Brother Russell was not interested in setting up some other arrangement, and he was strongly against contributing in any way to the sectarianism that existed among professed Christians.

At the same time, he fully appreciated the need for the Lord’s servants to assemble together, in harmony with the counsel at Hebrews 10:23-25. He personally traveled to visit and upbuild readers of the Watch Tower and to bring them together with others in their own area who were of like mind. Early in 1881 he requested that those who were holding regular meetings notify the Watch Tower office as to where these were being held. He saw the value of keeping them in touch with one another.

However, Brother Russell emphasized that they were not attempting to set up an “earthly organization.” Rather, he said, “we adhere only to that heavenly organization—‘whose names are written in heaven.’ (Heb. 12:23; Luke 10:20.)” Because of Christendom’s sordid history, reference to “church organization” usually reminded a person of sectarianism, clergy domination, and membership on the basis of adhering to a creed formulated by a religious council. So, when referring to themselves, Brother Russell felt that the term “association” was a better one.

He was well aware that Christ’s apostles had formed congregations and appointed elders in each. But he believed that Christ was again present, though invisibly so, and was himself personally directing the final harvest of those who would be heirs with him. In view of the circumstances, Brother Russell initially felt that during the time of harvest the arrangement for elders that had existed in the first-century Christian congregations was not needed.

Nevertheless, as the Bible Students grew in number, Brother Russell realized that the Lord was maneuvering matters in a manner different from what he himself had anticipated. An adjustment in viewpoint was needed. But on what basis?

Meeting the Early Needs of the Growing Association

The Watch Tower of November 15, 1895, was devoted almost entirely to the subject “Decently and in Order.” Candidly, Brother Russell there acknowledged: “The apostles had much to say to the early Church concerning order in the assemblies of the saints; and apparently we have been rather negligent of this wise counsel, feeling it to be of rather minor importance, because the Church is so near the end of her course and the harvest is a time of separating.” What moved them to take a fresh look at that counsel?

That article listed four circumstances: (1) It was evident that the spiritual development of individuals varied one from another. There were temptations, trials, difficulties, and dangers that not all were equally prepared to meet. Thus, there was a need for wise and discreet overseers, men of experience and ability, deeply interested in looking out for the spiritual welfare of all and capable of instructing them in the truth. (2) It had been seen that the flock needed to be defended against ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing.’ (Matt. 7:15, KJ) They needed to be fortified by being helped to gain a thorough knowledge of the truth. (3) Experience had shown that if there was no arrangement for appointment of elders to safeguard the flock, some would take that position and come to view the flock as their own. (4) Without an orderly arrangement, individuals loyal to the truth might find their services unwanted because of the influence of a few who disagreed with them.

In the light of this, the Watch Tower stated: “We have no hesitation in commending to the Churchesc in every place, whether their numbers be large or small, the Apostolic counsel, that, in every company, elders be chosen from among their number to ‘feed’ and ‘take the oversight’ of the flock.” (Acts 14:21-23; 20:17, 28) The local congregations followed through on this sound Scriptural counsel. This was an important step in establishing a congregation structure in harmony with what existed in the days of the apostles.

In accord with the way they understood matters then, however, the selection of elders, and of deacons to assist them, was made by congregation vote. Each year, or more often if necessary, the qualifications of those who might serve were considered, and a vote was taken. It was basically a democratic procedure, but one that was hedged about with limitations designed to act as a safeguard. All in the congregation were urged to review carefully the Biblical qualifications and to express by vote, not their own opinion, but what they believed to be the will of the Lord. Since only those “fully consecrated” were eligible to vote, their collective vote, when guided by the Word and spirit of the Lord, was viewed as expressing the Lord’s will in the matter. Although Brother Russell may not have been completely aware of it, his recommendation of this arrangement was perhaps influenced to some extent not only by his determination to avoid any semblance of an exalted clergy class but also by his own background as a teenager in the Congregational Church.

When the Millennial Dawn volume entitled The New Creation (published in 1904) again discussed in detail the role of elders and the manner in which they were to be selected, special attention was directed to Acts 14:23. Concordances compiled by James Strong and Robert Young were cited as authorities for the view that the statement “they had ordained them elders” (KJ) should be translated “they had elected them elders by a show of hands.”d Some Bible translations even say that the elders were ‘appointed by vote.’ (Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible) But who was to do that voting?

Adopting the view that the voting was to be done by the congregation as a whole did not always yield the results that were hoped for. Those voting were to be persons who were “fully consecrated,” and some who were elected truly met the Scriptural qualifications and humbly served their brothers. But the voting often reflected personal preference rather than the Word and spirit of God. Thus, in Halle, Germany, when certain ones who thought they should be elders did not get the positions they wanted, they caused severe dissension. In Barmen, Germany, among those who were candidates in 1927 were men who opposed the work of the Society, and there was considerable shouting during the showing of hands at election time. So it was necessary to switch over to a secret ballot.

Back in 1916, years before these incidents, Brother Russell, with deep concern, had written: “A horrible state of affairs prevails in some Classes when an election is to be held. The servants of the Church attempt to be rulers, dictators—sometimes even holding the chairmanship of the meeting with the apparent object of seeing that they and their special friends shall be elected as Elders and Deacons. . . . Some quietly try to take advantage of the Class by having the election at some time which is especially favorable to them and their friends. Others seek to pack the meeting with their friends, bringing in comparative strangers, who have no thought of being regular in attendance at the Class, but come merely as an act of friendship to vote for one of their friends.”

Did they simply need to learn how to handle elections along democratic lines more smoothly, or was there something from God’s Word that they had not yet discerned?

Organizing to Get the Good News Preached

At a very early point, Brother Russell recognized that one of the most important responsibilities of every member of the Christian congregation was the work of evangelizing. (1 Pet. 2:9) The Watch Tower explained that it was not to Jesus alone but to all his spirit-anointed followers that the prophetic words of Isaiah 61:1 applied, namely: “Jehovah has anointed me to tell good news,” or, as the King James Version renders Jesus’ quotation of this passage, “He hath anointed me to preach the gospel.”—Luke 4:18.

As early as 1881, the Watch Tower carried the article “Wanted 1,000 Preachers.” This was an appeal to every member of the congregation to use whatever time he could (a half hour, an hour, or two, or three) to share in spreading Bible truth. Men and women who did not have families that were dependent on them and who could give half or more of their time exclusively to the Lord’s work were encouraged to undertake work as colporteur evangelists. The number varied considerably from year to year, but by 1885 there were already about 300 who were sharing in this work as colporteurs. Some others also had a part but on a more limited scale. Suggestions were given to the colporteurs as to how to go about their work. But the field was vast, and at least at the start, they selected their own territory and moved from one area to another largely as it seemed best to them. Then when they met at conventions, they would make needed adjustments to coordinate their efforts.

The same year that the colporteur service began, Brother Russell had a number of tracts (or booklets) printed for free distribution. Outstanding among these was Food for Thinking Christians, which was distributed to the number of 1,200,000 in the first four months. The work involved in arranging this printing and distribution gave rise to the formation of Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society in order to care for necessary details. To prevent disruption of the work in the event of his death, and to facilitate the handling of donations to be used in the work, Brother Russell filed for legal registration of the Society, and this was officially recorded on December 15, 1884. This brought into existence a needed legal instrumentality.

As the need arose, branch offices of the Watch Tower Society were established in other lands. The first was in London, England, on April 23, 1900. Another, in Elberfeld, Germany, in 1902. Two years later, on the other side of the earth, a branch was organized in Melbourne, Australia. At the time of this writing, there are 99 branches worldwide.

Although the organizational arrangements that were needed to provide quantities of Bible literature were taking form, at first it was left to the congregations to work out any local arrangements for public distribution of that material. In a letter dated March 16, 1900, Brother Russell stated how he viewed the matter. That letter, addressed to “Alexander M. Graham, and the Church at Boston, Mass.,” said: “As you all know, it is my decided intention to leave with each company of the Lord’s people the management of their own affairs, according to their own judgments, offering suggestions, not by way of interference, but by way merely of advice.” This included not only their meetings but also the way they carried on their field ministry. Thus, after offering the brothers some practical counsel, he concluded with the comment: “This is merely a suggestion.”

Some activities required more specific direction from the Society. In connection with the showing of the “Photo-Drama of Creation,” it was left to each congregation to determine whether they were willing and able to rent a theater or other facility for a local presentation. However, it was necessary to move equipment from city to city, and schedules had to be met; so in these respects centralized direction was provided by the Society. Each congregation was encouraged to have a Drama Committee to care for local arrangements. But a superintendent sent out by the Society gave careful attention to details in order to make sure that everything went smoothly.

As the years 1914 and then 1915 passed, those spirit-anointed Christians waited eagerly for the fulfillment of their heavenly hope. At the same time, they were encouraged to keep busy in the Lord’s service. Even though they viewed their remaining time in the flesh as very brief, it became evident that in order to carry on the preaching of the good news in an orderly manner, more direction was needed than when they had numbered just a few hundred. Shortly after J. F. Rutherford became the second president of the Watch Tower Society, that direction took on new aspects. The March 1, 1917, issue of The Watch Tower announced that, henceforth, all territory to be worked by colporteurs and by pastoral workerse in the congregations would be assigned by the Society’s office. Where there were both local workers and colporteurs sharing in such field service in a city or a county, the territory was divided up among them by a locally appointed district committee. This arrangement contributed to a truly remarkable distribution of The Finished Mystery within just a few months in 1917-18. It was also valuable in achieving a lightning distribution of 10,000,000 copies of a powerful exposé of Christendom in a tract that featured the subject “The Fall of Babylon.”

Shortly after this, members of the Society’s administrative staff were arrested, and on June 21, 1918, they were sentenced to 20-year prison terms. The preaching of the good news came to a virtual standstill. Was this the time when they would at last be united with the Lord in heavenly glory?

A few months later, the war ended. The following year the officials of the Society were released. They were still in the flesh. It was not what they had expected, but they concluded that God must still have work for them to do here on earth.

They had just been through severe tests of their faith. However, in 1919, The Watch Tower strengthened them with stirring Scriptural studies on the theme “Blessed Are the Fearless.” These were followed by the article “Opportunities for Service.” But the brothers did not envision the extensive organizational developments that would take place during the decades that would follow.

Proper Example for the Flock

Brother Rutherford did appreciate that for the work to continue to move ahead in an orderly and unified way, no matter how short the time might be, proper example for the flock was vital. Jesus had described his followers as sheep, and sheep follow their shepherd. Of course, Jesus himself is the Fine Shepherd, but he also uses older men, or elders, as undershepherds of his people. (1 Pet. 5:1-3) Those elders must be men who themselves participate in the work that Jesus assigned and who encourage others to do so. They must genuinely have the evangelizing spirit. At the time of distribution of The Finished Mystery, however, some of the elders had held back; certain ones had even been quite vocal in discouraging others from sharing.

A highly significant step toward correcting this situation was taken in 1919 when the magazine The Golden Age began publication. This was to become a powerful instrument for publicizing the Kingdom of God as the only lasting solution to the problems of mankind. Each congregation that desired to share in this activity was invited to ask the Society to register it as a “service organization.” Then a director, or service director as he came to be known, not subject to yearly election, was appointed by the Society.f As the local representative of the Society, he was to organize the work, assign territory, and encourage participation by the congregation in the field service. Thus, alongside the democratically elected elders and deacons, another type of organizational arrangement began to function, one that recognized appointive authority outside the local congregation and that gave greater emphasis to the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom.g

During the years that followed, the work of Kingdom proclamation was given tremendous impetus, as by an irresistible force. The events in 1914 and thereafter had made it evident that the great prophecy in which the Lord Jesus Christ described the conclusion of the old system was undergoing fulfillment. In the light of this, in 1920, The Watch Tower pointed out that as foretold at Matthew 24:14, this was the time to proclaim the good news concerning “the end of the old order of things and the establishment of Messiah’s kingdom.”h (Matt. 24:3-14) After attending the Bible Students convention at Cedar Point, Ohio, in 1922, the delegates left with the slogan ringing in their ears: “Advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” The role of true Christians came even more prominently into focus in 1931 when the name Jehovah’s Witnesses was adopted.

It was obvious that Jehovah had assigned his servants a work in which all of them could share. There was enthusiastic response. Many made major adjustments in their lives in order to devote their full time to this work. Even among those devoting just part time, a considerable number were spending full days in the field service on the weekends. Responding to encouragement contained in The Watchtower and the Informant in 1938 and 1939, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses at that time conscientiously endeavored to devote 60 hours each month to the field service.

Among those zealous Witnesses were numerous humble, devoted servants of Jehovah who were elders in the congregations. However, in some places, during the 1920’s and early in the 1930’s, there was also considerable resistance to the idea of everyone participating in the field service. Democratically elected elders were often quite vocal in disagreeing with what The Watch Tower said about the responsibility to preach to people outside the congregation. Refusal to listen to what God’s spirit, by means of the Holy Scriptures, had to say to the congregation on this matter hindered the flow of God’s spirit in those groups.—Rev. 2:5, 7.

Measures were taken in 1932 to correct this situation. The point of principal concern was not whether some prominent elders might be offended or whether some of those associated with the congregations might withdraw. Rather, the desire of the brothers was to please Jehovah and to do his will. To that end, the August 15 and September 1 issues of The Watchtower that year featured the subject “Jehovah’s Organization.”

Those articles showed pointedly that all who really were part of Jehovah’s organization would be doing the work that his Word said must be done during this period of time. The articles advocated the view that Christian eldership was not an office to which one could be elected but was a condition attainable by spiritual growth. Special emphasis was given to Jesus’ prayer that his followers might “all be one”—in union with God and Christ, and thus at unity with one another in doing God’s will. (John 17:21) And with what result? The second article answered that “every one of the remnant must be a witness to the name and kingdom of Jehovah God.” Oversight was not to be entrusted to any who failed or refused to do what they reasonably could to share in public witnessing.

At the conclusion of the study of these articles, congregations were invited to pass a resolution indicating their agreement. Thus the annual congregational election of men to be elders and deacons was eliminated. In Belfast, Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, some of the former “elective elders” left; other individuals who shared their view went with them. This resulted in a thinning out of the ranks but a toning up of the entire organization. Those who remained were people who were willing to shoulder the Christian responsibility of witnessing. Instead of voting for elders, the congregations—still using democratic methods—selected a service committeei made up of spiritually mature men who actively shared in public witnessing. The members of the congregation also voted for a chairman to preside at their meetings as well as for a secretary and treasurer. All of these were men who were active witnesses of Jehovah.

With congregation oversight now entrusted to men who were interested not in personal position but in doing God’s work—bearing witness to his name and Kingdom—and who were setting a good example by their own participation in it, the work moved ahead more smoothly. Although they did not then know it, there was much to be done, a more extensive witness than what had already been given, an ingathering that they had not expected. (Isa. 55:5) Jehovah was evidently preparing them for it.

A few with hope of eternal life on earth were beginning to associate with them.j However, the Bible foretold the gathering of a great multitude (or, great crowd) with a view to their preservation through the coming great tribulation. (Rev. 7:9-14) In 1935 the identity of this great multitude was made clear. Changes in selection of overseers during the 1930’s equipped the organization better to care for the work of gathering, teaching, and training them.

For most of Jehovah’s Witnesses, this expanded work was a thrilling development. Their field ministry took on fresh significance. However, some were not eager to preach. They held back, and they tried to justify their inactivity by arguing that no great multitude would be gathered until after Armageddon. But the majority perceived a fresh opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to Jehovah and their love for their fellowman.

How did those of the great crowd fit into the organization structure? They were shown the role that God’s Word assigned to the “little flock” of spirit-anointed ones, and they gladly worked in harmony with that arrangement. (Luke 12:32-44) They also learned that, like the spirit-anointed ones, they had the responsibility to share the good news with others. (Rev. 22:17) Since they wanted to be earthly subjects of God’s Kingdom, that Kingdom should come first in their lives, and they should be zealous in telling others about it. To fit the Bible’s description of those who would be preserved through the great tribulation into God’s new world, they must be persons who “keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’” (Rev. 7:10, 14) In 1937, as their numbers began to grow and their zeal for the Lord became manifest, they were also invited to help carry the load of responsibility in congregation oversight.

However, they were reminded that the organization is Jehovah’s, not that of any man. There was to be no division between the remnant of the spirit-anointed ones and those of the great crowd of other sheep. They were to work together as brothers and sisters in Jehovah’s service. As Jesus had said, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16) The reality of this was becoming evident.

Amazing developments had taken place in the organization in a relatively short period of time. But was there more that needed to be done so that the affairs of the congregations would be conducted in full harmony with Jehovah’s ways as set out in his inspired Word?

Theocratic Organization

“Theocracy” means “God-rule.” Was that the kind of rule that governed the congregations? Did they not only worship Jehovah but also look to him to direct their congregational affairs? Did they conform fully to what he said about these matters in his inspired Word? The two-part article “Organization” that appeared in The Watchtower of June 1 and 15, 1938, pointedly stated: “Jehovah’s organization is in no wise democratic. Jehovah is supreme, and his government or organization is strictly theocratic.” Yet, in the local congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses at that time, democratic procedures were still employed in selecting most of those charged with oversight of meetings and field service. Further changes were in order.

But did not Acts 14:23 indicate that elders in the congregations were to be designated to office by a ‘stretching forth of the hand,’ as in voting? The first of those Watchtower articles entitled “Organization” acknowledged that this text had in the past been misunderstood. It was not by a ‘stretching forth of the hand’ on the part of all the members of the congregation that appointments had been made among first-century Christians. Instead, it was shown, the apostles and those authorized by them were the ones that ‘stretched forth their hands.’ This was done not by participating in a congregation vote but by laying their hands on qualified individuals. This was a symbol of confirmation, approval, or appointment.k The early Christian congregations at times made recommendations of qualified men, but final selection or approval was given by the apostles, who had been directly commissioned by Christ, or by those authorized by the apostles. (Acts 6:1-6) The Watchtower drew attention to the fact that only in letters to responsible overseers (Timothy and Titus) did the apostle Paul, under the direction of holy spirit, give instructions to appoint overseers. (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5) None of the inspired letters addressed to the congregations contained such instructions.

How, then, were current appointments to service in the congregations to be made? The Watchtower analysis of theocratic organization showed from the Scriptures that Jehovah appointed Jesus Christ “head of the . . . congregation”; that when Christ as the Master returned, he would entrust his “faithful and discreet slave” with responsibility “over all his belongings”; that this faithful and discreet slave was made up of all those on earth who had been anointed with holy spirit to be joint heirs with Christ and who were unitedly serving under his direction; and that Christ would use that slave class as his agency in providing needed oversight for the congregations. (Col. 1:18; Matt. 24:45-47; 28:18) It would be the duty of the slave class to apply prayerfully the instructions clearly stated in God’s inspired Word, using it to determine who qualified for positions of service.

Since the visible agency that would be used by Christ is the faithful and discreet slave (and the facts of modern-day history already considered show that this “slave” employs the Watch Tower Society as a legal instrument), The Watchtower explained that theocratic procedure would require that appointments of service be made through this agency. Even as the congregations in the first century recognized the governing body in Jerusalem, so today the congregations would not prosper spiritually without central supervision.—Acts 15:2-30; 16:4, 5.

To keep matters in proper perspective, however, it was pointed out that when The Watchtower referred to “The Society,” this meant, not a mere legal instrumentality, but the body of anointed Christians that had formed that legal entity and used it. Thus the expression stood for the faithful and discreet slave with its Governing Body.

Even before the Watchtower articles entitled “Organization” were published in 1938, when the congregations in London, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles had grown to the point that it was advisable to divide them into smaller groups, they had requested that the Society appoint all their servants. The June 15, 1938, issue of The Watchtower now invited all the other congregations to take similar action. To that end, the following resolution was suggested:

“We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at . . . . . . . . . . . . , recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.”l

Practically all the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses readily agreed to this. Those few that held back soon ceased to have any share at all in proclaiming the Kingdom and thus ceased to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Benefits of Theocratic Direction

It is obvious that if teachings, standards of conduct, and organizational or witnessing procedures could be decided on locally, the organization would soon lose its identity and unity. The brothers could easily be divided by social, cultural, and national differences. Theocratic direction, on the other hand, would assure that benefits from spiritual progress would reach out to all the congregations worldwide without hindrance. There would thus come to exist the genuine unity that Jesus prayed would prevail among his true followers, and the evangelizing work that he commanded could be fully accomplished.—John 17:20-22.

However, it has been claimed by some that by advocating this organizational change, J. F. Rutherford simply was endeavoring to gain greater control over the Witnesses and that he used this means to assert his own authority. Was that really the case? There is no doubt that Brother Rutherford was a man of strong convictions. He spoke out forcefully and without compromise for what he believed to be the truth. He could be quite brusque in handling situations when he perceived that people were more concerned about self than they were about the Lord’s work. But Brother Rutherford was genuinely humble before God. As Karl Klein, who became a member of the Governing Body in 1974, later wrote: “Brother Rutherford’s prayers at morning worship . . . endeared him to me. Though he had such a powerful voice, when addressing God he sounded just like a little boy talking to his daddy. What a fine relationship with Jehovah that revealed!” Brother Rutherford was fully convinced as to the identity of Jehovah’s visible organization, and he endeavored to make sure that no man or group of men would be able to hinder brothers locally from receiving the full benefit of the spiritual food and direction that Jehovah was providing for His servants.

Although Brother Rutherford served for 25 years as president of the Watch Tower Society and devoted all his energy to advancing the work of the organization, he was not the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he did not want to be. At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience. The speaker continued: “If you who are here believe that I am just one of the servants of the Lord, and we are working shoulder to shoulder in unity, serving God and serving Christ, say Yes.” In unison the assembly roared out a decisive “Yes!” The following month an audience in England responded in exactly the same way.

In some areas the benefits of theocratic organization were felt quickly. Elsewhere, it took longer; those who did not prove to be mature, humble servants were in time removed, and others were appointed.

Nevertheless, as theocratic procedures took hold more fully, Jehovah’s Witnesses rejoiced to be experiencing what was foretold at Isaiah 60:17. Using figurative terms to depict the improved conditions that would come to exist among God’s servants, Jehovah there says: “Instead of the copper I shall bring in gold, and instead of the iron I shall bring in silver, and instead of the wood, copper, and instead of the stones, iron; and I will appoint peace as your overseers and righteousness as your task assigners.” This is not describing what humans would do but, rather, what God himself would do and the benefits that his servants would receive as they submitted to it. Peace must prevail in their midst. Love of righteousness must be the force impelling them to serve.

From Brazil, Maud Yuille, wife of the branch overseer, wrote to Brother Rutherford: “The article ‘Organization’ in the June 1 and 15 [1938] Towers impels me to express in a few words to you, whose faithful service Jehovah is using, my gratitude to Jehovah for the marvelous arrangement that he has made for his visible organization, as outlined in these two Watchtowers. . . . What a relief it is to see the end of ‘Home Rule for Happy Hollow’, including ‘women’s rights’ and other unscriptural procedure that subjected some souls to local opinions and individual judgment, instead of to [Jehovah God and Jesus Christ], thereby bringing reproach upon Jehovah’s name. It is true that only ‘in the recent past the Society has designated all in the organization as “servants”’, yet I observe that for many years previous to that time you have in your correspondence with your brethren acknowledged yourself as ‘your brother and servant, by His grace’.”

Regarding this organizational adjustment, the branch in the British Isles reported: “The good effect of this was quite amazing. The poetic and prophetic description of this in Isaiah chapter sixty is full of beauty but not overdrawn. Everyone in the truth was talking about it. It was the main topic of conversation. A general sense of invigoration prevailed—a readiness to press a directed battle. As world tension increased, joy in theocratic rule abounded.”

[Box on page 207]

Why the Change?

When questioned on his change of view regarding selection of elders in the various groups of the Lord’s people, C. T. Russell replied:

“First of all I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. . . . We do not deny growing in knowledge, and that we now see in a slightly different light the will of the Lord respecting Elders or leaders in the various little groups of his people. Our error in judgment was in expecting too much of the dear brethren who, coming early into the Truth, became the natural leaders of these little companies. The ideal view of them which we fondly entertained was, that the knowledge of the Truth would have upon them a very humbling effect, causing them to appreciate their own insignificance, and that whatever they knew and were able to present to others was as mouthpieces of God and because used of him. Our ideal hopes were that these would in every sense of the word be examples to the flock; and that should the Lord’s providence bring into the little company one or more equally competent, or more competent, to present the Truth, that the spirit of love would lead them in honor to prefer one another, and thus to help and urge one another to participation in the service of the Church, the body of Christ.

“With this thought in mind we concluded that the larger measures of grace and truth now due and appreciated by the Lord’s consecrated people would make it unnecessary for them to follow the course outlined by the apostles in the early Church. Our mistake was in failing to realize that the arrangements outlined by the apostles under divine supervision are superior to anything that others could formulate, and that the Church as a whole will need to have the regulations instituted by the apostles until, by our change in the resurrection, we shall all be made complete and perfect and be directly in association with the Master.

“Our mistake gradually dawned upon us as we beheld amongst dear brethren to some extent the spirit of rivalry, and on the part of many a desire to hold the leadership of meetings as an office instead of as a service, and to exclude and hinder from developing as leaders other brethren of equal ability naturally and of equal knowledge of the Truth and competency in wielding the sword of the Spirit.”—“Zion’s Watch Tower,” March 15, 1906, p. 90.