Smiles,
As I wrote earlier, he was ordained by election in the EXACT same way a multitude of protestant clergy were. And most of them had no college education. In fact Eaton, the clergyman Russell debated in 1903, though he called himself Dr. Eaton, never finished college, and what he attended in 1874 would be seen as no more than a second rate Bible school today. Eaton's doctorate was an honorary degree.
Do you know at all how many protestant clergy made 'predictions' or promulgated a long abandoned eschatology? Among these are clergy whose works are still printed and seen as classics.
On the matter of Russell's ordination, Separate Identity, vol 2, says:
In a footnote [Chapter 1; note 3] he [Rogerson] wrote: “The title ‘Pastor’ was purely honorary as far as Russell was concerned, he never graduated from any theological school.” [Comma fault is his.] This is a commonly made claim, and indeed Russell was not educated in any theological school.
In the United States it was common for ordination to be by congregation election. Many ‘Pastors’ especially among Methodists and Baptists were marginally educated, called to preach by licensure and election rather than by graduation from a religious college, some of which met no real academic standard. While this was changing, especially among Methodists, this practice persisted into the 20th Century. Distinguishing between Russell’s election as pastor by Bible Student congregations and a country Baptist’s ordination by the same means is stupid. Someone suggested to us that ‘ordination’ implied a ceremony, and since he knew of no ceremony in Russell’s case he was not ‘ordained’ in any sense. I suggest that formal election as pastor is a ceremony.
In 1913 a survey of Indiana churches done by the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions found that “thirty seven per cent of the ministers have had no more than a common school [i.e.: a seventh grade] education.” Liston Pope’s analysis of clergy education in Gastonia County, North Carolina, illustrates my point:
The policy of the Baptist churches has been even less exacting. The denomination has never erected an educational requirement for its ministers, or maintained an informal standard, or insisted on a course of study. In 1869-70 there were only two college graduates in the Baptist Association which included most of the churches in Gaston County. In 1903 few Baptist preachers in the county had even a high school education and college men were almost unknown. The tendency in more recent years has been to give preference to better-educated men, but only 56 per cent of them at present have college degrees and only 18 per cent have completed a seminary course.
The newer sects in the county are led by ministers almost wholly uneducated. Several of them find it necessary to have some more literate person read the Scriptures in their services. Others did not go beyond the fourth or fifth grade in the public schools; none have college degrees. Most of them are on sabbatical leave from jobs in cotton mills. There are no established educational requirements for preachers in the sects with which they are affiliated, though there are trends in that direction.
As compared with Presbyterian and Lutheran standards, Methodist demands have been relatively low. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, did not establish a college degree as a prerequisite to ordination until 1934, and it was possible until 1940 to circumvent this requirement. Less than half of its preachers in Gaston County at present have had seminary training; most of them now have college degrees, but several older men, representative of past standards, have only a high school education or less.[end quote]
We can add that the Mennonites did not establish a theological seminary until 1912, and with the exception of two men, none of their clergy had graduated from college, and most of them had no more than a “grade school education” which was “about normal.”51 Criticizing Russell for what was common among several denominations is pure hypocrisy. Bible Students saw Russell as ordained. Prentis Gerdon Gloystein [January 6, 1887 – April 19, 1956], writing to The Twin Falls, Idaho, Times, described Russell as the “duly elected-ordained pastor” of several Bible Student congregations including the largest of these. Gloystein wrote as one “intimately acquainted with Pastor Russell, having lived for a number of years in his home town ... besides being an associate worker with him at his present headquarters in Brooklyn, N. Y.” [end quotation from SI v 2]
The claim that Russell wasn't properly ordained made by his opponents means no more than that they did not seem him as part of their club. The vast majority of Protestant clergy in the late 19th Century were not college educated. Ultimately, this is a side issue meant to distract one from a discussion of his basic doctrines: Trinity, hell-fire, second probation and such.
Opposing Witnesses by defaming Russell is a non starter. As historians probe more deeply into Watch Tower history a more realistic picture of him emerges and the long-standing falsehoods about him do not stand the test. Stick to what is true and provable.
An example of mythic nonsense is your comment about why Maria Russell married him. She was not a single woman living in Bethel. There was no Bethel. They both describe how they met and why they married. Those documents are available. Some are quoted at some length by more recently written histories. Separate Identity, for instance, is written by B. W. Schulz who is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and R. M. de Vienne, PhD. Their work is seen as authoritative by other scholars. It makes those who rely on fable uncomfortable. And relying on fable puts us under a spotlight. Want to appear mentally ill as the Watchtower suggests 'apostates' are? Purvey fable.
You're repeated what you've found on the Internet without extensive fact checking. When we do that, our arguments turn to dust. Present facts that cannot be refuted.
