The importance of Rutherford...

by drew sagan 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  drew sagan

  I was doing some thinking about Watchtower eschatology and something interesting popped into my head

  Throughout the Watchtowers Revelation book we read of elaborate stories and interpreatations all putting the Watchtowers history into the pages of the Bible. Some of these include:

  - The "trumpet blasts" of revelation are Watchtower conventions during the 20's and 30's
  - The name of the religion, "Jehovah's Witnesses" fulfilles prophecy
  - Differant Watchtower articles (Birth of a Nation among others) fulfills prophecy
  - The Socities presidents in Prison fulfills prophecy
  - The Socity was chosen by Jesus Christ in 1918/1919

  What do these things have in common? Two things I notice:

  - They all take place before Rutherford died
  - They all involve J.F. Rutherford in some way

  J.F. Rutherford took the pieces he inherited from the Bible Student movement and formed his own religion. I don't think this can be stated enough. Russell did not start this religion, Rutherford did. He created many of the traditions and attitudes that still are inside the Watchtower to this day. He named the religion. He created Kingdom Halls. He pushed for manditory door to door preaching. He got rid of elected elders. And most importantly, he interpreted prophecy and the bible through his own personal life experience.

  Much has been said of the "Russelites" but I think we also need to talk about "Rutherfordties". This would include people like Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz. These are guys that followed Rutherford and carried on his traditions after he died. They continued to do what Rutherford did. Yes they made changes but they were slow over time. Additinally the stuck with a model that put Rutherford at the center of the divine plan.

  The modern day religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is essentially a very "refined" tradition of Rutherfordism.

  Think of it this way. After the death of Rutherford, what major scriptures are said to have been fulfilled by the Watchtower Society? Very few really. Rather, most interpretations look back to Rutherford.

  Thus, there is a gap. A gap between an exciting time when prophecy was being fulfilled every other year, and our time when nothing is being fulfilled (yes they WTS has edited what 'world powers' fulfill what scritupre but it's own involvement in prophecy has remained unchanged)

  What we see is that the Watchtower is following a pattern that other religions have followed. The exciting times when God was working miracles of prophecy one year after another blur into a mythic past. It's this myth that current members look at in Watchtower "history" books. They are far removed from the historic founding of the group.

  In many ways JWs today want to be part of something exciting like those at the groups founding. However, in order to survive the group has to create myths of the past while creating new traditions that help the movement sustain itself through the future. At this point I think we are in the middle ground. Even the WTS seems unable to make up its mind. Does it want to try and recreate those exciting "edge of your seat" days or do they build for the future? Time will tell.

  Either way, understanding that it all starts (and ends in some senses) with Rutherford is something I think is fundamental into understanding modern JWs. They do have a tradition and it's initials are JFR.
• 

  Farkel

  drew,

  You missed a fact that to me, is more destructive than anything else Rutherford did in your citations.

  Chuck Russell was a big proponent of so-called "character building." That's just a fancy way of saying "making yourself a better person by being kind and doing kind things." Rutherford would have none of that. He said on many occassions that was a total waste of time, and the ONLY thing his flock should concentrate on is literature placement and recruiting. By doing that, he said they would be better Christians.

  This set up a pattern that I'm sure still continues today: dubs don't get involved in any "self-help" groups, therapy groups, spiritual enlightenment groups, and I'm sure there is still some stigma attached to psychological help.

  To put it less mildly, Rutherford essentially invalidated using any effort whatsoever to develop the "fruitages of the spirit" and use that effort to sell his books.

  That being said, it should come as no surprise that JWs are so amoral and words like "love", "Kindness", "generosity", and especially "agape" are just words to them.

  Farkel
• 

  neverendingjourney

  I tend to agree with you, Drew. From what I've learned, each of the four presidents of the WT left his own individual mark on the religion, and Rutherford's imprint on the religion seems to be the strongest and most enduring. I'd put Franz right behind Rutherford in terms of importance in shaping the moder day JW movement.

  Seeing how most of Russell's ideas were scrapped, you could say that Knorr had a bigger impact than CTR. CTR seems to have been reduced to a symbolic figurehead role. As the WT's eschatology continues to crumble (Russell's only important remaiing legacy), Russell's impact is less and less important.
• 

  cawshun

  This is a very good post. The way you analize it Drew and Farkel, it's hard to believe the WTS can continue much longer. Maybe I'm just doing some wishful thinking.

  I learn so much from all the brilliant minds here!
• 

  donny

  You are correct that the Society is Rutherfords baby, not Russells. Russell was against the organization of religion, but Rutherford knew he needed such organization in order to seize control. Russells followers can be found amoung the various "Bible Student" groups that still exist today and they are no way the controlling type religions like the one formed by ol' Ruthy.
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's official teaching that the Bible Students weren't even chosen until Jesus inspected the various religions in 1919 remember.

  Russell died in 1916 before Jehovah had even decided who would be "his people".
• 

  drew sagan

  You missed a fact that to me, is more destructive than anything else Rutherford did in your citations.

  I wasn't trying to figure out what was "most destructive"

  I think what you speak to are basically the "fruits" of an apocalpytic sect. Why invest in today when the grand new tomorrow is "right around the corener". Rutherford sure did reward those who put everything on the line.

  That being said, it should come as no surprise that JWs are so amoral and words like "love", "Kindness", "generosity", and especially "agape" are just words to them.

  Wow, talk about painting with a broad brush. Yes their are certain characteristics that are quite ubiquitous in Witness culture but there are lots of people within the movement that hold to a common sense of descency (one JW even called me to see how I was doing!). The movement brings out the worst in people, but it doesn't mean all of the people inside are of the worst possible kind.
  
  cawshun,

  I think that the "survival of the JWs" boils down to whether or not they adopt a long term view. With the "Rutherford" era being the set foundation of the religion, the current theology could possibly be reworked a bit so as to deemphasize Armageddeons closeness and focus on long term stability. That has happened already to some extent, but the leaders have to seal the deal. Mormonism I think is an excellent example of a religion that changed from heavy apocalyptic speculation into a long term belief system. JWs could do it.
• 

  drew sagan

  Just wanted to add...

  I think that what I'm most trying to drive at is that the JW's actually have a tradition that has been handed down to them. Rutherford began a unique religious system and those who were close to him carried on that tradition.

  On other threads there has been discussion as to whether or not certain long held teachings would be "scrapped". I think that understanding the Rutherford tradition as it stands shows that long held beliefs are now part of a foundation. The Jehovah's Witnesses of today are completely differant from the Bible students of the early 20th century. The leaders that came after Rutherford only have built upon what he did. They never totally scrapped everything like Rutherford did to Russells legacy. After 3-4 generations of leadership that have consistantly continued in the traditions of Rutherford there is no reason to expect change.
• 

  Leolaia

  drew....I have thought a lot about that "gap" too, and I'm glad you've pointed this out. When I was a JW, it always struck me as odd that prophecy was so bound up with the events of 1914-1919 and the proclamations of the 1920s and then it's a big blank after that. This assymetry looked more like a historical accident. And this does indeed appear to be the case. Rutherford's eschatology, which matured around 1925 (when his "Birth of the Nation" article was published), was primarily concerned with the setting-up of the kingdom and the theocracy on earth; what followed was simply the prelude to Armageddon, with the remainder of the prophecies due to be shortly realized. The present, as Rutherford understood it, was prophetically described as a time of winnowing the anointed class (leaving a "remnant") and gathering together of a class of Jonadabs (later, the great multitude), and the future would directly follow from present world conditions (e.g. the totalitarians would conquer Britain and the U.S. and then God would obliterate global totalitarianism via Armageddon). No gap whatsoever.

  The failure of the expected future to be realized, however, led to an abandonment and/or deferment of what Rutherford had designated as the future, and the present became lengthened indefinitely (so, Knorr's expansion of the global preaching work built on Rutherford's explanation of the present as a time of drawing in Jonadab Armageddon survivors and Knorr/Franz emphasized the continuing "decrease" of the anointed remnant after 1935). So the general framework has not changed although the passage of time has stretched out the present into a very loooooooong present overlapping several generations (which raises the problem of how Rutherford identified the "great multitude" in 1935 if none of them turn out to be Armageddon survivors). The setting-up of the organization is still the focus of Revelation interpretations, as it was in Rutherford's writings. There is very little about the subsequent history of the organization because very little of this post-1925 history had yet occurred when the eschatological system was (re)formulated by Rutherford. But why should this be the case? If Franz was the real brains behind this eschatological system as some suspect, and if he lived well into the 1980s and early 1990s, why did he not change some of the older interpretations and maybe, for instance, move some of the "seven trumpets" forward to cover the period up the present day rather than leaving them all in the hoary 1920s? I suppose there was an inertia to this system and Franz did not see it as a matter of concern. Today, with 2014 approaching soon, the longe durée is becoming more and more conspicuous.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  When does the Watchtower's eschatological framework become completely unworkable? Have we reached that point yet?

  Leolaia mentioned the problem associated with the identification of the great crowd in 1935. In the not too distant future, everyone alive during that time will be dead. That's a simple fix, though. Bring out new light dropping 1935 that says that the great crowd began to be gathered at some unspecified date after 1914.

  What about the fact that everyone alive in 1919, after they were supposedly selected as the FDS, will soon be dead? Will that pose a problem due to the fact that the preaching work is supposed to serve a warning function? What's the purpose of warning an entire generation of people who were never going to live to see the great tribulation in the first place? Does this pose a problem? Do you think they'll ignore it or find some way to "fix" it.