He may not have been as bad as Rutherford (which is debatable), but reading his writtings in the WT it is clear to see he was a manipulative delusional self righteous bible thumper and according to court records a cruel husband, with a hint of pedofilia.
Was C.T. Russell all that bad?
by Sad emo 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
NYCkid
From what I've read, Pastor Russell was probably sincere in his beliefs if not a little too zealous in them. However I find it extremely hard to believe that out of all humans in the world existing around 1800 years after Jesus is believed to have died, God (Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus - whomever you prefer) chose this man in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. to organize and lead the "true religion."
It's a cute notion but not at all plausible.
Best,
NYCkid
-
Leolaia
He may not have been as bad as Rutherford (which is debatable), but reading his writtings in the WT it is clear to see he was a manipulative delusional self righteous bible thumper and according to court records a cruel husband,
with a hint of pedofilia.I would strike out the last part as baseless...see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/75868/1.ashx
-
frankiespeakin
Leo,
That's why I qualified it with the word hint.
-
Confession
Agreed, Leo. I looked into that pretty deeply myself. I think it was baloney.
-
mouthy
I think there is a congregation not far from me so I may try contacting them for more info some time
I would strongly advise to be very careful with that group.... They still hang on to a lot of Russells teachings. I had some dealings with it when I was first D/F ----- Pray very sincerly before you go there. & make sure if you go YOU LISTEN & THINK!!!!!!!Just my 2 cents
-
catbert
I think C.T. Russell would cringe at what has become of what he started. I think he was a product of the "Age Of Enlightenment", and was promoting truth, as he saw it. I think he would promote "independant thinking", unlike the modern day "governing body".
-
OUTLAW
Russell came from a religion baised on "BullSh*t".Started a religion baised on "BullSh*t)..Rutherford excelled in "BullSh*t".....There seems to be one reoccurring theme here..I can`t figure out what it is...OUTLAW
-
stev
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.
===============================================================
I think that Russell bears some responsibility for what the WBTS did become.
His major mistake was following Barbour in accepting the time proofs that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, and many of his later mistakes are based on it. He had some acquaintance with the time proofs for 1873, but had rejected them. According to his account, he had come to believe that Jesus was raised as a spirit being and would return as a spirit being, and this led him to favorably consider Barbour's revised and improved time proofs now that Barbour had come to believe that Jesus had come invisibly in 1874.
Yet Russell had enough warning signs that he should have been more cautious and less dogmatic. He knew about previous failed predictions of the Adventists. His mentor George Storrs publicly in his journal which he edited disagreed with Barbour and Russell, warned against "definite time" and date-setting. Storrs was one of the main Millerite preachers in advocating a definite date for Christ's return in 1844, and Storrs from experience knew the disappointment. Barbour's chronology differed from the accepted chronology in the 70 year period, a fact which Barbour and Russell knew, but disregarded. Russell had known about the disappointment of Barbour's followers in 1873/4. Russell and Barbour had expected the rapture in 1878, which failed to take place. Russell then expected the rapture in 1881, which again did not occur.
Instead of giving up the notion of the invisible return of 1874, Russell came up explanations for the failures. He wrote three books on the subject of chronology, which sold in the millions of copies, in which he stated in the most absolute and dogmatic terms that Armageddon was fast approaching, that it was inevitable, that none of the reforms of man could stop it, it would be total, over all of mankind, and come swiftly and quickly, that God had cast off the churches, which would be destroyed in Armageddon, and that it was the duty of the faithful to leave and abandon the churches, and that the knowledge and acceptance of these time features would be the sickle that would separate the wheat from the tares. Many accepted these teachings, and sold these books, the books had become an authority in class meetings. Many went to work for him, make personal sacrifices for support his work.
He had predicted the time of trouble would occur between 1874-1914. But as 1914 approached, Russell began to hedge, and even denied that he had been dogmatic about 1914. When the World War started, he took this favorably as supporting his views. However, the Bible Student movement was in a state of confusion. Much that Russell had predicted by 1914, notably the removal of the church, had failed to occur. His followers had come to look on him as "that faithful and wise servant", which he did not deny, and they looked to him for guidance. Russell extended the harvest to 1918, expected a division of Elijah and Elisha, and make predictions about future world events.
But Russell died in 1916, leaving a power vacuum in a movement with disappointment and confusion, and vulnerable to exploitation. Russell was not responsible for Rutherford, and in his will and testament made efforts to prevent the abuse of power. But Russell was responsible for creating the conditions that Rutherford could exploit. Russell left the legacy of date-setting and re-explanation, of authoritarian leadership, of book study over Bible study, of speculative Bible interpretation.
Russell's mistakes were grievous, and cannot be ignored, no matter how much good he did or how good he was. They were not "natural" mistakes as he excused them. They were deliberate over a period of years involving many people. No doubt he was sincere in his beliefs and well intentioned. But a proper evaluation of his Bible teachings must begin with the recognition that he was wrong in his end-time scenario, was not wise or faithful in his course of action.
Russell's views were not consistent and was contradictory in attitude. He was personally gracious and winsome, believed in a loving God who would provide an opportunity for all mankind to be saved, advocated democratic methods of church government, encouraged individuality and tolerance of difference of opinions in minor issues, preached character development, the Christian graces, and love, especially to fellow brethren. Although he took types and symbols too far, he nevertheless had an appreciation for the power of the symbolic, and much of his writings make use Biblical metaphor and symbol, which bring a beauty and depth to his Victorian prose.
There was much good in Russell, and he had a liberal side to him, and likely was a better man than is reflected in some of his Armageddon ideas. This stood along with the chronological/Adventist/Barbour views, but they actually conflicted, and were not consistent. But the disappointment of 1914 and his death created a crisis in his movement from which it never recovered, and the BIble Student movement became narrow, isolated, and eccentric.
-
stev
I think there is a congregation not far from me so I may try contacting them for more info some time
I would strongly advise to be very careful with that group.... They still hang on to a lot of Russells teachings. I had some dealings with it when I was first D/F ----- Pray very sincerly before you go there. & make sure if you go YOU LISTEN & THINK!!!!!!!Just my 2 cents
======================================================================================
The modern day Bible Students have more variety of opinions than the JWs, since they lack a centralized organization. Some of them are the nicest people you can meet. Some hold less closely to Russell than others, and accept less of his teachings.
However, judging from the Bible Student websites, many of them still view Russell as "that servant" and God's messenger to the church, still accept his dates and chronology, and still study his books as authoritative in class. Russell wrote three books on chronology, The Time is at Hand, Thy Kingdom Come, and The Battle of Armageddon. There are Bible Student classes that still study these books, and still think he was fundamentally right. No matter how tolerant the Bible Students are in hearing differing opinions, it is unprofitable and confusing to base discussion on these books at this time more than 100 years after they were written. If one has doubts about the material, one will not feel welcome returning over and over again to the same subject. If one thinks that Russell was fundamentally wrong, then it is unacceptable for a group of Christians to any longer study it.
The Bible Students as a whole have not accepted the criticisms of Carl Olaf Jonsson, James Penton, and Raymond Franz on the chronology, and 1914, especially the 70 years and the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586/7 B.C. rather than 606/7 B.C. Many still view the Gentile Times as ending in 1914. If the chronology is not true, then Pastor Russell was not "that servant", the harvest did not occur, Christ did not return invisibly in 1874, the Gentile Times did not end in 1914, Russell and his movement was wrong in dogmatically preaching these things.
This goes back to the original question. The dogmaticism of prophetic speculation and date-setting, the authoritarian leadership, and the authoritative books studied in class laboriously - all of these date back to Russell. They do not lead to maturity and freedom. If one does not see this, then one is liable to slavishly accept someone else's opinion uncritically, and accept the bad and false along with the good and true.