One of our comments on Russell's borrowing:
Outside observers and
antagonists commented on the mixture of doctrines out of which Watch Tower teachings were compounded. They seldom identified the
exact sources. After William G. Moorehead, a professor at United Presbyterian
Theological Seminary in Xenia, Ohio, pronounced “Millennial Dawn of C. T. Russell a
mixture of Unitarianism, Universalism, Second Probation, and Restorationism,
and the Swdenborgian method of exegesis” he was parroted endlessly and
uncritically. Charles Cyrus Cook suggested more wide ranging sources for
Russell’s theology:
"It seems as though in his earlier years, in his
haberdasher’s shop in Allegheny, when business was dull, or after business
hours, Russell had gathered together all the scraps and remnants of ancient
errors, such as Gnosticism (know-it-all-ism), Manicheism, Arianism,
Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Pelagianism, etc.,
etc., and had cast them, one and all, into the fusing-pot of his own great and
fervid imagination, and that “Millennial Dawnism” came forth to enlighten (?)
benighted humanity."[1]
None
of Russell’s theology derived from these “ancient errors.” While C. C. Cook,
D.D., was apparently educated somewhere, we are safe in claiming that he either
could not define these ancient belief systems or he simply made this up out of
his own “fervid imagination.” Claims such as these were scare tactics used
without regard to the facts. Two elements are at play here. Some expected
something ‘original’ from Russell, and failing to find it wrote off everything
he taught. Russell, of course, would have been horrified at the suggestion that
he originated anything. He sought to recapture Scriptural truth and the First
Century Christian polity. Labeling Watch Tower teachings allowed opposers to avoid engagement. It
was like slapping a poison label on a bottle of water without having tested it.
Most “refutations” of Watch Tower teaching consisted of personal attacks or the
suggestion that believing Millennial Dawn doctrine led to a degraded Christian
personality.[2] There was a restating,
sometimes an inaccurate one, of Watch Tower teaching presented for the “shock” value.[3]
There were few serious attempts to refute Watch Tower doctrine.
While
Russell and his associates derived their beliefs from varied sources, most of
them came from within the One Faith movement. This doesn’t mean they
uncritically accepted everything that came their way, and they certainly
achieved something less than unity. But it was the unique doctrinal blend
believed by the majority that gave them a separate identity. This was a process
that covered some years, culminating with the publication of Millennial
Dawn: The Plan of the Ages in 1886. Zygmunt suggests that Russell’s
election as pastor and an increasing doctrinal unity were key elements in
establishing a separate identity:
"The transition from study-circle to congregation
reflected not only Russell’s emergence as a leader within the Allegheny group
but also the crystallization of a more or less distinctive doctrinal system.
Although “bible study” continued to be an important feature of congregational
activity, its initially “open-ended” exploratory character tended to wane in proportion
as basic “truths” were discovered and instituted as creedal tenets. Formal
sermon and “bible discourse” became more prominent parts of the proceedings,
congregational “bible study” increasingly assuming the form of a selective
review of scriptures supporting particular beliefs, and eventually being
supplemented by more devotional exercises. The crystallization of a doctrinal
system was important, in turn, in transforming the purely local congregation
into a trans-local sectarian movement."[4]
While
we must note that Zygmunt supposes a unity that didn’t completely exist in 1876
or for some years thereafter, this is a good summary of events. Zygmunt’s
research suffered from lack of resources and an occasional presumption made
without evidence, but he was correct when he wrote: “The movement’s collective
identity and earthly mission were derived directly from this configuration of
beliefs.”[5]
Alan
Thomas Rogerson, a former adherent, found it surprising that Russell originated
nothing. We’re equally surprised at his amazement. Russell made his role as a
restorer of “truth” plain. He denied originating anything. A passing
acquaintance with his writings shows this. Never-the-less, Rogerson reached the
sound conclusion that the Bible Study group’s doctrinal set gave them a
separate identity:
"It is perhaps surprising that Russell was so dependent
on others for his ideas and was not an innovator as far doctrines were
concerned. His system of belief, which ultimately formed the ideology of the
sect he founded, was one that strongly appealed to laymen. This fits the way it
was constructed, as Russell, still a young man in search for a satisfactory
system, selected doctrines from his various teachers and fitted them
together in a way that appealed to him. It was this unique arrangement of
doctrines that characterizes Russell’s ideology and not the originality of any
of its parts."[6]
[1] C. C. Cook: More Data on Pastor Russell, the author,
no date but c. 1912, page 4. Having read much of what Dr. Cook wrote about
Russell and about the Catholic Church, one of the authors of this work suggests
that “C. C. Cook” is a misspelling for “C. C. Kook.”
[2] “We have observed Russellism for a long time and have never
yet known an unregenerate person who looked into it, but who liked it. It is a
religion made strictly for the fleshly man, and is a perfect fit.” – C. C.
Cook, op. cit., page 5.
[3] Walter T. Conner, a Baptist clergyman and professor,
admitted as much: “His teachings are so absurd and so contrary to commonly
accepted Christian principles that a statement of what he taught is enough. To
state his teaching is to refute it.” – W. T. Conner: The Teachings of Pastor
Russell, Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1926, page
5.
[4] J. Zygmunt: Dissertation, page 205
[5] J. Zygmunt: Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity,
published in Jon R. Stone [editor]: Expecting Armageddon, Essential Readings
in Failed Prophecy, Routledge, 2002, page, 68.
[6] A. T. Rogerson: A Sociological Analysis of the Origin
and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups,
Thesis submitted for D.Phil., Oxford University, 1972, page 38. As with many
researchers from the decade of the 1970s, Rogerson’s work is flawed by
dependence on secondary sources.
From Separate Identity, vol. One
