each other was so public, that when his estranged wife took sick no-body bothered to tell him until after she was dead and buried.

This makes CTR's and Maria’s misfortunes in matrimony appear quite paltry in comparison.

Who am I describing above? John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church.

The point to be stressed is that - even if Wesley was 100% at fault in the above account (and in fairness to him I have no way of knowing either way) would one be right to judge the Methodist church on that slice of history? Would Wesley's personal life ever be a good argument for or against the veracity of Methodism? If anyone went down that road, I am sure that any rational person would view them as prejudiced and unreasonable. And the fact that the above historical details are not widely circulated shows that media of today shares that view.

So whatever happened in the sad disintegration of the Russells’ marriage and the bombshell Maria dropped without warning into an open hearing – any standard of judgment should be based on the beliefs and teachings of the principals, and in the context of the times.

But over the issue of Rose’s age, the above is a possible explanation that may help harmonise the varying accounts.

Book Burning

Regular readers of this blog will know that Bruce contacted the Watchtower Society for certain information and documentation. The Office of Public Information replied to one request and this is now shared below.

The Proclaimers book on page 642 describes how the books of C T Russell were publicly burned in parts of the United States. Quoting from part of one paragraph:

“Many of the clergy used their pulpits to denounce Russell’s writings. They commanded their flocks not to accept literature distributed by the Bible Students. A number of them sought to induce public officials to put a stop to this work. In some places in the United States – among them, Tampa, Florida; Rock Island, Illinois; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and Scranton, Pennsylvania – they supervised public burning of books written by Russell.”

Bruce asked for supporting evidence for this book burning, and scans of four items were sent.

The first, and familiar to many readers already, was this page from J F Rutherford’s Great Battle in Ecclesiastical Heavens, which reproduced the charred remains of one copy of the Divine Plan of the Ages.

The caption ‘Rescued from the Flames of the Destroyer’ lists the places where public burnings had taken place up to 1915. This is the list reproduced in the Proclaimers book.

Such events made the newspapers. The Harrisburgh Telegraph (PA) for January 23, 1915, reported on a proposed public burning of books in front of the United Brethren Church.  With an ecumenical touch some books of Christian Science were to be added to the same bonfire. However, the paper did announce that “the books most bitterly condemned by Evangelist Hillis were Russell’s ‘Millinial (sic) Dawn’ and the publications of the ‘Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.’”

The next year, the Hopkinsville Kentuckian for August 19, 1916, reported on a similar event.

The longest newspaper account was from 1919. The Alexandria Gazette (Virginia) for December 5, 1919, gave quite a favourable review of Russell’s work, noting that they “abound in quotations from holy writ.” It suggested that most of the protestors had probably not actually read them. The book burning was part of a revivalist drive at a Primitive Methodist Church. The books were dumped on a street corner, doused in kerosene, and the paper painted an entertaining picture of two hundred “religionists” (their words) dancing around the flames while singing hymns.

The newspaper story ended with the paragraph:

“Pastor Russell’s books have given an impetus to Bible study. This fact alone should save them from the bonfire.”

Please Read This

By B. W. Schulz

            I’ve noted before that this is a history blog. That’s all this is. We do not engage in theological debate; we do not allow those who post here to throw temper tantrums or insult other posters.

            This essay is something of an exception. This is addressed to those Jehovah’s Witnesses who visit this blog, though I hope it benefits everyone. I am a long-serving Witness, probably older than most who visit this blog. When you visit our blog you are very much like a guest in my house. Guests have obligations to their host. Psalms 15:1 suggests this: “O Jehovah, who will be a guest in your tent? Who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness and speaking the truth in his heart.” To my eye, this summarizes respect for one’s host. In the verse the host is Jehovah. Here Dr. de Vienne, my niece, and I are the hosts. On that basis, you owe respect.

            Among those issues that arise for guests is the obligation to contribute to conversation. Many of our visitors do not come from a culture that recognizes that obligation. But Witnesses may remember an article appearing in an older Awake! that says: “Of course, as an invited guest ... you have more responsibility to contribute to meaningful conversation. Try to reward your host by conversation that is enlightening and upbuilding, at the same time giving others the opportunity to express themselves. This will help to make your visit a joy and a mutual success.” Maybe you forgot this, but this is an extension of the Biblical obligation to show respect to our hosts.

            Early in this blog’s life I received emails from Witnesses, some of them elders, asking me to restrain Rachael’s opinions. Recently there has been a repeat of this folly. Rachael is not a Witness; she never was. To put it bluntly, she’s a very intelligent young [well young compared to my ancient self] woman. She is exceptionally well educated, a MENSA member based on an IQ that puts her in the top one quarter of one percent. She is entitled to her opinions. That some wish to include me in controversies with Rachael tells me that they have something less than a Biblical opinion of women.

            Some Witness men focus only on Ephesians 5:22 where Paul says wives should be in subjection to their husbands. They seem to think that in God’s eyes women are of some low class, that they are somehow less than males. But think about that. Peter says that women are equal to men in salvation. The Psalms describe the collective of faithful women as an army. In your experience, do not women predominate among the surviving members of the Body of Christ? When I was very young there were twenty-two partakers in our small congregation. Almost all of them were women. Today spread among eight local congregations there are four partakers. I am the only man in that group. That means that some of the women you may disrespect are going to rule over you. That should give you pause.

            Rachael reminds me of Jael. Certainly our Witness readers know who Jael was. She was not part of Israel but was a Kenite. Kenites were related to Israel in a very distant fashion. Jael entered Israel’s history in the days of Barak and Deborah. In that narrative the one conveying Jehovah’s word was Deborah, a woman, and when Barak failed in some respect Deborah said: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” That woman was Jael, a non Israelite. Jael’s bravery was exceptional as was her intelligence. She was one smart cookie, an appropriate choice for God’s agent. Rachael may stand outside of what you consider ‘the truth.’ But she is dedicated to ‘truth’ when it comes to our project. I mean she is determined to write accurate history, even if it makes some of our readers uncomfortable.

            Subjection as used in the Bible, especially the New World Translation, is derived from a word for military rank. It says nothing about the worth of women. It’s about order. And note that the verses say: “A husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” This does not extend to your relationship to women not your wife. When considering the relationship of one congregation member to another, Paul says: “Be submitting yourselves to one another in reverence of Christ.” [Berean Literal Bible] So your relationship to ‘sisters’ is determined by that. But remember Rachael isn’t your ‘sister’ in the sense you understand this term; she is a professional historian, an award wining educator. You have no business involving the men in her life – Jerome or me or anyone else – in some imagined controversy. That some have done so plainly says they have forgotten the Bible’s message.

            As I recently said to another, Rachael is an excellent self-editor. When she posts a work in progress she always warns you that it will change. As research progresses our work changes. This is as true of Rachael’s Introductory Essay as anything else. You may not like what we write, but before it makes it to print – to final form – it will change and be as honest and accurate as we can make it.

            Some Witnesses fear what others may write. They do not like even mild criticism. They feel Jehovah and their fellows need protection. What kind of God do you worship if you entertain this view? My God is eternal and all powerful and perfectly capable of defending himself and those he sees as his own. Attacking Rachael’s integrity because you think she’s questioned your faith is weakness. If you have contrary evidence, present it, do so in  a blog comment.

            Some blog readers fear controversy hoping it does not appear on the blog. History writing has always caused controversy. It is the quality of the argument that matters. In recent cases Rachael’s integrity was attacked based on what another wrote. Do you understand how incredibly misdirected this is? Those who indulged in this folly simply did not want dirty laundry aired.

            I’ve been a Witness longer than most of you have been alive. In that time I’ve seen us do some very silly things. It happens on all levels. [My mind drifts off to the annual meeting in 1954 as an example] We are not above criticism and we should accept it when merited. Also, your personal experience, especially limited experience, with another brother or sister does not mean you have a full, accurate response to something Rachael may write about that person.

            In the current version of her essay, sent to me this morning, many of the things some object to are gone, not because of your abuse but because they no longer fit the essay. As I said, she’s a very good self-editor.

            The net result of this rambling statement is that I will not act as Rachael’s parent or husband. I am neither. I will not regulate her thought or work. Appealing to me or anyone else to do so is a sin within the Biblical meaning of the word.

Do not do it ...

I am an equal partner in this project, and I am principal blog editor. If you write to Jerome or Bruce hoping they will 'control' what I say, what my opinions are or the trend of my research, you will not like the result.

I am a 41 year old woman, not a child. I'm better educated that many of you with a number of certifications, two bachelors and two masters degrees and a PhD. I'm not a child for you to control and I hate tattle tales.

If you do not like something I've written, that's okay. Attempting to control my writing by appealing to Bruce will disgust us both. And Jerome, while he writes valuable blog posts, has no voice in our books content. What exactly did you think he could do?

If you see yourself in this comment, don't post comments here. I will delete them. Do not email me. Your email is in my permanently blocked folder. Do not contact me through another. Anyone foolish enough to stand in your place will also not like the result.

There is no way for me to stop your visits to this blog, but I can end your participation and will do so.

This blog is covered by international copyright.

Recently, a Russian language blog took content, text and photos, from this blog. This is theft. Without exception, the Russians who have visited this site and commented or emailed have been trolls. None of them are welcome here. Do not steal from this blog. If you wish to use something you find here, ask.

Zion's Day Star

 

The Rayville, Louisiana, Richland Beacon, November 26, 1881

More on George Darby Clowes

This is stellar research by "Jerome," and I think it merits some comments. This blog exists, in part, to gather feedback from interested readers. In my view minimal ethics require thanks when we 'feed' off the work of others. I know this is - in this day - an uncommon thought. But, if you had a 'favorite teacher' who opened your mind to life long learning, you have probably thanked them in person and quietly in your mind. ... Someone who teaches you, who wakes you up, who informs you via the Internet deserves the same thanks.

Many of our readers are attracted to "Jerome's" articles because they are short and focus on a single detail. Because they are seldom long, in-depth studies does not mean they do not deserve recognition.

More on George Darby Clowes
by Jerome

Photo reproduced by kind permission of George Darby Clowes' great-great-grandson.

George Darby Clowes is the name given to at least three generations of a family, which can be confusing when trying to trace who was who.

Our George (the pastor of the Allegheny congregation in the early 1870s) was born in Britain on April 26, 1818. He was baptised into the established church (Birmingham, St Martin) on December 29, 1818.  At the age of 19 he was married at the same church to Sarah Fearney on December 6, 1837.

George and Sarah were to have nine known children over the next 24 years. The first two were born in Britain, Emma (b.1841) and James (1843-1916). After James' birth the family moved to the United States, specifically Pennsylvania, because the remaining seven children were born there. These were Hepzebah (1845-1864), Israel W (1848-1915), Fredrick (b.1851), George Darby Jr (1854-1932), Stephen (1858-1920), Sarah (b.1861) and Sumpter (b.c.1865).

George did not apply for naturalization until 1861, but the document with his signature has survived.

George’s wife Sarah died in 1881. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 14 March 1881 page 4.

George had a number of occupations. It may be that some ran concurrently. For example, he was still apparently involved with the Allegheny Arsenal in 1875. From the US Register of Civil, Military and Naval Service, 1875 volume 1. Dated September 30, 1875 it has George working as a Foreman at the Allegheny Arsenal for three dollars a day.

When George died there was a small notice in the paper. From the Pittsburgh Dispatch 26 January 1889, page 7,

We started by mentioning three generations of the family having the name George Darby Clowes. In addition to our George we have his sixth child, George Darby Clowes (1854-1932). Then George’s fourth child, Israel W Clowes named a son George. So we also have George Darby Clowes (1877-1946).

Among today's visitors

Visit One:

[United States] Tuxedo Park, New York, United States

IP Address:

    Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York (208.74.140.116) Label Visitor

Visit Page:      Watch Tower History: July 2013

Visit Two:           

Page Views:     10

Visit Length:     17 mins 32 secs

Total Visits:     2

Location:

    [United States] Tuxedo Park, New York, United States

IP Address:

    Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Of New York (208.74.140.116)

Search Referral:

     https://www.bing.com — Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott 2011

Entry Page:

     Watch Tower History: The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

Exit Page:

     Watch Tower History: The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society

So ...

I've significantly enlarged and changed my introductory essay. Last time I posted it no-one left a blog comment. Comments are important; they help us see how others react to our work. This helps us improve it.

The last post generated some off blog comments. They ranged from something like 'how interesting' to a four page critique that questioned some statements. I liked the critique best. Though I do not agree with the criticisms it helped me see what issues arose, and gave me a clearer path forward.

Yet, from those who read this blog and who should know as much or more concerning the issues I raised, there were no comments.

Do I post the current version? Or must I assume there will be no comments? So posting it isn't worth the time it takes?

There is absolutely no interest in seeing the revised version. Accordingly, I will not post it.