Was C.T. Russell all that bad?

by Sad emo 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sad emo

  Disclaimer: This is a question purely about Russell's Bible teaching, not about his personal life, whether he was a freemason or whatever else.

  Ok, Russell set himself up as a Bible teacher, a lot of his theology was borrowed from groups such as the Adventists and certain pyramidologists of his time, and I agree that a lot of his conclusions were plain crazy.

  My question is this - was the movement he started simply another misguided Christian denomination with genuine motives as opposed to what happened after Rutherford took over and added all the dogmas? Does Russell bear any of the blame for what the WBTS has become?

  I'm not too sure if he does.
• 

  Confession

  Emo, this thread may bring a deluge of information. People here will disagree on what sort of person C.T. Russell was, but I think most will agree that, when judged amidst the likes of Rutherford and what the organization eventually became, he was not that bad a guy. He had a genuine love of the Bible and of discerning the meaning of it. I think he got a little hung up on dates and had some quirky ideas, but I'd suggest that he really believed in what he was doing, and would be incensed by what his empire became.
• 

  NanaR

  Actually, the followers of C. T. Russell are still around (the ones who chose not to follow Rutherford). You can read about them here:
  
  http://www.biblestudents.net/
  
  As to whether Russell's theology made any sense, my parents had all his books in their personal library when I was growing up. They are really very strange.
  
  I think Mr. Russell was sincere. I also think he was wrong, one wrong voice in a long line of wrong voices. His was a more loving theology than the bombastic old judge. Loving, but nonsensical. (Pyramids and numerology, etc., etc.)
  
  NanaR
• 

  Justahuman24

  IMO, I think he was sincere in what he believed without any malice. He definitely was not a control freak like Rutherford and posterior WTS presidents. He was more in association with other preachers and denominations than the WTS ever was. And even though he attacked the Catholic Church, he didn't do it so angrily like Rutherford and other presidents did. He was friendlier.

  justahuman - but super nonetheless
• 

  mouthy

  I have to agree I believe Russell was honest in what he thought he was doing. I think he was a good man.. Gave up a thriving buisness to put the money where his mouth was. But so was Jones ( Jonestown) He did a lot of good to so many before he messed up & became the gods they wanted to be. One thing I believe is we all stand before the GREAT JUDGE in the end....Rutherford I believe was a differant story....He got POWER and as so many have said "POWER CORRUPTS absolute power absolutly corrupts..." We gave the WT the power so we must take some of the blame & remember NEVER to follow ANY MAN again ( or woman) .
• 

  Sad emo

  Thank you for the replies all.

  I've just been looking at the Bible Students site and they don't look too bad. From what I've read there so far, they seem to have 'balanced' their views of some of Russell's teachings. I think there is a congregation not far from me so I may try contacting them for more info some time. As long as there aren't any hidden doctrines anywhere...
• 

  Euphemism

  Russell's an angel compared to Rutherford, no doubt about that. But he did have a huge ego, which got gradually worse the more successful he became. While the biggest schism didn't happen until after his death, there were several smaller ones while he was still alive, due to his micromanagement and unwillingness to tolerate any other talented preachers who might outshine him.

  He also became quite dogmatic, claiming that anyone who disagreed with him was 'returning to darkness' and changing the congregation meetings from study of the Bible to study of his writings. Beckford's Trumpet of Prophecy has a good rundown of this stuff.
• 

  freetosee

  Russell's an angel compared to Rutherford, no doubt about that. But he did have a huge ego, which got gradually worse the more successful he became. While the biggest schism didn't happen until after his death, there were several smaller ones while he was still alive, due to his micromanagement and unwillingness to tolerate any other talented preachers who might outshine him.

  He also became quite dogmatic, claiming that anyone who disagreed with him was 'returning to darkness' and changing the congregation meetings from study of the Bible to study of his writings. Beckford's Trumpet of Prophecy has a good rundown of this stuff.

  DITO!
• 

  new boy

  Only in bed!
• 

  A Paduan

  There appears a consensus that he wasn't full out and mean like the 'judge', but he was a false prophet - wasn't he ?

  Did he run soup kitchens, or work on new ways to literally interpret old scriptures ?

  I'm sure that there's both better and worse, and I can't see how he was a spiritual gift - apart from providing for a study in cult formation.